4.7 Article

Insomnia with Objective Short Sleep Duration Is Associated With Type 2 Diabetes A population-based study

Journal

DIABETES CARE
Volume 32, Issue 11, Pages 1980-1985

Publisher

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/dc09-0284

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01HL 51931, R01HL 40916, R01HL 64415]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE - We examined the joint effects of insomnia and objective short sleep duration, the combination of which is associated with higher morbidity, on diabetes risk. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS - A total of 1,741 men and women randomly selected from Central Pennsylvania were studied in the sleep laboratory. Insomnia was defined by a complaint of insomnia with duration of >= 1 year, whereas poor sleep was defined as a complaint of difficulty falling asleep, staying asleep, or early final awakening. Polysomnographic sleep duration was classified into three categories: >= 6 h of sleep (top 50% of the sample); 5-6 h (approximately third quartile of the sample); and <= 5 h (approximately the bottom quartile of the sample). Diabetes was defined either based on a fasting blood glucose > 126 mg/dl or use of medication. In the logistic regression model, we simultaneously adjusted for age, race, sex, BMI, smoking, alcohol use, depression, sleep-disordered breathing, and periodic limb movement. RESULTS - Chronic insomnia but not poor sleep was associated with a higher risk for diabetes. Compared with the normal sleeping and >= 6 h sleep duration group, the highest risk of diabetes was in individuals with insomnia and <= 5 h sleep duration group (odds ratio [95% CI] 2.95 [1.2-7.0]) and in insomniacs who slept 5-6 h (2.07 [0.68-6.4]). CONCLUSIONS - insomnia with short sleep duration is associated with increased odds of diabetes. Objective sleep duration may predict cardiometabolic morbidity of chronic insomnia, the medical impact of which has been underestimated.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available