4.7 Article

Steroids in adult men with type 1 diabetes - A tendency to hypogonadism

期刊

DIABETES CARE
卷 26, 期 6, 页码 1812-1818

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/diacare.26.6.1812

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE - To compare steroids and their associations in men with type 1 diabetes and healthy control subjects. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS - We studied 52 adult men with type I diabetes without microvascular complications, compared with 53 control subjects matched for age and BMI. Steroids and their binding globulins were assessed in a single venous blood sample and a 24-h urine sample. RESULTS - In adult men with type 1 diabetes, total testosterone did not differ from healthy control subjects, but sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG) (42 [14-83] vs. 26 [9-117] nmol/l, P < 0.001), cortisol-binding globulin (CBG; 0.87 +/- 0.17 vs. 0.73 +/- 0.10 nmol/l, P < 0.001), and cortisol levels (0.46 +/- 0.16 vs. 0.39 +/- 0.14 nmol/l, P < 0.01) were higher. The free testosterone index was lower (60 [17-139] vs. 82 [24-200], P < 0.001), and the calculated free testosterone was slightly lower (497 [1151 vs. 542 [130], P < 0.064), but the pituitary-gonadal axis was not obviously affected in type 1 diabetes. The calculated free serum cortisol was not different, and 24-h urinary free cortisol excretion was lower in type I diabetes (121 [42-365] vs. 161 [55-284] nmol/24 h, P < 0.009). Testosterone was mainly associated with SHBG. Estimated portal insulin was a contributer to SHBG in control subjects but-not in type 1 diabetes. Cortisol was associated with CBG. HbA(1c) contributed to CBG in men with diabetes but not in control subjects, whereas estimated portal insulin did not contribute. CONCLUSIONS - Adult men with fairly controlled type 1 diabetes without complications who are treated with subcutaneous insulin have a tendency to hypogonadism, as reflected by lower free testosterone levels in the presence of similar total testosterone levels and higher SHBG levels.

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

4.7
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