Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Association between body mass index and diabetes mellitus in tuberculosis patients in China: a community based cross-sectional study

  • Jing Cai1,
  • Aiguo Ma1Email author,
  • Qiuzhen Wang1,
  • Xiuxia Han1,
  • Shanliang Zhao2,
  • Yu Wang3,
  • Evert G. Schouten4 and
  • Frans J. Kok4
BMC Public HealthBMC series – open, inclusive and trusted201717:228

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-017-4101-6

Received: 1 October 2016

Accepted: 2 February 2017

Published: 28 February 2017

Abstract

Background

We planned to determine the association of body mass index (BMI) with diabetes mellitus (DM) and impaired fasting glucose (IFG) in Chinese pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) patients.

Methods

3,505 newly-diagnosed PTB patients registered in PTB clinics in Linyi of China between September 2010 and March 2013 were enrolled. DM and IFG were identified based on fasting plasma glucose levels. ROC analysis was used to predict the ability of screening of BMI for DM and IFG in PTB patients.

Results

Compared with 18.5–23.9 kg/m2, patients with DM and IFG had significantly increased trends when BMI ≥ 24.0 kg/m2, and aORs were 2.28 (95%CI 1.44–3.60) and 1.30 (95%CI 1.04–1.64), respectively. After adjustment for age, gender, and educational level, there was an increased odd in BMI ≥ 23.41 kg/m2 for IFG, and a decreased odd in BMI < 19.82 kg/m2 for DM (p < 0.05). The cut-offs of BMI for screening IFG and DM in PTB patients were 22.22 kg/m2 (AUC 0.56) and 22.34 kg/m2 (AUC 0.59).

Conclusions

In PTB patients, BMI is significantly associated with IFG and DM. However, the predictive power of BMI was not sufficient, so it may only be a limited screening tool for DM and IFG among PTB patients in China.

Keywords

Fasting plasma glucose Receiver operating characteristic Area under the curve

Background

The co-morbidity of diabetes mellitus (DM) and pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) represents a double burden with significant public health implications [1, 2]. Globally, although the incidence of PTB is slowly decreasing, an increase is seen in the proportion of PTB cases with DM. Moreover, the prevalence of DM steadily increases, especially in developing countries where PTB is highly endemic [3, 4]. Baker conducted a meta-analysis of observational studies about the association between DM and TB disease outcomes, and showed that DM was associated with worse treatment outcomes, and increased the risk of failure, death, and relapse among patients with PTB. Therefore, more attention should be paid to the control and prevention of PTB patients with DM [5].

Also, patients with impaired fasting glucose (IFG) are more prone to progress to the DM stage -approximately 8.8% per year in China [6, 7]- in the absence of interventional measures. In developing countries, the nutritional status has improved along with the economic growth. A number of studies have provided strong evidence of an association between patients who are overweight or obese and risk of DM [810]. The effect of BMI on DM has primarily focused on patients without other diseases. A low BMI is a significant individual risk factor for development of recent active TB [11], and patients who are overweight have a decreased incidence of TB [12]. Studies involving the association between BMI and DM or IFG in PTB patients are limited [13], and no data are available on using BMI cut-offs to predict DM or IFG in PTB patients.

We designed this cross-sectional study using primary data to explore the association of BMI with DM or IFG in PTB patients in China, and to determine the optimal BMI cut off value for prediction of DM or IFG in Chinese adult patients with PTB.

Methods

Study population

A total of 3,505 PTB patients, 18-45 years of age, were selected from counties of Linyi in Shandong province, China. All the PTB patients were newly-diagnosed and registered for Directly Observed Treatment, Short Course (DOTS) in PTB clinics between September 2010 and March 2013, and also were diagnosed in the PTB clinic of each county by X-ray and sputum smear examination. All participants have written informed consent.

Detection of indices

DM was diagnosed by World Health Organization criteria based on the fasting plasma glucose (FPG) level (World Health Organization, 1999). The diagnosis of IFG was based on criteria for the classification of glucose tolerance based on the FPG level, which was defined as a FPG range from 5.6–6.9 mmol/L (American Diabetes Association, 2014). The participants fasted for 8–10 h before the blood testing.

