4.7 Article

Change in Visceral Adiposity Independently Predicts a Greater Risk of Developing Type 2 Diabetes Over 10 Years in Japanese Americans

期刊

DIABETES CARE
卷 36, 期 2, 页码 289-293

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/dc12-0198

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [DK-31170, HL-49293, DK-02654]
  2. Diabetes Research Center [DK-17047]
  3. Clinical Nutrition Research Unit [DK-35816]
  4. General Clinical Research Center at the University of Washington [RR-00037]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE-Visceral adiposity is an important risk factor for cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes. We sought to determine whether change in intraabdominal fat area (IAF) over time predicts subsequent development of diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS-We followed up 436 nondiabetic Japanese-American subjects (mean age 51.9 years, mean BMI 24.2 kg/m(2), 54% male) for development of diabetes. We fit a logistic regression model to examine the association over a 10-year follow-up between change in IAF at 5-year follow-up and other fat areas (measured by computed tomography) and development of incident diabetes, adjusted for age, sex, family history of diabetes in a first-degree relative, second-generation versus third-generation Japanese American (Nisei vs. Sansei), baseline IAF, BMI, weight change over time, smoking status, physical activity level, and subcutaneous fat (SCF) depot areas. RESULTS-Cumulative incidence of diabetes was 20.4% at 10 years. Mean change in IAF was 10.9 cm(2). An increase of 1 SD in IAF was associated with a 1.65-fold increase in the odds of diabetes over 10 years (OR = 1.65, 95% CI 1.21-2.25) after adjusting for the above covariates. This association was also independent of changes in thoracic, thigh, and abdominal SCF, as well as change in weight. CONCLUSIONS-We conclude that baseline IAF and accumulation of fat in this area over time are independent predictors of the development of type 2 diabetes in Japanese Americans. Diabetes Care 36:289-293, 2013

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