ABSTRACT
Sarcopenia is a chronic, progressive skeletal muscle disease characterised by low muscle strength and quantity or quality, leading to low physical performance. Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) are more at risk of sarcopenia than euglycemic individuals. Because of several shared pathways between the two diseases, sarcopenia is also a risk factor for developing T2DM in older patients. Various biomarkers are under investigation as potentially valuable for sarcopenia diagnosis and treatment monitoring. Biomarkers related to sarcopenia can be divided into markers evaluating musculoskeletal status (biomarkers specific to muscle mass, markers of the neuromuscular junction, or myokines) and markers assuming causal factors (adipokines, hormones, and inflammatory markers). This paper reviews the current knowledge about how diabetes and T2DM complications affect potential sarcopenia biomarker concentrations. This review includes markers recently proposed by the expert group of the European Society for the Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) as those that may currently be useful in phase II and III clinical trials of sarcopenia: myostatin (MSTN); follistatin (FST); irisin; brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF); procollagen type III N-terminal peptide (PIIINP; P3NP); sarcopenia index (serum creatinine to serum cystatin C ratio); adiponectin; leptin; insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1); dehydroepiandrosterone sulphate (DHEAS); C-reactive protein (CRP); interleukin-6 (IL-6), and tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α). A better understanding of factors influencing these biomarkers' levels, including diabetes and diabetic complications, may lead to designing future studies and implementing results in clinical practice.
ABSTRACT
Despite a decade of available recommendations aimed at preventing vitamin D (VD) deficiency in Poland, the efficacy of these measures among community-dwelling older individuals remains inconsistent. The PolSenior2 study provided valuable insights into VD status among community-dwelling older individuals in Poland. However, it is important to note that this research did not include the elderly living in care institutions. Therefore, our study concentrates on evaluating VD status in older patients admitted to a geriatrics ward to indirectly assess their adherence to existing recommendations and preventive actions in this particular setting (whether they translate into health-promoting behaviors (i.e., taking vitamin D supplements) and whether the recommended, optimal 25(OH)D concentration values are achieved). This approach offers a comprehensive understanding of VD status in a previously understudied population. We aimed to evaluate VD status in patients aged 70 and above within the geriatrics ward, exploring its association with age, sex, BMI, and the use of VD supplements. The study involved the measurement of serum VD concentration in 240 individuals. Of these participants, 177 (73.8%) were women, and 193 (80.4%) were over 75 years old. The median 25(OH)D concentration was found to be 22.95 (IQR, 13.7-33.0) ng/mL. Notably, profound deficiency (<10 ng/mL) was noted in 15% of the participants, while 67.5% exhibited VD inadequacy (<30 ng/mL). It is worth mentioning that only 18.3% of individuals took VD supplements preadmission. Insufficiency was more prevalent in nonsupplemented individuals (70.9% vs. 52.3%, p = 0.02) and those with a BMI ≥30 kg/m2 (76.2% vs. 59.2%, p = 0.007). The logistic regression model demonstrated that obese patients had over two times higher odds of VD inadequacy (OR = 2.21, p = 0.0074), as did nonsupplemented individuals (OR = 2.23, p = 0.0187). The high prevalence of VD deficiency and inadequacy in geriatric ward admissions emphasizes the urgent need for targeted interventions and enhanced education for older adults, caregivers, and physicians to improve adherence to preventive supplementation practices.
