| Literature DB >> 34824353 |
Daiji Nagayama1,2, Kentaro Fujishiro3, Shinichi Tsuda4, Yasuhiro Watanabe5, Takashi Yamaguchi5, Kenji Suzuki3, Atsuhito Saiki5, Kohji Shirai5,6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Abdominal obesity as a risk factor for diagnosing metabolic syndrome (MetS) is conventionally evaluated using waist circumference (WC), although WC does not necessarily reflect visceral adiposity.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34824353 PMCID: PMC8872991 DOI: 10.1038/s41366-021-01026-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Obes (Lond) ISSN: 0307-0565 Impact factor: 5.095
Baseline clinical and biochemical characteristics of participants.
| Variables | Total | Japanese WC-MetS | Japanese ABSI-MetS | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No | Yes | No | Yes | ||
| Number (Male, %) | 5438 (43.5) | 5,157 (41.7) | 281 (78.3)* | 5,021 (44.6) | 417 (30.9)* |
| Age (years) | 48 (40–58) | 48 (40-58) | 54 (45–63)* | 47 (40-57) | 64 (55–70)* |
| Age ≥ 65 years (%) | 764 (14.0) | 704 (13.7) | 60 (21.4)† | 568 (11.3) | 196 (47.0)† |
| Current smoking (%) | 733 (13.5) | 679 (13.2) | 5(19.2)† | 695 (13.8) | 38 (9.1)† |
| Habitual alcohol drinking (%) | 847 (15.6) | 783 (15.2) | (22.8)† | 784 (15.6) | 63 (15.1) |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 21.9 (20.0–23.9) | 21.7 (19.9–23.6) | 26.6 (25.2–28.8)* | 21.9 (19.9–23.9) | 22.3 (20.6–24.3)* |
| BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2 (%) | 958 (17.6) | 737 (14.3) | 221 (78.6)† | 873 (17.4) | 85 (20.4) |
| WC (meter) | 0.790 (0.728–0.849) | 0.784 (0.725–0.840) | 0.918 (0.880–0.965)* | 0.785 (0.723–0.845) | 0.837 (0.793–0.883)* |
| WC ≥ 85 (m) or 90 (f) cm (%) | 1,059 (19.5) | 0 (0.0) | 281 (100.0)† | 955 (19.0) | 104 (24.9)† |
| WC ≥ 90 (m) or 80 (f) cm (%) | 1397 (25.7) | 1225 (23.8) | 172 (61.2)† | 1173 (23.4) | 224 (53.7)† |
| WC ≥ 102 (m) or 88 (f) cm (%) | 356 (6.5) | 272 (5.3) | 84 (29.9)† | 278 (5.5) | 78 (18.7)† |
| ABSI | 0.0785 (0.0758–0.0814) | 0.0785 (0.0758–0.0814) | 0.0789 (0.0769–0.0819) | 0.0781 (0.0756–0.0807) | 0.0832 (0.0814–0.0856)* |
| ABSI ≥ 0.080 (%) | 1,967 (36.2) | 1863 (36.1) | 104 (37.0)* | 1,550 (30.9) | 417 (100.0)† |
| SBP (mmHg) | 115 (107–126) | 114 (106–125) | 135 (126–143)* | 114 (106–124) | 136 (129–144)* |
| DBP (mmHg) | 72 (66–80) | 72 (65–79) | 85 (79–92)* | 71 (65–79) | 83 (76–88)* |
| SBP ≥ 130 and/or | 1287 (23.7) | 1067 (20.7) | 220 (78.3)† | 952 (19.0) | 335 (80.3)† |
| DBP ≥ 85 mmHg (%) | |||||
| Receiving hypertension treatment (%) | 499 (9.2) | 396 (7.7) | 103 (36.7)† | 348 (6.9) | 151 (36.2)† |
| CAVI | 7.6 (7.1–8.3) | 7.6 (7.1-8.3) | 7.9 (7.4-8.7)* | 7.6 (7.1-8.2) | 8.7 (8.0-9.3)* |
| CAVI ≥ 9.0 (%) | 631 (11.6) | 577 (11.2) | 54 (19.2)† | 466 (9.3) | 165 (39.6)† |
| FPG (mmol/L) | 4.83 (4.50–5.22) | 4.83 (4.50–5.22) | 5.05 (4.66–5.55)* | 4.77 (4.50–5.16) | 5.11 (4.77–5.72)* |
| FPG > 5.55 mmol/L (%) | 1735 (31.9) | 1638 (31.8) | 97 (34.5) | 1534 (30.6) | 201 (48.2)† |
| FPG > 6.11 mmol/L (%) | 114 (2.1) | 86 (1.7) | 28 (10.0)† | 75 (1.5) | 39 (9.4)† |
| Receiving diabetes treatment (%) | 80 (1.5) | 62 (1.2) | 18 (6.4)† | 58 (1.2) | 22 (5.3)† |
