Cruz‐Jentoft, Alfonso J.

Abstract Background The Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) introduced an approach for malnutrition diagnosis in 2019 that comprised screening followed by assessment of three phenotypic criteria (weight loss, low body mass index [BMI], and low muscle mass) and two etiologic criteria (reduced food intake/assimilation and inflammation/disease burden). This planned update reconsiders the GLIM framework based on published knowledge and experience over the past 5 years. Methods A working group ( n = 43 members) conducted a literature search spanning 2019–2024 using the keywords “Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition or GLIM.” Prior GLIM guidance activities for using the criteria on muscle mass and inflammation were reviewed. Successive rounds of revision and review were used to achieve consensus. Results More than 400 scientific reports were published in peer‐reviewed journals, forming the basis of 10 systematic reviews, some including meta‐analyses of GLIM validity that indicate strong construct and predictive validity. Limitations and future priorities are discussed. Working group findings suggest that assessment of low muscle mass should be guided by experience and available technological resources. Clinical judgment may suffice to evaluate the inflammation/disease burden etiologic criterion. No revisions of the weight loss, low BMI, or reduced food intake/assimilation criteria are suggested. After two rounds of review and revision, the working group secured 100% agreement with the conclusions reported in the 5‐year update. Conclusion Ongoing initiatives target priorities that include malnutrition risk screening procedures, GLIM adaptation to the intensive care setting, assessment in support of the reduced food intake/assimilation criterion, and determination of malnutrition in obesity.

Abstract The term sarcopenia was introduced in 1988. The original definition was a “muscle loss” of the appendicular muscle mass in the older people as measured by dual energy x‐ray absorptiometry (DXA). In 2010, the definition was altered to be low muscle mass together with low muscle function and this was agreed upon as reported in a number of consensus papers. The Society of Sarcopenia, Cachexia and Wasting Disorders supports the recommendations of more recent consensus conferences, i.e. that rapid screening, such as with the SARC‐F questionnaire, should be utilized with a formal diagnosis being made by measuring grip strength or chair stand together with DXA estimation of appendicular muscle mass (indexed for height2). Assessments of the utility of ultrasound and creatine dilution techniques are ongoing. Use of ultrasound may not be easily reproducible. Primary sarcopenia is aging associated (mediated) loss of muscle mass. Secondary sarcopenia (or disease‐related sarcopenia) has predominantly focused on loss of muscle mass without the emphasis on muscle function. Diseases that can cause muscle wasting (i.e. secondary sarcopenia) include malignant cancer, COPD, heart failure, and renal failure and others. Management of sarcopenia should consist of resistance exercise in combination with a protein intake of 1 to 1.5 g/kg/day. There is insufficient evidence that vitamin D and anabolic steroids are beneficial. These recommendations apply to both primary (age‐related) sarcopenia and secondary (disease related) sarcopenia. Secondary sarcopenia also needs appropriate treatment of the underlying disease. It is important that primary care health professionals become aware of and make the diagnosis of age‐related and disease‐related sarcopenia. It is important to address the risk factors for sarcopenia, particularly low physical activity and sedentary behavior in the general population, using a life‐long approach. There is a need for more clinical research into the appropriate measurement for muscle mass and the management of sarcopenia. Accordingly, this position statement provides recommendations on the management of sarcopenia and how to progress the knowledge and recognition of sarcopenia.

