4.3 Article

High prevalence of diabetes mellitus in patients with liver cirrhosis

期刊

DIABETIC MEDICINE
卷 27, 期 11, 页码 1308-1311

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2010.03093.x

关键词

association; determinants; diabetes mellitus; liver cirrhosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

P>Aims The reported prevalence of Type 2 diabetes mellitus in patients with liver cirrhosis is five times higher than in the general population. However, these data were never adjusted for classical risk factors for Type 2 diabetes. We therefore investigated the association between cirrhosis and Type 2 diabetes and adjusted for known risk factors for Type 2 diabetes. Methods We reviewed medical files for presence of Type 2 diabetes and potential confounders in 94 patients with cirrhosis (cases) and compared these with a control group of 107 patients with non-ulcer dyspepsia. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to adjust for potential confounders. Results The aetiology of our cirrhosis population was alcohol (59%), viral hepatitis (10%), biliary cirrhosis (3%) or cryptogenic (28%). Prevalence of Type 2 diabetes was significantly higher in patients with cirrhosis than in control subjects: 35/94 (37%) vs. 7/107 (7%) (OR 8.5, 95% CI 3.5-20.2, P < 0.001). After adjustment for age, sex, family history of Type 2 diabetes, alcohol use and BMI, cirrhosis remained significantly associated with Type 2 diabetes (OR 13.6, 95% CI 4.3-42.9, P < 0.001). Most cases of Type 2 diabetes were already diagnosed before diagnosis of cirrhosis (21/35, 60%) or were incidentally found together with cirrhosis (5/35, 14%). Conclusions Liver cirrhosis had a strong, independent association with Type 2 diabetes. Classical risk factors such as family history and BMI could not explain the high Type 2 diabetes prevalence in cirrhosis. Therefore, a liver-derived factor might aggravate glucose intolerance and cause Type 2 diabetes in cirrhosis. In addition, Type 2 diabetes might also cause cirrhosis through liver steatosis and fibrosis.

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

4.3
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