4.5 Article

Growth Hormone Replacement Therapy in Patients with Traumatic Brain Injury

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROTRAUMA
卷 30, 期 11, 页码 998-1006

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/neu.2012.2705

关键词

activities of daily living; cognitive disorders; hormone replacement therapy; pituitary hormone deficiency; quality of life; traumatic brain injury

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI), a growth hormone deficiency (GHD) is frequent and may contribute to the cognitive sequelae and reduction in quality of life (QoL). Recent studies have suggested that GH replacement therapy (GHRT) can improve processing speed and memory. The aim of the study was to analyze the efficacy of GHRT on cognition, activities of daily living (ADL), and QoL and the factors that predicted and contributed to these effects. We included patients at least 1 year after their TBI and assessed pituitary functions (with stimulation tests), cognition (attention, memory, and executive function), participation in ADL and QoL. GHD was treated for at least 1 year in 23 patients, who were compared with 27 non-treated patients. Other deficiencies were also treated. Measurements were performed at baseline and 1 year later. An analysis of variance of the factors group and session (p <= 0.05) showed that most cognitive parameters had improved at 1 year (evidencing a session effect). A stronger effect of GHRT (i. e. a group x session interaction) was found for Rey Osterrieth complex figure recall and 2/6 domains in the QoL questionnaire (personal'' and functional''). Trends (p <= 0.07) were also found for spatial orientation and immediate recall in the verbal memory test. Greatest improvements were associated with lower performance before treatment. The magnitude of the improvements in ADL and QoL was moderately correlated with the improvement in cognition. In conclusion, replacement therapy can improve cognition and QoL in patients with TBI who have GHD, especially in those with severe disabilities.

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

4.5
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