CIPER, Faculdade de Motricidade Humana, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal.
Health and Social Research Center, Universidad de Castilla La Mancha, Cuenca, Spain.
PLoS One. 2023 Oct 16;18(10):e0292801. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0292801. eCollection 2023.
There are several markers for the suspicion, identification, and confirmation of sarcopenia.
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.
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).
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.
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.
有几种标记物可用于怀疑、识别和确认肌少症。
通过基于五个领域（症状、肌肉功能、肌肉质量、身体表现和身体功能）对表型进行分类，分析几种标记物评估肌少症的重要性。
在巴西亚马逊州新阿里蓬塔市进行了一项横断面研究，共纳入 312 名年龄在 72.6±7.8 岁的老年人。使用 SARC-Calf 评估肌少症症状；使用 30 秒椅站测试（CST）、30-CST 功率和握力（HGS）评估肌肉功能，HGS 同时进行了身体质量/身高的归一化处理；使用人体测量学评估骨骼肌质量指数（SMMI）；使用 4 米步行速度（GS）和 6 分钟步行测试（6MWT）评估身体表现；使用综合身体功能量表（CPF）评估身体功能。
聚类分析显示存在两种表型（肌少症风险与非肌少症风险），以及每个标记物的贡献（范围为 0 到 1）。在男性中，每个标记物的贡献分别为：1 为 SARC-Calf、0.18 为 SMMI、0.09 为 30-CST 功率和 0.06 为 HGS；在女性中，每个标记物的贡献分别为：1 为 SARC-Calf、0.25 为 30-CST 功率、0.22 为 SMMI、0.06 为 GS、0.04 为 HGS 和 0.03 为 CPF。考虑到 Rikli 和 Jones（2013 年）提出的用于身体功能的临界值和 Cruz-Jentoft 等人（2019 年）提出的其他领域的临界值，肌少症风险的特征为：两性的 SARC-Calf 均较高（男性：51.8% vs 3.6%，p<0.001；女性：71.2% vs 1.1%，p<0.001），SMMI 较低（男性：73.2% vs 44.6%，p<0.002；女性：44.1% vs 23.6%，p=0.002）；在女性中，GS 较低（38.7% vs 12.4%，p<0.001）和 CPF 较低（29.7% vs 15.7%，p=0.020），两性的 HGS 之间无差异。
SARC-Calf、SMMI 和 30-CST 是评估两性老年人肌少症风险的更相关标记物，GS 和 CPF 在女性中也发挥着重要作用。
