Variation in the Prevalence of Sarcopenia and Sarcopenic Obesity in Older Adults Associated with Different Research Definitions:: Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999-2004

• Autores: John A. Batsis, Laura K. Barre, Todd A. Mackenzie, Sarah I. Pratt, Francisco Javier López Jiménez, Stephen J. Bartels
• Localización: Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, ISSN 0002-8614, Vol. 61, Nº. 6, 2013, págs. 974-980
• Idioma: inglés
• Texto completo no disponible (Saber más ...)
• Resumen

  • Objectives: To determine the prevalence range for sarcopenic obesity and its relationship with sex, age, and ethnicity.

    Design: Cross-sectional analysis of a population-based sample.

    Setting: Noninstitutionalized persons in the United States participating in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys 1999�2004.

    Participants: Subsample of 4,984 subjects aged 60 and older with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry body composition data.

    Measurements: Eight definitions of sarcopenic obesity identified from six studies found using a systematic literature review (Baumgartner, Bouchard, Davison, Zoico, Levine, Kim-1,2,3) were applied to the sample. Results were stratified according to sex, age, and ethnicity.

    Results: Prevalence of sarcopenic obesity ranged from 4.4% to 84.0% in men and from 3.6% to 94.0% in women. Prevalence was higher in men using definitions from Baumgartner (17.9% vs 13.3%, P < .001), Levine (14.2% vs 6.6%, P < .001), and Kim-1 (30.0% vs 9.3%, P < .001); lower for men using the Davison (4.4% vs 11.1%, P < .001) and Kim-2 (83.7% vs 94.0%) definitions; and the same for men and women using the Bouchard (45.3% vs 44.3%, P = .32) and Kim-3 (75.6% vs 77.0%, P = .51) definitions. For all but one definition, sarcopenic obesity increased with each decade and was lower in non-Hispanic blacks than whites.

    Conclusion: Prevalence of sarcopenic obesity in older adults varies up to 26-fold depending on current research definitions. Such a high degree of variability suggests the need to establish consensus criteria that can be reliably applied across clinical and research settings.