AIMS: Young adults with type 2 diabetes (T2Dm) present the clinician with the problem of when to start therapies for the primary prevention of vascular disease and how to identify those at most vascular risk. We examine whether the metabolic syndrome (MetS) can be a useful clinical tool to stratify vascular risk in this context. METHODS: Data were collected from 5928 subjects with T2Dm, and subjects were categorized as having MetS by World Health Organization criteria (body mass index criteria modified for Asians using >23 kg/m2). The prevalence of macrovascular disease was examined by MetS status and age. RESULTS: The overall MetS prevalence was 72.3%. MetS was associated with an increased prevalence of ischaemic heart disease (IHD) (17.2% MetS vs. 11.6% no MetS, p < 0.0001), coronary artery bypass graft (7.6 vs. 4.7%, p < 0.0003), peripheral vascular disease (PVD) (4.7 vs. 3.7%, p = 0.08) and stroke (6 vs. 3.9%, p = 0.002) across all age groups. MetS subjects had an IHD prevalence equivalent to that seen in subjects who were one decade older without MetS. The most significant impact of MetS was for the age group of 40-49 years with much lesser impact seen with progressively increasing age [odds ratio (OR) = 2.1 for IHD in MetS compared with no MetS at age 40-50 years, p < 0.05; falling progressively to OR = 1.5 at age >70 years, p > 0.05]. Similar trends were seen for coronary artery by-pass graft (CABG) and PVD. There was a strong relationship between the number of MetS risk factors and IHD prevalence (r = 0.99, p = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that MetS is particularly useful in stratifying vascular risk in younger T2Dm patients and in those with a high number of MetS components. For patients with MetS, especially those with a full house of MetS risk factors, commencing risk-lowering interventions 10 years earlier than their MetS-free counterparts could be considered.
AIMS: Young adults with type 2 diabetes (T2Dm) present the clinician with the problem of when to start therapies for the primary prevention of vascular disease and how to identify those at most vascular risk. We examine whether the metabolic syndrome (MetS) can be a useful clinical tool to stratify vascular risk in this context. METHODS: Data were collected from 5928 subjects with T2Dm, and subjects were categorized as having MetS by World Health Organization criteria (body mass index criteria modified for Asians using >23 kg/m2). The prevalence of macrovascular disease was examined by MetS status and age. RESULTS: The overall MetS prevalence was 72.3%. MetS was associated with an increased prevalence of ischaemic heart disease (IHD) (17.2% MetS vs. 11.6% no MetS, p < 0.0001), coronary artery bypass graft (7.6 vs. 4.7%, p < 0.0003), peripheral vascular disease (PVD) (4.7 vs. 3.7%, p = 0.08) and stroke (6 vs. 3.9%, p = 0.002) across all age groups. MetS subjects had an IHD prevalence equivalent to that seen in subjects who were one decade older without MetS. The most significant impact of MetS was for the age group of 40-49 years with much lesser impact seen with progressively increasing age [odds ratio (OR) = 2.1 for IHD in MetS compared with no MetS at age 40-50 years, p < 0.05; falling progressively to OR = 1.5 at age >70 years, p > 0.05]. Similar trends were seen for coronary artery by-pass graft (CABG) and PVD. There was a strong relationship between the number of MetS risk factors and IHD prevalence (r = 0.99, p = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that MetS is particularly useful in stratifying vascular risk in younger T2Dm patients and in those with a high number of MetS components. For patients with MetS, especially those with a full house of MetS risk factors, commencing risk-lowering interventions 10 years earlier than their MetS-free counterparts could be considered.
Authors: Ronald A Cohen; Athena Poppas; Daniel E Forman; Karin F Hoth; Andreana P Haley; John Gunstad; Angela L Jefferson; David F Tate; Robert H Paul; Lawrence H Sweet; Mokato Ono; Beth A Jerskey; Marie Gerhard-Herman Journal: J Clin Exp Neuropsychol Date: 2008-06-16 Impact factor: 2.475
Authors: F AlSaraj; J H McDermott; T Cawood; S McAteer; M Ali; W Tormey; B N Cockburn; S Sreenan Journal: Ir J Med Sci Date: 2009-06-04 Impact factor: 1.568