Endocrine Abstracts

Patients with polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) have an increased risk for diabetes mellitus and often show an adverse cardiovascular risk profile. Among the anthropometric variables for evaluation of central obesity widely used are the waist circumference (WC), waist-hip ratio (WHR) and, more recently, waist-to-stature ratio (WSR).

The aim of the present study is to investigate the link between some anthropometric indices of visceral obesity and cardiovascular risk factors according to androgen excess and polycystic ovary syndrome (AE-PCOS) Society consensus.

Patients and methods

Sixty four PCOS subjects (45 lean; 19 obese) aged 18-40 years were included in this cross-sectional study. Obesity was defined as BMI ≥30 kg/m² and visceral fat predisposition was considered according to WHR>0.85, WC>80 cm and WSR>0.5. OGTT with determination of immunoreactive insulin (IRI) and Homeostatic model assessment index (HOMA) were performed and testosterone, DHEAS and androstenedione were measured.

Results

Obese PCOS patients had significantly higher rate of visceral obesity than lean PCOS subjects although ~1/3 of lean patients had visceral predisposition despite lower BMI. Both WSR and WC but not WHR showed to be good markers of adverse metabolic profile in women with PCOS. The cut-off point for WSR of 0.50 is useful and the cut-off of 80 cm for WC is more appropriate than 88 cm in detecting cardiovascular risk in PCOS patients. Unlike fasting IRI on 0 min and HOMA, androgen levels did not correlate to increased cardiovascular risk (AE-PCOS) in PCOS patients. Of the studied androgens only DHEAS showed significant correlation to anthropometric indices – WSR, WC and WHR ((r=0.36 (P=0.012); 0.32 (P=0.027) and 0.26 (P=0.074) respectively).

Conclusions

WSR and WC are stronger associated with composite cardiovascular risk factors as defined by AE PCOS consensus than WHR. WSR and WC have similar diagnostic value in detecting adverse metabolic profile in PCOS patients.

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 research did not receive any specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sector.