4.7 Article

Does the association of the triglyceride to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio with fasting serum insulin differ by race/ethnicity?

期刊

CARDIOVASCULAR DIABETOLOGY
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1475-2840-7-4

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The triglyceride to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (TG/HDL-C) ratio has been reported to be as closely correlated with insulin resistance as is the fasting serum insulin concentration (FSI), and therefore it is seen as a clinically useful way to identify the concomitant presence of insulin resistance and dyslipidemia. However, conflicting findings exist for the association of the TG/HDL-C ratio with FSI by race/ethnicity. Methods: The associations of FSI concentration, serum triglyceride concentrations, and HDL-C were analyzed using log-binomial regression analyses and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis among nondiabetic adults (n = 2652, aged = 20 years, 51.2% men) in the United States. Results: After adjustment for potential confounding effects, the prevalence ratio of hyperinsulinemia was 2.16 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.74 to 2.08) when using a single cutoff point of 3.5, and 2.23 ( 95% CI, 1.83 to 2.72) when using race/ethnicity-specific cutoff points of 3.0 for non-Hispanic whites and Mexican Americans and 2.0 for non-Hispanic blacks for the TG/HDLC ratio. The area under the ROC curve of the TG/HDL-C ratio for predicting hyperinsulinemia was 0.77 ( 95% CI, 0.74 to 0.79), 0.75 ( 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.77), and 0.74 ( 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.76) for non-Hispanic whites, non-Hispanic blacks, and Mexican Americans, respectively. Conclusion: There was a significant association between the TG/HDL-C ratio and FSI among three major racial/ethnic groups in the United States. Our results add further support to the notion that the TG/HDL-C ratio may be a clinically simple and useful indicator for hyperinsulinemia among nondiabetic adults regardless of race/ethnicity.

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