Journal of diabetes · 2015
Lipopolysaccharide-binding protein cannot independently predict type 2 diabetes mellitus: A nested case-control study.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Zhou Huang, Hu Jinbo, Zhu Qibo, Yang Shumin, Zhang Yi, Gao Rufei, Liu Lulu, Wang Yue, Zhen Qianna, Lv Qiong, Li Qifu
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Cross-sectional studies have reported a close association between serum lipopolysaccharide-binding protein (LBP) and many metabolic disorders. However, no longitudinal study has explored the relationship between LBP and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The aim of the present study was to investigate the association between serum LBP levels and the risk of developing T2DM.
METHODS: A 5-year nested case-control study of 3510 individuals was performed as part of the Environment, Inflammation and Metabolic Diseases Study (EIMDS). Clinical data were collected at baseline. Serum levels of LBP and other biochemical factors, such as insulin and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, were detected 5 years later. Subjects were diagnosed as having T2DM on the basis of results of an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) and 1998 World Health Organization criteria. Controls were randomly selected to match cases according to age, gender, and body mass index (BMI) in a 1:1 ratio. Odds ratios (OR) for T2DM were calculated using conditional logistic regression analysis.
RESULTS: Over a 5-year follow-up period, 255 subjects developed T2DM. There was no significant difference in serum LBP levels between the T2DM and control groups at baseline (19.78 ± 6.40 versus 20.53 ± 6.99 μg/mL; P = 0.207). Subjects were divided into three groups based on tertiles of LBP concentrations (n = 170 in each group; T1 = 1.31-17.16 μg/mL LBP; T2 = 17.21-22.37 μg/mL LBP; T3 = 22.49-40.08 μg/mL LBP). There was no significant association between the risk of developing T2DM and any of the LBP tertiles in either a simple model or after adjusting for general status and biochemical factors.
CONCLUSION: After matching for gender, age, and BMI, LBP does not improve prediction of the development of T2DM independently.
METHODS: A 5-year nested case-control study of 3510 individuals was performed as part of the Environment, Inflammation and Metabolic Diseases Study (EIMDS). Clinical data were collected at baseline. Serum levels of LBP and other biochemical factors, such as insulin and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, were detected 5 years later. Subjects were diagnosed as having T2DM on the basis of results of an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) and 1998 World Health Organization criteria. Controls were randomly selected to match cases according to age, gender, and body mass index (BMI) in a 1:1 ratio. Odds ratios (OR) for T2DM were calculated using conditional logistic regression analysis.
RESULTS: Over a 5-year follow-up period, 255 subjects developed T2DM. There was no significant difference in serum LBP levels between the T2DM and control groups at baseline (19.78 ± 6.40 versus 20.53 ± 6.99 μg/mL; P = 0.207). Subjects were divided into three groups based on tertiles of LBP concentrations (n = 170 in each group; T1 = 1.31-17.16 μg/mL LBP; T2 = 17.21-22.37 μg/mL LBP; T3 = 22.49-40.08 μg/mL LBP). There was no significant association between the risk of developing T2DM and any of the LBP tertiles in either a simple model or after adjusting for general status and biochemical factors.
CONCLUSION: After matching for gender, age, and BMI, LBP does not improve prediction of the development of T2DM independently.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Acute-Phase ProteinsAgedBody Mass IndexC-Reactive ProteinCarrier ProteinsCase-Control StudiesDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2FemaleGlucose Tolerance TestHumansInsulinLogistic ModelsMaleMembrane GlycoproteinsMiddle AgedPredictive Value of TestsPrognosisRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsTime FactorsLipopolysaccharide-Binding Protein