4.3 Article

Relative contributions of insulin resistance and -cell dysfunction to the development of Type2 diabetes in Koreans

期刊

DIABETIC MEDICINE
卷 30, 期 9, 页码 1075-1079

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/dme.12201

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims Controversies still exist regarding the relative contributions of insulin resistance and -cell dysfunction to the pathogenesis of Type2 diabetes in different populations. We examined the associations of baseline insulin resistance and -cell function indices with the development of Type2 diabetes in Koreans. Methods We analysed the clinical and laboratory data of 17878 Korean adults (age 20-79years) who underwent routine medical examinations with a median interval of 3.5years (range 2.5-4.7years). Using the homeostasis model assessment, insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) and -cell function (HOMA-%B) indices at baseline were assessed. Results Those who developed diabetes (n=732, 4.1%) had significantly higher fasting serum insulin level (53.4 +/- 31.2 vs. 41.4 +/- 23.4pmol/l) and HOMA-IR (2.38 +/- 1.45 vs. 1.65 +/- 1.02) and lower HOMA-%B (74 +/- 47 vs. 85 +/- 48) at baseline (P<0.001 for all). Both high HOMA-IR and low HOMA-%B were independently associated with an increased odds ratio of incident Type2 diabetes. Among the participants who developed diabetes, 29% demonstrated predominant -cell dysfunction (HOMA-%B <25th percentile) and 51% had predominant insulin resistance (HOMA-IR >75th percentile). When we divided the participants according to the median BMI of the whole population (23.7kg/m(2)), 49% of participants in the low BMI group demonstrated predominant -cell dysfunction and 26% had predominant insulin resistance, whilst 21% in the high BMI group demonstrated mainly -cell dysfunction and 60% had mainly insulin resistance. Conclusions In individuals with low BMI, -cell dysfunction is the predominant defect, whereas insulin resistance is the predominant pathogenetic factor in individuals with high BMI in the development of Type2 diabetes in Koreans.

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