Introduction we examined the consequences of applying the new EWGSOP2 algorithm for sarcopenia screening instead of the former EWGSOP algorithm (EWGSOP1) in geriatric inpatients. Methods the dataset of our formerly published Sarcopenia in Geriatric Elderly (SAGE) study includes 144 geriatric inpatients (86 women, 58 men, mean age 80.7±5.6 years) with measurements of gait speed, handgrip strength and appendicular muscle mass by dual x-ray absorptiometry (DXA). We analysed the agreement between EWGSOP and EWGSOP2 algorithms in identifying patients as sarcopenic/non-sarcopenic. Differences in the distribution sarcopenic vs. non-sarcopenic were assessed by Chi²-test. Results sarcopenia prevalence according to EWGSOP1 (41 (27.7%)) was significantly higher than with EWGSOP2 (26(18.1%), p<0.05). The sex-specific sarcopenia prevalence was 22.1% (EWGSOP1) and 17.4% (EWGSOP2), respectively, for women (difference not significant) and 37.9% vs. 19.4% for men (p<0.05%). The overall agreement in classifying subjects as sarcopenic/non-sarcopenic was 81.25% (81.4% for women, 81.0% for men). However, among the 41 sarcopenia cases identified by EWGSOP1, only 20 (48.8%) were diagnosed with sarcopenia by EWGSOP2 (9/19 w (47.4%), 11/22 m (50.0%)). Ten of 19 women (52.6%) and 11 of 22 men (50.0%) diagnosed with sarcopenia by EWGSOP1 were missed by EWGSOP2, while 6 of 15 women (40.0%) and 0 of 11 men (0.0%) were newly diagnosed. Discussion there is a substantial mismatch in sarcopenia case finding according to EWGSOP1 and EWGSOP2. The overall prevalence and the number of men diagnosed with sarcopenia are significantly lower in EWGSOP2. While the absolute number of women identified as sarcopenic remains relatively constant, the overlap of individual cases between the two definitions is low.

BackgroundSarcopenia and osteoporosis share an underlying pathology and reinforce each other in terms of negative outcomes.ObjectiveTo evaluate the extent of concomitance of sarcopenia as defined by the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP) and osteoporosis as defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) in geriatric inpatients and their relationship to nutritional and functional status.Material and methodsA cross-sectional analysis of geriatric inpatients from the sarcopenia in geriatric elderly (SAGE) study. Measurements included dual X‑ray absorptiometry for bone mineral density and appendicular muscle mass; gait speed and hand grip strength, the Barthel index, body mass index (BMI) and the mini nutritional assessment short form (MNA-SF).ResultsOf the 148 patients recruited for SAGE, 141 (84 women, 57 men; mean age 80.6 ± 5.5 years) had sufficient data to be included in this ancillary investigation: 22/141 (15.6%) were only osteoporotic, 19/141 (13.5%) were only sarcopenic and 20/141 (14.2%) osteosarcopenic (i.e. both sarcopenia and osteoporosis). The prevalence of osteoporosis was higher in sarcopenic than in non-sarcopenic individuals (51.3% vs. 21.6%, p < 0.001). Sarcopenic, osteoporotic and osteosarcopenic subjects had a lower BMI, MNA-SF, handgrip and gait speed (p < 0.05) than the reference group (those neither osteoporotic nor sarcopenic, n = 80). The Barthel index was lower for sarcopenic and osteosarcopenic (p < 0.05) but not for osteoporotic (p = 0.07) subjects. The BMI and MNA-SF were lower in osteosarcopenia compared to sarcopenia or osteoporosis alone (p < 0.05) while there were no differences in functional criteria.ConclusionOsteoporosis and sarcopenia are linked to nutritional deficits and reduced function in geriatric inpatients. Co-occurrence (osteosarcopenia) is common and associated with a higher degree of malnutrition than osteoporosis or sarcopenia alone.

BackgroundSarcopenia is a common geriatric syndrome associated with serious adverse health outcomes. The European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP) suggests different methods for case finding for sarcopenia. However, data comparing the different methodological options are scarce for geriatric inpatients.MethodsOn the basis of the recommendations of the EWGSOP sixty geriatric inpatients underwent measurement of gait speed, hand grip strength and muscle mass by both, dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and bioimpedance analysis (BIA). By linear regression analysis and Bland-Altman plots muscle mass measurements of DXA and BIA were compared. Outcomes of the DXA- and BIA-based approaches for classifying participants as having normal or reduced muscle mass and sarcopenia according to the EWGSOP case finding algorithm were compared by raw agreement and kappa statistics. Finally, on the hypothetical assumption that the DXA-based approach can be set as reference, the performance of the BIA-based approach is illustrated.ResultsMuscle mass measured by BIA was highly correlated to DXA (r > 0.9), but BIA systematically overestimated muscle mass. The mean difference between DXA and BIA was −1.30 kg (p < 0.001) for appendicular and −2.33 kg (p < 0.001) for total muscle mass. The raw agreement between the DXA- and BIA-based approaches for classifying participants as having normal or reduced muscle mass was at best 80 % depending on the BIA cut-offs used. Functional prescreening according to the sarcopenia case finding algorithm of the EWGSOP reduced the need for muscle mass measurement by 37 %, but only marginally changed the agreement between the DXA- and BIA-based approaches.ConclusionClinicians should be aware that in geriatric inpatients the BIA-based approaches resulted in highly different subgroups of sarcopenic/non-sarcopenic subjects compared to the DXA-based approach following the EWGSOP case finding algorithm. In this pilot-study the BIA-based approach misclassified nearly 1 out of 6 patients if the DXA-based approach is taken as reference.