Key result
Higher cumulative METS-VF linked to ~70% higher incident CVD risk in adults with dysglycemia.
Why the study?
Evidence regarding the association between cumulative exposure to the metabolic score for visceral fat (METS-VF) and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with abnormal glucose metabolism was limited, and it was unclear whether cumulative METS-VF burden adds risk information in this high-risk subgroup.
Does higher cumulative exposure to the metabolic score for visceral fat (METS-VF) increase the risk of incident cardiovascular disease in adults with dysglycemia?
Cohort (n=1,791)
Yes
Does higher cumulative exposure to the metabolic score for visceral fat (METS-VF) increase the risk of incident cardiovascular disease in adults with dysglycemia?
In middle-aged and older Chinese adults with dysglycemia, higher cumulative exposure to visceral fat (estimated via METS-VF over 4 years) is independently and linearly associated with an increased risk of incident cardiovascular disease.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May inform CVD risk stratification in dysglycemia; leaves open whether METS-VF-guided interventions reduce events.
Previous studies have established that individuals with dysglycemia represent a high-risk population for cardiovascular disease (CVD), in which visceral fat plays a significant role.The metabolic score for visceral fat (METS-VF) has emerged as a novel surrogate indicator for assessing visceral fat. However, evidence regarding the association between cumulative METS-VF exposure and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with abnormal glucose metabolism remains limited, and it remains unclear whether cumulative METS-VF burden can provide additional risk information for cardiovascular outcomes in this high-risk metabolic subgroup. All data were derived from the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS). Cumulative METS-VF served as the exposure variable and was calculated based on METS-VF values obtained from the baseline and follow-up surveys (Wave 1 in 2011–2012 and Wave 3 in 2015). It was defined as the average METS-VF across these two waves multiplied by the 4-year interval between them (2015 − 2011) .The maximal selected rank statistics method was applied to determine the optimal cut-off value of cumulative average METS-VF associated with CVD, which was subsequently used to define high METS-VF exposure. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models were employed to assess the risk of CVD between 2015 and 2020. Among 1,791 participants (mean age 59 ± 8 years; 47% male), 382 (21.3%) incident CVD events occurred. After adjusting for potential covariates, compared with the Q1 group, participants in the highest quartile (Q4) exhibited a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.70 (95% CI, 1.26–2.31) for CVD risk. The optimal cut-off value of cumulative average METS-VF for incident CVD was determined to be ≥ 7.15. The HR for CVD increased progressively with greater burden and high METS-VF at both assessments. Fully adjusted restricted cubic spline (RCS) regression analysis demonstrated a positive and approximately linear relationship between cumulative METS-VF and CVD risk (P for overall < 0.001; P for nonlinear = 0.052) . Among individuals with dysglycemia, higher cumulative METS-VF estimated from two assessments was associated with a higher risk of subsequent CVD after adjustment for measured covariates. These observational findings do not establish causality.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lai et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Dysglycemia (prediabetes or diabetes) (n=1,791). Highest quartile (Q4) of cumulative metabolic score for visceral fat (METS-VF) exposure vs. Lowest quartile (Q1) of cumulative METS-VF exposure was evaluated on Incident cardiovascular disease (self-reported physician diagnosis or treatment for heart disease or stroke) (HR 1.70, 95% CI 1.26-2.31, p=<0.001). Higher cumulative METS-VF exposure (Q4 vs Q1) was associated with a 70% increased risk of incident CVD in adults with dysglycemia.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: