b_leftb_right
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

Original Article

Factors associated with skeletal muscle mass, sarcopenia, and sarcopenic obesity in older adults: a multi-continent study

Stefanos Tyrovolas1,2,*, Ai Koyanagi1,2, Beatriz Olaya1,2, Jose Luis Ayuso-Mateos2,3, Marta Miret2,3, Somnath Chatterji4, Beata Tobiasz-Adamczyk5, Seppo Koskinen6, Matilde Leonardi7, Josep Maria Haro1,2

Article first published online: 7 OCT 2015

DOI: 10.1002/jcsm.12076

How to Cite

Tyrovolas, S., Koyanagi, A., Olaya, B., Ayuso-Mateos, J. L., Miret, M., Chatterji, S., Tobiasz-Adamczyk, B., Koskinen, S., Leonardi, M. and Haro, J. M. (2015) Factors associated with skeletal muscle mass, sarcopenia, and sarcopenic obesity in older adults: a multi-continent study. Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle, doi: 10.1002/jcsm.12076.

Author Information

1

Parc Sanitari Sant Joan de Déu, Universitat de Barcelona. Fundació Sant Joan de Déu, Sant Boi de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain

2

Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Salud Mental, CIBERSAM, Madrid, Spain

3

Department of Psychiatry, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Princesa (IP), Hospital Universitario la Princesa, Madrid, Spain

4

Department of Health Statistics and Information Systems, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland

5

Department of Medical Sociology, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Krakow, Poland

6

National Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, Finland

7

Neurology, Public Health and Disability Unit, Neurological Institute ‘Carlo Besta’ Foundation IRCCS (Istituto di ricovero e cura a carattere scientifico), Milan, Italy

*Correspondence to: Stefanos Tyrovolas, Parc Sanitari Sant Joan de Déu, Fundació Sant Joan de Déu, CIBERSAM, Dr. Antoni Pujadas, 42, 08830 Sant Boi de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain: Email: s.tyrovolas@pssjd.org

Abstract

Background

The aim of this study was to evaluate the factors associated with low skeletal muscle mass (SMM), sarcopenia, and sarcopenic obesity using nationally representative samples of people aged ≥65 years from diverse geographical regions of the world.

Methods

Data were available for 18 363 people aged ≥65 years who participated in the Collaborative Research on Ageing in Europe survey conducted in Finland, Poland, and Spain, and the World Health Organization Study on global AGEing and adult health survey conducted in China, Ghana, India, Mexico, Russia, and South Africa, between 2007 and 2012. A skeletal muscle mass index (SMI) was created to reflect SMM. SMM, SMI, and percent body fat (%BF) were calculated with specific indirect population formulas. These estimates were based on age, sex, weight, height, and race. Sarcopenia and sarcopenic obesity were defined with specific cut-offs.

Results

The prevalence of sarcopenia ranged from 12.6% (Poland) to 17.5% (India), and that of sarcopenic obesity ranged from 1.3% (India) to 11.0% (Spain). Higher %BF was associated with lower SMM in all countries, and with sarcopenia in five countries (p < 0.001). Compared to high levels of physical activity, low levels were related with higher odds for sarcopenia [OR 1.36 (95%CI 1.11–1.67)] and sarcopenic obesity [OR 1.80 (95%CI 1.23–2.64)] in the overall sample. Also, a dose-dependent association between higher numbers of chronic diseases and sarcopenic obesity was observed.

Conclusions

Physical activity and body composition changes such as high %BF are key factors for the prevention of sarcopenia syndrome.


Introduction

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), population ageing will occur at an unprecedented speed globally. Specifically, from 1970 to 2025, a demographic growth of more than 200% is expected in the group of older adults.[1] Ageing is a global problem affecting both developed and developing countries. For example, the global proportion of those aged 60 years and older residing in developing countries is projected to increase from current figures of approximately 65% to 80% by 2050.[2]

Ageing is accompanied by various physiological changes [e.g. decrease in skeletal muscle mass (SMM) and increase in fat mass] as well as with various co-morbidities,[3-5] of which muscle mass decline is one of the most prominent features. For example, compared to younger populations, octogenerians have 50% less muscle mass.[6] Because SMM is the constituent of almost half of total body mass and has an important role in mobility as well as various metabolic functions,[4, 5] low lean mass is known to have adverse effects on health. Indeed, the maintenance of muscle mass in old age has been pointed out to be a key factor for independent living in old age.[4, 5]

Previously, this age-related loss of muscle mass alone was often referred to as sarcopenia, but more recent definitions have incorporated the concept of muscle strength as it has been shown that although low muscle mass can precede sarcopenia, it is not the equivalent of low muscle strength.[7, 8] Specifically, sarcopenia syndrome has been related with the decline in type II muscle fibres and the replacement of lean mass by different kinds of tissues that have reduced capacity to synthesise protein, thereby leading to reduced muscle strength.[9] Sarcopenia is associated with various adverse health outcomes such as disability, mental disorders, poor quality of life, and mortality,[10-13] and previously reported predictors of sarcopenia include advanced age, low financial status, smoking habits, low physical activity, atherosclerosis, and lung disease.[14]

The coexistence of high accumulation of fat mass and low SMM has been termed sarcopenic obesity.[3] Increase in fat mass has been suggested to be a significant risk factor for low muscle mass tissue,[15] possibly through the chronic inflammatory state induced by high body fat which contributes to the decline in muscle mass and strength. According to recent data, obesity and high muscle mass decline act synergistically in the development of chronic diseases.[16, 17]

Despite rapid population ageing and the global obesity epidemic,[18] there are no global epidemiological data on sarcopenia and sarcopenic obesity. Specifically, although studies from high-income settings do exist,[6] there are only a few studies on the epidemiology of sarcopenia and sarcopenic obesity from low- and middle-income countries,[14] and the majority of these studies are small and do not always focus exclusively on individuals over the age of 65. Furthermore, there are no multi-country studies using nationally representative datasets on sarcopenia and sarcopenic obesity which allow for comparisons between a variety of settings.

