Table 4.
Association of circulating follicle-stimulating hormone and luteinizing hormone with prediabetes and diabetes in postmenopausal women
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 5 | Model 6 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prediabetes | ||||||
| FSH (IU/L) | ||||||
| Q1 (≤50.2) | 1.96 (1.30, 2.93)† | 2.12 (1.40, 3.20)# | 1.99 (1.29, 3.08)† | 1.81 (1.18, 2.79)† | 1.79 (1.14, 2.79)* | 1.93 (1.21, 3.08)† |
| Q2 (50.3–64.8) | 1.58 (1.11, 2.25)* | 1.64 (1.15, 2.33)† | 1.48 (1.03, 2.14)* | 1.49 (1.03, 2.14)* | 1.40 (0.96, 2.04) | 1.49 (1.00, 2.20)* |
| Q3 (64.9–82.4) | 1.18 (0.86, 1.62) | 1.20 (0.87, 1.65) | 1.24 (0.89, 1.72) | 1.14 (0.82, 1.58) | 1.19 (0.85, 1.66) | 1.23 (0.87, 1.75) |
| Q4 (≥82.5) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| P value for trend | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.002 | 0.003 | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| LH (IU/L) | ||||||
| Q1 (≤17.9) | 0.81 (0.54, 1.22) | 0.80 (0.53, 1.20) | 0.79 (0.52, 1.21) | 0.82 (0.54, 1.25) | 0.86 (0.55, 1.33) | 0.88 (0.56, 1.39) |
| Q2 (18.0–23.6) | 0.91 (0.64, 1.28) | 0.89 (0.63, 1.26) | 0.90 (0.62, 1.29) | 0.88 (0.62, 1.26) | 0.95 (0.65, 1.37) | 0.91 (0.62, 1.34) |
| Q3 (23.7–30.7) | 0.84 (0.62, 1.15) | 0.83 (0.61, 1.14) | 0.82 (0.59, 1.13) | 0.83 (0.60, 1.15) | 0.83 (0.59, 1.15) | 0.83 (0.59, 1.17) |
| Q4 (≥30.8) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| P value for trend | 0.38 | 0.34 | 0.35 | 0.41 | 0.62 | 0.65 |
| Diabetes | ||||||
| FSH (IU/L) | ||||||
| Q1 (≤50.2) | 4.68 (2.02, 10.82)# | 5.14 (2.19, 12.05)# | 3.60 (1.48, 8.75)† | 3.59 (1.43, 9.02)† | 2.75 (1.06, 7.17)* | 3.02 (1.10, 8.31)* |
| Q2 (50.3–64.8) | 3.64 (1.67, 7.93)† | 3.80 (1.74, 8.32)† | 2.93 (1.31, 6.53)† | 3.03 (1.30, 7.07)* | 2.48 (1.05, 5.89)* | 2.43 (0.97, 6.13) |
| Q3 (64.9–82.4) | 2.78 (1.34, 5.77)† | 2.82 (1.36, 5.87)† | 2.38 (1.12, 5.04)* | 2.15 (0.97, 4.76) | 1.62 (0.71, 3.69) | 1.76 (0.74, 4.16) |
| Q4 (≥82.5) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| P value for trend | 0.001 | <0.001 | 0.007 | 0.007 | 0.029 | 0.030 |
| LH (IU/L) | ||||||
| Q1 (≤17.9) | 1.13 (0.54, 2.37) | 1.11 (0.53, 2.33) | 1.03 (0.47, 2.26) | 1.18 (0.51, 2.69) | 1.15 (0.48, 2.76) | 1.10 (0.44, 2.79) |
| Q2 (18.0–23.6) | 0.72 (0.35, 1.45) | 0.70 (0.35, 1.43) | 0.67 (0.32, 1.41) | 0.67 (0.30, 1.47) | 0.73 (0.32, 1.68) | 0.67 (0.28, 1.61) |
| Q3 (23.7–30.7) | 0.89 (0.46, 1.71) | 0.88 (0.46, 1.69) | 0.82 (0.41, 1.62) | 0.94 (0.46, 1.94) | 0.86 (0.40, 1.83) | 0.77 (0.35, 1.72) |
| Q4 (≥30.8) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| P value for trend | 0.70 | 0.75 | 0.87 | 0.75 | 0.72 | 0.76 |
Model 1 included terms for age, residence area and economic status
Model 2 included terms for model 1 and E2
Model 3 included terms for model 2, waist circumference
Model 4 included terms for model 2, HOMA-IR
Model 5 included terms for model 2, waist circumference and HOMA-IR
Model 6 was a fully adjusted model including all covariates in model 5, metabolic factors [waist circumference, HOMA-IR, low-density lipoprotein, high-density lipoprotein, triglycerides and systolic blood pressure] and current smoker
No interaction was found between FSH and residence area, economic status and waist circumference
Data were odds ratio (95 % CI). * P < 0.05; † P < 0.01; # P < 0.001