4.3 Article

Serum uric acid associates with the incidence of type 2 diabetes in a prospective cohort of middle-aged and elderly Chinese

期刊

ENDOCRINE
卷 40, 期 1, 页码 109-116

出版社

HUMANA PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1007/s12020-011-9449-2

关键词

Serum uric acid; Type 2 diabetes; Prospective study

资金

  1. Key Laboratory for Endocrine and Metabolic Diseases of Ministry of Chinese Public Health [1994DP131044]
  2. National Science Foundation of China [30911120493]
  3. National Key New Drug Creation and Manufacturing Program [2008ZX09312/019]
  4. Ministry of Science & Technology of China [2008BAI52B03]
  5. Shanghai Committee of Science and Technology [08dj1400602]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study is to prospectively investigate the association between serum uric acid and the incidence of type 2 diabetes in middle-aged and elderly Chinese. This study consisted of 924 non-diabetic adults aged 40 years or older at baseline. Subjects who received antidiabetic therapies and those who responded positively to the 75-g oral glucose tolerance test according to the 1999 World Health Organization criteria were diagnosed as having type 2 diabetes. Ninety-eight subjects developed type 2 diabetes during the 3.5-year follow-up. The hazard ratio (HR) for incident diabetes was 1.50 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.18-1.92] for the highest sex-specific quartile of serum uric acid compared with the lowest after controlling for confounders. Participants with hyperuricemia had an HR of 1.95 (95% CI 1.11-3.44) for incident diabetes compared with those without hyperuricemia. Compared with the lowest quartile, the highest quartile had an HR for incident diabetes of 2.45 (95% CI 1.39-4.33) in men and 1.39 (95% CI 1.04-1.84) in women after fully adjustment. Adding serum uric acid to a model of conventional risk factors for diabetes improved the area under the curve for prediction of type 2 diabetes by 5%. Serum uric acid was an independent predictor of incident type 2 diabetes in middle-aged and elderly Chinese.

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