Key result
Visceral-to-subcutaneous fat ratio predicts ~67% higher metabolic syndrome risk but underperforms visceral fat alone.
Why the study?
Visceral fat predicts metabolic syndrome development, but whether the visceral-to-subcutaneous fat area ratio measured by imaging predicts risk as well or better was unknown.
Does visceral to subcutaneous fat area ratio (VSR) predict the development of metabolic syndrome better than visceral fat area (VFA) alone in Japanese Americans?
Cohort (n=329)
Does visceral to subcutaneous fat area ratio (VSR) predict the development of metabolic syndrome better than visceral fat area (VFA) alone in Japanese Americans?
Effect estimate: OR 1.67 (95% CI 1.11-2.51)
VSR is a weaker predictor of metabolic syndrome development compared to visceral fat area alone, suggesting it provides less information and is not recommended for predicting metabolic abnormalities.
VSR should not yet inform metabolic syndrome risk stratification; leaves open whether ratio metrics extend visceral fat area utility beyond this cohort.
AIMS: Visceral fat predicts the development of metabolic syndrome (MetS), but it is not known whether the visceral to subcutaneous fat area ratio (VSR) measured using imaging predicts MetS risk as well or better. Thus, we aimed to examine if VSR predicted future risk of MetS over 10-years. METHODS: We followed 329 participants in the longitudinal Japanese American Community Diabetes Study without MetS at baseline for its development over 10 years. Intra-abdominal (VFA) and subcutaneous abdominal (SFA) fat areas were measured at baseline and 10-years and used to calculate VSR. Logistic regression was used to estimate the odds of incident MetS by baseline and 10-year change in VSR and other adipose depots with and without adjustment for baseline MetS features. Areas under ROC curves were calculated in predicting the development of MetS. RESULTS: 99 participants developed MetS over 10-years. Logistic regression models showed a higher odds of incident MetS with greater VSR and 10-year VSR change (OR = 1.67, 95 % CI 1.11-2.51; OR = 1.46, 95 % CI 1.06-2.01, respectively) adjusting for age, sex, and MetS features at baseline. However, VSR alone performed poorly at discriminating (AUROC 0.5807) compared to VFA (AUROC 0.6970, p < 0.001) or a logistic model incorporating VFA and SFA (AUROC 0.7221, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: VSR and VFA predict 10-year MetS risk in Japanese Americans, confirming the importance of relatively greater fat distribution in the visceral depot in the development of MetS. However, VSR is a weaker predictor of MetS development and provides less information compared to VFA alone, and its further use in predicting metabolic abnormalities is not recommended.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Liao et al. (2024) conducted a cohort in Metabolic syndrome (n=329). Visceral to subcutaneous fat area ratio (VSR) vs. Intra-abdominal fat area (VFA) was evaluated on Development of metabolic syndrome (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.11-2.51). Visceral to subcutaneous fat area ratio predicted 10-year incident metabolic syndrome (OR 1.67; 95% CI 1.11-2.51) but discriminated poorly compared to visceral fat area alone (AUROC 0.58 vs 0.70).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: