The Comparing of the sociodemographic features, anthropometric and biochemical parameters of the cases with Metabolic Syndrome, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and healthy controls

Abstract

Aim: In this study, it was aimed to compare the sociodemographic features and biochemical parameters of the patients with Metabolic Syndrome (MS) and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (DM) with control group. Material and Method: In this study, among the patients who applied to Dicle University Faculty of Medicine Family Practice outpatient policlinic, 32 patients with MS, 21 patients with Type 2 DM were taken and 21 patients were selected for control group. Patients with MS and Type 2 DM were compared with control group according to their sociodemographic, anthropometric and biochemical parameters. Results: Of 74 patients applied to the study, 29 were female and 45 were male. There werenít any statistical differences about gender, education, diet and exercise between the three groups (respectively, p=0,224, p=0,216, p=0,234 and p=0,504). W/H ratios, BMI and ages were statistically meaningful between three groups (respectively p=0,001, p=0,005 and p=0,0001). Patients with MS had higher W/H ratios and BMI values. HOMA-IR values were increasing with age (r=0,295, p=0,011), also there was a positive correlation between HOMA-IR and T.CHOL/HDL ratios (r=0.296, p=0.010). Conclusion: While HOMA-IR values were significantly higher in Type 2 DM group, any differences between MS and control group were not detected. Also in both two study groups, HOMA-IR values were increasing with age and there was a positive correlation between HOMA-IR and T.CHOL/HDL ratios. BMI values were positively correlated with systolic and diastolic blood pressures and also W/h ratios. TG values were increasing with W/H ratios.

Keywords

• Metabolic Syndrome
• Type 2 DM
• insulin resistance

Metabolik Sendrom, Tip 2 Diyabetes Mellitus ve Saðl˝kl˝ Bireylerin Sosyodemografik, Antropometrik ve Biyokimyasal ÷zelliklerinin Karº˝laºt˝r˝lmas˝

Abstract

AmaÁ: Bu Áal˝ºmada Metabolik Sendrom (MS) ve Tip 2 Diyabetes Mellitus (DM) hastalar˝n˝n sosyodemografik ˆzellikleri ile biyokimyasal parametrelerinin kontrol grubu ile karº˝laºt˝r˝lmas˝ hedeflenmiºtir. Materyal ve Metot: Dicle ‹niversitesi T˝p Fak¸ltesi Aile Hekimliði polikliniðine yap˝lan baºvurulardan 32 MS, 21 Tip 2 DM tan˝s˝ alm˝º hasta ile 21 kiºi kontrol grubu olarak seÁildi. MS ve Tip 2 DM tan˝s˝ alan hastalar ile kontrol grubu sosyodemografik, antropometrik ve biyokimyasal deðerlerine gˆre karº˝laºt˝r˝ld˝. Bulgular: «al˝ºmaya 29 kad˝n ve 45 erkek olmak ¸zere toplam 74 kiºi al˝nd˝. Kad˝nlar˝n BMI deðeri erkeklerinkinden daha y¸ksekti. Gruplar aras˝nda cinsiyet, eðitim, diyet ve egzersiz aÁ˝s˝ndan fark bulunmamaktayd˝ (s˝ras˝yla p=0.224, p=0.104 p=0.234 ve p=0.504). Gruplar aras˝nda B/K oran˝, BMI ve yaº deðerleri istatistiksel olarak anlaml˝ bulunmuºtur (s˝ras˝yla, p=0.001, p=0.005 ve p<0.0001). MS tan˝s˝ alanlarda B/K oran˝ ve BMI deðerleri daha y¸ksekti. HOMA-IR deðerinde yaºla art˝º saptanm˝º olup (r=0.295, p=0.011), T.KOL/HDL oran˝ ile HOMA-IR aras˝nda da pozitif korelasyon bulunmaktayd˝ (r=0.296, p=0.010). SonuÁ: HOMA-IR deðeri Tip 2 DMíu olanlarda anlaml˝ olarak y¸ksek bulunurken; MS ve kontrol grubu aras˝nda ˆnemli bir farkl˝l˝k saptanmam˝ºt˝r. Her iki Áal˝ºma grubunda da, HOMA-IR deðerinde yaºla art˝º saptanm˝º olup, T.KOL/HDL oran˝ ile HOMA-IR aras˝nda da pozitif korelasyon bulunmaktayd˝. Yine, BMI deðeri ile hem Sistolik TA ñ Diyastolik TA, hem de B/K oran˝ aras˝nda pozitif korelasyon saptand˝. B/K oran˝ art˝kÁa TG deðeri de artmaktayd˝.

