4.5 Article

Inverse relationship between serum Metrnl levels and visceral fat obesity (VFO) in patients with type 2 diabetes

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.diabres.2020.108068

关键词

Metrnl; Visceral fat obesity (VFO); Visceral fat area (VFA); Type 2 diabetes mellitus

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim: The relationship between serum Metrnl levels and visceral fat obesity (VFO) remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate the association between serum Metrnl levels and VFO in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes. Methods: A total of 321 Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes (226 men and 95 postmenopausal women aged 61.4 +/- 6.5 years, BMI 25.1 +/- 3.2 kg/m(2)) were evaluated. Serum Metrnl levels were measured by enzyme linked-immunosorbent assay. Visceral fat area (VFA) was quantified via Dual Energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA). Correlation analyses were carried out for serum Metrnl levels and VFO. Results: VFO groups (VFA >= 100 cm(2)) have lower serum Metrnl levels than non-VFO groups (VFA < 100 cm(2)) (578.9 +/- 225.1 vs. 684.9 +/- 263.8, P = 0.001). An increasing trend in serum Metrnl levels was found to accompany the decrease in VFA. Serum Metrnl levels were negatively correlated with VFA, total cholesterol (TC), triglyceride (TG), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and albumin (ALB), but positively correlated with age, height, blood urea nitrogen (BUN), creatinine (Cr) and uric acid (UA) (all P < 0.05). Binary logistic regression analysis showed that serum Metrnl was inversely associated with VFO even after adjusted age, gender, height, TC, TG, LDL-C, ALB, BUN, Cr, and UA (odds ration [OR], 0.846; confidence interval [CI], 0.745-0.961; P = 0.010). The optimal cut-off value of serum Metrnl levels that predicted VFO was 671.3 ng/ml (95%CI = 0.55-0.70, P = 0.001). Conclusions: Serum Metrnl levels were inversely correlated with VFO and may be a useful indicator of VFO in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes. (C) 2020 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.5
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