4.7 Article

Urinary cadmium, impaired fasting glucose, and diabetes in the NHANES III

期刊

DIABETES CARE
卷 26, 期 2, 页码 468-470

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/diacare.26.2.468

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [R03 CA89798, CA57707-07] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE - increasing rates of type 2 diabetes worldwide suggest that diabetes may be caused by environmental toxins. Cadmium is a widespread environmental pollutant that accumulates in the pancreas and exerts diabetogenic effects in animals. To test the hypothesis that exposure to cadmium is associated with impaired fasting glucose and type 2 diabetes, we examined the associations between urinary cadmium and the prevalence of impaired fasting glucose (prediabetes) and diabetes in the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS - We analyzed data on 8,722 adults greater than or equal to40 years of age from the NHANES III (1988-1994), a cross-sectional health survey of a nationally representative sample of the noninstitutionalized civilian U.S. population. We studied urinary levels of cadmium (adjusted for urine creatinine) in relation to the prevalence of impaired fasting glucose and diabetes, using the criteria of the American Diabetes Association. RESULTS - After adjustment for age, ethnicity, sex, and BMI, the odds of impaired fasting glucose and diabetes increased dose-dependently with elevations in urinary cadmium from 0-0.99 to 1.00-1.99 and greater than or equal to2 mug/g creatinine (impaired fasting glucose, odds ratio [OR] 1.48, 95% CI 1.21-1.82 and OR 2.05, 95% Cl 1.42-2.95; diabetes, OR 1.24,95% CI 1.06-1.45 and OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.07-1.97). CONCLUSIONS - In this large cross-sectional study, urinary cadmium levels are significantly and dose-dependently associated with both impaired fasting glucose and diabetes. These findings, which require confirmation in prospective studies, suggest that cadmium may cause prediabetes and diabetes in humans.

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