4.2 Article

Fasting glucose and HbA1c levels as risk factors for the development of hypertension in Japanese individuals: Toranomon hospital health management center study 16 (TOPICS 16)

期刊

JOURNAL OF HUMAN HYPERTENSION
卷 29, 期 4, 页码 254-259

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/jhh.2014.77

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan
  2. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [14J30007] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We investigated the effect of elevated concentrations of fasting plasma glucose (FPG) or hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) on the risk of development of hypertension among apparently healthy Japanese. Studied were 9584 individuals without known diabetes and hypertension. During a 5-year follow-up period, 1098 individuals developed hypertension. Elevated concentrations of FPG, rather than of HbA1c, were significantly predictive of future hypertension. Compared with the lowest quartile category of FPG (<4.9 mmol l(-1)), the second (4.9-<5.2 mmol l(-1)), third (5.2-<5.6 mmol l(-1)) and highest (>= 5.6 mmol l(-1)) quartile categories had age-, sex- and body mass index-adjusted odds ratios (95% confidence interval) of 1.35 (1.10, 1.66), 1.39 (1.13, 1.71) and 1.85 (1.51, 2.28) for hypertension, respectively. In the highest quartile of FPG, the multivariate-adjusted OR was 1.37 (1.10, 1.70) compared with the lowest quartile. Results of these adjusted models showed no significant association across quartile categories of HbA1c concentrations and an increased risk of developing hypertension. The joint effect of hyperglycemia and overweight, older age or prehypertension resulted in further elevated ORs for hypertension than the absence of such an association. Higher FPG levels rather than HbA1c were strongly predictive of future hypertension among Japanese. Hyperglycemia along with older age, overweight and prehypertension contributed to identifying individuals at increased risk of developing hypertension.

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

4.2
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