Thus, the aim of the present study was to evaluate the role of various determinants on SMM, sarcopenia, and sarcopenic obesity in nine countries (China, Finland, Ghana, India, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, and Spain) using nationally representative data from the Collaborative Research on Ageing in Europe (COURAGE) and WHO Study on global AGEing and adult health (SAGE) surveys. These surveys are among the few large population-based nationally representative health studies that apply standard design and procedures across all survey populations. Because evidence is emerging from recent well-designed studies that targeted intervention programs can prevent progressive muscle mass loss in the older population, the information derived from our study will be important for effective global public health planning.

Research design and methods

Materials and methods

Data from the COURAGE and the SAGE surveys were analysed. The COURAGE was conducted between 2011 and 2012 in Finland, Poland, and Spain, while the SAGE was undertaken in China, Ghana, India, Mexico, Russia, and South Africa between 2007 and 2010. Using the World Bank classification at the time of the survey, these countries corresponded to high-, and middle-/low-income countries, respectively.[19] In particular, the SAGE countries broadly represented different geographical locations and levels of economic and demographic transition. The aim of these surveys was to create comparable databases with valid and reliable information on health and well-being in adult populations across the world.

Details of the survey methodology have been published elsewhere.[20, 21] In brief, in order to obtain nationally representative samples, a multistage clustered sampling design method was used. The sample consisted of adults aged ≥18 years with oversampling of those aged ≥50 years. Following a common research protocol across countries, all data were collected through face-to-face interviews and measurements by trained interviewers. A stadiometer and a routinely calibrated electronic weighting scale were used to measure height and weight, respectively. Blood pressure was measured 2 and 3 times in the COURAGE and SAGE, respectively with a ≤1min interval using standard protocols. Grip strength was measured twice for both hands in the SAGE and only for the dominant hand in the COURAGE with the use of the Smedley's hand dynamometer. If the participant had any surgery in the last three months or arthritis or pain in the hand, grip strength was not measured for that hand. Gait speed was based on a 4 m timed walk and was measured by asking the participant to walk at a rapid pace, as fast as he/she safely can. A cane or other walking aids were allowed if the participant was more comfortable with it. The interviewer recorded the time to completion of the 4 m walk.

If the respondent was unable to undertake the interview because of limited cognitive function, a separate questionnaire was administered to a proxy respondent. The survey response rate ranged from 51% (Mexico) to 93% (China). Sampling weights were constructed to adjust for the population structure as reported by the National Institute of Statistics and the United Nations Statistical Division for the COURAGE and SAGE, respectively. Ethical approval for the COURAGE and SAGE was obtained from the WHO Ethical Review Committee and local ethics research review boards.

Anthropometric, lifestyle, and clinical factors

Body mass index (BMI) was calculated as weight in kilogrammes divided by height in metres squared. Percent body fat (%BF) was calculated using the following formula which has been validated in a variety of populations and races[22]: %BF = 1.20 × BMI + 0.23 × age − 10.8 × sex − 5.4 (where female = 0 and male = 1). SMM was calculated as the appendicular skeletal muscle mass (ASM) based on the equation proposed by Lee et al.[23]: ASM = 0.244 × weight + 7.8 × height + 6.6 × sex − 0.098 × age + race −  3.3 [where female = 0 and male = 1; race = 0 (White and Hispanic), race = 1.9 (Black), and race = −1.6 (Asian)]. ASM was further divided by BMI to create a skeletal muscle mass index (SMI).[24] Following the criteria used in previous publications, we defined sarcopenia as having low SMM as reflected by lower SMI and either a slow gait speed or weak handgrip. Low SMM was defined as the lowest quintile of the SMI based on sex-stratified values, and slow gait speed referred to the lowest quintile of walking speed based on height, age, and sex-stratified values.[25-27] Country-specific cut-offs were only used to determine low SMI, as this indicator is likely to be affected by racial differences in body composition.[28] Weak handgrip was defined as <30 kg for men and <20 kg for women using the average value of the two handgrip measurements of the dominant hand.[29] Sarcopenic obesity referred to the sex-standardized highest quintile of %BF in addition to the presence of sarcopenia.[8, 27] The specific cut-offs used for slow gait speed, high %BF, and SMI, and the country-wise prevalence of low SMM [based on previously recommended SMI cut-offs (0.789 for men and 0.512 for women)[25]] and low handgrip strength[25] are presented in the web appendix.

Previous literature was used as a guide for the selection of variables used for adjustment. These included sex, age, completed education level (≤primary, secondary, ≥tertiary), wealth (assessed by quintiles based on country-specific income), physical activity, smoking status, alcohol consumption, and the number of chronic conditions.[6, 14] The Global Physical Activity Questionnaire was used to assess the level of physical activity using conventional cut-offs and it was categorised as low, moderate, and high (http://www.who.int/chp/steps/GPAQ/en/). For smoking, respondents were asked ‘Do you currently use (smoke, sniff or chew) any tobacco products such as cigarettes, cigars, pipes, chewing tobacco or snuff?’ Those who answered ‘yes’ were categorised as current smokers. Current drinkers were defined as those who answered affirmatively to the question ‘Have you consumed alcohol in the last 30 days?’ The number of chronic conditions was based on seven chronic conditions (angina, arthritis, asthma, chronic lung disease, diabetes, hypertension, and stroke). Combined criteria for the diagnosis of chronic conditions were used with the exception of diabetes for which no information other than self-report was available. The combined criteria referred to self-reported diagnosis and/or diagnosis based on past 12 months symptoms with the exception of hypertension which was based on blood pressure measurement, and stroke which was based on lifetime symptoms. The symptom-based algorithms were based on WHO's SAGE study, clinical guidelines, and references publications, and the details may be found in a previous publication using the same dataset.[30] The number of chronic conditions was categorised as 0, 1, 2, and ≥3.

