3.9 Article

The effect of blood glucose regulation on sarcopenia parameters in obese and diabetic patients

出版社

BAYCINAR MEDICAL PUBL-BAYCINAR TIBBI YAYINCILIK
DOI: 10.5606/tftrd.2018.1068

关键词

Diabetes mellitus; obesity; sarcopenia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: This study aims to evaluate the effect of blood glucose regulation on sarcopenia parameters in sarcopenic, obese, and poorly-regulated diabetic patients. Patients and methods: Between June 2013 and December 2013, a total of 147 patients (64 males, 83 females; mean age 70.3 +/- 6.3 years; range, 60 to 90 years) who were diagnosed with sarcopenia according to the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP) criteria were included in the study. All patients were obese with a body mass index (BMI) of >30 kg/m(2) and their glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels were above 8%. Sarcopenia parameters including the gait speed, muscle strength, muscle mass, and handgrip strength were assessed. After a six-month treatment period, the patients were divided into two groups according to their HbA1c levels as having <8% or >8%. Sarcopenia parameters were evaluated before and after receiving treatment. Results: The mean disease duration was 16 +/- 6.2 years. Sixty patients were found to have a HbA1c level of <8% and 45 patients with a HbA1c level of >= 8% at sixth months of follow-up. In better regulated group, sarcopenia parameters such as gait speed, muscle mass, and handgrip strength improved; however, only the change in the muscle mass was found to be statistically significant (p=0.041). There was no significant change in the parameters of sarcopenia in the patient group with a HbA1c level >= 8%. A negative correlation was found between the muscle mass and HbA1c levels in good-and poorly-regulated groups (p=0.039 r:-0.327 and p=0.044 r:-0.183, respectively). Conclusion: Our study demonstrates that lowering HbA1c levels may have positive effects on the muscle mass even in diabetic and sarcopenic obese elderly individuals.

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

3.9
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