Criteria for clinically relevant weakness and low lean mass and their longitudinal association with incident mobility impairment and mortality: the foundation for the National Institutes of Health (FNIH) sarcopenia project.

BACKGROUND: This analysis sought to determine the associations of the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health Sarcopenia Project criteria for weakness and low lean mass with likelihood for mobility impairment (gait speed ≤ 0.8 m/s) and mortality. Providing validity for these criteria is essential for research and clinical evaluation. METHODS: Among 4,411 men and 1,869 women pooled from 6 cohort studies, 3-year likelihood for incident mobility impairment and mortality over 10 years were determined for individuals with weakness, low lean mass, and for those having both. Weakness was defined as low grip strength (<26kg men and <16kg women) and low grip strength-to-body mass index (BMI; kg/m(2)) ratio (<1.00 men and <0.56 women). Low lean mass (dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry) was categorized as low appendicular lean mass (ALM; <19.75kg men and <15.02kg women) and low ALM-to-BMI ratio (<0.789 men and <0.512 women). RESULTS: Low grip strength (men: odds ratio [OR] = 2.31, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.34-3.99; women: OR = 1.99, 95% CI 1.23-3.21), low grip strength-to-BMI ratio (men: OR = 3.28, 95% CI 1.92-5.59; women: OR = 2.54, 95% CI 1.10-5.83) and low ALM-to-BMI ratio (men: OR = 1.58, 95% CI 1.12-2.25; women: OR = 1.81, 95% CI 1.14-2.87), but not low ALM, were associated with increased likelihood for incident mobility impairment. Weakness increased likelihood of mobility impairment regardless of low lean mass. Mortality risk patterns were inconsistent. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support our cut-points for low grip strength and low ALM-to-BMI ratio as candidate criteria for clinically relevant weakness and low lean mass. Further validation in other populations and for alternate relevant outcomes is needed.

Full text isn't openly available for this paper (J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci is largely paywalled). The abstract above is the grounded summary. Read at source →

Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this paper — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.