Journal of clinical densitometry : the official journal of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry · 2022
Assessment of gastrointestinal function and its' effect on bone mineral density and body composition in hypermobility spectrum disorder and hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
DiFrancisco-Donoghue Joanne, Southard Veronica, Margulies Madeline, Jung Min-Kyung, Allera Arline, Riley Bernadette
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome (hEDS) and Hypermobility Spectrum Disorders (HSD) are associated with hypermobility, musculoskeletal pain, a decreased bone mineral density (BMD) and gastrointestinal (GI) complications. The role of GI symptoms and diet in BMD has not been established in this population. The GI complications can lead to an energy deficit due to lack of essential macronutrients. The primary objective of this study was to determine the severity of GI symptoms compared to body composition and BMD in individuals with hEDS/HSD. The secondary objective is to examine GI symptoms on energy balance, body composition and strength.
METHODOLOGY: This study was IRB approved. Eighteen female participants (aged 28.2 ± 4.9; BMI 22.5 ± 4.9) with a diagnosis of hEDS or HSD and 18 female healthy control participants (aged 28.1 ± 3.8; BMI 22.8 ±3.9) signed consent to participate. Participants were matched by sex, age, and BMI. The Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS) was used to investigate severity of GI symptoms. Dual X-ray absorptiometry was used to determine body composition (body fat%, lean body mass (LBM). BMD was measured by Z- scores of both femurs and lumbar spine. Resting metabolic rate (RMR) was measured using indirect calorimetry and strength was determined using a hand grip dynamometer.
RESULTS: All hEDS/HSD participants reported GI symptoms. There was no difference in body composition between hEDS/HSD and controls. Participants with hEDS/HSD had lower BMD both femoral z scores (p=0.02,0.004) and spine z scores (p= 0.04). There was no difference in caloric intake between groups; yet both groups demonstrated caloric deficits. Additionally, hEDS/HSD consumed less protein and more carbohydrates (p=0.03, p=0.03). There were no differences in grip strength.
CONCLUSIONS: This study identified that pre-menopausal women with hEDS/HSD presented with significant GI complications and lower BMD than age matched controls. The GI complications and the reduced protein intake long-term may have a lasting impact on bone health. This study found that the GSRS identified and quantified GI symptoms in persons with hEDS/HSD. Future studies are needed for the longitudinal effects of a caloric/protein deficit in this population and to help guide future preventive and nutritional treatment approaches in individuals with hEDS/HSD.
METHODOLOGY: This study was IRB approved. Eighteen female participants (aged 28.2 ± 4.9; BMI 22.5 ± 4.9) with a diagnosis of hEDS or HSD and 18 female healthy control participants (aged 28.1 ± 3.8; BMI 22.8 ±3.9) signed consent to participate. Participants were matched by sex, age, and BMI. The Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS) was used to investigate severity of GI symptoms. Dual X-ray absorptiometry was used to determine body composition (body fat%, lean body mass (LBM). BMD was measured by Z- scores of both femurs and lumbar spine. Resting metabolic rate (RMR) was measured using indirect calorimetry and strength was determined using a hand grip dynamometer.
RESULTS: All hEDS/HSD participants reported GI symptoms. There was no difference in body composition between hEDS/HSD and controls. Participants with hEDS/HSD had lower BMD both femoral z scores (p=0.02,0.004) and spine z scores (p= 0.04). There was no difference in caloric intake between groups; yet both groups demonstrated caloric deficits. Additionally, hEDS/HSD consumed less protein and more carbohydrates (p=0.03, p=0.03). There were no differences in grip strength.
CONCLUSIONS: This study identified that pre-menopausal women with hEDS/HSD presented with significant GI complications and lower BMD than age matched controls. The GI complications and the reduced protein intake long-term may have a lasting impact on bone health. This study found that the GSRS identified and quantified GI symptoms in persons with hEDS/HSD. Future studies are needed for the longitudinal effects of a caloric/protein deficit in this population and to help guide future preventive and nutritional treatment approaches in individuals with hEDS/HSD.