4.6 Article

An insulin-like growth factor-I gene polymorphism modifies the risk of microalbuminuria in subjects with an abnormal glucose tolerance

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENDOCRINOLOGY
卷 154, 期 5, 页码 715-721

出版社

BIOSCIENTIFICA LTD
DOI: 10.1530/eje.1.02144

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Microalbuminuria (MA) is related to cardiovascular disease both in diabetic patients and non-diabetic subjects. Design: We investigated whether a polymorphism near the promoter region of the IGF-I gene was related to the development of MA. Methods: For this study, 1069 participants of the Rotterdam study were selected (440 participants with an abnormal glucose tolerance (AGT), 220 participants with type 2 diabetes and 254 subjects with pre-diabetes, and 595 subjects with a normal glucose tolerance (NGT). Results: 787 subjects were carriers of the wild type IGF-I genotype (73.6%) and 282 subjects were variant carriers (26.4%) of this IGF-I gene polymorphism. Compared to subjects with NGT the risk for microalbuminuria was higher (Odds Ratio (OR): 3.1 (95% CI: 1.2-7.7); P = 0.02) in variant carriers with ACT than in carriers of the wild type of this IGF-I gene polymorphism (OR: 2.2 (95% CI: 1.2-4.0); P = 0.009). Compared with wild type carriers with AGT, the relative risk for MA was unadjusted and non-significantly increased in variant carriers with AGT (1.6; 95% CI: 0.8-2.9). However, after adjustment for possible confounding factors (age, gender, mean blood pressure, fasting insulin, fasting glucose and smoking) this risk became significant (OR: RR 2.1; 95% CI:1.1-4.4; P = 0.04). Conclusions: In subjects with AGT a higher risk for MA was observed in variant carriers than in carriers of the wild type genotype of this IGF-I gene polymorphism. Since MA is primarily associated with cardiovascular disease in subjects with AGT, our study suggests that variant carriers have a higher risk for cardiovascular disease than carriers of the wild type when they develop an AGT.

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