4.5 Article

Differential association of C-reactive protein with adiposity in men and women in an Aboriginal community in northeast Arnhem Land of Australia

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBESITY
卷 31, 期 1, 页码 103-108

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.ijo.0803350

关键词

aboriginal Australians; remoteness; C-reactive protein; metabolic abnormalities; cardiovascular disease

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To examine the relationship between C-reactive protein ( CRP), adiposity and other metabolic abnormalities in an Aboriginal community in Northern Australia. Design: Cross-sectional analysis of data obtained between 2001 and 2003 from 379 Aboriginal people residing in a geographically isolated community. Results: Mean ( 95% CI) CRP in women and men was 4.06 cholesterol ( 3.53, 4.66) mg/l and 3.42 ( 2.94, 3.97) mg/l, respectively ( P NS). The prevalence of the metabolic syndrome ( US National Education program ( NCEP) definition) was significantly higher for women than men ( 41 vs 18%, chi(2) 20.94, P < 0.001). C-reactive protein correlated strongly with adiposity in women ( waist circumference, waist to hip ratio and body mass index; r >= 0.514, P < 0.01) but much less strongly in men ( r <= 0.221, P < 0.05). In a multivariate stepwise linear regression model, waist circumference was the strongest independent predictor explaining 35% of CRP concentration variance in women, but only 5.4% in men ( WHR). Incremental increases in CRP concentration across four BMI categories were significant in women ( P-linear (trendo)< 0.001) but not in men. Conclusions: High CRP levels in the surveyed population are consistent with the high prevalence of vascular disease morbidity and mortality in Aboriginal Australians. The relationship of CRP with increasing body fat was strong and consistent in women but not in men. Prospective studies are needed to elucidate the role of CRP ( if any) as a predictive marker for cardiovascular events in this high-risk population.

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

4.5
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