4.6 Article

Trajectories of Metabolic Syndrome Development in Young Adults

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 9, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0111647

关键词

-

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research [131594]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Metabolic syndrome (MetS) is a constellation of metabolic aberrations that collectively increase the risk for cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes. Greater understanding of MetS developments may provide insight into targeted prevention strategies for individuals at greatest risk. The purpose of this study was to i) identify distinct patterns of longitudinal MetS development and; ii) develop a character profile that differentiates groups by level of MetS risk. Methods and Results: Data from the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) study (n = 3 804; 18-30 y) was obtained by limited access application from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and used for this analysis. MetS, as defined by the Harmonized criteria, was assessed over a 20 year follow-up period. Group-level trajectory analysis identified 4 distinct groups with varying rates of component development [No (23.8% of sample); Low (33.5%); Moderate (35.3%); and High MetS (7.4%)]. After adjusting for covariates, individuals in the At-Risk groups (Low, Moderate and High MetS) were more likely to be of black ethnicity (1.37, 1.14-1.66), have a family history of cardiovascular disease (1.61, 1.31-1.97) and history of dieting (1.69, 1.20-2.39) when compared to the No Risk trajectory group (No MetS). Conversely, increasing baseline education (0.76, 0.65-0.89) and aerobic fitness (0.55, 0.47-0.64) was inversely associated with At-Risk group membership. Conclusions: Results suggest distinct profiles of MetS development that can be identified by baseline risk factors. Further research is necessary to understand the clinical implication of intermediate MetS development groups with respect to overall cardiometabolic risk.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据