4.2 Article

Sex-specific relations between fasting insulin, insulin resistance and incident hypertension: 8.9 years follow-up in a Middle-Eastern population

期刊

JOURNAL OF HUMAN HYPERTENSION
卷 29, 期 4, 页码 260-267

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/jhh.2014.70

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this study was to investigate whether fasting serum insulin levels, homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) and insulin-to-glucose ratio (IGR) were associated with incident hypertension. In a prospective study, 4093 Iranian participants (1725 men and 2368 women) without hypertension and known diabetes at baseline (1999-2001) were followed for a median of 8.9 years. Regular follow-up examinations were performed at 3-year intervals. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard models were used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of incident hypertension adjusting for sex, and in sex-stratified models. During the study, 896 incident cases of hypertension (432 men and 464 women) were identified (total incident rate: 27.5 per 1000 person-years). In the multivariable models, serum insulin level, HOMA-IR and IGR were positively associated with hypertension incidence, adjusting for sex. In the sex-stratified analyses, after adjusting for potential confounders, women in the highest quartile of insulin, HOMA-IR and IG had a significantly higher incidence of hypertension, compared with those in the lowest quartile (HR: 1.7 (95% CI 1.26-2.30); HR: 1.80 (95% CI 1.31-2.40) and HR: 1.67 (95% CI 1.26-2.22), respectively); among men, these relations were also significant, until including waist circumference and body mass index in the models (HR: 1.17 (95% CI 0.85-1.62), HR: 1.25 (95% CI 0.91-1.73) and HR: 1.06 (95% CI 0.77-1.45), respectively). Higher fasting serum insulin levels, HOMA-IR and IGR were associated with incident hypertension among women, whereas these associations were not significant after adjusting for obesity measures in men.

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

4.2
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