Eva Topinkova

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

The European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP) developed a practical clinical definition and consensus diagnostic criteria for age-related sarcopenia. EWGSOP included representatives from four participant organisations, i.e. the European Geriatric Medicine Society, the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism, the International Association of Gerontology and Geriatrics—European Region and the International Association of Nutrition and Aging. These organisations endorsed the findings in the final document. The group met and addressed the following questions, using the medical literature to build evidence-based answers: (i) What is sarcopenia? (ii) What parameters define sarcopenia? (iii) What variables reflect these parameters, and what measurement tools and cut-off points can be used? (iv) How does sarcopenia relate to cachexia, frailty and sarcopenic obesity? For the diagnosis of sarcopenia, EWGSOP recommends using the presence of both low muscle mass + low muscle function (strength or performance). EWGSOP variously applies these characteristics to further define conceptual stages as ‘presarcopenia’, ‘sarcopenia’ and ‘severe sarcopenia’. EWGSOP reviewed a wide range of tools that can be used to measure the specific variables of muscle mass, muscle strength and physical performance. Our paper summarises currently available data defining sarcopenia cut-off points by age and gender; suggests an algorithm for sarcopenia case finding in older individuals based on measurements of gait speed, grip strength and muscle mass; and presents a list of suggested primary and secondary outcome domains for research. Once an operational definition of sarcopenia is adopted and included in the mainstream of comprehensive geriatric assessment, the next steps are to define the natural course of sarcopenia and to develop and define effective treatment.

Comprehensive clinical assessment in community setting: Applicability of the MDS-HC

OBJECTIVE: To describe the results of an international trial of the home care version of the MDS assessment and problem identification system (the MDS‐HC), including reliability estimates, a comparison of MDS‐HC reliabilities with reliabilities of the same items in the MDS 2.0 nursing home assessment instrument, and an examination of the types of problems found in home care clients using the MDS‐HC.

Sarcopenia: European consensus on definition and diagnosis

The European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP) developed a practical clinical definition and consensus diagnostic criteria for age-related sarcopenia. EWGSOP included representatives from four participant organisations, i.e. the European Geriatric Medicine Society, the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism, the International Association of Gerontology and Geriatrics—European Region and the International Association of Nutrition and Aging. These organisations endorsed the findings in the final document. The group met and addressed the following questions, using the medical literature to build evidence-based answers: (i) What is sarcopenia? (ii) What parameters define sarcopenia? (iii) What variables reflect these parameters, and what measurement tools and cut-off points can be used? (iv) How does sarcopenia relate to cachexia, frailty and sarcopenic obesity? For the diagnosis of sarcopenia, EWGSOP recommends using the presence of both low muscle mass + low muscle function (strength or performance). EWGSOP variously applies these characteristics to further define conceptual stages as ‘presarcopenia’, ‘sarcopenia’ and ‘severe sarcopenia’. EWGSOP reviewed a wide range of tools that can be used to measure the specific variables of muscle mass, muscle strength and physical performance. Our paper summarises currently available data defining sarcopenia cut-off points by age and gender; suggests an algorithm for sarcopenia case finding in older individuals based on measurements of gait speed, grip strength and muscle mass; and presents a list of suggested primary and secondary outcome domains for research. Once an operational definition of sarcopenia is adopted and included in the mainstream of comprehensive geriatric assessment, the next steps are to define the natural course of sarcopenia and to develop and define effective treatment.

International Society of Geriatric Oncology Consensus on Geriatric Assessment in Older Patients With Cancer

PURPOSE To update the International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) 2005 recommendations on geriatric assessment (GA) in older patients with cancer. METHODS SIOG composed a panel with expertise in geriatric oncology to develop consensus statements after literature review of key evidence on the following topics: rationale for performing GA; findings from a GA performed in geriatric oncology patients; ability of GA to predict oncology treatment–related complications; association between GA findings and overall survival (OS); impact of GA findings on oncology treatment decisions; composition of a GA, including domains and tools; and methods for implementing GA in clinical care. RESULTS GA can be valuable in oncology practice for following reasons: detection of impairment not identified in routine history or physical examination, ability to predict severe treatment-related toxicity, ability to predict OS in a variety of tumors and treatment settings, and ability to influence treatment choice and intensity. The panel recommended that the following domains be evaluated in a GA: functional status, comorbidity, cognition, mental health status, fatigue, social status and support, nutrition, and presence of geriatric syndromes. Although several combinations of tools and various models are available for implementation of GA in oncology practice, the expert panel could not endorse one over another. CONCLUSION There is mounting data regarding the utility of GA in oncology practice; however, additional research is needed to continue to strengthen the evidence base.

