Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-r7xzm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-26T13:54:44.479Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Optimal waist:height ratio cut-off point for cardiometabolic risk factors in Turkish adults

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 September 2009

Ahmet Selçuk Can*
Affiliation:
Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Medicine, Private Gayrettepe Florence Nightingale Hospital, Cemil Aslan Güder Sokak No. 8, Gayrettepe, Beşiktaş, 34349, Istanbul, Turkey
Emine Akal Yıldız
Affiliation:
Division of Community Nutrition, Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
Gülhan Samur
Affiliation:
Division of Community Nutrition, Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
Neslişah Rakıcıoğlu
Affiliation:
Division of Community Nutrition, Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
Gülden Pekcan
Affiliation:
Division of Community Nutrition, Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
Sinan Özbayrakçı
Affiliation:
Department of Cardiology, Vehbi Koç Foundation American Hospital, Nişantaşı, Istanbul, Turkey
K Erhan Palaoğlu
Affiliation:
Department of Biochemistry, Vehbi Koç Foundation American Hospital, Nişantaşı, Istanbul, Turkey
Mithat Gönen
Affiliation:
Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
Thomas P Bersot
Affiliation:
Gladstone Institute of Cardiovascular Disease and the University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA
*
*Corresponding author: Email selcukcan@endokrinoloji.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

To identify the optimal waist:height ratio (WHtR) cut-off point that discriminates cardiometabolic risk factors in Turkish adults.

Design

Cross-sectional study. Hypertension, dyslipidaemia, diabetes, metabolic syndrome score ≥2 (presence of two or more metabolic syndrome components except for waist circumference) and at least one risk factor (diabetes, hypertension or dyslipidaemia) were categorical outcome variables. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves were prepared by plotting 1 − specificity on the x-axis and sensitivity on the y-axis. The WHtR value that had the highest Youden index was selected as the optimal cut-off point for each cardiometabolic risk factor (Youden index = sensitivity + specificity − 1).

Setting

Turkey, 2003.

Subjects

Adults (1121 women and 571 men) aged 18 years and over were examined.

Results

Analysis of ROC coordinate tables showed that the optimal cut-off value ranged between 0·55 and 0·60 and was almost equal between men and women. The sensitivities of the identified cut-offs were between 0·63 and 0·81, the specificities were between 0·42 and 0·71 and the accuracies were between 0·65 and 0·73, for men and women. The cut-off point of 0·59 was the most frequently identified value for discrimination of the studied cardiometabolic risk factors. Subjects classified as having WHtR ≥ 0·59 had significantly higher age and sociodemographic multivariable-adjusted odds ratios for cardiometabolic risk factors than subjects with WHtR < 0·59, except for diabetes in men.

Conclusions

We show that the optimal WHtR cut-off point to discriminate cardiometabolic risk factors is 0·59 in Turkish adults.

Type
Research Paper
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2009

From a public health perspective, identification of the best anthropometric discriminator of cardiometabolic risk factors would provide a simple, cheap and useful tool. Measurement of waist circumference (WC) is recommended by the US National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP III) to diagnose the metabolic syndrome and to assess central obesity(1). The metabolic syndrome is important, because it is associated with a threefold increase in CVD risk, a fivefold increased risk of diabetes mellitus (DM) and a twofold increase in all-cause mortality(Reference Malik, Wong, Franklin, Kamath, L’Italien, Pio and Williams2Reference Gami, Witt, Howard, Erwin, Gami, Somers and Montori5). Based on data from a large prospective study with 10 years of follow-up of 359 387 subjects, Pischon et al. recommended using WC or waist:hip ratio (WHpR) in addition to BMI in assessing future risk of mortality(Reference Pischon, Boeing and Hoffmann6). Global acceptance of WC as the best anthropometric index would imply that a 186 cm tall man with a WC of 117 cm has the same cardiometabolic risk as a 168 cm tall man with a WC of 117 cm, considering all classical cardiovascular risk factors like age, smoking habit, blood pressure and lipids are equal. In contrast, it has been shown that height has an inverse association with CVD and total mortality(Reference Schooling, Thomas, Leung, Ho, Janus and Lam7Reference Engeland, Bjorge, Selmer and Tverdal9). In a recent meta-analysis, Lee and co-workers found that central obesity markers, especially waist:height ratio (WHtR), are superior to BMI for predicting cardiovascular risk factors (hypertension, type 2 DM and/or dyslipidaemia) in both men and women(Reference Lee, Huxley, Wildman and Woodward10). Other investigators have also proposed the use of WHtR to predict CVD risk and metabolic syndrome(Reference Aekplakorn, Kosulwat and Suriyawongpaisal11Reference Fuchs, Gus, Moreira, Moraes, Wiehe, Pereira and Fuchs18). In a previous issue of this journal, we reported that WHtR is the best anthropometric index in Turkish adults(Reference Can, Bersot and Gonen19). To enable this information to be practical and helpful, we now aim to identify the optimal WHtR cut-off point for discrimination of cardiometabolic risk factors in Turkish men and women.

