4.3 Article

Comparison of the effect of 'metabolically healthy but obese' and 'metabolically abnormal but not obese' phenotypes on development of diabetes and cardiovascular disease in Chinese

Journal

ENDOCRINE
Volume 49, Issue 1, Pages 130-138

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12020-014-0444-2

Keywords

Obesity; Metabolic syndrome; Diabetes; CVD

Funding

  1. Drug Innovation Program of National Science and Technology Project [2011ZX09307-001-02]
  2. Public Health Key Disciplines of Shanghai [12GWZX0104]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The present study was designed to determine the prevalence of 'metabolically healthy but obese' (MHO) and 'metabolically abnormal but not obese' (MANO) phenotypes in Chinese population, and to investigate the association of these two phenotypes with the risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease (CVD). A total of 2,764 subjects aged 30-90 were followed up over a mean period of 43.80 +/- 11.25 months. The metabolic syndrome was defined according to the joint committee for developing Chinese guidelines on prevention and treatment of dyslipidemia in adults. Subjects with body fat percentage (BF %) >25 % for men or BF % >35 % for women were defined as being obese. The proportion of MHO and MANO phenotypes were 22.9, 7.6 % in men, and 26.2, 6.0 % in women, respectively. The MANO phenotype was associated with increased risk for diabetes both in men [hazard ratios (HR): 4.44 (1.21-16.26)] and women [HR: 8.68 (2.87-24.96)] after adjustment of age, serum total cholesterol (TC), triglycerides (TG), and family history of diabetes. This association held for CVD in women [HR: 2.87 (1.44-5.73)], but not in men after adjustment of age, serum TC, TG, and family history of CVD. No association was observed between the MHO phenotype and incident diabetes or CVD. MHO and MANO phenotypes are common in Chinese population. Metabolic risk factors appeared to play a more important role in the development of diabetes and CVD than body fat alone.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available