4.7 Article

Intra-abdominal fat accumulation predicts the development of the metabolic syndrome in non-diabetic Japanese-Americans

期刊

DIABETOLOGIA
卷 50, 期 6, 页码 1156-1160

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00125-007-0651-y

关键词

Asians; epidemiology; insulin resistance; metabolic syndrome; visceral adiposity

资金

  1. NIDDK NIH HHS [DK 55460, DK 02860] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DIABETES AND DIGESTIVE AND KIDNEY DISEASES [R01DK055460, K24DK002860] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims/hypothesis Intra-abdominal fat (IAF) is an important risk factor for CHD and type 2 diabetes, and in cross-sectional studies is associated with the metabolic syndrome (MetS). Our aim was to determine whether IAF accumulation predicts the future development of MetS in non-diabetic Japanese-Americans. Subjects and methods We conducted a prospective study of 457 Japanese-American men and women (mean +/- SD: age 51.5 +/- 12.0 years, BMI 23.9 +/- 3.1 kg/m(2)) without diabetes or MetS at baseline. Of these, 408 completed a 5-year follow-up and 366 completed a 10-year follow-up. BMI, waist circumference, IAF and subcutaneous fat (SCF) areas by computed tomography, blood pressure, fasting plasma glucose, insulin, triacylglycerol and HDL-cholesterol were measured at baseline and at 5- and 10-year follow-up. MetS was defined using National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III criteria. Results Incidence of MetS was 15.3% at 5 years and 17.8% at 10 years. A change of 1 SD in IAF area was associated with a 2.1-fold increase in the odds of MetS at 10 years (odds ratio = 2.08, 95% CI 1.41-3.07) after adjusting for age, sex, baseline IAF and the presence of each individual MetS criteria at baseline. This association was independent of changes in fasting insulin and SCF areas. Conclusion We conclude that IAF accumulation over time independently predicts the development of MetS and thus may play an important role in the development of MetS in Japanese-Americans.

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