Basic information and anthropometric indices of all patients were collected, such as age, gender, educational level, weight, and height. The BMI (kg/m2) was calculated using the following formula: BMI = weight (kg)/height (m)2. Underweight, normal weight, overweight, and obese categories were defined using the modified criteria for the Chinese population; the BMI cut-off values were 18.5 kg/m2, 24.0 kg/m2, and 28.0 kg/m2, respectively [14].

Blood lipids were also determined in fasting venous blood samples using an automatic biochemical analyzer in each clinic, and included triglycerides (TG), total cholesterol (TCHO), and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) levels.

Statistical analysis

SPSS version 17.0 (SPSS, Inc. Chicago, IL) was used for statistical analyses. The characteristics of PTB patients in the DM, IFG and normal FPG groups and inter-quartile range (IQR) of BMI were compared and analyzed. The mean and standard deviation for continuous variables, such as age, BMI, and blood lipid content, and proportions for categorical variables, including the prevalence of DM or IFG, the percentage of age group, gender, and educational level, are reported. One-way analysis of variance was used to test continuous variables. A chi-square test was used to compare categorical variables. Multinomial logistic regression analyses were performed, and the variables for inclusion in the multivariate model were chosen based on plausibility and variables with P values <0.05 on univariate analysis were entered into the multivariate analysis. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to predict the ability of diagnosis of BMI for DM and IFG in PTB patients. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR) and Youden’s index were used for ROC analysis. Youden’s index is a single statistic that captures the performance of a dichotomous diagnostic test. It was defined for all points of the ROC curve, and the maximum value of the index was used as a criterion for selecting the optimum cut-off point. Youden’s index = Sensitivity + Specificity – 1. All variables were checked for collinearity. Independent variables included age (divided into two categories [18–30 and 31–45 years]), gender, educational level, BMI (divided into three categories [<18.5 kg/m2 as underweight, 18.5–23.9 kg/m2 as normal weight, and ≥ 24.0 kg/m2 as overweight and obese]). A P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Descriptive data

A total of 3 505 PTB patients were included in our study (18–45 years of age), among whom 96 and 529 had co-existing DM and IFG, respectively. The mean age was 31 · 8 years for all PTB patients, and the mean age in the PTB + DM group was the highest (P < 0.05). In the PTB + IFG group, 65.2% were male, which was more than the PTB group (57.5%, P < 0.05). The percentage of patients with a high school or higher educational level in the PTB + DM and PTB + IFG groups were lower than the PTB group (P < 0.05). BMI means and the proportion of overweight or obese patients in the PTB + DM and PTB + IFG groups were higher than the PTB group (P < 0.05). The means of TG and TCHO were 1.6 mmol/L and 4.8 mmol/L in the PTB + DM group, respectively, which were higher than the PTB + IFG and PTB groups (P < 0.05).

Multivariate logistic regression analysis of DM or IFG in PTB patients is shown in Table 1. PTB patients in the younger age group and patients with a high educational level, had an odds ratio (OR) of the presence of DM and IFG that was significantly lower than 1.0 (P < 0.05). Overweight or obese patients had significantly higher odds ratios of DM and IFG (OR = 2.28, 95% confidence interval [CI] =1.44–3.60; OR = 1.30, 95% CI = 1.04–1.64, respectively). In addition, male gender was positively associated with the IFG (OR = 1.38, 95% CI = 1.14–1.68).
Table 1

Characteristics of PTB patients and odds ratios of having impaired fasting glucose (IFG) or diabetes mellitus (DM)

Variables

PTB + DM group (n = 96)

PTB + IFG group (n = 529)

PTB group (n = 2880)

(ref)

p-value

Mean ± SD/N (%)

OR (95% CI)

P-value

Mean ± SD/N (%)

OR (95% CI)

P-value

Mean ± SD/N (%)

 

Age, years

36.39 ± 7. 0 * †

--

--

33.9 ± 8.0 *

--

--

31.2 ± 8.3

<0.001

Age group, n (%)

       

<0.001

 18–30 years

21 (21.9)

0.26 (0.16–0.42)

<0.001

190 (35.9)

0.51 (0.42–0.62)

<0.001

1506 (52.3)

 

