Self-reported physical activity in people with limb-girdle muscular dystrophy and Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease in Norway

Quantitative assessment of sitting time in ambulant adults with Muscular Dystrophy

BACKGROUND

Current investigations into physical behaviour in Muscular Dystrophy (MD) have focussed largely on physical activity (PA). Negative health behaviours such as sedentary behaviour (Physical Behaviour) and sitting time (Posture Classification) are widely recognised to negatively influence health, but by contrast are poorly reported, yet could be easier behaviours to modify.

METHODS

14 ambulant men with MD and 12 healthy controls (CTRL) subjects completed 7-days of free-living with wrist-worn accelerometry, assessing physical behaviour (SB or PA) and Posture Classification (Sitting or Standing), presented at absolute (minutes) or relative (% Waking Hours). Participant body composition (Fat Mass and Fat Free Mass) were assessed by Bioelectrical Impedance, while functional status was assessed by 10 m walk test and a functional scale (Swinyard Scale).

RESULTS

Absolute Sedentary Behaviour (2.2 Hours, p = 0.025) and Sitting Time (1.9 Hours, p = 0.030 was greater in adults with MD compared to CTRL and Absolute Physical Activity (3.4 Hours, p < 0.001) and Standing Time (3.2 Hours, p < 0.001) was lower in adults with MD compared to CTRL. Absolute hours of SB was associated with Fat Mass (Kg) (R = 0.643, p < 0.05) in ambulatory adults with MD.

DISCUSSION

This study has demonstrated increased Sedentary Behaviour (2.2 hours) and Sitting time (1.9 Hours) in adults with MD compared to healthy controls. Extended waking hours in sitting and SB raises concerns with regards to progression of potential cardio-metabolic diseases and co-morbidities in MD.

Rehabilitation Challenges in Limb-Girdle Muscular Dystrophies

Limb-girdle muscular dystrophy (LGMD) is a burdensome progressive neuromuscular disease, with a great impact upon quality of life. Unlike other types of neuromuscular dystrophies, which have onset in early childhood and severely limit the life expectancy, LGMD is usually diagnosed at young adulthood age. Since no etiological treatment is currently available, physiotherapy and generally, rehabilitation therapy, are mandatory for preserving the functional capabilities of the muscles for as long as possible. Exercise therapy, electrical stimulation or novel therapies such as exoskeleton devices aim towards alleviating the impact of disability. It is ideal that muscular dystrophy should be assessed in interdisciplinary clinics (physical therapy, neurology, cardiology, pneumology, surgery and orthopedics) for proper long-term care. Keywords: LGMD, muscle strength, rehabilitation, quality of life,

Sarcopenic Obesity in Facioscapulohumeral Muscular Dystrophy

Background

Sarcopenic obesity has been observed in people with neuromuscular impairment, and is linked to adverse health outcomes. It is unclear, however, if sarcopenic obesity develops in adults with facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy (FSHD).

Methods

The purpose of this study was to determine if adults with FSHD meet criteria for sarcopenic obesity (appendicular lean mass index (ALMI) scores of < 7.26 or 5.45 kg/m²; % fat mass (FM) ≥ 28 or 40% in men/women). Ten people with FSHD (50 ± 11 years, 2 females) and ten age/sex-matched controls (47 ± 13 years, 2 females) completed one visit, which included a full-body dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scan. Regional and whole body total mass, fat mass (FM), and lean mass (LM) were collected and body mass index (BMI) and sarcopenia measures were computed.

Results

People with FSHD and controls had a similar whole body total mass (84.5 ± 12.9 vs. 81.8 ± 13.5 kg, respectively, p = 0.65). Though BMI was 2% lower in the FSHD group (p = 0.77), the % FM was 46% higher in FSHD, compared with controls (p < 0.01). In addition, ALM volume was 23% lower (p = 0.02) and ALMI was 27% lower in FSHD compared with controls (p < 0.01). Whole body LM trended to be lower in FSHD vs. controls (p = 0.05), and arm and leg LM were both lower in FSHD compared with controls (p < 0.05). Furthermore, the % LM was 18% lower in FSHD vs. controls (p < 0.01). FSHD participants exhibited greater total body FM (p < 0.01) and total leg FM (p < 0.01), but were similar in volume of total arm FM compared with controls (p = 0.09).

Conclusion

Findings from this study suggest that people with FSHD, although similar in BMI and total body mass compared with controls, commonly meet the definition of sarcopenic obesity. Adults with co-existing FSHD and sarcopenic obesity may be at risk for significant impairments in quality of life, and encounter additional challenges in the management of FSHD manifestations.