Biochemical and clinical characterization of metabolic phenotypes: a cross-sectional study from Maracaibo city, Venezuela

Valmore Bermudez; Joselyn Rojas; Juan Salazar; Maria Sofia Martinez; Luis Carlos Olivar; Maria Jose Calvo; Andres Mindiola; Roberto Añez; Sandra Wilches-Duran; Marcos Cerda; Modesto Graterol; Rosemily Graterol; Juan Diego Hernandez; Carlos Garicano; Manuel Velasco

doi:10.12688/f1000research.13897.3

Home Browse Biochemical and clinical characterization of metabolic phenotypes:...

ALL Metrics

-

Views

-

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Research Article

Revised

Biochemical and clinical characterization of metabolic phenotypes: a cross-sectional study from Maracaibo city, Venezuela

[version 3; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations]

Valmore Bermudez ^1,2, Joselyn Rojas^2,3, Juan Salazar ², [...] Maria Sofia Martinez², Luis Carlos Olivar², Maria Jose Calvo², Andres Mindiola⁴, Roberto Añez², Sandra Wilches-Duran¹, Marcos Cerda¹, Modesto Graterol¹, Rosemily Graterol¹, Juan Diego Hernandez¹, Carlos Garicano¹, Manuel Velasco⁵

Valmore Bermudez ^1,2, Joselyn Rojas^2,3, [...] Juan Salazar ², Maria Sofia Martinez², Luis Carlos Olivar², Maria Jose Calvo², Andres Mindiola⁴, Roberto Añez², Sandra Wilches-Duran¹, Marcos Cerda¹, Modesto Graterol¹, Rosemily Graterol¹, Juan Diego Hernandez¹, Carlos Garicano¹, Manuel Velasco⁵

PUBLISHED 24 Mar 2021

Author details Author details

¹ Grupo de Investigación Altos Estudios de Frontera (ALEF), Universidad Simón Bolívar, Cucuta, Colombia
² Endocrine and Metabolic Diseases Research Center, The University of Zulia, Maracaibo, Venezuela
³ Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine Department, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
⁴ Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center (GRECC), U.S Department of Veterans Affairs, Miami, FL, USA
⁵ Department of Pharmacology, “JM Vargas” Medical School, Central University of Venezuela, Caracas, Venezuela

Valmore Bermudez
Roles: Conceptualization, Writing – Review & Editing

Joselyn Rojas
Roles: Conceptualization, Writing – Review & Editing

Juan Salazar
Roles: Formal Analysis, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Maria Sofia Martinez
Roles: Formal Analysis, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Luis Carlos Olivar
Roles: Data Curation, Investigation

Maria Jose Calvo
Roles: Data Curation, Investigation

Andres Mindiola
Roles: Investigation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Roberto Añez
Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis

Sandra Wilches-Duran
Roles: Funding Acquisition, Writing – Review & Editing

Marcos Cerda
Roles: Funding Acquisition, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Modesto Graterol
Roles: Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition

Rosemily Graterol
Roles: Funding Acquisition, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Juan Diego Hernandez
Roles: Formal Analysis, Investigation

Carlos Garicano
Roles: Investigation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Manuel Velasco
Roles: Investigation, Writing – Review & Editing

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

Abstract

Background: In 1980, Reuben Andresen observed that in certain individuals, obesity did not increase mortality, introducing an atypical phenotype called “healthy obese”. Other studies reported that 10-15 % of lean individuals presented insulin resistance, hyperglycemia and dyslipidemia. The objective of this study was to evaluate biochemical and clinical characteristics of metabolic phenotypes in Maracaibo city.
Methods: A descriptive, cross-sectional sub-analysis of The Maracaibo City Metabolic Syndrome Prevalence Study, with a randomized multistage sampling was performed including 1226 non diabetic individuals from both sexes. For phenotype definition, the subjects were first classified according to their BMI into Normal-Weight, Overweight and Obese; then divided in metabolically healthy and unhealthy using a two-step analysis cluster being predictive variables: HOMA2-IR, HOMA2-βcell, triglycerides. To evaluate the relationship with coronary risk, a multiple logistic regression model was performed.
Results: In the studied population, 43.9% (n=538) were healthy normal weight, 5.2% (n=64) unhealthy normal weight, 17.4% (n=217) healthy obese and 33.5% (n=411) unhealthy obese subjects. Atypical phenotypes, Metabolically Unhealthy Normal-Weight (MUNW) was more frequent in males (56.3%), whereas Metabolically Unhealthy Obese (MUO) was more frequent in females (51.3%). This phenotypes had a higher coronary event risk, especially for obese individuals (MHO: OR=1.85 CI95%: 1.11-3.09; p=0.02 and MUO: OR=2.09 CI95%: 1.34-3.28; p<0.01).
Conclusion: Individuals with atypical metabolic phenotypes are common in Maracaibo city. Related factors may include insulin resistance, basal glucose, and triglycerides levels. Lastly, obese subjects show a higher coronary event risk even those with normal metabolic status.

Keywords

Metabolic phenotypes, two-step cluster, metabolically unhealthy lean, metabolically healthy obese, coronary risk

Corresponding authors: Valmore Bermudez, Juan Salazar

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: This work was supported by research grant Nº CC-0437-10-21-09-10 from the Technological, Humanistic, and Scientific Development Council (Consejo de Desarrollo Científico, Humanístico y Tecnológico; CONDES), University of Zulia.
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Copyright: © 2021 Bermudez V 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 work is properly cited.

How to cite: Bermudez V, Rojas J, Salazar J et al. Biochemical and clinical characterization of metabolic phenotypes: a cross-sectional study from Maracaibo city, Venezuela [version 3; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2021, 7:230 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.13897.3) First published: 27 Feb 2018, 7:230 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.13897.1) Latest published: 24 Mar 2021, 7:230 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.13897.3)

Revised Amendments from Version 2

We want to appreciate the comments of the reviewer, regarding the last revision:
1. We also consider that the definition of “metabolically healthy obesity” is arbitrary, therefore our line of research tried to identify the main metabolic variables that could predict the state of “health / disease” through a cluster analysis that was not influenced by variables fixed a priori. (J Diabetes Res. 2015; 2015: 750265). Although this phenotype is controversial, it has been described in numerous studies (J Clin Invest. 2019; 129 (10): 3978–3989 / Endocrine Reviews 2020; 41 (3): 405–420) and as we argue based on our findings, the erroneous perception of being a “healthy” phenotype does not indicate that it is not a biological phenotype (probably of early presentation within the natural history of cardiometabolic disease) (https://doi.org/10.1530/EJE-15-0449).
2. We agree that the body mass index and waist circumference are anthropometric measures of low diagnostic precision, however they are recommended by the different international guidelines as an initial step in the approach to these individuals, especially in low-resource contexts, where the availability of imaging studies that quantify the degree of visceral adiposity are low due to high cost(https://doi.org/10.1530/EJE-19-0893. This represents a limitation of our study (which has been added.
3. The reviewer states that our study is: “a metabolically based categorization of the BMI”. But to date the definition of metabolic phenotypes is based on this, with criteria set by groups of experts. A possible future alternative is to correlate the biochemical and clinical behavior of these phenotypes with imaging studies that provide more specific information about abdominal fat content.

To read any peer review reports and author responses for this article, follow the "read" links in the Open Peer Review table.

Introduction

Obesity is considered an entity with major morbi-mortality in the world since the end of the 20th century¹. Multiples studies have shown its role as an independent risk factor for various cardiometabolic disorders such as hypertension (HTN), dyslipidemias, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) and cardiovascular disease (CVD)². For this reason, the actual clinical practice catalogues the typical obese patient as an “unhealthy” patient or a patient with comorbidities.

In spite of this, in 1980, Reuben Andresen discovered that in certain groups of individuals the obesity was not a mortality increasing factor, introducing the subtype “Healthy Obese”³. Around 20 years later, Ferranini et al. observed that a group of certain obese nondiabetic non-hypertensive subjects presented low insulin resistance (IR) prevalence, suggesting that this subtype must have a different risk of having T2DM and CVD from the IR obese; also suggesting a different management for them⁴.

Furthermore, in 1975, Bernstein et al. observed that 11 normal-weight men with type IV or V dyslipidemia presented higher serum glucose levels; and also carried bigger sized adipocytes with respect to their healthy counterparts⁵. Years later, Ruderman et al. introduced the “Metabolically Unhealthy Normal-Weight” phenotype attributed to lean individuals with metabolic alterations associated to obesity⁶.

The importance of these atypical metabolic phenotypes lies in the fact that their diagnosis may be challenging for clinicians delaying their detection. Because of this, in recent years, multiple studies have been dedicated to the research of accurate clinical, biochemical, and genetic elements capable to detect these atypical metabolic states, and their evolution. Likewise, it has been discussed whether the use of certain anthropometric parameters is enough to classify the subjects as healthy or sick from a cardiometabolic perspective.