Methods

The current report is a continuation of our previous publication(Reference Can, Bersot and Gonen19). Information about subject characteristics, informed consent, compliance with the Helsinki Declaration, laboratory methods, definitions of cardiovascular risk factors and limitations of the study can be found in our earlier paper(Reference Can, Bersot and Gonen19). The Central Ethics Committee of the Turkish Ministry of Health approved the study and granted permission for its conduct. There were 571 men and 1121 women in this cross-sectional epidemiological survey that was performed in 2003. Subjects who were more than 17 years old were recruited from neighbourhood groups and with local advertisements in Istanbul, an urban area and in villages of Kayseri, a rural area. The survey was not nationally representative. Information on education, income, past medical history, smoking, alcohol consumption and physical activity was collected through face-to-face physician interview. Monthly family income was categorized as <125€, 125–250€, 250–500€ and >500€. Subjects were classified as low education level if they were illiterate, literate only or had ≤5 years of elementary school education. Subjects who had >5 years of education were classified as high education level. Physical activity was categorized as >4 h, 1–4 h, <1 h and no physical activity per week and was based on self-report. Subjects who consumed at least one alcoholic beverage per month were assigned into the drinker category. Smoking was categorized as ex-, never and current smoker status.

Height was measured to within 0·5 cm with a measuring stick, weight to within 0·1 kg with a digital scale, WC and hip circumference (HC) to the nearest 0·5 cm with a non-elastic measuring tape. WC was measured at the midpoint between the last rib and the superior iliac crest during mild expiration. HC was measured at the level of the greater trochanter. All measurements were taken when subjects wore light clothing and after shoes were taken off. BMI was calculated as weight in kilograms divided by the square of height in metres (kg/m2). Blood pressure (BP) was measured on the right arm with an automated sphygmomanometer (Omron automatic blood pressure monitor with IntelliSense®, Bannockburn, IL, USA) after 15 min of rest with the subject in the sitting position. A 10 h fasting blood sample was obtained from the subjects. Total cholesterol (TC), HDL cholesterol (HDL-C), LDL cholesterol (LDL-C), TAG, glucose and insulin levels were measured with standard commercial methods(Reference Can, Bersot and Gonen19). Insulin resistance was estimated with the homeostasis model assessment insulin resistance index (HOMA-IR), calculated from the equation(Reference Matthews, Hosker, Rudenski, Naylor, Treacher and Turner20): HOMA-IR = [fasting serum insulin (μU/ml) × fasting plasma glucose (mmol/l)]/22·5.

Definitions of cardiometabolic risk factors

Hypertension was defined as systolic BP ≥ 140 mmHg, diastolic BP ≥ 90 mmHg or concurrent use of antihypertensive medications(Reference Chobanian, Bakris and Black21). In accordance with the NCEP ATP III criteria, dyslipidaemia was defined if any of the following was present: serum TC ≥ 240 mg/dl, HDL-C < 40 mg/dl, LDL-C ≥ 160 mg/dl or serum TAG ≥ 200 mg/dl(1). DM was diagnosed either from concurrent use of antidiabetic medications or if fasting plasma glucose was ≥126 mg/dl(22). The cut-off points for abnormal metabolic syndrome components are illustrated in Table 1. Metabolic syndrome was diagnosed if three or more abnormal modified NCEP ATP III criteria were present(1, Reference Grundy, Cleeman and Daniels23). If a subject had two or more abnormal metabolic syndrome components, except for the WC component, he or she was categorized into the metabolic syndrome score ≥2 (MSS ≥ 2) group. MSS ≥ 2 was a state variable in receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis and a dependent variable in logistic regression analysis. Inclusion of WC in the MSS ≥ 2 category would cause multicollinearity between the independent variable (WHtR) and the dependent variable (metabolic syndrome); therefore it was appropriate to exclude WC from the definition of the metabolic syndrome. If subjects had hypertension or dyslipidaemia or diabetes, they were categorized into at least one risk factor (ALORF) positive status. ALORF and MSS ≥ 2 were categorical variables with a binary (yes/no) outcome like hypertension, diabetes and dyslipidaemia, the other dependent variables.

Table 1 Cut-off points for abnormal metabolic syndrome components

WC, waist circumference; HDL-C, HDL cholesterol; SBP, systolic blood pressure; DBP, diastolic blood pressure.

Metabolic syndrome is diagnosed if an individual has three or more abnormal components according to modified US National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III criteria(1, Reference Grundy, Cleeman and Daniels23).