 31–45 years

75 (78.1)

1

--

339 (64.1)

1

--

1374 (47.7)

 

Gender, n (%)

       

0.004

 Male

56 (58.3)

1.03 (0.68–1.56)

0.876

345 (65.2)

1.38 (1.14–1.68)

0.001

1657 (57.5)

 

 Female

40 (41.7)

1

--

184 (34.8)

1

--

1223 (42.5)

 

Education, n (%)

       

<0.001

 High school or higher

16 (16.7)

0.19 (0.08–0.46)

<0.001

119 (22.5)

0.37 (0.24–0.58)

<0.001

892 (31.0)

 

 Primary or middle school

72 (75.0)

0.41 (0.19–0.87)

0.021

379 (71.6)

0.55 (0.36–0.85)

0.006

1902 (66.0)

 

 Illiteracy

8 (8.3)

1

--

31 (5.9)

1

--

86 (3.0)

 

TG, mmol/L

1.6 ± 1.0 * †

--

--

1.3 ± 1.0

--

--

1.2 ± 1.0

<0.001

TCHO, mmol/L

4.8 ± 1.2 * †

--

--

4.4 ± 1.1

--

--

4.3 ± 1.3

0.002

HDL, mmol/L

1.7 ± 0.8

--

--

1.6 ± 0.7

--

--

1.5 ± 2.5

0.575

BMI, kg/m2

22.6 ± 3.4 *

--

--

22.2 ± 2.9 *

--

--

21.6 ± 2.8

<0.001

BMI group, n (%)

       

<0.001

 Underweight

12 (12.5)

1.46 (0.77–2.76)

0.244

44 (8.3)

0.79 (0.56–1.10)

0.157

314 (10.9)

 

 Overweight or obese

30 (31.3)

2.28 (1.44–3.60)

<0.001

117 (22.1)

1.30 (1.04–1.64)

0.024

503 (17.5)

 

 Normal weight

54 (56.2)

1

--

368 (69.6)

1

--

2063 (71.6)

 

* Compared with PTB group, P < 0.05; † Compared with PTB + IFG group, P < 0.05; -- The values could not be calculated; SD standard deviation, ref reference

Prevalence of IFG or DM in PTB patients as a function of BMI quartiles

The participants were divided into four groups based on the BMI baseline quartiles, as follows: Q1, <19.82 kg/m2; Q2, 19.82 kg/m2; Q3, 21.45 kg/m2; and Q4, 23.41 kg/m2 (Fig. 1). There was an increasing prevalence of IFG among the four groups (11.6%, 14.4%, 16.3%, and 18.0% respectively); in different age and gender categories, the prevalence of IFG was increased from Q1 to Q4. The prevalence of DM in the Q2 group was much lower than the Q4 group (P < 0.05); the prevalence in the patients 31–45 years of age and males were also the same trends.
Fig. 1

Prevalence of IFG or DM in PTB patients between BMI quartiles at different age and gender groups. a showed the prevalence of IFG in PTB patients between IQR of BMI at different age and gender groups. b showed the prevalence of IFG in PTB patients between IQR of BMI at different age and gender groups. ■ compared with Q3, P < 0.05; compared with Q4, P < 0.05

The percentages of different BMI levels among the PTB + DM, PTB + IFG, and PTB groups are shown in Fig. 2. The distributions of the three groups were almost overlapping and all similar to normal distributions. At lower BMI (<21.0 kg/m2), the percentage in the PTB group was somewhat higher; at higher BMI, it was lower than the PTB + IFG group and PTB + DM group.
Fig. 2

The constituent ratio of different BMI level among PTB + DM, PTB + IFG, PTB groups

Odds ratios of BMI quartiles for IFG or DM

The univariate and multivariate odds ratios for IFG and DM based on BMI quartiles are shown in Table 2. For IFG univariate ORs in Q3 and Q4 (model 1) were significantly greater than 1.0. After adjustment for age, gender, and educational level (model 4), only the OR in Q4 was still significant. For DM in model 1, the OR in Q4 was significantly greater than 1.0. After adjustment for age, gender, and educational level, only the OR in Q1 was significantly smaller than 1.0.
Table 2

Odds ratios of BMI quartiles for IFG or DM

 

