4.4 Article

Hyperglycemia, Hyperinsulinemia, Insulin Resistance, and the Risk of BPH/LUTS Severity and Progression Over Time in Community Dwelling Black Men: The Flint Men's Health Study

Journal

UROLOGY
Volume 82, Issue 4, Pages 881-886

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2013.05.034

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Urologic Diseases in America Project

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE To examine the associations between fasting serum glucose, insulin concentrations, and insulin resistance and benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) in a population-based cohort of African American men. METHODS Using the Flint Men's Health Study (FMHS), we examined how fasting serum glucose and insulin concentrations and calculated Homeostasis Model of Assessment - Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR) related to burden and progression of clinical markers of BPH in African American men aged 40-79 years. RESULTS Among 369 men at baseline, mean age was 56.6 years and approximately 70% were overweight/obese (body mass index [BMI] >= 25 kg/m(2)). One hundred forty-eight men (34.4%) reported moderate to severe lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) (American Urological Association Symptom Index [AUASI] >= 8). There were no significant trends of metabolic disturbances as measured by serum glucose, insulin, or HOMA-IR in men with indications of BPH compared to those without. CONCLUSION In this population-based study of African American men aged 40-79 years, we did not observe any significant associations between hyperglycemia, hyperinsulinemia, and insulin resistance and burden and progression of BPH after adjustment for age and BMI. This may be due, in part, to the single measurement of glucose and insulin, which may not adequately reflect average glucose metabolism. Further studies examining measures of long-term glycemic control and BPH in racially diverse populations are warranted. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available