The relation of CUN-BAE index and BMI with body fat, cardiovascular events and diabetes during a 6-year follow-up: the Hordaland Health Study

OBJECTIVE: We compared Clínica Universidad de Navarra-Body Adiposity Estimator (CUN-BAE) and body mass index (BMI) as correlates of body fat percent (BF%) and the association with future risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and type 2 diabetes in a Caucasian population. METHODS: We used data from 67...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Vinknes, Kathrine J, Nurk, Eha, Tell, Grethe S, Sulo, Gerhard, Refsum, Helga, Elshorbagy, Amany K
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove Medical Press 2017
Materias:
Original Research
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5685095/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29184445
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S145130
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVE: We compared Clínica Universidad de Navarra-Body Adiposity Estimator (CUN-BAE) and body mass index (BMI) as correlates of body fat percent (BF%) and the association with future risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and type 2 diabetes in a Caucasian population. METHODS: We used data from 6796 individuals (born 1925–27 and 1950–52) from the Hordaland Health Study, a prospective cohort study in Norway. The study was conducted in 1992–1993 and 1997–1999. Cross-sectional analyses were conducted with data from 1997/99, including BF% measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Longitudinal analyses included BMI and CUN-BAE calculated in 1992/93, and self-reported information on CVD events and diabetes in 1997/99. RESULTS: The correlation between CUN-BAE and BF% (r=0.88) was stronger than between BMI and BF% (r=0.56). In sex-stratified analyses, CUN-BAE and BMI correlated similarly with BF% in men (r=0.77 and r=0.76, respectively) and women (r=0.82 and r=0.81, respectively). In longitudinal analyses, the odds ratio (per 1 SD increase) of CVD and type 2 diabetes was higher for BMI (OR(CVD) =1.23 [95% CI: 1.11–1.36]; OR(diabetes) =2.11 [1.82–2.45]) than for CUN-BAE (OR(CVD) =1.15 [1.04–1.27]; OR(diabetes) =2.06 [1.72–2.47]) in the total population. In sex-stratified analyses, CUN-BAE showed higher CVD and diabetes risk than BMI: in men BMI OR(CVD) =1.22 (1.04–1.44), OR(diabetes) =2.13 (1.64–2.83); CUN-BAE OR(CVD) =1.93 (1.54–2.43), OR(diabetes) =4.33 (2.80–6.71); and in women BMI OR(CVD) =1.22 (1.07–1.39), OR(diabetes) =2.11 (1.76–2.53); CUN-BAE OR(CVD) =2.06 (1.69–2.51), OR(diabetes) =5.45 (3.87–7.67). CONCLUSION: CUN-BAE is more strongly associated with future risk of type 2 diabetes and CVD compared with BMI in analysis stratified by sex. As a measure of adiposity in men and women separately, CUN-BAE has no advantage over BMI, except when the value of estimated BF% itself is of interest.

Ejemplares similares