4.5 Article

Do patients with osteogenesis imperfecta need individualized nutritional support?

Journal

NUTRITION
Volume 28, Issue 2, Pages 138-142

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.nut.2011.04.003

Keywords

Osteogenesis imperfecta; Nutritional status; Body composition

Funding

  1. FAPESP [08/51095-3]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Information regarding nutrition and body composition in patients diagnosed with osteogenesis imperfecta (OI) is scarce. In the present study, nutritional status, bone mineral density, and biochemical parameters of subjects with Of were evaluated. Methods: Patients with type I OI (n = 13) and type III OI (n = 13) and healthy controls (n = 8) were selected. Nutritional status and bone mineral density were assessed by a 3-d food diary and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry at the lumbar spine, respectively. Body mass index, serum albumin, calcium, creatinine, cross-linked C-telopeptide, parathyroid hormone, and 25-hydroxivitamin D-3 were also evaluated. Results: Patients with OI had lower bone mineral density (P < 0.05 versus controls). Patients with type III OI had the highest body mass index (P < 0.05 versus patients with type I OI and controls) and the lowest lean body mass (P < 0.05 versus patients with type I OI and controls). In patients with OI, the number of fractures was positively correlated with body mass index (r = 0.581, P = 0.002) and the percentage of body fat (r = 0.451, P = 0.027) and negatively correlated to lean body mass (r = -0.523, P = 0.009). Even when taking dietary supplements, 58% and 12% of subjects with OI did not achieve the calcium and vitamin D recommendations, respectively. Conclusions: Body composition is a risk factor for bone fractures in subjects with OI. Individualized nutritional support is recommended not only to improve body composition but also to potentiate pharmacologic and physical therapies. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available