19
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Poor Oral Health as a Determinant of Malnutrition and Sarcopenia

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Aging is accompanied by profound changes in many physiological functions, leading to a decreased ability to cope with stressors. Many changes are subtle, but can negatively affect nutrient intake, leading to overt malnutrition. Poor oral health may affect food selection and nutrient intake, leading to malnutrition and, consequently, to frailty and sarcopenia. On the other hand, it has been highlighted that sarcopenia is a whole-body process also affecting muscles dedicated to chewing and swallowing. Hence, muscle decline of these muscle groups may also have a negative impact on nutrient intake, increasing the risk for malnutrition. The interplay between oral diseases and malnutrition with frailty and sarcopenia may be explained through biological and environmental factors that are linked to the common burden of inflammation and oxidative stress. The presence of oral problems, alone or in combination with sarcopenia, may thus represent the biological substratum of the disabling cascade experienced by many frail individuals. A multimodal and multidisciplinary approach, including personalized dietary counselling and oral health care, may thus be helpful to better manage the complexity of older people. Furthermore, preventive strategies applied throughout the lifetime could help to preserve both oral and muscle function later in life. Here, we provide an overview on the relevance of poor oral health as a determinant of malnutrition and sarcopenia.

          Related collections

          Most cited references126

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Welcome to the ICD‐10 code for sarcopenia

          Abstract The new ICD‐10‐CM (M62.84) code for sarcopenia represents a major step forward in recognizing sarcopenia as a disease. This should lead to an increase in availability of diagnostic tools and the enthusiasm for pharmacological companies to develop drugs for sarcopenia.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Sarcopenia and Physical Frailty: Two Sides of the Same Coin

            Since the last decade, geriatrics and gerontology researchers have been devoting an increasing amount of efforts in the attempt of designing, developing, and implementing preventive interventions against conditions determining/driving the disabling cascade. The urgency of moving ahead in the field is not merely dictated by scientific interests; such need has indeed become a frequent and central item in the agendas of public health authorities (Guralnik et al., 1996). In fact, there is a growing demand for the identification of effective solutions against the detrimental consequences that age-related conditions (in particular, disabilities) exert on our healthcare systems. Special attention has been given to sarcopenia (Janssen et al., 2004) and frailty (Clegg et al., 2013) because both are (1) highly prevalent in the elderly, (2) associated with negative health-related events, (3) potentially reversible, and (4) relatively easy to implement in the clinical practice. The term “sarcopenia” was coined by Rosenberg to indicate the loss of muscle mass that accompanies aging. He clearly stated that “there is probably no decline in structure and function more dramatic than the decline in lean body mass or muscle mass over the decades of life” (Rosenberg, 1997). The muscle loss was therefore seen as a means of convenience for exploring the aging process and its consequences on an individual’s health. Nevertheless, the skeletal muscle cannot be isolated by the hosting organism. As such, it is still subject to the influence of all the positive and negative stressors to which the organism is exposed. In other words, the endogenous and exogenous phenomena capable of modifying the aging trajectory of the organism can also (more or less directly) influence the quality and quantity of the muscle. Frailty is the term used to indicate a geriatric syndrome characterized by reduced homeostatic reserves, which exposes the individual at increased risk of negative health-related events (including falls, hospitalizations, worsening disability, institutionalization, and mortality) (Rodríguez-Mañas et al., 2012; Clegg et al., 2013). Different operational definitions have been proposed for capturing the frailty status, each one focusing on specific aspects of the syndrome and detecting slightly different risk profiles (Theou et al., 2014). Nevertheless, there is an overall agreement about the key role that physical function (in particular, mobility) plays in the determination of the status of extreme vulnerability (Ferrucci et al., 2004; Daniels et al., 2008; Abellan van Kan et al., 2009). Since the beginning (roughly about 15–20 years ago), sarcopenia and frailty have been studied in parallel. Being organ-specific, sarcopenia was more frequently object of research in basic science, whereas the concept of frailty tended to be more easily applied in the clinical setting (Bauer and Sieber, 2008). However, it was quite inevitable that the two would have sooner or later started converging due to their close relationship with the aging process. Unfortunately, the definition of a clear framework within which sarcopenia and frailty can be accommodated and studied has yet to come. One major issue in this context is the long-lasting, tiring, and potentially pointless controversy about the causal relationship existing between the two. Determining whether frailty is due to sarcopenia, or sarcopenia is a clinical manifestation of frailty is consuming considerable efforts, and (from a very practical viewpoint) rather resembles the problem of “the egg and the chicken.” We realize that the clarification of this point might have major consequences in the field, determining different risk profiles to be detected and, consequently, redrawing outcomes as well as interventions to be adopted. Yet, the isolation of a single pathophysiological determinant responsible for these complex conditions (as well as for any other age-related process) is quite unlikely to be obtained, simply because aging is a complicated and still largely unknown phenomenon (Cesari et al., 2013). By stating this, we are not surrendering to the current limitations of science. We are instead soliciting the taking of more pragmatic decisions on this topic, waiting that next-to-come scientific advancements allow a better clarification and definition of such urgent and pivotal matters. From this perspective, deconstructing the inner foundations of these “twin” conditions and trying to focus on the shared and clinical relevant features of them might represent a possible solution. By this way, we might have the opportunity to (1) define a unique target for both sarcopenia and frailty, (2) simplify their operational definition, and (3) promote the implementation of the two conditions in both clinical and research settings. As shown in Figure 1, sarcopenia and frailty are characterized by a unique core condition: the physical function impairment (usually measured by objective tests of gait speed and muscle strength). Such impairment may be responsible for the concurrent existence of a disability as well as represent a consequence of it. It is indeed the presence of disability that influences the framing under which the sarcopenia–frailty relationship should be observed. In fact, in the disabled individual, sarcopenia and frailty might more likely represent the consequences of a permanent disruption of the organism’s homeostasis with limited chances of reversibility. In such situation, sarcopenia rather tends to assume the lineaments of cachexia (Rolland et al., 2011), whereas the frailty status is largely dominated by the disabling condition (Fried et al., 2004). This scenario of tertiary prevention requires the treatment of disability plus ancillary interventions aimed at reducing the risks of complications (Gordis, 2009). The physical function impairment resulting from the combination of sarcopenia and frailty assumes completely different aspects when detected in the absence of disability. In this case, it will represent the first preliminary stage of a process potentially driving the individual toward more severe functional losses and incapacities. In other words, by acting in the preclinical phase of the illness, it will define an ideal target for activities of secondary prevention against disability (Gordis, 2009). Figure 1 Relationship among sarcopenia, frailty, and physical function impairment. When sarcopenia, frailty, and disability are simultaneously present, disentangling one from the others becomes almost impossible. In fact, the interactions among sarcopenia, frailty, and disability will take the shape of a vicious circle characterized by the exponential and concurrent worsening of all the three. Differently, if disability is absent, the relationship between sarcopenia and frailty might be conceptualized as a vector with a pre-defined direction and for which the only missing information is its sense. Such missing datum is not clinically relevant if the intervention to be put in place is capable of positively influence both the conditions of interest at the same time. To put it differently, by eliminating one condition (i.e., disability) from the framework, the picture becomes clearer and potentially easier to address. Not surprisingly, most of the clinical activities in the field of frailty and sarcopenia are indeed aimed at preventing incident disability (Subra et al., 2012; Maggio et al., 2014). The shared features that make sarcopenia and frailty particularly appealing in the study of age-related conditions are contended with the common issue represented by their difficult translation from theory into practice. The theoretical definitions of sarcopenia and frailty are both well described and quite unanimously accepted. Nevertheless, both concepts currently lack unique, standardized, and universally agreed operational definitions. Several consensus papers have provided recommendations on how to identify sarcopenic individuals (Cruz-Jentoft et al., 2010; Muscaritoli et al., 2010; Fielding et al., 2011; Morley et al., 2011). Just recently, in order to address the existing inconsistencies, a set of articles by the foundation for the national institutes of health (FNIH) has been published (Alley et al., 2014; Cawthon et al., 2014; Dam et al., 2014; McLean et al., 2014; Studenski et al., 2014). One of the major features of these recent publications (besides of being based on ad hoc analyses of large sample populations) is the attempt to better discriminate the specific contributions of the skeletal muscle mass and function in the generation of the negative outcomes (in particular, mobility disability). Similar to sarcopenia, multiple definitions of frailty have also been developed over the last years (Clegg et al., 2013; Theou et al., 2014). Despite the existence of different positions in the scientific community about the concept of frailty and its operationalization, it is noteworthy the publication of a recent report by an international panel of experts (Morley et al., 2013). In the article, the authors (from different schools of thought) unanimously convened about the need of taking a step forward in the study of frailty, avoiding any further delay, and promoting the implementation of the syndrome in clinics and research. The heterogeneous modalities of measuring sarcopenia and frailty make them difficult to be accepted by public health authorities and regulatory agencies, inevitably endangering advancements in the field. This issue is particularly annoying, especially if it is realized that no assessment tool in medicine will ever be able to accurately replicate the measured condition. In fact, the measurement may be considered as the forcedly limited and arbitrary mean through which we obtain an estimate of a specific phenomenon of the overall health status (mostly unknown to us in its detailed pathophysiological characteristics). The speculative aspect of choosing one operational definition over another is particularly frustrating in geriatrics and gerontology where every condition is watered and confused by the effects of aging at both clinical and subclinical levels (Cesari et al., 2013). By acknowledging such limitations [which are also responsible for the well known “evidence-based” issue in geriatric medicine (Straus and McAlister, 2000; Scott and Guyatt, 2010)], it becomes reasonable and practical to better pay attention to what really matters in the sarcopenic and/or frail older person. If we isolate the clinical manifestations shared by both sarcopenia and frailty, we might easily agree that physical function is at the very core of the two (Figure 1). In particular, mobility (resulting from the proper functioning of muscles, coordination, and balance) is a capacity common to almost every living being (Dickinson et al., 2000). This implies that animal models focused on mobility may support the development of novel interventions against disability by providing crucial preliminary information (Carter et al., 2012). Mobility decline is a clear manifestation of aging and represents a major negative event of life (Cummings et al., 2014). It is also noteworthy that physical function can easily be measured in an objective way (Studenski et al., 2003), is predictive of adverse outcomes (Guralnik et al., 1994, 1995; Studenski et al., 2011), and represents the clearest (and most obvious) estimate of skeletal muscle production (or in a broader sense, quality) (Lauretani et al., 2003). Freeing the concepts of sarcopenia and frailty from what can be perceived as only indirectly related to the target organ (i.e., skeletal muscle) may indeed represent a possible solution for combining them into a unique, objective, standardized, and clinically relevant definition (Figure 1). The implementation in clinical and research settings might also be significantly facilitated by the huge body of literature exploring/describing the condition of physical impairment and the validity/acceptance of dedicated instruments [in particular, the short physical performance battery (Guralnik et al., 1994), usual gait speed (Studenski et al., 2011), and handgrip strength (Rantanen et al., 1999)]. In conclusion, we believe there is an urgent need of refining the assessments of sarcopenia and frailty. The physical function impairment occurring in the absence of disability may represent the shared core of the two conditions and optimally serve for (1) defining a novel target for interventions against disability, (2) facilitating the translation of the two conditions in the clinical arena, and (3) providing an objective, standardized, and clinically relevant condition to be adopted by public health and regulatory agencies. Such conceptualization might eventually encourage key stakeholders to join their efforts for more correctly and efficiently approaching the age-related conditions of sarcopenia and frailty, two entities that are still not yet adequately considered. Conflict of Interest Statement The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Immobilization induces anabolic resistance in human myofibrillar protein synthesis with low and high dose amino acid infusion.