†If a subject is on drug therapy for the component, he or she is assigned to an abnormal component status.

Statistical methods

The SPSS statistical software package version 15·0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) was used for statistical analyses. Continuous variables with a normal distribution are presented as means and standard deviations. Continuous variables with a positively skewed distribution are presented as median, 25th and 75th percentiles. Categorical variables are presented as percentage and 95 % confidence interval. ROC curves were prepared by plotting 1 − specificity on the x-axis and sensitivity on the y-axis. WHtR was rounded to two decimals in ROC analyses. The difference between area under the curve (AUC) of WHtR for each cardiometabolic risk factor and the value of 0·50, the area under the line of no discrimination, was compared(Reference DeLong, DeLong and Clarke-Pearson24). The optimal WHtR cut-off was found by calculating the Youden index, J (Reference Youden25): J = sensitivity + specificity − 1. The WHtR value that had the highest J was selected as the best cut-off point for each cardiometabolic risk factor. We identified the cut-offs using the Youden index for the reasons delineated by Perkins and Schisterman(Reference Perkins and Schisterman26). Cut-offs estimated from the alternative method, closest to the coordinate of sensitivity = 1 and 1 − specificity = 1 in ROC curve analysis (closest to the ideal marker), were within −0·04 to +0·05 of the cut-offs estimated by J. Cut-offs identified by J and closest to the ideal marker were the same 50 % of the time when ROC curves were constructed separately for each gender. Cut-offs identified by J and closest to the ideal marker were the same 60 % of the time when ROC curves were constructed separately for each gender and age tertile. As per Perkins and Schisterman(Reference Perkins and Schisterman26) the point on the ROC curve closest to the ideal marker attempts to find the cut-off point that discriminates the presence of the condition from the absence of the condition perfectly, but involves a quadratic term with unknown clinical meaning. J is the maximum vertical distance on the curve from the line of no discrimination and reflects the discriminatory capability furthest from chance(Reference Perkins and Schisterman26). J attempts to maximize correct classification and minimize incorrect classification(Reference Perkins and Schisterman26). The most frequently occurring cut-off was arbitrarily selected as optimal in order to conclude a single cut-off instead of multiple optimal cut-off points for various cardiometabolic risk factors.

The sensitivities and specificities were obtained from the coordinate tables of ROC curves. The following formulas were used in calculating the positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy of the identified cut-offs(Reference Pepe27):

and

Subjects were classified as under v. at or above the optimal WHtR cut-off point, creating a categorical variable with a binary outcome. A multivariable logistic regression model was used to test the predictive ability of the cut-off identified in discriminatory ROC curve analysis. The model included age, rural v. urban residence, smoking, alcohol consumption, physical activity, income, education level and WHtR category as independent variables and hypertension, dyslipidaemia, diabetes, MSS ≥ 2 and ALORF as dependent variables. Adjusted odds ratios of cardiometabolic risk factors for being at or above the optimal WHtR cut-off v. being below the optimal WHtR cut-off were calculated.

Results

Clinical characteristics of the study sample are presented in Tables 2 and 3. The age range of women was between 18 and 90 years. The age range of men was between 19 and 80 years. ROC curves were constructed to measure the degree of discrimination of WHtR for hypertension, dyslipidaemia, diabetes, MSS ≥ 2 and ALORF. The AUC of WHtR for cardiometabolic risk factors are presented in Table 4 and are significantly different from the AUC value of 0·500 (P < 0·01), the area under the line of no discrimination. In women, the relationship between WHtR and dyslipidemia seems to be weaker. Cut-off points with the highest Youden index are presented in Table 5. The sensitivities of the identified cut-off points for detecting cardiometabolic risk factors are between 0·72 and 0·81 in women and between 0·63 and 0·70 in men. The specificities of the identified cut-off points range between 0·42 and 0·71 in women and between 0·48 and 0·67 in men. The accuracies of the cut-offs to discriminate diabetes and dyslipidaemia are lower. The accuracies of the cut-offs for hypertension, MSS ≥ 2 and ALORF range between 0·65 and 0·73, in men and women. Table 5 shows that the best cut-off point is between 0·56 and 0·60. Cut-off values for cardiometabolic risk factors are almost equal between men and women. The cut-off of 0·59 is the most frequently identified value in Table 5.

Table 2 Clinical characteristics of the study sample: Turkish men and women aged 18 years and over, 2003

WC, waist circumference; WHpR, waist:hip ratio; WHtR, waist:height ratio; SBP, systolic blood pressure; DBP, diastolic blood pressure; HOMA-IR, homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance; TC, total cholesterol; HDL-C, HDL cholesterol; LDL-C, LDL cholesterol.

