The Metabolic Syndrome in Australia: Prevalence using four definitions

Adrian J. Cameron, Dianna J. Magliano, Paul Z. Zimmet, Tim Welborn, Jonathan E. Shaw

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

97 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To compare the prevalence of the Metabolic Syndrome (MetS) defined by four definitions and to determine which definition best identifies those at high cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk and with insulin resistance. Methods: AusDiab is a population-based survey of 11,247 Australians. Participants had anthropometry, blood pressure, and fasting biochemistry. Ten-year CVD risk was calculated. Results: The prevalence of the MetS using the ATPIII, WHO, IDF, and EGIR definitions was 22.1% (95%Cl: 18.8, 25.4), 21.7% (19.0, 24.3), 30.7% (27.1, 34.3), and 13.4% (11.8, 14.9), respectively. Comparing those with to those without the MetS, the odds ratios (95%CI) for having a 10 year CVD risk ≥15% were 6.6 (5.4, 8.2), 5.5 (4.7, 6.5), 5.6 (4.8, 6.6), and 3.5 (3.0, 4.1), for the WHO, ATPIII, IDF, and EGIR definitions, respectively. The population attributable risk (PAR) of high CVD risk due to the MetS was highest for the IDF (23.4%). Insulin resistance was detected in 56.1, 69.7, 50.9, and 91.1% of those meeting the ATPIII, WHO, IDF, and EGIR definitions, respectively. Conclusion: The WHO definition was associated with the greatest CVD risk, but is not practical for clinical use. The higher PAR due to the IDF definition, with only slightly lower CVD risk than WHO, and clinical utility of the IDF definition, indicates that it may be a useful tool for CVD prevention.

LanguageEnglish
Pages471-478
Number of pages8
JournalDiabetes Research and Clinical Practice
Volume77
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Sep 2007
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • AusDiab
  • Australia
  • Cardiovascular disease risk
  • Central obesity
  • Insulin resistance
  • Metabolic Syndrome

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Internal Medicine
  • Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism
  • Endocrinology

Cite this

Cameron, A. J., Magliano, D. J., Zimmet, P. Z., Welborn, T., & Shaw, J. E. (2007). The Metabolic Syndrome in Australia: Prevalence using four definitions. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice, 77(3), 471-478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diabres.2007.02.002
Cameron, Adrian J. ; Magliano, Dianna J. ; Zimmet, Paul Z. ; Welborn, Tim ; Shaw, Jonathan E. / The Metabolic Syndrome in Australia : Prevalence using four definitions. In: Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice. 2007 ; Vol. 77, No. 3. pp. 471-478.
@article{2077e8e192a5424c8990c1c679ea33e7,
title = "The Metabolic Syndrome in Australia: Prevalence using four definitions",
abstract = "Objective: To compare the prevalence of the Metabolic Syndrome (MetS) defined by four definitions and to determine which definition best identifies those at high cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk and with insulin resistance. Methods: AusDiab is a population-based survey of 11,247 Australians. Participants had anthropometry, blood pressure, and fasting biochemistry. Ten-year CVD risk was calculated. Results: The prevalence of the MetS using the ATPIII, WHO, IDF, and EGIR definitions was 22.1{\%} (95{\%}Cl: 18.8, 25.4), 21.7{\%} (19.0, 24.3), 30.7{\%} (27.1, 34.3), and 13.4{\%} (11.8, 14.9), respectively. Comparing those with to those without the MetS, the odds ratios (95{\%}CI) for having a 10 year CVD risk ≥15{\%} were 6.6 (5.4, 8.2), 5.5 (4.7, 6.5), 5.6 (4.8, 6.6), and 3.5 (3.0, 4.1), for the WHO, ATPIII, IDF, and EGIR definitions, respectively. The population attributable risk (PAR) of high CVD risk due to the MetS was highest for the IDF (23.4{\%}). Insulin resistance was detected in 56.1, 69.7, 50.9, and 91.1{\%} of those meeting the ATPIII, WHO, IDF, and EGIR definitions, respectively. Conclusion: The WHO definition was associated with the greatest CVD risk, but is not practical for clinical use. The higher PAR due to the IDF definition, with only slightly lower CVD risk than WHO, and clinical utility of the IDF definition, indicates that it may be a useful tool for CVD prevention.",
keywords = "AusDiab, Australia, Cardiovascular disease risk, Central obesity, Insulin resistance, Metabolic Syndrome",
author = "Cameron, {Adrian J.} and Magliano, {Dianna J.} and Zimmet, {Paul Z.} and Tim Welborn and Shaw, {Jonathan E.}",
year = "2007",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.diabres.2007.02.002",
language = "English",
volume = "77",
pages = "471--478",
journal = "Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice",
issn = "0168-8227",
publisher = "Elsevier Ireland Ltd",
number = "3",

}

The Metabolic Syndrome in Australia : Prevalence using four definitions. / Cameron, Adrian J.; Magliano, Dianna J.; Zimmet, Paul Z.; Welborn, Tim; Shaw, Jonathan E.

