4.0 Article

Lack of circulating bioactive and immunoreactive IGF-I changes despite improved fitness in chronic kidney disease patients following 48 weeks of physical training

期刊

GROWTH HORMONE & IGF RESEARCH
卷 21, 期 1, 页码 51-56

出版社

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ghir.2010.12.005

关键词

Exercise; Insulin-like growth factor binding proteins; KIRA; Renal disease

资金

  1. Baystate Medical Center

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: As known abnormalities exist in the insulin-like growth factor (IGF) system in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients, the measurement of bioactive IGF-I may provide further insight into the therapeutic potential of long-term exercise training. Design: Patients (N = 21) with stages 3 and 4 CKD were recruited from a local nephrology practice in Springfield, MA and randomized into matched treatment and control groups. The treatment group participated in 48 weeks of supervised, progressive exercise training and dietary counseling, while the control group received only usual care. Treadmill testing, anthropometric measurements, and blood samples for analysis of immunoreactive IGF-I, IGF-II, IGFBP-1 and -2, and bioactive IGF-I were taken at baseline, 24 weeks, and 48 weeks. Results: There were no significant differences in any of the components of the IGF system (all p-values > 0.05). Immunoreactive IGF-I levels correlated significantly with bioactive IGF-I at baseline (r = 0.50, p = 0.02) and at 48 weeks (r = 0.64, p = 0.01). There was a significant interaction between group and time for both VO2peak (p = 0.03) and total treadmill time TT (p < 0.01). Conclusions: Despite improvements in physical performance, a 48-week training program did not affect any of the circulating IGF system measurements. Disparities between these findings and those of other researchers reporting a biphasic response to long-term training may be explained by differences in study groups and exercise programs. (C) 2010 Growth Hormone Research Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.0
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