In this sense, these phenotypes determinants and frequencies have not been deeply researched in Latin-American populations⁷. Despite the wide heterogeneity observed in our region influenced for genetic and environmental factors as well as the similar prevalence of cardiometabolic diseases in Maracaibo city and other localities from the continent. The objective of this study is to characterize, from a clinical-biological point of view, the metabolic phenotypes in the population from Maracaibo city, Venezuela.

Materials and methods

Population selection

The Maracaibo City Metabolic Syndrome Prevalence Study (MMSPS) is a cross-sectional study whose purpose is to detect metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular disease risk factors in the adult population from Maracaibo, the second largest city of Venezuela, with approximately 2,500,000 inhabitants, during the period May 2007 – December 2009. The original study included a total of 2230 individuals of both genders, aged between 18–85 years old, and the study protocol was previously reported⁸. This sub-analysis excluded those individuals with no measurements of serum insulin levels. Patients with past history of diabetes were also excluded because their disease control, evolution and pharmacological treatments would affect the variables in the study.

In order to avoid classifying the subjects according to a priori pre-established definitions, a cluster analysis was carried out that allowed selecting the main variables in the definition of healthy-sick subjects by data mining technique. In this way, these subjects were categorized into six groups, first according to their Body Mass Index (BMI) (normal-weight, overweight and obese) and second, to their healthy/unhealthy definition. This categorization was made using the protocol from two-step cluster analysis published previously⁹. The metabolic variables were chosen as possible metabolic predictors based on their physiological function and biological plausibility. These variables were: mean arterial pressure (MAP), triglycerides (TAG), total cholesterol, HDL-C, HOMA2-IR, HOMA2-βcell, HOMA2-S, fasting blood glucose, non-HDL-C cholesterol, TAG/HDL-C ratio, and high-sensitivity C-Reactive Protein (hs-CRP) levels; waist circumference (WC) was excluded and was assessed as a dependent variable. The most appropriate predictive variables selected according predictive strength for each group were: (a) HOMA2-IR and HOMA2-βcell for normal-weight women; (b) HOMA2-IR, HOMA2-βcell and TAG for normal-weight men; (c) HOMA2-IR and HOMA2-βcell for overweight women; (d) HOMA2-IR, HOMA2-βcell, and TAG for overweight men; and (e) HOMA2-IR for male and female obese patients. The two-step cluster analysis was conducted with SPSS, the program analyzed the subclusters with the characteristics of each BMI category and categorized the subjects into 6 phenotypes: healthy normal-weight (HNW), metabolically unhealthy normal-weight (MUNW), healthy and metabolically disturbed overweight, metabolically unhealthy obese (MUO), and metabolically healthy obese (MHO). Overweight subjects were excluded from this secondary analysis since they represent a non-conventional group outside the metabolic phenotypes and require separate analysis. The final sample included 1226 subjects (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Patient selection diagram. Maracaibo city, Venezuela.

During sample selection, subjects with no measurements of serum insulin levels and patients with past history of diabetes were excluded. These subjects were categorized into six groups, first according to their BMI and second to their healthy/unhealthy definition, using two-step cluster analysis.

Clinical evaluation

Data was collected through completion of a full clinical record carried out by trained personnel, which included interrogation regarding ethnic origin and socioeconomic status by the Graffar scale according to Méndez-Castellano¹⁰. The assessment of blood pressure was done by applying the auscultatory technique, and HTN classification was made using the criteria proposed in the VII Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure¹¹.

For Anthropometric Analysis, an electrical bioelectric scale was used to obtain weight (Tanita, TBF-310 GS Body Composition Analyzer, Tokyo – Japan). Height was measured using a calibrated metric measurement tape, with the subject standing up barefoot. BMI formula (weight/height²) was applied, expressing the results as kg/m². Obesity was classified applying the WHO criteria¹² based on the BMI value. Finally, WC was measured using calibrated measuring tape in accordance to the anatomical landmarks proposed by the USA National Institutes of Health protocol¹³.

Physical activity. Physical activity (PA) was assessed with the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ). For statistical analysis, PA was evaluated in 4 domains: occupational, household, transport, and leisure. In each of these domains, subjects were categorized as follows: (a) inactive, MET/week = 0, or (b) active, MET/week > 0.

