Abstract
Background Activities of daily living (ADLs) and instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs) are essential for independent living and are predictors of morbidity and mortality in older populations. Older adults who are dependent in ADLs and IADLs are also more likely to have poor muscle measures defined as low muscle mass, muscle strength, and physical performance, which further limit their ability to perform activities. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine if muscle measures are predictive of ADL and IADL in older populations. Methods A systematic search was conducted using four databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, and CINAHL) from date of inception to 7 June 2018. Longitudinal cohorts were included that reported baseline muscle measures defined by muscle mass, muscle strength, and physical performance in conjunction with prospective ADL or IADL in participants aged 65 years and older at follow-up. Meta-analyses were conducted using a random effect model. Results Of the 7760 articles screened, 83 articles were included for the systematic review and involved a total of 108 428 (54.8% female) participants with a follow-up duration ranging from 11 days to 25 years. Low muscle mass was positively associated with ADL dependency in 5/9 articles and 5/5 for IADL dependency. Low muscle strength was associated with ADL dependency in 22/34 articles and IADL dependency in 8/9 articles. Low physical performance was associated with ADL dependency in 37/49 articles and with IADL dependency in 9/11 articles. Forty-five articles were pooled into the meta-analyses, 36 reported ADL, 11 reported IADL, and 2 reported ADL and IADL as a composite outcome. Low muscle mass was associated with worsening ADL (pooled odds ratio (95% confidence interval) 3.19 (1.29-7.92)) and worsening IADL (1.28 (1.02-1.61)). Low handgrip strength was associated with both worsening ADL and IADL (1.51 (1.34-1.70); 1.59 (1.04-2.31) respectively). Low scores on the short physical performance battery and gait speed were associated with worsening ADL (3.49 (2.47-4.92); 2.33 (1.58-3.44) respectively) and IADL (3.09 (1.06-8.98); 1.93 (1.69-2.21) respectively). Low one leg balance (2.74 (1.31-5.72)), timed up and go (3.41 (1.86-6.28)), and chair stand test time (1.90 (1.63-2.21)) were associated with worsening ADL. Conclusions Muscle measures at baseline are predictors of future ADL and IADL dependence in the older adult population.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 3-25 |
| Number of pages | 23 |
| Journal | Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle |
| Volume | 11 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| Early online date | 1 Dec 2019 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Feb 2020 |
Bibliographical note
© 2019 The Authors. Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society on Sarcopenia, Cachexia and Wasting Disorders.Funding
Study characteristics Participants FU ADL IADL First author (year) [ref] Cohort name Setting Country N Age (years) F (%) Measure Cut‐offs Measure Cut‐offs Abete (2017) — CD ITA 907 81.3 ± 6.5 56.7 2 y Katz ≥1 loss — — Al snih (2004) HEPESE CD USA 2493 72.4 ± 6.2 57.9 7 y M Katz ≥1 loss — — Albert (2015) SITE CD USA 375 78.9 ± 5.8 68.9 2 y — — AMPS Cont Alexandre (2012) SABE CD BRA 1634 68.6 ± 0.4 57.1 6 y M Katz ≥1 loss — — Amigues (2013) EPIDOS CD FRA 975 79.9 ± 3.5 100.0 4 y — — LB ≥1 loss Arnau (2016) — OP ESP 252 81.7 ± 4.6 58.7 1 y BI ≥10 loss M LB ≥1 loss Artaud (2015) 3C CD FRA 3814 73.2 ± 4.6 60.9 11 y M Katz ≥1 loss LB ≥1 loss Basic (2017) — IP AUS 1693 81.9 ± 7.5 61.5 11 d M BI ≥1 loss — — Baumgartner (2004) NMAPS CD USA 451 72.7 ± 6.3 61.9 8 y — — Own Q ≥1 loss Beauchamp (2015) Boston RISE PB USA 360 76.6 ± 7.0 68.0 2 y LLFDI‐FC Cont — — Beloosesky (2009) — OP ISR 93 81.2 ± 7.2 69.5 6 m Own Q Cont — — Bianchi (2015) InCHIANTI CD ITA 538 77.1 ± 5.5 53.5 9 y — — LB ≥1 loss Broadwin (2001) — CD USA 1051 70.7 60.3 4 y Own Q ≥1 loss — — Carriere (2005) EPIDOS CD FRA 545 79 (76–81) 100 7 y — — LB ≥1 loss Cesari (2015) InCHIANTI CD ITA 991 73.9 ± 6.7 57.0 9 y Katz ≥1 loss LB Cont Chan (2014) ISCOPE CD USA 764 83 (79–87) 68.2 1 y GARS Cont GARS Cont Chaudhry (2010) CHS CD USA 5888 72.4 57.6 7 y Own Q ≥1 loss — — Chu (2006) — CD HKG 1419 73.1 ± 6.2 49.5 1 y M BI ≥1 loss LB ≥1 loss Cooper (2011) LASA CD NLD 1532 70.0 ± 8.5 54.8 3 y Own Q ≥1 loss — — Corsonello (2012) PVC IP ITA 506 80.1 ± 5.9 54.3 1 y M Katz ≥1 loss — — Costanzo (2018) InCHIANTI CD ITA 709 73.4 ± 6.5 56.3 6 y Katz ≥1 loss — — Den Ouden (2013) PROFIEL CD NLD 625 62.3 ± 8.9 49.0 10 y M Katz ≥1 loss — — Denkinger (2010) IRIE CD DEU 161 82 (58–93) 72.7 3 w BI Cont — — Di Monaco (2015) — CD ITA 193 80.0 ± 7.7 100 6 m BI ≥15 loss — — Donoghue (2014) TILDA CD IRL 1819 72.8 ± 6.1 52.6 2 y Own Q ≥1 loss Own Q ≥1 loss Duchowny (2018) HRS CD USA 8467 74.6 ± 7.0 57.0 2 y Own Q ≥1 loss — — Fantin (2007) — CD ITA 159 71.4 ± 2.3 61.0 6 y Own Q ≥1 loss Own Q ≥1 loss Femia (1997) OCTO Project CD SWE 95 86.8 ± 2.3 74.0 4 y Own Q Cont Own Q Cont Fujiwara (2016) TMIG‐LISA CD JPN 981 71.5 ± 5.2 58.1 8 y Own Q ≥1 loss — — Giampaoli (1999) FINE CD ITA 140 76.5 ± 3.4 0 4 y WHO scale ≥1 loss WHO scale ≥1 loss Gill (1996) PS CD USA 775 79.1 ± 5.0 74 3 y M Katz ≥1 loss — — Gill (2009) PEP CD USA 722 78.4 ± 5.2 62.4 11 y Own Q ≥1 loss — — Guralnik (2000) EPESE CD USA 2478 — — 6 y Own Q ≥1 loss — — Hansen (1999) — PB USA 73 80.4 ± 7.0 66.0 1 m Katz ≥1 loss M LB ≥1 loss Heiland (2016) SNAC‐K CD SWE 3060 73.7 ± 10.8 63.7 6 y Own Q ≥1 loss — — Hirani (2015) CHAMP CD AUS 1819 77.3 ± 5.8 0 5 y M Katz ≥1 loss — — Hirani (2017) CHAMP CD AUS 1685 76.9 ± 5.5 0 5 y M Katz ≥1 loss LB ≥1 loss Hoeymans (1996) Zitphen Elderly CD NLD 303 75.8 ± 5.4 0 3 y M WHO ≥1 loss M WHO ≥1 loss Hong (2016) — CD KOR 8000 72.5 ± 5.5 59.4 3 y — — KIADL ≥1 loss Idland (2013) — CD NOR 113 79.4 ± 2.9 100 9 y M A PADL‐H scale ≥1 loss — — Ishizaki (2000) LISA CD JPN 583 70.9 ± 4.9 55.9 3 y Own Q ≥1 loss TMIG IC ≥1 loss Janssen (2006) CHS CD USA 3694 73.5 53.2 8 y Own Q ≥1 loss — — Jonkman (2018) InCHIANTI, LASA CD ITA, NLD 798 67.5 ± 2.1 53.8 9 y Own Q ≥1 loss Own Q ≥1 loss Kempen (1998) GLAS CD NLD 557 72.4 ± 7.7 74.7 2 y GARS Cont — — Kozicka (2016) — CD POL 41 69.8 ± 9.0 41.5 1 y Katz Cont LB Cont Kwon (2012) — IP USA 204 71.1 ± 5.3 57.8 1 y HAQ ≥1 loss — — Legrand (2014) BFc80+ CD BEL 431 84.4 ± 3.5 63.0 34 m Own Q ≥3 loss — — Lopez‐Teros (2014) Coyoacan CD MEX 133 75.5 ± 4.7 53.4 1 y Own Q ≥1 loss Own Q ≥1 loss McGrath (2018) HEPESE CD USA 672 81.7 ± 4.1 64.6 2 y M Katz ≥1 loss OARS and RB ≥1 loss Minneci (2015) ICARe Dicomano PB, HF ITA 561 72.9 ± 7.1 57.6 3 y Own Q ≥1 loss — — Moen (2018) — PD NOR 115 86.0 ± 5.9 55.0 3 w Nor BI Cont — — Onder (2005) WHAS CD USA 884 78.7 ± 8.0 100 3 y Own Q ≥1 loss — — Ostir (1998) EPESE CD USA 1342 73.3 53.0 2 y Own Q ≥1 loss — — Peel (2014) — TCP AUS 351 79.0 ± 8.8 65.8 6 m interRAC HC ≥1 loss — — Pisters (2012) — IP NLD 216 66.1 ± 8.5 72.2 5 y WOMAC Cont — — Purser (2005) VA IP USA 1388 74 ± 6.0 2.0 1 y Katz Cont LB Cont Rajan (2012) CNDS CD USA 5317 73.2 ± 6.4 61.0 8 y Katz ≥1 loss — — Rantanen (1999) HPP, HAAS CD USA 6089 54.0 ± 5.5 0 25 y Own Q ≥1 loss — — Rantanen (2002) NORA75 CD DNK, SWE, FIN 567 75+, NR 60.0 5 y Own Q ≥1 loss — — Rodriguez‐Pascual (2017) — PD, HF ESP 497 85.2 ± 7.3 61.0 1 y Katz ≥1 loss — — Rothman (2008) PEP CD USA 754 78.4 ± 5.3 64.6 8 y Own Q ≥1 loss — — Sakamoto (2016) TLAS CD JPN 188 80.2 ± 3.9 65.4 2 y Own Q ≥1 loss — — Sanchez‐Martinez (2016) Penagrade cohort CD ESP 607 77.0 ± 7.6 50.9 4 y Own Q ≥1 loss — — Sanchez‐Rodrigeuz (2014) — IP ESP 99 84.6 ± 6.6 61.6 3 m BI Cont — — Sarkisian (2000) SOF CD USA 6632 73.0 ± 4.9 100 4 y Own Q ≥1 loss Own Q ≥1 loss Sarkisian (2001) SOF CD USA 89 72.4 ± 4.5 100 4 y NHIS ≥1 loss — — Schoenenberg (2013) — IP, TAVI CHE 119 83.4 ± 4.6 55.5 6 m Katz ≥1 loss LB ≥1 loss Seidel (2011) SHARE CD EU 6841 72 ± 6.0 52.5 2 y — — Own Q ≥1 loss Shimada (2010) E‐SAS project CD JPN 436 79.2 ± 6.8 72.5 1 y — — TMIG IC ≥1 loss Shimada (2015) OSHPE CD JPN 4081 71.7 ± 5.3 51.6 2 y LTIC ≥1 loss — — Shinkai (2000) TMIG‐LISA CD JPN 748 NR NR 6 y Own Q ≥1 loss — — Shinkai (2003) TMIG‐LISA CD JPN 601 73.0 ± 5.3 65 4 y Own Q ≥1 loss TMIG IC ≥1 loss Sourdet (2012) REAL.FR CD, AD FRA 632 77.8 ± 7.0 72.2 2 y M Katz ≥0.5 loss — — Stenholm (2014) InCHIANTI CD ITA 724 67.1 ± 15.0 54.3 9 y Own Q ≥1 loss — — Taekema (2010) Leiden 85‐plus CD NLD 555 NR 65.0 NR GARS ≥1 loss GARS ≥1 loss Takuhiro (2017) Hizen‐Oshima CD JPN 104 69.3 ± 3.0 100 9 y Composite ≥3 loss — — Tanimoto (2013) — CD JPN 716 73.2 ± 6.1 65.8 2 y M Katz ≥1 loss — — Terhorst (2017) — OP USA 256 78.9 ± 5.1 100 6 m PASS ≥1 loss PASS ≥1 loss Tinetti (2005) PEP, PS CD USA 1471 78.8 ± 5.2 70.8 3 y — — LB ≥1 loss Volpato (2011) — IP ITA 87 77.4 ± 6.5 49.0 3 m Own Q Cont M LB Cont Wennie Huang (2010) — CD USA 110 80.3 ± 7.0 70.9 18 m NHIS ≥1 loss — — Zhang (2013) InCHIANTI CD ITA 562 71.4 ± 5.7 47.9 3 y Own Q ≥1 loss Own Q ≥1 loss Zoico (2007) — CD ITA 145 71.7 ± 2.3 58.6 2 y Composite ≥1 loss — — Cohort : 3C, Three City Study; BFc80+, BELFRAIL; Boston RISE, Boston Rehabilitative Impairment Study of the Elderly; CHAMP, The Concord Health and Ageing in Men Project; CHS, Cardiovascular Health Study; CNDS, Chicago Neighbourhood and Disability Study; Coyoacan, Mexica Study of Nutritional and Psychosocial Markers of Frailty among Community‐dwelling Elderly; EPESE, Established Populations for the Epidemiological Study for the Elderly; EPIDOS, epidemiology of osteoporosis; E‐SAS project, Elderly Status Assessment Set; FINE, Finland, Italy, Netherlands Elderly; GLAS, Groningen Longitudinal Ageing Study; HAAS, Honolulu Asia Aging Study; HEPESE, Hispanic Established Populations for the Epidemiological Study for the Elderly; HPP, Honolulu Heart Program; HRS, Health and Retirement Study; ICARe Dicomano, Insufficienza Cardiaca negi Anziani Residenti a Dicomano; InCHIANTI, Invecchiare in Chianti; ISCOPE, Integrated Systematic Care for Older People; LASA, Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam; NMAPS, New Mexico Aging Process Study; NORA75, Nordic Research on Aging 75 study; OSHPE, Obu Study of Health Promotion for the Elderly; PEP, Precipitating