4.7 Article

Triglyceride glucose (TyG) index as a predictor of incident type 2 diabetes among nonobese adults: a 12-year longitudinal study of the Korean Genome and Epidemiology Study cohort

期刊

TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH
卷 228, 期 -, 页码 42-51

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.trsl.2020.08.003

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The rate of undiagnosed type 2 diabetes is higher in lean Koreans, and the TyG index may serve as a surrogate marker of insulin resistance. The study found that individuals with higher TyG index are more likely to develop type 2 diabetes during middle-aged and elderly years in a community setting.
The rate of undiagnosed type 2 diabetes tends to increase in lean Koreans, while the triglyceride glucose (TyG) index has been proposed as a surrogate marker of peripheral insulin resistance. We investigated the longitudinal relationship between TyG and incident type 2 diabetes among apparently healthy Korean adults. We assessed 4285 lean adults without diabetes aged 40-69 years from the Korean Genome and Epidemiology Study. Participants were divided into 4 groups according to quartiles of TyG index, calculated as In (fasting triglycerides (mg/dL) x fasting plasma glucose (mg/dL)/2). We prospectively assessed the hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for incident type 2 diabetes, based on the American Diabetes Association criteria, using multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression models, over 12 years after the baseline survey. During the follow-up period, 631 (14.7%) participants had newly developed type 2 diabetes. The HRs of incident type 2 diabetes in each TyG index quartile were 1.00, 1.63 (95%Cl, 1.18-2.24), 2.30 (95%Cl, 1.68-3.14), and 3.67 (95%Cl, 2.71-4.98), respectively, after adjusting for age, sex, body mass index, waist circumference, smoking status, alcohol intake, and physical activity. Higher TyG index precedes and significantly predicts type 2 diabetes among community-dwelling middle aged and elderly lean 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

4.7
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