Comparison between Original and Reviewed Consensus of European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People: A Probabilistic Cross-Sectional Survey among Community-Dwelling Older People

Abstract

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> The European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP) published a consensus on sarcopenia in 2010 and updated it in 2019 (EWGSOP2) which included the use of specific cut-off points. The aim was to assess how much prevalence of sarcopenia differed between EWGSOP2 and EWGSOP, as well as the use of specific cut-off points to assess differences in presarcopenia versus probable sarcopenia. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Observational, transversal, and comparative study (<i>n</i> = 1,283 older adults; 57% women). Anthropometrics and handgrip strength were measured, and appendicular skeletal muscle mass equation was defined. Conceptual and methodological definitions of EWGSOP and EWGSOP2 consensus were applied to calculate prevalence of presarcopenia, probable sarcopenia, and sarcopenia. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Using cut-off points recommended for European population, prevalence of sarcopenia with EWGSOP2 was lower (−6.6%; <i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.001) than EWGSOP. The prevalence of probable sarcopenia (EWGSOP2) was higher (+7.8%; <i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.001) than EWGSOP presarcopenia. The agreement between EGWGSOP and EWGSOP2 was moderated (<i>K</i> = 0.45; IC = 0.40–0.51). Using specific-population cut-off points for muscle strength and appendicular muscle mass, the prevalence of probable sarcopenia with EWGSOP2 was higher (46.5%; <i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.001) than EWGSOP (1.8%). The agreement between EGWGSOP and EWGSOP2 was moderated (<i>K</i> = 0.48; IC = 0.42–0.52). <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> The new EWGSOP2 consensus underestimates the prevalence of sarcopenia, compared with EWGSOP using conventional cut-off points. The prevalence of presarcopenia with EWGSOP (low muscle mass) was lower than probable sarcopenia (low muscle strength) with the new EWGSOP2. In both cases, agreements between EWGSOP2 and EWGSOP were moderated. Discrepancies between the original and new consensus have implications on the primary health setting for identifying old and new cases for prevention and treatment.