A Rapid, Inexpensive and Non Invasive Screening for Metabolic Syndrome, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Coronary Artery Disease in a Malaysian Population
|Aye M1*, Cabot JSF1 and Razak MSA2|
|1Department of Medicine, UniKL Royal College of Medicine, Perak, Malaysia|
|2State Health Department, Ministry of Health, Perak, Malaysia|
|Corresponding Author :||Aye M
Department of Medicine
UniKL Royal College of Medicine, Perak, Malaysia
E-mail: [email protected]
|Received August 01, 2013; Accepted August 27, 2013; Published August 30, 2013|
|Citation: Aye M, Cabot JSF, Razak MSA (2013) A Rapid, Inexpensive and Non Invasive Screening for Metabolic Syndrome, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Coronary Artery Disease in a Malaysian Population. J Metabolic Synd 2:124. doi:|
|Copyright: © 2013 Aye M, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.|
Introduction: The development of rapid, non-invasive and inexpensive tools to screen individuals at risk of developing metabolic syndrome and its consequences of type 2 diabetes and coronary artery disease is important from an epidemiologic and public health view.
Method: A cross sectional analysis was performed with 398 patients from January to November 2011 from records of an outpatient department of a district hospital in rural Malaysia, comprising all races, for prevalence of Metabolic Syndrome (MetS) according to different published criteria.
Result: The prevalence of MetS by different criteria was 49.0% by Hypertensive-Waist (HW), 32.7% Hyper triglyceridaemic-Waist (HTGW), 55.3% by International Diabetes Federation (IDF), 55.3% by Harmonized NCEPATP111 (HNCEPATP111), and 61% by Modified WHO (MWHO). Prevalence of type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (DM) by different criteria was 53.3, 55.4, 55.5, 56.3, 70.3 % respectively and that of Coronary Artery Disease (CAD) was: 21.0, 23.1, 22.7, 23.3 and 23.3% respectively. The agreement of IDF with HW, HTGW, Harmonized NCEPATP111, MWHO using Kappa index was 0.744, 0.560, 0.870 and 0.494 respectively.
Conclusion: HW is able to screen MetS better than HTGW and has better concordance with IDF, although its ability to screen for DM and CAD is somewhat less than HTGW. HW is therefore an excellent screening test for MetS as it is immediately available, non-invasive, requires no laboratory tests, has no appreciable cost, has better concordance with IDF than HTGW and is comparable to IDF and HNCEP for screening DM and CAD.