4.6 Article

Lower prevalence of hypercholesterolemia and hyperglyceridemia found in subjects with seropositivity for both Hepatitis B and C strains independently

期刊

JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
卷 25, 期 11, 页码 1763-1768

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1440-1746.2010.06300.x

关键词

cholesterol; hepatitis B virus; hepatitis C virus; hyperlipidemia; triglyceride

资金

  1. Bureau of Health Promotion, Department of Health, R.O.C. (Taiwan) [DOH99-HP-1502]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Aim: To evaluate the association of chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection with hypercholesterolemia and hypertriglyceridemia. Methods: We analyzed the computerized health datasets of 56 336 residents from a community-based comprehensive screening in Tainan County in southern Taiwan. The overall prevalence rates of HBV surface antigen (HBsAg) and anti-HCV were 10.9% and 10.2%, respectively. Anti-HCV, HBsAg, platelet counts, albumin/globulin ratio (A/G ratio), fasting glucose, triglyceride, cholesterol levels, and body mass index (BMI) were abstracted for analyses. Multivariate logistic analysis was used for identification of the independent factors of hypercholesterolemia and hypertriglyceridemia. Results: The prevalence of hypercholesterolemia and hypertriglyceridemia were 48.9% and 28.0%, respectively. Hypercholesterolemia and hypertriglyceridemia were associated with each other. Older age, negativity for HBsAg and anti-HCV, normal platelet counts, A/G ratio >= 1, higher BMI, and being diagnosed as diabetic were common independently associated factors of both hypercholesterolemia and hypertriglyceridemia. Men had higher risk for hypertriglyceridemia, while women had higher risk for hypercholesterolemia. Conclusions: This large scale community-based study demonstrated that subjects with seropositivity for Hepatitis C not only had lower prevalence of hypercholesterolemia and hypertriglyceridemia but subjects with seropositivity for Hepatitis B had the same trend.

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

4.6
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