4.5 Article

The atherogenic dyslipidemia ratio [log(TG)/HDL-C] is associated with residual vascular risk, beta-cell function loss and microangiopathy in type 2 diabetes females

期刊

LIPIDS IN HEALTH AND DISEASE
卷 11, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/1476-511X-11-132

关键词

HDL-C; Triglycerides; Cardiovascular risk; Microangiopathy; beta-cell function; Hyperbolic product; Gender; Diabetes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Atherogenic dyslipidemia (AD), defined as low HDL-C plus elevated triglycerides (TG), comorbid to T2DM, increases cardiometabolic risk for CAD even when LDL-C is at target. In T2DM males, AD was shown to correlate with beta-cell function loss, yet it is not established whether this applies across gender. Aim: To establish the prevalence and severity of AD in T2DM females, and to determine how it relates to cardiometabolic phenotype, glucose homeostasis, micro-and macrovascular complications, and 10-year absolute CV risk (UKPDS Risk Engine). Methods: 340 T2DM females were ranked according to quintiles (Q) of the continuous variable log(TG)/HDL-C, with AD prevalence defined as HDL-C <50 mg.dL(-1) plus TG >= 150 mg.dL(-1), and beta-cell function assessed with HOMA. Results: AD prevalence was 35%; mean HDL-C and TG were 52 (15) and 160 (105) mg.dL(-1). AD was significantly related to central fat, metabolic syndrome, sedentarity and skeletal sarcopenia, as well as to hsCRP, fibrinogen, uric acid, cystatin-C, Big ET-1, and 10-year UKPDS CV risk. AD correlated stepwise with lower beta-cell function and hyperbolic product, and with accelerated loss of residual insulin secretion, higher HbA(1c) and prevalent microangiopathy. Conclusions: log(TG)/HDL-C is a simple means to grade AD and residual macrovascular risk in T2DM females. This ratio associates with major non-LDL cardiometabolic variables and ranks predicted CAD risk. In addition, log(TG)/HDL-C identifies worsening glucose homeostasis, poorer glycemic control, and prevalent microangiopathy.

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

4.5
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