4.5 Article

Evaluation of insulin like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) level and its impact on muscle and bone mineral density in frail elderly male

期刊

ARCHIVES OF GERONTOLOGY AND GERIATRICS
卷 60, 期 1, 页码 124-127

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.archger.2014.08.011

关键词

IGF-1; Elderly male; Frailty; Bone mineral density; Anthropometric measures

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Decrease in IGF-1 level is a major endocrine dysregulation that has been implicated in frailty, disability, and mortality in older adults. Our aim was to clarify the effect of IGF-1 on muscle and bone mineral density (BMD) in frail males. One hundred elderly males were included and divided into frail group (n = 50) and robust group (n = 50) based on the study of osteoporotic fractures (SOF) frailty index. Anthropometric measures, femoral BMD, and serum IGF-1 level were measured. Our results showed that the IGF-1 level was significantly lower in the frail males in comparison to the robust with mean value 37.1 +/- 24.2 versus 68.5 +/- 18.4 ng/ml (P < 0.05). Receiver operating curve (ROC) analysis of the IGF-1 level revealed that sensitivity was 88.5%, specificity was 100%, cutoff value was 46.5 ng/ml and area under the curve (AUC) was 0.897 (P < 0.05). Participants with low IGF-1 percentile had significantly higher odds ratio of being frail compared to those with high IGF-1 percentile (odds ratio = 12.8, 95% CI: 4.2-38.8, P-value < 0.05). Subjects with low IGF-1 percentile had 13.5 times the odds of having an abnormal BMD than those with middle IGF-1 percentile (95% CI: 3.4-53.3, P < 0.05). In multivariate analysis BMD, mid arm circumference (MAC), mid calf circumference (MCC), and handgrip strength were significantly affected by IGF-1 percentiles with age and co-morbid diseases adjustment. Male subjects with a low IGF-1 level may be at risk of being frail and having abnormal BMD. 16.8% and 15% of variability in MCC and BMD may be attributed to IGF-1 level respectively. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ireland 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

4.5
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