-
There were 4, 553 participants who completed the questionnaire, and the biochemical and body composition examinations as well; 2, 344 of them were Han and 2, 209 were Bouyei. There were significant differences in the basic characteristics of the indicators between the Han and Bouyei groups (P < 0.05) (Table 1). Compared with the Han group, the Bouyei group was older, mostly from rural areas (85.29%), with a lower educational level, and exercised less frequently; however, more people in the Bouyei group were involved in heavy physical labor work and had smoking and drinking habits.
Table 1. General Characteristics of Participants from Han and Bouyei Populations from Guizhou, Southwest China
Variables Total Men Women Han Bouyei P Han Bouyei P Han Bouyei P Number of Cases 2.344 2.209 997 1.077 1.347 1.132 Age (y) 48.43 ± 14.08 49.80 ± 13.69 < 0.01 48.77 ± 13.72 49.88 ± 13.94 0.69 48.2 ± 14.35 49.72 ± 13.44 0.01 Regions < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 Cities 1.464 (62.46) 321 (14.53) 637 (63.89) 138 (12.81) 827 (61.39) 183 (16.17) Villages 874 (37.29) 1.884 (85.29) 361 (36.21) 939 (87.19) 514 (38.16) 948 (83.75) Educational level < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 Junior high school or below 1.331 (56.78) 1.718 (77.77) 500 (50.15) 786 (72.98) 831 (61.69) 932 (82.33) High school and above 1.003 (42.79) 479 (21.68) 492 (49.35) 288 (26.74) 511 (37.94) 191 (16.87) Manual labor < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 Mild 1.654 (70.56) 842 (38.12) 616 (61.79) 353 (32.78) 1.038 (77.06) 489 (43.20) Moderate 227 (9.68) 131 (5.93) 149 (14.94) 81 (7.52) 78 (5.79) 50 (4.42) Heavy 461 (19.67) 1.231 (55.73) 231 (23.17) 640 (59.42) 230 (17.07) 591 (52.21) Exercise (day/week) < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0 1.339 (57.12) 1.904 (86.19) 572 (57.37) 903 (83.84) 767 (56.94) 1.001 (88.42) Monthly < 3 136 (5.80) 39 (1.77) 58 (5.82) 26 (2.41) 78 (5.79) 13 (1.15) 1-2 192 (8.19) 73 (3.3) 80 (8.02) 43 (3.99) 112 (8.31) 30 (2.65) 3-4 155 (6.61) 53 (2.40) 71 (7.12) 25 (2.32) 84 (6.24) 28 (2.47) 5-7 504 (21.50) 121 (5.40) 209 (20.96) 67 (6.22) 295 (21.90) 54 (4.77) Drinking < 0.01 0.03 < 0.01 Yes 868 (37.03) 982 (44.45) 682 (68.41) 783 (72.70) 186 (13.81) 199 (17.58) No 1.470 (62.71) 1.223 (55.36) 313 (31.39) 290 (26.93) 1.157 (85.89) 933 (82.42) Smoking < 0.01 0.14 0.10 Yes 675 (28.80) 752 (34.04) 648 (64.99) 733 (68.06) 27 (2.00) 19 (1.68) No 1.663 (70.95) 1.456 (65.91) 348 (34.90) 343 (31.85) 1.315 (97.62) 1.113 (98.32) Height (cm) 157.35 ± 8.32 155.36 ± 8.01 < 0.01 164.02 ± 6.29 161.01 ± 6.13 < 0.01 152.42 ± 5.82 149.98 ± 5.49 < 0.01 Weight (kg) 58.10 ± 10.84 53.24 ± 10.05 < 0.01 63.72 ± 10.42 57.38 ± 10.13 < 0.01 53.94 ± 9.13 43.30 ± 8.22 < 0.01 BMI 23.39 ± 3.49 21.96 ± 3.19 < 0.01 23.64 ± 3.34 22.05 ± 3.12 < 0.01 23.21 ± 3.59 21.88 ± 3.24 < 0.01 Body fat percentage (%) 27.78 ± 7.98 24.56 ± 8.05 < 0.01 21.45 ± 5.46 18.69 ± 5.42 < 0.01 32.51 ± 6.07 30.15 ± 5.86 < 0.01 Muscle mass (kg) 39.50 ± 7.77 37.85 ± 7.27 < 0.01 47.0 ± 5.39 43.79 ± 5.39 < 0.01 33.95 ± 3.33 32.20 ± 3.14 < 0.01 Body fat quantity (kg) 16.36 ± 6.16 13.27 ± 5.61 < 0.01 14.13 ± 5.43 11.17 ± 5.09 < 0.01 18.00 ± 6.15 15.27 ± 5.35 < 0.01 Grip strength (kg) 28.91 ± 9.36 28.50 ± 9.50 0.15 36.66 ± 7.92 34.71 ± 8.58 < 0.01 23.18 ± 5.37 22.60 ± 5.90 0.01 WC (cm) 79.10 ± 10.59 74.10 ± 9.80 < 0.01 81.60 ± 10.23 75.48 ± 10.03 < 0.01 77.25 ± 10.48 72.80 ± 9.39 < 0.01 Hip circumference (cm) 86.94 ± 6.59 83.17 ± 5.99 < 0.01 87.29 ± 6.22 83.27 ± 6.03 < 0.01 86.67 ± 6.83 83.07 ± 5.95 < 0.01 FBG (mmol/L) 5.19 ± 1.28 5.04 + 0.91 < 0.01 5.29 ± 1.35 5.17 ± 1.13 0.02 5.11 ± 1.22 4.92 ± 0.63 < 0.01 HDL (mmol/dL) 1.44 ± 0.33 1.60 ± 0.40 < 0.01 1.37 ± 0.34 1.58 ± 0.44 < 0.01 1.50 ± 0.32 1.62 ± 0.36 < 0.01 SBP (mmHg) 130.26 ± 20.81 133.66 ± 22.26 < 0.01 133.28 ± 19.19 136.76 ± 21.99 < 0.01 128.02 ± 21.66 130.71 ± 22.14 < 0.01 DBP (mmHg) 78.38 ± 11.92 78.98 ± 12.45 0.10 81.05 ± 11.84 81.53 ± 12.67 0.28 76.40 ± 11.59 76.45 ± 11.70 0.91 TG (mmol/dL) 1.74 ± 1.51 1.50 ± 1.47 < 0.01 1.99 ± 1.75 1.59 ± 1.85 < 0.01 1.55 ± 1.26 1.32 ± 0.93 < 0.01 Note. Continuous variables are expressed as mean ± SD and were compared using the t-test. Categorical variables are expressed as n (%) and were compared using the χ2 test. BMI: body mass index; WC: waist circumference; FBG: Fasting blood glucose; HDL: high-density lipoprotein; SBP: systolic blood pressure; DBP: diastolic blood pressure; TG: triglycerides. Regarding clinical features, there were no significant differences in grip strength and diastolic blood pressure. However, HDL-C and systolic blood pressure of the Bouyei group were significantly higher than that of the Han group. All other indicators were lower in the Bouyei group than in the Han group.
