4.7 Review

Nutrient Intake and Nutritional Status in Adult Patients with Inherited Metabolic Diseases Treated with Low-Protein Diets: A Review on Urea Cycle Disorders and Branched Chain Organic Acidemias

期刊

NUTRIENTS
卷 12, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu12113331

关键词

urea cycle; organic acidurias; inherited metabolic diseases; low protein diet; adult patients

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Low-protein diets (LPDs) are the main treatment for urea cycle disorders (UCDs) and organic acidemias (OAs). In most cases, LPDs start in childhood and must be continued into adulthood. The improved life expectancy of patients with UCDs and OAs raises the question of their consequences on nutritional status in adult subjects. As this topic has so far received little attention, we conducted a review of scientific studies that investigated the nutrient intake and nutritional status in adult patients with UCDs and branched chain organic acidemias (BCOAs) on LPD. Methods: The literature search was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE and Google Scholar from 1 January 2000 to 31 May 2020, focusing on nutrient intake and nutritional status in UCD and OA adult patients. Results: Despite protein restriction is recommended as the main treatment for UCDs and OAs, in these patients, protein intake ranges widely, with many patients who do not reach safety levels. When evaluated, micronutrient intake resulted below recommended values in some patients. Lean body mass resulted in most cases lower than normal range while fat body mass (FM) was often found normal or higher than the controls or reference values. Protein intake correlated inversely with FM both in adult and pediatric UCD patients. Conclusions: The clinical management of adult patients with UCDs and BCOAs should include an accurate assessment of the nutritional status and body composition. However, as little data is still available on this topic, further studies are needed to better clarify the effects of LPDs on nutritional status in adult UCD and BCOA patients.

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