4.4 Article

Bone mineral density in patients of Graves disease pre- & post-treatment in a predominantly vitamin D deficient population

期刊

INDIAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL RESEARCH
卷 135, 期 1, 页码 36-41

出版社

INDIAN COUNCIL MEDICAL RES
DOI: 10.4103/0971-5916.93422

关键词

Bone mineral density; Graves' disease; hyperthyroidism; vitamin D deficiency

资金

  1. All India Institute of Medical Sciences [F.6-1/2006-Acad]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background & objectives: Hyperthyroidism causes bone loss, and its treatment may restore bone mass, however, concomitant vitamin D deficiency may prevent this. We undertook this study to measure the bone mineral density (BMD) 25 (OH) vitamin D levels in patients with Graves disease in our population which is predominently vitamin D deficient and how we change with when patients become euthyroid. Methods: The biochemical, thyroid functions, serum vitamin D levels and BMD were estimated in 80 consecutive patients with Graves and 80 euthyroid controls. Patients were treated and rendered euthyroid. Fifty four completed one year, and 27 completed two years of follow up. a Results: Patients had significant reduced BMD during hyperthyroid state compared to normal healthy controls. The mean vitamin D levels at baseline were in the insufficient range both patients (12.67 +/- 6.24 ng/ml) and controls (10.99 +/- 7.05 ng/ml). The BMD improved at all sites with antithyroid treatment. But, the BMD adjusted for body mass index (BMI) and age at all sites showed significant decrease with time. Interpretation & conclusions: Age and body mass index positively correlated with BMD. There was improvement in absolute BMD of patients at one and two years of follow up. When the BMD was adjusted for age and BMI, there was a decrease in BMD at one year which was less in the second year including that the damage in BMD caused by thyroid hormone excess is not made up even after two years of patient being euthyroid. Whether vitamin D replacement would change this needs to be studied.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据