Why the study?
Evidence showed opposing effects of waist and hip circumferences for coronary heart disease, prompting investigation into the causality and shape of these associations.
How do different measures of body fat distribution (BMI, waist circumference, hip circumference) associate with incident coronary heart disease risk in adults?
How do different measures of body fat distribution (BMI, waist circumference, hip circumference) associate with incident coronary heart disease risk in adults?
Different measures of body fat distribution independently influence CHD risk, with waist circumference increasing risk and hip circumference showing an inverse association when adjusted for overall adiposity.
Adjusted hip circumference inversely associates with CHD independent of BMI/waist; extends adiposity observations but remains hypothesis-generating in observational data.
BACKGROUND: Evidence on body fat distribution shows opposing effects of waist circumference (WC) and hip circumference (HC) for coronary heart disease (CHD). We aimed to investigate the causality and the shape of such associations. METHODS: UK Biobank is a prospective cohort study of 0.5 million adults aged 40-69 years recruited between 2006 and 2010. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for the associations of measured and genetically predicted body mass index (BMI), WC, HC and waist-to-hip ratio with incident CHD were obtained from Cox models. Mendelian randomization (MR) was used to assess causality. The analysis included 456 495 participants (26 225 first-ever CHD events) without prior CHD. RESULTS: All measures of adiposity demonstrated strong, positive and approximately log-linear associations with CHD risk over a median follow-up of 12.7 years. For HC, however, the association became inverse given the BMI and WC (HR per usual SD 0.95, 95% CI 0.93-0.97). Associations for BMI and WC remained independently positive after adjustment for other adiposity measures and were similar (1.14, 1.13-1.16 and 1.18, 1.15-1.20, respectively), with WC displaying stronger associations among women. Blood pressure, plasma lipids and dysglycaemia accounted for much of the observed excess risk. MR results were generally consistent with the observational, implying causality. CONCLUSIONS: Body fat distribution measures displayed similar associations with CHD risk as BMI except for HC, which was inversely associated with CHD risk (given WC and BMI). These findings suggest that different measures of body fat distribution likely influence CHD risk through both overlapping and independent mechanisms.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Trichia et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: