Effect of perindopril or leucine on physical performance in older people with sarcopenia: the LACE randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: This trial aimed to determine the efficacy of leucine and/or perindopril in improving physical function in older people with sarcopenia. METHODS: Placebo-controlled, parallel group, double-blind, randomized two-by-two factorial trial. We recruited adults aged ≥ 70 years with sarcopenia, defined as low gait speed (<0.8 m/s on 4 m walk) and/or low handgrip strength (women < 20 kg, men < 30 kg) plus low muscle mass (using sex and body mass index category-specific thresholds derived from normative UK BioBank data) from 14 UK centres. Eligible participants were randomized to perindopril 4 mg or placebo, and to oral leucine powder 2.5 g or placebo thrice daily. The primary outcome was the between-group difference in the short physical performance battery (SPPB) score over 12-month follow-up by repeated-measures mixed models. Results were combined with existing systematic reviews using random-effects meta-analysis to derive summary estimates of treatment efficacy. RESULTS: We screened 320 people and randomized 145 participants compared with an original target of 440 participants. For perindopril [n = 73, mean age 79 (SD 6), female sex 39 (53%), mean SPPB 7.1 (SD 2.3)] versus no perindopril [n = 72, mean age 79 (SD 6), female sex 39 (54%), mean SPPB 6.9 (SD 2.4)], median adherence to perindopril was lower (76% vs. 96%; P < 0.001). Perindopril did not improve the primary outcome [adjusted treatment effect -0.1 points (95%CI -1.2 to 1.0), P = 0.89]. No significant treatment benefit was seen for any secondary outcome including muscle mass [adjusted treatment effect -0.4 kg (95%CI -1.1 to 0.3), P = 0.27]. More adverse events occurred in the perindopril group (218 vs. 165), but falls rates were similar. For leucine [n = 72, mean age 78 (SD 6), female sex 38 (53%), mean SPPB 7.0 (SD 2.1)] versus no leucine [n = 72, mean age 79 (SD 6), female sex 40 (55%), mean SPPB 7.0 (SD 2.5)], median adherence was the same in both groups (76% vs. 76%; P = 0.99). Leucine did not improve the primary outcome [adjusted treatment effect 0.1 point (95%CI -1.0 to 1.1), P = 0.90]. No significant treatment benefit was seen for any secondary outcome including muscle mass [adjusted treatment effect -0.3 kg (95%CI -1.0 to 0.4), P = 0.47]. Meta-analysis of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker trials showed no clinically important treatment effect for the SPPB [between-group difference -0.1 points (95%CI -0.4 to 0.2)]. CONCLUSIONS: Neither perindopril nor leucine improved physical performance or muscle mass in this trial; meta-analysis did not find evidence of efficacy of either ACE inhibitors or leucine as treatments to improve physical performance.

The role of vitamin D in maintaining bone health in older people.

This review summarises aspects of vitamin D metabolism, the consequences of vitamin D deficiency, and the impact of vitamin D supplementation on musculoskeletal health in older age. With age, changes in vitamin D exposure, cutaneous vitamin D synthesis and behavioural factors (including physical activity, diet and sun exposure) are compounded by changes in calcium and vitamin D pathophysiology with altered calcium absorption, decreased 25-OH vitamin D [25(OH)D] hydroxylation, lower renal fractional calcium reabsorption and a rise in parathyroid hormone. Hypovitaminosis D is common and associated with a risk of osteomalacia, particularly in older adults, where rates of vitamin D deficiency range from 10-66%, depending on the threshold of circulating 25(OH)D used, population studied and season. The relationship between vitamin D status and osteoporosis is less clear. While circulating 25(OH)D has a linear relationship with bone mineral density (BMD) in some epidemiological studies, this is not consistent across all racial groups. The results of randomized controlled trials of vitamin D supplementation on BMD are also inconsistent, and some studies may be less relevant to the older population, as, for example, half of participants in the most robust meta-analysis were aged under 60 years. The impact on BMD of treating vitamin D deficiency (and osteomalacia) is also rarely considered in such intervention studies. When considering osteoporosis, fracture risk is our main concern, but vitamin D therapy has no consistent fracture-prevention effect, except in studies where calcium is coprescribed (particularly in frail populations living in care homes). As a J-shaped effect on falls and fracture risk is becoming evident with vitamin D interventions, we should target those at greatest risk who may benefit from vitamin D supplementation to decrease falls and fractures, although the optimum dose is still unclear.

National Osteoporosis Society vitamin D guideline summary.

The National Osteoporosis Society (NOS) published its document, Vitamin D and Bone Health: A Practical Clinical Guideline for Patient Management, in 2013 as a practical clinical guideline on the management of vitamin D deficiency in adult patients with, or at risk of developing, bone disease. There has been no clear consensus in the UK on vitamin D deficiency its assessment and treatment, and clinical practice is inconsistent. This guideline is aimed at clinicians, including doctors, nurses and dieticians. It recommends the measurement of serum 25 (OH) vitamin D (25OHD) to estimate vitamin D status in the following clinical scenarios: bone diseases that may be improved with vitamin D treatment; bone diseases, prior to specific treatment where correcting vitamin D deficiency is appropriate; musculoskeletal symptoms that could be attributed to vitamin D deficiency. The guideline also states that routine vitamin D testing is unnecessary where vitamin D supplementation with an oral antiresorptive treatment is already planned and sets the following serum 25OHD thresholds: <30 nmol/l is deficient; 30-50 nmol/l may be inadequate in some people; >50 nmol/l is sufficient for almost the whole population. For treatment, oral vitamin D3 is recommended with fixed loading doses of oral vitamin D3 followed by regular maintenance therapy when rapid correction of vitamin D deficiency is required, although loading doses are not necessary where correction of deficiency is less urgent or when co-prescribing with an oral antiresorptive agent. For monitoring, serum calcium (adjusted for albumin) should be checked 1 month after completing a loading regimen, or after starting vitamin D supplementation, in case primary hyperparathyroidism has been unmasked. However, routine monitoring of serum 25OHD is generally unnecessary but may be appropriate in patients with symptomatic vitamin D deficiency or malabsorption and where poor compliance with medication is suspected. The guideline focuses on bone health as, although there are numerous putative effects of vitamin D on immunity modulation, cancer prevention and the risks of cardiovascular disease and multiple sclerosis, there remains considerable debate about the evaluation of extraskeletal factors and optimal vitamin D status in these circumstances.