4.6 Article

Hyperuricemia in Young Adults and Risk of Insulin Resistance, Prediabetes, and Diabetes: A 15-Year Follow-up Study

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 176, 期 2, 页码 108-116

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kws002

关键词

diabetes mellitus; type 2; follow-up studies; hyperuricemia; insulin resistance; prediabetic state; risk factors

资金

  1. Takeda Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Deerfield, Illinois)
  2. PhRMA Foundation (Washington, DC)
  3. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI)
  4. Ardea Biosciences, Inc. (San Diego, California)
  5. Metabolex, Inc. (Hayward, California)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The objective of this study was to assess the utility of hyperuricemia as a marker for diabetes and prediabetes (impaired fasting glucose) and insulin resistance in young adults. Using Cox proportional hazards regression models, the authors analyzed 15-year follow-up data on 5,012 persons in 4 US cities who were aged 1830 years and diabetes-free at the time of enrollment. At baseline (1986), 88 of participants had a body mass index (weight (kg)/height (m)(2)) less than 30. During the follow-up period (through 2001), the incidence rates of diabetes and prediabetes (insulin resistance and impaired fasting glucose) were higher among persons with greater serum urate concentrations. In multivariable Cox regression analyses that adjusted for age, gender, race, body mass index, family history of diabetes, diastolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, smoking, and alcohol use, the hazard ratios for diabetes, insulin resistance, and prediabetes among persons with hyperuricemia (serum urate level 7 mg/dL vs. 7.0 mg/dL) were 1.87 (95 confidence interval (CI): 1.33, 2.62), 1.36 (95 CI: 1.23, 1.51), and 1.25 (95 CI: 1.04, 1.52), respectively. This observation was generally consistent across subgroups. The authors conclude that hyperuricemia in the midtwenties is an independent marker for predicting diabetes and prediabetes among young adults in the subsequent 15 years.

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