| LDL-C (mmol/L) | 3.23 (2.72–3.80) | 3.21 (2.72–3.75) | 3.78 (3.15–4.19)* | 3.18 (2.69–3.72) | 3.80 (3.13–4.22)* |
| LDL-C ≥ 3.62 mmol//L (%) | 1761 (32.4) | 1582 (30.7) | 179 (63.7)† | 1489 (29.7) | 272 (65.2)† |
| HDL-C (mmol/L) | 1.81 (1.50–2.15) | 1.84 (1.53–2.17) | 1.55 (1.29–1.78)* | 1.81 (1.50–2.15) | 1.73 (1.47–2.04)* |
| TG (mmol/L) | 0.87 (0.63–1.25) | 0.85 (0.62–1.21) | 1.34 (1.04–1.87)* | 0.85 (0.62–1.23) | 1.11 (0.84–1.46)* |
| TG ≥ 1.69 and/or | 665 (12.2) | 578 (11.2) | 87 (31.0)† | 586 (11.7) | 79 (18.9)† |
| HDL-C < 1.03 mmol/L (%) | |||||
| Receiving dyslipidemia treatment (%) | 404 (7.4) | 344 (6.7) | 60 (21.4)† | 282 (5.6) | 122 (29.3)† |
| Creatinine (mg/dL) | 0.71 (0.60–0.84) | 0.70 (0.60–0.83) | 0.83 (0.73–0.93)* | 0.71 (0.61–0.85) | 0.67 (0.59–0.80)* |
| eGFR (mL/min/1.73m2) | 78.2 (69.6–87.8) | 78.4 (69.7–88.0) | 74.4 (63.9–84.3)* | 78.7 (70.0–88.1) | 72.7 (64.1–82.4)* |
| eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73m2 (%) | 395 (7.3) | 349 (6.8) | 46 (16.4)† | 323 (6.4) | 72 (17.3)† |
| Proteinuria (%) | 283 (5.2) | 250 (4.8) | 33 (11.7)† | 258 (5.1) | 25 (6.0) |
| IDF WC-MetS (%) | 366 (6.7) | 268 (5.2) | 98 (34.9)† | 232 (4.6) | 134 (32.1)† |
| IDF ABSI-MetS (%) | 504 (9.3) | 348 (6.7) | 40 (14.2)† | 150 (3.0) | 238 (57.1)† |
| NCEP ATPIII WC-MetS (%) | 222 (4.1) | 150 (2.9) | 72 (25.6)† | 136 (2.7) | 86 (20.6)† |
| NCEP ATPIII ABSI-MetS (%) | 614 (11.3) | 394 (7.6) | 73 (26.0)† | 227 (4.5) | 240 (57.6)† |
Data are presented as median (IQR). *p < 0.001, Mann–Whitney U test and †p < 0.05, Fisher’s exact test, compared to subjects without MetS.
BMI body mass index, WC weight circumference, ABSI a body shape index, SBP systolic blood pressure, DBP diastolic blood pressure, CAVI cardio-ankle vascular index, FPG fasting plasma glucose, LDL-C low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol, HDL-C high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol, TG triglyceride, eGFR estimated glomerular filtration rate, WC-MetS conventional metabolic syndrome (MetS) diagnosed using waist circumference (WC), ABSI-MetS MetS diagnosed using a body shape index (ABSI) instead of WC; Japanese, criteria developed by the Japanese Committee for the Diagnostic Criteria of MetS, IDF International Diabetes Federation, NCEP-ATPIII National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III, IQR interquartile range.
Fig. 1Comparison of age-adjusted CAVI in MetS (+) vs. MetS (-) diagnosed by various MetS criteria using WC or ABSI.
MetS was diagnosed by (A) Japanese, (B) IDF and (C) NCEP-ATPIII criteria using WC, and also diagnosed by (D) Japanese, (E) IDF and (F) NCEP-ATPIII criteria using ABSI instead of WC. Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation and analyzed by One way analysis of covariance with the covariate set to age followed by Bonferroni multiple comparison tests. CAVI cardio-ankle vascular index, WC-MetS conventional metabolic syndrome (MetS) diagnosed using waist circumference (WC); ABSI-MetS MetS diagnosed using a body shape index (ABSI) instead of WC; Japanese, criteria developed by the Japanese Committee for the Diagnostic Criteria of MetS, IDF International Diabetes Federation, NCEP-ATPIII National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III.