Summarized from Table 1 of our previous publicationReference Can, Bersot and Gonen(19).

Results are presented as arithmetic mean and standard deviation, or as †median and 25th, 75th percentile for continuous variables with a positively skewed distribution.

Table 3 The frequency of cardiometabolic risk factors, diabetes and CHD in the study sample: Turkish men and women aged 18 years and over, 2003

Metabolic syndrome, subjects with three or more abnormal modified US National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP)-defined metabolic syndrome components(1, Reference Grundy, Cleeman and Daniels23); MSS ≥ 2, subjects with two or more abnormal modified NCEP-defined metabolic syndrome components excluding waist circumference; ALORF, at least one risk factor (hypertension, diabetes or dyslipidaemia) is present; CHD, self-reported CHD history.

Summarized from Table 1 of our previous publicationReference Can, Bersot and Gonen(19).

Table 4 Area under the receiver-operating characteristic curves (AUC) and 95 % confidence intervals of waist:height ratio for cardiometabolic risk factors: Turkish men and women aged 18 years and over, 2003

MSS ≥ 2, subjects with two or more abnormal modified US National Cholesterol Education Program-defined metabolic syndrome components excluding waist circumference(1, Reference Grundy, Cleeman and Daniels23); ALORF, at least one risk factor (hypertension, dyslipidaemia or diabetes) is present.

Summarized from our previous publicationReference Can, Bersot and Gonen(19).

All areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curves are significantly different from 0·500, the value that indicates the area under the line of no discrimination (P < 0·05).

Table 5 Optimal waist:height ratio cut-offs for cardiometabolic risk factors and the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy of the cut-offs: Turkish men and women aged 18 years and over, 2003

MSS ≥ 2, subjects with two or more abnormal modified US National Cholesterol Education Program-defined metabolic syndrome components excluding waist circumference(1, Reference Grundy, Cleeman and Daniels23); ALORF, at least one risk factor (hypertension, dyslipidaemia or diabetes) is present.

†Optimal cut-off is identified as the value that has the highest Youden index, J: J = sensitivity + specificity − 1.

In the next step, subjects were grouped according to age tertiles and the same analyses were repeated. Table 6 shows that the AUC for diabetes in women ≤38 years old, the AUC for dyslipidaemia in women ≥51 years old and the AUC for diabetes in men are not different from the chance line (AUC = 0·500), meaning that WHtR has no discriminatory capability for dyslipidaemia and diabetes in these groups. Table 7 shows optimal WHtR cut-off points for cardiometabolic risk factors by gender and age tertile. Optimal WHtR cut-offs range between 0·50 and 0·67. The sensitivities of the identified optimal cut-offs range between 0·40 and 0·91, specificities between 0·31 and 0·89 and accuracies between 0·46 and 0·78. The optimal WHtR cut-off seems to increase as age advances. As in Table 5, 0·59 is also the most frequent cut-off value in Table 7. When the prevalence of the studied cardiometabolic risk factor is low, as in diabetes, the PPV of the cut-off is low and the NPV is high. When the prevalence is high, as in ALORF, the PPV is high and the NPV is low (Table 7). If diabetes and ALORF are omitted from Table 7, PPV ranges between 0·32 and 0·88 and NPV ranges between 0·35 and 0·93. The scientific conclusion from Tables 5 and 7 is to employ different optimal cut-off values for different cardiometabolic risk factors that vary by age tertile and gender. However, as 0·59 is the most frequent number in Tables 5 and 7, it was pragmatically selected as the optimal cut-off point for discrimination of cardiometabolic risk factors.

Table 6 Area under the receiver-operating characteristic curves (AUC) and 95 % confidence intervals of waist:height ratio for cardiometabolic risk factors by age tertile and gender: Turkish men and women aged 18 years and over, 2003

MSS ≥ 2, subjects with two or more abnormal modified US National Cholesterol Education Program-defined metabolic syndrome components excluding waist circumference(1, Reference Grundy, Cleeman and Daniels23); ALORF, at least one risk factor (hypertension, dyslipidaemia or diabetes) is present.

*P > 0·05 compared with 0·500; unmarked areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curves are significantly different from 0·500, the value that indicates the area under the line of no discrimination (P < 0·05).

Table 7 The prevalence of cardiometabolic risk factors, optimal waist:height ratio (WHtR) cut-offs and the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy of the cut-offs by age tertile and gender: Turkish men and women aged 18 years and over, 2003

MSS ≥ 2, subjects with two or more abnormal modified US National Cholesterol Education Program-defined metabolic syndrome components excluding waist circumference(1, Reference Grundy, Cleeman and Daniels23); ALORF, at least one risk factor (hypertension, dyslipidaemia or diabetes) is present; NA, not applicable because the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve of WHtR is not significantly different from 0·500, the area under the line of no discrimination (see Table 6).

