Risk phenotype for sarcopenia in older adults from Amazonas, Brazil; a cross-sectional study

• Published in: PloS one Vol. 18; no. 10; p. e0292801
• Main Authors: de Lima, Alex Barreto, Torres-Costoso, Ana, Zymbal, Vera, Gouveia, Élvio Rúbio, Baptista, Fátima
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: San Francisco Public Library of Science 16-10-2023; Public Library of Science (PLoS)
• Subjects: Adults; Aged; Analysis; Anthropometry; Biology and Life Sciences; Body mass; Care and treatment; Cattle; Cluster analysis; Cross-sectional studies; Diagnosis; Exercise; Genetic aspects; Health aspects; Medicine and Health Sciences; Men; Muscles; Older people; People and Places; Phenotype; Phenotypes; Physical fitness; Risk assessment; Sarcopenia; Skeletal muscle; Walking; Women; Womens health; Brazil; United States > US
• ISSN: 1932-6203; 1932-6203
• DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0292801

Background There are several markers for the suspicion, identification, and confirmation of sarcopenia. Objectives To analyse the importance of several markers for assessing sarcopenia by classifying phenotypes based on five domains: symptomatology, muscle function, muscle mass, physical performance, and physical function. Methods A cross-sectional study analysing 312 older adults (72.6±7.8 yrs) was conducted in Novo Aripuanã, Amazonas, Brazil. Symptoms of sarcopenia were determined with the SARC-Calf; muscle function was assessed using the 30-Chair Stand test (CST), 30-CST power, and handgrip strength (HGS) with and without normalisation for body mass/height; the skeletal muscle mass index (SMMI) was estimated from anthropometry; physical performance was determined through the 4-m gait speed (GS) and 6-min walking test (6MWT); and physical function was determined with the Composite Physical Function Scale (CPF). Results Cluster analysis revealed two phenotypes (at risk vs not at risk for sarcopenia) and the contribution of each marker (ranged from 0 to 1). In men, the contribution of each marker was: 1 for SARC-Calf, 0.18 for SMMI, 0.09 for 30-CST power and 0.06 for HGS; in women: 1 for SARC-Calf, 0.25 for 30-CST power, 0.22 for SMMI, 0.06 for GS, 0.04 for HGS, and 0.03 for CPF. Considering the cutoff values proposed by Rikli and Jones (2013) for physical function and Cruz-Jentoft et al. (2019) for the other domains, the risk profile for sarcopenia was characterized by: high SARC-Calf in both sexes (men:51.8 vs 3.6%, p<0.001; women:71.2 vs 1.1%, p<0.001), low SMMI (men:73.2 vs 44.6%, p<0.002; women:44.1 vs 23.6%, p = 0.002); in women, low GS (38.7 vs 12.4%, p<0.001) and low CPF (29.7 vs 15.7%, p = 0.020), and no differences in HGS between groups in both sexes. Conclusions SARC-Calf, SMMI, and 30-CST were more relevant markers for sarcopenia risk in older adults of both sexes, GS and CPF played also an important role in women.