4.6 Article

Sleep-disordered breathing, glucose intolerance, and insulin resistance - The Sleep Heart Health Study

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 160, 期 6, 页码 521-530

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwh261

关键词

diabetes mellitus, type II; glucose intolerance; insulin resistance; respiration; sleep; sleep apnea syndromes

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [U01HL53941, UO1HL53937, UO1HL63463, UO1HL63429, U01HL53940, UO1HL53916, HL075078, UO1HL53938, UO1HL53934, UO1HL53931] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Clinic-based studies suggest that sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) is associated with glucose intolerance and insulin resistance. However, in the available studies, researchers have not rigorously controlled for confounding variables to assess the independent relation between SDB and impaired glucose metabolism. The objective of this study was to determine whether SDB was associated with glucose intolerance and insulin resistance among community-dwelling subjects (n = 2,656) participating in the Sleep Heart Health Study (1994-1999). SDB was characterized with the respiratory disturbance index and measurements of oxygen saturation during sleep. Fasting and 2-hour glucose levels measured during an oral glucose tolerance test were used to assess glycemic status. Relative to subjects with a respiratory disturbance index of less than 5.0 events/hour (the reference category), subjects with mild SDB (5.0-14.9 events/hour) and moderate to severe SDB (greater than or equal to15 events/hour) had adjusted odds ratios of 1.27 (95% confidence interval: 0.98, 1.64) and 1.46 (95% confidence interval: 1.09, 1.97), respectively, for fasting glucose intolerance (p for trend < 0.01). Sleep-related hypoxemia was also associated with glucose intolerance independently of age, gender, body mass index, and waist circumference. The results of this study suggest that SDB is independently associated with glucose intolerance and insulin resistance and may lead to type 2 diabetes mellitus.

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