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.

Background: Frailty is an aging syndrome caused by exceeding a threshold of decline across multiple organ systems leading to a decreased resistance to stressors. Treatment for frailty focuses on multi-domain interventions to target multiple affected functions in order to decrease the adverse outcomes of frailty. No systematic reviews on the effectiveness of multi-domain interventions exist in a well-defined frail population. Objectives: This systematic review aimed to determine the effect of multi-domain compared to mono-domain interventions on frailty status and score, cognition, muscle mass, strength and power, functional and social outcomes in (pre)frail elderly (≥65 years). It included interventions targeting two or more domains (physical exercise, nutritional, pharmacological, psychological, or social interventions) in participants defined as (pre)frail by an operationalized frailty definition.
Methods: The databases PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, CENTRAL, and the Cochrane Central register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception until September 14, 2016. Additional articles were searched by citation search, author search, and reference lists of relevant articles. The protocol for this review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42016032905). Results: Twelve studies were included, reporting a large diversity of interventions in terms of content, duration, and follow-up period. Overall, multi-domain interventions tended to be more effective than mono-domain interventions on frailty status or score, muscle mass and strength, and physical functioning. Results were inconclusive for cognitive, functional, and social outcomes. Physical exercise seems to play an essential role in the multi-domain intervention, whereby additional interventions can lead to further improvement (eg, nutritional intervention). Conclusion: Evidence of beneficial effects of multi-domain compared to mono-domain interventions is limited but increasing. Additional studies are needed, focusing on a well-defined frail population and with specific attention to the design and the individual contribution of mono-domain interventions. This will contribute to the development of more effective interventions for frail elderly.

Context: Sarcopenia is a progressive and generalized skeletal muscle disorder associated with an increased risk of adverse outcomes such as falls, disability, and death. The Belgian Society of Gerontology and Geriatrics has developed evidence-based guidelines for the prevention and treatment of sarcopenia. This umbrella review presents the results of the Working Group on Nutritional Interventions. Objective: The aim of this umbrella review was to provide an evidence-based overview of nutritional interventions targeting sarcopenia or at least 1 of the 3 sarcopenia criteria (ie, muscle mass, muscle strength, or physical performance) in persons aged ≥ 65 years. Data sources: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, the PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched for systematic reviews and meta-analyses reporting the effect of nutritional supplementation on sarcopenia or muscle mass, strength, or physical performance. Data extraction: Two authors extracted data on the key characteristics of the reviews, including participants, treatment, and outcomes. Methodological quality of the reviews was assessed using the product A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews. Three authors synthesized the extracted data and generated recommendations on the basis of an overall synthesis of the effects of each intervention. Quality of evidence was rated with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Data analysis: A total of 15 systematic reviews were included. The following supplements were examined: proteins, essential amino acids, leucine, β-hydroxy-β-methylbutyrate, creatine, and multinutrient supplementation (with or without physical exercise). Because of both the low amount and the low to moderate quality of the reviews, the level of evidence supporting most recommendations was low to moderate. Conclusions: Best evidence is available to recommend leucine, because it has a significant effect on muscle mass in elderly people with sarcopenia. Protein supplementation on top of resistance training is recommended to increase muscle mass and strength, in particular for obese persons and for ≥ 24 weeks. Effects on sarcopenia as a construct were not reported in the included reviews.

Orthogeriatrics is increasingly recommended in the care of hip fracture patients, although evidence for this model is conflicting or at least limited. Furthermore, there is no conclusive evidence on which model [geriatric medicine consultant service (GCS), geriatric medical ward with orthopedic surgeon consultant service (GW), integrated care model (ICM)] is superior. The review summarizes the effect of orthogeriatric care for hip fracture patients on length of stay (LOS), time to surgery (TTS), in-hospital mortality, 1-year mortality, 30-day readmission rate, functional outcome, complication rate, and cost. Two independent reviewers retrieved randomized controlled trials, controlled observational studies, and pre/post analyses. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed. Thirty-seven studies were included, totaling 37.294 patients. Orthogeriatric care significantly reduced LOS [mean difference (MD) − 1.55 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) (− 2.53; − 0.57)], but heterogeneity warrants caution in interpreting this finding. Orthogeriatrics also resulted in a 28% lower risk of in-hospital mortality [95%CI (0.56; 0.92)], a 14% lower risk of 1-year mortality [95%CI (0.76; 0.97)], and a 19% lower risk of delirium [95%CI (0.71; 0.92)]. No significant effect was observed on TTS and 30-day readmission rate. No consistent effect was found on functional outcome. Numerically lower numbers of complications were observed in orthogeriatric care, yet some complications occurred more frequently in GW and ICM. Limited data suggest orthogeriatrics is cost-effective. There is moderate quality evidence that orthogeriatrics reduces LOS, in-hospital mortality, 1-year mortality, and delirium of hip fracture patients and may reduce complications and cost, while the effect on functional outcome is inconsistent. There is currently insufficient evidence to recommend one or the other type of orthogeriatric care model.

Sarcopenia is a geriatric syndrome with increasing importance due to the aging of the population. It is known to impose a major burden in terms of morbidity, mortality and socio-economic costs. Therefore, adequate preventive and treatment strategies are required. Progressive resistance training and protein supplementation are currently recommended for the prevention and treatment of sarcopenia. Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) might be an alternative therapeutic agent for sarcopenia due to their anti-inflammatory properties, which target the ‘inflammaging’, the age-related chronic low-grade inflammation which is assumed to contribute to the development of sarcopenia. In addition, omega-3 PUFAs may also have an anabolic effect on muscle through activation of the mTOR signaling and reduction of insulin resistance. This narrative review provides an overview of the current knowledge about omega-3 PUFAs and their role in the prevention and treatment of sarcopenia. We conclude that there is growing evidence for a beneficial effect of omega-3 PUFAs supplementation in sarcopenic older persons, which may add to the effect of exercise and/or protein supplementation. However, the exact dosage, frequency and use (alone or combined) in the treatment and prevention of sarcopenia still need further exploration.

The incidence of osteoporotic fractures increases with age. Consequently, the global prevalence of osteoporotic fractures will increase with the aging of the population. In old age, osteoporosis is associated with a substantial burden in terms of morbidity and mortality. Nevertheless, osteoporosis in old age continues to be underdiagnosed and undertreated. This may, at least partly, be explained by the fact that evidence of the antifracture efficacy of osteoporosis treatments comes mainly from randomized controlled trials in postmenopausal women with a mean age of 70–75 years. However, in the last years, subgroup analyses of these landmark trials have been published investigating the efficacy and safety of osteoporosis treatment in the very elderly. Based on this evidence, this narrative review discusses the pharmacological management of osteoporosis in the oldest old (≥80 years). Because of the high prevalence of calcium and/or vitamin D deficiency in old age, these supplements are essential in the management of osteoporosis in the elderly people. Adding antiresorptive or anabolic treatments or combinations, thereof, reduces the risk of vertebral fractures even more, at least in the elderly with documented osteoporosis. The reduction of hip fracture risk by antiresorptive treatments is less convincing, which may be explained by insufficient statistical power in some subanalyses and/or a higher impact of nonskeletal risk factors in the occurrence of hip fractures. Compared with younger individuals, a larger absolute risk reduction is observed in the elderly because of the higher baseline fracture risk. Therefore, the elderly will benefit more of treatment. In addition, current osteoporosis therapies also appear to be safe in the elderly. Although more research is required to further clarify the effect of osteoporosis drugs in the elderly, especially with respect to hip fractures, there is currently sufficient evidence to initiate appropriate treatment in the elderly with osteoporosis and osteoporotic fractures.