4.7 Article

Prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus among persons with hepatitis C virus infection in the United States

期刊

ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
卷 133, 期 8, 页码 592-599

出版社

AMER COLL PHYSICIANS
DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-133-8-200010170-00009

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIDA NIH HHS [1 R01 DA10627, 1 F31 DA06007] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection may contribute to the development of diabetes mellitus. This relationship has not been investigated at the population level, and its biological mechanism remains unknown. Objective: To examine the prevalence of type 2 diabetes among persons with HCV infection in a representative sample of the general adult population of the United States. Design: Cross-sectional national survey. Setting: The Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988-1994. Participants: 9841 persons older than 20 years of age for whom data on HCV infection and diabetes were complete. Measurements: The presence of diabetes was ascertained by using American Diabetes Association guidelines based on fasting plasma glucose measurement and medication history. Presence of HCV infection was assessed by testing for serum HCV-specific antibodies (anti-HCV). Results: of the 9841 persons evaluated, 8.4% had type 2 diabetes and 2.1% were anti-HCV positive. Type 2 diabetes occurred more often in persons who were older, were nonwhite, had a high body mass index, and had low socioeconomic status. Type 2 diabetes was less common in persons who acknowledged previous illicit drug use. After adjustment for these factors, persons 40 years of age or older with HCV infection were more than three times more likely than those without HCV infection to have type 2 diabetes (adjusted odds ratio, 3.77 [95% CI, 1.80 to 7.87]). None of the 19 persons with type 1 diabetes were anti-HCV positive. Conclusion: In the United States, type 2 diabetes occurs more often in persons with HCV infection who are older than 40 years of age.

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