Statistical analysis

The analysis was restricted to those aged 65 years or older because of the age-related nature of sarcopenia. Individuals whose information was collected through a proxy respondent were excluded from the analysis because data on some of the variables pertaining to the current analysis were not collected. Finland was excluded from the analysis on sarcopenia and sarcopenic obesity as gait speed was not measured.

The prevalence of baseline characteristics by the presence of sarcopenia or sarcopenic obesity was calculated. We used multivariable regressions to assess the correlates of SMI, sarcopenia, and sarcopenic obesity. Linear regression analysis was used when SMI was the outcome, and logistic regression analysis was used when sarcopenia or sarcopenic obesity was the outcome. The covariates included in the models were sex, age, education, wealth, %BF, alcohol consumption, smoking, physical activity, and number of chronic conditions. %BF was not included in the analysis with sarcopenic obesity as the outcome because of potential overlap with the outcome. In addition, we did not adjust for sex when sarcopenia or sarcopenic obesity was the outcome as all the indicators used to define sarcopenia were already sex-adjusted. We conducted analyses using the overall sample including all countries while adjusting for country by including dummy variables for each country in the model. Furthermore, country-wise analyses were conducted with SMI and sarcopenia as the outcome but this was not conducted for sarcopenic obesity because its prevalence was too low to obtain stable estimates. In order to generate nationally representative estimates, in all analyses, the sample weighting and the complex study design were taken into account with Taylor linearization methods. The analyses were performed with Stata version 12.1 (Stata Corp LP, College Station, Texas). The level of statistical significance was set at P < 0.05.

Results

After the exclusion of those <65 years, the sample size was 18 363 (China 5350, Finland 708, Ghana 1975, India 2441, Mexico 1367, Poland 1313, Russia 1861, South Africa 1483, and Spain 1865). Of the total sample, 15.2% and 4.7% had sarcopenia and sarcopenic obesity, respectively. The prevalence of sarcopenia and sarcopenic obesity by country is illustrated in Table 1. The prevalence of sarcopenia ranged from 12.6% (Poland) to 17.5% (India), and that of sarcopenic obesity ranged from 1.3% (India) to 11.0% (Spain). Table 2 presents the baseline characteristics of the sample by the presence of sarcopenia and sarcopenic obesity. Those with sarcopenia or sarcopenic obesity had lower levels of physical activity, and multi-morbidity was most common among those with sarcopenic obesity.

Table 1. Prevalence of sarcopenia and sarcopenic obesity among adults aged ≥ 65 years
CountrySarcopeniaSarcopenic obesity
  1. Data are % [95% confidence intervals] based on weighted sample.

China15.02.9
 [13.3,16.9][2.3,3.7]
Ghana13.65.4
 [11.8,15.6][4.0,7.2]
India17.51.3
 [15.0,20.4][0.8,2.1]
Mexico16.710.2
 [12.8,21.4][7.3,14.1]
Poland12.68.5
 [10.5,15.2][6.7,10.7]
Russia14.08.3
 [10.4,18.7][6.4,10.8]
South Africa12.910.3
 [9.4,17.5][7.0,15.0]
Spain13.811.0
 [12.0,15.9][9.2,13.0]
Table 2. Baseline characteristics of the study sample
CharacteristicCategoryNo sarcopeniaSarcopenia onlyaSarcopenic obesity
  1. Data are % based on the weighted sample.

  2. a

    Sarcopenia only refers to having sarcopenia but not sarcopenic obesity.

Age (years)65–6941.317.914.2
 70–7430.222.919.3
 75–7918.626.024.7
 ≥809.833.141.8
SexFemale54.158.947.0
 Male45.941.153.0
Education≤ Primary63.583.263.2
 Secondary29.414.530.6
 ≥ Tertiary7.22.36.1
WealthPoorest20.633.923.8
 Poorer20.823.126.5
 Middle20.516.822.6
 Richer19.015.413.5
 Richest19.110.713.6
Current drinkerNo80.689.680.1
 Yes19.410.419.9
Current smokerNo71.967.588.3
 Yes28.132.511.7
Physical activityHigh38.629.621.4
 Middle27.226.227.4
 Low34.344.251.2
Number of018.419.56.0
chronic conditions134.336.928.4
 227.126.931.7
 ≥320.216.734.0

The association between SMI (ASM/BMI), which reflects SMM, and a variety of factors, estimated by multivariable linear regression, is demonstrated in Table 3. In the overall sample, lower levels of education and wealth, higher %BF, current drinking, and having one chronic condition were significantly associated with lower SMI (i.e. lower SMM). Higher %BF was consistently associated with lower SMI in all the countries, and higher levels of education were significantly associated with higher SMI in six countries.

Table 3. Correlates of skeletal muscle mass index among adults aged ≥ 65 years estimated by multivariable linear regression
CharacteristicsCategoriesOverallChinaFinlandGhanaIndiaMexicoRussiaPolandS. AfricaSpain
  • Abbreviations: S. Africa South Africa; ref. reference category.

  • Data are coefficients [95% confidence intervals].

  • Models are adjusted for all the covariates in the table. The model using the overall sample is also adjusted for country.

  • a

    Age and percent body fat were included in the models as continuous variables.

