Special Section: Sarcopenia
Novel Approaches to the Diagnosis of Sarcopenia

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocd.2015.04.010Get rights and content

Highlights:

  • Sarcopenia is common in older people and is associated with significant morbidity.

  • There is currently no universally accepted definition of sarcopenia.

  • Most operational definitions include assessments of muscle mass and muscle function.

  • Score-based approaches may be used in the future to provide a wider evaluation of musculoskeletal health.

Abstract

Sarcopenia is common in older people and is associated with disability, reduced mobility, hospitalization, and various comorbidities. Although it has been recognized for over a quarter of a century, we do not currently have a universally adopted definition. This limits our ability to compare results from different studies and impedes the development of novel therapies. Although sarcopenia was initially defined purely based on low muscle mass, the importance of measures of muscle function has been realized and these have been included in recent operational definitions. These continue to evolve with some including an assessment of adiposity and others adding further components of musculoskeletal health in a score-based approach. This review describes the importance of reaching a widely accepted method to define sarcopenia in both research and clinical practice. It details the ways in which the definition has changed since its initial inception and explores how it may continue to evolve in the future. The different methods by which components of sarcopenia can be measured are described, and the various advantages and disadvantages of these techniques are evaluated. Clearly, there are several other similar syndromes in older people, such as frailty and cachexia; their relationships and overlap with sarcopenia are also explored.

Introduction

The term sarcopenia was first introduced a quarter of a century ago in 1989 by Irwin Rosenberg to describe the loss of muscle mass with age. Over the intervening years, the definition has evolved to acknowledge the significance of a concurrent decline in muscle function. However, there is still no universally accepted operational definition of sarcopenia for use in research or clinical practice. Sarcopenia is an important clinical problem by virtue of its considerable prevalence within the older population along with its associations with adverse health outcomes. The prevalence of sarcopenia was initially estimated at around 50% in individuals aged more than 80 years. However, more recent studies have shown sarcopenia prevalence to be lower but still on the order of 10%–20% when assessed in terms of muscle mass alone (1).

Specific risk factors for developing sarcopenia include advancing age, female sex, adverse developmental factors in early life, dietary issues, lack of physical activity, and various chronic diseases. It is associated with frailty, disability, reduced mobility, hospitalization, and specific comorbidities including poorer bone health or osteoporosis, obesity, and type 2 diabetes 2, 3. Most importantly, a decline in muscle health, particularly strength, has also been shown to predict future mortality from middle age into later life (4). It has been estimated that, in the United States, sarcopenia resulted in additional health care costs of more than $18 billion in 2001 (5), and given the current changes in population demographics with increasing longevity, this figure will likely continue to increase.

Section snippets

The Importance of Defining Sarcopenia

Clearly, if the presence of sarcopenia is a predictor of premature death, it is necessary to identify individuals at risk not only to assess the natural history of the condition and its consequences but also to provide treatment when appropriate. Interventions may include dietary manipulation, exercise-related therapies, and in the future, pharmaceutical agents. Any definition to be used in clinical practice must be practical, acceptable to patients, and not prohibitively expensive. Within a

Current Operational Definitions of Sarcopenia

Over the last 5 years, 3 main consensus definitions for sarcopenia have been suggested 1, 6, 7. Although they all differ to some degree, each includes a measurement of muscle size and another of muscle function (Table 1). The rationale for using muscle function, in addition to muscle size, is that the latter alone would provide too narrow a definition which may limit clinical value and that the relationship between muscle mass and strength is not linear (6). Like muscle mass, muscle function

Current Overlap with Other Syndromes

Although sarcopenia is a geriatric syndrome in its own right, features of the condition are also found in other disorders such as frailty and cachexia. Frailty occurs because of an age-related decline in several physiologic systems. It can lead to a reduction in the individual's ability to withstand an insult resulting in their increased vulnerability to adverse health outcomes including mortality. Although other operational definitions of frailty have been developed, one of the most widely

Methods of Measuring Muscle Size, Strength, and Physical Performance

Various methods of assessing body composition including muscle mass exist 14, 15. These include traditional approaches using anthropometric measurements, air displacement plethysmography, underwater weighing, and dilution techniques. These methods all have limitations, for example, they are not precise (anthropometric measures) or they are very equipment or time intensive (plethysmography, underwater weighing). D3 creatine dilution is a promising method that is under investigation but has not

Novel Methods of Defining Sarcopenia

The most recently proposed definition of sarcopenia was developed by researchers that came together under the umbrella of the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health (FNIH) sarcopenia project (8). This group had access to data from 9 large observational studies with more than 25,000 participants in total. After analyzing this large data set, they recommended defining sarcopenia based on 3 components. Two of these, muscle mass and grip strength, were included in the prior definitions

References (25)

  • R.A. Fielding et al.

