| Literature DB >> 25574166 |
Edel Rafael Rodea-Montero1, María Lola Evia-Viscarra2, Evelia Apolinar-Jiménez1.
Abstract
Objective. To identify the degree of association between anthropometric indices and components of metabolic syndrome (MS) and to determine optimal cut-off points of these indices for predicting MS in obese adolescents. Methods. A cross-sectional study with a sample of (n = 110) Mexican obese adolescents grouped by sex and the presence/absence of MS. BMI percentile, waist circumference (WC), and waist-to-height ratio (WHtR) were tested. ROC curves of the anthropometric indices were created to identify whether an index was a significant predictor of MS. Results. BMI percentile, WC, and WHtR were significantly correlated with systolic and diastolic blood pressure. As predictors of MS overall patients, the BMI percentile generated an area under curve (AUC) of 0.651 (P = 0.008), cut-off point above the 99th percentile. WC generated an AUC of 0.704 (P < 0.001), cut-off point of ≥90 cm. WHtR demonstrated an AUC of 0.652 (P = 0.008), cut-off point of 0.60. WHtR ≥0.62 and WHtR ≥0.61 generate AUC of 0.737 (P = 0.006) and AUC of 0.717 (P = 0.014) for predicting hypertension and insulin resistance, respectively, in females. Conclusion. WHtR is a better tool than WC and BMI for identifying cardiometabolic risk. The overall criterion (WHtR ≥ 0.6) could be appropriate for predicting MS in obese Mexican adolescents.Entities:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25574166 PMCID: PMC4276350 DOI: 10.1155/2014/195407
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Endocrinol ISSN: 1687-8337 Impact factor: 3.257
Characteristics of the study population, grouped by the presence or absence of metabolic syndrome.
| Without MS (−) ( | With MS (+) ( | Intergroup comparisona | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clinical, anthropometric, and biochemical | |||
| Age, years | 11.41 (2.2) | 11.63 (1.91) |
|
| Tanner stage, median | 2 | 3 |
|
| Weight, kg | 63.38 (16.75) | 74.5 (19.57) |
|
| Height, cm | 146.27 (10.72) | 152.12 (11.63) |
|
| BMI, kg/m2 | 28.94 (5.03) | 31.62 (5.24) |
|
| BMI percentile | 98.22 (0.99) | 98.66 (1.04) |
|
| WHtR | 0.61 (0.06) | 0.64 (0.06) |
|
| Fasting insulin, pmol/L | 96.72 (78.06) | 133.96 (147.88) |
|
| HOMA | 2.88 (2.37) | 4.08 (4.62) |
|
| Components of MS | |||
| Triglycerides, mmol/L | 1.69 (0.75) | 2.16 (0.96) |
|
| HDL-C, mmol/L | 1.15 (0.26) | 0.88 (0.17) |
|
| Waist, cm | 88.88 (10.12) | 96.77 (11.22) |
|
| Fasting glucose, mmol/L | 4.79 (0.30) | 4.86 (0.42) |
|
| SBP, mmHg | 105.81 (8.88) | 114.38 (10.01) |
|
| DBP, mmHg | 61.14 (8.76) | 68.21 (9.04) |
|
Unless otherwise indicated, the values are given as the mean (standard deviation).
aMann-Whitney U test.
bSignificant P values.
Anthropometric indices of the study population, grouped by sex and the presence or absence of metabolic syndrome.
|
Overall ( | Female ( | Male ( | Intergroup comparisona | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without MS (−) ( | With MS (+) ( | Without MS (−) ( | With MS (+) ( | |||
| BMI percentile | 98.49 (1.04) | 98.27 (0.95) | 98.54 (1.18) | 98.18 (1.05) | 98.76 (0.93) |
|
| Waist, cm | 93.76 (11.43) | 87.35 (8.84) | 95.49 (11.15) | 90.15 (11.1) | 97.73 (11.31) |
|
| WHtR | 0.63 (0.06) | 0.59 (0.04) | 0.63 (0.05) | 0.62 (0.07) | 0.64 (0.06) |
|
Unless otherwise indicated, values are given as the mean (standard deviation).
aKruskal-Wallis test with 3 degrees of freedom.
bSignificant P values.
Spearman's correlation coefficients (r) between the anthropometric indices and components of MS.
| BMI percentile | Waist | WHtR | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Significance |
| Significance |
| Significance | |
| Triglycerides | 0.04 |
| 0.07 |
| 0.01 |
|
| HDL-C | −0.02 |
| −0.15 |
| −0.09 |
|
| Waist |
|
| — | — |
|
|
| Fasting glucose | 0.16 |
| 0.01 |
| 0.17 |
|
| SBP |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| DBP |
|
|
|
|
|
|
In all cases, 110 subjects (48 females and 62 males) were considered.
aSignificant P values.
