» Articles » PMID: 18277389

Waist Circumference, Not the Metabolic Syndrome, Predicts Glucose Deterioration in Type 2 Diabetes

Overview
Date 2008 Feb 16
PMID 18277389
Citations 12
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

We sought to assess the relationship between the metabolic syndrome, abdominal obesity, and glucose deterioration amongst patients with type 2 diabetes. Our prospective cohort consisted of 164 adult patients with established diabetes who have a history of poor glycemic control, have just completed an intensive intervention aimed at improved control, and have demonstrated reduced HbA1c prior to enrollment. Waist circumference and presence of metabolic syndrome were assessed at baseline, and patients were followed up (median 24 months) for assessment of the study outcome, namely, time-to-hyperglycemic relapse, predefined as HbA1c >8% and >1% rise over baseline. Kaplan-Meier estimates of relapse-free glucose maintenance and multivariable Cox regression models were used for quantifying the independent effects of the metabolic syndrome and waist circumference on risk of glucose deterioration. The mean baseline waist circumference was 42.9 5.5 inches. Prevalence of the metabolic syndrome was 80%. During follow-up, 39 patients (24%) experienced hyperglycemic relapse. The metabolic syndrome was not associated with time-to-relapse (P = 0.15). The waist circumference component by itself, however, was associated with increased likelihood of hyperglycemic relapse with an unadjusted hazard ratio of 3.4 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2-9.7) and a hazard ratio of 3.2 (95% CI 1.1-9.1) after adjusting for age, gender, insulin use, weight change, and physical activity level. The National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III (NCEP ATPIII) metabolic syndrome had limited ability to predict glucose deterioration in this type 2 diabetes cohort. Waist circumference by itself, however, is a strong predictor of future glucose control, and may be a parsimonious tool for risk stratification. BMI may also be a useful predictive tool.

Citing Articles

Real-world data of a digitally enabled, time-restricted eating weight management program in public sector workers living with overweight and obesity in the United Kingdom: A service evaluation of the Roczen program.

Brown A, Dobbie L, Falvey L, Patel D, Kwan J, Steinmo S Obes Sci Pract. 2024; 10(1):e730.

PMID: 38344678 PMC: 10858326. DOI: 10.1002/osp4.730.


Impact of abdominal obesity on the risk of glioma development in patients with diabetes: A nationwide population-based cohort study in Korea.

Sang H, Cho Y, Han K, Koh E PLoS One. 2023; 18(3):e0283023.

PMID: 36928679 PMC: 10019701. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0283023.


The impact of phenotype, ethnicity and genotype on progression of type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Nair A, Donnelly L, Dawed A, Gan S, Anjana R, Viswanathan M Endocrinol Diabetes Metab. 2020; 3(2):e00108.

PMID: 32318630 PMC: 7170456. DOI: 10.1002/edm2.108.


Inadequate control of diabetes and metabolic indices among diabetic patients: A population based study from the Kerman Coronary Artery Disease Risk Study (KERCADRS).

Yousefzadeh G, Shokoohi M, Najafipour H Int J Health Policy Manag. 2015; 4(5):271-7.

PMID: 25905475 PMC: 4417630. DOI: 10.15171/ijhpm.2015.06.


Differential methylation of TCF7L2 promoter in peripheral blood DNA in newly diagnosed, drug-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes.

Canivell S, Ruano E, Siso-Almirall A, Kostov B, Gonzalez-De Paz L, Fernandez-Rebollo E PLoS One. 2014; 9(6):e99310.

PMID: 24914535 PMC: 4051650. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0099310.


References
1.
. Third Report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III) final report. Circulation. 2002; 106(25):3143-421. View

2.
Rattarasarn C . Physiological and pathophysiological regulation of regional adipose tissue in the development of insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes. Acta Physiol (Oxf). 2006; 186(2):87-101. DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-1716.2005.01521.x. View

3.
. Energy and protein requirements. Report of a joint FAO/WHO/UNU Expert Consultation. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser. 1985; 724:1-206. View

4.
DAgostino Jr R . Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Stat Med. 1998; 17(19):2265-81. DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19981015)17:19<2265::aid-sim918>3.0.co;2-b. View

5.
. Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Lancet. 1998; 352(9131):837-53. View