Sex-specific analysis showed no differences in smoking habits and diastolic blood pressure levels between the two ethnic groups. Women in the Bouyei group were older than women in the Han group. All other indicators were higher in the Han group compared with the Bouyei group.
-
Table 2 presents the crude prevalence rates for MetS and its components according to of the IDF's definition of MetS. Regardless of the overall or sex-specific situation, the prevalence of MetS and its components in the Han group were significantly higher than those in the Bouyei group (P < 0.01). Compared with other components, central obesity was the most prevalent component of MetS in the population from Guizhou. Comparisons between men and women showed no significant differences for high triglyceride levels (P = 0.18) and fasting blood glucose increases (or use of hypoglycemic drugs) (P = 0.10) between the sex; however, the prevalence of MetS, central obesity, low HDL-C, and hypertension (or use of antihypertensive drugs) for women were significantly higher than men.
Table 2. Crude Prevalence of Metabolic Syndrome and Its Components for Han and Bouyei Ethnicities
Crude Prewalence Total Men Women P (Men vs. Women) Han Bouyei P Han Bouyei P Han Bouyei P Han Bouyei MetS 448 (19.11) 192 (8.69) < 0.01 155 (15.55) 77 (7.15) < 0.01 293 (21.75) 115 (10.16) < 0.01 < 0.01 0.01 Central obesity 722 (30.81) 349 (15.80) < 0.01 216 (21.66) 109 (10.12) < 0.01 506 (37.56) 240 (21.20) < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 High TG 388 (16.55) 187 (8.47) < 0.01 153 (15.35) 85 (7.89) < 0.01 235 (17.44) 102 (9.01) < 0.01 0.18 0.35 Low HDL 247 (10.54) 83 (3.76) < 0.01 55 (5.52) 15 (1.39) < 0.01 192 (14.25) 68 (6.01) < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 Hypertension 500 (21.33) 238 (10.77) < 0.01 151 (15.15) 81 (7.52) < 0.01 349 (25.91) 157 (13.87) < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 Hyperglycemia 207 (8.83) 89 (4.03) < 0.01 77 (7.72) 42 (3.89) < 0.01 130 (9.65) 47 (4.15) < 0.01 0.10 0.76 Note. Data are presented as n (%) and compared using the χ2 test. MetS, metabolic syndrome; TG: triglycerides; HDL: high-density lipoprotein; P: P-value. The age-standardized prevalence was calculated based on the calculated crude prevalence rate and the 2010 census data of Guizhou province (Table 3). The age-standardized prevalence of MetS was 11.38% (men: 9.76%; women 12.72%) for the Han group, and 4.78% (men: 4.43%; women: 5.30%) for the Bouyei group. Both Han and Bouyei groups were 40-49 years old when the prevalence peaked, and decreased with age.
Table 3. Age-standardized Prevalence of Metabolic Syndrome Based on the Criteria of the International Diabetes Federation
Age-group (years) Total Han Bouyei Han Bouyei Men Women Men Women 20-29 5 (0.26) 2 (0.15) 87 (0.44) 2 (0.17) 2 (0.28) 0 (0) 30-39 61 (2.30) 30 (1.02) 188 (2.63) 31 (2.04) 20 (1.51) 10 (0.62) 40-49 123 (3.46) 62 (1.59) 259 (3.69) 64 (3.26) 30 (1.58) 32 (1.61) 50-59 123 (2.58) 55 (1.19) 209 (1.74) 87 (3.23) 19 (0.85) 36 (1.51) 60-69 98 (1.74) 33 (0.58) 183 (0.77) 79 (2.52) 4 (0.13) 29 (1.09) 70-80 38 (1.04) 10 (0.25) 71 (0.49) 30 (1.50) 2 (0.08) 8 (0.47) Age-standardized (%) 11.38 4.78 9.76 12.72 4.43 5.30 Note. Data are presented as n (%). -
Table 4 presents the MetS types defined by the IDF standards. MetS types consist of central obesity along with other metabolic indicators. In the central obesity type combined with two components, hypertriglyceridemia plus hypertension (or use of antihypertensive drugs) was the most common regardless of sex or ethnicity. In the central obesity combined with three components, high triglycerides plus low HDL-C plus hypertension (or use of antihypertensive drugs) was the most common type for the Han group. Hypertension (or use of antihypertensive drugs) plus fasting hyperglycemia (or use of hypoglycemic drugs) plus high triglycerides was the most common type for the Bouyei group. High triglycerides plus hypertension (or use of antihypertensive drugs) plus fasting hyperglycemia (or use of hypoglycemic drugs) was the most common type for men. High triglycerides plus hypertension (or use of antihypertensive drugs) plus fasting hyperglycemia (or use of hypoglycemic drugs) was the most common type for women.
