Reference values and clinical predictors of bone strength for HR-pQCT-based distal radius and tibia strength assessments in women and men.

Reference values for radius and tibia strength using multiple-stack high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT) with homogenized finite element analysis are presented in order to derive critical values improving risk prediction models of osteoporosis. Gender and femoral neck areal bone mineral density (aBMD) were independent predictors of bone strength. INTRODUCTION: The purpose was to obtain reference values for radius and tibia bone strength computed by using the homogenized finite element analysis (hFE) using multiple stacks with a HR-pQCT. METHODS: Male and female healthy participants aged 20-39 years were recruited at the University Hospital of Bern. They underwent interview and clinical examination including hand grip, gait speed and DXA of the hip. The nondominant forearm and tibia were scanned with a double and a triple-stack protocol, respectively, using HR-pQCT (XCT II, SCANCO Medical AG). Bone strength was estimated by using the hFE analysis, and reference values were calculated using quantile regression. Multivariable analyses were performed to identify clinical predictors of bone strength. RESULTS: Overall, 46 women and 41 men were recruited with mean ages of 25.1 (sd 5.0) and 26.2 (sd 5.2) years. Sex-specific reference values for bone strength were established. Men had significantly higher strength for radius (mean (sd) 6640 (1800) N vs. 4110 (1200) N; p < 0.001) and tibia (18,200 (4220) N vs. 11,970 (3150) N; p < 0.001) than women. In the two multivariable regression models with and without total hip aBMD, the addition of neck hip aBMD significantly improved the model (p < 0.001). No clinical predictors of bone strength other than gender and aBMD were identified. CONCLUSION: Reference values for radius and tibia strength using multiple HR-pQCT stacks with hFE analysis are presented and provide the basis to help refining accurate risk prediction models. Femoral neck aBMD and gender were significant predictors of bone strength.

Comparing Prevalence of Sarcopenia Using Twelve Sarcopenia Definitions in a Large Multinational European Population of Community-Dwelling Older Adults.

OBJECTIVES: Multinational prevalence data on sarcopenia among generally healthy older adults is limited. The aim of the study was to assess prevalence of sarcopenia in the DO-HEALTH European trial based on twelve current sarcopenia definitions. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: This is an analysis of the DO-HEALTH study including 1495 of 2157 community-dwelling participants age 70+ years from Germany, France, Portugal, and Switzerland with complete measurements of the sarcopenia toolbox including muscle mass by DXA, grip strength, and gait speed. MEASUREMENTS: The twelve sarcopenia definitions applied were Asian Working Group on Sarcopenia (AWGS1), AWGS2, Baumgartner, Delmonico, European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP1), EWGSOP2, EWGSOP2-lower extremities, Foundation for the National Institutes of Health (FNIH1), FNIH2, International Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (IWGS), Morley, and Sarcopenia Definitions and Outcomes Consortium (SDOC). RESULTS: Mean age was 74.9 years (SD 4.4); 63.3% were women. Sarcopenia prevalence ranged between 0.7% using the EWGSOP2 or AWGS2 definition, up to 16.8% using the Delmonico definition. Overall, most sarcopenia definitions, including Delmonico (16.8%), Baumgartner (12.8%), FNIH1(10.5%), IWGS (3.6%), EWGSOP1 (3.4%), SDOC (2.0%), Morley (1.3%), and AWGS1 (1.1%) tended to be higher than the prevalence based on EWGSOP2 (0.7%). In contrast, the definitions AWGS2 (0.7%), EWGSOP2-LE (1.1%), FNIH2 (1.0%) - all based on muscle mass and muscle strength - showed similar lower prevalence as EWGSOP2 (0.7%). Moreover, most sarcopenia definitions did not overlap on identifying sarcopenia on an individual participant-level. CONCLUSION: In this multinational European trial of community-dwelling older adults we found major discordances of sarcopenia prevalence both on a population- and on a participant- level between various sarcopenia definitions. Our findings suggest that the concept of sarcopenia may need to be rethought to reliably and validly identify people with impaired muscle health.

