Cross-sectional analysis reveals rising diabetes and prediabetes rates among adults with low muscle mass, indicating significant health disparities.
ObjectiveTo estimate the prevalence, temporal trends, and sociodemographic disparities of diagnosed diabetes and prediabetes among U.S. adults with low muscle mass using 2011-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data.MethodsThis cross-sectional analysis leveraged nationally representative NHANES data (2011-2018). A total of 12,753 adults aged ≥18 years with complete appendicular skeletal muscle mass, body mass index, and glycemic status data were included. Crude and age-standardized prevalence rates were analyzed across sociodemographic strata. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was employed to assess the association between low muscle mass and diabetes and prediabetes.ResultsFrom 2011 to 2018, age-standardized low muscle mass prevalence increased from 10.3% (95% confidence interval (CI): 8.6-12.0) to 18.4% (16.1-20.7). Among adults with low muscle mass, 14.4% (12.2-16.6) had diabetes and 26.5% (23.5-29.6) had prediabetes. Striking age-related disparities emerged: adults aged 40-59 years exhibited a 3.1-fold higher diabetes prevalence (22.6% [19.1-26.5] vs. 7.4% [5.1-10.5] in those aged 18-39) and a 1.7-fold higher prediabetes prevalence (34.2% [29.4-39.2] vs. 20.0% [16.4-24.3]). Mexican Americans had 1.6 times higher diabetes prevalence than non-Hispanic Whites, while non-Hispanic Blacks showed 1.3 times higher prevalence than non-Hispanic Whites. Multivariate logistic regression revealed that low muscle mass was significantly associated with a higher risk of diabetes (odds ratio: 1.38, 95% CI: 1.07-1.78).ConclusionsLow muscle mass is an independent predictor of diabetes risk. Over 40% of U.S. adults with low muscle mass exhibit dysglycemia, with rising prevalence and marked sociodemographic gradients. The prolonged diabetes duration in individuals with low muscle mass highlights accelerated metabolic deterioration.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhao et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: