4.6 Article

Body mass index and ovarian function are associated with endocrine and metabolic abnormalities in women with hyperandrogenic syndrome

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENDOCRINOLOGY
卷 158, 期 5, 页码 711-719

出版社

BIOSCIENTIFICA LTD
DOI: 10.1530/EJE-07-0515

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: the aim of this study was to evaluate associations of clinical features, such as hirsutism, polycystic ovaries (PCOs), ovulatory dysfunction, and body mass index (BMI) 125 kg/m(2), with metabolic abnormalities in hyperandrogenic women. Methods: Hirsutism was based on the modified Ferriman-Gallwey score. Ovulatory function was classified as eumenorrhea, oligomenorrhea and amenorrhea, and PCOs were assessed using the ultrasound criteria recommended in the Rotterdam definition. An oral glucose tolerance test was performed. Different insulin resistance (IR) indices were calculated. Results: Hirsute women had significantly higher BMI, DHEA sulfate (DHEAS) and free androgen index (FAI), and significantly lower values for sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG). Women with amenorrhea were younger in comparison to women with eumenorrhea and had significantly higher values for fasting insulin (FI) and 1- and 2-h insulin levels: lower values for glucose to insulin ratio (GIR), quantitative insulin sensitivity check index (QUICKI), and SHBG. Women with PCO had significantly higher levels of LH and low-density lipoprotein (LDL), whereas high-density lipoprotein (HDL) levels were significantly lower. Women with a BMI 2 5 kg/m(2) had significantly higher values for age. fasting plasma glucose. FI, and 1- and 2-h glucose and insulin levels, homeostatic model for assessment of IR (HOMA-IR), homeostatic model for assessment of B-cell function (HOMA-B), and FAI whereas their GIR, insulin sensitivity index, QUICKI, SHBG, and HDL were significantly lower. Conclusions: In women with hyperandrogenic syndrome, BMI >= 25 kg/m(2) and amenorrhea appear to be associated with severe endocrine and metabolic abnormalities.

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