Comparison of different severe obesity definitions in predicting future cardiometabolic risk in a longitudinal cohort of children

Abstract

ObjectivesSevere 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.DesignProspective cohort studySettingSO 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.ParticipantsRespondents were youth who had at least one biological parent with obesity.Primary outcome measuresUnfavourable 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.AnalysisArea under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and McFadden psuedo R2 for predicting F1 or F2 unfavourable cardiometabolic levels from baseline SO definitions were calculated. Agreement was assessed with kappas.ResultsBaseline 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.ConclusionWHO-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.