4.5 Article

Joint effect of self-reported sleep problems and three components of the metabolic syndrome on risk of coronary heart disease

Journal

JOURNAL OF PSYCHOSOMATIC RESEARCH
Volume 68, Issue 2, Pages 149-158

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2009.07.022

Keywords

Coronary heart disease; Joint effect; Metabolic syndrome; Public health; Sleep problems

Categories

Funding

  1. Finnish Cultural Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: This study explored the joint effect of two epidemics, sleep problems and metabolic syndrome (MetS), on the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD). Methods: The study group is part of the Finnish middle-aged men who participated in the first screening for the Helsinki Heart Study (HHS) in 1981-1982. At that time, three components of MetS were measured: body mass index, HDL cholesterol, and blood pressure. Later, in 1986-1988, they were given a psychosocial questionnaire including items on sleep problems. Of the respondents, 2753 formed our study group and were followed up using population-based registers until 1995. The relative risks (RR) of CHD were estimated using Cox's regression models. Results: When several sleep problems were present simultaneously, some increased CHID risk was observed. However, when considered jointly with MetS, insomnia or daytime fatigue approximately doubled the CHID risk and the presence of insufficient sleep more than tripled the risk. Among those who had MetS only, the RR was 2.55, and among those with both insufficient sleep and MetS the RR was 9.36 (95% confidence interval: 4.60-19.04; P for interaction 0.09) when compared to those with no insufficient sleep and no components of MetS. Conclusion: The interaction occurred when all three measured MetS components were present, suggesting that co-occurrence of these two epidemics may predict growing public health problems. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available