4.7 Article

Lower plasma vitamin e levels are associated with the frailty syndrome: The InCHIANTI study

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/gerona/61.3.278

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIMHD NIH HHS [263 MD 821336, 263 MD 9164 13] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. The primary biologic mechanism that causes frailty in older persons has never been adequately explained. According to recent views, oxidative stress may be the driving force of this condition. We tested the hypothesis that, independent of confounders, low plasma levels of vitamin E (alpha-locopherol), the main fat-soluble human antioxidant, are associated with the frailty syndrome in older persons free from dementia and disability. Methods. The study sample included 827 older (>= 65 years) persons (women, 54%) who participated in a population based epidemiological study. Frail participants were identified based on the presence of at least three of live of the following features: self-reported weight loss, low energy, slow gait speed, low grip strength, and low physical activity. Participants with none of these features were considered nonfrail, while participants with one or two were considered intermediate frail. Plasma vitamin E levels were determined using reverse-phase high-performance liquid chromatography. Measured confounders included lower extremity muscle strength, cognitive function, diseases, and factors related to vitamin E metabolism. Results. Age- and gender-adjusted levels of vitamin E decreased gradually from the nonfrail to the frail group (p for trend=.015). In the logistic model adjusted for multiple potential confounders, participants in the highest vitamin E tertile were less likely to be frail than were participants in the lowest vitamin E tertile (odds ratio, 0.30; 95% confidence interval, 0.10-0.91). Conclusions. Our findings show an association between low circulating levels of one of the most important components of the human antioxidant system and the presence of frailty.

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