Keywords

• Metabolik Sendrom
• Tip 2 diyabet
• insülin direnci

References

1. Haffner S, Taegtmeyer H. Epidemic Obesity and the Metabolic Syndrome, Circulation 2003; 108:1541–1545. 2. National Institutes of Health: Third Report of the on Detection, Evaluation treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults. Adults Treatment Panel III. Executive Summary Bethesda: NIH, 2001.
2. Grundy SM, Brewer HB Jr, Cleeman JI, Smith SC Jr, Lenfant C. Definition of Metabolic Syndrome: Report of The National Heart, Lung Blood Institute/American Heart Association Conference on Scientific Issues Related to Definition. Circulation 2004; 109:433–438.
3. Zimmet P, Magliano D, Matsuzawa Y, Alberti G, Shaw J. The metabolic syndrome: a global public health problem and a new definition J Atheroscler Thromb 2005; 12(6):295–300.
4. Alexander CM , Landsmann PB , Teutsch SM , Haffner SM. NCEP-defined Metabolic Syndrome, Diabetes and Prevalence of Coronary Heart Disease among NHANES III Participants Age 50 Years and Older. Diabetes 2003; 52:1210–1214.
5. Samur G. Metabolik Sendrom ve saðlýklý zayýflama diyeti. Sendrom 2005; 17(10): 78–86.
6. Nadira A, Agel J, Khalig A et al. Overweight and obesity in the eastern province of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Med J 2008; 29(9):1319–1325.
7. Qader SS, Shakir YA, Nyberg P, Samsioe G. Sociodemographic risk factors of metabolic syndrome in middle-aged women: results from a population-based study of Swedish women, The Women's Health in the Lund Area (WHILA) Study. Climacteric 2008;11(6):475–482.
8. Hu G, Lindström J, Jousilahti P et al. The Increasing Prevalence of Metabolic Syndrome among Finnish Men and Women over a Decade. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 2008; 93(3):832–836.

9. Tanyolaç S, Sertkaya Cikim A, Doðan Azezli A et al. Correlation between educational status and cardiovascular risk factors in an overweight and obese Turkish female population. Anadolu Kardiyol Derg 2008; 8(5):336–341. 11. Lien LF, Brown AJ, Ard JD et al. Effects of PREMIER Lifestyle Modifications on Participants With and Without the Metabolic Syndrome. Hypertension 2007; 50:609.
10. Peter M. Janiszewski, MSc. Lifestyle Treatment of the Metabolic Syndrome. American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine 2008; 2(2):99–108.
11. Ryan MC, Fenster Farin HM, Abbasi F et al. Comparison of waist circumference versus body mass index in diagnosing metabolic syndrome and identifying apparently healthy subjects at increased risk of cardiovascular disease. Am J Cardiol 2008; 102(1):40–46.
12. Bosy-Westphal A, Geisler C, Onur S et al. Value of body fat mass vs. anthropometric obesity indices in the assessment of metabolic risk factors. Int J Obes (Lond) 2006; 30(3):475–483.
13. Misra KB, Endemann SW, Ayer M. Measures of obesity and metabolic syndrome in Indian Americans in Northern California. Ethn Dis 2006 Spring; 16(2):331–337.
14. He HB, Zhao ZG, Pu YF et al. Relationship of different types of abdominal obesity to risk of metabolic syndrome. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi 2008; 88(18):1251–1254.
15. Flack JM, Sowers JR. Epidemiologic and clinical aspects of insulin resistance and hyperinsulinemia. Am J Med 1991; 91(1A):11S-21S.
16. Zavaroni I, Bonini L, Fantuzzi M et al. Hyperinsulinaemia, obesity, and syndrome X. J Intern Med 1994; 235(1):51–56. 19. McLaughlin T, Allison G, Abbasi F et al. Prevalence of insulin resistance and associated cardiovascular disease risk factors among normal weight, overweight, and obese individuals. Metabolism 2004; 53(4):495–499. 20. Chuo SK, Li JC, Tsai WC, et al. Correlations between white blood cell count and metabolic syndrome in middle-age Taiwanese. Endocr Res 2005; 31(1):39–50.
17. Taniguchi A, Fukushima M, Sakai M et al. The role of the body mass index and triglyceride levels in identifying insulin-sensitive and insulin-resistant variants in Japanese non-insulin-dependent diabetic patients. Metabolism 2000; 49(8):1001–1005.