Search

Abstract: The study aimed to assess the validity of some recently published diabetes risk scoring models in a general Chinese population. In 2007, there was a re-examination of 711 individuals who were originally examined in 1992. Since 24 individuals had diabetes in 1992, 687 individuals were available for analysis. Validity was assessed with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AROC), and we assessed seven prospective and four cross-sectional models. When applied to our population, AROCs tended to be higher in Asian models than in non-Asian models (average AROCs 0.694±0.034 vs. 0.667±0.040, p =0.258), and those tended to be higher in prospective models than in cross-sectional models (average AROCs 0.695±0.028 vs. 0.652±0.042, p =0.072). A prospective model from Taiwan performed best (AROC 0.749; 95% CI 0.691–0.807). In conclusion, diabetes risk scoring models could not always be generalized from one population to another before validation. Asian models might be more suitable for Asian populations than non-Asian models, and prospective models might be more suitable for predicting future diabetes than cross-sectional models. When applied to our population, a prospective model from Taiwan performed best, and widespread application might be considered in the population. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Aim: To investigate the predictive values of the new metabolic health (MH) definition for future diabetes in a nonobese Chinese population, compared with the MH definition from metabolic syndrome (MetS).Methods: The data were collected in 1992 and then again in 2007 from the same group of 653 participants. The risk assessment of the new MH definition and the MH definition from MetS for future diabetes was performed by Cox regression analysis with overlap weighting as the primary analysis.Results: During the follow-up, 62 participants were diagnosed with diabetes. In the primary analysis with overlap weighting, there was no significant association between new MH and diabetes (HR: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.45-2.78, p = 0.803); conversely, based on the MH definition from MetS, the participants with MH were less likely to have had diabetes than the participants with MUHs (HR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.22-0.78, p = 0.007). Furthermore, other analysis methods also confirmed the reproducibility of abovementioned results. In addition, sensitivity analysis excluding participants with prediabetes also demonstrated similar results with the primary analysis.Conclusion: In contrast to the previous MH definition from MetS, the new MH definition was not a reliable predictor for future diabetes in the nonobese Chinese population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Objective: To investigate the correlation between serum visfatin and insulin resistance (IR) in non-diabetic essential hypertensive (EH) patients with and without IR, and to evaluate the effect of antihypertensive treatment on serum visfatin and IR in these patients. Methods: A total of 81 non-diabetic EH patients, including 54 with IR and 27 without IR, were enrolled. After two weeks wash-out, patients with IR were randomly assigned to telmisartan (group T) or amlodipine (group A) for 6 months. Blood samples were taken before and after treatment for measurement of routine biochemical parameters, visfatin and insulin resistance (measured by HOMA-IR). Results: Visfatin was independently correlated with HOMA-IR (r =0.845, P =0.000). After 6 months of treatment, both drugs lowered HOMA-IR, more significantly so in group T than group A (P =0.010). Serum visfatin levels increased in group T but decreased in group A. Conclusion: Serum visfatin levels were higher in non-diabetic EH patients with IR compared with those without IR. Visfatin is independently correlated with HOMA-IR. Telmisartan lowers HOMA-IR to a greater extent than amlodipine. Interestingly, serum visfatin increased with telmisartan yet decreased with amlodipine treatment. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]