4.7 Article

Sex Differences in Insulin Resistance and Cardiovascular Disease Risk

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM
卷 98, 期 11, 页码 E1716-E1721

出版社

ENDOCRINE SOC
DOI: 10.1210/jc.2013-1166

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Context: The possibility that differences in insulin sensitivity explain why women, especially younger women, have a lower cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk than men remains an unsettled issue. Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate whether sex disparities in CVD risk are associated with differences in insulin resistance. Design/Setting/Participants: This was a cross-sectional study of women(n = 468) and men(n = 354) who had the measurement of CVD risk factors and steady-state plasma glucose (SSPG) concentration (insulin resistance) using the insulin suppression test. The population was also divided by median age (51 y) to evaluate the effect of age on sex differences. Main Outcome Measures/Results: In general, the SSPG concentration was similar between sexes. At higher BMI (>= 30 kg/m(2)), women had significantly lower SSPG concentration than men (sex x BMI interaction, P = .001). However, sex differences in CVD risk factors were not due to differences in SSPG but accentuated by a higher degree of insulin resistance in younger (age < 51 y) but not older (> 51 y) individuals. In younger individuals, women had significantly (P < .007) lower diastolic blood pressure and fasting glucose and triglyceride concentration compared with men in SSPG tertile 3 (most insulin resistant) but not in tertile 1 (least insulin resistant). Older women had lower diastolic blood pressure compared with men, regardless of SSPG. High-density lipoprotein cholesterol remained higher in women, regardless of age or SSPG. Conclusions: The female advantage is not due to a difference in insulin action but results from an attenuation of the relationship between insulin resistance and CVD risk, especially in younger individuals.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据