4.4 Article

Serum leptin and adiponectin levels correlate with exercise-induced bronchoconstriction in children with asthma

期刊

ANNALS OF ALLERGY ASTHMA & IMMUNOLOGY
卷 107, 期 1, 页码 14-21

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.anai.2011.03.013

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (EIB), a form of bronchial hyperresponsiveness (BHR), is common in children with asthma or obesity. Epidemiological studies have shown that asthma and obesity are increasing in parallel, but obesity- and adipokine-related effects on inflammation and BHR have not yet been demonstrated in the human airway. Objective: To address the relationship between leptin and adiponectin and EIB in children with asthma. Methods: Eighty-five prepubertal children between the ages of 6 and 10 years were included in our study. They comprised obese with asthma (n = 19), normal weight with asthma (n = 23), obese without asthma (a = 23), and healthy (n = 20). We measured seum leptin and adiponectin levels. We also performed pulmonary function tests: baseline, postbronchodilator inhalation, methacholine inhalation, and exercise. The area under the forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1))-time curve quantified the severity of EIB over a 20-minute period after exercise (AUC(20)). Results: The obese children had significantly elevated levels of leptin and reduced levels of adiponectin. The maximum decreases in %FEV(1) and AUC(20) after exercise were positively correlated with leptin levels and negatively with serum adiponectin levels in children with asthma. The odds for having EIB were incrementally and significantly higher for children with higher levels of serum leptin. Conclusions: Levels of the adipocyte-derived hormones leptin and adiponectin are significantly correlated with BHR induced by exercise challenge in children with asthma. Further studies are needed to elucidate whether the changes in leptin and adiponectin levels bear a causal relationship to the EIB/BHR.

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

4.4
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