              We tested the hypothesis that increasing blood amino acid (AA) availability would counter the physical inactivity-induced reduction in muscle protein synthesis. We determined how 14 days of unilateral knee immobilization affected quadriceps myofibrillar protein synthesis (MPS) in young healthy subjects (10 men, 2 women, 21 +/- 1 years; 80.2 +/- 4.0 kg, mean +/- S.E.M.) in the post-absorptive state and after infusing AA (10% Primene) at low or high doses (43 and 261 mg kg(-1) h(-1)). Muscle cross-sectional area (MRI) and peak isometric torque declined in the immobilized leg (-5.0 +/- 1.2% and -25 +/- 3%, respectively, both P 0.6) in the non-immobilized leg. Immobilization induced a 27% decline in the rate of post-absorptive MPS (immobilized, 0.027 +/- 0.003: non-immobilized, 0.037 +/- 0.003% h(-1); P < 0.001). Regardless of dose, AA infusion stimulated a greater rise in MPS in the non-immobilized legs; at 4 h MPS was greater by +54 +/- 12% with low dose and +68 +/- 17% with high dose AA infusion (both P < 0.001). There was some evidence of delayed responsiveness of phosphorylation of Akt to high doses of AA and p70S6k at both doses but no marked differences in that of mTOR, GSK3beta or eEF2. Phosphorylation of focal adhesion kinase (Tyr(576/577)) was reduced (P < 0.05) with immobilization. We observed no change in polyubiquitinated protein content after immobilization. We confirm that 14 days of immobilization reduces MPS in the post-absorptive state and this diminution is reduced but not abolished by increased provision of AA, even at high rates. The immobilization-induced decline in post-absorptive MPS with the 'anabolic resistance' to amino acids can account for much of immobilization-induced muscle atrophy.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Nutrients
                Nutrients
                nutrients
                Nutrients
                MDPI
                2072-6643
                29 November 2019
                December 2019
                : 11
                : 12
                : 2898
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Geriatric Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, 20122 Milan, Italy; matteo.cesari@ 123456unimi.it
                [2 ]Department of Clinical Sciences and Community Health, University of Milan, 20122 Milan, Italy
                [3 ]Department of Head and Neck, Oral Surgery and Implantology Unit, Institute of Clinical Dentistry, Catholic University of Sacred Hearth, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Gemelli, 00168 Rome, Italy; piercarminepassarelli@ 123456hotmail.it (P.C.P.); dr.paolodeangelis@ 123456gmail.com (P.D.A.); giovanbpiccirillo@ 123456gmail.com (G.B.P.); antonio.daddona@ 123456unicatt.it (A.D.)
                Author notes
                [†]

                These authors contributed equally to this work.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4910-7373
                Article
                nutrients-11-02898
                10.3390/nu11122898
                6950386
                31795351
                f9039c59-a990-4d28-819d-24a77308ccf3
                © 2019 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 07 November 2019
                : 27 November 2019
                Categories
                Review

                Nutrition & Dietetics
                sarcopenia,nutrition,oral health,older people,malnutrition,swallowing,life course approach

                Comments

                Comment on this article