Area under the ROC curves and 95% confidence intervals for the selected anthropometric indices, with cut-offs for the sensitivity, specificity, balanced accuracy, PPV, and PNV of an MS diagnosis.
| Variable | Area under the ROC curve (95% C.I.) | Significancea | Optimal cut-off pointb | Sensitivity | Specificity | Balanced accuracy | PPVc | PNVd |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BMI percentile | ||||||||
| Overall | 0.651 (0.547–0.755) |
|
| 61.8% | 66.7% | 64.3% | 75.0% | 51.9% |
| Female | 0.606 (0.441–0.771) |
| 99 | 65.5% | 68.4% | 67.0% | 76.0% | 56.5% |
| Male | 0.677 (0.540–0.814) |
|
| 76.9% | 56.5% | 66.7% | 75.0% | 59.1% |
| WC (cm) | ||||||||
| Overall | 0.704 (0.604–0.804) |
|
| 67.6% | 66.7% | 67.2% | 76.7% | 56.0% |
| Female | 0.708 (0.561–0.854) |
|
| 55.2% | 84.2% | 69.7% | 84.2% | 55.2% |
| Male | 0.696 (0.556–0.836) |
|
| 74.4% | 65.2% | 69.8% | 78.4% | 60.0% |
| WHtR | ||||||||
| Overall | 0.652 (0.544–0.759) |
|
| 69.1% | 57.1% | 63.1% | 72.3% | 53.3% |
| Female | 0.682 (0.528–0.836) |
|
| 69.0% | 63.2% | 66.1% | 74.1% | 57.1% |
| Male | 0.627 (0.477–0.776) |
| 0.63 | 53.8% | 69.6% | 61.7% | 75.0% | 47.1% |
In all cases, 110 subjects (48 females and 62 males) were considered.
aNull hypothesis: area = 0.5.
bPositive if assessment is more than or equal to the optimal cut-off point; it was calculated as the minimum value of the square root of the following: [(1 − sensitivity)2 + (1 − specificity)2], and greater accuracy is reflected by a smaller distance to point (0, 1) in the ROC curve.
cPPV: predictive positive value.
dPNV: predictive negative value.
eSignificant P values.
Figure 1Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for predicting metabolic syndrome by sex: (a) waist-female, (b) waist-male, (c) WHtR-female, and (d) WHtR-male.
Area under the ROC curves and 95% confidence intervals for WHtR, with cut-offs for the sensitivity, specificity, balanced accuracy, PPV, and PNV of individual MS components, hyperinsulinism, and HOMA-IR diagnosis.
| Variable | Area under the ROC curve (95% C.I.) | Significancea | Optimal cut-off pointb | Sensitivity | Specificity | Balanced accuracy | PPVc | PNVd |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WHtR | ||||||||
| High TG overall | 0.600 (0.441–0.760) |
| 0.60 | 62.8% | 62.5% | 62.7% | 90.8% | 22.2% |
| High TG female | 0.581 (0.251–0.912) |
| 0.58 | 76.7% | 60.0% | 68.4% | 94.3% | 23.1% |
| High TG male | 0.622 (0.441–0.803) |
| 0.60 | 66.7% | 63.6% | 65.2% | 89.5% | 29.2% |
| Low HDL-C overall | 0.501 (0.389–0.613) |
| 0.63 | 43.9% | 63.6% | 53.8% | 64.4% | 43.1% |
| Low HDL-C female | 0.613 (0.451–0.774) |
| 0.60 | 64.3% | 55.0% | 59.7% | 66.7% | 52.4% |
| Low HDL-C male | 0.416 (0.269–0.562) |
| 0.63 | 42.1% | 54.2% | 48.2% | 59.3% | 37.1% |
| Hyperglycemia overall | 0.606 (0.335–0.877) |
| 0.65 | 60.0% | 69.5% | 64.8% | 8.6% | 97.3% |
| Hyperglycemia female | 0.689 (0.388–0.990) |
| 0.65 | 66.7% | 82.2% | 74.5% | 20.0% | 97.4% |
| Hyperglycemia male | 0.567 (0.009–1.000) |
| 0.76 | 50.0% | 93.3% | 71.7% | 20.0% | 98.3% |
| Hypertension overall | 0.601 (0.491–0.711) |
| 0.63 | 51.3% | 64.8% | 58.1% | 44.4% | 70.8% |
| Hypertension female | 0.737 (0.584–0.891) |
|
| 66.7% | 73.3% | 70.0% | 60.0% | 78.6% |
| Hypertension male | 0.512 (0.359–0.665) |
| 0.66 | 38.1% | 68.3% | 53.2% | 38.1% | 68.3% |
| Hyperinsulinism overall | 0.599 (0.490–0.780) |
| 0.61 | 69.4% | 52.7% | 61.1% | 41.7% | 78.0% |
| Hyperinsulinism female | 0.717 (0.569–0.865) |
|
| 70.6% | 64.5% | 67.6% | 52.2% | 80.0% |
| Hyperinsulinism male | 0.509 (0.358–0.660) |
| 0.61 | 68.4% | 44.2% | 56.3% | 35.1% | 76.0% |
| Insulin resistance (HOMA) overall | 0.566 (0.459–0.673) |
| 0.61 | 64.3% | 51.5% | 57.9% | 45.0% | 70.0% |
| Insulin resistance (HOMA) female | 0.713 (0.567–0.859) |
|
| 68.4% | 65.5% | 67.0% | 56.5% | 76.0% |
| Insulin resistance (HOMA) male | 0.457 (0.312–0.602) |
| 0.59 | 73.9% | 28.2% | 51.1% | 37.8% | 64.7% |
In all cases, 110 subjects (48 females and 62 males) were considered.
aNull hypothesis: area = 0.5.
bPositive if assessment is more than or equal to the optimal cut-off point; it was calculated as the minimum value of the square root of [(1 − sensitivity)2 + (1 − specificity)2], and greater accuracy is reflected by a smaller distance to point (0, 1) in the ROC curve.
cPPV: predictive positive value.
dPNV: predictive negative value.
eSignificant P values.