Q1

<19.82 kg/m2

Q2

19.82 kg/m2~

Q3

21.45 kg/m2~

Q4

23.41 kg/m2~

IFG

Model 1

1.00

1.27 (0.96–1.69)

2.49 (1.14–1.97) *

1.73 (1.32–2.27) *

Model 2

1.00

1.15 (0.87–1.53)

1.28 (0.96–1.69)

1.37 (1.03–1.82) *

Model 3

1.00

1.12 (0.84–1.48)

1.25 (0.94–1.65)

1.37 (1.03–1.81) *

Model 4

1.00

1.12 (0.84–1.50)

1.27 (0.96–1.69)

1.41 (1.06–1.88) *

DM

Model 1

1.00

0.53 (0.25–1.11)

1.21 (0.67–2.19)

2.11 (1.23–3.61) *

Model 2

1.00

0.43 (0.20–0.90) *

0.87 (0.47–1.59)

1.31 (0.75–2.31)

Model 3

1.00

0.43 (0.20–0.90) *

0.86 (0.47–1.59)

1.31 (0.75–2.31)

Model 4

1.00

0.44 (0.21–0.92) *

0.90 (0.49–1.66)

1.39 (0.79–2.46)

Model 1 unadjusted; Model 2 was adjusted by age; Model 3 was adjusted by Model 2 + gender; Model 4 was adjusted by Model 3 + educational level; *By multinomial logistic regression analyses, P < 0.05

ROC of BMI for IFG or DM in PTB patients

The results of ROC analysis showed that BMI might be a weak potential predictor for IFG or DM in PTB patients (Table 3). With respect to IFG, the area under the ROC curve was 0.56 for all PTB patients and 0.57 for male patients. The optimal BMI cut-off for IFG was identified as 22.22 kg/m2 in all patients and 22.23 kg/m2 in males; and the PPV, NPV, PLR and NLR were 0.70, 0.38, 1.17 and 0.81 for all patients and 0.73, 0.38, 1.36 and 0.80 for males, respectively. With respect to DM, the area under the ROC curve was 0.59 for all PTB patients, 0.58 for patients 31–45 years of age, and 0.61 for males. The optimal BMI cut-off for DM was 22.34 kg/m2 in all patients, 22.53 kg/m2 in patients 31–45 years of age, and 22.41 kg/m2 in males; and the PPV, NPV, PLR and NLR were 0.77, 0.42, 1.58 and 0.65 for all patients, 0.78, 0.39, 1.45 and 0.64 for 31–45 years of age, 0.78, 0.43, 1.66 and 0.60 for males, respectively.
Table 3

Receiver Operator Curve analysis of the predictive value of BMI for impaired fasting glucose (IFG) and diabetes mellitus (DM) in categories of gender and age in PTB patients

  

SE

AUC (95%CI)

p-value

Sensitivity

Specificity

PPV

NPV

PLR

NLR

Youden’s index

Associated criterion

IFG

Total

0.01

0.56 (0.53–0.58)

<0.001

0.61

0.48

0.70

0.38

1.17

0.81

0.09

22.22

Age

18–30 years

0.02

0.54 (0.49–0.58)

0.104

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

31–45 years

0.02

0.53 (0.49–0.56)

0.124

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Gender

Male

0.02

0.57 (0.54–0.60)

<0.001

0.49

0.64

0.73

0.38

1.36

0.80

0.13

22.23

Female

0.02

0.53 (0.48–0.58)

0.188

      

--

--

DM

Total

0.03

0.59 (0.53–0.66)

0.002

0.60

0.62

0.77

0.42

1.58

0.65

0.22

22.34

Age

18–30 years

0.07

0.50 (0.37–0.63)

0.977

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

31–45 years

0.04

0.58 (0.50–0.65)

0.024

0.64

0.56

0.78

0.39

1.45

0.64

0.20

22.53

Gender

Male

0.04

0.61 (0.53–0.70)

0.004

0.63

0.62

0.78

0.43

1.66

0.60

0.25

22.41

Female

0.05

0.56 (0.46–0.67)

