4.6 Article

Ethnic differences in BMI, subcutaneous fat, and serum leptin levels during and after pregnancy and risk of gestational diabetes

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENDOCRINOLOGY
卷 172, 期 6, 页码 649-656

出版社

BIOSCIENTIFICA LTD
DOI: 10.1530/EJE-15-0060

关键词

-

资金

  1. Norwegian Research Council
  2. Norwegian Directorate of Health
  3. South Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To explore the differences between Europeans and South Asians in BMI, subcutaneous fat, and serum leptin (s-leptin) levels during and after pregnancy and their relationship with gestational diabetes (GDM). Design: Multi-ethnic population-based cohort study, whereof 353 Europeans (93.1% of the included) and 190 South Asians (95.0% of the included). Methods: S-leptin, BMI, and subcutaneous fat (sum of triceps, subscapular, and suprailiac skinfolds) were measured at 14 and 28 weeks of gestation, and 14 weeks after delivery. GDM was diagnosed with the WHO criteria 2013. Results: South Asians had similar thickness of the triceps and suprailiac skinfolds, thicker subscapular skinfold, and higher s-leptin than Europeans in early pregnancy, despite lower BMI. South Asians retained more subcutaneous fat (mean (95% CI) 10.0 (7.4-12.7) mm vs 3.8 (1.9-5.8) mm) and BMI (1.5 (1.2-1.8) kg/m(2) vs 0.1 (-0.1 to 0.3) kg/m(2)) than Europeans 14 weeks after delivery and s-leptin decreased less in South Asians than Europeans (-0.13 (-0.27 to -0.00) mu g/l vs -0.47 (-0.57 to -0.37) mu g/l, P < 0.001 for all). The prevalence of GDM was 23.8% (n=84) in Europeans and 42.6% (n=81) in South Asians. BMI, subcutaneous fat, and s-leptin were all positively associated with GDM, also after adjustment for covariates. Conclusions: The relatively high amounts of subcutaneous fat and s-leptin in South Asians in early pregnancy contributed to their increased risk of GDM. South Asians retained more weight and subcutaneous fat after delivery, potentially increasing their risk of adiposity and GDM in future pregnancies.

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