Performance of a Novel Handheld Bioelectrical Impedance Device for Assessing Muscle Mass in Older Inpatients.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate practicality and repeatability of a handheld compared to a state-of-the-art multisegmental bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) device to facilitate screening of sarcopenia in older inpatients. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional study in a geriatric rehabilitation hospital. PARTICIPANTS: 207 inpatients aged 70+. MEASUREMENTS: In a first phase, appendicular skeletal muscle mass index (ASMI) was measured using the handheld Biody xpertZm II BIA device (n=100). In a second phase, ASMI was obtained using the multisegmental Biacorpus RX 4004M device (n=107). Repeatability of BIA devices was compared in subgroups of patients (handheld BIA device: n=36, multisegmental BIA device: n=46) by intra-class correlation (ICC) and Bland-Altman plots. RESULTS: Overall, measurement failure was seen in 31 patients (31%) tested with the handheld BIA device compared to one patient (0.9%) using the multisegmental BIA device (p<0.001). Main reasons for measurement failure were inability of patients to adopt the position necessary to use the handheld BIA device and device failure. The mean difference of two ASMI measurements in the same patient was 0.32 (sd 0.85) using the handheld BIA device compared to 0.02 kg/m2 (sd 0.07) using the multisegmental device (adjusted mean difference between both groups -0.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.61 to -0.09 kg/m2). Congruently, Bland-Altman plots showed poor agreement with the handheld compared to the multisegmental BIA device. CONCLUSION: The handheld BIA device is neither a practical nor reliable device for assessing muscle mass in older rehabilitation inpatients.

Predictive Abilities of the Frailty Phenotype and the Swiss Frailty Network and Repository Frailty Index for Non-Home Discharge and Functional Decline in Hospitalized Geriatric Patients.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is increasingly applied as a measure to predict clinical outcomes, but data on the predictive abilities of frailty measures for non-home discharge and functional decline in acutely hospitalized geriatric patients are scarce. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the predictive ability of the frailty phenotype and a frailty index currently validated as part of the ongoing Swiss Frailty Network and Repository Study based on clinical admission data for non-home discharge and functional decline in acutely hospitalized older patients. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Data were analyzed from 334 consecutive hospitalized patients of a tertiary acute care geriatric inpatient clinic admitted between August 2020 and March 2021. MEASUREMENTS: We assessed frailty using 1) the frailty phenotype and 2) the Swiss Frailty Network and Repository Study (SFNR) frailty index based on routinely available clinical admission data. Predictive abilities of both frailty measures were analyzed for the clinical outcomes of non-home discharge and functional decline using multivariate logistic regression models and receiver operating characteristic curves (ROC). RESULTS: Mean age was 82.8 (SD 7.2) years and 55.4% were women. Overall, 170 (53.1%) were frail based on the frailty phenotype and 220 (65.9%) based on the frailty index. Frail patients based on the frailty phenotype were more likely to be discharged non-home (55 (32.4%) vs. 26 (17.3%); adjusted OR 2.4 (95% CI, 1.4, 5.1)). Similarly, frail patients based on the frailty index were more likely to be discharged non-home compared to non-frail patients (76 (34.6%) vs. 9 (7.9%); adjusted OR, 5.5 (95% CI, 2.6, 11.5)). Both, the frailty phenotype and the frailty index were similarly associated with functional decline (adjusted OR 2.7 (95% CI, 1.5, 4.9); adjusted OR 2.8 (95% CI 1.4, 5.5)). ROC analyses showed best discriminatory accuracy for the frailty index for non-home discharge (area under the curve 0.76). CONCLUSIONS: Frailty using the SFNR-frailty index and the frailty phenotype is a promising measure for prediction of non-home discharge and functional decline in acutely hospitalized geriatric patients. Further study is needed to define the most valid frailty measure.

Electronic alert system for improving appropriate thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients: a randomized controlled trial.

Essentials Venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients remains inconsistent. We implemented an electronic alert system featuring a validated risk assessment model for VTE. In this randomized controlled study, the e-alert system did not improve VTE prophylaxis. Many electronic alerts were ignored by ordering physicians. SUMMARY: Background The use of thromboprophylaxis among acutely ill hospitalized medical patients remains inconsistent. Objective To improve thromboprophylaxis use by implementing a computer-based alert system combined with a Geneva Risk Score calculation tool in the electronic patient chart and order entry system. Patients/Methods Consecutive patients admitted to the general internal medicine wards of the University Hospital Bern, Switzerland were randomized to the alert group, in which an alert and the Geneva Risk Score calculation tool was issued in the electronic patient chart, or to the control group, in which no alert was issued. The primary endpoint was the rate of appropriate thromboprophylaxis during hospital stay. Results Overall, 1593 patients (alert group, 804; control group, 789) were eligible for analysis. The median age was 67 years (interquartile range, 53-79 years) and 47% were female. Appropriate thromboprophylaxis was administered to 536 (66.7%) patients from the alert group and to 526 (66.7%) patients from the control group. Among the 804 patients from the alert group, a total of 446 (55.5%) either had no score calculation by the physician in charge (n = 348) or had a calculated score result that was inconsistent with information from the patient chart (n = 98). Appropriate thromboprophylaxis was less often administered to patients with no score or an inconsistent score result than to 358 patients with a consistent score result (62.6% versus 71.8%). Conclusions The electronic alert (e-alert) system did not improve appropriate thromboprophylaxis, most likely because many e-alerts were ignored by ordering physicians. The use of appropriate thromboprophylaxis in the control group was higher than expected.