Biochemical analyses

Fasting levels of glucose, cholesterol, TAG, HDL-C, and hs-CRP were assessed in our clinical laboratory using an automatized computer analyzer (Human Gesellschaft fur Biochemica und Diagnostica mbH). LDL-C and VLDL-C levels were calculated applying the Friedewald formulas¹⁴. When TAG were over 400 mg/dL measurement was done using lipoprotein electrophoresis and optical densitometry (BioRad GS-800 densitometer, USA). Lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] was estimated through the latex turbidimetric method, Human Gesellschaft für Biochemica and Diagnostica, Germany. Likewise, serum hs-CRP levels were quantified employing immunoturbidimetric essays (Human Gesellschaft für Biochemica and Diagnostica MBH). Insulin was determined using an ultrasensitive ELISA method (DRG Instruments GmbH, Germany, International DRG Division, Inc.). For the evaluation of insulin resistance (IR), 2 was the cut-off to define it 15, the HOMA2-IR model proposed by Levy et al. was utilized¹⁶ determined through the HOMA-Calculator v2.2.2 program. Visceral Adiposity Index (VAI) calculation was performed with the gender-specific equations proposed by Amato et al.¹⁷. The Metabolic Syndrome (MS) diagnosis was done using the Harmonizing-2009 consensus criteria¹⁸.

Calibration of the Framingham-Wilson equation and coronary risk categorization for the population of Maracaibo city

For proper equation calibration, the constants in the formula regarding major cumulative coronary events (lethal and non-lethal, symptomatic and no symptomatic myocardial infarction, angina) were substituted with the local statistics obtained from the Vital Statistics Yearbook of the State of Zulia from 2008, where the morbidity and mortality for cardiovascular diseases is registered, the calibration process has been detailed previously¹⁹. The coronary risk was classified in 2 categories: <5% in 10 years, and ≥5% in 10 years.

Statistical analysis

Normal distribution of continuous variables was assessed using Geary’s test; for normally distributed variables, the results were expressed as arithmetic mean ± SD (standard deviation). Variables without normal distribution were logarithmically transformed, and normal distribution subsequently corroborated. When normalization could not be achieved, these variables were expressed as medians (25^th percentile–75^th percentile). Student’s –test/One-way ANOVA or Mann-Whitney/Kruskal Wallis’s tests were applied to evaluate differences between means or medians, respectively. Qualitative variables were expressed as absolute and relative frequencies, assessed through the χ² test and the Z test for Proportions.

A logistic regression model was constructed with coronary risk as dependent variable and independent variables: gender, age groups, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, smoking habit, physical activity in leisure time, elevated TAG, and metabolic phenotypes. Database construction and statistical analysis were done using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) v22 for Windows (IBM Inc., Chicago, IL), results were considered statistically significant when p<0.05.

Results

Population general characteristics

A total of 1226 individuals were studied, 55.1% (n=676) corresponded to females and 44.9% (n=550) to males. The mean age (years) of the general population was 37.94±14.99. Subjects distribution according to their metabolic phenotype is shown in Figure 2 where the 5.2% (n=64) of the individuals were classified as MUNW, and 17.4% (n=213) as MHO, representing 34.13% from the total of obese subjects, while sociodemographic and metabolic characteristics from the studied simple are shown in Table 1.

Figure 2. Distribution of individuals according to metabolic phenotypes.

Maracaibo city, Venezuela. For this sub-analysis overweight subjects were excluded, evaluating only the typical obesity phenotypes with 4 groups.

Table 1. General Characteristics of the studied sample.

Maracaibo city, Venezuela.

	Female		Male		Total
	n	%	n	%	n	%
Age Group (years)
<30	235	34.8	228	41.5	463	37.8
30–49	253	37.4	220	40.0	473	38.6
≥50	188	27.8	102	18.5	290	23.7
Ethnic Groups
Mixed	512	75.7	427	77.6	939	76.6
White Hispanic	111	16.4	80	14.5	191	15.6
Afrodescendant	15	2.2	21	3.8	36	2.9
Native-American	30	4.4	21	3.8	51	4.2
Other	8	1.2	1	0.2	9	0.7
Socioeconomic Status
Class I	15	2.2	9	1.6	24	2.0
Class II	116	17.2	113	20.5	229	18.7
Class III	253	37.4	237	43.1	490	40.0
Class IV	251	37.1	172	31.3	423	34.5
Class V	41	6.1	19	3.5	60	4.9
Smoking Habit
No Smoker	523	77.5	351	64.3	874	71.6
Smoker	76	11.3	105	19.2	181	14.8
Past Smoker	76	11.3	90	16.5	166	13.6
Hypertension‡	126	18.6	144	26.2	270	22.0
Elevated Triglycerides	139	20.6	170	30.9	309	25.2
Low HDL-C	429	63.5	270	49.1	699	57.0
Metabolic Syndrome*	250	37.0	233	42.4	483	39.4
Insulin Resistance†	317	46.9	257	46.7	574	46.8
Total	676	100.0	550	100.0	1226	100.0

