Key result
A 1-SD increment in abdominal muscle area was associated with higher odds of T2DM (OR 1.47; 95% CI 1.18-1.84), but after full adjustment, it was associated with lower fasting glucose.
Why the study?
Body composition as a type 2 diabetes risk factor has largely focused on adiposity, leaving the independent role of skeletal muscle less understood.
Are abdominal muscle area and density associated with measures of glucose regulation and prevalent T2DM in adults?
Cross-Sectional (n=1,891)
Yes
Are abdominal muscle area and density associated with measures of glucose regulation and prevalent T2DM in adults?
Odds Ratio: 1.47 (95% CI 1.18–1.84)
p-value: p=< 0.01
After adjusting for body size and visceral adiposity, increased abdominal muscle area is associated with lower fasting glucose, highlighting the potential metabolic benefits of muscle mass.
Muscle metrics may refine T2DM risk models; leaves open causal role and intervention targets.
AIMS: Previous characterisation of body composition as a type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) risk factor has largely focused on adiposity, but less is known about the independent role of skeletal muscle. We examined associations between abdominal muscle and measures of glucose regulation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis of 1,891 adults enrolled in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. Multivariable regression assessed associations between abdominal muscle area and density (measured by computed tomography) with fasting glucose, homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), and prevalent T2DM (fasting glucose ≥126 mg/dL or medication use). RESULTS: In minimally adjusted models (age, sex, race/ethnicity, income), a 1-SD increment in abdominal muscle area was associated with higher HOMA-IR (β = 0.20 ± SE 0.03; 95%CI: 0.15, 0.25; P < 0.01) and odds of T2DM (OR = 1.47; 95%CI: 1.18, 1.84; P < 0.01), while higher density was associated with lower fasting glucose (-4.49 ± 0.90; -6.26, -2.72; P < 0.01), HOMA-IR (-0.16 ± 0.02; -0.20, -0.12; P < 0.01), and odds of T2DM (0.64; 0.52, 0.77; P < 0.01). All associations persisted after adjustment for comorbidities and health behaviours. However, after controlling for height, BMI, and visceral adiposity, increasing muscle area became negatively associated with fasting glucose (-2.23 ± 1.01; -4.22, -0.24; P = 0.03), while density became positively associated with HOMA-IR (0.09 ± 0.02; 0.05, 0.13; P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Increasing muscle density was associated with salutary markers of glucose regulation, but associations inverted with further adjustment for body size and visceral adiposity. Conversely, after full adjustment, increasing muscle area was associated with lower fasting glucose, suggesting some patients may benefit from muscle-building interventions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gold et al. (2021) conducted a cross-sectional in Type 2 diabetes mellitus risk (n=1,891). Abdominal muscle area and density vs. Lower abdominal muscle area and density was evaluated on Prevalent T2DM (fasting glucose ≥126 mg/dL or medication use) (OR 1.47, 95% CI 1.18-1.84, p=< 0.01). A 1-SD increment in abdominal muscle area was associated with higher odds of T2DM (OR 1.47; 95% CI 1.18-1.84), but after full adjustment, it was associated with lower fasting glucose.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: