4.0 Article

Nutritional aspects and cardiovascular risk in systemic lupus erythematosus

Journal

REVISTA DA ASSOCIACAO MEDICA BRASILEIRA
Volume 67, Issue 5, Pages 656-660

Publisher

ASSOC MEDICA BRASILEIRA
DOI: 10.1590/1806-9282.20200817

Keywords

Nutrition; Cardiovascular system; Systemic lupus erythematosus

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study found that patients with systemic lupus erythematosus have nutritional deficiencies and obesity issues, with some patients meeting the diagnostic criteria for metabolic syndrome. The results indicate the need for cardiovascular disease nutritional guidance in these patients to reduce risk factors and improve quality of life.
OBJECTIVE: Patients with systemic lupus erythematosus present with a higher number of classic risk factors for coronary diseases and a higher prevalence of metabolic syndrome resulting from the disease itself. To evaluate the nutritional indicators of the cardiovascular risk of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus by analyzing eating habits, anthropometry, laboratory data, and disease activity and to describe the prevalence of patients fulfilling the criteria for metabolic syndrome. METHODS: Anthropometric measurements including waist circumference, food recall, and laboratory tests. RESULTS: The population presented an insufficient daily intake of micronutrients. Anthropometry revealed that 37.5% of the patients were classified with degree II obesity by body mass index and 76.8% by abdominal obesity. Regarding metabolic syndrome, 18 patients (16%) fulfilled the diagnostic criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with systemic lupus erythematosus presented with increased risk factors, as determined using anthropometric measurements and laboratory tests, for cardiovascular disease, indicating the need for nutritional guidance in this population to reduce cardiovascular risk, increase the quality of life, and increase survival of these patients.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available