4.4 Article

Relationship Between Changing Body Mass Index and Serum Uric Acid Alteration Among Clinically Apparently Healthy Korean Men

期刊

ARTHRITIS CARE & RESEARCH
卷 74, 期 8, 页码 1277-1286

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/acr.24576

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study suggests a significant association between BMI change and serum UA level alteration.
Objective Gout and hyperuricemia incidence is increasing worldwide, reflecting pandemic overweight and obesity. However, the magnitude of the association of body mass index (BMI) changes with serum uric acid (UA) level in the general population has remained unevaluated. Methods This retrospective cohort study enrolled 27,422 Korean men who underwent a comprehensive health check-up between 2015 and 2017. BMI change was categorized into 7 groups. The relationship between BMI change and serum UA level alteration was determined using multivariable regression models. Results The mean age, BMI, and serum UA level were 38.8 years, 24.7 kg/m(2), and 6.2 mg/dl, respectively. All BMI change categories had a clear dose-response relationship with the serum UA level changes. The corresponding beta coefficient of serum UA level changes was 0.13 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.11, 0.16), 0.25 (95% CI 0.2, 0.3), and 0.44 (95% CI 0.36, 0.52) for a BMI decrease of 0.5-1.5, 1.5-2.5, and >= 2.5, respectively. Compared with no BMI change, the multivariate odds ratios of achieving normouricemia for a BMI increase of 0.5-1.5, 1.5-2.5, and >= 2.5 were 0.88 (95% CI 0.83, 0.95), 0.67 (95% CI 0.60, 0.75), and 0.60 (95% CI 0.49, 0.74), whereas those for a BMI decrease of 0.5-1.5, 1.5-2.5, and >= 2.5 were 1.17 (95% CI 1.07, 1.27), 1.28 (95% CI 1.08, 1.52), and 1.46 (95% CI 1.13, 1.88), respectively. Conclusion BMI change could have a significant association with the alteration of serum UA levels of apparently healthy men. Despite its small effect size, the health risks and benefits of BMI change would be emphasized for serum UA level alteration.

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

4.4
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