4.7 Article

Metabolic Syndrome Including Glycated Hemoglobin A1c in Adults: Is It Time to Change?

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 8, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm8122090

关键词

metabolic syndrome; vascular health; HbA1c

资金

  1. Carlos III Health Institute of the Ministry of Health of Spain [FIS:PI13/00618, PI13/01526, PI13/00058, PI13/01635, PI13/02528, PI12/01474, RETICS RD12/0005]
  2. Autonomous Government of Castilla and Leon [GRS 770/B/13]
  3. Infosalud Fundation
  4. FEDER funds

向作者/读者索取更多资源

(1) Background: To assess the suitability of replacing conventional markers used for insulin resistance and dysglycemia by HbA1c in both the quantitative and qualitative metabolic syndrome (MetS) definition criteria; (2) Methods: Confirmatory factorial analysis was used to compare three quantitative definitions of MetS that consisted of many single-factor models, one of which included HbA1c as the dysglycemia indicator. After that, the model with the better goodness-of-fit was selected. Furthermore, a new MetS qualitative definition was proposed by replacing fasting plasma glucose with HbA1c > 5.7% in the International Diabetes Federation (IDF) definition. The clinical performance of these two MetS criteria (IDF and IDF-modified including HbA1c as the dysglycemia indicator) to predict vascular damage (pulse wave velocity [PWv], intima media thickness [IMT] and albumin-to-creatinine ratio [ACR]) was estimated; (3) Results: The single-factor model including HbA1c showed the better goodness-of-fit (chi(2) = 2.45, df = 2, p = 0.293, CFI = 0.999, SRMR = 0.010). Additionally, the IDF-modified criteria gained in clinical performance to predict vascular damage (diagnostic Odds Ratio: 6.94, 1.34 and 1.90) for pulse wave velocity (PWv), intima media thickness (IMT) and albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR), respectively; and (4) Conclusions: These data suggest that HbA1c could be considered as a useful component to be included in the MetS definition.

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