4.2 Article

Serum Fibroblast Growth Factor 21 and New-Onset Metabolic Syndrome: KoGES-ARIRANG Study

期刊

YONSEI MEDICAL JOURNAL
卷 59, 期 2, 页码 287-293

出版社

YONSEI UNIV COLL MEDICINE
DOI: 10.3349/ymj.2018.59.2.287

关键词

Metabolic syndrome; fibroblast growth factor 21; biomarker; population-based prospective study

资金

  1. Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [2005-E71013-00, 2006-E71002-00, 2007-E71013-00, 2008-E71004-00, 2009-E71006-00, 2010-E71003-00]
  2. Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Ministry of Education [2017R1D-1A3B03034119]
  3. Medical Research Center Program [2017R1A5A2015369]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Fibroblast growth factor 21 (FGF21) is a crucial metabolic regulator, with multiple favorable effects on glucose homeostasis and lipid metabolism. Since serum FGF21 level has been implicated as a potential marker for the early identification of metabolic syndrome (MetS), we investigated the association between serum FGF21 level and the development of MetS in a population- based prospective study. Materials and Methods: We conducted a prospective study of 221 randomly sampled adults without MetS from a general population- based cohort study who were examined from 2005-2008 (baseline) and from 2008-2011 (follow-up). Baseline serum FGF21 levels were analyzed using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Results: During the average 2.8-year follow-up period, 82 participants (36.6%) developed new-onset MetS. Serum FGF21 levels were significantly higher in patients with new-onset MetS than in those without MetS (209.56 +/- 226.80 vs. 110.09 +/- 81.10, p<0.01). In multivariate adjusted models, the odds for MetS development were greater in patients with serum FGF21 levels in the highest quartile, compared to those in the lowest quartile (3.84, 95% confidence interval: 1.59-9.28). Conclusion: Serum FGF21 level was an independent predictor for new-onset MetS in a population-based prospective study.

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