†Optimal cut-off is identified as the value that has the highest Youden index, J: J = sensitivity + specificity − 1.

The AUC of WHtR for self-reported history of CHD was 0·606 (95 % CI 0·540, 0·672) in women. WHtR was not a significant discriminator of CHD in men. The optimal cut-off value of WHtR for CHD was 0·62 in women. When ROC curves for CHD were constructed by age tertile, the AUC was significant only in women in the age group of ≥51 years. The AUC of WHtR for CHD in women in the age group ≥51 years was 0·609 (95 % CI 0·530, 0·689). The prevalence of CHD was 13 % and the optimal cut-off value of WHtR for CHD was 0·63 in women who were ≥51 years of age.

Forty-seven per cent of men (n 266) and 51 % of women (n 575) had WHtR ≥ 0·59. The age- and sociodemographic variable-controlled odds ratios of subjects with WHtR ≥ 0·59 for hypertension, dyslipidaemia, diabetes, MSS ≥ 2 and ALORF were calculated by logistic regression v. those with WHtR < 0·59 (Table 8). The status of having WHtR ≥ 0·59 significantly increased the risk of having cardiometabolic risk factors, except for diabetes in men. Age, rural v. urban residence, smoking and alcohol consumption were also significant contributors to the studied cardiometabolic risk factors.

Table 8 Odds ratios and 95 % confidence intervals for cardiometabolic risk factors in subjects classified as having waist:height ratio (WHtR) ≥ 0·59Footnote v. subjects with WHtR < 0·59 (where OR = 1·00) after controlling for age, rural v. urban residence, smoking, alcohol consumption, physical activity, income and education level: Turkish men and women aged 18 years and over, 2003

MSS ≥ 2, subjects with two or more abnormal modified US National Cholesterol Education Program-defined metabolic syndrome components excluding waist circumference(1, Reference Grundy, Cleeman and Daniels23); ALORF, at least one risk factor (hypertension, dyslipidaemia or diabetes) is present.

Fifty-one per cent of women and 47 % of men had WHtR ≥ 0·59.

Discussion

Ashwell and Hsieh suggested global use of WHtR as a rapid screening tool for cardiometabolic risk factors with this simple public health message(Reference Ashwell and Hsieh28): ‘Keep your waist circumference to less than half your height’. In the following, the first sentence is from Ashwell and Hsieh’s arguments to defend the superiority of WHtR over other anthropometric indices and the second sentence reflects our opinion based on our data or literature review.

  1. 1. WHtR is more sensitive than BMI as an early warning of health risks. We confirmed previously that WHtR is the best anthropometric index for discriminating cardiometabolic risk factors in Turkish adults(Reference Can, Bersot and Gonen19).

  2. 2. WHtR is cheaper and easier to measure and calculate than BMI. A measuring tape is cheaper than a scale and there is a need to square the height as when calculating BMI, therefore this statement is true.

  3. 3. A cut-off point of WHtR = 0·50 indicates increased risk for men and women. We agree with the second part of this statement; based on our data, cut-off values of WHtR are close in men and women.

  4. 4. A cut-off point of WHtR = 0·50 indicates increased risk for people in different ethnic groups. We disagree; our data show that the cut-off value of 0·59 is optimal in Turkish men and women.

Although WHtR seems the best anthropometric index for discrimination of cardiometabolic risk factors, there is a disparity in the optimal cut-off points between ethnic groups. In a recent meta-analysis, Lee and co-workers discussed the utility of universal v. ethnic-specific WHtR cut-off points and found that the optimal WHtR cut-off ranged from 0·46 to 0·62 in studies from different countries(Reference Lee, Huxley, Wildman and Woodward10). Our findings are in favour of ethnic-specific cut-offs. Although a WHtR cut-off of ≥0·50 is the best for Eastern Asia(Reference Hsieh and Muto13, Reference Aekplakorn, Pakpeankitwatana, Lee, Woodward, Barzi, Yamwong, Unkurapinun and Sritara29Reference Wu, Chen, Zheng, Liao and Zhou31), a cross-sectional study reported that the optimal WHtR cut-off value is between 0·54 and 0·59 in Germany(Reference Schneider, Glaesmer, Klotsche, Bohler, Lehnert, Zeiher, Marz, Pittrow, Stalla and Wittchen14). From a cross-sectional study in Iran, Mirmiran and co-workers reported that the optimal WHtR cut-off should be between 0·47 and 0·56 for men, and between 0·50 and 0·63 for women(Reference Mirmiran, Esmaillzadeh and Azizi32). From a cross-sectional study in Iraq, Mansour and Al-Jazairi reported a WHtR cut-off value of 0·55 for men and 0·59 for women for discrimination of hypertension(Reference Mansour and Al-Jazairi33). Except for the studies of Aekplakorn et al.(Reference Aekplakorn, Pakpeankitwatana, Lee, Woodward, Barzi, Yamwong, Unkurapinun and Sritara29), Fuchs et al.(Reference Fuchs, Gus, Moreira, Moraes, Wiehe, Pereira and Fuchs18), Hadaegh et al.(Reference Hadaegh, Zabetian, Harati and Azizi34) and Gelber et al.(Reference Gelber, Gaziano, Orav, Manson, Buring and Kurth35), all studies that suggest the superiority of WHtR are cross-sectional(Reference Aekplakorn, Kosulwat and Suriyawongpaisal11Reference Sayeed, Mahtab, Latif, Khanam, Ahsan, Banu and Azad Khan17, Reference Shimajiri, Imagawa, Kokawa, Konami, Hara, Kyoku, Sone, Ishigame and Kikuoka30Reference Mansour and Al-Jazairi33). Cross-sectional design and risk factors as dependent variables are major limitations of those studies, as is the case with our study. A prospective cohort study with 17 years of follow-up found WHtR as the best predictor of future CHD in Thai men who were 35 to 59 years of age at baseline(Reference Aekplakorn, Pakpeankitwatana, Lee, Woodward, Barzi, Yamwong, Unkurapinun and Sritara29). A prospective study from Iraq reported the WHtR cut-off to predict incident diabetes as 0·52 for males and 0·57 for females(Reference Mansour and Al-Jazairi36). Of note, WHpR, not WHtR showed the strongest association with incident diabetes in that study. More prospective studies with clinical end points are needed to establish the superiority of WHtR as an anthropometric index and the validity of our and others’ suggested cut-off points.

We have previously shown that WC, WHpR, BMI and HC are worse than WHtR in discriminating cardiometabolic risk factors(Reference Can, Bersot and Gonen19). The vast majority of AUC in Tables 4 and 6 are significantly different from the AUC value of 0·50, indicating that using anthropometric indices is better than chance to guess the presence or absence of cardiometabolic risk factors in a patient. The AUC in Tables 4 and 6 are not very close to the AUC value of 1·00, meaning that anthropometric indices are not perfect discriminators of cardiometabolic risk factors and nevertheless cannot replace the clinical and laboratory evaluation of cardiometabolic risk factors.

An easy-to-remember cut-off value is an advantage for both health-care professionals and lay people. In our opinion, there is no question that individuals should be able to achieve self-diagnosis by using the globally – or at least nationally – applicable anthropometric index and its cut-off point. A WHtR cut-off point of ≥0·50 as action level one, and ≥0·60 as action level two, have been suggested(Reference Lee, Huxley, Wildman and Woodward10). Eighty-eight per cent of our sample had WHtR ≥ 0·50, 50 % had WHtR ≥ 0·59 and 45 % had WHtR ≥ 0·60. For both men and women, the sensitivities of the WHtR ≥ 0·50 cut-off for cardiometabolic risk factors were over 0·94, but the specificities ranged between 0·07 and 0·29 and the accuracies between 0·13 and 0·79 (data not shown). As the specificities, PPV and accuracies of the WHtR ≥ 0·50 cut-off for cardiometabolic risk factors are worse than those of the WHtR ≥ 0·59 cut-off, we think that categorizing cut-off values as action level one and two for action and alarm has the potential for error and miscommunication. A single WHtR cut-off value could be more easily adopted and remembered by health-care professionals, media and the public.

Conclusions

We have previously identified WHtR as the best anthropometric index to screen for cardiometabolic risk factors in Turkish adults(Reference Can, Bersot and Gonen19). In the current report, we show that the optimal WHtR cut-off point to predict cardiometabolic risk factors is 0·59, for both Turkish men and women.

Acknowledgements

Sources of funding: All authors were funded by their institutions. The cost of the laboratory work was supported by the Gladstone Institute of Cardiovascular Disease. Conflict of interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. Authors’ contributions: A.S.C. contributed to data acquisition, data evaluation and statistical analysis, and wrote the manuscript. E.A.Y., G.S., N.R., G.P., S.Ö. and T.B.P. contributed to data acquisition. K.E.P. measured laboratory variables. M.G. contributed to statistical analysis. G.P. and T.B.P. obtained approval from the Central Ethics Committee of Turkish Ministry of Health. Acknowledgements: We thank to Miss Sibel Tanır and Mr Guy Pepin from the Istanbul Office of Gladstone Institute of Cardiovascular Disease for helping in subject recruitment, blood drawing and data collection.

