4.6 Article

Sarcopenia Definitions as Predictors of Fracture Risk Independent of FRAX(R), Falls, and BMD in the Osteoporotic Fractures in Men (MrOS) Study: A Meta-Analysis

Journal

JOURNAL OF BONE AND MINERAL RESEARCH
Volume 36, Issue 7, Pages 1235-1244

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jbmr.4293

Keywords

EPIDEMIOLOGY; FALLS; FRACTURE; FRAX; INTERACTION; OSTEOPOROSIS; SARCOPENIA

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health
  2. National Institute on Aging (NIA)
  3. National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS)
  4. National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS)
  5. NIH Roadmap for Medical Research [U01 AG027810, U01 AG042124, U01 AG042139, U01 AG042140, U01 AG042143, U01 AG042145, U01 AG042168, U01 AR066160, UL1 TR000128]
  6. Swedish Research Council
  7. ALF/LUA research grants in Gothenburg
  8. King Gustav V and Queen Victoria Frimurarestiftelse Research Foundation
  9. UK Medical Research Council [4050502589]
  10. US Department of Agriculture (USDA) [58-1950-4-003]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Adjustment for femoral neck bone mineral density (fnBMD) reduces the predictive value for fracture of sarcopenia definitions based on appendicular lean mass (ALM), but inclusion of physical performance measures strengthens it. Severe sarcopenia definitions incorporating chair stand time, gait speed, and grip strength demonstrate the highest predictability for fracture, even at low prevalence levels.
Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA)-derived appendicular lean mass/height(2) (ALM/ht(2)) is the most commonly used estimate of muscle mass in the assessment of sarcopenia, but its predictive value for fracture is substantially attenuated by femoral neck (fn) bone mineral density (BMD). We investigated predictive value of 11 sarcopenia definitions for incident fracture, independent of fnBMD, fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX(R)) probability, and prior falls, using an extension of Poisson regression in US, Sweden, and Hong Kong Osteoporois Fractures in Men Study (MrOS) cohorts. Definitions tested were those of Baumgartner and Delmonico (ALM/ht(2) only), Morley, the International Working Group on Sarcopenia, European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP1 and 2), Asian Working Group on Sarcopenia, Foundation for the National Institutes of Health (FNIH) 1 and 2 (using ALM/body mass index [BMI], incorporating muscle strength and/or physical performance measures plus ALM/ht(2)), and Sarcopenia Definitions and Outcomes Consortium (gait speed and grip strength). Associations were adjusted for age and time since baseline and reported as hazard ratio (HR) for first incident fracture, here major osteoporotic fracture (MOF; clinical vertebral, hip, distal forearm, proximal humerus). Further analyses adjusted additionally for FRAX-MOF probability (n = 7531; calculated +/- fnBMD), prior falls (y/n), or fnBMD T-score. Results were synthesized by meta-analysis. In 5660 men in USA, 2764 Sweden and 1987 Hong Kong (mean ages 73.5, 75.4, and 72.4 years, respectively), sarcopenia prevalence ranged from 0.5% to 35%. Sarcopenia status, by all definitions except those of FNIH, was associated with incident MOF (HR = 1.39 to 2.07). Associations were robust to adjustment for prior falls or FRAX probability (without fnBMD); adjustment for fnBMD T-score attenuated associations. EWGSOP2 severe sarcopenia (incorporating chair stand time, gait speed, and grip strength plus ALM) was most predictive, albeit at low prevalence, and appeared only modestly influenced by inclusion of fnBMD. In conclusion, the predictive value for fracture of sarcopenia definitions based on ALM is reduced by adjustment for fnBMD but strengthened by additional inclusion of physical performance measures. (c) 2021 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR)..

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available