4.7 Article

Adding Branched-Chain Amino Acids to an Enhanced Standard-of-Care Treatment Improves Muscle Mass of Cirrhotic Patients With Sarcopenia: A Placebo-Controlled Trial

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 116, 期 11, 页码 2241-2249

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000001301

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BCAA supplementation improves muscle mass in cirrhotic patients with sarcopenia, and has positive effects on the Liver Frailty Index and zinc levels.
INTRODUCTION: The effect of branched-chain amino acid (BCAA) supplementation on muscle mass in patients with cirrhosis and sarcopenia is unknown. METHODS: This is a pilot, prospective, randomized, and double-blind study of a cohort of 32 patients with cirrhosis and sarcopenia diagnosed by computed tomography scan who underwent a nutritional and physical activity intervention for 12 weeks. They were divided into 2 groups (placebo: 17 patients; BCAA: 15 patients). The study protocol was registered at (NCT04073693). RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar in both groups. After treatment, only the BCAA group presented a significant improvement in muscle mass (43.7 vs 46 cm(2)/m(2); P = 0.023). Seventeen patients (63%) presented improvement in muscle mass overall, which was more frequent in the BCAA group (83.3 vs 46.7%; P = 0.056). Regarding frailty, there was a significant improvement in the Liver Frailty Index in the global cohort (n = 32) after the 12 weeks (4.2 vs 3.9; P < 0.001). This difference was significant in both groups: in the placebo group (4.2 vs 3.8; P < 0.001) and in the BCAA group (4.2 vs 3.9; P < 0.001). After treatment, the BCAA group had a higher increase in zinc levels than the placebo group (Delta zinc: 12.3 vs 5.5; P = 0.026). In addition, there was a trend for greater improvement of albumin levels in the BCAA group (Delta albumin: 0.19 vs 0.04; P = 0.091). DISCUSSION: BCAA supplementation improves muscle mass in cirrhotic patients with sarcopenia.

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