References

1.Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (2001) Executive Summary of The Third Report of The National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, And Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol In Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III). JAMA 285, 24862497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Malik, S, Wong, ND, Franklin, SS, Kamath, TV, L’Italien, GJ, Pio, JR & Williams, GR (2004) Impact of the metabolic syndrome on mortality from coronary heart disease, cardiovascular disease, and all causes in United States adults. Circulation 110, 12451250.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Guize, L, Thomas, F, Pannier, B, Bean, K, Jego, B & Benetos, A (2007) All-cause mortality associated with specific combinations of the metabolic syndrome according to recent definitions. Diabetes Care 30, 23812387.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Lorenzo, C, Williams, K, Hunt, KJ & Haffner, SM (2007) The National Cholesterol Education Program – Adult Treatment Panel III, International Diabetes Federation, and World Health Organization definitions of the metabolic syndrome as predictors of incident cardiovascular disease and diabetes. Diabetes Care 30, 813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Gami, AS, Witt, BJ, Howard, DE, Erwin, PJ, Gami, LA, Somers, VK & Montori, VM (2007) Metabolic syndrome and risk of incident cardiovascular events and death: a systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. J Am Coll Cardiol 49, 403414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Pischon, T, Boeing, H, Hoffmann, K et al. (2008) General and abdominal adiposity and risk of death in Europe. N Engl J Med 359, 21052120.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Schooling, CM, Thomas, GN, Leung, GM, Ho, SY, Janus, ED & Lam, TH (2007) Is height associated with cardiovascular risk in Chinese adults? Epidemiology 18, 274278.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.McCarron, P, Okasha, M, McEwen, J & Smith, GD (2002) Height in young adulthood and risk of death from cardiorespiratory disease: a prospective study of male former students of Glasgow University, Scotland. Am J Epidemiol 155, 683687.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Engeland, A, Bjorge, T, Selmer, RM & Tverdal, A (2003) Height and body mass index in relation to total mortality. Epidemiology 14, 293299.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Lee, CM, Huxley, RR, Wildman, RP & Woodward, M (2008) Indices of abdominal obesity are better discriminators of cardiovascular risk factors than BMI: a meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 61, 646653.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Aekplakorn, W, Kosulwat, V & Suriyawongpaisal, P (2006) Obesity indices and cardiovascular risk factors in Thai adults. Int J Obes (Lond) 30, 17821790.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Hsieh, SD & Muto, T (2005) The superiority of waist-to-height ratio as an anthropometric index to evaluate clustering of coronary risk factors among non-obese men and women. Prev Med 40, 216220.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Hsieh, SD & Muto, T (2006) Metabolic syndrome in Japanese men and women with special reference to the anthropometric criteria for the assessment of obesity: proposal to use the waist-to-height ratio. Prev Med 42, 135139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Schneider, HJ, Glaesmer, H, Klotsche, J, Bohler, S, Lehnert, H, Zeiher, AM, Marz, W, Pittrow, D, Stalla, GK & Wittchen, HU (2007) Accuracy of anthropometric indicators of obesity to predict cardiovascular risk. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 92, 589594.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Ashwell, M & Gibson, S (2009) Waist to height ratio is a simple and effective obesity screening tool for cardiovascular risk factors: analysis of data from the British National Diet and Nutrition Survey of adults aged 19–64 years. Obesity Facts 2, 97103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Lin, WY, Lee, LT, Chen, CY, Lo, H, Hsia, HH, Liu, IL, Lin, RS, Shau, WY & Huang, KC (2002) Optimal cut-off values for obesity: using simple anthropometric indices to predict cardiovascular risk factors in Taiwan. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 26, 12321238.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Sayeed, MA, Mahtab, H, Latif, ZA, Khanam, PA, Ahsan, KA, Banu, A & Azad Khan, AK (2003) Waist-to-height ratio is a better obesity index than body mass index and waist-to-hip ratio for predicting diabetes, hypertension and lipidemia. Bangladesh Med Res Counc Bull 29, 110.Google ScholarPubMed
18.Fuchs, FD, Gus, M, Moreira, LB, Moraes, RS, Wiehe, M, Pereira, GM & Fuchs, SC (2005) Anthropometric indices and the incidence of hypertension: a comparative analysis. Obes Res 13, 15151517.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Can, AS, Bersot, TP & Gonen, M (2009) Anthropometric indices and their relationship with cardiometabolic risk factors in a sample of Turkish adults. Public Health Nutr 12, 538546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Matthews, DR, Hosker, JP, Rudenski, AS, Naylor, BA, Treacher, DF & Turner, RC (1985) Homeostasis model assessment: insulin resistance and β-cell function from fasting plasma glucose and insulin concentrations in man. Diabetologia 28, 412419.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Chobanian, AV, Bakris, GL, Black, HR et al. (2003) The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure: the JNC 7 report. JAMA 289, 25602572.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Expert Committee on the Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus (2003) Report of the expert committee on the diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care 26, Suppl. 1, S5S20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.Grundy, SM, Cleeman, JI, Daniels, SR et al. (2005) Diagnosis and management of the metabolic syndrome: an American Heart Association/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Scientific Statement. Circulation 112, 27352752.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24.DeLong, ER, DeLong, DM & Clarke-Pearson, DL (1988) Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 44, 837845.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25.Youden, WJ (1950) Index for rating diagnostic tests. Cancer 3, 3235.3.0.CO;2-3>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26.Perkins, NJ & Schisterman, EF (2006) The inconsistency of ‘optimal’ cutpoints obtained using two criteria based on the receiver operating characteristic curve. Am J Epidemiol 163, 670675.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27.Pepe, M (2003) The Statistical Evaluation of Medical Tests for Classification and Prediction. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28.Ashwell, M & Hsieh, SD (2005) Six reasons why the waist-to-height ratio is a rapid and effective global indicator for health risks of obesity and how its use could simplify the international public health message on obesity. Int J Food Sci Nutr 56, 303307.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29.Aekplakorn, W, Pakpeankitwatana, V, Lee, CM, Woodward, M, Barzi, F, Yamwong, S, Unkurapinun, N & Sritara, P (2007) Abdominal obesity and coronary heart disease in Thai men. Obesity (Silver Spring) 15, 10361042.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30.Shimajiri, T, Imagawa, M, Kokawa, M, Konami, T, Hara, H, Kyoku, I, Sone, E, Ishigame, M & Kikuoka, H (2008) Revised optimal cut-off point of waist circumference for the diagnosis of metabolic syndrome in Japanese women and the influence of height. J Atheroscler Thromb 15, 9499.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31.Wu, HY, Chen, LL, Zheng, J, Liao, YF & Zhou, M (2007) Simple anthropometric indices in relation to cardiovascular risk factors in Chinese type 2 diabetic patients. Chin J Physiol 50, 135142.Google ScholarPubMed
32.Mirmiran, P, Esmaillzadeh, A & Azizi, F (2004) Detection of cardiovascular risk factors by anthropometric measures in Tehranian adults: receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Eur J Clin Nutr 58, 11101118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33.Mansour, AA & Al-Jazairi, MI (2007) Cut-off values for anthropometric variables that confer increased risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension in Iraq. Arch Med Res 38, 253258.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
34.Hadaegh, F, Zabetian, A, Harati, H & Azizi, F (2006) Waist/height ratio as a better predictor of type 2 diabetes compared to body mass index in Tehranian adult men – a 3·6-year prospective study. Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes 114, 310315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35.Gelber, RP, Gaziano, JM, Orav, EJ, Manson, JE, Buring, JE & Kurth, T (2008) Measures of obesity and cardiovascular risk among men and women. J Am Coll Cardiol 52, 605615.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
36.Mansour, AA & Al-Jazairi, MI (2007) Predictors of incident diabetes mellitus in Basrah, Iraq. Ann Nutr Metab 51, 277280.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Table 1 Cut-off points for abnormal metabolic syndrome components

