Endocrine Abstracts

Background and Objectives: Different definitions for the metabolic syndrome (MS) exist.Established criteria for diagnosis includes: raised blood pressure, dysglycemia, dyslipidemia, and obesity, but the used thresholds differed. Individual patients with MS need to be identified to reduce future complications. We aimed to determine the characteristics of subjects identified from healthy population to have MS by NCEP-ATP III, IDF and the consensus definition by IDF and AHA/NHLBI, and to investigate the importance of demographic characteristics and other measures of obesity, dysglycemia and dyslipidemia.

Subjects and methods: 233 healthy adults aged 18–50 years were recruited randomly from Jeddah. Anthropometric and demographic information were taken. Insulin, glucose, and lipids profile were measured in fasting blood. Individuals were identified using the three definitions of MS, and their characteristics were compared statistically to the rest of the population.

Results: 18.9%, 16.7% and 20.6% of population were identified as having MS by IDF, ATPIII, and the consensus definition respectively. Subjects identified by the latter were also identified by either/ or both definitions. The most common feature was central obesity with IDF definition, and low HDL- cholesterol using NCEP-ATP III definition. The least common feature was high blood pressure in all cases. There was no significant difference between subgroups with and without MS with regard to demographic characteristics when any definition was applied.

Using regression analysis the strongest predictors of MS were blood glucose, LDL-C/HDL-C ratio and insulin when NCEP-ATPIII definition or the consensus definition were used, and blood glucose, Waist /Hip ratio and Plasma Atherogenic Index (PAI) when IDF definition was used.

Conclusion: In absence of local thresholds for components of the MS the use of waist: Hip ratio, LDL-C: HDL-C, PAI, and insulin level might help diagnosis. More studies are needed to reach accurate definition of MS in Saudis.

Declaration of interest: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research project.

Funding: This work was supported, however funding details unavailable.