H/A: Body Composition Measurement (2009)

Citation:
 
Study Design:
Class:
- Click here for explanation of classification scheme.
Quality Rating:
Research Purpose:
  • The objective of this study was to measure the energy intake and expenditure in HIV-infected pre-pubescent children, in order to assess the determinants of growth failure
  • The relationships among HIV replication, energy balance, body composition and growth were also examined. 
Inclusion Criteria:
No specific criteria were listed.
Exclusion Criteria:
No specific criteria were listed.
Description of Study Protocol:

Recruitment

HIV-infected children with growth failure (HIV+/GF+) and HIV-infected children with normal rates of growth HIV+/GF-) were enrolled from three hospital-based outpatient pediatric HIV/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) treatment programs from 1996-1997.

Design

  • Case-control is implied, but no matching of between the two groups
  • Cross-sectional, as measurements taken only one time.

Blinding Used

Implied for outcome measures.

Statistical Analysis

  • Comparison of mean values of variables for the HIV+/GF+ and HIV+/GF- children were made using Student's T-tests
  • Dietary intake and REE were standardized by body weight and amount of FFM to compare these variables among individuals of different body weight and with different amounts of FFM
  • Regression model techniques were also used to analyze differences in energy intake and expenditures for the two study groups. Multiple regression models with either REE, FFM or growth velocity (GV) as the dependent variables and FFM, viral load, energy intake and group (HIV+/GF+ vs. HIV+/GF-) as independent variables were assessed in all subjects.
  • Analysis of covariance was performed to adjust for the effect of age on CD4 number, dietary intake, FFM, REE and TEE
  • All statistical calculations were performed using the STATA (Computing Resource Center, Santa Monica, CA) and SAS (SAS Institute) software packages for personal computers
  • The level of significance for all statistical tests was under 0.05.
Data Collection Summary:

Timing of Measurements

  • Children attending programs from 1996 to 1997
  • Cross-sectional study: One-time measurement.

Dependent Variables

  • REE: Resting energy expenditure was determined by assessing the resting metabolic rate after an overnight fast, using open-circuit indirect calorimetry with a ventilated canopy hood in a humidity and temperature-controlled environment.
    • Movements were minimized
    • Subjects rested quietly during a 15- to 30-minute adaptation period, after which measurements were performed for 20 minutes
    • REE was expressed as a percentage of predicted value, using the WHO equations (FAO.WHO/UNU Expert Consultation 1985) and normalized for the quantity of FFM, the body compartment containing metabolically active tissue (see Thompson et al 1995 ref).
  • TEE: Total energy expenditure was measured from the differential loss of stable isotopes of oxygen and hydrogen of water over a 10-day period after oral administration of a dose of [2H 18O] water
    • Each child was given an accurately defined oral dose of approximately 0.15g of H218O and 0.12g of 2H2O per kg body mass
    • A baseline urine specimen was collected before the dose was given
    • Additional urine specimens for measurement of isotope were collected one, two, nine and 10 days after administration of doubly-labeled water
    • Urine samples were analyzed by isotope ratio mass spectrometry
    • Total body water and rate of CO2 production were calculated
    • The Weir formula was used to determine oxygen consumption and TEE (kcal per day) from the measured rate of the CO2 production, assuming a respiratory quotient of the food consumed of 0.85
    • The average daily energy cost of physical activity was estimated from the difference between TEE and REE
    • Energy intake minus TEE was used to estimate apparent daily energy balance. 
  • Energy intake: Assessment of 24-hour energy intake using a semi-structured interview performed in person, using food models on one to three occasions within 14 days of other study measurements
    • A standardized coding system used to minimize error and increase reliability
    • Energy and macronutrient values of intake were calculated using the Minnesota Nutrition Data System
    • The average daily energy intake for each child was compared to the published recommended daily allowance (RDA) according to age (Food and Nutrition Board 1989).
  • FFM: Fat-free mass was determined by dual X-ray absorptiometry (DPX, Lunar Radiation, Madison, WI), using pediatric software (version 8e)
  • GV: Growth velocity
    • Growth failure was defined as a 12-month height velocity no higher than the fifth percentile for age, using standard reference norms (see Tanner and Davies, 1985, ref). 

Independent Variables

  • Group: HIV+/GF+ (with growth failure) vs. HIV+/GF- (normal rate of growth)
  • FFM (also included as independent in regression): Fat-free mass was determined by dual X-ray absorptiometry (DPX, Lunar Radiation, Madison, WI), using pediatric software (version 8e)
  • Height: Measured in triplicate to the nearest 0.1cm, using a Holtain wall-mounted stadiometer
  • Weight: Determined to the nearest 0.1kg, using a balance scale
  • Viral load: Plasma HIV RNA was measured by the polymerase chain reaction method.

