4.5 Article

The Glycated Albumin to Glycated Hemoglobin Ratio Might Not Be Associated with Carotid Atherosclerosis in Patients with Type 1 Diabetes

期刊

DIABETES & METABOLISM JOURNAL
卷 38, 期 6, 页码 456-463

出版社

KOREAN DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.4093/dmj.2014.38.6.456

关键词

Diabetes mellitus; type 1; Carotid intima-media thickness; Glycated albumin to glycated hemoglobin ratio; Glycosylated serum albumin

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The ratio of glycated albumin to glycated hemoglobin (GA/A1c) is known to be elevated in subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who had decreased insulin secretion. Additionally, the carotid intima media thickness (IMT) is greater in T2DM patients with higher GA/A1c ratios. We investigated whether increased GA/A1c ratio and IMT are also associated in type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM), which is characterized by lack of insulin secretory capacity. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, we recruited 81 T1DM patients (33 men, 48 women; mean age 44.1 +/- 13.0 years) who underwent carotid IMT, GA, and HbA1c measurements. Results: The mean GA/A1c ratio was 2.90. Based on these results, we classified the subjects into two groups: group I (GA/A1c ratio <2.90, n=36) and group II (GA/A1c ratio >= 2.90, n=45). Compared with group I, the body mass indexes (BMIs), waist circumferences, and IMTs were lower in group II. GA/A1c ratio was negatively correlated with BMI, urine albumin to creatinine ratio (P<0.001 for both), and both the mean and maximal IMT (P=0.001, both). However, after adjusting the confounding factors, we observed that IMT was no longer associated with GA/A1c ratio. Conclusion: In contrast to T2DM, IMT was not significantly related to GA/A1c ratio in the subjects with T1DM. This suggests that the correlations between GA/A1c ratio and the parameters known to be associated with atherosclerosis in T2DM could be manifested differently in T1DM. Further studies are needed to investigate these relationships in T1DM.

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