4.2 Article

Hyperuricemia, Cardiovascular Profile, and Comorbidity in Older Men and Women: The Pro. VA Study

期刊

REJUVENATION RESEARCH
卷 20, 期 1, 页码 44-51

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/rej.2016.1834

关键词

cardiovascular disease; comorbidity; elderly; epidemiology; hyperuricemia; uric acid

资金

  1. Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Padova e Rovigo

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hyperuricemia (HU) is growing worldwide and associates with several medical conditions in the elderly. However, data about older people and possible gender differences are sparse. The aim of this study was to compare HU prevalence rates and association with relevant medical disorders in elderly subjects of both sexes. Pro. V.A. is a survey of 3099 individuals aged 65+, focusing on chronic diseases and disability. Uric acid (UA) levels were dichotomized using 6.0 mg/dL (females) and 7.0 mg/dL (males), and multivariate logistic regression models were used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) between HU and single comorbidity. HU prevalence was 21.5% in females and 15.8% in males. HU was associated with most anthropometric and laboratory variables in women, but not in men. After adjustment for age, body mass index, and renal function, HU was independently associated with the presence of cardiovascular diseases in both sexes. In women, HU was associated with hand osteoarthritis (OR = 1.52; 95% CI: 1.12-2.08) and edentulism (OR = 1.31; 95% CI: 1.01-1.71), while resulted protective for osteoporosis (OR = 0.69; 95% CI: 0.53-0.91). In men, HU was significantly related with knee osteoarthritis (OR = 1.72; 95% CI: 1.06-2.79) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR = 1.60; 95% CI: 1.04-2.45). The presence of >= 4 comorbidities was a stronger determinant of HU in men (OR = 2.54; 95% CI: 1.21-5.37) than in women (ns). Patterns of age-dependent UA increase are markedly different in men and women. HU prevalence is substantial and its association with other diseases is gender specific, connoting a peculiar clinical profile.

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

4.2
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