Table 4. Characteristics of Metabolic Syndrome
Characteristics of Metabolic Syndrome Total Men Women P (Men vs. Women) Han Bouvei P Han Bouyei P Han Bouyei P Han Bouyei WC+TG+HDL 167 (7.12) 61 (2.76) < 0.01 43 (4.31) 14 (1.30) < 0.01 124 (9.21) 47 (4.15) < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 WC+TG+BP 282 (12.03) 144 (6.52) < 0.01 103 (10.33) 66 (6.13) < 0.01 179 (13.30) 78 (6.89) < 0.01 0.03 0.47 WC+TG+FBG 133 (5.67) 62 (2.81) < 0.01 56 (5.62) 37 (3.44) 0.02 77 (5.72) 25 (2.21) < 0.01 0.92 0.08 WC+HDL+BP 165 (7.04) 59 (2.67) < 0.01 32 (3.21) 11 (1.02) < 0.01 133 (9.87) 48 (4.24) < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 WC+HDL+FBG 67 (2.86) 26 (1.18) < 0.01 17 (1.71) 7 (0.65) 0.03 50 (3.71) 19 (1.68) < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 WC+BP+FBG 163 (6.95) 71 (3.21) < 0.01 57 (5.72) 35 (3.25) 0.01 106 (7.87) 36 (3.18) < 0.01 0.04 0.93 WC+TG+HDL+BP 118 (5.03) 47 (2.13) < 0.01 23 (2.31) 10 (0.93) 0.01 95 (7.05) 37 (3.27) < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 WC+TG+HDL+FBG 57 (2.43) 22 (1.00) < 0.01 16 (1.60) 7 (0.65) 0.04 41 (3.04) 15 (1.33) < 0.01 0.03 0.11 WC+HDL+BP+FBG 52 (2.21) 20 (0.91) < 0.01 11 (1.10) 5 (0.46) 0.10 41 (3.04) 15 (1.33) < 0.01 < 0.01 0.03 WC+BP+FBG+TG 108 (4.61) 52 (2.35) < 0.01 43 (4.31) 32 (3.00) 0.10 65 (4.83) 20 (1.77) < 0.01 0.56 0.06 WC+TG+HDL+BP+FBG 47 (2.01) 17 (0.77) < 0.01 11 (1.10) 5 (0.46) 0.10 36 (2.67) 12 (1.06) < 0.01 0.01 0.11 Note. Data are presented as n (%). WC: Waist circumference; HDL: high-density lipoprotein; TG: triglycerides; BP: blood pressure; FBG: Fasting blood glucose. -
The FMR cut-off point for MetS was determined using the maximum Youden's index and the area under the ROC curve. For men, the FMR cut-off point was 0.34, and the area under the ROC curve was 0.95, while the sensitivity and specificity were 0.94 and 0.85, respectively. For women, the FMR cut-off point was 0.55, and the area under the ROC curve was 0.91, while the sensitivity and specificity were 0.93 and 0.79, respectively (Table 5, Figure 1).
Table 5. Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve Analysis of Fat-to-muscle Ratio for Diagnostic Prediction of Metabolic Syndrome
Sex Positive Numbers Negative Numbers FMR Cut-off Point Sensitivity Specificity PPV NPV AUC 95% CI P Value Men 232 1, 842 0.34 0.94 0.85 0.44 0.99 0.95 0.94-0.96 < 0.01 Women 408 2, 071 0.55 0.93 0.79 0.46 0.98 0.91 0.90-0.93 < 0.01 Note. FMR: fat-to-muscle ratio; PPV: positive predictive value; NPV: negative predictive value; AUC: area under the curve; CI: confidence interval. -
Participants were grouped by sex and risk factors for MetS were analyzed using multivariate logistic regression analysis with MetS as a dependent variable. Independent variables included age, ethnicity, region, BMI, hip circumference, grip strength, FMR (divided into two groups according to the cut-off points), history of hypertension, history of diabetes, exercise, manual labor, smoking or not, and drinking or not. The factors finally included in the model were age, hip circumference, history of diabetes, history of hypertension, BMI, and FMR (Table 6). Hip circumference, history of diabetes, BMI, and FMR were independent risk factors, regardless of sex or ethnicity. Compared with the FMR value below the cut-off point, people above the cut-off point had a much higher risk for MetS (men odds ratio: 6.90, 95% confidence interval: 3.09-15.39; women odds ratio: 10.44, 95% confidence interval: 5.65-19.28.
