Metabolic syndrome (MetS) remains a controversial entity. Specific clusters of MetS components - rather than MetS per se’- were associated with accelerated arterial ageing and with CV events. To investigate whether the distribution of the “risky” clusters of MetS components differed cross-culturally, we studied 34,821 subjects from 12 cohorts from 10 European countries and 1 from US participants in the MARE (Metabolic syndrome and Arteries REsearch) Consortium. In accordance with the ATP III criteria, MetS was defined as an alteration ≥3 of the following 5 components: elevated glucose (G): fasting glucose ≥110 mg/dl; low HDL cholesterol (H): <40 mg/dl for M or < 50 mg/dl for W; high triglycerides (T) ≥150 mg/dl; elevated BP (B): ≥130/≥85 mmHg; abdominal obesity (W): waist circumference > 102 cm for M or >88 cm for W. MetS had a 24.3% prevalence (8468 subjects) (23.9% in men vs 24.6% in women, p<0.001) with an age-associated increase in its prevalence in all the cohorts. The age-adjusted prevalence of the clusters of MetS components previously associated with greater arterial and CV burden differed across countries (p< 0.0001) and in men and women (gender effect p<0.0001). In details, the cluster T-B-W was observed in 12% of the subjects with MetS, but was far more common in the cohorts from UK (32.3%), Sardinia in Italy (19.6%), and Germany (18.5%) and less prevalent in the cohorts from Sweden (1.2%), Spain (2.6%), and USA (2.5%). The cluster G-B-W accounted for 12.7% of subjects with MetS with higher occurrence in Southern Europe (Italy, Spain, and Portugal - with 31.4%, 18.4%, and 17.1% respectively) and in Belgium (20.4%), than in Northern Europe (Germany, Sweden, and Lithuania - with 7.6%, 9.4%, and 9.6% respectively). The analysis of the distribution of MetS suggested that what follows under the common definition of MetS is not a unique entity rather a constellation of cluster of MetS components, likely selectively risky for CV disease, whose occurrence differs across countries.
It is well recognized that poor muscle function and poor physical performance are strong predictors of clinically relevant adverse events in older people. Given the large number of approaches to measure muscle function and physical performance, clinicians often struggle to choose a tool that is appropriate and validated for the population of older people they deal with. In this paper, an overview of different methods available and applicable in clinical settings is proposed. This paper is based on literature reviews performed by members of the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis (ESCEO) working group on frailty and sarcopenia. Face-to-face meetings were organized afterwards where the whole group could amend and discuss the recommendations further. Several characteristics should be considered when choosing a tool: (1) purpose of the assessment (intervention, screening, diagnosis); (2) patient characteristics (population, settings, functional ability, etc.); (3) psychometric properties of the tool (test-retest reliability, inter-rater reliability, responsiveness, floor and ceiling effects, etc.); (4) applicability of the tool in clinical settings (overall cost, time required for the examination, level of training, equipment, patient acceptance, etc.); (5) prognostic reliability for relevant clinical outcomes. Based on these criteria and the available evidence, the expert group advises the use of grip strength to measure muscle strength and the use of 4-m gait speed or the Short Physical Performance Battery test to measure physical performance in daily practice. The tools proposed are relevant for the assessment of muscle weakness and physical performance. Subjects with low values should receive additional diagnostic workups to achieve a full diagnosis of the underlying condition responsible (sarcopenia, frailty or other).
Aim: the the International Position Statement provides the opportunity to summarise all existing clinical trial and best practice evidence for older people with frailty and diabetes. It is the first document of its kind and is intended to support clinical decisions that will enhance safety in management and promote high quality care. Methods: the Review Group sought evidence from a wide range of studies that provide sufficient confidence (in the absence of grading) for the basis of each recommendation. This was supported by a given rationale and key references for our recommendations in each section, all of which have been reviewed by leading international experts. Searches for any relevant clinical evidence were generally limited to English language citations over the previous 15 years. The following databases were examined: Embase, Medline/PubMed, Cochrane Trials Register, Cinahl, and Science Citation. Hand searching of 16 key major peer-reviewed journals was undertaken by two reviewers (AJS and AA) and these included Lancet, Diabetes, Diabetologia, Diabetes Care, British Medical Journal, New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association, Journal of Frailty & Aging, Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, and Journals of Gerontology – Series A Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences. Results: two scientific supporting statements have been provided that relate to the area of frailty and diabetes; this is accompanied by evidence-based decisions in 9 clinical domains. The Summary has been supported by diagrammatic figures and a table relating to the inter-relations between frailty and diabetes, a frailty assessment pathway, an exercise-based programme of intervention, a glucose-lowering algorithm with a description of available therapies. Conclusions: we have provided an up to date evidence-based approach to practical decision-making for older adults with frailty and diabetes. This Summary document includes a user-friendly set of recommendations that should be considered for implementation in primary, community-based and secondary care settings.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.