Costan G Magnussen1, Sanith Cheriyan2, Matthew A Sabin3, Markus Juonala4, Juha Koskinen5, Russell Thomson2, Michael R Skilton6, Mika Kähönen7, Tomi Laitinen8, Leena Taittonen9, Nina Hutri-Kähönen10, Jorma S A Viikari11, Olli T Raitakari12. 1. Menzies Institute for Medical Research, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia; Research Center of Applied and Preventive Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Turku, Turku, Finland. Electronic address: cmagnuss@utas.edu.au. 2. Menzies Institute for Medical Research, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia. 3. Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Royal Children's Hospital, Parkville, Australia; Department of Pediatrics, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia. 4. Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Royal Children's Hospital, Parkville, Australia; Department of Medicine, University of Turku, Turku, Finland; Division of Medicine, Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland. 5. Research Center of Applied and Preventive Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Turku, Turku, Finland. 6. The Boden Institute of Obesity, Nutrition, Exercise and Eating Disorders, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. 7. Department of Clinical Physiology, University of Tampere School of Medicine and Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland. 8. Department of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine, University of Eastern Finland and Kuopio University Hospital, Kuopio, Finland. 9. Department of Pediatrics, Vaasa Central Hospital, Vaasa, Finland. 10. Department of Pediatrics, University of Tampere School of Medicine and Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland. 11. Department of Medicine, University of Turku, Turku, Finland; Division of Medicine, Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland. 12. Research Center of Applied and Preventive Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Turku, Turku, Finland; Division of Medicine, Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland; Department of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To examine the utility of continuous metabolic syndrome (cMetS) scores vs a dichotomous metabolic syndrome (MetS) definition in youth to predict adult type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and carotid intima-media thickness (IMT). STUDY DESIGN: Participants (n = 1453) from the population-based, prospective, observational Cardiovascular Risk in Young Finns Study who were examined in youth (when aged 9-18 years) and re-examined 15-25 years later. Four cMetS scores were constructed according to procedures most often used in the literature that comprised the youth risk factor inputs of body mass index, blood pressure, glucose, insulin, high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol, and triglycerides. Adult outcomes included T2DM and high carotid IMT (≥ 90 th percentile). RESULTS: For a 1 SD increase in cMetS scores in youth, participants had a 30%-78% increased risk of T2DM and 12%-61% increased risk of high carotid IMT. Prediction of adult T2DM and high carotid IMT using cMetS scores in youth was essentially no different to a dichotomous MetS definition with area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve ranging from 0.54-0.60 (continuous definitions) and 0.55-0.59 (dichotomous) with 95% CIs often including 0.5, and integrated discrimination improvement from -0.2% to -0.6%. CONCLUSIONS: cMetS scores in youth are predictive of cardiometabolic outcomes in adulthood. However, they do not have increased predictive utility over a dichotomous definition of MetS.
OBJECTIVES: To examine the utility of continuous metabolic syndrome (cMetS) scores vs a dichotomous metabolic syndrome (MetS) definition in youth to predict adult type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and carotid intima-media thickness (IMT). STUDY DESIGN:Participants (n = 1453) from the population-based, prospective, observational Cardiovascular Risk in Young Finns Study who were examined in youth (when aged 9-18 years) and re-examined 15-25 years later. Four cMetS scores were constructed according to procedures most often used in the literature that comprised the youth risk factor inputs of body mass index, blood pressure, glucose, insulin, high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol, and triglycerides. Adult outcomes included T2DM and high carotid IMT (≥ 90 th percentile). RESULTS: For a 1 SD increase in cMetS scores in youth, participants had a 30%-78% increased risk of T2DM and 12%-61% increased risk of high carotid IMT. Prediction of adult T2DM and high carotid IMT using cMetS scores in youth was essentially no different to a dichotomous MetS definition with area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve ranging from 0.54-0.60 (continuous definitions) and 0.55-0.59 (dichotomous) with 95% CIs often including 0.5, and integrated discrimination improvement from -0.2% to -0.6%. CONCLUSIONS: cMetS scores in youth are predictive of cardiometabolic outcomes in adulthood. However, they do not have increased predictive utility over a dichotomous definition of MetS.
Authors: Vasu D Gooty; Alan R Sinaiko; Justin R Ryder; Donald R Dengel; David R Jacobs; Julia Steinberger Journal: Metab Syndr Relat Disord Date: 2018-02-07 Impact factor: 1.894