BACKGROUND: There is a need to evaluate the prevalence of metabolic syndrome (MetS) diagnosed by the new Joint Interim Societies (JIS) MetS definition. The JIS definition was compared with three previous definitions to assess their ability to predict cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of a representative sample of Greek adults (n = 9669) was performed to estimate the prevalence of MetS and CVD using the JIS vs. the three older definitions of MetS: the National Cholesterol Education Program-Adult Treatment Panel-III (NCEP-ATP-III), the International Diabetes Federation (IDF) and the American Heart Association/National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (AHA/NHLBI) definitions. RESULTS: The age-adjusted MetS prevalence was 45.7%, 43.4%, 24.5% and 26.3% (ANOVA p < 0.001) with the JIS, IDF, NCEP and AHA/NHLBI definitions. The prevalence of CVD was 11.4% in the whole study population and 17.6%, 18.3%, 23.3%, 22.6% and in subjects with MetS according to the JIS, IDF, NCEP and AHA/NHLBI definitions (ANOVA p < 0.001). The prevalence of CVD was only 10.4% (i.e., lower than in the whole study population) in subjects with MetS according to the JIS but not according to the NCEP-ATP-III and AHA/NHLBI definitions (p < 0.001 vs. subjects with MetS as defined by NCEP-ATP-III or AHA/NHLBI). CONCLUSIONS: When diagnosed according to the new JIS definition, the prevalence of MetS was high in a Greek Mediterranean cohort (nearly half of the adult population). The NCEP-ATP-III and AHA/NHLBI definitions were more predictive of CVD risk than the new JIS definition. These findings, though limited by the cross sectional analysis, may have implications regarding the choice of the definition to diagnose MetS.
BACKGROUND: There is a need to evaluate the prevalence of metabolic syndrome (MetS) diagnosed by the new Joint Interim Societies (JIS) MetS definition. The JIS definition was compared with three previous definitions to assess their ability to predict cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of a representative sample of Greek adults (n = 9669) was performed to estimate the prevalence of MetS and CVD using the JIS vs. the three older definitions of MetS: the National Cholesterol Education Program-Adult Treatment Panel-III (NCEP-ATP-III), the International Diabetes Federation (IDF) and the American Heart Association/National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (AHA/NHLBI) definitions. RESULTS: The age-adjusted MetS prevalence was 45.7%, 43.4%, 24.5% and 26.3% (ANOVA p < 0.001) with the JIS, IDF, NCEP and AHA/NHLBI definitions. The prevalence of CVD was 11.4% in the whole study population and 17.6%, 18.3%, 23.3%, 22.6% and in subjects with MetS according to the JIS, IDF, NCEP and AHA/NHLBI definitions (ANOVA p < 0.001). The prevalence of CVD was only 10.4% (i.e., lower than in the whole study population) in subjects with MetS according to the JIS but not according to the NCEP-ATP-III and AHA/NHLBI definitions (p < 0.001 vs. subjects with MetS as defined by NCEP-ATP-III or AHA/NHLBI). CONCLUSIONS: When diagnosed according to the new JIS definition, the prevalence of MetS was high in a Greek Mediterranean cohort (nearly half of the adult population). The NCEP-ATP-III and AHA/NHLBI definitions were more predictive of CVD risk than the new JIS definition. These findings, though limited by the cross sectional analysis, may have implications regarding the choice of the definition to diagnose MetS.
Authors: M Vernay; B Salanave; C de Peretti; C Druet; A Malon; V Deschamps; S Hercberg; K Castetbon Journal: Int J Public Health Date: 2013-09-03 Impact factor: 3.380
Authors: Pablo Pérez-Martínez; Dimitri P Mikhailidis; Vasilios G Athyros; Mónica Bullo; Patrick Couture; María I Covas; Lawrence de Koning; Javier Delgado-Lista; Andrés Díaz-López; Christian A Drevon; Ramón Estruch; Katherine Esposito; Montserrat Fitó; Marta Garaulet; Dario Giugliano; Antonio García-Ríos; Niki Katsiki; Genovefa Kolovou; Benoît Lamarche; Maria Ida Maiorino; Guillermo Mena-Sánchez; Araceli Muñoz-Garach; Dragana Nikolic; José M Ordovás; Francisco Pérez-Jiménez; Manfredi Rizzo; Jordi Salas-Salvadó; Helmut Schröder; Francisco J Tinahones; Rafael de la Torre; Ben van Ommen; Suzan Wopereis; Emilio Ros; José López-Miranda Journal: Nutr Rev Date: 2017-05-01 Impact factor: 7.110
Authors: Dalia Ieva Luksiene; Migle Baceviciene; Abdonas Tamosiunas; Regina Reklaitiene; Ricardas Radisauskas Journal: Int J Public Health Date: 2011-03-08 Impact factor: 3.380
Authors: Angelo Scuteri; Stephane Laurent; Francesco Cucca; John Cockcroft; Pedro Guimaraes Cunha; Leocadio Rodriguez Mañas; Francesco U Mattace Raso; Maria Lorenza Muiesan; Ligita Ryliškytė; Ernst Rietzschel; James Strait; Charalambos Vlachopoulos; Henry Völzke; Edward G Lakatta; Peter M Nilsson Journal: Eur J Prev Cardiol Date: 2014-03-19 Impact factor: 7.804
Authors: Grzegorz Józef Nowicki; Barbara Ślusarska; Katarzyna Naylor; Andrzej Prystupa; Ewa Rudnicka-Drożak; Ulyana Halyuk; Petro Pokotylo Journal: Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes Date: 2021-05-06 Impact factor: 3.168
Authors: Ioanna Paspala; Niki Katsiki; Dorothea Kapoukranidou; Dimitri P Mikhailidis; Anna Tsiligiroglou-Fachantidou Journal: Open Cardiovasc Med J Date: 2012-12-28
Authors: Abdulla Shehab; Bayan Al-Dabbagh; Wael Almahmeed; Nazar Bustani; Nicolaas Nagelkerke; Abdulla Alnaeemi; Alawi A Alsheikh-Ali Journal: Open Cardiovasc Med J Date: 2012-07-13
Authors: Paulo R Alencastro; Fernando H Wolff; Renato R Oliveira; Maria Letícia R Ikeda; Nêmora T Barcellos; Ajácio B M Brandão; Sandra C Fuchs Journal: AIDS Res Ther Date: 2012-10-04 Impact factor: 2.250