Rosenbaum P, Gimeno S G A, Sanudo A, Franco L J, Ferreira S R G
Endocrinology Division, Internal Medicine Department, Federal University of São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Diabetes Obes Metab. 2005 Jul;7(4):352-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1463-1326.2004.00402.x.
Criteria for metabolic syndrome (MS) differ particularly regarding the definition of central obesity and consequently, there could be differences in the assessment of cardiovascular risk. We estimated the prevalence of metabolic syndrome, compared the agreement of the World Health Organization (WHO) criteria with the standard and a modified National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) criterion and investigated whether additional factors were associated with the diagnosis of the syndrome in a Japanese descendant population.
In this cross-sectional, population-based survey, 1166 Japanese-Brazilians (533 men, 633 women) aged 57.4 +/- 12.4 years with mean body mass index (BMI) and waist of 25.2 +/- 4.0 kg/m(2) and 84.5 +/- 10.6 cm, respectively, were included. McNemar and kappa statistics were used to assess the concordance between WHO criteria with the standard and a modified NCEP criteria (waist of 90 and 80 cm, for men and women, respectively). In logistic regression analysis, a number of metabolic variables and albumin-to-creatinine ratio were included to test independent associations with metabolic syndrome defined by the modified NCEP criteria.
According to WHO, 55.4% (95% CI 52.5-58.2%) of the subjects had MS and to NCEP 47.4% (95% CI 44.6-50.0%). WHO criterion detected 48.3% of central obese subjects while NCEP only 14.0%. Kappa statistics showed a good strength of agreement (k = 0.67, p < 0.01) between WHO and NCEP standard definitions of MS. Using the modified NCEP criterion for Asians, more subjects with metabolic syndrome were identified (58%) and agreement with WHO was improved (k = 0.72, p < 0.001). However, similar Framingham risk scores were attributed to the subsets of subjects classified by any of the three criteria. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves, obtained for the modified waist values to diagnose metabolic syndrome according to WHO, were > 0.80 and corresponded, respectively, to sensitivity and specificity of 63 and 83% for men and 77 and 72% for women. In final logistic regression model, age, male sex, BMI and homeostasis model assessment-insulin resistance but not with albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR) were independently associated with the syndrome.
High prevalence of MS, independent of the criterion considered, was found in this Japanese-Brazilian population. The replacement of waist cutoff by those proposed by WHO for Asians lead to this diagnosis in a higher number of subjects with elevated cardiovascular risk. Our data did not support that ACR should be included in the classical definition of MS in Japanese descendants as previously suggested by WHO.
代谢综合征(MS)的诊断标准在中心性肥胖的定义方面差异尤为明显,因此,心血管风险评估可能存在差异。我们估算了代谢综合征的患病率,比较了世界卫生组织(WHO)标准与标准及修订后的美国国家胆固醇教育计划(NCEP)标准的一致性,并调查了日本裔人群中与该综合征诊断相关的其他因素。
在这项基于人群的横断面调查中,纳入了1166名日裔巴西人(533名男性,633名女性),年龄为57.4±12.4岁,平均体重指数(BMI)和腰围分别为25.2±4.0kg/m²和84.5±10.6cm。采用McNemar检验和kappa统计量评估WHO标准与标准及修订后的NCEP标准(男性腰围90cm,女性腰围80cm)之间的一致性。在逻辑回归分析中,纳入了一些代谢变量和白蛋白与肌酐比值,以检验与修订后的NCEP标准定义的代谢综合征的独立相关性。
根据WHO标准,55.4%(95%CI 52.5 - 58.2%)的受试者患有MS,而根据NCEP标准为47.4%(95%CI 44.6 - 50.0%)。WHO标准检测出48.3%的中心性肥胖受试者,而NCEP标准仅检测出14.0%。kappa统计量显示,WHO和NCEP对MS的标准定义之间具有良好的一致性强度(k = 0.67,p < 0.01)。使用针对亚洲人的修订后NCEP标准,识别出更多患有代谢综合征的受试者(58%),且与WHO标准的一致性得到改善(k = 0.72,p < 0.001)。然而,根据这三种标准中的任何一种对受试者进行分类所得到的弗雷明汉风险评分相似。根据WHO标准,用于诊断代谢综合征的修订后腰围值所获得的受试者工作特征曲线下面积>0.80,男性的敏感性和特异性分别为63%和83%,女性为77%和72%。在最终的逻辑回归模型中,年龄、男性性别、BMI和稳态模型评估 - 胰岛素抵抗与该综合征独立相关,但与白蛋白与肌酐比值(ACR)无关。
在这个日裔巴西人群中发现,无论采用何种标准,MS的患病率都很高。用WHO为亚洲人提议的腰围切点替代后,更多心血管风险升高的受试者被诊断为此病。我们的数据不支持WHO之前建议的将ACR纳入日本裔人群MS的经典定义中。