Comparison of probable sarcopenia prevalence among community older adults of Latin American countries.

Comparison of probable sarcopenia prevalence among community older adults of Latin American countries.</p

Parameters of sarcopenia, and proportions of low muscle strength, low muscle mass and muscle performance according to different definitions.

Parameters of sarcopenia, and proportions of low muscle strength, low muscle mass and muscle performance according to different definitions.</p

General characteristics of the study sample by sex.

General characteristics of the study sample by sex.</p

General characteristics of excluded participants.

IntroductionSarcopenia and sarcopenic obesity (SO) have emerged as significant contributors to negative health outcomes in the past decade. We aimed to estimate the prevalence of probable sarcopenia, sarcopenia, and SO in a community-dwelling population of 1151 adults aged ≥55 years in Lima, Peru.MethodsThis cross-sectional study was conducted between 2018 and 2020. Sarcopenia was defined as the presence of low muscle strength (LMS) and low muscle mass (LMM) according to European (EWGSOP2), US (FNIH) and Asian (AWGS2) guidelines. We measured muscle strength by maximum handgrip strength and muscle mass using bioelectrical impedance analyzer. SO was defined as a body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m2 and sarcopenia.ResultsThe study participants had a mean age of 66.2 years (SD 7.1), age range between 60 to 92 years old, of which 621 (53.9%) were men. Among the sample, 41.7% were classified as obese (BMI ≥30.0 kg/m²). The prevalence of probable sarcopenia was estimated to be 22.7% (95%CI: 20.3–25.1) using the EWGSOP2 criteria and 27.8% (95%CI: 25.2–30.4) using the AWGS2 criteria. Sarcopenia prevalence, assessed using skeletal muscle index (SMI), was 5.7% (95%CI: 4.4–7.1) according to EWGSOP2 and 8.3% (95%CI: 6.7–9.9) using AWGS2 criteria. The prevalence of sarcopenia based on the FNIH criteria was 18.1% (95%CI: 15.8–20.3). The prevalence of SO, considering different sarcopenia definitions, ranged from 0.8% (95%CI: 0.3–1.3) to 5.0% (95%CI: 3.8–6.3).ConclusionOur findings reveal substantial variation in the prevalence of sarcopenia and SO, underscoring the necessity for context-specific cut-off values. Although the prevalence of SO was relatively low, this result may be underestimated. Furthermore, the consistently high proportion of probable sarcopenia and sarcopenia point to a substantial public health burden.</div

Prevalence of probable sarcopenia, sarcopenia and sarcopenic obesity according to EWGSOP2, FNIH and AWGS2 classification.

Prevalence of probable sarcopenia, sarcopenia and sarcopenic obesity according to EWGSOP2, FNIH and AWGS2 classification.</p

Procedure of hand grip strength test.

IntroductionSarcopenia and sarcopenic obesity (SO) have emerged as significant contributors to negative health outcomes in the past decade. We aimed to estimate the prevalence of probable sarcopenia, sarcopenia, and SO in a community-dwelling population of 1151 adults aged ≥55 years in Lima, Peru.MethodsThis cross-sectional study was conducted between 2018 and 2020. Sarcopenia was defined as the presence of low muscle strength (LMS) and low muscle mass (LMM) according to European (EWGSOP2), US (FNIH) and Asian (AWGS2) guidelines. We measured muscle strength by maximum handgrip strength and muscle mass using bioelectrical impedance analyzer. SO was defined as a body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m2 and sarcopenia.ResultsThe study participants had a mean age of 66.2 years (SD 7.1), age range between 60 to 92 years old, of which 621 (53.9%) were men. Among the sample, 41.7% were classified as obese (BMI ≥30.0 kg/m²). The prevalence of probable sarcopenia was estimated to be 22.7% (95%CI: 20.3–25.1) using the EWGSOP2 criteria and 27.8% (95%CI: 25.2–30.4) using the AWGS2 criteria. Sarcopenia prevalence, assessed using skeletal muscle index (SMI), was 5.7% (95%CI: 4.4–7.1) according to EWGSOP2 and 8.3% (95%CI: 6.7–9.9) using AWGS2 criteria. The prevalence of sarcopenia based on the FNIH criteria was 18.1% (95%CI: 15.8–20.3). The prevalence of SO, considering different sarcopenia definitions, ranged from 0.8% (95%CI: 0.3–1.3) to 5.0% (95%CI: 3.8–6.3).ConclusionOur findings reveal substantial variation in the prevalence of sarcopenia and SO, underscoring the necessity for context-specific cut-off values. Although the prevalence of SO was relatively low, this result may be underestimated. Furthermore, the consistently high proportion of probable sarcopenia and sarcopenia point to a substantial public health burden.</div

Flowchart of study participants.