  • *

    p < 0.05

  • **

    p < 0.01

  • ***

    p < 0.001

Age (year)a −0.005***−0.006***−0.005***−0.004***−0.005***−0.004***−0.004***−0.005***−0.002−0.004***
  [−0.005,−0.004][−0.006,−0.005][−0.006,−0.004][−0.004,−0.003][−0.006,−0.005][−0.005,−0.003][−0.006,−0.003][−0.006,−0.004][−0.003,0.000][−0.005,−0.004]
SexFemaleref.ref.ref.ref.ref.ref.ref.ref.ref.ref.
 Male0.364***0.356***0.347***0.264***0.462***0.329***0.294***0.302***0.209***0.292***
  [0.355,0.374][0.347,0.365][0.329,0.364][0.247,0.282][0.440,0.484][0.306,0.352][0.273,0.315][0.287,0.318][0.178,0.240][0.277,0.308]
Education≤ Primaryref.ref.ref.ref.ref.ref.ref.ref.ref.ref.
 Secondary0.023***0.032***0.0050.028**−0.00030.032*−0.0140.0050.0220.016**
  [0.014,0.032][0.024,0.040][−0.008,0.018][0.010,0.046][−0.023,0.022][0.004,0.060][−0.036,0.008][−0.007,0.017][−0.022,0.067][0.004,0.027]
 ≥ Tertiary0.025***0.042***0.023*−0.009−0.0150.023−0.0110.023**0.0190.044**
  [0.014,0.035][0.029,0.054][0.004,0.043][−0.053,0.036][−0.044,0.014][−0.004,0.050][−0.035,0.012][0.006,0.039][−0.026,0.063][0.012,0.076]
WealthPoorest−0.016**−0.024***0.007−0.016−0.023−0.032**−0.0060.024**−0.0120.009
  [−0.026,−0.005][−0.032,−0.015][−0.015,0.028][−0.033,0.000][−0.047,0.001][−0.056,−0.008][−0.026,0.015][0.007,0.041][−0.055,0.031][−0.003,0.021]
 Poorer−0.0040.002−0.0040.001−0.004−0.013−0.0160.0090.0020.009
  [−0.013,0.006][−0.005,0.008][−0.022,0.014][−0.015,0.017][−0.027,0.018][−0.039,0.013][−0.034,0.003][−0.008,0.025][−0.024,0.029][−0.005,0.023]
 Middleref.ref.ref.ref.ref.ref.ref.ref.ref.ref.
 Richer0.0040.0050.012−0.0070.0050.0110.0040.0030.0110.009
  [−0.007,0.015][−0.001,0.012][−0.012,0.037][−0.023,0.010][−0.022,0.033][−0.012,0.034][−0.020,0.027][−0.015,0.020][−0.015,0.037][−0.005,0.022]
 Richer0.012*0.0030.022−0.0010.025*0.0090.0120.011−0.0050.005
  [0.002,0.022][−0.008,0.014][−0.004,0.049][−0.020,0.018][0.004,0.046][−0.012,0.030][−0.011,0.034][−0.013,0.034][−0.043,0.033][−0.017,0.027]
Body fat (%)a −0.005***−0.004***−0.005***−0.011***−0.005***−0.006***−0.006***−0.006***−0.008***−0.005***
  [−0.006,−0.005][−0.005,−0.003][−0.006,−0.004][−0.013,−0.010][−0.007,−0.004][−0.007,−0.004][−0.007,−0.004][−0.007,−0.004][−0.010,−0.007][−0.006,−0.004]
Current drinkingYes vs. no−0.016***−0.0010.0110.022***−0.005−0.005−0.0020.0020.029−0.003
  [−0.023,−0.009][−0.009,0.007][−0.004,0.026][0.009,0.035][−0.027,0.017][−0.020,0.010][−0.022,0.019][−0.010,0.014][−0.008,0.066][−0.016,0.009]
Current smokingYes vs. no0.0060.0020.0170.023**−0.0050.0160.0030.028***0.005−0.003
  [−0.002,0.014][−0.006,0.010][−0.004,0.039][0.006,0.040][−0.018,0.008][−0.005,0.036][−0.024,0.029][0.012,0.044][−0.028,0.039][−0.020,0.015]
Physical activityHighref.ref.ref.ref.ref.ref.ref.ref.ref.ref.
 Moderate0.0010.007*−0.002−0.011−0.002−0.021*−0.0060.009−0.0070.007
  [−0.005,0.006][0.001,0.014][−0.015,0.011][−0.024,0.003][−0.013,0.010][−0.041,−0.002][−0.024,0.011][−0.006,0.023][−0.039,0.024][−0.004,0.018]
 Low−0.0020.0050.00040.006−0.006−0.008−0.0090.0100.0170.002
  [−0.010,0.006][−0.002,0.012][−0.017,0.016][−0.006,0.018][−0.020,0.008][−0.024,0.007][−0.026,0.007][−0.004,0.023][−0.016,0.049][−0.010,0.014]
Number of0ref.ref.ref.ref.ref.ref.ref.ref.ref.ref.
chronic conditions1−0.008*−0.005−0.021−0.002−0.008−0.015−0.006−0.0150.010−0.009
  [−0.016,−0.001][−0.013,0.002][−0.048,0.006][−0.015,0.011][−0.022,0.007][−0.038,0.009][−0.025,0.013][−0.036,0.006][−0.019,0.039][−0.022,0.005]
 2−0.0040.001−0.0200.001−0.010−0.015−0.003−0.013−0.014−0.006
  [−0.012,0.004][−0.008,0.009][−0.044,0.004][−0.014,0.016][−0.027,0.006][−0.041,0.011][−0.024,0.019][−0.034,0.007][−0.049,0.020][−0.020,0.009]
 ≥30.0030.007−0.017−0.0070.004−0.001−0.007−0.0150.020−0.009
  [−0.008,0.014][−0.002,0.017][−0.045,0.010][−0.027,0.013][−0.021,0.029][−0.028,0.027][−0.028,0.014][−0.036,0.006][−0.029,0.068][−0.023,0.005]

The association between sarcopenia and various factors, estimated by multivariable logistic regression, is shown in Table 4. In the overall sample, lower levels of wealth and physical activity, and higher %BF were significantly associated with sarcopenia. Higher education was significantly protective against sarcopenia in China, Mexico, Poland, and South Africa. Lower levels of wealth were significantly associated with higher odds for sarcopenia in China, Ghana, and India, but a U-shaped association was observed in Poland where both the rich and poor had significantly lower odds for sarcopenia. Higher %BF was associated with higher odds for sarcopenia in Ghana, India, Mexico, South Africa, and Spain, while lower levels of physical activity were significantly associated with greater likelihood of sarcopenia in India, Mexico, Russia, Poland, and South Africa. The association between sarcopenic obesity and various factors, estimated by multivariable logistic regression, is shown in Table 5. Lower levels of physical activity and greater numbers of chronic conditions were significantly associated with sarcopenic obesity.

Table 4. Correlates of sarcopenia among adults aged ≥ 65 years estimated by multivariable logistic regression
CharacteristicsCategoriesOverallChinaGhanaIndiaMexicoRussiaPolandS. AfricaSpain
  • Abbreviations: S. Africa South Africa; ref. reference category.

  • Data are odds ratio [95% confidence intervals].

  • Models are adjusted for all the covariates in the table. The model using the overall sample is also adjusted for country.

  • a

    Age and percent body fat were included in the models as continuous variables.

  • *

    p < 0.05

  • **

    p < 0.01

  • ***

    p < 0.001

Age (year)a 1.13***1.15***1.08***1.11***1.14***1.12***1.18***1.021.19***
  [1.11,1.14][1.13,1.18][1.06,1.11][1.08,1.15][1.09,1.18][1.08,1.17][1.13,1.24][0.97,1.08][1.15,1.23]
Education≤ Primaryref.ref.ref.ref.ref.ref.ref.ref.ref.
 Secondary0.800.46***0.881.440.570.970.730.970.59
  [0.62,1.03][0.31,0.67][0.46,1.68][0.84,2.46][0.16,2.02][0.47,2.03][0.43,1.24][0.37,2.57][0.32,1.09]
 ≥ Tertiary0.740.50*0.921.070.18*1.390.20***0.01***1.01
  [0.51,1.08][0.28,0.89][0.29,2.84][0.43,2.68][0.04,0.79][0.58,3.30][0.08,0.48][0.00,0.07][0.28,3.71]
WealthPoorest1.57**1.92***1.86*1.581.381.470.49*1.370.81
  [1.17,2.10][1.35,2.72][1.09,3.17][0.79,3.16][0.68,2.81][0.68,3.18][0.25,0.99][0.36,5.14][0.44,1.51]
 Poorer1.211.141.270.990.691.790.820.681.32
  [0.90,1.63][0.84,1.54][0.73,2.22][0.46,2.13][0.25,1.89][0.80,4.01][0.40,1.68][0.25,1.89][0.81,2.16]
 Middleref.ref.ref.ref.ref.ref.ref.ref.ref.
 Richer0.890.921.561.040.570.590.45*0.410.93
  [0.67,1.17][0.62,1.35][0.85,2.86][0.56,1.91][0.20,1.62][0.24,1.49][0.20,0.99][0.14,1.22][0.49,1.76]
 Richest0.61**0.941.840.41**0.550.750.15**1.031.09
  [0.45,0.85][0.64,1.37][0.99,3.42][0.24,0.72][0.23,1.32][0.23,2.46][0.05,0.49][0.34,3.14][0.45,2.64]
Body fat (%)a 1.03***1.011.06***1.03***1.07***1.041.021.07***1.08***
  [1.02,1.04][1.00,1.03][1.04,1.08][1.01,1.05][1.03,1.11][1.00,1.09][0.99,1.06][1.05,1.09][1.05,1.11]
Current drinkerYes vs. no1.060.900.831.161.460.821.090.821.52*
  [0.80,1.41][0.66,1.23][0.53,1.31][0.39,3.44][0.71,3.01][0.34,1.98][0.56,2.09][0.23,2.95][1.00,2.30]
Current smokerYes vs. no1.101.200.691.011.431.250.890.501.35
  [0.86,1.39][0.88,1.63][0.36,1.32][0.70,1.48][0.73,2.81][0.47,3.34][0.36,2.19][0.22,1.14][0.70,2.62]
Physical activityHighref.ref.ref.ref.ref.ref.ref.ref.ref.
 Moderate1.170.860.721.231.681.69*2.75**21.68***1.04
  [0.98,1.40][0.68,1.09][0.42,1.25][0.83,1.81][0.67,4.24][1.02,2.81][1.45,5.22][6.45,72.88][0.62,1.76]
 Low1.36**0.861.341.67*2.18*1.562.13*15.02***1.13
  [1.11,1.67][0.65,1.13][0.92,1.95][1.11,2.51][1.04,4.54][0.79,3.11][1.20,3.78][4.65,48.55][0.66,1.93]
Number of0ref.ref.ref.ref.ref.ref.ref.ref.ref.
chronic conditions11.131.350.901.021.181.300.911.881.55
  [0.89,1.43][0.97,1.88][0.57,1.43][0.68,1.54][0.53,2.65][0.46,3.68][0.27,3.12][0.73,4.85][0.79,3.05]
 21.171.401.281.111.111.491.082.84*0.99
  [0.90,1.51][0.98,1.99][0.77,2.11][0.71,1.73][0.41,2.97][0.49,4.53][0.34,3.40][1.06,7.59][0.49,1.98]
 ≥31.111.121.200.831.181.820.922.341.55
  [0.86,1.43][0.78,1.61][0.59,2.45][0.50,1.36][0.42,3.28][0.66,5.00][0.28,3.02][0.68,8.05][0.80,2.99]
Table 5. Correlates of sarcopenic obesity among adults aged ≥ 65 years estimated by multivariable logistic regression
CharacteristicCategoryOverall
  • Abbreviations: ref. reference category.

  • Data are odds ratio [95% confidence intervals].

  • Model is adjusted for all the covariates in the table and country.

  • a

    Age was included in the model as a continuous variable.

