Abstract
OBJECTIVE Research testing the validity of the metabolic syndrome (MetS) as a clinical construct associated with cardiovascular disease risk has produced inconsistent results. This study tested the existence of the MetS, explored alternative cardiometabolic risk characterisations, and examined the relative influence of genetic and environmental factors in a South Asian sample.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Data came from the Colombo Twin and Singleton follow-up Study, CoTaSS-2 (N=3969). Latent class analysis tested the clustering of MetS indicators (waist circumference, high-density-lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), triglycerides (TG), blood pressure, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), medications and diabetes). Regression analyses tested cross-sectional associations between identified latent classes and covariates. Structural equation modelling estimated genetic and environmental influences on these classes. Analyses were stratified by gender (n=1681 men, n=2288 women).
RESULTS Three classes were identified in men: 1) “Healthy” (52.3%), 2) “Central obesity, high TG, high FPG” (40.2%), and 3) “Central obesity, high TG, diabetes” (7.6%). Four classes were identified in women: 1) “Healthy” (53.2%), 2) “Very high central obesity, low HDL-C, raised FPG” (32.8%), 3) “Very high central obesity, diabetes” (7.2%) and 4) “Central obesity, hypertension, raised FPG” (6.8%). Older age in men and women, and high socioeconomic status in men, was associated with cardiometabolic risk categories, compared to the “Healthy” classes. In men, individual differences in cardiometabolic class membership were due to environmental effects. In females, genetic differences significantly predicted class membership.
CONCLUSIONS The findings did not support the MetS construct. Instead, distinct clinical profiles were identified in men and women, suggesting different aetiological pathways.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was supported by the Wellcome Trust (Grant number: 093206/Z/10/Z). This paper was part funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Mental Health Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College London. IB is also funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care South London at King's College London NHS Foundation Trust. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. The funders did not have a role in the study design; collection, analysis or interpretation of data; the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
Author Declarations
All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.
Yes
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The data used for the purposes of this study are available upon reasonable request and require the approval of the COTASS steering committee.
