The relation of CUN-BAE index and BMI with body fat, cardiovascular events and diabetes during a 6-year follow-up: the Hordaland Health Study
Received 29 June 2017
Accepted for publication 26 September 2017
Published 8 November 2017 Volume 2017:9 Pages 555—566
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single-blind
Peer reviewer comments 4
Editor who approved publication: Professor Henrik Toft Sørensen
Kathrine J Vinknes,1 Eha Nurk,1,2 Grethe S Tell,3 Gerhard Sulo,3 Helga Refsum,1,4 Amany K Elshorbagy4,5
1Department of Nutrition, Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway; 2Department of Surveillance and Evaluation, National Institute for Health Development, Tallinn, Estonia; 3Department of Global Public Health and Primary Care, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway; 4Department of Pharmacology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; 5Department of Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Alexandria, Alexandria, Egypt
Objective: We compared Clínica Universidad de Navarra-Body Adiposity Estimator (CUN-BAE) and body mass index (BMI) as correlates of body fat percent (BF%) and the association with future risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and type 2 diabetes in a Caucasian population.
Methods: We used data from 6796 individuals (born 1925–27 and 1950–52) from the Hordaland Health Study, a prospective cohort study in Norway. The study was conducted in 1992–1993 and 1997–1999. Cross-sectional analyses were conducted with data from 1997/99, including BF% measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Longitudinal analyses included BMI and CUN-BAE calculated in 1992/93, and self-reported information on CVD events and diabetes in 1997/99.
Results: The correlation between CUN-BAE and BF% (r=0.88) was stronger than between BMI and BF% (r=0.56). In sex-stratified analyses, CUN-BAE and BMI correlated similarly with BF% in men (r=0.77 and r=0.76, respectively) and women (r=0.82 and r=0.81, respectively). In longitudinal analyses, the odds ratio (per 1 SD increase) of CVD and type 2 diabetes was higher for BMI (ORCVD =1.23 [95% CI: 1.11–1.36]; ORdiabetes =2.11 [1.82–2.45]) than for CUN-BAE (ORCVD =1.15 [1.04–1.27]; ORdiabetes =2.06 [1.72–2.47]) in the total population. In sex-stratified analyses, CUN-BAE showed higher CVD and diabetes risk than BMI: in men BMI ORCVD =1.22 (1.04–1.44), ORdiabetes =2.13 (1.64–2.83); CUN-BAE ORCVD =1.93 (1.54–2.43), ORdiabetes =4.33 (2.80–6.71); and in women BMI ORCVD =1.22 (1.07–1.39), ORdiabetes =2.11 (1.76–2.53); CUN-BAE ORCVD =2.06 (1.69–2.51), ORdiabetes =5.45 (3.87–7.67).
Conclusion: CUN-BAE is more strongly associated with future risk of type 2 diabetes and CVD compared with BMI in analysis stratified by sex. As a measure of adiposity in men and women separately, CUN-BAE has no advantage over BMI, except when the value of estimated BF% itself is of interest.
Keywords: anthropometry, body composition, body fat, body mass index, cardiovascular disease risk, diabetes risk
This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]