4.6 Article

Glucose, Insulin, and Incident Hypertension in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 172, 期 10, 页码 1144-1154

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwq266

关键词

diabetes mellitus; glucose; hypertension; insulin; kidney; nephrology

资金

  1. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute [N01-HC-95159, N01-HC-95165, N01-HC-95169]
  2. National Institutes of Health [1KL2RR025015-01, K23 DK63274-01, HL071205]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Diabetes mellitus and hypertension commonly coexist, but the nature of this link is not well understood. The authors tested whether diabetes and higher concentrations of fasting serum glucose and insulin are associated with increased risk of developing incident hypertension in the community-based Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. At baseline, 3,513 participants were free of hypertension, defined as systolic blood pressure >= 140 mm Hg, diastolic blood pressure >= 90 mm Hg, or use of antihypertensive medications to treat high blood pressure. Of these, 965 participants (27%) developed incident hypertension over 4.7 years' median follow-up between 2002 and 2007. Compared with participants with normal baseline fasting glucose, those with impaired fasting glucose and diabetes had adjusted relative risks of hypertension of 1.16 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.96, 1.40) and 1.41 (95% CI: 1.17, 1.71), respectively (P = 0.0015). The adjusted relative risk of incident hypertension was 1.08 (95% CI: 1.04, 1.13) for each mmol/L higher glucose (P < 0.0001) and 1.15 (95% CI: 1.05, 1.25) for each doubling of insulin (P = 0.0016). Further adjustment for serum cystatin C, urinary albumin/creatinine ratio, and arterial elasticity measured by tonometry substantially reduced the magnitudes of these associations. In conclusion, diabetes and higher concentrations of glucose and insulin may contribute to the development of hypertension, in part through kidney disease and arterial stiffness.

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