Sarcopenia is increasingly recognized as a correlate of ageing and is associated with increased likelihood of adverse outcomes including falls, fractures, frailty and mortality. Several tools have been recommended to assess muscle mass, muscle strength and physical performance in clinical trials. Whilst these tools have proven to be accurate and reliable in investigational settings, many are not easily applied to daily practice. 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 afterwards organized for the whole group to make amendments and discuss further recommendations. This paper proposes some user-friendly and inexpensive methods that can be used to assess sarcopenia in real-life settings. Healthcare providers, particularly in primary care, should consider an assessment of sarcopenia in individuals at increased risk; suggested tools for assessing risk include the Red Flag Method, the SARC-F questionnaire, the SMI method or different prediction equations. Management of sarcopenia should primarily be patient centered and involve the combination of both resistance and endurance based activity programmes with or without dietary interventions. Development of a number of pharmacological interventions is also in progress. Assessment of sarcopenia in individuals with risk factors, symptoms and/or conditions exposing them to the risk of disability will become particularly important in the near future.

Healthy ageing can be defined as “the process of developing and maintaining the functional ability that enables wellbeing in older age”. Functional ability (i.e., the health-related attributes that enable people to be and to do what they have reason to value) is determined by intrinsic capacity (i.e., the composite of all the physical and mental capacities of an individual), the environment (i.e., all the factors in the extrinsic world that form the context of an individual’s life), and the interactions between the two. This innovative model recently proposed by the World Health Organization has the potential to substantially modify the way in which clinical practice is currently conducted, shifting from disease-centered toward function-centered paradigms. By overcoming the multiple limitations affecting the construct of disease, this novel framework may allow the worldwide dissemination of a more proactive and function-based approach toward achieving optimal health status. In order to facilitate the translation of the current theoretical model into practice, it is important to identify the inner nature of its constituting constructs. In this article, we consider intrinsic capacity. Using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) framework as background and taking into account available evidence, five domains (i.e., locomotion, vitality, cognition, psychological, sensory) are identified as pivotal for capturing the individual’s intrinsic capacity (and therefore also reserves) and, through this, pave the way for its objective measurement.

Objectives: To assess the validity of the WHO concept of intrinsic capacity in a longitudinal study of ageing; to identify whether this overall measure disaggregated into biologically plausible and clinically useful subdomains; and to assess whether total capacity predicted subsequent care dependence.Design: Structural equation modelling of biomarkers and self-reported measures in the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing including exploratory factor analysis, exploratory bi-factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis. Longitudinal mediation and moderation analysis of incident care dependence.Settings: Community, United Kingdom.Participants: 2560 eligible participants aged over 60 years.Main outcome measures: Activities of daily living (ADL) and instrumental activities of daily living (IADL).Results: One general factor (intrinsic capacity) and five subfactors emerged: locomotor, cognitive; psychological; sensory; and ‘vitality’. This structure is consistent with biological theory and the model had a good fit for the data (χ²=71.2 (df=39)). The summary score of intrinsic capacity and specific subfactors showed good construct validity. In a causal path model examining incident loss of ADL and IADL, intrinsic capacity had a direct relationship with the outcome—root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)=0.02 (90% CI 0.001 to 0.05) and RMSEA=0.008 (90% CI0.001 to 0.03) respectively—and was a strong mediator for the effect of age, sex, wealth and education. Multimorbidity had an independent direct relationship with incident loss of ADLs but not IADLs, and also operated through intrinsic capacity. More of the indirect effect of personal characteristics on incident loss of ADLs and IADLs was mediated by intrinsic capacity than multimorbidity.Conclusions: The WHO construct of intrinsic capacity appears to provide valuable predictive information on an individual’s subsequent functioning, even after accounting for the number of multimorbidities. The proposed general factor and subdomain structure may contribute to a transformative paradigm for future research and clinical practice.

Disability in elderly people in countries with low and middle incomes is little studied; according to Global Burden of Disease estimates, visual impairment is the leading contributor to years lived with disability in this population. We aimed to assess the contribution of physical, mental, and cognitive chronic diseases to disability, and the extent to which sociodemographic and health characteristics account for geographical variation in disability. We undertook cross-sectional surveys of residents aged older than 65 years (n=15 022) in 11 sites in seven countries with low and middle incomes (China, India, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Venezuela, Mexico, and Peru). Disability was assessed with the 12-item WHO disability assessment schedule 2.0. Dementia, depression, hypertension, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were ascertained by clinical assessment; diabetes, stroke, and heart disease by self-reported diagnosis; and sensory, gastrointestinal, skin, limb, and arthritic disorders by self-reported impairment. Independent contributions to disability scores were assessed by zero-inflated negative binomial regression and Poisson regression to generate population-attributable prevalence fractions (PAPF). In regions other than rural India and Venezuela, dementia made the largest contribution to disability (median PAPF 25.1% [IQR 19.2-43.6]). Other substantial contributors were stroke (11.4% [1.8-21.4]), limb impairment (10.5% [5.7-33.8]), arthritis (9.9% [3.2-34.8]), depression (8.3% [0.5-23.0]), eyesight problems (6.8% [1.7-17.6]), and gastrointestinal impairments (6.5% [0.3-23.1]). Associations with chronic diseases accounted for around two-thirds of prevalent disability. When zero inflation was taken into account, between-site differences in disability scores were largely attributable to compositional differences in health and sociodemographic characteristics. On the basis of empirical research, dementia, not blindness, is overwhelmingly the most important independent contributor to disability for elderly people in countries with low and middle incomes. Chronic diseases of the brain and mind deserve increased prioritisation. Besides disability, they lead to dependency and present stressful, complex, long-term challenges to carers. Societal costs are enormous. Wellcome Trust; WHO; US Alzheimer's Association; Fondo Nacional de Ciencia Y Tecnologia, Consejo de Desarrollo Cientifico Y Humanistico, Universidad Central de Venezuela.