4.6 Article

Association Between Incident Type 2 Diabetes and Opium Use: Mediation by Body Mass and Adiposity

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwad166

关键词

body mass index; diabetes mellitus, type 2; incidence; obesity; opium; prevention

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study analyzed data from a prospective study in Iran and found that long-term opium use is associated with a lower incidence of type 2 diabetes. This association is mainly mediated by lower body weight and adiposity.
Opiates can affect glucose metabolism and obesity, but no large prospective study (to our knowledge) has investigated the association between long-term opium use, body mass index (BMI; weight (kg)/height (m)2), and incident type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We analyzed prospective data from 50,045 Golestan Cohort Study participants in Iran (enrollment: 2004-2008). After excluding participants with preexisting diseases, including diabetes, we used adjusted Poisson regression models to estimate incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for T2DM in opium users compared with nonusers, using mediation analysis to assess the BMI-mediated association of opium use with incident T2DM. Of 40,083 included participants (mean age = 51.4 (standard deviation, 8.8) years; 56% female), 16% were opium users (median duration of use, 10 (interquartile range), 4-20) years). During follow-up (until January 2020), 5,342 incident T2DM cases were recorded, including 8.5% of opium users and 14.2% of nonusers. Opium use was associated with an overall decrease in incident T2DM (IRR = 0.83, 95% CI: 0.75, 0.92), with a significant dose-response association. Most (84.3%) of this association was mediated by low BMI or waist circumference, and opium use did not have a direct association with incident T2DM (IRR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.87, 1.08). Long-term opium use was associated with lower incidence of T2DM, which was mediated by low body mass and adiposity.

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

4.6
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