Aging, Disability and Frailty

Despite multiple and often overlapping definitions of disability and frailty, both are common clinical characteristics of aged individuals though not identical. The geriatric syndrome of frailty is described as status of global impairment of physiological reserves involving multiple organ systems. The clinical correlate of frailty manifests as increased vulnerability, impaired capability to withstand intrinsic and environmental stressors, and limited capacity to maintain physiological and psychosocial homeostasis. Geriatric frailty is found in 20–30% of the elderly population over 75 years and increases with advancing age. It was reported to be associated with long-term adverse health-related outcomes – increased risk of geriatric syndromes, dependency, disability, hospitalization, institutional placement, and mortality. The clinical phenotype of frailty manifests as multi-system pathologies characterized by low physical activity, global weakness with low muscle strength, fatigability/exhaustion, overall slowness particularly of gait, loss of weight among others. These above-mentioned clinical symptoms could be explained by (or related to) some ‘preclinical’ diagnoses such as sarcopenia, osteopenia, nonspecific balance disorders, nutritional problems, and overall deconditioning. More recent studies found the frailty clinical phenotype to be associated with pathologic laboratory markers (IL-6, CRP, 25-hydroxyvitamin D, IGF-1, D-dimers), which suggest possible pathogenesis involving hormonal dysregulation, immuno-aging, pro-coagulation and pro-inflammatory status. In the article, current recommendations for future research strategies of frailty syndrome will be discussed.

Understanding sarcopenia as a geriatric syndrome

Purpose of reviewHighly prevalent in the population older than 65 years and leading to poor outcomes (functional decline and its related consequences), sarcopenia does not benefit yet either of a clear understanding of its pathophysiology or of precise clinical or biological markers allowing its identification. Recent findingsThe new scientific definition of ‘geriatric syndromes’ challenges the authors to review the current sarcopenia literature, allowing them to affirm that sarcopenia cannot be considered as an age-related disease but as a true ‘geriatric syndrome’. More than 50% of the population older than 80 years suffer from this medical condition, which is linked to multiple causations: the ageing process itself, genetic susceptibility, certain life habits, changes in living conditions and a number of chronic diseases. Moreover, sarcopenia favours poor outcomes such as mobility disorders, disability, poor quality of life and death. SummaryConsidering sarcopenia as a geriatric syndrome allows us to request its recognition and assess its multiple risk factors, to implement a clinical and public health approach to the management of sarcopenic patients and population at risk and to disentangle the links among sarcopenia, frailty, disability and mortality.

The Persistent Exclusion of Older Patients From Ongoing Clinical Trials Regarding Heart Failure

BACKGROUND Much clinical research of relevance to elderly patients examines individuals who are younger than those who have the disease in question. A good example is heart failure. Therefore, we investigated the extent of exclusion of older individuals in ongoing clinical trials regarding heart failure. METHODS In the context of the Increasing the PaRticipation of the ElDerly in Clinical Trials (PREDICT) study, data from ongoing clinical trials regarding heart failure were extracted from the World Health Organization Clinical Trials Registry Platform on December 1, 2008. Main outcome measures were the proportion of trials excluding patients by an arbitrary upper age limit or by other exclusion criteria that might indirectly cause limited recruitment of older individuals. We classified exclusion criteria into 2 categories: justified or poorly justified. RESULTS Among 251 trials investigating treatments for heart failure, 64 (25.5%) excluded patients by an arbitrary upper age limit. Such exclusion was significantly more common in trials conducted in the European Union than in the United States (31/96 [32.3%] vs 17/105 [16.2%]; P = .007) and in drug trials sponsored by public institutions vs those by private entities (21/59 [35.6%] vs 5/36 [13.9%]; P = .02). Overall, 109 trials (43.4%) on heart failure had 1 or more poorly justified exclusion criteria that could limit the inclusion of older individuals. A similar proportion of clinical trials with poorly justified exclusion criteria was found in pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic trials. CONCLUSION Despite the recommendations of national and international regulatory agencies, exclusion of older individuals from ongoing trials regarding heart failure continues to be widespread.

