| Literature DB >> 35743689 |
Alberto Gobbo1, Irene Gagliardi1, Andrea Gobbo2,3, Roberta Rossi4, Paola Franceschetti4, Sabrina Lupo4, Martina Rossi4, Marta Bondanelli1,4, Maria Rosaria Ambrosio1,4, Maria Chiara Zatelli1,4.
Abstract
(1) Background: Glucose metabolism derangements (GMD) and thyroid nodules (TNs) are the most frequent endocrine disorders, and their relationship is still controversial; little evidence is reported regarding sex differences. We aim to evaluate the association between GMDs and TNs according to sex and the sex differences in glucose metabolism and insulin sensitivity (IS). (2)Entities:
Keywords: Type 2 diabetes mellitus; impaired fasting glucose; impaired glucose tolerance; sex; thyroid nodules
Year: 2022 PMID: 35743689 PMCID: PMC9225610 DOI: 10.3390/jpm12060903
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Pers Med ISSN: 2075-4426
Distributions of age, THRT, OGTT categories, FPG categories, insulin resistance and HOMA index in males vs. females. Percentages refer to the population of the corresponding sex. Mann–Whitney test was used to analyze age of each nominal group.
| Sex | Median Age | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Males | Females | ||||||
| Median Age | TOT | 52 (44.5–62.25) | 51 (36–61) | n.s. | – | ||
| THRT | NO | 254 | 55 (74.3%) | 199 (74.3%) | n.s. | 51.5 (37–62) | n.s |
| YES | 88 | 19 (25.7%) | 69 (25.7%) | 51 (40.25–60.5) | |||
| OGTT | NGT | 213 | 34 (45.9%) | 179 (66.8%) | <0.01 | 49 (32–57.5) | <0.01 |
| IGT/T2DM | 129 | 40 (54.1%) | 89 (33.2%) | 56 (48.5–65.5) | |||
| IFG | NO | 247 | 50 (67.6%) | 197 (73.5%) | n.s. | 49 (33–59) | <0.01 |
| YES | 95 | 24 (32.4%) | 71 (26.5%) | 56 (50–63) | |||
| Insulin sensitivity (HOMA index) | IS | 208 | 45 (60.8%) | 163 (60.8%) | n.s. | 51 (39.25–61.75) | n.s. |
| IR | 134 | 29 (39.2%) | 105 (39.2%) | 53 (36–62) | |||
| Median HOMA index (IQR) | 2.06 (1.54–4.25) | 1.98 (1.34–3.25) | n.s. | – | |||
TN distribution according to sex, OGTT categories, FPG categories and HOMA index. Percentages refer to the nominal group in the corresponding line.
| TN | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NO | YES | ||||
| Median Age (IQR) | TOT | 43.5 (25.5–56) | 54 (46–62) | <0.001 | |
| Sex | Males | 74 | 32 (43.2%) | 42 (56.8%) | n.s. |
| Females | 268 | 100 (37.3%) | 168 (62.7%) | ||
| OGTT | NGT | 213 | 85 (39.9%) | 128 (60.1%) | n.s. |
| IGT/T2DM | 129 | 47 (36.4%) | 82 (63.6%) | ||
| OGTT in males | NGT | 34 | 13 (38.2%) | 21 (61.8%) | n.s. |
| IGT/T2DM | 40 | 19 (47.5%) | 21 (52.5%) | ||
| OGTT in females | NGT | 179 | 72 (40.2%) | 107 (59.8%) | n.s. |
| IGT/T2DM | 89 | 28 (31.5%) | 61 (68.5%) | ||
| IFG | NO | 247 | 108 (43.7%) | 139 (56.3%) | 0.002 |
| YES | 95 | 24 (25.3%) | 71 (74.7%) | ||
| HOMA index | IS | 208 | 85 (40.9%) | 123 (59.1%) | n.s. |
| IR | 134 | 47 (35.1%) | 87 (64.9%) | ||
Univariable logistic regression models (ULRM) with TNs as the main outcome.
| Outcome Variable | Independent Variable | ULRM | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR | C.I. | |||
| TN | Females | 1.28 | 0.354 | 0.759–2.158 |
| Age | 1.039 | <0.001 | 1.024–1.054 | |
| IGT/T2DM | 1.159 | 0.523 | 0.738–1.82 | |
| IFG | 2.299 | 0.002 | 1.357–3.892 | |
| HOMA index | 1.017 | 0.764 | 0.910–1.137 | |
Multivariable logistic regression model (MLRM) with TN as the dependent variable. Age and the four interaction categories according to sex and FPG status are the independent variables. IFG females were used as the base reference. Predicted probabilities of having TN (Pr(TN)) were calculated for each interaction category.
| Dependent | Independent | MLRM | Predictive Margins | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR | C.I. | Pr(TN) | C.I. | |||
| TN | NFG males | 0.385 | 0.022 | 0.17–0.872 | 0.538 | 0.405–0.67 |
| IFG males | 0.458 | 0.134 | 0.164–1.273 | 0.577 | 0.384–0.769 | |
| NFG females | 0.499 | 0.04 | 0.257–0.968 | 0.596 | 0.529–0.663 | |
| IFG females | reference | // | // | 0.739 | 0.631–0.846 | |
| Age | 1.035 | <0.01 | 1.02–1.051 | // | // | |
Analysis of the contrast between the predicted probability of having TN (Pr(TN)) in IFG females vs. the other interaction categories.
| Contrast of Predictive Margins | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Contrast | C.I. | ||
| NFG males vs. IFG females | −0.201 | 0.02 | −0.371; −0.031 |
| IFG males vs. IFG females | −0.162 | 0.146 | −0.379; +0.056 |
| NFG females vs. IFG females | −0.142 | 0.029 | −0.271; −0.014 |
Figure 1Pr(TN) of each interaction category according to sex and FPG. p-values refer to the analysis of the contrast between the Pr(TN) of the correspondent interaction category vs. the Pr(TN) of the reference group (IFG females).
Univariable and multivariable logistic regression models with IGT/T2DM, IFG and HOMA index as main outcomes.
| – | Independent | ULRM | MLRM | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR or | C.I. | OR or | C.I. | ||||
| IGT/T2DM | Female sex | 0.423 | 0.001 | 0.25–0.71 | 0.462 | 0.008 | 0.261–0.82 |
| Age | 1.043 | <0.001 | 1.027–1.059 | 1.039 | <0.001 | 1.022–1.058 | |
| IFG | 3.886 | <0.001 | 2.37–6.38 | 2.696 | <0.001 | 1.588–4.579 | |
| HOMA index | 1.264 | <0.001 | 1.11–1.438 | 1.239 | 0.003 | 1.075–1.429 | |
| HOMA index | Female sex | −0.761 * | 0.003 | −1.269; −0.253 | −0.605 * | 0.02 | −1.113; −0.097 |
| Age | +0.001 * | 0.849 | −0.012; +0.014 | −0.007 * | 0.290 | −0.021; +0.006 | |
| IGT/T2DM | +0.861 * | <0.001 | +0.434; +1.288 | +0.841 * | <0.001 | +0.390; +1.291 | |
Numbers with * correspond to Coefficients, those without correspond to OR.