  • *

    p < 0.05

  • **

    p < 0.01

  • ***

    p < 0.001

Age (year)a 1.12***
  [1.10,1.15]
Education≤ Primaryref.
 Secondary0.93
  [0.64,1.37]
 ≥ Tertiary1.02
  [0.58,1.79]
WealthPoorest1.01
  [0.67,1.51]
 Poorer1.12
  [0.81,1.56]
 Middleref.
 Richer0.68
  [0.46,1.02]
 Richest0.85
  [0.54,1.35]
Current drinkerYes vs. no1.01
  [0.74,1.38]
Current smokerYes vs. no0.79
  [0.55,1.14]
Physical activityHighref.
 Moderate1.57*
  [1.11,2.21]
 Low1.80**
  [1.23,2.64]
Number of0ref.
chronic conditions11.79*
  [1.08,2.98]
 22.18**
  [1.31,3.62]
 ≥32.48***
  [1.50,4.10]

Discussion

The present work showed between-country variability in the prevalence of sarcopenia and sarcopenic obesity among adults aged ≥65 years. Higher %BF was associated with sarcopenia and lower SMM in almost all countries. In addition, in the pooled sample, lower physical activity was significantly associated with both sarcopenia and sarcopenic obesity, while a dose-dependent relationship between the number of chronic diseases and sarcopenic obesity was observed. The present study has several strengths. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first multi-continent study to evaluate the association between a variety of factors (clinical, anthropometric, socio-demographic, and lifestyle) and low SMM, sarcopenia, or sarcopenic obesity among older adults using large nationally representative datasets with standardised data, including data from both developing and developed countries. This allowed for a global comparison of different settings which has not been done previously.

The prevalence of sarcopenia ranged from 12.6% (Poland) to 17.5% (India) and the range for sarcopenic obesity was 1.3% (India) to 11.0% (Spain). These figures were close to previously reported figures. For example, the prevalence of sarcopenia has been reported to be between 5 to 13% for older adults 60 to 70 years old, and 11 to 50% for the oldest old,[31] while the prevalence of sarcopenic obesity for the population over 60 has been reported to be between 3% and 12%.[32, 33] To the best of our knowledge, our study is the first to report the prevalence of sarcopenia or sarcopenic obesity in countries such as Russia, South Africa, and Ghana.

The predictors of low SMM and sarcopenia were similar. This may be because of the overlap between low SMM and sarcopenia where low SMM is considered to be an initial stage of muscle weakness preceding sarcopenia.[34] Across all analyses on sarcopenia and SMM, the most consistent predictors were high %BF and low socio-economic status as reflected by lower education and/or wealth. Most of the findings are in line with previous studies. Several researchers have reported an association between sarcopenia[6] or low lean mass with lower socio-economic status.[14] The finding that lower socio-economic status was associated with low SMM and sarcopenia could be attributed to its interfering role on healthy dietary consumption, physical activity, as well as various health outcomes (e.g. obesity and diabetes mellitus).[18] The U-shaped association observed in Poland where both the rich and poor had lower odds for sarcopenia has not been reported previously and is an area for further research. Low physical activity was clearly associated with sarcopenia but not with low SMM. Specifically, it is well known that muscle mass preservation depends on protein turnover and the balance between protein breakdown and synthesis.[35] However, the relation between SMM and low physical activity has a complex pathway. Various studies have proposed that physical inactivity at extreme levels (e.g. bed rest) is related with low lean mass, while other studies have indicated that protein breakdown in the entire human body is not influenced by inactivity levels.[36, 37] In addition, it has been reported that even minimum levels of physical activity may be sufficient to inhibit the loss of muscle mass.[37] On the other hand, low physical activity has been associated with low muscle strength which is one of the key components of the sarcopenia syndrome.[38] All the aforementioned factors may explain the discrepancy observed in our study where no associations were observed between physical activity and SMM while a significant association was found for sarcopenia. Alternatively, because the definition of sarcopenia also includes the concept of muscle function and strength in addition to muscle mass, it may have been that those with low muscle function were unable to engage in higher levels of physical activity.

Higher %BF was associated with both low SMM and sarcopenia. The patho-physiological pathway of inflammation and various bio-molecules could explain the association between increased body fat tissue, low lean mass, and the presence of sarcopenia. Specifically, a strong correlation between increased adipose tissue and various markers such as tumour necrosis factor-a (TNF-a), IL-6, C-reactive protein, and leptin, which influence insulin resistance and growth hormone and finally interfere with the syndrome of sarcopenia, has been reported.[39]

Lower physical activity and multi-morbidity were the only potentially modifiable factors, which were significantly associated with sarcopenic obesity. While sarcopenia was not related with multi-morbidity, sarcopenic obesity was strongly associated with accumulation of chronic diseases. Sarcopenic obesity is a syndrome that comprises the rise of body fat mass in parallel with excessive low muscle mass tissue.[8] The concept of sarcopenic obesity is complex with various underlying elements such as endocrine, inflammatory, and lifestyle factors.[3, 39] The presence of obesity concomitant with low muscle mass tissue or strength is highly related with metabolism-related diseases, such as metabolic syndrome and functional disabilities.[33]

Several researchers have reported that sarcopenia and sarcopenic obesity are modifiable health concepts.[40] In our analysis, low/moderate physical activity was associated with sarcopenia and sarcopenic obesity. Together with under-nutrition, physical inactivity is one of the factors that could be possible targets for interventions to avoid the excessive decline in lean mass. Intervention studies have shown that well-planned exercise programs could increase muscle strength as well as muscle mass in older adults.[41] These associations, together with the global population ageing and obesity epidemic, and the high healthcare expenditures for sarcopenia and sarcopenic obesity,[42] highlight the urgent need for early preventive measures (e.g. physical exercise that could prevent muscle mass loss, obesity prevention, and dietary patterns with protein adequacy) in order to promote healthy ageing and minimize the risk for sarcopenia and sarcopenic obesity.

Strengths and limitations

The present study has several strengths. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first multi-continent study that evaluated the effect of various factors (clinical, anthropometric, socio-demographic and lifestyle) on low SMM, sarcopenia, and sarcopenic obesity, using large nationally representative samples of older people around the world. In terms of limitations, the fact that this is a cross-sectional study limits the potential for aetiological conclusions. Also, estimates of %BF and ASM were based on population equations and not direct assessment. However, these formulas have been validated against gold standard methods such as magnetic resonance imaging and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry in diverse populations, and good concordance rates have been reported.[23, 43, 44] Also, the use of indirect assessments of lean mass is common in population-based studies[14, 32] as most of these direct methods are too costly or impractical for community-based research. Next, we used fast walking speed rather than usual walking speed as an indicator of muscle performance whereas most previous research has used the latter.[25] Thus, our results may not be totally comparable with previous studies. Finally, despite the fact that nutrition and specific food component consumption, such as protein intake, are strongly associated with muscle mass, the survey did not include a detailed dietary assessment.

