Comparison of different severe obesity definitions in predicting future cardiometabolic risk in a longitudinal cohort of children. Issue 6 (15th June 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Kakinami, Lisa; Smyrnova, Anna; Paradis, Gilles; Tremblay, Angelo; Henderson, Melanie
• Is Part Of: BMJ open. Volume 12:Issue 6(2022)
• Publication Date: 2022-06-15
• Subjects: paediatrics -- epidemiology -- public health -- statistics & research methods -- community child health; Medicine -- Research -- Periodicals; 610.72
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-058857
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2044-6055

Abstract

Abstract : Objectives: Severe obesity (SO) prevalence varies between reference curve-based definitions (WHO: ≥99th percentile, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): >1.2×95th percentile). Whether SO definitions differentially predict cardiometabolic disease risk is critical for proper clinical care and management but is unknown. Design: Prospective cohort study Setting: SO definitions were applied at baseline (2005–2008, Mage =9.6 years, n=548), and outcomes (fasting lipids, glucose, homoeostatic model assessment (HOMA-IR) and blood pressure) were assessed at first follow-up (F1: 2008–2011, Mage =11.6 years) and second follow-up (2015–2017, Mage =16.8 years) of the Quebec Adipose and Lifestyle Investigation in Youth cohort in Montreal, Quebec. Participants: Respondents were youth who had at least one biological parent with obesity. Primary outcome measures: Unfavourable cardiometabolic levels of fasting blood glucose (≥6.1 mmol/L), insulin resistance (HOMA-IR index ≥2.0), high-density lipoprotein <1.03 mmol/L, low-density lipoprotein ≥2.6 mmol/L and triglycerides > 1.24 mmol/L. Unfavourable blood pressure was defined as ≥90th percentile for age-adjusted, sex-adjusted and height-adjusted systolic or diastolic blood pressure. Analysis: Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and McFadden psuedo R 2 for predicting F1 or F2 unfavourable cardiometabolic levels from baseline SO definitions were calculated. Agreement was assessed with kappas. Results: Baseline SO prevalence differed (WHO: 18%, CDC: 6.7%). AUCs ranged from 0.52 to 0.77, with fair agreement (kappa=37%–55%). WHO-SO AUCs for detecting unfavourable HOMA-IR (AUC>0.67) and high-density lipoprotein (AUC>0.59) at F1 were statistically superior than CDC-SO (AUC>0.59 and 0.53, respectively; p<0.05). Only HOMA-IR and the presence of more than three risk factors had acceptable model fit. WHO-SO was not more predictive than WHO-obesity, but CDC-SO was statistically inferior to CDC-obesity. Conclusion: WHO-SO is statistically superior at predicting cardiometabolic risk than CDC-SO. However, as most AUCs were generally uninformative, and obesity definitions were the same if not better than SO, the improvement may not be clinically meaningful.