0.184

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

PPV positive predictive value, NPV negative predictive value, PLR positive likelihood ratio, NLR negative likelihood ratio, SE Standard Error, AUC area under the curve; Youden’s index = Sensitivity + Specificity − 1; -- When p > 0.05, there was no appropriate cut-off by ROC analysis, so the Youden’s index and associated criterion could not be shown

Discussion

In this survey of Chinese adults (18–45 years of age), we showed that overweight and obesity were positively associated with DM and IFG in PTB patients. The prevalence of DM and IFG was higher when the BMI was ≥ 23.41 kg/m2 (Q4). Until now the optimal BMI cut off point for IFG and DM screening among PTB patients has not been estimated in China. Based on the current study, the optimal BMI cut-offs for predicting DM and IFG were 22.22 kg/m2 and 22.34 kg/m2, respectively.

After adjusted for the associated factors, including young age, high educational level, and excess weight, BMI was still a risk factor for DM or IFG in PTB patients. In a previous cohort study [15], the incidence of DM was mainly associated with overweight and obesity in China (28.3% among men and 31.3% among women). However, a inverse association and dose–response relationship between the incidence of TB and BMI up to 30.0 kg/m2 was shown in a previous meta-analysis [16]. The relative risk of TB in underweight patients (BMI < 18.5 kg/m2) compared to normal weight patients was estimated to be 3.2 (95% CI = 3.1–3.3) [17]. Meanwhile, an association between abnormal weight and elevated glucose (DM and IFG) may still exist. A survey administered in 49 developing countries showed that not only overweight, but also underweight might be involved in the pathogenesis of diabetes [18]. Thus, overweight and obesity in PTB patients should not be overlooked, whether or not it regards only a small proportion of PTB patients.

In the model adjusted by all of the relevant risk factors, a BMI in the 19.82–21.45 kg/m2 range was negatively associated with DM in PTB patients, and a BMI > 23.41 kg/m2 was positively associated with IFG. Moreover, for a BMI ≥ 23.41 kg/m2 , the prevalence of DM and IFG in PTB patients was much higher in our study. A cross-sectional study carried out in Spain showed that the prevalence of DM in overweight or obese patients was 23.6%, and the higher the BMI, the higher the prevalence of DM [19]. In the current study, some differences in the BMI associations still existed. Specifically, when the BMI was < 19.82 kg/m2 (Q1), the prevalence of DM in PTB patients presented slightly decreased, although the differences were not significant. This finding might be attributable to the impact of PTB. Abundant epidemiologic evidence has indicated that low BMI is a risk factor for PTB, and the biological mechanism underlying the relationship has been well-described by induced impairment of cellular immunity [20]. In addition, underweight patients might also be involved in the pathogenesis of DM through direct and indirect mechanisms [21]. Therefore, we should pay more attention to the factors associated with underweight, overweight, and obesity, who favor high prevalence of DM and IFG in PTB patients.

We were able to establish BMI cut-off values for DM and IFG in PTB patients in the current study. Although BMI might not be the strongest risk factor to screen undiagnosed DM compared with age, waist circumference, and a family history of DM [22], it is an easy to acquire anthropometric index for the prediction of DM. With respect to adults, the optimal BMI cut-off value for predicting the presence of DM was 23.3 kg/m2 for men and 24.0 kg/m2 for women [23]. A cross-sectional study conducted in northeast Chinese adults showed that combined with the waist-to-height ratio, a maximal BMI ≥ 23.0 kg/m2 for DM and ≥ 22.0 kg/m2 for glucose tolerance abnormalities were better anthropometric indices [24]. Also, the San Antonio Heart Cohort Study reported that BMI and waist circumference had equal power in predicting development of metabolic syndrome in non-Hispanic Whites and Mexican Americans [25]; thus, BMI is possibly an appropriate predictor for pathoglycemia. Of note, the optimal BMI cut-off points in our study were lower than other studies, which might because PTB patients were more likely to have a low BMI [11], and in young patients (18–45 years old), a lower BMI was more common [26].