Polypharmacy in Nursing Home in Europe: Results From the SHELTER Study

BACKGROUND This study assesses prevalence and patients characteristics related to polypharmacy in a sample of nursing home residents. METHODS We conducted a cross-sectional analysis on 4,023 nursing home residents participating to the Services and Health for Elderly in Long TERm care (SHELTER) project, a study collecting information on residents admitted to 57 nursing home in 8 countries. Data were collected using the interRAI instrument for long-term care facilities. Polypharmacy status was categorized in 3 groups: non-polypharmacy (0-4 drugs), polypharmacy (5-9 drugs) and excessive polypharmacy (≥ 10 drugs). RESULTS Polypharmacy was observed in 2,000 (49.7%) residents and excessive polypharmacy in 979 (24.3%) residents. As compared with non-polypharmacy, excessive polypharmacy was directly associated not only with presence of chronic diseases but also with depression (odds ratio [OR] 1.81; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.38-2.37), pain (OR 2.31; 95% CI 1.80-2.97), dyspnoea (OR 2.29; 95% CI 1.61-3.27), and gastrointestinal symptoms (OR 1.73; 95% CI 1.35-2.21). An inverse association with excessive polypharmacy was shown for age (OR for 10 years increment 0.85; 95% CI 0.74-0.96), activities of daily living disability (OR for assistance required vs independent 0.90; 95% CI 0.64-1.26; OR for dependent vs independent 0.59; 95% CI 0.40-0.86), and cognitive impairment (OR for mild or moderate vs intact 0.64; 95% CI 0.47-0.88; OR for severe vs intact 0.39; 95% CI 0.26-0.57). CONCLUSIONS Polypharmacy and excessive polypharmacy are common among nursing home residents in Europe. Determinants of polypharmacy status include not only comorbidity but also specific symptoms, age, functional, and cognitive status.

Assessment of nursing home residents in Europe: the Services and Health for Elderly in Long TERm care (SHELTER) study

BackgroundAims of the present study are the following: 1. to describe the rationale and methodology of the Services and Health for Elderly in Long TERm care (SHELTER) study, a project funded by the European Union, aimed at implementing the interRAI instrument for Long Term Care Facilities (interRAI LTCF) as a tool to assess and gather uniform information about nursing home (NH) residents across different health systems in European countries; 2. to present the results about the test-retest and inter-rater reliability of the interRAI LTCF instrument translated into the languages of participating countries; 3 to illustrate the characteristics of NH residents at study entry.MethodsA 12 months prospective cohort study was conducted in 57 NH in 7 EU countries (Czech Republic, England, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands) and 1 non EU country (Israel). Weighted kappa coefficients were used to evaluate the reliability of interRAI LTCF items.ResultsMean age of 4156 residents entering the study was 83.4 ± 9.4 years, 73% were female. ADL disability and cognitive impairment was observed in 81.3% and 68.0% of residents, respectively. Clinical complexity of residents was confirmed by a high prevalence of behavioral symptoms (27.5% of residents), falls (18.6%), pressure ulcers (10.4%), pain (36.0%) and urinary incontinence (73.5%). Overall, 197 of the 198 the items tested met or exceeded standard cut-offs for acceptable test-retest and inter-rater reliability after translation into the target languages.ConclusionThe interRAI LTCF appears to be a reliable instrument. It enables the creation of databases that can be used to govern the provision of long-term care across different health systems in Europe, to answer relevant research and policy questions and to compare characteristics of NH residents across countries, languages and cultures.

Community care in Europe. The Aged in HOme Care project (AdHOC)

Background and aims: Community care for older people is increasing dramatically in most European countries as the preferred option to hospital andlong-term care. While there has been a rapid expansion in Evidence-Based Medicine, apart from studies of specific interventions such as home visiting and hospital at home (specialist visits or hospital services provided to people in their own homes in the community), there is little evidence of characteristics of the recipients of community care services or the organisation of services that produce the best outcomes for them and their informal carers. The AdHOC Study was designed to compare outcomes of different models of community care using a structured comparison of services and a comprehensive standardised assessment instrument across 11 European countries. This paper describes the study and baseline data. Methods: 4,500 people 65 years and older already receiving home care services within the urban areas selected in each country were randomly sampled. They were assessed with the MDS-HC (Minimum Data Set-Home Care) instrument, containing over 300 items, including socio-demographic, physical and cognitive characteristics of patients as well as medical diagnoses and medications received. These data were linked to information on the setting, services structures and services utilization, including use of hospital and long-term care. After baseline assessment, patients were re-evaluated at 6 months with an abbreviated version of the instrument, and then at the end of one year. Data collection was performed by specially-trained personnel. In this paper, socio-demographics, physical and cognitive function and provision of hours of formal care are compared between countries at baseline. Results: The final study sample comprised 3,785 patients; mean age was 82±7.2 years, 74.2% were females. Marital and living status reflected close family relationships in southern Europe relative to Nordic countries, where 5 times as many patients live alone. Recipients of community care in France and Italy are characterised by very high physical and cognitive impairment compared with those in northern Europe, who have comparatively little impairment in Activities of Daily Living and cognitive function. The provision of formal care to people with similar dependency varies extremely widely with very little formal care in Italy and more than double the average across all levels of dependency in the UK. Conclusions: The AdHOC study, by virtue of the use of a common comprehensive standardised assessment instrument, is a unique tool in examining older recipients of community care services in European countries and their widely varied organisation. The extreme differences seen in dependency and hours of care illustrate the probable contribution the study will make to developing an evidence based on the structure, quantity and targeting of community care, which will have major policy implications.