4.7 Article

Baseline forced expiratory volume in the first second as an independent predictor of development of the metabolic syndrome

期刊

METABOLISM-CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL
卷 59, 期 6, 页码 848-853

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.metabol.2009.10.001

关键词

-

资金

  1. Tr-Service General Hospital of the National Defense Medical Center [TSGH-C97-134]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A growing body of evidence strongly supports associations between reduced lung function and insulin resistance, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and cardiovascular disease. The present study was undertaken to explore the possibility that reduced lung function is an independent predictor of development of the metabolic syndrome (MetS) and to investigate potential links between reduced lung function and the MetS. A prospective cohort study of reduced lung function as a predictor of subsequent MetS was conducted using 2-year follow-up data for 450 middle-aged adults lacking the MetS at baseline. Data were obtained from the Taipei MJ Health Screening Centers in Taiwan. The MetS was defined according to the modified Adult Treatment Panel III criteria. Over 2 years of follow-up, 26 of the 450 subjects (5.78%) without the MetS at baseline subsequently developed the syndrome. In multiple logistic regression analysis with adjustments for age, sex, body mass index, cigarette smoking, alcohol consumption, and physical activities, reduced forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) at baseline remained a predictor of subsequent MetS (relative risk of 4.644, P = .036 for the third [<2.31 L] vs first [>2.88 L] tertile). In Pearson and partial correlation analyses, white blood cell counts and C-reactive protein concentrations were both found to be significantly and negatively con-elated with FEV1. Lower FEV1 is concluded to serve as an independent predictor of the MetS. Low-grade systemic inflammation is the possible link between reduced lung function and the MetS. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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