Table 6. Multivariate Logistic Regression Analysis of Metabolic Syndrome
Sex Men Women OR (95% CI) P OR (95% CI) P Age 1.00 (0.98, 1.03) 0.86 1.05 (1.03, 1.06) < 0.01 Ethnicity 0.94 (1.13, 1.59) 0.82 0.92 (0.60, 1.41) 0.70 Region 0.93 (0.50, 1.72) 0.82 1.00 (0.60, 1.41) 0.92 BMI 1.34 (1.13, 1.59) < 0.01 1.28 (1.26, 1.41) < 0.01 Hip circumference 1.16 (1.08, 1.25) 0.00 1.00 (0.97, 1.04) 0.89 Grip strength 1.00 (0.96, 1.03) 0.93 1.03 (1.00, 1.07) 0.10 History of hypertension 1.24 (0.68, 2.24) 0.49 1.55 (1.00, 2.40) 0.05 History of diabetes 4.27 (1.53, 11.97) < 0.01 3.21 (1.39, 7.39) 0.01 Smoking 0.21 0.69 No 1.00 1.00 Yes 1.37 (0.84, 2.21) 0.75 (0.19, 2.97) Drinking 0.28 0.14 No 1.00 1.00 Yes 1.35 (0.78, 2.33) 1.46 (0.88, 2.40) Exercise (days/week) 0.91 0.75 0 1.00 1.00 Monthly < 3 0.75 (0.37, 1.52) 1.06 (0.65, 1.72) 1-2 0.71 (0.31, 1.64) 1.63 (0.79, 3.36) 3-4 0.89 (0.39, 2.08) 1.03 (0.47, 2.27) 5-7 0.96 (0.37, 2.51) 1.23 (0.52, 2.95) Manual labor 0.47 0.55 Mild 1.00 1.00 Moderate 0.94 (0.48, 1.85) 0.95 (0.50, 1.80) Heavy 0.61 (0.28, 1.34) 0.76 (0.46, 1.25) FMR 6.90 (3.09, 15.39) < 0.01 10.44 (5.65, 19.28) < 0.01 Note. OR: odds ratio; CI: confidence interval; FMR: fat-to-muscle-ratio (divided into two groups according to the cut-off points).
doi: 10.3967/bes2018.034
Fat-to-muscle Ratio: A New Anthropometric Indicator for Predicting Metabolic Syndrome in the Han and Bouyei Populations from Guizhou Province, China
-
Abstract:
Objective To investigate the prevalence and possible factors influencing metabolic syndrome in people from Guizhou Province and to explore the predictive value of the fat-to-muscle ratio in diagnosing metabolic syndrome. Methods A multistage stratified sampling method was used in this cross-sectional study of 20-80 years old Han and Bouyei populations from Guizhou Province, southwestern China, from October-December 2012. The study included 4, 553 cases of metabolic syndrome, that was defined according to 2005 International Diabetes Federation criteria. The receiver operating characteristic curve was used for determining the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive ability of the fat-to-muscle ratio for the diagnosis of metabolic syndrome. Results The age-standardized prevalence of metabolic syndrome was 11.38% (men:9.76%; women:12.72%) for Han and 4.78% (men:4.43%; women:5.30%) for Bouyei populations. In Guizhou Province, the cut-off value for the men fat-to-muscle ratio was 0.34, the area under the curve was 0.95, and the sensitivity and specificity were 0.94 and 0.85, respectively. The cut-off value for the women fat-to-muscle ratio was 0.55, the area under the curve was 0.91, and the sensitivity and specificity were 0.93 and 0.79, respectively. Conclusion The fat-to-muscle ratio is highly predictive of metabolic syndrome in Guizhou Province, and a useful reference indicator. -
Key words:
- Metabolic syndrome /
- Anthropometric indicator /
- Muscle /
- Fat /
- Fat-to-muscle ratio
-
Table 1. General Characteristics of Participants from Han and Bouyei Populations from Guizhou, Southwest China
Variables Total Men Women Han Bouyei P Han Bouyei P Han Bouyei P Number of Cases 2.344 2.209 997 1.077 1.347 1.132 Age (y) 48.43 ± 14.08 49.80 ± 13.69 < 0.01 48.77 ± 13.72 49.88 ± 13.94 0.69 48.2 ± 14.35 49.72 ± 13.44 0.01 Regions < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 Cities 1.464 (62.46) 321 (14.53) 637 (63.89) 138 (12.81) 827 (61.39) 183 (16.17) Villages 874 (37.29) 1.884 (85.29) 361 (36.21) 939 (87.19) 514 (38.16) 948 (83.75) Educational level < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 Junior high school or below 1.331 (56.78) 1.718 (77.77) 500 (50.15) 786 (72.98) 831 (61.69) 932 (82.33) High school and above 1.003 (42.79) 479 (21.68) 492 (49.35) 288 (26.74) 511 (37.94) 191 (16.87) Manual labor < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 Mild 1.654 (70.56) 842 (38.12) 616 (61.79) 353 (32.78) 1.038 (77.06) 489 (43.20) Moderate 227 (9.68) 131 (5.93) 149 (14.94) 81 (7.52) 78 (5.79) 50 (4.42) Heavy 461 (19.67) 1.231 (55.73) 231 (23.17) 640 (59.42) 230 (17.07) 591 (52.21) Exercise (day/week) < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 0 1.339 (57.12) 1.904 (86.19) 572 (57.37) 903 (83.84) 767 (56.94) 1.001 (88.42) Monthly < 3 136 (5.80) 39 (1.77) 58 (5.82) 26 (2.41) 78 (5.79) 13 (1.15) 1-2 192 (8.19) 73 (3.3) 80 (8.02) 43 (3.99) 112 (8.31) 30 (2.65) 3-4 155 (6.61) 53 (2.40) 71 (7.12) 25 (2.32) 84 (6.24) 28 (2.47) 5-7 504 (21.50) 121 (5.40) 209 (20.96) 67 (6.22) 295 (21.90) 54 (4.77) Drinking < 0.01 0.03 < 0.01 Yes 868 (37.03) 982 (44.45) 682 (68.41) 783 (72.70) 186 (13.81) 199 (17.58) No 1.470 (62.71) 1.223 (55.36) 313 (31.39) 290 (26.93) 1.157 (85.89) 933 (82.42) Smoking < 0.01 0.14 0.10 Yes 675 (28.80) 752 (34.04) 648 (64.99) 733 (68.06) 27 (2.00) 19 (1.68) No 1.663 (70.95) 1.456 (65.91) 348 (34.90) 343 (31.85) 1.315 (97.62) 1.113 (98.32) Height (cm) 157.35 ± 8.32 155.36 ± 8.01 < 0.01 164.02 ± 6.29 161.01 ± 6.13 < 0.01 152.42 ± 5.82 149.98 ± 5.49 < 0.01 Weight (kg) 58.10 ± 10.84 53.24 ± 10.05 < 0.01 63.72 ± 10.42 57.38 ± 10.13 < 0.01 53.94 ± 9.13 43.30 ± 8.22 < 0.01 BMI 23.39 ± 3.49 21.96 ± 3.19 < 0.01 23.64 ± 3.34 22.05 ± 3.12 < 0.01 23.21 ± 3.59 21.88 ± 3.24 < 0.01 Body fat percentage (%) 27.78 ± 7.98 24.56 ± 8.05 < 0.01 21.45 ± 5.46 18.69 ± 5.42 < 0.01 32.51 ± 6.07 30.15 ± 5.86 < 0.01 Muscle mass (kg) 39.50 ± 7.77 37.85 ± 7.27 < 0.01 47.0 ± 5.39 43.79 ± 5.39 < 0.01 33.95 ± 3.33 32.20 ± 3.14 < 0.01 Body fat quantity (kg) 16.36 ± 6.16 13.27 ± 5.61 < 0.01 14.13 ± 5.43 11.17 ± 5.09 < 0.01 18.00 ± 6.15 15.27 ± 5.35 < 0.01 Grip strength (kg) 28.91 ± 9.36 28.50 ± 9.50 0.15 36.66 ± 7.92 34.71 ± 8.58 < 0.01 23.18 ± 5.37 22.60 ± 5.90 0.01 WC (cm) 79.10 ± 10.59 74.10 ± 9.80 < 0.01 81.60 ± 10.23 75.48 ± 10.03 < 0.01 77.25 ± 10.48 72.80 ± 9.39 < 0.01 Hip circumference (cm) 86.94 ± 6.59 83.17 ± 5.99 < 0.01 87.29 ± 6.22 83.27 ± 6.03 < 0.01 86.67 ± 6.83 83.07 ± 5.95 < 0.01 FBG (mmol/L) 5.19 ± 1.28 5.04 + 0.91 < 0.01 5.29 ± 1.35 5.17 ± 1.13 0.02 5.11 ± 1.22 4.92 ± 0.63 < 0.01 HDL (mmol/dL) 1.44 ± 0.33 1.60 ± 0.40 < 0.01 1.37 ± 0.34 1.58 ± 0.44 < 0.01 1.50 ± 0.32 1.62 ± 0.36 < 0.01 SBP (mmHg) 130.26 ± 20.81 133.66 ± 22.26 < 0.01 133.28 ± 19.19 136.76 ± 21.99 < 0.01 128.02 ± 21.66 130.71 ± 22.14 < 0.01 DBP (mmHg) 78.38 ± 11.92 78.98 ± 12.45 0.10 81.05 ± 11.84 81.53 ± 12.67 0.28 76.40 ± 11.59 76.45 ± 11.70 0.91 TG (mmol/dL) 1.74 ± 1.51 1.50 ± 1.47 < 0.01 1.99 ± 1.75 1.59 ± 1.85 < 0.01 1.55 ± 1.26 1.32 ± 0.93 < 0.01 Note. Continuous variables are expressed as mean ± SD and were compared using the t-test. Categorical variables are expressed as n (%) and were compared using the χ2 test. BMI: body mass index; WC: waist circumference; FBG: Fasting blood glucose; HDL: high-density lipoprotein; SBP: systolic blood pressure; DBP: diastolic blood pressure; TG: triglycerides. Table 2. Crude Prevalence of Metabolic Syndrome and Its Components for Han and Bouyei Ethnicities
Crude Prewalence Total Men Women P (Men vs. Women) Han Bouyei P Han Bouyei P Han Bouyei P Han Bouyei MetS 448 (19.11) 192 (8.69) < 0.01 155 (15.55) 77 (7.15) < 0.01 293 (21.75) 115 (10.16) < 0.01 < 0.01 0.01 Central obesity 722 (30.81) 349 (15.80) < 0.01 216 (21.66) 109 (10.12) < 0.01 506 (37.56) 240 (21.20) < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 High TG 388 (16.55) 187 (8.47) < 0.01 153 (15.35) 85 (7.89) < 0.01 235 (17.44) 102 (9.01) < 0.01 0.18 0.35 Low HDL 247 (10.54) 83 (3.76) < 0.01 55 (5.52) 15 (1.39) < 0.01 192 (14.25) 68 (6.01) < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 Hypertension 500 (21.33) 238 (10.77) < 0.01 151 (15.15) 81 (7.52) < 0.01 349 (25.91) 157 (13.87) < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 Hyperglycemia 207 (8.83) 89 (4.03) < 0.01 77 (7.72) 42 (3.89) < 0.01 130 (9.65) 47 (4.15) < 0.01 0.10 0.76 Note. Data are presented as n (%) and compared using the χ2 test. MetS, metabolic syndrome; TG: triglycerides; HDL: high-density lipoprotein; P: P-value. Table 3. Age-standardized Prevalence of Metabolic Syndrome Based on the Criteria of the International Diabetes Federation
Age-group (years) Total Han Bouyei Han Bouyei Men Women Men Women 20-29 5 (0.26) 2 (0.15) 87 (0.44) 2 (0.17) 2 (0.28) 0 (0) 30-39 61 (2.30) 30 (1.02) 188 (2.63) 31 (2.04) 20 (1.51) 10 (0.62) 40-49 123 (3.46) 62 (1.59) 259 (3.69) 64 (3.26) 30 (1.58) 32 (1.61) 50-59 123 (2.58) 55 (1.19) 209 (1.74) 87 (3.23) 19 (0.85) 36 (1.51) 60-69 98 (1.74) 33 (0.58) 183 (0.77) 79 (2.52) 4 (0.13) 29 (1.09) 70-80 38 (1.04) 10 (0.25) 71 (0.49) 30 (1.50) 2 (0.08) 8 (0.47) Age-standardized (%) 11.38 4.78 9.76 12.72 4.43 5.30 Note. Data are presented as n (%). Table 4. Characteristics of Metabolic Syndrome
