Cargando…

The effect of metabolic health and obesity on lung function: A cross sectional study of 114,143 participants from Kangbuk Samsung Health Study

OBJECTIVE: Although the role of obesity-induced metabolic abnormalities in impaired lung function is well-established, the risk of impaired lung function among obese individuals without metabolic abnormalities, referred to metabolically-healthy obesity (MHO), is largely unexplored. Therefore, we eva...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lee, Jonghoo, Park, Hye Kyeong, Kwon, Min-Jung, Ham, Soo-Youn, Lim, Si-Young, Song, Jae-Uk
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9007386/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35417494
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266885
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVE: Although the role of obesity-induced metabolic abnormalities in impaired lung function is well-established, the risk of impaired lung function among obese individuals without metabolic abnormalities, referred to metabolically-healthy obesity (MHO), is largely unexplored. Therefore, we evaluated the impact of MHO on lung function in a large health-screening cohort. METHODS: 114,143 subjects (65,342 men, mean age and BMI: 39.6 years and 23.6) with health examinations in 2019 were divided into four groups as follows: metabolically healthy non-obese (MHNO), MHO, metabolically unhealthy non-obese (MUHNO), and metabolically unhealthy obese (MUHO). Metabolic health was defined as fewer than two metabolic syndrome components. Obesity was defined as BMI ≥25 kg/m(2). Adjusted odds ratios (aORs), using MHNO as a reference, were calculated to determine lung function impairment. RESULTS: Approximately one-third (30.6%) of the study subjects were obese. The prevalence of MHO was 15.1%. Subjects with MHO had the highest FEV1% and FVC% values but the lowest FEV1/FVC ratio (p<0.001). These results persisted after controlling for covariates. Compared with MHNO, the aORs (95% confidence interval) for FEV1% < 80% in MHO, MUHNO and MUHO were 0.871 (0.775–0.978), 1.274 (1.114–1.456), and 1.176 (1.102–1.366), respectively (P for trend = 0.014). Similarly, the aORs in MHO, MUHNO, and MUHO were 0.704 (0.615–0.805), 1.241 (1.075–1.432), and 1.226 (1.043–1.441), respectively, for FVC% < 80% (p for trend = 0.013). However, the aORs for FEV1/FVC<0.7 were not significantly different between groups (p for trend = 0.173). CONCLUSIONS: The MHO group had better lung function than other groups. However, longitudinal follow-up studies are required to validate our findings.