Conclusions

The present work investigated the role of various determinants on low SMM, sarcopenia, and sarcopenic obesity among older populations in countries at different stages of the socio-economic, nutritional, and epidemiological transition. It is of major interest nowadays, with the growth of the older population globally, to study the body composition transition in order to understand the dynamics and the transforming nature of ageing. In the present study, lower socio-economic status and higher %BF were associated with low muscle mass and sarcopenia in almost all the countries studied. Our results suggest that physical activity might be one of the major modifiable factors related with sarcopenia and sarcopenic obesity across countries. Moreover, the fact that multi-morbidity is related with sarcopenic obesity emphasizes the importance of the role of prevention planning (e.g. obesity prevention), while further exploration is needed in order to understand the role of socio-economic status on sarcopenia. Considering the complexity of sarcopenia syndrome and sarcopenic obesity for older individuals, among whom various co-morbidities exist, the promotion of well-designed and targeted health promotion programs (e.g. physical activity promotion and obesity prevention) may constitute effective means for the goal of healthy ageing.

Acknowledgements

The authors certify that they comply with the ethical guidelines for authorship and publishing of the Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle, (von Haehling S, Morley JE, Coats AJS, Anker SD. Ethical guidelines for authorship and publishing in the Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle 2010;1:7–8.). The authors are particularly grateful to the men and women from the countries of China, Ghana, India, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, Finland, Poland, and Spain, who participated in the SAGE and the COURAGE surveys.

Source of funding

SAGE is supported by the United States National Institute on Aging's Division of Behavioral and Social Research through Interagency Agreements (OGHA 04034785; YA1323-08-CN-0020; Y1-AG-1005-01) and through research grants (R01-AG034479 and R21-AG034263) and the WHO's Department of Health Statistics and Information Systems. The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013) under grant agreement number 223071 (COURAGE in Europe), from the Instituto de Salud Carlos III-FIS research grants number PS09/00295 and PS09/01845, and from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation ACI-Promociona (ACI2009-1010). The study was also supported by the Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Salud Mental (CIBERSAM), Instituto de Salud Carlos III. The views expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views or policies of the WHO. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Stefanos Tyrovolas received a scholarship from the Foundation for Education and European Culture (IPEP) to undertake his post-doctoral research, of which this work is a part. Ai Koyanagi's work was supported by the Miguel Servet contract financed by the CP13/00150 project, integrated into the National R + D + I and funded by the ISCIII—General Branch Evaluation and Promotion of Health Research—and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF-FEDER). Beatriz Olaya's work was supported by the Sara Borrell postdoctoral programme (reference no. CD12/00429) from the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (Spain).

Conflicts of interest

The authors report no relationships that could be construed as a conflict of interest.

