{"title":"Type 2 diabetes: is obesity for diabetic retinopathy good or bad? A cross-sectional study.","authors":"Zheyuan Chen, Xuejing Zhong, Ruiyu Lin, Shuling Liu, Hui Cao, Hangju Chen, Baozhen Cao, Mei Tu, Wen Wei","doi":"10.1186/s12986-024-00842-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The relationship between obesity and diabetic retinopathy (DR) remains controversial, and the relationship between sarcopenic obesity and DR is still unclear. The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between obesity, sarcopenic obesity, and DR in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A cross-sectional study was conducted on patients with T2DM. Obesity was assessed by body mass index (BMI), fat mass index (FMI), android fat mass, gynoid fat mass, and visceral adipose tissue (VAT) mass. Sarcopenia was defined according to the criteria of Consensus of the Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia (AWGS 2019). Sarcopenic obesity was defined as the coexistence of sarcopenia and obesity. The association between obesity, sarcopenic obesity, and DR was examined using univariable and multivariable logistic regression models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 367 patients with T2DM (mean age 58.3 years; 57.6% male) were involved in this study. The prevalence of DR was 28.3%. In total patients, significant adverse relationships between obesity and DR were observed when obesity was assessed by BMI (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.31 to 0.96, p = 0.036), FMI (aOR 0.49, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.85, p = 0.012), android fat mass (aOR 0.51, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.89, p = 0.019), gynoid fat mass (aOR 0.52, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.91, p = 0.021) or VAT mass (aOR 0.45, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.78, p = 0.005). In patients with T2DM and obesity, the prevalence of sarcopenic obesity was 14.8% (n = 23) when obesity was assessed by BMI, 30.6% (n = 56) when assessed by FMI, 27.9% (n = 51) when assessed by android fat mass, 28.4% (n = 52) when assessed by gynoid fat mass, and 30.6% (n = 56) when assessed by VAT mass. Sarcopenic obesity was associated with DR when obesity was assessed by BMI (aOR 2.61, 95% CI 1.07 to 6.37, p = 0.035), android fat mass (aOR 3.27, 95% CI 1.37 to 7.80, p = 0.007), or VAT mass (aOR 2.50, 95% CI 1.06 to 5.92, p = 0.037).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Patients with T2DM showed a substantial inverse relationship between DR and obesity, and sarcopenic obesity was considerably favorably associated with DR. Detection of sarcopenia in patients with T2DM, especially in obese T2DM, is essential to guide clinical intervention in DR.</p>","PeriodicalId":19196,"journal":{"name":"Nutrition & Metabolism","volume":"21 1","pages":"68"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11334401/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nutrition & Metabolism","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12986-024-00842-8","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: The relationship between obesity and diabetic retinopathy (DR) remains controversial, and the relationship between sarcopenic obesity and DR is still unclear. The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between obesity, sarcopenic obesity, and DR in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).
Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted on patients with T2DM. Obesity was assessed by body mass index (BMI), fat mass index (FMI), android fat mass, gynoid fat mass, and visceral adipose tissue (VAT) mass. Sarcopenia was defined according to the criteria of Consensus of the Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia (AWGS 2019). Sarcopenic obesity was defined as the coexistence of sarcopenia and obesity. The association between obesity, sarcopenic obesity, and DR was examined using univariable and multivariable logistic regression models.
Results: A total of 367 patients with T2DM (mean age 58.3 years; 57.6% male) were involved in this study. The prevalence of DR was 28.3%. In total patients, significant adverse relationships between obesity and DR were observed when obesity was assessed by BMI (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.31 to 0.96, p = 0.036), FMI (aOR 0.49, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.85, p = 0.012), android fat mass (aOR 0.51, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.89, p = 0.019), gynoid fat mass (aOR 0.52, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.91, p = 0.021) or VAT mass (aOR 0.45, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.78, p = 0.005). In patients with T2DM and obesity, the prevalence of sarcopenic obesity was 14.8% (n = 23) when obesity was assessed by BMI, 30.6% (n = 56) when assessed by FMI, 27.9% (n = 51) when assessed by android fat mass, 28.4% (n = 52) when assessed by gynoid fat mass, and 30.6% (n = 56) when assessed by VAT mass. Sarcopenic obesity was associated with DR when obesity was assessed by BMI (aOR 2.61, 95% CI 1.07 to 6.37, p = 0.035), android fat mass (aOR 3.27, 95% CI 1.37 to 7.80, p = 0.007), or VAT mass (aOR 2.50, 95% CI 1.06 to 5.92, p = 0.037).
Conclusions: Patients with T2DM showed a substantial inverse relationship between DR and obesity, and sarcopenic obesity was considerably favorably associated with DR. Detection of sarcopenia in patients with T2DM, especially in obese T2DM, is essential to guide clinical intervention in DR.
期刊介绍:
Nutrition & Metabolism publishes studies with a clear focus on nutrition and metabolism with applications ranging from nutrition needs, exercise physiology, clinical and population studies, as well as the underlying mechanisms in these aspects.
The areas of interest for Nutrition & Metabolism encompass studies in molecular nutrition in the context of obesity, diabetes, lipedemias, metabolic syndrome and exercise physiology. Manuscripts related to molecular, cellular and human metabolism, nutrient sensing and nutrient–gene interactions are also in interest, as are submissions that have employed new and innovative strategies like metabolomics/lipidomics or other omic-based biomarkers to predict nutritional status and metabolic diseases.
Key areas we wish to encourage submissions from include:
-how diet and specific nutrients interact with genes, proteins or metabolites to influence metabolic phenotypes and disease outcomes;
-the role of epigenetic factors and the microbiome in the pathogenesis of metabolic diseases and their influence on metabolic responses to diet and food components;
-how diet and other environmental factors affect epigenetics and microbiota; the extent to which genetic and nongenetic factors modify personal metabolic responses to diet and food compositions and the mechanisms involved;
-how specific biologic networks and nutrient sensing mechanisms attribute to metabolic variability.