BACKGROUND: Cut points for defining obesity have been derived from mortality data among Whites from Europe and the United States and their accuracy to screen for high risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) in other ethnic groups has been questioned. OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy and to define ethnic and gender-specific optimal cut points for body mass index (BMI), waist circumference (WC) and waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) when they are used in screening for high risk of CHD in the Latin-American and the US populations. METHODS: We estimated the accuracy and optimal cut points for BMI, WC and WHR to screen for CHD risk in Latin Americans (n=18 976), non-Hispanic Whites (Whites; n=8956), non-Hispanic Blacks (Blacks; n=5205) and Hispanics (n=5803). High risk of CHD was defined as a 10-year risk > or =20% (Framingham equation). The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC) and the misclassification-cost term were used to assess accuracy and to identify optimal cut points. RESULTS: WHR had the highest AUC in all ethnic groups (from 0.75 to 0.82) and BMI had the lowest (from 0.50 to 0.59). Optimal cut point for BMI was similar across ethnic/gender groups (27 kg/m(2)). In women, cut points for WC (94 cm) and WHR (0.91) were consistent by ethnicity. In men, cut points for WC and WHR varied significantly with ethnicity: from 91 cm in Latin Americans to 102 cm in Whites, and from 0.94 in Latin Americans to 0.99 in Hispanics, respectively. CONCLUSION: WHR is the most accurate anthropometric indicator to screen for high risk of CHD, whereas BMI is almost uninformative. The same BMI cut point should be used in all men and women. Unique cut points for WC and WHR should be used in all women, but ethnic-specific cut points seem warranted among men.
BACKGROUND: Cut points for defining obesity have been derived from mortality data among Whites from Europe and the United States and their accuracy to screen for high risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) in other ethnic groups has been questioned. OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy and to define ethnic and gender-specific optimal cut points for body mass index (BMI), waist circumference (WC) and waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) when they are used in screening for high risk of CHD in the Latin-American and the US populations. METHODS: We estimated the accuracy and optimal cut points for BMI, WC and WHR to screen for CHD risk in Latin Americans (n=18 976), non-Hispanic Whites (Whites; n=8956), non-Hispanic Blacks (Blacks; n=5205) and Hispanics (n=5803). High risk of CHD was defined as a 10-year risk > or =20% (Framingham equation). The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC) and the misclassification-cost term were used to assess accuracy and to identify optimal cut points. RESULTS: WHR had the highest AUC in all ethnic groups (from 0.75 to 0.82) and BMI had the lowest (from 0.50 to 0.59). Optimal cut point for BMI was similar across ethnic/gender groups (27 kg/m(2)). In women, cut points for WC (94 cm) and WHR (0.91) were consistent by ethnicity. In men, cut points for WC and WHR varied significantly with ethnicity: from 91 cm in Latin Americans to 102 cm in Whites, and from 0.94 in Latin Americans to 0.99 in Hispanics, respectively. CONCLUSION: WHR is the most accurate anthropometric indicator to screen for high risk of CHD, whereas BMI is almost uninformative. The same BMI cut point should be used in all men and women. Unique cut points for WC and WHR should be used in all women, but ethnic-specific cut points seem warranted among men.
Authors: Jack Wang; John C Thornton; Salina Bari; Bennett Williamson; Dympna Gallagher; Steven B Heymsfield; Mary Horlick; Donald Kotler; Blandine Laferrère; Laurel Mayer; F Xavier Pi-Sunyer; Richard N Pierson Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Claudia P Sánchez-Castillo; Oscar Velázquez-Monroy; Arturo Berber; Agustín Lara-Esqueda; Roberto Tapia-Conyer; W Philip T James Journal: Obes Res Date: 2003-03
Authors: E B Rimm; M J Stampfer; E Giovannucci; A Ascherio; D Spiegelman; G A Colditz; W C Willett Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 1995-06-15 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Dale S Hardy; Devita T Stallings; Jane T Garvin; Francine C Gachupin; Hongyan Xu; Susan B Racette Journal: J Diabetes Date: 2016-07-12 Impact factor: 4.006
Authors: Cristina Palacios; Cynthia M Pérez; Manuel Guzmán; Ana P Ortiz; Alelí Ayala; Erick Suárez Journal: Public Health Nutr Date: 2011-05-24 Impact factor: 4.022
Authors: Andrea Ruiz-Alejos; Rodrigo M Carrillo-Larco; J Jaime Miranda; Robert H Gilman; Liam Smeeth; Antonio Bernabé-Ortiz Journal: Public Health Nutr Date: 2019-06-04 Impact factor: 4.022
Authors: Josefina Medina-Lezama; Catherine A Pastorius; Humberto Zea-Diaz; Antonio Bernabe-Ortiz; Fernando Corrales-Medina; Oscar Leopoldo Morey-Vargas; Diana Andrea Chirinos; Edgar Muñoz-Atahualpa; Julio Chirinos-Pacheco; Julio Alonso Chirinos Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2010-03-03 Impact factor: 17.152
Authors: Mary Vanellys Díaz-Santana; Erick L Suárez Pérez; Ana P Ortiz Martínez; Manuel Guzmán Serrano; Cynthia M Pérez Cardona Journal: J Immigr Minor Health Date: 2016-02
Authors: Anne E Sanders; Steven M Campbell; Sally M Mauriello; James D Beck; Monik C Jimenez; Linda M Kaste; Richard H Singer; Shirley M Beaver; Tracy L Finlayson; Victor M Badner Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2014-03-21 Impact factor: 3.797