Anthropometric Parameters in Patients with Fatty Acid Oxidation Disorders: A Case-Control Study, Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

This study compared the anthropometric parameters of patients with fatty acid oxidation disorders (FAOD) and healthy controls, showing an increased prevalence of abnormal body weight (overweight and obesity) in the FAOD group. First, differences in BMI, BMI percentiles and z-scores, and weight and weight percentiles were compared in a cohort of 39 patients with FAOD and 156 healthy controls, as well as between patients born before and after the introduction of a populational newborn screening programme (NBS) in 2014 in Poland. We also performed a systematic literature review yielding 12 studies mentioning anthropometric parameters in 80 FAOD patients and 121 control subjects, followed by a meta-analysis of data from 8 studies and our cohort. There were significant differences in body weight percentiles (p = 0.001), BMI (p = 0.022), BMI percentiles (p = 0.003) and BMI z-scores (p = 0.001) between FAOD patients and controls in our cohort but not between pre- and post-newborn-screening patients. The meta-analysis did not show any differences in weight and BMI in all tested subgroups, i.e., all FAOD patients vs. controls, medium-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase (MCADD) patients vs. controls and patients with FAOD types other than MCAD vs. controls. These results, however, should be interpreted with caution due to the overall low quality of evidence as assessed by GRADE, the small sample sizes and the significant heterogeneity of the included data.

Automated summary

This study compared the anthropometric parameters of patients with fatty acid oxidation disorders (FAOD) and healthy controls, finding a higher prevalence of abnormal body weight (overweight and obesity) in the FAOD group. Significant differences in body weight percentiles, BMI, BMI percentiles, and BMI z-scores were observed between FAOD patients and controls in the cohort. However, the meta-analysis did not show any differences in weight and BMI in all tested subgroups. Caution should be exercised when interpreting these results due to the low quality of evidence, small sample sizes, and significant heterogeneity of the included data.