4.0 Article

Alcohol consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus among US male physicians

期刊

ARCHIVES OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
卷 160, 期 7, 页码 1025-1030

出版社

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/archinte.160.7.1025

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA40360] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIDDK NIH HHS [DK36798] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To examine the association between low to moderate alcohol consumption and the incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) in men. Design: Prospective cohort study. Subjects and Methods: Over an average period of 12.1 years, we evaluated 20 951 participants in the Physicians' Health Study between ages 40 and 84 years who were free of cardiovascular disease, cancer, and diabetes and provided data on alcohol consumption at baseline. Main Outcome Measure: Type 2 DM diagnosed after randomization. Results: Among 20 951 physicians, 766 cases of incident DM were reported over an average follow-up period of 12.1 years. After adjustment for age, randomized treatment assignment, smoking, physical activity, and body mass index, the relative risk estimates and 95% confidence intervals for those reporting alcohol use of rarely/never, 1 to 3 drinks per month, 1 drink per week, 2 to 4 drinks per week, 5 to 6 drinks per week, and 1 or more drinks per day were 1.00 (referent), 1.03 (0.80-1.33), 0.89 (0.70-1.14), 0.74 (0.59-0.93), 0.67 (0.51-0.89), and 0.57 (0.45-0.73), respectively (linear trend, P<.001). Additional adjustment for baseline history of hypertension, high cholesterol level, or parental history of myocardial infarction or family history of diabetes (data collected at 9 years) did not materially alter the results. These associations persisted in analyses stratified by age, smoking status, body mass index, physical activity, and family history of DM. Conclusion: These data indicate that apparently healthy men who self-select for light to moderate alcohol consumption have a decreased subsequent risk of type 2 DM.

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

4.0
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