References

1
WHO. Active ageing. A policy framework [On-line]. http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2002/WHO_NMH_NPH_02.8.pdf Accessed 14 March 2014
2
Kinsella K, Wan H. An Aging World: 2008. U.S. Census Bureau, International Population Reports, P95/09-1. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office; 2009.
3
Sakuma K, Yamaguchi A. Sarcopenic obesity and endocrinal adaptation with age. Int J Endocrinol 2013;2013:204164.
4
Cesari M, Pahor M, Lauretani F, Zamboni V, Bandinelli S, Bernabei R, et al. Skeletal muscle and mortality results from the InCHIANTI Study. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2009;64:377384.
5
Newman AB, Kupelian V, Visser M, Simonsick EM, Goodpaster BH, Kritchevsky SB, et al. Strength, but not muscle mass, is associated with mortality in the health, aging and body composition study cohort. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2006;61:7277.
6
Baumgartner RN, Koehler KM, Gallagher D, Romero L, Heymsfield SB, Ross RR, et al. Epidemiology of sarcopenia among the elderly in New Mexico. Am J Epidemiol 1998;147:755763.
7
Alchin DR. Sarcopenia: describing rather than defining a condition. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle 2014;5:265268.
Direct Link:
8
Stenholm S, Harris TB, Rantanen T, Visser M, Kritchevsky SB, Ferrucci L. Sarcopenic obesity—definition, etiology and consequences. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care 2008;11:693700.
9
Clark BC, Manini TM. Sarcopenia dynapenia. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2008;63:829834.
10
Janssen I, Heymsfield SB, Ross R. Low relative skeletal muscle mass (sarcopenia) in older persons is associated with functional impairment and physical disability. J Am Geriatr Soc 2002;50:889896.
Direct Link:
11
Newman AB, Kupelian V, Visser M, Simonsick E, Goodpaster B, Nevitt M, et al. Sarcopenia: alternative definitions and associations with lower extremity function. J Am Geriatr Soc 2003;51:16021609.
Direct Link:
12
Delmonico MJ, Harris TB, Lee JS, Visser M, Nevitt M, Kritchevsky SB, et al. Alternative definitions of sarcopenia, lower extremity performance, and functional impairment with aging in older men and women. J Am Geriatr Soc 2007;55:769774.
Direct Link:
13
Landi F, Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Liperoti R, Russo A, Giovannini S, Tosato M, et al. Sarcopenia and mortality risk in frail older persons aged 80 years and older: results from ilSirenTe Study. Age Ageing 2013;42:203209.
14
Alexandre Tda S, Duarte YA, Santos JL, Wong R, Lebrăo ML. Prevalence and associated factors of sarcopenia among elderly in Brazil: findings from the SABE study. J Nutr Health Aging 2014;18:284290.
15
Marcus RL, Addison O, Dibble LE, Foreman KB, Morrell G, Lastayo P. Intramuscular adipose tissue, sarcopenia, and mobility function in older individuals. J Aging Res 2012;2012:629637.
16
Dominguez LJ, Barbagallo M. The cardiometabolic syndrome and sarcopenic obesity in older persons. J Cardiometab Syndr 2007;2:183189.
Direct Link:
17
Aubertin-Leheudre M, Lord C, Goulet ED, Khalil A, Dionne IJ. Effect of sarcopenia on cardiovascular disease risk factors in obese postmenopausal women. Obesity (Silver Spring) 2006;14:22772283.
Direct Link:
18
Tyrovolas S, Psaltopoulou T, Pounis G, Papairakleous N, Bountziouka V, Zeimbekis A, et al. Nutrient intake in relation to central and overall obesity status among elderly people living in the Mediterranean islands: the MEDIS study. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis 2011;21:438445.
19
http://data.worldbank.org/country. Accessed 11 September 2014.
20
Tyrovolas S, Koyanagi A, Garin N, Olaya B, Ayuso-Mateos JL, Miret M, et al. Determinants of the components of arterial pressure among older adults—the role of anthropometric and clinical factors: a multi-continent study. Atherosclerosis 2015;238:240249.
21
Kowal P, Chatterji S, Naidoo N, Biritwum R, Fan W, Lopez Ridaura R, et al. Data resource profile: the World Health Organization Study on global AGEing and adult health (SAGE). Int J Epidemiol 2012;41:16391649.
22
Deurenberg P, Weststrate JA, Seidell JC. Body mass index as a measure of body fatness: age- and sex-specific prediction formulas. Br J Nutr 1991;65:105114.
23
Lee RC, Wang Z, Heo M, Ross R, Janssen I, Heymsfield SB. Total body skeletal muscle mass: development and cross-validation of anthropometric prediction models. Am J Clin Nutr 2000;72:796803.
24
Studenski SA, Peters KW, Alley DE, Cawthon PM, McLean RR, Harris TB, et al. The FNIH sarcopenia project: rationale, study description, conference recommendations, and final estimates. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2014;69:547558.
25
Dam TT, Peters KW, Fragala M, Cawthon PM, Harris TB, McLean R, et al. An evidence-based comparison of operational criteria for the presence of sarcopenia. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2014;69:584590.
26
Capistrant BD, Glymour MM, Berkman LF. Assessing mobility difficulties for cross-national comparisons: results from the world health organization study on global ageing and adult health. J Am Geriatr Soc 2014;62:329335.
Direct Link:
27
Tyrovolas S, Koyanagi A, Olaya B, Ayuso-Mateos JL, Miret M, Chatterji S, et al. The role of muscle mass and body fat on disability among older adults: a cross-national analysis. Exp Gerontol 2015;69:2735.
28
Ortiz O, Russell M, Daley TL, Baumgartner RN, Waki M, Lichtman S, et al. Differences in skeletal muscle and bone mineral mass between black and white females and their relevance to estimates of body composition. Am J Clin Nutr 1992;55:813.
29
Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Baeyens JP, Bauer JM, Boirie Y, Cederholm T, Landi F, et al. European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People. Sarcopenia: European consensus on definition and diagnosis: report of the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People. Age Ageing 2010;39:412423.
30
Koyanagi A, Garin N, Olaya B, Ayuso-Mateos JL, Chatterji S, Leonardi M, et al. Chronic conditions and sleep problems among adults aged 50 years or over in nine countries: a multi-country study. PLoS One 2014:9e114742.
31
Morley JE. Sarcopenia: diagnosis and treatment. J Nutr Health Aging 2008;12:452456.
32
Davison KK, Ford E, Cogswell M, Dietz W. Percentage of body fat and body mass index are associated with mobility limitations in people aged 70 and older from NHANES III. J Am Geriatr Soc 2002;50:18021809.
Direct Link:
33
Baumgartner RN. Body composition in healthy aging. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2000;904:437448.
Direct Link:
34
Cawthon PM, Peters KW, Shardell MD, McLean RR, Dam TT, Kenny AM, et al. Cutpoints for low appendicular lean mass that identify older adults with clinically significant weakness. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2014;69:567575.
35
Short KR, Vittone JL, Bigelow ML, Proctor DN, Nair KS. Age and aerobic exercise training effects on whole body and muscle protein metabolism. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 2004;286:E92E101.
36
Shangraw RE, Stuart CA, Prince MJ, Peters EJ, Wolfe RR. Insulin responsiveness of protein metabolism in vivo following bedrest in humans. Am J Physiol 1988;255:E548E558.
37
Symons TB, Sheffield-Moore M, Chinkes DL, Ferrando AA, Paddon-Jones D. Artificial gravity maintains skeletal muscle protein synthesis during 21 days simulated microgravity. J Appl Physiol 2009;107:3438.
38
Duvigneaud N, Matton L, Wijndaele K, Deriemaeker P, Lefevre J, Philippaerts R, et al. Relationship of obesity with physical activity, aerobic fitness and muscle strength in Flemish adults. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 2008;48:201210.
39
Roubenoff R. Sarcopenic obesity: the confluence of two epidemics. Obes Res. 2004;12:887888, 2004.
Direct Link:
40
Waters DL, Baumgartner RN, Garry PJ, Vellas B. Advantages of dietary, exercise-related, and therapeutic interventions to prevent and treat sarcopenia in adult patients: an update. Clin Interv Aging 2010;7:259270.
41
Freiberger E, Sieber C, Pfeifer K. Physical activity, exercise, and sarcopenia: future challenges. Wien Med Wochenschr 2011;161:416425.
42
Janssen I, Shepard DS, Katzmarzyk PT, Roubenoff R. The healthcare costs of sarcopenia in the United States. J Am Geriatr Soc 2004;52:8085.
Direct Link:
43
Deurenberg P, Andreoli A, Borg P, Kukkonen-Harjula K, de Lorenzo A, van Marken Lichtenbelt WD, et al. The validity of predicted body fat percentage from body mass index and from impedance in samples of five European populations. Eur J Clin Nutr 2001;55:973979.
44
Rech CR, Dellagrana RA, Marucci MFN, Petroski EL. validity of anthropometric equations for the estimation of muscle mass in elderly. Braz J Kineant 2012;14:2331.