4.7 Article

The Effect of PTH(1-84) on Quality of Life in Hypoparathyroidism

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM
卷 98, 期 6, 页码 2356-2361

出版社

ENDOCRINE SOC
DOI: 10.1210/jc.2013-1239

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [DK069350]
  2. NPS Pharmaceuticals
  3. Amgen

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Context: Complaints from hypoparathyroid patients often reflect a reduction in quality of life (QOL), yet few data exist characterizing these complaints or the potential effects of PTH therapy to ameliorate them. Objective: We tested the hypothesis that PTH(1-84) therapy improves QOL in hypoparathyroidism. Design: Fifty-four hypoparathyroid subjects received open-label recombinant human PTH(1-84). Before and during PTH(1-84), subjects completed the RAND 36-Item Health Survey, a measure of health-related QOL covering 8 domains of physical and mental health. Results: At baseline, subjects scored significantly lower than the normative reference range in all 8 domains (T-scores -1.35 to -0.78; P < 0.001 for all). With PTH(1-84), the total score improved as early as month 1 and remained higher through 1 year (400 +/- 200 to 478 +/- 230; P = 0.001). The overall mental component summary score improved (204 +/- 110 to 247 +/- 130; P = 0.001), as did 3 mental health domains (vitality, social functioning, and mental health), all within 1 month (T-scores improving from -1.3 to -0.7, -1.0 to -0.6, and -0.9 to -0.3, respectively; P < 0.05 for all). The overall physical component summary score also increased by 1 month and remained higher at 1 year (196 +/- 110 to 231 +/- 130; P = 0.003) as did 2 physical health domains (physical functioning and general health: T-scores improving from -0.8 to -0.4, -1.2 to -0.8, respectively; P < 0.01 for both). Conclusions: These data suggest that hypoparathyroidism is associated with compromised QOL. Along with improved biochemical control, these results indicate that PTH(1-84) treatment of hypoparathyroidism improves physical and mental functioning.

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

4.7
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