Figure 1

Table 2 Clinical characteristics of the study sample: Turkish men and women aged 18 years and over, 2003

Figure 2

Table 3 The frequency of cardiometabolic risk factors, diabetes and CHD in the study sample: Turkish men and women aged 18 years and over, 2003

Figure 3

Table 4 Area under the receiver-operating characteristic curves (AUC) and 95 % confidence intervals of waist:height ratio for cardiometabolic risk factors: Turkish men and women aged 18 years and over, 2003

Figure 4

Table 5 Optimal waist:height ratio cut-offs for cardiometabolic risk factors and the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy of the cut-offs: Turkish men and women aged 18 years and over, 2003

Figure 5

Table 6 Area under the receiver-operating characteristic curves (AUC) and 95 % confidence intervals of waist:height ratio for cardiometabolic risk factors by age tertile and gender: Turkish men and women aged 18 years and over, 2003

Figure 6

Table 7 The prevalence of cardiometabolic risk factors, optimal waist:height ratio (WHtR) cut-offs and the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy of the cut-offs by age tertile and gender: Turkish men and women aged 18 years and over, 2003

Figure 7

Table 8 Odds ratios and 95 % confidence intervals for cardiometabolic risk factors in subjects classified as having waist:height ratio (WHtR) ≥ 0·59†v. subjects with WHtR < 0·59 (where OR = 1·00) after controlling for age, rural v. urban residence, smoking, alcohol consumption, physical activity, income and education level: Turkish men and women aged 18 years and over, 2003