Control Variables

  • HIV infection was diagnosed and disease stage classfied, using Centers for Disease Control criteria (1994)
  • Pubertal classification was performed according to Tanner (see Marshall and Tanner, refs 1970, 1971)
  • Information concerning prior illnesses or other HIV-related conditions, treatment and medications and prior results of lymphocyte phenotype analyses were obtained from medical records
  • T-lymphocyte sub-populations were measured using Coulter's Q-pre method with monoclonal antibody-staining reagents, detecting CD4 by two-color flow cytometry.
Description of Actual Data Sample:
Initial N
  • 16 HIV-infected children with growth failure (five boys, 11 girls)
  • 26 HIV-infected children with normal rates of growth (13 boys, 13 girls).

Attrition (final N)

None.

Age

  • GF+: 8.3±2.4 years
  • GF-: 6.5±1.8 years
  • P=0.016.

Ethnicity

  • GF+
    • 6.25% white
    • 31.25% black
    • 62.5% Hispanic
    • 0% other.
  • GF-
    • 11.54% white
    • 42.3% black
    • 42.3% Hispanic
    • 3.85% other.

Anthropometrics

  • Height (cm): GF+, 116.4±16.0; GF-, 117.1±12.1
  • Weight (kg): GF+, 23.1±10.3; GF-, 23.5±9.0
  • Weight-height (percentile): GF+, 66.1±31.0; GF-, 63.1±27.2
  • Height-age (percentile): GF+, 6.6±8.5; GF-, 44.6±29.2; P<0.0001
  • Weight-age (percentile): GF+, 16.0±24.2; GF-, 55.8±29.4; P<0.0001
  • FFM/Height (g per cm2): GF+, 142.0±4.6; GF-, 165.0±5.5; P=0.0005
  • Growth velocity (cm per year): GF+, 1.1±1.5; GF-, 6.6±1.1; P<0.0001
  • Growth velocity (percentile): GF+, 1.1±1.2; GF-, 54.7±27.5; P<0.0001.

Disease and Medication Information

  • CD4 count (x106 cells per L): GF+, 218±99; GF-, 596±75; P=0.0065
  • CD4 (percentage): GF+, 8.3±2.9; GF-, 22.3±2.2; P=0.008
  • HIV RNA (log10 copies per L): GF+, 4.89±1.08; GF-, 3.43±1.64; P=0.009
  • CDC Class N: GF+, 0; GF-, 3.85%
  • CDC Class A: GF+, 25%; GF-, 26.9%
  • CDC Class B: GF+, 25%; GF-, 57.7%
  • CDC Class C: GF+, 37.5%; GF-, 7.7%
  • Unknown CDC class: GF+, 12.5%; GF-, 3.85%.

Using Antiretroviral Drugs

  • Yes: GF+, 68.75%; GF-, 76.9%
  • No: GF+, 31.25%; GF-, 23.1%.

Other Medication Information

  • 31 were receiving one or more HIV reverse transcriptase inhibitors
  • None were receiving anabolic agents (including megestrol acetate and corticosteroids), protease inhibitors or other medications known to affect appetite, energy intake or energy metabolism.

Location

Fospital-based outpatient pediatric HIV-AIDS treatment programs.

Summary of Results:

Table Two: Comparison of Age-Adjusted Energy Intake, Energy Expenditures and Energy Balance in Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV)-Infected Children with Growth Failure (GF) (HIV+/GF+) and Without GF (HIV+/GF-)

[Note: Values are means ±SE, N=16 HIV+/GF+ or 26 HIV+/GF-; all in kJ per day]

Variables

HIV+/GF+

HIV+/GF-

P-Value

Energy intake (EI)

5,640±653

8,305±490

0.003

Total Energy Expenditure (TEE)

6,038±431

6,966±314

0.110

Resting Energy Expenditure (REE)

3,895±222 

4,452±172 

0.063 

TEE-REE 2,188±372 2,787±280 0.229
Energy balance (EI-TEE) -674±732 1,448±515 0.30