There were some limitations in our study. First, there were some limitations in the generalizability of our findings: the age range and only Chinese participants. The age range in our survey was 18–45 years, which comprised young and middle-aged adults in China. Because there were no elderly in our study, which comprise a high-risk group and have a higher prevalence than young and middle-aged adults [27], the prevalence of DM and IFG would be low. And then, the results of this study were applied to Chinese population, so there might be different results in other countries. Second, Youden’s index was low, which meant the false-positive and false-negative values were high for BMI in predicting DM and IFG in PTB patients.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the present study revealed that BMI might be a limited screening tool for DM and IFG in PTB patients in Chinese young and middle-aged people. However, the predictive power of BMI was still poor. This study is only a prelude to the upcoming research in co-existing infectious diseases and chronic non-communicable diseases, especially in Chinese populations. Further studies are warranted to verify the effects of nutritional status on the co-morbidity of these two diseases.

Abbreviations

95% CI: 

95% confidence interval

DM: 

Diabetes mellitus

DOTS: 

Directly Observed Treatment, Short Course

FPG: 

Fasting plasma glucose

HDL: 

High-density lipoprotein

IFG: 

Impaired fasting glucose

IQR: 

Inter-quartile range

NLR: 

Negative likelihood ratio

NPV: 

Negative predictive value

OR: 

Odds ratio

PLR: 

Positive likelihood ratio

PPV: 

Positive predictive value

PTB: 

Pulmonary tuberculosis

TCHO: 

Total cholesterol

TG: 

Triglycerides

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We thank all the co-investigators in Linyi area, Shandong province. We sincerely thank all the study participants.

Funding

We thank the National Natural Science Funds (81172662), the Specialized Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education (20123706110004), and the Qingdao Postdoctoral Application Research Project (2015148) for the grants supporting the study.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets during and/or analysed during the current study available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Authors’ contributions

JC, SZ, and YW collected, analyzed, and interpreted the data. AM, QW, and XH designed the study. AM, and QW provided epidemiological consultation. JC, XH, SZ, and YW monitored, trained, and coordinated the participants. ES and FK contributed to revisions to the final manuscript and provided advices. All authors coordinated the study and critically revised the article. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the medical ethics committee of Qingdao Disease Prevention and Control Centre, Qingdao, People’s Republic of China, and all aspects of the study comply with the Declaration of Helsinki. All participants were fully informed and gave their written informed consent. This trial is registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (No. ChiCTR-OCC-10000994, URL: http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=8544).

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
The College of Public Health, Qingdao University
(2)
Linyi People’s Hospital
(3)
The Department of Public Health, Lanzhou University
(4)
Division of Human Nutrition, Wageningen University