Fig. 2Kaplan-Meier curves for the rate of renal function decline in MetS (+) and MetS (–) diagnosed by various MetS criteria using WC or ABSI.
MetS was diagnosed by (A) Japanese, (B) IDF and (C) NCEP-ATPIII criteria using WC, and also diagnosed by (D) Japanese, (E) IDF and (F) NCEP-ATPIII criteria using ABSI instead of WC. WC-MetS, conventional metabolic syndrome (MetS) diagnosed using waist circumference (WC); ABSI-MetS, MetS diagnosed using a body shape index (ABSI) instead of WC; Japanese, criteria developed by the Japanese Committee for the Diagnostic Criteria of MetS; IDF International Diabetes Federation, NCEP-ATPIII National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III.
Cox-proportional hazards models for the association of the new-onset renal function decline with Japanese MetS and clinical variables.
| Variables | Age (every 1 y) | Male gender | CAVI ≥ 9.0 | Proteinuria | Receiving diabetes treatment | Receiving hypertension treatment | Receiving dyslipidemia treatment | Japanese WC-MetS | Japanese ABSI-MetS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | 1.019 (1.009–1.029) | 1.277 (1.067–1.529)* | 3.415 (2.661–4.383)* | 0.984 (0.669–1.446) | 0.971 (0.565–1.668) | 1.459 (1.154–1.845)* | 1.173 (0.901–1.529) | 0.718 (0.487–1.057) | – |
| Model 2 | 1.018 (1.007–1.028)* | 1.307 (1.092–1.565)* | 3.246 (2.530–4.166)* | 0.939 (0.638–1.380) | 0.891 (0.518–1.532) | 1.314 (1.038–1.662)* | 1.030 (0.785–1.352) | – | 1.623 (1.273–2.069)* |
*p < 0.05, Hazards ratios (95% confidence intervals). Renal function decline is defined as eGFR<60 mL/min/1.73m2 during the 4-year study period. All confounders are included in the table.
WC-MetS, conventional metabolic syndrome (MetS) diagnosed using waist circumference (WC); ABSI-MetS, MetS diagnosed using a body shape index (ABSI) instead of WC; Japanese, criteria developed by the Japanese Committee for the Diagnostic Criteria of MetS.
Hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) for the association of the new-onset renal function decline with MetS defined by three types of definitions.
| Variables | Japanese WC-MetS | Japanese ABSI-MetS | IDF WC-MetS | IDF ABSI-MetS | NCEP-ATPIII WC-MetS | NCEP-ATPIII ABSI-MetS | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male | 1st analysis | 0.665 (0.419–1.056) | 1.859 (1.266–2.730)* | 1.092 (0.793–1.505) | 1.598 (1.069–2.390)* | 0.729 (0.390–1.365) | 1.269 (0.858–1.878) |
| 2nd analysis | 0.697 (0.440–1.102) | 1.534 (1.038–2.265)* | 0.943 (0.684–1.302) | 1.254 (0.834–1.886) | 0.664 (0.357–1.237) | 1.043 (0.704–1.546) | |
| Female | 1st analysis | 0.756 (0.368–1.553) | 1.611 (1.172–2.214)* | 0.782 (0.562–1.087) | 1.147 (0.833–1.579) | 0.829 (0.508–1.355) | 1.083 (0.786–1.492) |
| 2nd analysis | 0.881 (0.430–1.805) | 1.463 (1.063–2.014)* | 0.728 (0.523–1.014) | 1.026 (0.745–1.414) | 0.828 (0.549–1.250) | 0.985 (0.715) (1.356) | |
*p < 0.05, Cox-proportional hazards analyses. Renal function decline is defined as eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 during the 4-year study period.
The hazard ratios for each MetS are expressed after adjustment for the following confounders;
1st analysis: adjusting for age (every 1 y), proteinuria, and receiving treatments for diabetes, hypertension and dyslipidemia.
2nd analysis: adjusting for confounders using in Model 1 and CAVI ≥ 9.0.
WC-MetS, conventional metabolic syndrome (MetS) diagnosed using waist circumference (WC); ABSI-MetS, MetS diagnosed using a body shape index (ABSI) instead of WC; Japanese, criteria developed by the Japanese Committee for the Diagnostic Criteria of MetS; IDF, International Diabetes Federation; NCEP-ATPIII; National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III.