In: Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice, Vol. 77, No. 3, 01.09.2007, p. 471-478.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Metabolic Syndrome in Australia

T2 - Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice

AU - Cameron, Adrian J.

AU - Magliano, Dianna J.

AU - Zimmet, Paul Z.

AU - Welborn, Tim

AU - Shaw, Jonathan E.

PY - 2007/9/1

Y1 - 2007/9/1

N2 - Objective: To compare the prevalence of the Metabolic Syndrome (MetS) defined by four definitions and to determine which definition best identifies those at high cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk and with insulin resistance. Methods: AusDiab is a population-based survey of 11,247 Australians. Participants had anthropometry, blood pressure, and fasting biochemistry. Ten-year CVD risk was calculated. Results: The prevalence of the MetS using the ATPIII, WHO, IDF, and EGIR definitions was 22.1% (95%Cl: 18.8, 25.4), 21.7% (19.0, 24.3), 30.7% (27.1, 34.3), and 13.4% (11.8, 14.9), respectively. Comparing those with to those without the MetS, the odds ratios (95%CI) for having a 10 year CVD risk ≥15% were 6.6 (5.4, 8.2), 5.5 (4.7, 6.5), 5.6 (4.8, 6.6), and 3.5 (3.0, 4.1), for the WHO, ATPIII, IDF, and EGIR definitions, respectively. The population attributable risk (PAR) of high CVD risk due to the MetS was highest for the IDF (23.4%). Insulin resistance was detected in 56.1, 69.7, 50.9, and 91.1% of those meeting the ATPIII, WHO, IDF, and EGIR definitions, respectively. Conclusion: The WHO definition was associated with the greatest CVD risk, but is not practical for clinical use. The higher PAR due to the IDF definition, with only slightly lower CVD risk than WHO, and clinical utility of the IDF definition, indicates that it may be a useful tool for CVD prevention.

AB - Objective: To compare the prevalence of the Metabolic Syndrome (MetS) defined by four definitions and to determine which definition best identifies those at high cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk and with insulin resistance. Methods: AusDiab is a population-based survey of 11,247 Australians. Participants had anthropometry, blood pressure, and fasting biochemistry. Ten-year CVD risk was calculated. Results: The prevalence of the MetS using the ATPIII, WHO, IDF, and EGIR definitions was 22.1% (95%Cl: 18.8, 25.4), 21.7% (19.0, 24.3), 30.7% (27.1, 34.3), and 13.4% (11.8, 14.9), respectively. Comparing those with to those without the MetS, the odds ratios (95%CI) for having a 10 year CVD risk ≥15% were 6.6 (5.4, 8.2), 5.5 (4.7, 6.5), 5.6 (4.8, 6.6), and 3.5 (3.0, 4.1), for the WHO, ATPIII, IDF, and EGIR definitions, respectively. The population attributable risk (PAR) of high CVD risk due to the MetS was highest for the IDF (23.4%). Insulin resistance was detected in 56.1, 69.7, 50.9, and 91.1% of those meeting the ATPIII, WHO, IDF, and EGIR definitions, respectively. Conclusion: The WHO definition was associated with the greatest CVD risk, but is not practical for clinical use. The higher PAR due to the IDF definition, with only slightly lower CVD risk than WHO, and clinical utility of the IDF definition, indicates that it may be a useful tool for CVD prevention.

KW - AusDiab

KW - Australia

KW - Cardiovascular disease risk

KW - Central obesity

KW - Insulin resistance

KW - Metabolic Syndrome

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34547687928&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.diabres.2007.02.002

DO - 10.1016/j.diabres.2007.02.002

M3 - Article

VL - 77

SP - 471

EP - 478

JO - Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice

JF - Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice

SN - 0168-8227

IS - 3

ER -