| Literature DB >> 29962922 |
Filipe J Teixeira1, Catarina N Matias1, Cristina P Monteiro1, Scott L Howell, Richard Kones1,2.
Abstract
Research involving dietary supplement interventions for sarcopenia and osteopenia in type 1 diabetes patients is scarce. Here we present a case study of a type 1 diabetic patient that was treated with supplemental alpha-hydroxy-isocaproic acid (α-HICA) for 120 days. Several measures of body composition by dual x-ray absorptiometry, blood markers, and maximum voluntary contraction parameters were assessed at baseline and after 120 days. The patient's baseline weight was 73.2 kg, which increased to 75.2 kg by the 120-day assessment. Salient mass distribution changes included increases of trunk fat mass (+0.4 kg), trunk fat free mass (+0.2 kg), total trunk mass (+0.2 kg), and a decrease of 8 percent in trunk fat mass contribution. Handgrip strength increased by 58.84 N, whereas isometric force in the leg press decreased by 347.15 N. Amelioration of BMD Z-scores from -0.7 to 0.5 and T-scores from -1.0 to -0.9 were noted. Importantly, full hematologic measures and weekly nutritional counselling assessments revealed no signs of adverse effects with α-HICA supplementation. Due to the imperative of maintaining FFM, strength and bone mass in these patients, additional research is necessary to confirm these promising results and to clarify whether leucine and/or one of its derivatives might be clinically useful.Entities:
Keywords: alfa-hica; body composition; diabetes; intervention; leucine; strength
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29962922 PMCID: PMC6020731
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Yale J Biol Med ISSN: 0044-0086
Figure 1DXA Baseline vs. 120 days.
Body composition characteristics: Baseline vs. 120 days.
| 820 | 858 | +38 | 3023 | 3003 | -20 | 3843 | 3861 | +18 | 21.3 | 22.2 | +0.9 | |
| 691 | 729 | +38 | 3626 | 3247 | -379 | 4318 | 3977 | -341 | 16.0 | 18.3 | +2.3 | |
| 10577 | 11005 | +428 | 27380 | 29639 | +2259 | 37957 | 40644 | +2687 | 27.9 | 27.1 | -0.8 | |
| 2037 | 2020 | -17 | 8699 | 8295 | -404 | 10736 | 10315 | -421 | 19.0 | 19.6 | +0.6 | |
| 1989 | 2086 | +97 | 8473 | 8258 | -215 | 10462 | 10344 | -118 | 19.0 | 20.2 | +1.2 | |
| 16114 | 16699 | +585 | 51201 | 52442 | +1241 | 67316 | 69140 | +1824 | 23.9 | 24.2 | +0.3 | |
| 1062 | 1065 | +2 | 4185 | 4153 | -32 | 5247 | 5218 | -29 | 20.2 | 20.4 | +0.2 | |
| 17176 | 17764 | 55386 | 56595 | 72562 | 74359 | 23.7 | 23.9 |
Abbreviations: DXA-Dual X ray absorptiometry, B-Baseline, AbsC-Absolute change, FM-Fat mass, FFM-Lean + BMC, TM-Total mass, % Fat- Percent fat contribution, L-left, R-right
BMD T and Z scores: Baseline vs. 120 days.
| -1.0 | -0.9 | > -1 Normal | |
| -0.7 | -0.5 | > 2 |
Note: Age matched (31,31), Expected value for age (31)
Strength measures: Baseline vs. 120 days.
| 480.53 | 539.37 | |
| 2954.63 | 2607.48 |
*Best out of 3 attempts
Blood composition changes baseline vs 120 days.
| 14.6 | 14.7 | 0.1 ↑ | |
| 4.83 | 4.86 | 0.03 ↑ | |
| 44.8 | 45.0 | 0.2 ↑ | |
| 92.8 | 92.5 | 0.3 ↓ | |
| 12.4 | 12.2 | 0.2 ↓ | |
| 298 | 301 | 3 ↑ | |
| 80.9 | 79.0 | 1.9 ↓ | |
| 241.0 | 233.4 | 7.6 ↓ | |
| 78 | 86 | 8 ↑ | |
| 217 | 252 | 35 ↑ | |
| 9.6 | 9.3 | 0.3 ↓ | |
| 229 | 220 | 9 ↓ | |
| 10.9 | 11.2 | 0.3 ↑ | |
| 193 | 192 | 1 ↓ | |
| 103 | 100 | 3 ↓ | |
| 62 | 64 | 2 ↑ | |
| 141 | 139 | 2 ↓ | |
| 3.7 | 3.7 | = | |
| 0.182 | 0.123 | 0.059 ↓ | |
| 6.4 | 7.0 | 0.6 ↑ | |
| 1.62 | 1.52 | 0.1 ↓ | |
| 21 | 26 | 5 ↑ | |
| 28 | 31 | 3 ↑ | |
| 37 | 47 | 10 ↑ | |
| 92 | 87 | 5 ↓ | |
| 142 | 142 | = | |
| 5.3 | 4.9 | 0.4 ↓ | |
| 106.0 | 105.0 | 1 ↓ | |
| 12.28 | 9.39 | 2.89 ↓ |
Estimated dietary intake from baseline to 120 days.
| 2200 | 138 | 303 | 49 | 1.9 | |
| 2540 | 146 | 318 | 76 | 1.9 |