4.7 Article

Inflammatory Markers in Anorexia Nervosa: An Exploratory Study

期刊

NUTRIENTS
卷 10, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu10111573

关键词

anorexia nervosa; inflammatory markers; inflammation; cytokines; chemokines; adhesion molecules

资金

  1. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grant for Applied Research [RP-PG-0606-1043]
  2. Department of Psychological Medicine, King's College London (KCL)
  3. Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience (IoPPN), KCL
  4. NIHR

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Inflammation has been suggested to play a pathophysiological role in anorexia nervosa (AN). In this exploratory cross-sectional study, we measured serum concentrations of 40 inflammatory markers (including cytokines, chemokines, and adhesion molecules) and brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) in people with AN (n = 27) and healthy controls (HCs) (n = 13). Many of these inflammatory markers had not been previously quantified in people with AN. Eating disorder (ED) and general psychopathology symptoms were assessed. Body mass index (BMI) and body composition data were obtained. Interleukin (IL)-6, IL-15, and vascular cell adhesion molecule (VCAM)-1 concentrations were significantly elevated and concentrations of BDNF, tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-beta, and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-A were significantly lower in AN participants compared to HCs. Age, BMI, and percentage body fat mass were identified as potential confounding variables for several of these inflammatory markers. Of particular interest is that most of the quantified markers were unchanged in people with AN, despite them being severely underweight with evident body fat loss, and having clinically significant ED symptoms and severe depression and anxiety symptoms. Future research should examine the replicability of our findings and consider the effect of additional potential confounding variables, such as smoking and physical activity, on the relationship between AN and inflammation.

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