Diabetology & metabolic syndrome · 2024
Phase angle and body composition in long-term type 1 diabetes in adults: a comparative study in a Brazilian public reference outpatient clinic.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Fenner-Pena Natália, Fajardo Virgínia Capistrano, Froes Lívia, Carvalho Paulo Augusto Miranda, Comim Fábio Vasconcellos, Sahade Viviane, Lauria Márcio Weissheimer, Torres Henrique Oswaldo da Gama
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus (DM1) affects a small percentage of the population. Nevertheless, its prevalence is currently growing with alarming data on uncontrolled cases. The importance of body composition and Phase Angle (PA), assessed by Bioelectrical Impedance (BIA), in long- term DM1 patients lies in the fact that alterations in cellular integrity and body compartments may affect risk profiles and metabolic control. The objective of this study was to compare PA and body composition parameters between adults with DM1 and healthy controls.
METHODS: A comparative study was carried out in a public university outpatient clinic including a cohort of adult patients of both sexes diagnosed with DM1 and healthy controls matched by age and sex in a 2:1 ratio. Anthropometric measurements included weight, height and BMI. Using the raw BIA data of Resistance and Reactance, fat-free mass (FFM), fat mass (FM), fat-free mass index (FFMI), fat mass index (FMI), PA and standardized PA (SPA) were calculated. Means or medians were compared between the groups. Regression models were used to identify distinguishing characteristics of the groups and associations within the DM1 group (i.e. glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), disease duration, presence of microvascular complications, capillary blood glucose, BMI and FMI).
RESULTS: 88 patients with DM1and 46 healthy controls were evaluated. PA (6.05 vs. 6.85, p = 0.000) and SPA (-1.47 vs. -0,37, p = 0.000) were lower in patients with DM1 compared to healthy controls. People with DM1 displayed higher adiposity (%FM = 29.6 vs. 27.6, p = 0.016; FMI = 7.00 vs. 6.33, p = 0.016) and lower %FFM compared to healthy controls. Most of the differences were maintained after sex stratification; however, men with DM1 showed a lower FFMI than male controls (18.2 vs. 20.16, p = 0.029).
CONCLUSION: Patients with DM1 present lower PA than healthy controls, which may be related to worse cell membrane integrity. Significant body composition differences between the groups and between sexes were identified, with data showing greater adiposity in women with DM1 and men displaying lower muscle mass. These findings suggest the importance of including PA and body composition evaluations in the follow-up of patients with DM1. The ultimate goal is to obtain a better metabolic control and, consequently, a better prognosis.
METHODS: A comparative study was carried out in a public university outpatient clinic including a cohort of adult patients of both sexes diagnosed with DM1 and healthy controls matched by age and sex in a 2:1 ratio. Anthropometric measurements included weight, height and BMI. Using the raw BIA data of Resistance and Reactance, fat-free mass (FFM), fat mass (FM), fat-free mass index (FFMI), fat mass index (FMI), PA and standardized PA (SPA) were calculated. Means or medians were compared between the groups. Regression models were used to identify distinguishing characteristics of the groups and associations within the DM1 group (i.e. glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), disease duration, presence of microvascular complications, capillary blood glucose, BMI and FMI).
RESULTS: 88 patients with DM1and 46 healthy controls were evaluated. PA (6.05 vs. 6.85, p = 0.000) and SPA (-1.47 vs. -0,37, p = 0.000) were lower in patients with DM1 compared to healthy controls. People with DM1 displayed higher adiposity (%FM = 29.6 vs. 27.6, p = 0.016; FMI = 7.00 vs. 6.33, p = 0.016) and lower %FFM compared to healthy controls. Most of the differences were maintained after sex stratification; however, men with DM1 showed a lower FFMI than male controls (18.2 vs. 20.16, p = 0.029).
CONCLUSION: Patients with DM1 present lower PA than healthy controls, which may be related to worse cell membrane integrity. Significant body composition differences between the groups and between sexes were identified, with data showing greater adiposity in women with DM1 and men displaying lower muscle mass. These findings suggest the importance of including PA and body composition evaluations in the follow-up of patients with DM1. The ultimate goal is to obtain a better metabolic control and, consequently, a better prognosis.