Table 3 Study characteristics
First author/year of publication | Design | Population n =, age, gender and co-morbidity | AGE/RAGE Circulating/Tissue levels, Tissue type | Musculoskeletal outcome | Physical performance and functioning outcome | Main findings and Outcome statistics: |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Semba et al. 2010 [45] | Cross-sectional | Community dwelling older adults N = 944 (416 M, 528 F), aged 75 ± 7 years | Circulating plasma CML (cut-off value for high level = 424 ng/mL) | - | Walking speed (cut-off value for slow walking <0.79 m/s) | Risk for slow walking speed with high AGE’s level: OR = 1.60 (95 % CI:1.02–2.52)*c OR = 1.87 (95 % CI:1.15–3.04)*c (+ adjusted for DM2) |
Sun et al. 2012 [46] | Longitudinal observational study with 30 month follow-up | Moderately to severe disabled community dwelling F, N = 394, aged 76 ± 8 years | Circulating serum CML (cut-off value for high level = 689.1 ng/mL) | - | Walking disability (inability or slow speed) (cut-off value for slow walking <0.4 m/s) | Walking disability risk with high AGE’s level: HR = 1.68 (95 % CI: 1.11–2.52)* HR = 1.63 (95 % CI: 1.06–2.49)*c(1) HR = 1.56 (95 % CI: 1.04–2.36)*c(2) HR = 1.54 (95 % CI: 1.04–2.29)*c(3) HR = 1.46 (95 % CI: 0.95–2.23) NS.c(4) |
Whitson et al., 2014 [47] | Longitudinal observational study with 14 year follow-up for ADL disability. Cross-sectional for physical frailty components | Community dwelling older adults N = 3373 (1344 M, 2029 F) aged 78.1 ± 4.8 years | Circulating serum CML (cut-off value for high level = 620 ng/mL) | ADL disability Physical frailty ≥3 of following characteristics: 1. Low handgrip strength 2. Unintentional weight loss 3. Low physical activity 4. Exhaustion 5. Slow walking speed | ADL disability risk with high AGE’s level: HR = 1.08 (95 % CI: 1.03–1.13)*b HR = 1.10 (95 % CI: 1.05–1.15)*c HR = 1.05 (95 % CI: 1.01–1.11)*c (+ adjusted for arthritis, cognition, kidney disease) Physical frailty risk with high AGE’s level in men: HR = 1.30 (95 % CI: 1.14–1.48)*b HR = 1.24 (95 % CI: 1.07–1.45)*c HR = 1.10 (95 % CI: 0.92–1.32) NS.c (+ adjusted for arthritis, cognition, kidney disease) Physical frailty risk with high AGE’s level in women: HR = 1.06 (95 % CI: 0.91–1.23) NS.b HR = 1.06 (95 % CI: 0.90–1.24) NS.c HR = 0.91 (95 % CI: 0.77–1.07) NS.c (+ adjusted for arthritis, cognition, kidney disease) | |
Shah et al. 2015 [50] | Cross-sectional | DM2 patients N = 26 (13 M, 13 F) aged 64,5 ± 6,8 Non DM N = 26 (13 M, 13 F) aged 64,2 ± 5,8 | AGE-type not defined (skin tissue auto fluorescent Crosslinking AGE’s) | Shoulder flexor strength | 1. Upper extremity disability 2. Upper extremity function | Correlation flexor strength and AGE’s level: R = 0,07 NS Correlation Upper extremity disability and AGE’s level: R = 0,51* Correlation Upper extremity function and AGE’s level: − humerothoracic elevation R = −0.44* − glenohumeral external rotation R = −0.32 NS |
Dalal et al. 2009 [43] | Cross- sectional | Moderately to severe disabled community dwelling F, N = 559, aged 76 ± 8 years | Circulating serum CML (cut-off value for high level = 0.68 mg/mL) | Handgrip strength | - | Group difference high vs. low AGE’s level: 18.2 (6.4) kg. vs. 20.1 (6.2) kg., Beta −1.88 (SE = 0.65)* 18.6 kg vs. 20.0 kg, Beta −1.31 (SE = 0.61)*c |
De La Maza et al. 2008 [49] | Cross-sectional | Healthy M, N = 21 − Weight maintainers, N = 10, − aged 41 ± 4 years − Weight gainers, N = 7, aged 42 ± 5 years − Elderly, N = 4, aged 67 ± 2 years | Skeletal muscle tissue CML/RAGE | Handgrip strength | - | Correlation grip strength and AGE’s level: R = −0,54* |
Momma et al. 2011 [44] | Cross-sectional | Healthy M, aged 46 years (37–56)a - Grip strength analysis, N = 232 - Leg extension analysis, N = 138 | AGE-type not defined (skin tissue auto fluorescent Crosslinking AGE’s) (cut-off value for high level = 2.09–4.44 AF) | 1. Handgrip strength 2. Leg extension power | - | Group difference high vs low AGE’s level: 1. Muscle (handgrip)strength: 41.7 (95 % CI: 40.3- 43.1) kg. vs. 44.5 (95 % CI: 43.2- 45.9) kg.*c ES = 0.45 2. Muscle (leg extension) power: 16.0 (95 % CI: 14.9- 17.1) W/kg. vs. 17.8 (95 % CI: 16.6- 19.1) W/kg.*c ES = 0.44 |
Tanaka et al. 2015 [48] | Cross-sectional | DM2 patients, F, N = 133, aged 66,8 ± 9,5 years | Circulating serum Pentosidine | 1. Upper extremity muscle mass 2. Lower extremity muscle mass 3. Relative skeletal muscle mass index |  | Association UMM and AGE’s level: R = −0.11 NS Beta −0.11 NS Association LMM and AGE’s level: R = −0.21* Beta −0.18* Association RSMI and AGE’s level: R = −0.18* Beta −0.27* |