4.7 Article

Proinflammatory state, hepcidin, and anemia in older persons

期刊

BLOOD
卷 115, 期 18, 页码 3810-3816

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2009-02-201087

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute on Aging
  2. National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health
  3. Italian Ministry of Health [ICS-110.1/RS97.71]
  4. US National Institute on Aging [N01-AG-919413, N01-AG-821336, R01 AG027012, R01 AG029148]
  5. Orthobiotech

向作者/读者索取更多资源

patients with overt inflammatory diseases, up-regulated hepcidin impairs iron absorption and macrophage release, causing anemia. Whether the mild pro-inflammatory state of aging is associated with increased hepcidin is unknown. We characterized the relationships between urinary hepcidin, iron status, anemia, and inflammation in 582 patients 65 years or older participating in the InCHIANTI (Invecchiare in Chianti, Aging in the Chianti Area) study, a population-based study of aging in Tuscany, Italy. Compared with nonanemic persons, urinary hepcidin (nanograms/milligram of urinary creatinine) was significantly lower in iron deficiency and inflammation anemia compared with no anemia or other anemia types. Urinary hepcidin was positively correlated with log(ferritin) and negatively correlated with the soluble transferrin receptor/log(ferritin) ratio but not correlated with markers of inflammation: interleukin-6 (IL-6), IL-1 beta, tumor necrosis factor-alpha, and C-reactive protein (CRP). Lower iron was significantly correlated with higher IL-6 and CRP. Adjusting for confounders, IL-6 and CRP remained significantly associated with serum iron, with no evidence that such a relationship was accounted for by variability in urinary hepcidin. In conclusion, elevated pro-inflammatory markers were associated with anemia and low iron status, but not with higher urinary hepcidin. Future studies should test whether hepcidin production becomes up-regulated only in situations of overt inflammation. (Blood. 2010; 115(18):3810-3816)

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