References

  1. Bygbjerg IC. Double burden of noncommunicable and infectious diseases in developing countries. Science. 2012;337(6101):1499–501.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Sullivan T, Ben Amor Y. The Co-Management of tuberculosis and diabetes: challenges and ppportunities in the developing world. Plos Med. 2012;9(7):e1001269.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Shaw JE, Sicree RA, Zimmet PZ. Global estimates of the prevalence of diabetes for 2010 and 2030. Diabetes Res Clin Pr. 2010;87(1):4–14.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Dye C. Global epidemiology of tuberculosis. Lancet. 2006;367(9514):938–40.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Baker MA, Harries AD, Jeon CY, Hart JE, Kapur A, Lonnroth K, et al. The impact of diabetes on tuberculosis treatment outcomes: a systematic review. BMC Med. 2011;9:81.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Wu SL, Yi FS, Zhou C, Zhang MT, Zhu YJ, Tuniyazi Y, et al. HbA1c and the diagnosis of diabetes and prediabetes in a middle-aged and elderly Han population from northwest China. J Diabetes. 2013;5(3):282–90.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Wong KC, Wang ZQ. Prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus of Chinese populations in Mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. Diabetes Res Clin Pr. 2006;73(2):126–34.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Hu FB, Manson JE, Stampfer MJ, Colditz G, Liu S, Solomon CG, et al. Diet, lifestyle, and the risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus in women. New Engl J Med. 2001;345(11):790–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Abdullah A, Peeters A, de Courten M, Stoelwinder J. The magnitude of association between overweight and obesity and the risk of diabetes: a meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Diabetes Res Clin Pr. 2010;89(3):309–19.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Kodama S, Horikawa C, Fujihara K, Heianza Y, Hirasawa R, Yachi Y, et al. Comparisons of the strength of associations with future type 2 diabetes risk among anthropometric obesity indicators, including waist-to-height ratio: a meta-analysis. Am J Epidemiol. 2012;176(11):959–69.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Patra J, Jha P, Rehm J, Suraweera W. Tobacco smoking, alcohol drinking, diabetes, low body mass index and the risk of self-reported symptoms of active tuberculosis: Individual Participant Data (IPD) meta-analyses of 72,684 individuals in 14 high tuberculosis burden countries. Plos One. 2014;9(5):e96433.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Cegielski JP, Arab L, Cornoni-Huntley J. Nutritional risk factors for tuberculosis among adults in the United States, 19711992. Am J Epidemiol. 2012;176(5):409–22.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Zheng Y, Ma AG, Wang QZ, Han XX, Cai J, Schouten EG, et al. Relation of leptin, ghrelin and inflammatory cytokines with body mass index in pulmonary tuberculosis patients with and without Type 2 diabetes mellitus. Plos One. 2013;8(11):e80122.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Coorperative Meta-analysis Group of China Obesity Task Force. Predictive values of body mass index and waist circumference to risk factors of related diseases in Chinese adult population. Chin J Epidemiol. 2002;23(1):5–10.Google Scholar
  15. Wang C, Li JX, Xue HF, Li Y, Huang JF, Mai JZ, et al. Type 2 diabetes mellitus incidence in Chinese: contributions of overweight and obesity. Diabetes Res Clin Pr. 2015;107(3):424–32.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Lonnroth K, Williams BG, Cegielski P, Dye C. A consistent log-linear relationship between tuberculosis incidence and body mass index. Int J Epidemiol. 2010;39(1):149–55.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Lonnroth K, Castro KG, Chakaya JM, Chauhan LS, Floyd K, Glaziou P, et al. Tuberculosis control and elimination 2010-50: cure, care, and social development. Lancet. 2010;375(9728):1814–29.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Liu L, Yin X, Morrissey S. Global variability in diabetes mellitus and its association with body weight and primary healthcare support in 49 low- and middle-income developing countries. Diabetic Med. 2012;29(8):995–1002.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Gomis R, Artola S, Conthe P, Vidal J, Casarnor R, Font B, et al. Prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus in overweight or obese patients outpatients in Spain. OBEDIA Stud Med Clin Barc. 2014;142(11):485–92.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Cegielski JP, McMurray DN. The relationship between malnutrition and tuberculosis: evidence from studies in humans and experimental animals. Int J Tuberc Lung D. 2004;8(3):286–98.Google Scholar
  21. Rao RH. The role of undernutrition in the pathogenesis of diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care. 1984;7(6):595–601.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Gao WG, Dong YH, Pang ZC, Nan HR, Wang SJ, Ren J, et al. A simple Chinese risk score for undiagnosed diabetes. Diabetic Med. 2010;27(3):274–81.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Cheong KC, Yusoff AF, Ghazali SM, Lim KH, Selvarajah S, Haniff J, et al. Optimal BMI cut-off values for predicting diabetes, hypertension and hypercholesterolaemia in a multi-ethnic population. Public Health Nutr. 2013;16(3):453–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Wei W, Xin X, Shao B, Zeng FF, Love EJ, Wang BY. The relationship between anthropometric indices and type 2 diabetes mellitus among adults in north-east China. Public Health Nutr. 2015;18(9):1675–83.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Han TS, Williams K, Sattar N, Hunt KJ, Lean MEJ, Haffner SM. Analysis of obesity and Hyperinsulinemia in the development of metabolic syndrome: San Antonio Heart Study. Obes Res. 2002;10(9):923–31.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Peter RS, Mayer B, Concin H, Nagel G. The effect of age on the shape of the BMI-mortality relation and BMI associated with minimum all-cause mortality in a large Austrian cohort. Int J Obesity. 2015;39(3):530–4.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Nayak BS, Sobrian A, Latiff K, Pope D, Rampersad A, Lourenco K, et al. The association of age, gender, ethnicity, family history, obesity and hypertension with type 2 diabetes mellitus in Trinidad. Diabetes Metab Syndr. 2014;8(2):91–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2017

Advertisement