We believe that lessons from the osteoporosis field, plus the approach taken with metabolic syndrome, provide a blueprint to further advance care of older adults by providing a risk

factor-based approach for diagnosis which is then linked to quantifiable adverse NCT-501 clinical trial health outcomes. In this exploratory evaluation, disease prevalence (either dysmobility syndrome or sarcopenia) varied depending on the definition used. This highlights the need to develop widespread agreement regarding any definition if the field is to move forward. Interestingly, this arbitrary score-based approach identified 34 % of this cohort as having dysmobility syndrome and therefore at risk, surprisingly similar to the annual incidence of falls in older adults. GM6001 Clearly, suggesting the diagnosis of dysmobility syndrome based upon compilation of risk factors for adverse outcomes is novel and the factors selected arbitrary. An important limitation https://www.selleckchem.com/products/ferrostatin-1-fer-1.html of the approach proposed is that the factors chosen and cutpoints applied here are almost certainly not ideal. For example, it is logical that neurological disease (e.g., stroke and peripheral neuropathy), joint disease (e.g., osteoarthritis), and vascular disease (e.g., peripheral vascular disease) also contribute

to dysmobility. While it is possible that gait speed captures these conditions, further evaluation of the relationship of candidate risk factors with outcomes (along the lines utilized in the development of FRAX) and comparison with currently proposed definitions is certainly necessary. Nonetheless,

we believe that this approach has potential clinical utility in that it is intuitive to clinicians Lck and builds upon prior approaches that have widespread clinical acceptance. We are hopeful that a similar approach will be evaluated in larger epidemiologic studies with multiple outcomes such as mobility disability, fractures, falls, and mortality to identify the combination of factors best able to predict adverse musculoskeletal outcomes in older adults. References 1. Siris ES, Boonen S, Mitchell PJ, Bilezikian J, Silverman S (2012) What’s in a name? What constitutes the clinical diagnosis of osteoporosis? Osteoporos Int 23:2093–2097PubMedCrossRef 2. Grundy SM, Brewer HB, Cleeman JI, Smith SC, Lenfant C (2004) Definition of the metabolic syndrome: report of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute/American Heart Association conference on scientific issues related to definition. Circulation 109:433–438PubMedCrossRef 3. Alberti KGMM, Zimmet P, Shaw J (2006) Metabolic syndrome—a new world-wide definition. A consensus statement from the International Diabetes Federation. Diabet Med 23:469–480PubMedCrossRef 4. Sayer AA, Robinson SM, Patel HP, Shavlakadze T, Cooper C, Grounds MD (2013) New horizons in the pathogenesis, diagnosis and management of sarcopenia. Age Ageing 42:145–150PubMedCrossRef 5.