4.3 Article

Adipokines and the risk of active TB: a nested case-control study

出版社

INT UNION AGAINST TUBERCULOSIS LUNG DISEASE (I U A T L D)
DOI: 10.5588/ijtld.20.0300

关键词

tuberculosis; LTBI; TB prevention; TB control programme; TB epidemiology

资金

  1. United States National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA [UM1 CA182876, R01 CA144034]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Leptin and resistin levels were found to be inversely associated with the risk of active TB in this study, suggesting that higher serum levels of these adipokines may be protective against TB infection. Adiponectin and ghrelin levels, on the other hand, did not show significant associations with TB risk.
BACKGROUND: Adipokines arc emerging mediators of immune response, and may affect susceptibility to active TB. OBJECTIVE: To examine the associations between adipokines and the risk of active TB. METHODS: In a case-control study nested within a prospective cohort of middle-aged and older adults in Singapore, 280 incident active TB cases who donated blood for research before diagnosis were matched with 280 controls. Serum levels of adiponectin, resistin, leptin and ghrelin were measured. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to compute the adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the associations between adipokines and the risk of active TB. RESULTS: Higher levels of leptin and resistin were associated with reduced risk of TB in a dose-dependent manner. Compared to those in the lowest quartile of leptin levels, those in the highest quartile had an OR of 0.46 (95%CI 0.26-0.82; P for trend = 0.009). Similarly, compared to those in the lowest quartile of resistin levels, those in the highest quartile had an OR of 0.46 (95%CI 0.24-0.90; P for trend = 0.03). Adiponectin and ghrelin levels were not associated with TB risk. CONCLUSION: Increased serum levels of leptin and resistin may be associated with reduced susceptibility to active TB infection.

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

4.3
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