Sarcopenic Obesity in Adult Patients: Prevalence and Risk Factors

Le résumé fourni par la source

Background: Sarcopenia now constitutes a serious issue that can affect the obese adult population. The aims of our study were to estimate the prevalence of sarcopenia in a group of obese patients, investigate the impact of sarcopenic obesity (SO) on patient health and quality of life, and identify its risk factors. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional descriptive observational study of a group of obese adult patients. Physical activity was assessed with the Ricci and Gagnon questionnaire and quality of life was evaluated using the SF-12 and ORWELL-97 questionnaires. SO was defined in accordance with the EASO-ESPEN consensus statement. Results: We included 100 patients with a mean age of 44.42 ± 13.25 years. SO was diagnosed in 19% of the study population. The assessment of the impact of SO revealed that it was associated with osteoarthritis ( P < .0001), functional disability ( P = .001) and obesity-specific quality of life impairment ( P < .0001). SO was associated with lower education levels ( P = .011), a low score in the daily physical activities’ dimension of the Ricci and Gagnon score ( P = .028), class 2 obesity ( P = .032), elevated blood triglyceride levels ( P = .019), potassium and manganese intake deficiency ( P = .042 and P = .004, respectively). Non-sarcopenic obese patients had a higher frequency of a history of weight loss interventions ( P = .038), excess protein intake ( P = .042), and excess lipid intake ( P = .011). Multivariate analysis identified class 2 obesity ( P = .048), osteoarthritis ( P = .038), elevated triglyceride levels ( P = .049), manganese deficiency intake ( P = .026), increased score in the daily physical activities’ dimension ( P = .048), increased gait speed ( P = .025) and excess fat intake ( P = .047) as factors independently associated with SO. Conclusion: It is essential to incorporate the screening for sarcopenia into the therapeutic approach for obese adult patients due to its clinical consequences and impact on individuals’ quality of life.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.