4.7 Article

The relation of markers of inflammation to the development of glucose disorders in the elderly - The cardiovascular health study

期刊

DIABETES
卷 50, 期 10, 页码 2384-2389

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/diabetes.50.10.2384

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Several studies suggest that inflammation plays a role in the pathogenesis of some glucose disorders in adults. We tested this hypothesis in a longitudinal cohort study of older individuals who had normal fasting glucose (FG) values at baseline. We compared the baseline levels of six inflammatory markers in participants who had developed glucose disorders at follow-up with those of participants whose FG remained normal at follow-up. Participants were members of the Cardiovascular Health Study, a prospective study of risk factors for cardiovascular disease in adults greater than or equal to 65 years. All 5,888 participants had baseline testing, including FG and markers of inflammation: white blood cell and platelet counts and albumin, fibrinogen, C-reactive protein (CRP), and factor VIIIc levels. At 3-4 years of follow-up, 4,481 (84.5%) of those who were alive had FG levels retested. Participants who developed diabetes (n = 45) had higher median levels of CRP at baseline than those who remained normoglycemic. On multivariate analysis, those with elevated CRP levels (75th percentile [2.86 mg/l] vs. 25th percentile [0.82 mg/l]) were 2.03 times (95% confidence intervals, 1.44-2.86) more likely to have diabetes on follow-up. Adjustment for confounders and other inflammatory markers did not appreciably change this finding. There was no relationship between the development of diabetes and other markers of inflammation. Inflammation, as measured by CRP levels, is associated with the development of diabetes in the elderly. Understanding the role of inflammation in the pathogenesis of glucose disorders in this age-group may lead to better classification and treatment of glucose disorders among them.

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