Pitfalls in the measurement of muscle mass: a need for a reference standard

Background All proposed definitions of sarcopenia include the measurement of muscle mass, but the techniques and threshold values used vary. Indeed, the literature does not establish consensus on the best technique for measuring lean body mass. Thus, the objective measurement of sarcopenia is hampered by limitations intrinsic to assessment tools. The aim of this study was to review the methods to assess muscle mass and to reach consensus on the development of a reference standard. Methods Literature reviews were performed by members of the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis working group on frailty and sarcopenia. Face‐to‐face meetings were organized for the whole group to make amendments and discuss further recommendations. Results A wide range of techniques can be used to assess muscle mass. Cost, availability, and ease of use can determine whether the techniques are better suited to clinical practice or are more useful for research. No one technique subserves all requirements but dual energy X‐ray absorptiometry could be considered as a reference standard (but not a gold standard) for measuring muscle lean body mass. Conclusions Based on the feasibility, accuracy, safety, and low cost, dual energy X‐ray absorptiometry can be considered as the reference standard for measuring muscle mass

The authors reply: Letter on: 'Pitfalls in the measurement of muscle mass: a need for a reference standard' by Clark et al.

However, semantics aside, we think that DXA can indeed serve as a reference standard for measuring muscle mass. Obviously, CT and MRI are advanced techniques that can and have been used to obtain important information such as muscle size/volume and more recently amount and distribution of intra- and intermuscular adipose tissue. Also individual muscles can be assessed separately. However, with respect to muscle mass, the comparison of DXA with CT/MRI is rather difficult because DXA and QCT/MRI measure different physical parameters

Management of osteoporosis of the oldest old

Summary: This consensus article reviews the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis in geriatric populations. Specifically, it reviews the risk assessment and intervention thresholds, the impact of nutritional deficiencies, fall prevention strategies, pharmacological treatments and their safety considerations, the risks of sub-optimal treatment adherence and strategies for its improvement. Introduction: This consensus article reviews the therapeutic strategies and management options for the treatment of osteoporosis of the oldest old. This vulnerable segment (persons over 80years of age) stands to gain substantially from effective anti-osteoporosis treatment, but the under-prescription of these treatments is frequent. Methods: This report is the result of an ESCEO (European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis) expert working group, which explores some of the reasons for this and presents the arguments to counter these beliefs. The risk assessment of older individuals is briefly reviewed along with the differences between some intervention guidelines. The current evidence on the impact of nutritional deficiencies (i.e. calcium, protein and vitamin D) is presented, as are strategies to prevent falls. One possible reason for the under-prescription of pharmacological treatments for osteoporosis in the oldest old is the perception that anti-fracture efficacy requires long-term treatment. However, a review of the data shows convincing anti-fracture efficacy already by 12months. Results: The safety profiles of these pharmacological agents are generally satisfactory in this patient segment provided a few precautions are followed. Conclusion: These patients should be considered for particular consultation/follow-up procedures in the effort to convince on the benefits of treatment and to allay fears of adverse drug reactions, since poor adherence is a major problem for the success of a strategy for osteoporosis and limits cost-effectiveness

European postgraduate curriculum in geriatric medicine developed using an international modified Delphi technique

the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS-GMS) recommendations for training in Geriatric Medicine were published in 1993. The practice of Geriatric Medicine has developed considerably since then and it has therefore become necessary to update these recommendations.under the auspices of the UEMS-GMS, the European Geriatric Medicine Society (EuGMS) and the European Academy of Medicine of Ageing (EAMA), a group of experts, representing all member states of the respective bodies developed a new framework for education and training of specialists in Geriatric Medicine using a modified Delphi technique. Thirty-two expert panel members from 30 different countries participated in the process comprising three Delphi rounds for consensus. The process was led by five facilitators.the final recommendations include four different domains: General Considerations on the structure and aim of the syllabus as well as quality indicators for training (6 sub-items), Knowledge in patient care (36 sub-items), Additional Skills and Attitude required for a Geriatrician (9 sub-items) and a domain on Assessment of postgraduate education: which items are important for the transnational comparison process (1 item).the current publication describes the development of the new recommendations endorsed by UEMS-GMS, EuGMS and EAMA as minimum training requirements to become a geriatrician at specialist level in EU member states

Geriatric day hospital: what evidence ? A systematic review

peer reviewe