Why the study?
Does the presence of obesity and/or type 2 diabetes mellitus increase hs-CRP levels and cardiovascular risk in Mexican subjects?
Does the presence of obesity and/or type 2 diabetes mellitus increase hs-CRP levels and cardiovascular risk in Mexican subjects?
High hs-CRP levels are strongly driven by obesity and central adiposity rather than diabetes alone, indicating a higher cardiovascular risk profile in obese Mexican subjects.
Obesity may drive higher hs-CRP and coronary risk beyond diabetes alone; leaves open whether adiposity-focused strategies improve outcomes in Mexican subjects.
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have reported elevated levels of C-reactive protein (CRP) in obese and diabetic subjects, but it is unclear whether both these conditions have an additive effect on the variability of serum CRP levels. METHODS AND RESULTS: The study enrolled 385 men and women who were classified into 4 groups: (1) diabetes (n=97), (2) obesity (n=108), (3) diabetes/obesity (n=78), and (4) healthy (n=102). All were Mexican subjects from Guerrero State. Serum high-sensitivity CRP (hs-CRP) levels were higher in both type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM)/obesity and obesity (5.1 mg/L) groups than in the diabetics (1.8 mg/L) without obesity. Only the measurements of obesity were strongly related to hs-CRP (body mass index, r=0.46 and waist circumference, r=0.41). The presence of T2DM and obesity explain 20% of the circulating hs-CRP level, following waist circumference (16%), leukocyte count (10%), diastolic blood pressure (6%), and female gender (4%). Obese subjects (odds ratio (OR)=6.3) and T2DM/obesity patients (OR=6.9) showed high risk for coronary disease and this effect was increased in T2DM/obesity women (OR=9.9). Also, abdominal obesity was associated with high coronary disease risk (OR=5.4), showing an increase in women (OR=7.3). CONCLUSION: High hs-CRP levels are related to obesity and central distribution of body fat, leading to a higher cardiovascular risk among Mexican subjects.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Flores‐Alfaro et al. (2008) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: