4.7 Article

Racial Differences in the Association of Insulin Resistance With Stroke Risk The REasons for Geographic And Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) Study

期刊

STROKE
卷 45, 期 8, 页码 2257-2262

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.114.005306

关键词

hemorrhage; infarction; insulin resistance; stroke

资金

  1. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health [U01-NS041588]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Purpose-Insulin resistance is associated with increased stroke risk, but the effect has not been adequately examined separately in white and black populations. Methods-The association of baseline insulin resistance with risk of cerebral infarction (CI) and intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) was assessed in 12 366 white and 6782 black participants from the REasons for Geographic And Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) cohort, recruited between 2003 and 2007 and followed for an average of 5.7 years. Insulin resistance was measured with the homeostasis model assessment-insulin resistance. Results-There were 364 incident CI and 41 incident ICH events. The risk for CI increased with the log of insulin resistance in whites (hazards ratio [HR](ln(IR))=1.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.38) but was largely attenuated by adjustment for stroke risk factors (HRln(IR)=1.05; 95% CI, 0.88-1.26). There was no association in blacks (HRln(IR)=1.01; 95% CI, 0.81-1.25). After adjustment for demographic factors and risk factors, there was a significant difference by race in the association of insulin resistance with risk of ICH (P=0.07), with a decrease in the risk of ICH in whites (HRln(IR)=0.61; 95% CI, 0.35-1.04) but a nonsignificant increase in blacks (HRln(IR)=1.20; 95% CI, 0.60-2.39). Conclusions-These data support the growing evidence that insulin resistance may play a more important role in stroke risk among white than black individuals and suggest a potentially discordant relationship of insulin resistance on CI and ICH among whites.

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