4.5 Article

Distribution and clinical association of plasma soluble ST2 during the development of type 2 diabetes

期刊

DIABETES RESEARCH AND CLINICAL PRACTICE
卷 118, 期 -, 页码 140-145

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.diabres.2016.06.006

关键词

sST2; Type 2 diabetes; Prediabetes; Atherosclerosis

资金

  1. Beijing Science and Technology Planning Project
  2. Capital Characteristic Clinical Application Research [Z121107005112014]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim: ST2 plays important roles in diabetes and cardiovascular diseases. However, the distribution and changes in plasma soluble ST2 during the development of type 2 diabetes remain unclear. Methods: In the present study, 525 subjects were recruited and divided into three groups: normal, prediabetic and diabetic subjects. The sST2 levels of all subjects were measured using a high-sensitivity assay. Results: sST2 levels were modestly but significantly elevated in patients with diabetes (26.1 ng/ml) compared with normal subjects (19.3 ng/ml, P < 0.001) and persons with prediabetes (20.3 ng/ml, P < 0.001). The third and fourth quartiles (21.3 and 29.1 ng/ml, respectively) of the sST2 levels were associated with a 2.31- and 4.00-fold increased risk of having diabetes. With the prediabetic group as a reference population, patients with sST2 levels in the fourth quartiles had a higher increased risk of having diabetes mellitus (odds ratios = 2.19, P < 0.05). Furthermore, each SD log sST2 was associated with a 1.57-fold increased risk of atherosclerosis when all relevant variables was added to the multi-variable logistic regression models. After adjustment for age and sex, all markers of liver and renal function, HDL-cholesterol, total cholesterol and smoking status showed a significant association with sST2 levels. Conclusion: Elevated sST2 levels were not only associated with metabolic characteristics of diabetes but also with a significantly increased risk of having diabetes. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. 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