Characteristics of Metabolic Syndrome Total Men Women P (Men vs. Women) Han Bouvei P Han Bouyei P Han Bouyei P Han Bouyei WC+TG+HDL 167 (7.12) 61 (2.76) < 0.01 43 (4.31) 14 (1.30) < 0.01 124 (9.21) 47 (4.15) < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 WC+TG+BP 282 (12.03) 144 (6.52) < 0.01 103 (10.33) 66 (6.13) < 0.01 179 (13.30) 78 (6.89) < 0.01 0.03 0.47 WC+TG+FBG 133 (5.67) 62 (2.81) < 0.01 56 (5.62) 37 (3.44) 0.02 77 (5.72) 25 (2.21) < 0.01 0.92 0.08 WC+HDL+BP 165 (7.04) 59 (2.67) < 0.01 32 (3.21) 11 (1.02) < 0.01 133 (9.87) 48 (4.24) < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 WC+HDL+FBG 67 (2.86) 26 (1.18) < 0.01 17 (1.71) 7 (0.65) 0.03 50 (3.71) 19 (1.68) < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 WC+BP+FBG 163 (6.95) 71 (3.21) < 0.01 57 (5.72) 35 (3.25) 0.01 106 (7.87) 36 (3.18) < 0.01 0.04 0.93 WC+TG+HDL+BP 118 (5.03) 47 (2.13) < 0.01 23 (2.31) 10 (0.93) 0.01 95 (7.05) 37 (3.27) < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 WC+TG+HDL+FBG 57 (2.43) 22 (1.00) < 0.01 16 (1.60) 7 (0.65) 0.04 41 (3.04) 15 (1.33) < 0.01 0.03 0.11 WC+HDL+BP+FBG 52 (2.21) 20 (0.91) < 0.01 11 (1.10) 5 (0.46) 0.10 41 (3.04) 15 (1.33) < 0.01 < 0.01 0.03 WC+BP+FBG+TG 108 (4.61) 52 (2.35) < 0.01 43 (4.31) 32 (3.00) 0.10 65 (4.83) 20 (1.77) < 0.01 0.56 0.06 WC+TG+HDL+BP+FBG 47 (2.01) 17 (0.77) < 0.01 11 (1.10) 5 (0.46) 0.10 36 (2.67) 12 (1.06) < 0.01 0.01 0.11 Note. Data are presented as n (%). WC: Waist circumference; HDL: high-density lipoprotein; TG: triglycerides; BP: blood pressure; FBG: Fasting blood glucose. Table 5. Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve Analysis of Fat-to-muscle Ratio for Diagnostic Prediction of Metabolic Syndrome
Sex Positive Numbers Negative Numbers FMR Cut-off Point Sensitivity Specificity PPV NPV AUC 95% CI P Value Men 232 1, 842 0.34 0.94 0.85 0.44 0.99 0.95 0.94-0.96 < 0.01 Women 408 2, 071 0.55 0.93 0.79 0.46 0.98 0.91 0.90-0.93 < 0.01 Note. FMR: fat-to-muscle ratio; PPV: positive predictive value; NPV: negative predictive value; AUC: area under the curve; CI: confidence interval. Table 6. Multivariate Logistic Regression Analysis of Metabolic Syndrome
Sex Men Women OR (95% CI) P OR (95% CI) P Age 1.00 (0.98, 1.03) 0.86 1.05 (1.03, 1.06) < 0.01 Ethnicity 0.94 (1.13, 1.59) 0.82 0.92 (0.60, 1.41) 0.70 Region 0.93 (0.50, 1.72) 0.82 1.00 (0.60, 1.41) 0.92 BMI 1.34 (1.13, 1.59) < 0.01 1.28 (1.26, 1.41) < 0.01 Hip circumference 1.16 (1.08, 1.25) 0.00 1.00 (0.97, 1.04) 0.89 Grip strength 1.00 (0.96, 1.03) 0.93 1.03 (1.00, 1.07) 0.10 History of hypertension 1.24 (0.68, 2.24) 0.49 1.55 (1.00, 2.40) 0.05 History of diabetes 4.27 (1.53, 11.97) < 0.01 3.21 (1.39, 7.39) 0.01 Smoking 0.21 0.69 No 1.00 1.00 Yes 1.37 (0.84, 2.21) 0.75 (0.19, 2.97) Drinking 0.28 0.14 No 1.00 1.00 Yes 1.35 (0.78, 2.33) 1.46 (0.88, 2.40) Exercise (days/week) 0.91 0.75 0 1.00 1.00 Monthly < 3 0.75 (0.37, 1.52) 1.06 (0.65, 1.72) 1-2 0.71 (0.31, 1.64) 1.63 (0.79, 3.36) 3-4 0.89 (0.39, 2.08) 1.03 (0.47, 2.27) 5-7 0.96 (0.37, 2.51) 1.23 (0.52, 2.95) Manual labor 0.47 0.55 Mild 1.00 1.00 Moderate 0.94 (0.48, 1.85) 0.95 (0.50, 1.80) Heavy 0.61 (0.28, 1.34) 0.76 (0.46, 1.25) FMR 6.90 (3.09, 15.39) < 0.01 10.44 (5.65, 19.28) < 0.01 Note. OR: odds ratio; CI: confidence interval; FMR: fat-to-muscle-ratio (divided into two groups according to the cut-off points). -
[1] Eckel RH, Grundy SM, Zimmet PZ. The metabolic syndrome. Lancet, 2005; 365, 1415-28. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66378-7 [2] M Trevisan, J Liu, FB Bahsas, et al. Syndrome X and mortality: a population-based study. Risk Factor and Life Expectancy Research Group. Am J Epidemiol, 1998; 148, 958-66. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a009572 [3] Alberti KG, Zimmet P, Shaw J, et al. The metabolic syndrome-a new worldwide definition. Lancet, 2005; 366, 1059-62. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67402-8 [4] Mottillo S, Filion KB, Genest J, et al. The metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular risk a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am CollCardiol, 2010; 56, 1113-32. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2010.05.034 [5] Saito I. Epidemiological evidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus, metabolic syndrome, and cardiovasculardisease in Japan. Circ J, 2012; 76, 1066-73. doi: 10.1253/circj.CJ-11-1519 [6] Lu J, Wang L, Li M, et al. Metabolic Syndrome Among Adults in China: The 2010 China Noncommunicable Disease Surveillance. J Clin Endocrinol Metab, 2017; 102, 507-15. https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/102/2/507/2972061 [7] Gobato AO, Vasques AC, Zambon MP, et al. Metabolic syndrome and insulin resistance in obese adolescents. Rev Paul Pediatr, 2014; 32, 55-62. doi: 10.1590/S0103-05822014000100010 [8] Zhong L, Li Q, Jiang Y, et al. The ApoB/ApoA1 ratio is associated with metabolic syndrome and its components in a Chinese population. Inflammation, 2010; 33, 353-8. doi: 10.1007/s10753-010-9193-4 [9] Voils SA, Cooper-DeHoff RM. Association between high sensitivity C-reactive protein and metabolic syndrome in subjects completing the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2009-10. Diabetes Metab Syndr, 2014; 8, 88-90. doi: 10.1016/j.dsx.2014.04.021 [10] Galletti F, Barbato A, VersieroM, et al. Circulating leptin levels predict the development of metabolic syndrome in middle-aged men: an 8-year follow-up study. J Hypertens, 2007; 25, 1671-7. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0b013e3281afa09e [11] Kim DJ, Noh JH, Lee BW, et al. The associations of total and differential white blood cell counts with obesity, hypertension, dyslipidemia and glucose intolerance in a Korean population. J Korean Med Sci, 2008; 23, 193-8. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2008.23.2.193 [12] Hiremath R, Ibrahim J, Prasanthi K, et al. Comparative Study of Ultrasonographic and Anthropometric Measurements of Regional Adiposity in Metabolic Syndrome. J Clin Diagn Res, 2017; 11, TC01-05. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319245241_Comparative_Study_of_Ultrasonographic_and_Anthropometric_Measurements_of_Regional_Adiposity_in_Metabolic_Syndrome [13] Wicklow BA, Becker A, Chateau D, et al. Comparison of anthropometric measurements in children to predict metabolic syndrome in adolescence: analysis of prospective cohort data. Int J Obes (Lond), 2015; 39, 1070-8. doi: 10.1038/ijo.2015.55 [14] Ramírez-Vélez R, Correa-Bautista JE, Sanders-Tordecilla A, et al. Percentage of Body Fat and Fat Mass Index as a Screening Tool for Metabolic Syndrome Prediction in Colombian University Students. Nutrients, 2017; 9. http://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/9/9/1009/pdf [15] Cornier MA, Després JP, Davis N, et al. Assessing adiposity: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation, 2011; 124, 1996-2019. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0b013e318233bc6a [16] Janssen I, Heymsfield SB, Wang ZM, et al. Skeletal muscle mass and distribution in 468 men and women aged 18-88 yr. J Appl Physiol, (1985) 2000; 89, 81-8. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ian_Janssen/publication/306150258_Skeletal_muscle_mass_and_distribution_in_468_men_and_women_aged_18-88_yr/links/57ea97fe08aed3a3e08aae16.pdf?origin=publication_detail [17] Friedrichsen M, Mortensen B, Pehmoller C, et al. Exercise-induced AMPK activity in skeletal muscle: role in glucose uptake and insulin sensitivity. Mol Cell Endocrinol, 2013; 366, 204-14. doi: 10.1016/j.mce.2012.06.013 [18] Febbraio MA, Pedersen BK. Contraction-induced myokine production and release:is skeletal muscle an endocrine organ? Exerc Sport Sci Rev, 2005; 33, 114-9. doi: 10.1097/00003677-200507000-00003 [19] Srikanthan P, Karlamangla AS. Relative muscle mass is inversely associated with insulin resistance and prediabetes Findings from the third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. J Clin Endocrinol Metab, 2011; 96, 2898-903. doi: 10.1210/jc.2011-0435 [20] Kim Y, Han BD, Han K, et al. Optimal cutoffs for low skeletal muscle mass related to cardiovascular risk in adults: The Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2009-2010. Endocrine, 2015; 50, 424-33. doi: 10.1007/s12020-015-0577-y [21] Kim TN, Choi KM. The implications of sarcopenia and sarcopenic obesity on cardiometabolic disease. J Cell Biochem, 2015; 116, 1171-8. doi: 10.1002/jcb.v116.7 [22] Lu CW, Yang KC, Chang HH, et al. Sarcopenic obesity is closely associated with metabolic syndrome. Obes Res Clin Pract, 2013; 7, e301-7. doi: 10.1016/j.orcp.2012.02.003 [23] Lim S, Kim JH, Yoon JW, et al. Sarcopenic obesity: prevalence and association with metabolic syndrome in the Korean Longitudinal Study on Health and Aging (KLoSHA). Diabetes Care, 2010; 33, 1652-4. doi: 10.2337/dc10-0107 [24] Kurinami N, Sugiyama S, Yoshida A, et al. Correlation of body muscle/fat ratio with insulin sensitivity using hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamp in treatment-naïve type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Res Clin Pract, 2016; 120, 65-72. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2016.07.018 [25] Thomson R, Brinkworth GD, Buckley JD, et al. Good agreement between bioelectrical impedance and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry for estimating changes in body composition during weight loss in overweight young women. Clin Nutr, 2007; 26, 771-7. doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2007.08.003 [26] Jaffrin MY, Kieffer R, Moreno MV. Evaluation of a foot-to-foot impedance meter measuring extracellular fluid volume in addition to fat-free mass and fat tissue mass. Nutrition, 2005; 21, 815-24. doi: 10.1016/j.nut.2004.11.016 [27] World Health Organization. Obesity: Preventing and Managing the Global Epidemic. Report of a WHO consultation on obesity. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser, 2000; 894: i-xii, 1-253. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11234459 [28] Zimmet P, M M Alberti KG, Serrano Ríos M. A new international dia-betes federation worldwide definition of the metabolic syndrome: the rationale and the results. Rev Esp Cardiol, 2005; 58, 1371-6. doi: 10.1016/S0300-8932(05)74065-3 [29] National Bureau of Statistics of China (NBS). Tabulation on the 2010 Population Census of People's Republic of China; China Statistics Press: Beijing, China, 2012. [30] Song QB, Zhao Y, Liu YQ, et al. Sex difference in the prevalence of metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular-related risk factors in urban adults from 33 communities of China: The CHPSNE study. Diab Vasc Dis Res, 2015; 12, 189-98. doi: 10.1177/1479164114562410 [31] Zhang YH, Dai HQ, Wu JJ, et al. Investigation on prevalence of themajor chronic diseases and its related risk factors among adult residents inDaxing district of Beijing city. Chin J Prey Contr Chron Dis, 2014; 4, 423-8. http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTotal-ZMXB201404014.htm [32] Li JB, Wang X, Zhang JX, et al. Metabolicsyndrome: prevalence and risk factors in southern China. J Int Med Res, 2010; 38, 1142-8. doi: 10.1177/147323001003800343 [33] Tao R, Wu M, Qin Y, et al. Epidemiological characteristics of metabolic syndrome and comparison between its different diagnostic criteria in adults of Jiangsu Province. J Jilin Univ, 2015; 41, 181-9. doi: 10.1186/s12889-016-2870-y [34] Xi B, He D, Hu Y, et al. Prevalence of metabolic syndrome and its influencing factors among the Chinese adults: the China Health and Nutrition Survey in 2009. Prev Med, 2013; 57, 867-71. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2013.09.023 [35] Li R, Li W, Lun Z, et al. Prevalence of metabolic syndrome in Mainland China: a meta-analysis of published studies. BMC Public Health, 2016; 16, 296. doi: 10.1186/s12889-016-2870-y [36] Srikanthan P, Hevener AL, Karlamangla AS. Sarcopenia exacerbates obesity-associated insulin resistance and dysglycemia: findings from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey Ⅲ. PLoS One, 2010; 5, e10805. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0010805 [37] Guillet C, Boirie Y. Insulin resistance: a contributing factor to age-related muscle mass loss? Diabetes Metab, 2005; 31, 5S20-6. http://www.diabet-metabolism.com/article/S1262-3636 (05)73648-X/pdf [38] Zamboni M, Mazzali G, Fantin F, et al. Sarcopenicobesity: A new category of obesity in the elderly. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis, 2008; 18, 388-95. doi: 10.1016/j.numecd.2007.10.002 [39] Ferrara LA, Capaldo B, MancusiC, et al. Cardiometabolic risk in overweight subjects with or without relative fat-free mass deficiency: the Strong Heart Study. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis, 2014; 24, 271-6. doi: 10.1016/j.numecd.2013.08.009 [40] Chung JY, Kang HT, Lee DC, et al. Body composition and its association with cardiometabolic risk factors in the elderly: a focus on sarcopenic obesity. Arch GerontolGeriatr, 2013; 56, 270-8. http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/23079031