Events Project; PS, Project Safety; PVC, PharmacosurVeillance in the elderly Care; REAL.FR, Reseau sur la maladie Alzheimer Francais; SABE, Saude, Bem‐Estar e Envelhecimento; SITE, Sources of Independence in the Elderly; SHARE, The Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe; SNAC‐K, Swedish National study on Aging and Care in Kungsholemn; SOF, Study of Osteoporotic Fractures; TILDA, The Irish Longitudinal Study of Ageing; LISA, Longitudinal Interdisciplinary Study on Aging; TLAS, Tosa Longitudinal Aging Study; TMIG‐LISA, Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Gerontology Longitudinal Interdisciplinary Study on Ageing; VA, Department of Veterans Affairs; WHAS, Women's Health and Aging Study. Setting : AD, Alzheimer's disease; CD, community‐dwelling; OP, outpatients; IP, inpatients; TAVI, transcatheter aortic valve implantation; TCP, transitional care program; PB, population based; PD, post‐discharge; HF, heart failure. Country : AUS, Australia; BEL, Belgium; BRA, Brazil; CHE, Switzerland; DEU, Germany; DNK, Denmark; ESP, Spain; EU, Europe; FIN, Finland; FRA, France; HKG, Hong Kong; IRL, Ireland; ISR, Israel; ITA, Italy; JPN, Japan; KOR, Korea; MEX, Mexico; NLD, Netherlands; NOR, Norway; POL, Poland; SWE, Sweden; USA, United States. Age : presented as mean ± SD or median (range) or (IQR); range, percentage; —, not applicable or reported; F, female; FU, follow‐up duration; D, day(s); M, month(s); Y, year(s). ADL : —, not applicable or reported; BI, Barthel Index; Cont, continuous; GARS, Groningen Activities Restriction Scale; HAQ, Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire; interRAC HC, interRAC Home Care; Nor BI, Norwegian Barthel Index; M A PADL‐H scale, modified Avlund Physical ADL‐H scale; M Katz, modified Katz Index; M BI, modified Barthel Index; M WHO, modified World Health Organization scale; LLFDI‐FC, Functional Component of the Late‐Life Function and Disability Instrument; LTCI, long‐term care insurance system; PASS, Performance Assessment of Self‐Care Skills; WHO, World Health Organization; WOMAC, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. IADL : —, not applicable or reported; AMPS, assessment of motor and process skills; GARS, Groningen Activities Restriction Scale; KIADL, Korean IADL; LB, Lawton and Brody; M LB, modified Lawton and Brody; M WHO, modified WHO scale; NHIS, National Health Interview Survey; OARS, Older Americans Resources and Services; RB, Rosow‐Breslau scale; TMIG‐IC, Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Gerontology Index of Competence. Calculated mean ± SD or mean from information provided. The authors would like to thank Patrick Condron (senior liaison librarian, Brownless Biomedical Library, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry & Health Science, The University of Melbourne), who assisted with the development of the search strategy. The authors of this manuscript complied with the principles and ethical guidelines for authorship and publication in the Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle.
| Funders | Funder number |
|---|---|
| BEL | CHE |
| Brownless Biomedical Library, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry & Health Science | |
| ESP | |
| IRL | |
| ISR | |
| International Trade Administration | |
| Federal Railroad Administration | |
| University of Melbourne | |
| Dong-Eui University | |
| American University of Sharjah |
