4.7 Article

Decreased Serum Concentrations of 25-Hydroxycholecalciferol Are Associated With Increased Risk of Progression to Impaired Fasting Glucose and Diabetes

期刊

DIABETES CARE
卷 36, 期 5, 页码 1361-1367

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/dc12-1050

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE-To study the association between vitamin D status and the risk of incident impaired fasting glucose (IFG) and diabetes in a population-based cohort of diabetes-free subjects. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS-In a historical prospective cohort study of subjects from the Clalit Health Services database, which includes information on nearly 4 million people, diabetes-free subjects aged 40-70 years with serum 25-hydroxycholecalciferol (25-OHD) measurements available were followed for 2 years to assess the development of IFG and diabetes in five 25-OHD subgroups: >= 25, 25.1-37.5, 37.6-50, 50.1-75, and >75 nmol/L. RESULTS-The baseline cohort included 117,960 adults: 83,526 normoglycemic subjects and 34,434 subjects with IFG. During follow-up, 8,629 subjects (10.3% of the normoglycemic group) developed IFG, and 2,162 subjects (1.8% of the total cohort) progressed to diabetes. A multivariable model adjusted for age, sex, population group, immigrant status, BMI, season of vitamin D measurement, LDL and HDL cholesterol, triglycerides, estimated glomerular filtration rate, history of hypertension or cardiovascular disease, Charlson comorbidity index, smoking, and socioeconomic status revealed an inverse association between 25-OHD and the risk of progression to IFG and diabetes. The odds of transitioning from normoglycemia to IFG, from nonnoglycemia to diabetes, and from IFG to diabetes in subjects with a 25-OHD level <= 25 nmol/L were greater than those of subjects with a 25-OHD level >75 nmol/L [odds ratio 1.13 (95% CI 1.03-1.24), 1.77 (1.11-2.83), and 1.43(1.16-1.76), respectively]. CONCLUSIONS-Vitamin D deficiency appears to be an independent risk factor for the development of IFG and diabetes.

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