IntroductionSarcopenia and sarcopenic obesity (SO) have emerged as significant contributors to negative health outcomes in the past decade. We aimed to estimate the prevalence of probable sarcopenia, sarcopenia, and SO in a community-dwelling population of 1151 adults aged ≥55 years in Lima, Peru.MethodsThis cross-sectional study was conducted between 2018 and 2020. Sarcopenia was defined as the presence of low muscle strength (LMS) and low muscle mass (LMM) according to European (EWGSOP2), US (FNIH) and Asian (AWGS2) guidelines. We measured muscle strength by maximum handgrip strength and muscle mass using bioelectrical impedance analyzer. SO was defined as a body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m2 and sarcopenia.ResultsThe study participants had a mean age of 66.2 years (SD 7.1), age range between 60 to 92 years old, of which 621 (53.9%) were men. Among the sample, 41.7% were classified as obese (BMI ≥30.0 kg/m²). The prevalence of probable sarcopenia was estimated to be 22.7% (95%CI: 20.3–25.1) using the EWGSOP2 criteria and 27.8% (95%CI: 25.2–30.4) using the AWGS2 criteria. Sarcopenia prevalence, assessed using skeletal muscle index (SMI), was 5.7% (95%CI: 4.4–7.1) according to EWGSOP2 and 8.3% (95%CI: 6.7–9.9) using AWGS2 criteria. The prevalence of sarcopenia based on the FNIH criteria was 18.1% (95%CI: 15.8–20.3). The prevalence of SO, considering different sarcopenia definitions, ranged from 0.8% (95%CI: 0.3–1.3) to 5.0% (95%CI: 3.8–6.3).ConclusionOur findings reveal substantial variation in the prevalence of sarcopenia and SO, underscoring the necessity for context-specific cut-off values. Although the prevalence of SO was relatively low, this result may be underestimated. Furthermore, the consistently high proportion of probable sarcopenia and sarcopenia point to a substantial public health burden.</div

Respondents’ characteristics.

IntroductionPatients diagnosed with Interstitial Lung Diseases (ILD) use devices to self-monitor their health and well-being. Little is known about the range of devices, selection, frequency and terms of use and overall utility. We sought to quantify patients’ usage and experiences with home digital devices, and further evaluate their perceived utility and barriers to adaptation.MethodsA team of expert clinicians and patient partners interested in self-management approaches designed a 48-question cross-sectional electronic survey; specifically targeted at individuals diagnosed with ILD. The survey was critically appraised by the interdisciplinary self-management group at Royal Devon University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust during a 6-month validation process. The survey was open for participation between September 2021 and December 2022, and responses were collected anonymously. Data were analysed descriptively for quantitative aspects and through thematic analysis for qualitative input.Results104 patients accessed the survey and 89/104 (86%) reported a diagnosis of lung fibrosis, including 46/89 (52%) idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) with 57/89 (64%) of participants diagnosed >3 years and 59/89 (66%) female. 52/65(80%) were in the UK; 33/65 (51%) reported severe breathlessness medical research council MRC grade 3–4 and 32/65 (49%) disclosed co-morbid arthritis or joint problems. Of these, 18/83 (22%) used a hand- held spirometer, with only 6/17 (35%) advised on how to interpret the readings. Pulse oximetry devices were the most frequently used device by 35/71 (49%) and 20/64 (31%) measured their saturations more than once daily. 29/63 (46%) of respondents reported home-monitoring brought reassurance; of these, for 25/63 (40%) a feeling of control. 10/57 (18%) felt it had a negative effect, citing fluctuating readings as causing stress and ‘paranoia’. The most likely help-seeking triggers were worsening breathlessness 53/65 (82%) and low oxygen saturation 43/65 (66%). Nurse specialists were the most frequent source of help 24/63 (38%). Conclusion: Patients can learn appropriate technical skills, yet perceptions of home-monitoring are variable; targeted assessment and tailored support is likely to be beneficial.</div

Barriers to using home-monitoring in ILD patients.

Barriers to using home-monitoring in ILD patients.</p

Barriers to use of home-monitoring in people living with ILD.

Barriers to use of home-monitoring in people living with ILD.</p