Abstract The relationship between use of corticosteroids and fracture risk was estimated in a meta-analysis of data from seven cohort studies of ∼42,000 men and women. Current and past use of corticosteroids was an important predictor of fracture risk that was independent of prior fracture and BMD. Introduction: The aims of this study were to validate that corticosteroid use is a significant risk factor for fracture in an international setting and to explore the effects of age and sex on this risk. Materials and Methods: We studied 42,500 men and women from seven prospectively studied cohorts followed for 176,000 patient-years. The cohorts comprised the EPOS/EVOS study, CaMos, the Rotterdam Study, Dubbo Osteoporosis Epidemiology Study (DOES), and prospective cohorts at Sheffield, Rochester, and Gothenburg. The effect of ever use of corticosteroids, BMD, age, and sex on all fracture, osteoporotic fracture, and hip fracture risk alone was examined using Poisson regression in each cohort and for each sex. The results of the different studies were merged from the weighted β coefficients. Results: Previous corticosteroid use was associated with a significantly increased risk of any fracture, osteoporotic fracture, and hip fracture when adjusted for BMD. Relative risk of any fracture ranged from 1.98 at the age of 50 years to 1.66 at the age of 85 years. For osteoporotic fracture, the range of relative risk was 2.63-1.71, and for hip fracture 4.42-2.48. The estimate of relative risk was higher at younger ages, but not significantly so. No significant difference in risk was seen between men and women. The risk was marginally and not significantly upwardly adjusted when BMD was excluded from the model. The risk was independent of prior fracture. In the three cohorts that documented current corticosteroid use, BMD was significantly reduced at the femoral neck, but fracture risk was still only partly explained by BMD. Conclusion: We conclude that prior and current exposure to corticosteroids confers an increased risk of fracture that is of substantial importance beyond that explained by the measurement of BMD. Its identification on an international basis validates the use of this risk factor in case-finding strategies.

Abstract The relationship between BMD and fracture risk was estimated in a meta-analysis of data from 12 cohort studies of ∼39,000 men and women. Low hip BMD was an important predictor of fracture risk. The prediction of hip fracture with hip BMD also depended on age and z score. Introduction: The aim of this study was to quantify the relationship between BMD and fracture risk and examine the effect of age, sex, time since measurement, and initial BMD value. Materials and Methods: We studied 9891 men and 29,082 women from 12 cohorts comprising EVOS/EPOS, EPIDOS, OFELY, CaMos, Rochester, Sheffield, Rotterdam, Kuopio, DOES, Hiroshima, and 2 cohorts from Gothenburg. Cohorts were followed for up to 16.3 years and a total of 168,366 person-years. The effect of BMD on fracture risk was examined using a Poisson model in each cohort and each sex separately. Results of the different studies were then merged using weighted coefficients. Results: BMD measurement at the femoral neck with DXA was a strong predictor of hip fractures both in men and women with a similar predictive ability. At the age of 65 years, risk ratio increased by 2.94 (95% CI = 2.02-4.27) in men and by 2.88 (95% CI = 2.31-3.59) in women for each SD decrease in BMD. However, the effect was dependent on age, with a significantly higher gradient of risk at age 50 years than at age 80 years. Although the gradient of hip fracture risk decreased with age, the absolute risk still rose markedly with age. For any fracture and for any osteoporotic fracture, the gradient of risk was lower than for hip fractures. At the age of 65 years, the risk of osteoporotic fractures increased in men by 1.41 per SD decrease in BMD (95% CI = 1.33-1.51) and in women by 1.38 per SD (95% CI = 1.28-1.48). In contrast with hip fracture risk, the gradient of risk increased with age. For the prediction of any osteoporotic fracture (and any fracture), there was a higher gradient of risk the lower the BMD. At a z score of -4 SD, the risk gradient was 2.10 per SD (95% CI = 1.63-2.71) and at a z score of -1 SD, the risk was 1.73 per SD (95% CI = 1.59-1.89) in men and women combined. A similar but less pronounced and nonsignificant effect was observed for hip fractures. Data for ultrasound and peripheral measurements were available from three cohorts. The predictive ability of these devices was somewhat less than that of DXA measurements at the femoral neck by age, sex, and BMD value. Conclusions: We conclude that BMD is a risk factor for fracture of substantial importance and is similar in both sexes. Its validation on an international basis permits its use in case finding strategies. Its use should, however, take account of the variations in predictive value with age and BMD.