4.2 Article

Enhanced acute-phase response and oxidative stress in older adults with type II diabetes

期刊

HORMONE AND METABOLIC RESEARCH
卷 32, 期 10, 页码 407-412

出版社

GEORG THIEME VERLAG KG
DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-978662

关键词

lipid peroxides (TBARS); C-reactive protein; interleukin-6; non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus; aging

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To test whether oxidative stress could promote a systemic acute-phase response in elderly patients with type II diabetes. Design and Methods: In a group of 30 older diabetic patients with poor glycemic control, serum levels of lipid per oxides, measured as thiobarbituric acid-reacting substances (TBARS); C-reactive protein (CRP); interleukin (IL)-6 and the soluble form of its receptor (sIL-6R), were evaluated at baseline and after 2 and 3 months of therapeutic intervention. Thirty asymptomatic, untreated individuals with abnormal fasting glycemia, but otherwise healthy status, of similar age, sex, and weight served as control group. Results: At baseline, glycemia (8.83+/-0.67 mmol/l), HbA(1)C (8.66+/-0.59%). TEARS (8.68+/-1.21 mu mol/l), CRP (16.05+/-3.81 mg/l) IL-6 (5.39+/-1.25 pg/ml) and sIL-6R (1425+/-492 pg/ml) were significantly higher in diabetic patients than in asymptomatic hyperglycemic individuals (p<0.001). After treatment, glycemia significantly decreased with respect to baseline values (-9.82% after 60 days and -13.74% after 90 days), as did serum levels of TEARS (-14.05% and -21.89%, respectively), CRP (-32.71% and -43.86 %), IL-6 (-23.75% and -40.63 %) and sIL-6R (-34.53 % and -8.49%, respectively). In diabetic patients, multiple regression showed, at each time, that TEARS and IL-6 were independently correlated with CRP, considering CRP as the dependent variable. Similar correlations were found in asymptomatic hyperglycemic subjects. Conclusion: These results suggest that oxidative stress might be implicated in promoting a state of low-grade systemic inflammation in elderly patients with type II diabetes.

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

4.2
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