Case-Finding for Sarcopenia in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: Comparison of Mini Sarcopenia Risk Assessment with SARC-F and SARC-CalF.

BACKGROUND: We compared the diagnostic performance of the short five-item and full seven-item Mini Sarcopenia Risk Assessment Questionnaire (MSRA-5 and MSRA-7) against the Strength, Assistance walking, Rise from a chair, Climb stairs, and Falls (SARC-F) and SARC-F with calf circumference (SARC-CalF) scales for sarcopenia in healthy community-dwelling older adults. METHODS: We conducted a post-hoc cross-sectional secondary data analysis of a prospective cohort study, using data from 230 older adults (mean age 67.2±7.4 years, 92% Chinese, and 73% female) from the "Longitudinal Assessment of Biomarkers for characterization of early Sarcopenia and Osteosarcopenic Obesity in predicting frailty and functional decline in community-dwelling Asian older adults Study" (GeriLABS-2) conducted between December 2017 and March 2019 in Singapore. We performed receiver operating characteristic curve analysis to ascertain the area under the curve (AUC) for sarcopenia diagnosis using the Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia 2019 consensus criteria. We applied the Delong method to compare the AUCs of the four instruments. RESULTS: The MSRA-5 and MSRA-7 demonstrated poor diagnostic performance (AUC of 0.511, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.433-0.589 and AUC of 0.526, 95% CI 0.445-0.606, respectively), compared to that in SARC-CalF (AUC of 0.739, 95% CI 0.671-0.808) and SARC-F (AUC of 0.564, 95% CI 0.591-0.636). The SARC-CalF demonstrated significantly superior discriminatory ability compared to that in the SARC-F, MSRA-5, and MSRA-7 (all p<0.01). The MSRA-5 demonstrated lower sensitivity (0.464) and specificity (0.597) than in the SARC-CalF (0.661 and 0.738, respectively), whereas the MSRA-7 had higher specificity (0.887) and lower sensitivity (0.145). CONCLUSION: Conclusions: The poor diagnostic performances of the MSRA-5 and MSRA-7 in our study suggest limitations of self-reported questionnaires for assessing general and dietary risk factors for sarcopenia in healthy and culturally diverse community-dwelling older adults. Studies in different populations are needed to ascertain the utility of the MSRA for the community detection of sarcopenia.

Cognitive Assessment by Telemedicine: Reliability and Agreement between Face-to-Face and Remote Videoconference-Based Cognitive Tests in Older Adults Attending a Memory Clinic.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has spurred the rapid adoption of telemedicine. However, the reproducibility of face-to-face (F2F) versus remote videoconference-based cognitive testing remains to be established. We assessed the reliability and agreement between F2F and remote administrations of the Abbreviated Mental Test (AMT), modified version of the Chinese Mini-Mental State Examination (mCMMSE), and Chinese Frontal Assessment Battery (CFAB) in older adults attending a memory clinic. METHODS: The participants underwent F2F followed by remote videoconference-based assessment by the same assessor within 3 weeks. Reliability was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC; two-way mixed, absolute agreement), the mean difference between remote and F2F-based assessments using paired-sample t-tests, and agreement using Bland-Altman plots. RESULTS: Fifty-six subjects (mean age, 76±5.4 years; 74% mild; 19% moderate dementia) completed the AMT and mCMMSE, of which 30 completed the CFAB. Good reliability was noted based on the ICC values-AMT: ICC=0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68-0.88; mCMMSE: ICC=0.80, 95% CI 0.63-0.88; CFAB: ICC=0.82, 95% CI 0.66-0.91. However, remote AMT and mCMMSE scores were higher compared to F2F-mean difference (i.e., remote minus F2F): AMT 0.3±1.1, p=0.03; mCMMSE 1.3±2.9, p=0.001. Significant differences were observed in the orientation and recall items of the mCMMSE and the similarities and conflicting instructions of CFAB. Bland-Altman plots indicated wide 95% limits of agreement (AMT -1.9 to 2.6; mCMMSE -4.3 to 6.9; CFAB -3.0 to 3.8), exceeding the a priori-defined levels of error. CONCLUSION: While the remote and F2F cognitive assessments demonstrated good overall reliability, the test scores were higher when performed remotely compared to F2F. The discrepancies in agreement warrant attention to patient selection and environment optimization for the successful adaptation of telemedicine for cognitive assessment.