The relationship of cytomegalovirus with physical functioning and health-related quality of life in older adults, 2025

forestglip

Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Staff member
The relationship of cytomegalovirus with physical functioning and health-related quality of life in older adults
Frances A. Kirkham, Phu Sabei Shwe, Ekow Mensah & Chakravarthi Rajkumar

Aims/introduction
Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is a highly prevalent virus, known to be associated with cardiovascular morbidity. It has been hypothesised to play a role in the development of frailty, but its association with physical function and sarcopenia has yet to be fully understood. This study aimed to look at the relationship between CMV, sarcopenia and health-related quality of life in older adults.

Methods
210 people in the south of England, UK, with median age 68 years (49% male, 51% female) underwent demographic and medical questionnaires, measures of body composition (bioimpedance analysis), handgrip strength and the short form 36 item survey of quality of life (SF36). All participants had CMV serology and inflammatory markers measured. Measures of sarcopenia were calculated using European Working Group definitions.

Results
51.7% of participants were positive for CMV Immunoglobulin G (IgG). There were no significant differences between CMV positive and negative groups in age, gender, measures of sarcopenia or inflammatory markers. CMV positive groups had lower scores in all domains of the SF36, with significantly lower physical function score (88.7 vs 81.3, p = 0.003) as well as limitations due to physical health, energy/fatigue, social functioning and pain. On linear regression, CMV status was significantly associated with SF36 physical function score (p = 0.004) after adjustment for age, gender, body mass index, C-reactive protein and handgrip strength.

Conclusions
CMV positivity is significantly associated with physical function and health-related quality of life in older adults, although its direct relationship to sarcopenia is yet to be fully ascertained.

Link | PDF (European Geriatric Medicine) [Open Access]
 
It seems like they tested quite a lot of things. Did they correct for multiple testing in some way?
I think the main potential multiple testing issue would be where they looked at the association of CMV with 8 different domains of the SF-36, then only used the most significant for the followup linear regression. If there was barely any pattern of p-values, I'd be more concerned. But 5 out of 8 of them being below .05 indicates that it's more than pure randomness.

But just to see, here are what adjusted FDR values are for the CMV vs the 8 domains in the univariate portion (can be done easily online by searching for an "FDR calculator" like this one). All the original significant domains still have significant values:
SF-36 DomainP-valueBenjamini-Hochberg Adjusted P value
Pain0.0020.012
Physical functioning0.0030.012
Social functioning0.0140.03
Limitations due to physical health0.0150.03
Energy/fatigue0.0220.035
Emotional wellbeing0.0560.075
Limitations due to emotional health0.1320.151
General health0.4030.403
 
Back
Top Bottom