4.5 Article

Predicting the development of the metabolically healthy obese phenotype

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBESITY
Volume 39, Issue 2, Pages 228-234

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/ijo.2014.113

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute [RO1-HL24799, RO1-HL36820]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE: The metabolically healthy (MHO) and unhealthy obese (MUHO) differ in terms of cardiovascular risk. However, little is known about predicting the development of these phenotypes and the future stability of the MHO phenotype. Therefore, we examined these two issues in the San Antonio Heart Study. DESIGN: Longitudinal, population-based study of cardiometabolic risk factors among Mexican Americans and non-Hispanic whites in San Antonio. SUBJECTS: The study sample included 2368 participants with neither MUHO nor diabetes at baseline. Median follow-up was 7.8 years. MHO was defined as obesity with <= 1 metabolic abnormality; MUHO, as obesity with >= 2 abnormalities. RESULTS: At baseline, 1595 and 498 individuals were nonobese with <= 1 and >= 2 metabolic abnormalities, respectively, and 275 were MHO. Among nonobese individuals, independent predictors of incident MHO (odds ratio (OR) for 1 s.d. change (95% confidence interval)) included body mass index (8.12 (5.66-11.7)), triglycerides (0.52 (0.39-0.68)) and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) (1.41 (1.11-1.81)), whereas independent predictors of incident MUHO included body mass index (5.97 (4.58-7.77)) and triglycerides (1.26 (1.05-1.51)). Among participants with <= 1 metabolic abnormality, obesity was associated with greater odds of developing multiple metabolic abnormalities (OR 2.26 (1.74-2.95)). CONCLUSIONS: Triglycerides and HDLC may be useful for predicting progression to MHO. MHO may not be a stable condition, because it confers an increased risk of developing multiple metabolic abnormalities.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available