Displaying all 2 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Chang Y, Jung HS, Cho J, Zhang Y, Yun KE, Lazo M, et al.
    Am J Gastroenterol, 2016 08;111(8):1133-40.
    PMID: 27185080 DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2016.178
    OBJECTIVES: The risk of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) among obese individuals without obesity-related metabolic abnormalities, a condition referred to as metabolically healthy obese (MHO), is largely unexplored. Therefore, we examined the association between body mass index (BMI) categories and the development of NAFLD in a large cohort of metabolically healthy men and women.

    METHODS: A cohort study was conducted in 77,425 men and women free of NAFLD and metabolic abnormalities at baseline, who were followed-up annually or biennially for an average of 4.5 years. Being metabolically healthy was defined as not having any metabolic syndrome component and having a homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance <2.5. The presence of fatty liver was determined using ultrasound.

    RESULTS: During 348,193.5 person-years of follow-up, 10,340 participants developed NAFLD (incidence rate, 29.7 per 1,000 person-years). The multivariable adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) for incident NAFLD comparing overweight and obese with normal-weight participants were 2.15 (2.06-2.26) and 3.55 (3.37-3.74), respectively. In detailed dose-response analyses, increasing baseline BMI showed a strong and approximately linear relationship with the incidence of NAFLD, with no threshold at no risk. This association was present in both men and women, although it was stronger in women (P for interaction <0.001), and it was evident in all clinically relevant subgroups evaluated, including participants with low inflammation status.

    CONCLUSIONS: In a large cohort of strictly defined metabolically healthy men and women, overweight and obesity were strongly and progressively associated with an increased incidence of NAFLD, suggesting that the obese phenotype per se, regardless of metabolic abnormalities, can increase the risk of NAFLD.

    Matched MeSH terms: Obesity, Metabolically Benign/epidemiology*
  2. Murphy N, Cross AJ, Abubakar M, Jenab M, Aleksandrova K, Boutron-Ruault MC, et al.
    PLoS Med, 2016 Apr;13(4):e1001988.
    PMID: 27046222 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001988
    BACKGROUND: Obesity is positively associated with colorectal cancer. Recently, body size subtypes categorised by the prevalence of hyperinsulinaemia have been defined, and metabolically healthy overweight/obese individuals (without hyperinsulinaemia) have been suggested to be at lower risk of cardiovascular disease than their metabolically unhealthy (hyperinsulinaemic) overweight/obese counterparts. Whether similarly variable relationships exist for metabolically defined body size phenotypes and colorectal cancer risk is unknown.

    METHODS AND FINDINGS: The association of metabolically defined body size phenotypes with colorectal cancer was investigated in a case-control study nested within the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) study. Metabolic health/body size phenotypes were defined according to hyperinsulinaemia status using serum concentrations of C-peptide, a marker of insulin secretion. A total of 737 incident colorectal cancer cases and 737 matched controls were divided into tertiles based on the distribution of C-peptide concentration amongst the control population, and participants were classified as metabolically healthy if below the first tertile of C-peptide and metabolically unhealthy if above the first tertile. These metabolic health definitions were then combined with body mass index (BMI) measurements to create four metabolic health/body size phenotype categories: (1) metabolically healthy/normal weight (BMI < 25 kg/m2), (2) metabolically healthy/overweight (BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2), (3) metabolically unhealthy/normal weight (BMI < 25 kg/m2), and (4) metabolically unhealthy/overweight (BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2). Additionally, in separate models, waist circumference measurements (using the International Diabetes Federation cut-points [≥80 cm for women and ≥94 cm for men]) were used (instead of BMI) to create the four metabolic health/body size phenotype categories. Statistical tests used in the analysis were all two-sided, and a p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. In multivariable-adjusted conditional logistic regression models with BMI used to define adiposity, compared with metabolically healthy/normal weight individuals, we observed a higher colorectal cancer risk among metabolically unhealthy/normal weight (odds ratio [OR] = 1.59, 95% CI 1.10-2.28) and metabolically unhealthy/overweight (OR = 1.40, 95% CI 1.01-1.94) participants, but not among metabolically healthy/overweight individuals (OR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.65-1.42). Among the overweight individuals, lower colorectal cancer risk was observed for metabolically healthy/overweight individuals compared with metabolically unhealthy/overweight individuals (OR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.49-0.96). These associations were generally consistent when waist circumference was used as the measure of adiposity. To our knowledge, there is no universally accepted clinical definition for using C-peptide level as an indication of hyperinsulinaemia. Therefore, a possible limitation of our analysis was that the classification of individuals as being hyperinsulinaemic-based on their C-peptide level-was arbitrary. However, when we used quartiles or the median of C-peptide, instead of tertiles, as the cut-point of hyperinsulinaemia, a similar pattern of associations was observed.

    CONCLUSIONS: These results support the idea that individuals with the metabolically healthy/overweight phenotype (with normal insulin levels) are at lower colorectal cancer risk than those with hyperinsulinaemia. The combination of anthropometric measures with metabolic parameters, such as C-peptide, may be useful for defining strata of the population at greater risk of colorectal cancer.

    Matched MeSH terms: Obesity, Metabolically Benign/epidemiology*
Related Terms
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links