Cohorts and exclusion criteria
This study and/or its analysis was approved by the Institutional Review Boards of the University of Florida, the University of Virginia and the study sites for the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study (ARIC) and the Jackson Heart Study (JHS), and was carried out in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.
ARIC is a large community-based epidemiological cohort study that began in 1987–1989 across four field centres in the USA. Further details regarding the study design and objectives are published elsewhere [13]. ARIC data are available through ancillary study collaboration with ARIC [14]. A total of 15,792 primarily white and black participants aged 45–64 years old provided informed consent and were enrolled. We excluded individuals who did not consent (n = 395) and those who identified as a race/ethnicity other than white or black (n = 46). We used metabolic syndrome and risk factors from visits 1 and 2, and data on diabetes from visits 1–4.
The JHS began as an extension study of black participants in the Jackson, MS, site of ARIC and used similar methodologies. JHS data are available through ancillary study collaboration with JHS [15]. Starting in 2000–2004, 5301 participants aged 21–95 years provided informed consent and were enrolled; this included 1626 participants who had been followed as part of ARIC and for whom data from ARIC rather than the JHS were used for the present analysis [16]. For JHS participants who did not participate in ARIC, we used metabolic syndrome data from visits 1 and 2, as well as diabetes data from visits 1–3 (i.e. the final visit).
After combining the two cohorts as described above (n = 19,026), we further excluded participants with baseline diabetes (n = 2485), CHD (n = 973) or stroke (n = 393), as well as participants who were missing baseline data on metabolic syndrome components (n = 792) or who had non-fasting laboratory results (n = 507), and/or those without follow-up data regarding outcomes (n = 2992). This left 13,094 individuals for our primary analysis. For this group of participants, we performed a subsequent analysis on those who had a follow-up visit at which the metabolic syndrome score could be calculated and who had yet to develop diabetes in order to estimate the association between change in metabolic syndrome severity and future diabetes.
Assessment of covariates and outcomes
Exposure: the metabolic syndrome
Components of the metabolic syndrome were measured using similar approaches for both cohorts as previously described [16, 17]. The metabolic syndrome was defined using the criteria established by the ATP-III, i.e. the presence of three or more of the following criteria: elevated WC (≥102 cm for men, ≥88 cm for women), elevated fasting triacylglycerol (≥1.69 mmol/l [150 mg/dl]), reduced HDL-cholesterol (<1.04 mmol/l [40 mg/dl] for men, <1.29 mmol/l [50 mg/dl] for women), elevated BP (≥130 mmHg systolic or ≥85 mmHg diastolic, or drug treatment for hypertension) and elevated fasting blood glucose (≥5.55 mmol/l [100 mg/dl]) [4].
Continuous metabolic syndrome severity z scores at baseline were calculated for participants using sex- and race-based formulas. As described elsewhere [7, 8], these scores were derived using a confirmatory factor analysis approach for the five traditional metabolic syndrome components (WC, triacylglycerol, HDL-cholesterol, systolic BP, fasting glucose) to determine the weighted contribution of each component to a latent metabolic syndrome ‘factor’ on a sex- and race/ethnicity-specific basis. Confirmatory factor analysis was performed among adults aged 20–64 years from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey with categorisation into six subgroups based on sex and race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black, Hispanic). For each of these six population subgroups, loading coefficients for the five metabolic syndrome components were transformed into a single metabolic syndrome factor and used to generate equations to calculate a standardised metabolic syndrome severity score for each subgroup (http://mets.health-outcomes-policy.ufl.edu/calculator/, accessed 20 March 2017). The resulting metabolic syndrome severity scores are z scores (normally distributed and ranging from theoretical negative to positive infinity with mean = 0 and SD = 1) of relative metabolic syndrome severity on a sex- and race/ethnicity-specific basis. These scores correlate strongly with other markers of risk of the metabolic syndrome [18], including high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), uric acid and the homeostasis model of insulin resistance [8], with adiponectin [19] and with long-term risk of CVD [10, 12] and diabetes [11].
Outcome: type 2 diabetes
In ARIC, participants were defined as having type 2 diabetes if they reported that a physician had told them they had diabetes, if they had a fasting serum glucose ≥6.99 mmol/l (126 mg/dl) or a non-fasting serum glucose ≥11.10 mmol/l (200 mg/dl), or if they reported that they were taking insulin or oral hypoglycaemic medications [20, 21]. In the JHS, participants were defined as having diabetes if they had a fasting serum glucose ≥6.99 mmol/l (126 mg/dl) or an HbA1c ≥ 6.5% (48 mmol/mol) or if they had taken a diabetic medication within the 2 weeks before the clinic visit. These definitions of diabetes were used at visits 1–4 for ARIC participants and at visits 1–3 for JHS participants. As the area of primary interest was the incidence of diabetes, time to diabetes was, for those individuals without diabetes at visit 1, defined as the number of years between visit 1 and the first visit where diabetes was reported, regardless of diabetes status at subsequent visits.
Statistics
All statistical analyses were performed using SAS Version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA), and statistical significance was set to α = 0.05. To account for the interval censored time-to-event data (i.e. we do not know precisely when the diabetes developed), accelerated failure time models with an assumed Weibull distribution (using SAS PROC LIFEREG) were used, adjusting for baseline age and site (four sites from ARIC plus the JHS ‘site’). HRs of interest were estimated as a function of the variables and the Weibull shape parameter estimate.
ATP-III MetS was modelled with and without its individual (binary) components to establish whether the metabolic syndrome was a risk factor above and beyond its components, similar to others [17]. Interactions were also examined to determine whether risk varied by sex and race. In a similar fashion, metabolic syndrome severity was modelled, using quartiles of metabolic syndrome severity (defined naturally by the associated percentiles since it is a z score) and including quartiles for each of the metabolic syndrome components (defined by the analytical sample). This quartile approach allowed for an assessment of non-linear associations and threshold effects as well a reduction in the possibility of collinearity. Nonetheless, variance inflation factors were computed to assess the degree of collinearity when including the metabolic syndrome (or metabolic syndrome severity) and its components in the same model, with variance inflation factors greater than ten representing severe collinearity. Model fit was assessed and compared using Akaike’s information criterion (AIC), with smaller values indicating a better fit. An unadjusted Kaplan–Meier estimate of survival by quartile of metabolic syndrome severity was performed, accounting for interval censored data (PROC ICLIFETEST). With a linear relationship observed between metabolic syndrome severity and risk of incident diabetes, a model with only the continuous score was fitted, and a time-dependent receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (and AUC) was generated [22] using a SAS macro. For those participants who had two metabolic syndrome scores calculated at visits 1 and 2, time to incident diabetes was modelled with both the visit 1 score and the change in score (categorised). Given that this was an evaluation of the risk of future diabetes using a metabolic syndrome score that included fasting glucose as a component, we also performed a sensitivity analysis using a metabolic syndrome severity score without glucose as one of the contributing components (i.e. incorporating only the remaining four metabolic syndrome components) for the association of baseline levels of this score with later diabetes.