| Literature DB >> 34470918 |
Hyuk Sang Kwon1, Kee Ho Song2, Jae Myung Yu3, Dong Sun Kim4, Ho Sang Shon5, Kyu Jeung Ahn6, Sung Hee Choi7, Seung Hyun Ko8, Won Kim9, Kyoung Hwa Lee9, Il Seong Nam-Goong10, Tae Sun Park11.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate cardiovascular risk in subjects with pre-diabetes and diabetes in Korea.Entities:
Keywords: Cardiovascular diseases; Diabetes mellitus; Risk assessment
Year: 2021 PMID: 34470918 PMCID: PMC8526298 DOI: 10.7570/jomes20137
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Obes Metab Syndr ISSN: 2508-6235
Demographics of the study subjects
| Variable | Diabetes (n = 512) | Pre-diabetes (n = 1,025) | Total (n = 1,537) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anthropometrics | ||||
| Age (yr) | 57.2 ± 9.1 | 55.7 ± 8.6 | 56.2 ± 8.8 | 0.001 |
| Sex | ||||
| Male | 314 (61.3) | 608 (59.3) | 922 (60.0) | 0.448[ |
| Female | 198 (38.7) | 417 (40.7) | 615 (40.0) | 0.448[ |
| Height (cm) | 163.7 ± 8.4 | 163.2 ± 9.1 | 163.4 ± 8.9 | 0.369 |
| Weight (kg) | 68.4 ± 11.6 | 67.2 ± 11.7 | 67.6 ± 11.7 | 0.115 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 25.2 ± 3.4 | 24.7 ± 3.1 | 24.9 ± 3.2 | 0.012 |
| Waist circumference (cm) | 88.2 ± 10.1 | 83.4 ± 9.3 | 84.4 ± 9.6 | < 0.001 |
| SBP (mmHg) | 126.6 ± 3.6 | 125.0 ± 14.5 | 125.5 ± 14.2 | 0.037 |
| DBP (mmHg) | 75.6 ± 9.4 | 75.7 ± 9.6 | 75.7 ± 9.6 | 0.848 |
| Lifestyle practice | ||||
| Smoking | ||||
| Yes | 117 (22.9) | 182 (17.8) | 299 (19.5) | 0.017[ |
| Alcohol consumption (n = 1,139) | ||||
| Yes | 150 (44.4) | 372 (46.4) | 522 (45.8) | < 0.001[ |
| Exercise (n = 854) | ||||
| Yes | 115 (51.8) | 377 (59.7) | 492 (57.6) | 0.042[ |
| Current pharmacotherapy | ||||
| Antihypertensive (n = 1,261) | ||||
| Yes | 203 (44.5) | 227 (28.2) | 430 (34.1) | < 0.001[ |
| Antihyperlipidemic (n = 1,154) | ||||
| Yes | 230 (59.4) | 343 (44.7) | 573 (49.7) | < 0.001[ |
Values are presented as mean± standard deviation or number (%). Denominator of the percentage is the number of subjects. Subjects with unknown information were not included: height: 563 subjects, weight: 375 subjects, alcohol consumption: 398 subjects, exercise status: 683 subjects, treatment with antihypertensive drugs: 276 subjects, and treatment with antihyperlipidemic drugs: 341 subjects (missing data in 42 subjects).
*t-test; †Chi-square test.
BMI, body mass index; SBP, systolic blood pressure; DBP, diastolic blood pressure.
Figure. 1Comparison of Framingham risk score between diabetes and pre-diabetes. Values are presented as mean± standard deviation. Framingham risk score comparison between diabetes vs. pre-diabetes by t‑test.
Figure. 2Comparison of Framingham risk score within pre-diabetes and diabetes populations by sex. Values are presented as mean± standard deviation. Sex comparisons within pre-diabetes and diabetes population by analysis of variance. Multiple comparisons by Duncan’s test. Male diabetes > male pre-diabetes= female diabetes> female pre-diabetes (P<0.001).