    Sarcopenia: an undiagnosed condition in older adults. Current consensus definition: prevalence, etiology, and consequences. International Working Group on Sarcopenia

    J Am Med Dir Assoc

    (2011)
  • M. Edwards et al.

    Muscle size, strength and physical performance and their associations with bone structure in the Hertfordshire Cohort Study

    J Bone Miner Res

    (2013)
  • A.A. Sayer et al.

    Type 2 diabetes, muscle strength, and impaired physical function: the tip of the iceberg?

    Diabetes Care

    (2005)
  • R. Cooper et al.

    Objectively measured physical capability levels and mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis

    BMJ

    (2010)
  • I. Janssen et al.

    The healthcare costs of sarcopenia in the United States

    J Am Geriatr Soc

    (2004)
  • A.J. Cruz-Jentoft et al.

    Sarcopenia: European consensus on definition and diagnosis: report of the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People

    Age Ageing

    (2010)
  • M. Muscaritoli et al.

    Consensus definition of sarcopenia, cachexia and pre-cachexia: joint document elaborated by Special Interest Groups (SIG) “cachexia-anorexia in chronic wasting diseases” and “nutrition in geriatrics”

    Clin Nutr

    (2010)
  • S.A. Studenski et al.

    The FNIH sarcopenia project: rationale, study description, conference recommendations, and final estimates

    J Gerontol Ser A Biol Sci Med Sci

    (2014)
  • W.R. Frontera et al.

    Aging of skeletal muscle: a 12-yr longitudinal study

    J Appl Physiol (1985)

    (2000)
  • A.B. Newman et al.

    Sarcopenia: alternative definitions and associations with lower extremity function

    J Am Geriatr Soc

    (2003)
  • B.C. Clark et al.

    Sarcopenia =/= dynapenia

    J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci

    (2008)
  • L.P. Fried et al.

    Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype

    J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci

    (2001)
  • Cited by (32)

    • Elevated serum γ-glutamyl transferase is associated with low muscle function in adults independent of muscle mass

      2022, Nutrition
      Citation Excerpt :

      A large community-based cohort revealed that changes in muscle function have a better clinical prognostic value for predicting fractures than muscle mass [15]. Jump power (JP) measurement using a ground force plate has been proposed as an alternative method to measure muscle function in complex, high-intensity tasks [16]. Low JP is associated with an increased risk for falls, fracture, sarcopenia, or dysmobility syndrome [17–19].

    • Implications of lower extremity muscle power and force for walking and fatigability in multiple sclerosis – An exploratory pilot-study

      2022, Clinical Biomechanics
      Citation Excerpt :

      Whilst higher mobility disability status was accompanied by decrements in baseline outcomes, higher fatigability status was accompanied by higher decrement in walking speed. Since differences in muscle power/force between the PDDS Low and High groups were substantial during the chair rise task but not during the plantar flexion, this indicate that more complex dynamic tasks such as chair rise may require a more optimal motor control in order to synchronise different muscular groups (Edwards and Buehring, 2015) and might be more sensitive in terms of detecting motor deficiency across disability status in pwMS. Although associations between plantar flexion muscle power/force during and walking capacity, mobility disability status as well as subjective fatigue were observed (corresponding to weak associations), chair rise muscle power/force (i.e. a more complex motor task) presented better associations with walking capacity, mobility disability and subjective fatigue (corresponding to weak-to-moderate associations).

    • Jump power, leg press power, leg strength and grip strength differentially associated with physical performance: The Developmental Epidemiologic Cohort Study (DECOS)

      2021, Experimental Gerontology
      Citation Excerpt :

      Additionally, critical biomechanical differences exist between weight-bearing and non-weight-bearing tests. Countermovement jump tests include both eccentric and concentric muscle action, as well as velocity of movement and other neuromuscular factors (e.g., postural control) (Edwards and Buehring, 2015) that are required to complete physical performance measures. These countermovement jumps performed under unrestricted conditions may be more similar to physical performance measures than tests with other postural set-ups, such as the Nottingham leg press power and Keiser leg strength/power testing completed in the seated position.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text