Objective. To study the prevalence of metabolic syndrome (MS) and its components among women in an open urban population according to two assessment criteria. Materials and methods. A cross-sectional epidemiological study was conducted on a representative sample of an open urban population aged 25–64 years in Tyumen. The sample consisted of 1000 females, included four decades of life in equal shares, the response rate was 70.3%. To analyze the prevalence of MS and its components, the NCEP ATP III and IDF assessment criteria were used. Results. Among women 25–64 years old in an open urban population, according to the IDF criteria, a high prevalence of abdominal obesity (AO), hyperglycemia, and hypocholesterolemia of high-density lipoproteins (hypo-HDL cholesterolemia) was established; according to various evaluation criteria, the average prevalence of arterial hypertension (AH) and hyperthyroidism was established. According to the IDF criteria, a consistent age trend was determined in the prevalence of hypertension and AO across the entire age range. According to various assessment criteria, the prevalence of hyperglycemia formed an age trend from the fourth to the sixth decades of life, hyperthyroidism – only in older age categories, the prevalence of hypo-HDL cholesterolemia showed its absence in the entire age range. In an open female population aged 25–64 years in Tyumen, a high prevalence of MS was established according to two classifications (NCEP ATP – 24.3%, IDF – 27.3%). In the structure of the MS according to the NCEP ATP and IDF criteria, the combination of AH, AO and hyperglycemia predominates (12.6% and 15.5%). Conclusion. For effective planning of evidence-based preventive programs in the region among women of working age, it is necessary to study the associative relationships of the MS and its components, taking into account behavioral and psychosocial characteristics, as well as the risks of developing cardiovascular and endocrinological pathologies in the studied population.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Akimova et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: