| Literature DB >> 34124775 |
Oscar H Del Brutto1, Robertino M Mera2, Pedro Pérez3, Bettsy Y Recalde4, Aldo F Costa5, Mark J Sedler6.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between SARS-CoV-2 infection and decreased hand grip strength (HGS).Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; hand grip; older adults; rural communities
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34124775 PMCID: PMC8447376 DOI: 10.1111/jgs.17335
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc ISSN: 0002-8614 Impact factor: 7.538
FIGURE 1Study participant at the time of hand grip strength measurement. Note the position of the body, arm, and hand
Characteristics of Atahualpa residents aged 60 years and older across categories of SARS‐CoV‐2 serological status (univariate analyses)
| Variable | Total series ( | SARS‐CoV‐2 serological status | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Seronegative ( | Seropositive ( |
| ||
| Age at enrollment, years (mean ± SD) | 70.2 ± 7.7 | 70.5 ± 8.4 | 69.9 ± 7.1 | 0.539 |
| Female, | 153 (60) | 60 (57) | 93 (62) | 0.398 |
| Primary school education, | 190 (75) | 77 (73) | 113 (76) | 0.651 |
| Poor physical activity, | 12 (5) | 7 (7) | 5 (3) | 0.221 |
| Blood pressure ≥ 140/90 mmHg, | 104 (41) | 46 (44) | 58 (39) | 0.059 |
| Body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m2, | 56 (22) | 27 (26) | 29 (19) | 0.237 |
| Fasting glucose ≥ 126 mg/dl, | 72 (28) | 28 (27) | 44 (30) | 0.618 |
| Oily fish intake, servings/week (mean ± SD) | 9 ± 5.1 | 8.9 ± 5 | 9.1 ± 5.2 | 0.759 |
| Moderate‐to‐severe WMH, | 42 (17) | 21 (20) | 21 (14) | 0.212 |
| Home confinement, | 122 (48) | 52 (50) | 70 (47) | 0.698 |
| Baseline hand grip, kg (mean ± SD) | 25.3 ± 8.3 | 26.1 ± 8.4 | 24.7 ± 8.3 | 0.189 |
| Follow‐up hand grip, kg (mean ± SD) | 23.7 ± 8.1 | 25.1 ± 8.1 | 22.7 ± 7.9 | 0.019 |
| Hand grip strength decline, | 140 (55) | 47 (45) | 93 (62) | 0.005 |
Statistically significant result.
Logistic regression model showing the independent relationship between SARS‐CoV‐2 seropositivity and hand grip strength decline
| Decline in hand grip strength | Odds ratio | Standard error | 95% Confidence interval |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SARS‐CoV‐2 seropositivity | 2.27 | 0.62 | 1.33–3.87 | 0.003 |
| Age at enrollment | 1.03 | 0.02 | 0.99–1.07 | 0.107 |
| Female gender | 0.90 | 0.26 | 0.51–1.60 | 0.722 |
| Primary school education | 1.02 | 0.32 | 0.55–1.89 | 0.953 |
| Poor physical activity | 0.60 | 0.38 | 0.17–2.11 | 0.421 |
| Blood pressure ≥ 140/90 mmHg | 1.32 | 0.37 | 0.76–2.29 | 0.320 |
| Fasting glucose ≥ 126 mg/dl | 0.72 | 0.22 | 0.40–1.30 | 0.275 |
| Body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m2 | 1.79 | 0.63 | 0.90–3.56 | 0.095 |
| Oily fish intake, servings/week | 1.04 | 0.03 | 0.99–1.09 | 0.158 |
| Home confinement | 1.47 | 0.44 | 0.82–2.64 | 0.195 |
| Moderate‐to‐severe WMH | 0.95 | 0.35 | 0.46–1.96 | 0.888 |
Statistically significant result.
Fully‐adjusted random‐effects GLS regression model that included the effect of time and SARS‐CoV‐2 seropositivity on hand grip strength at the follow‐up
| Hand grip strength |
| Standard error | 95% confidence interval |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hand grip strength at baseline | Referent category | |||
| Hand grip strength at follow‐up in seronegative subjects | −0.57 | 0.30 | −1.15 to 0.01 | 0.054 |
| Hand grip strength at follow‐up in seropositive subjects | −1.72 | 0.25 | −2.21 to −1.23 | <0.001 |
| Age at enrollment, years | −0.31 | 0.04 | −2.21 to −1.23 | <0.001 |
| Female gender | −12.1 | 0.59 | −13.2 to −10.9 | <0.001 |
| Primary school education | −0.09 | 0.68 | −1.42 to 1.23 | 0.886 |
| Poor physical activity | −0.39 | 1.35 | −3.04 to 2.25 | 0.769 |
| Blood pressure ≥ 140/90 mmHg | −0.27 | 0.59 | −1.42 to 0.89 | 0.652 |
| Body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m2 | 0.29 | 0.72 | −1.13 to 1.71 | 0.688 |
| Fasting glucose ≥ 126 mg/dl | −1.89 | 0.63 | −3.12 to −0.65 | 0.003 |
| Oily fish intake, servings/week | 0.14 | 0.05 | 0.03 to 0.24 | 0.013 |
| Moderate‐to‐severe WMH | −1.97 | 0.78 | −3.49 to −0.45 | 0.011 |
Statistically significant result.
FIGURE 2Graph plot showing differences in estimated proportions of hand grip strength decline >5% across individuals who remained seronegative versus those who had long exposure versus short exposure to SARS‐CoV‐2