Effect of cardiovascular risk factors on the Framingham risk score
| Variable | Parameter estimate (SE) | |
|---|---|---|
| Overall (n = 469)[ | ||
| Stroke presence (vs. none) | 3.28 (3.11) | 0.291 |
| Angina presence (vs. none) | 1.65 (3.10) | 0.594 |
| LVH presence (vs. none) | 10.75 (3.34) | 0.001 |
| Alcohol consumption presence (vs. none) | 3.22 (0.75) | < 0.001 |
| HbA1c tertile 2 (vs. tertile 1) | 3.31 (0.93) | < 0.001 |
| HbA1c tertile 3 (vs. tertile 1) | 7.22 (0.88) | < 0.001 |
| BMI underweight (vs. normal weight) | 9.02 (4.05) | 0.026 |
| BMI pre-obesity (vs. normal weight) | 2.92 (1.04) | 0.005 |
| BMI obesity-class I (vs. normal weight) | 3.21 (0.90) | < 0.001 |
| BMI obesity-class II (vs. normal weight) | 4.00 (1.80) | 0.027 |
| BMI obesity-class III (vs. normal weight) | 1.28 (4.05) | 0.751 |
| Diabetes (n = 199)[ | ||
| Angina presence (vs. none) | 4.98 (2.96) | 0.094 |
| Alcohol consumption presence (vs. none) | 2.66 (1.24) | 0.033 |
| BMI underweight (vs. normal weight) | 3.49 (4.49) | 0.437 |
| BMI pre-obesity (vs. normal weight) | 1.93 (1.80) | 0.285 |
| BMI obesity-class I (vs. normal weight) | 2.70 (1.56) | 0.085 |
| BMI obesity-class II (vs. normal weight) | 6.10 (2.49) | 0.015 |
| BMI obesity-class III (vs. normal weight) | 0.91 (5.12) | 0.859 |
| Pre-diabetes (n = 306)[ | ||
| Stroke presence (vs. none) | 4.40 (2.82) | 0.119 |
| LVH presence (vs. none) | 11.10 (3.94) | 0.005 |
| Alcohol consumption presence (vs. none) | 3.06 (0.78) | < 0.001 |
| HbA1c tertile 2 (vs. tertile 1) | 1.02 (0.90) | 0.257 |
| HbA1c tertile 3 (vs. tertile 1) | 1.86 (0.96) | 0.054 |
| BMI underweight (vs. normal weight) | NA | NA |
| BMI pre-obesity (vs. normal weight) | 3.21 (1.05) | 0.002 |
| BMI obesity-class I (vs. normal weight) | 2.89 (0.90) | 0.002 |
| BMI obesity-class II (vs. normal weight) | –0.11 (2.11) | 0.958 |
| BMI obesity-class III (vs. normal weight) | 3.65 (4.71) | 0.439 |
HbA1c was subdivided into tertiles: HbA1c ≤ 5.9% (tertile 1), > 5.9% to ≤ 6.3% (tertile 2), and > 6.3% (tertile 3) for the overall population, HbA1c ≤ 6.4% (tertile 1), > 6.4% to ≤ 7.0% (tertile 2), and > 7.0% (tertile 3) for the diabetes population; and HbA1c ≤ 5.7% (tertile 1), > 5.7% to ≤ 6.0% (tertile 2), and > 6.0% (tertile 3) for the pre-diabetes population; Underweight: BMI < 18.5 kg/m2, normal weight: BMI 18.5–22.9 kg/m2, pre-obesity: BMI 23.0–24.9 kg/m2, obesity-class I: BMI 25.0–29.9 kg/m2, obesity-class II: BMI 30.0–34.9 kg/m2, and obesity-class III: BMI≥ 35 kg/m2.
*Multivariable analysis of the relationship between risk factors and the Framingham risk score (multiple linear regression); †Number of observations with missing values: overall, 1,068; diabetes, 313; and pre-diabetes, 719.
SE, standard error; LVH, left ventricular hypertrophy; HbA1c, glycated hemoglobin; BMI, body mass index; NA, not applicable.
Framingham risk score according to HbA1c
| Variable | n | Parameter estimate | Standard error |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | 980 | |||
| Overall HbA1c[ | 2.41 | 0.26 | < 0.001 | |
| HbA1c (%) | ||||
| ≥ 5 to < 6 | 367 | 1.47 | 5.96 | 0.806 |
| ≥ 6 to < 6.5 | 322 | 5.03 | 5.96 | 0.398 |
| ≥ 6.5 to < 7 | 125 | 7.07 | 5.99 | 0.238 |
| ≥7 | 164 | 10.14 | 5.98 | 0.090 |
*The number of subjects included in the analysis; †Analysis for the relationship between HbA1c and FRS (linear regression analysis); ‡Analysis for the relationship between HbA1c classification and FRS (linear regression analysis).
HbA1c, glycated hemoglobin; FRS, Framingham risk score.
Figure. 3Comparison of Framingham risk score according to body mass index (BMI). Values are presented as mean± standard deviation.