4.7 Article

Associations of Abdominal Muscle Area and Radiodensity with Adiponectin and Leptin: The Multiethnic Study of Atherosclerosis

期刊

OBESITY
卷 26, 期 7, 页码 1234-1241

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/oby.22208

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute [HHSN268201500003I, N01-HC-95159, N01-HC-95160, N01-HC-95161, N01-HC-95162, N01-HC-95163, N01-HC-95164, N01-HC-95165, N01-HC-95166, N01-HC-95167, N01-HC-95168, N01-HC-95169, R01HL088451]
  2. National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences [UL1-TR-000040, UL1-TR-001079]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ObjectiveThis study examined the associations of muscle area and radiodensity with adiponectin and leptin. MethodsA total of 1,944 participants who enrolled in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis underwent computed tomography to quantify body composition and measurements of adiponectin, leptin, interleukin-6, C-reactive protein, and resistin. ResultsThe mean age and BMI of participants were 64.7 years and 28.1 kg/m(2) and 49% were female. With adjustment for age, gender, race/ethnicity, traditional cardiovascular disease risk factors, inflammatory biomarkers, physical activity, and sedentary behavior, a 1-SD increment in total abdominal, stability, and locomotor muscle area was associated with a 19%, 17%, and 12% lower adiponectin level, respectively (P<0.01 for all) but not leptin (P>0.05). Muscle radiodensity was more robustly associated with adiponectin and leptin in the multivariable linear regression models. That is, with full adjustment for all covariates, a 1-SD increment in total abdominal, stability, and locomotor muscle radiodensity was associated with a 31%, 31%, and 18% lower adiponectin level (P<0.01 for all) and a 6.7%, 4.6%, and 8.1% higher leptin level (P<0.05 for all), respectively. ConclusionsThe data suggest that increases in muscle area and radiodensity may have positive impacts on chronic inflammation and, in turn, reduce the risk of cardiometabolic disease.

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

4.7
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