  Other Findings

  • Mean age-adjusted percentage of body fat
    • HIV+/GF+: 19.8±8.2
    • HIV+/GF-: 19.1±8.4%
    • P>0.05.
  • EI (percentage RDA for age)
    • HIV+/GF+: 71.7±31.7%
    • HIV+/GF-: 103.7±28.8%
    • P=0.002.
  • Daily energy intake per kg of body weight
    • HIV+/GF+: 293.3±135.1
    • HIV+/GF-: 367.4±110.5kJ/(kg*days)
    • P=0.064.
  • No differences in diet composition, including percentage of energy consumed as protein, fat or carbohydrates
  • Mean age-adjusted REE in HIV+/GF+ group was 557kJ per day (12.5%) less than that of HIV+/GF- group (P=0.063: Table Two)
  • Mean age-adjusted REE/FFM
    • HIV+/GF+: 252.7±9.2
    • HIV+/GF-: 223.8±7.1kJ/(kg*days)
    • P=0.026.
  • When assessed by multiple regression analysis (included differences in age), the relationship between REE and FFM did not differ between the two groups
  • FFM (kg) was a main determinant of REE (kJ per day). Age and viral load did not contribute significantly to the regression model after accounting for differences in FFM.
    • REE=(450.5+44.7*FFM)*4.184
    • R2=0.61
    • SEE=158
    • P<0.0001.
  • Energy balance measurements indicate the HIV+/GF+ children had a mean energy deficit, compared with mean energy surplus in the HIV+/GF- children
  • Log plasma HIV RNA concentration was a significant negative predictor of 12-month GV and quantity of FFM
    • GV (cm per year): 12.75-0.58 * age (years)-0.77*log viral load (copies per dL)
      • R2: 0.49
      • SEE=1.69
      • P<0.001.
    • FFM (kg): 9.74+1.87 * age (years)-1.17 * logVL (copies per dL)
      • R2=0.63
      • SEE=3.35
      • P<0.0001.
  • Energy intake was significantly associated with 12-month GV and FFM
    • GV (cm per year): 7.16-0.59 * age (years)+0.00031 * energy intake (kJ per day)
      • R2=0.43
      • SEE=1.72
      • P<0.001.
    • FFM: 1.35 + 1.86 * age (years)+0.0005 * dietary intake (kJ per day)
      • R2=0.63
      • SEE=3.21
      • P<0.0001.
  • Multiple regression analysis of FFM on age, plasma HIV RNA concentration and energy intake demonstrated a significant, inverse relationship between FFM and log plasma HIV RNA. Energy intake was no longer a significant variable in the model (R2=0.64; SEE=3.23; P=0.0001).
  • Log HIV RNA and 12-month GV were also inversely related (R2=0.61; SEE=1.51; P=0.0001)
  • Additional analyses using backward elimination revealed a significant inverse relationship between the level of VL and energy intake
    • Energy intake (kJ per day): (2,016.2-1.9*VL)*4.184
      • R2=0.17
      • SEE=573.2
      • P=0.0125.
    • Age, sex, race and body mass index were not found to be significant.
  • Hypermetabolism was not detected in either group.
Author Conclusion:
  • The rate of growth of HIV-infected children was inversely related to the level of HIV replication
  • Data suggest that for some children with HIV, daily dietary intake may not be sufficient to meet metabolic demands and sustain normal growth
  • Children with HIV-associated growth failure tended to have reduced levels of energy expenditure, compared with children with normal rates of growth
  • The differences in the REE/FFM ration between HIV-infected children with GF and those with normal rates of growth may not indicate true differences in underlying REE and may reflect a greater organ-skeletal mass ratio
  • Poor linear growth was an indication of advanced disease
  • Future investigations of the mechanism of disturbed growth in pediatric HIV infection will have to evaluate the role of viral replication and antiviral therapies on the dynamics of energy intake, anabolism and growth. The therapeutic use of anabolic agents for children with HIV-associated GF should be carefully assessed.
Funding Source:
Reviewer Comments:

Limitations as indicated by authors:

  • Assessment of the possible mechanistic pathways was not performed in this study
  • Results of energy intake assessed by 24-hour dietary recall must be interpreted with caution
  • Small sample size: Power analysis by authors indicated a sample of 45 in each group was needed to detect differences in REE and TEE.
Quality Criteria Checklist: Primary Research
Relevance Questions
  1. Would implementing the studied intervention or procedure (if found successful) result in improved outcomes for the patients/clients/population group? (Not Applicable for some epidemiological studies) N/A
  2. Did the authors study an outcome (dependent variable) or topic that the patients/clients/population group would care about? Yes
  3. Is the focus of the intervention or procedure (independent variable) or topic of study a common issue of concern to dieteticspractice? Yes
  4. Is the intervention or procedure feasible? (NA for some epidemiological studies) N/A
 
Validity Questions
1. Was the research question clearly stated? Yes
  1.1. Was (were) the specific intervention(s) or procedure(s) [independent variable(s)] identified? Yes
  1.2. Was (were) the outcome(s) [dependent variable(s)] clearly indicated? Yes
  1.3. Were the target population and setting specified? Yes
2. Was the selection of study subjects/patients free from bias? ???
  2.1. Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified (e.g., risk, point in disease progression, diagnostic or prognosis criteria), and with sufficient detail and without omitting criteria critical to the study? No
  2.2. Were criteria applied equally to all study groups? ???
  2.3. Were health, demographics, and other characteristics of subjects described? Yes
  2.4. Were the subjects/patients a representative sample of the relevant population? ???
3. Were study groups comparable? Yes
  3.1. Was the method of assigning subjects/patients to groups described and unbiased? (Method of randomization identified if RCT) Yes
  3.2. Were distribution of disease status, prognostic factors, and other factors (e.g., demographics) similar across study groups at baseline? No
  3.3. Were concurrent controls or comparisons used? (Concurrent preferred over historical control or comparison groups.) Yes
  3.4. If cohort study or cross-sectional study, were groups comparable on important confounding factors and/or were preexisting differences accounted for by using appropriate adjustments in statistical analysis? N/A
  3.5. If case control study, were potential confounding factors comparable for cases and controls? (If case series or trial with subjects serving as own control, this criterion is not applicable.) Yes
  3.6. If diagnostic test, was there an independent blind comparison with an appropriate reference standard (e.g., "gold standard")? N/A
4. Was method of handling withdrawals described? Yes
  4.1. Were follow-up methods described and the same for all groups? N/A
  4.2. Was the number, characteristics of withdrawals (i.e., dropouts, lost to follow up, attrition rate) and/or response rate (cross-sectional studies) described for each group? (Follow up goal for a strong study is 80%.) N/A
  4.3. Were all enrolled subjects/patients (in the original sample) accounted for? Yes
  4.4. Were reasons for withdrawals similar across groups? N/A
  4.5. If diagnostic test, was decision to perform reference test not dependent on results of test under study? N/A
5. Was blinding used to prevent introduction of bias? Yes
  5.1. In intervention study, were subjects, clinicians/practitioners, and investigators blinded to treatment group, as appropriate? N/A
  5.2. Were data collectors blinded for outcomes assessment? (If outcome is measured using an objective test, such as a lab value, this criterion is assumed to be met.) Yes
  5.3. In cohort study or cross-sectional study, were measurements of outcomes and risk factors blinded? N/A
  5.4. In case control study, was case definition explicit and case ascertainment not influenced by exposure status? Yes
  5.5. In diagnostic study, were test results blinded to patient history and other test results? N/A
6. Were intervention/therapeutic regimens/exposure factor or procedure and any comparison(s) described in detail? Were interveningfactors described? Yes
  6.1. In RCT or other intervention trial, were protocols described for all regimens studied? N/A
  6.2. In observational study, were interventions, study settings, and clinicians/provider described? Yes
  6.3. Was the intensity and duration of the intervention or exposure factor sufficient to produce a meaningful effect? N/A
  6.4. Was the amount of exposure and, if relevant, subject/patient compliance measured? N/A
  6.5. Were co-interventions (e.g., ancillary treatments, other therapies) described? Yes
  6.6. Were extra or unplanned treatments described? N/A
  6.7. Was the information for 6.4, 6.5, and 6.6 assessed the same way for all groups? Yes
  6.8. In diagnostic study, were details of test administration and replication sufficient? N/A
7. Were outcomes clearly defined and the measurements valid and reliable? Yes
  7.1. Were primary and secondary endpoints described and relevant to the question? Yes
  7.2. Were nutrition measures appropriate to question and outcomes of concern? Yes
  7.3. Was the period of follow-up long enough for important outcome(s) to occur? N/A
  7.4. Were the observations and measurements based on standard, valid, and reliable data collection instruments/tests/procedures? Yes
  7.5. Was the measurement of effect at an appropriate level of precision? Yes
  7.6. Were other factors accounted for (measured) that could affect outcomes? Yes
  7.7. Were the measurements conducted consistently across groups? Yes
8. Was the statistical analysis appropriate for the study design and type of outcome indicators? Yes
  8.1. Were statistical analyses adequately described and the results reported appropriately? Yes
  8.2. Were correct statistical tests used and assumptions of test not violated? Yes
  8.3. Were statistics reported with levels of significance and/or confidence intervals? Yes
  8.4. Was "intent to treat" analysis of outcomes done (and as appropriate, was there an analysis of outcomes for those maximally exposed or a dose-response analysis)? N/A
  8.5. Were adequate adjustments made for effects of confounding factors that might have affected the outcomes (e.g., multivariate analyses)? Yes
  8.6. Was clinical significance as well as statistical significance reported? Yes
  8.7. If negative findings, was a power calculation reported to address type 2 error? N/A
9. Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? Yes
  9.1. Is there a discussion of findings? Yes
  9.2. Are biases and study limitations identified and discussed? Yes
10. Is bias due to study's funding or sponsorship unlikely? Yes
  10.1. Were sources of funding and investigators' affiliations described? Yes
  10.2. Was the study free from apparent conflict of interest? Yes