4.1 Article

Weight, body composition and handgrip strength among pulmonary tuberculosis patients: a matched cross-sectional study in Mwanza, Tanzania

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.trstmh.2010.11.009

关键词

pulmonary tuberculosis; HIV; weight; body composition; nutritional status; handgrip strength

资金

  1. Danish Council for Independent Research - Medical Sciences [22-04-0404]
  2. Danida through the Consultative Research Committee for Development Research [104.Dan.8-898]
  3. University of Copenhagen through the Cluster in International Health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to estimate deficits in weight, arm fat area (AFA), arm muscle area (AMA) and handgrip strength among smear-positive pulmonary TB (PTB+) patients starting treatment. We conducted a cross-sectional study among PTB+ patients and age- and sex-matched neighborhood controls. HIV status, anthropometric measurements and handgrip strength were determined. Deficits in weight, AFA, AMA and handgrip strength associated with PTB+ and HIV were estimated using multiple regression analysis. We recruited 355 pairs of PTB+ patients and controls. PTB+ was associated with deficits of 10.0 kg (95% CI 7.3; 12.7) in weight and 6.8 kg (95% CI 5.2; 8.3) in handgrip strength among females and 9.1 kg (95% CI 7.3; 10.9) in weight and 6.8 kg (95% CI 5.2; 8.4) in handgrip strength among males. In both sexes, PTB+ was associated with deficits in AFA and AMA. Among females, HIV was associated with deficits in AMA and handgrip strength, but the deficit in handgrip strength was larger among PTB+ patients (3.2 kg 95% CI 1.3; 5.2) than controls (-1.6 kg 95% CI -4.8; 1.5) (interaction, P=0.009). These findings suggest that deficits in weight and handgrip strength among patients starting TB treatment are severe. Thus, nutritional support may be necessary to ensure reversal of the deficits, and may improve treatment outcomes. (C) 2010 Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.1
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