‡ Past history and Diagnosed in the Study

* Metabolic Syndrome Diagnosis according to 2009 Harmonizing Consensus

† HOMA2-IR ≥2

Metabolic phenotypes and sociodemographic characteristics

In the evaluation of the epidemiologic behavior of the metabolic phenotypes according to sex, we found that HNW and MUO individuals were predominately females (62.5%, n=336; 51.3%, n=211 respectively), while the atypical phenotypes were predominately males (MUNW: 56.3%, n=36; MHO: 52.6%, n=112. χ²=22.53, p<0.001). Likewise, a statistically significant association was found between age groups and metabolic phenotypes (χ²= 211.91, p<0.001), observing a predominance in the < 30 years age group in the normal-weight phenotype (HNW: 56.1%, n=302; MUNW: 57.8%, n=37), whereas the 30–49 age group was predominately obese phenotypes (MHO: 47.9%, n=102; MUO: 50.1%, n=106). There was no statistically significant association between metabolic phenotypes, ethnic groups (χ²= 20.96, p=0.05) and socioeconomic status (χ²= 14.56, p=0.27) (Table 2).

Table 2. Sociodemographic characteristics according to metabolic phenotypes.

Maracaibo city, Venezuela.

	(HNW) A		(MUNW) B		(MHO) C		(MUO) D			A vs. B	A vs. C	A vs. D	B vs. C	B vs. D	C vs. D
	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	χ2 (p)*	p**	p**	p**	p**	p**	p**
Gender									22.53 (<0.001)
Female	336	62.5	28	43.8	101	47.4	211	51.3		<0.05	<0.05	<0.05	NS	NS	NS
Male	202	37.5	36	56.3	112	52.6	200	48.7		<0.05	<0.05	<0.05	NS	NS	NS
Age Group (years)									176.63 (<0.001)
<30	302	56.1	37	57.8	46	21.6	78	19.0		NS	<0.05	<0.05	<0.05	<0.05	NS
30–49	153	28.4	12	18.8	102	47.9	206	50.1		NS	<0.05	<0.05	<0.05	<0.05	NS
≥50	83	15.5	15	23.4	65	30.5	127	30.9		NS	<0.05	<0.05	NS	NS	NS
Ethnic Group									20.96 (0.05)
Mixed	412	76.6	50	78.1	169	79.3	308	74.9		NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS
White Hispanic	74	13.8	6	9.4	31	14.6	80	19.5		NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS
Afrodescendant	16	3.0	3	4.7	6	2.8	11	2.7		NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS
Native-American	32	5.9	5	7.8	6	2.8	8	1.9		NS	NS	<0.05	NS	<0.05	NS
Others	4	0.7	0	0.0	1	0.5	4	1.0		NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS
Socioeconomic Status									14.56 (0.27)
Class I	12	2.2	0	0.0	2	0.9	10	2.4		NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS
Class II	96	17.8	15	23.4	35	16.4	83	20.2		NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS
Class III	213	39.6	21	32.8	102	47.9	154	37.5		NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS
Class IV	187	34.8	25	39.1	62	29.1	149	36.3		NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS
Class V	30	5.6	3	4.7	12	5.6	15	3.6		NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS
Total	538	100	64	100	213	100	411	100

HNW (Healthy Normal Weight); MUNW (Metabolically Unhealthy Normal Weight); MHO (Metabolically Healthy Obese); MUO (Metabolically Unhealthy Obese).

* Chi-Square Test.

** Z-test of proportions.

Metabolic phenotypes and psychobiologic habits

Initially, in relation to the smoking habit, the non-smokers were the most frequent group (χ²=30.91; p<0.001), despite the fact MUNW phenotype consisted of the highest percentage of smoking individuals (18.8%, n=12), whereas MUO subjects consisted of the highest proportion of past smoking subjects (20.2%, n=83). On the other side, in the evaluation of the metabolic phenotypes according to PA there was a statistically significant association in the transport-related physical activity (χ²=26.93; p<0.001) and leisure activities (χ²=19.75; p<0.001) (Table 3).

Table 3. Psychobiologic Habits according to metabolic phenotypes.

Maracaibo city, Venezuela.

	(HNW) A		(MUNW) B		(MHO) C		(MUO) D			A vs. B	A vs. C	A vs. D	B vs. C	B vs. D	C vs. D
	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	χ2 (p)*	p**	p**	p**	p**	p**	p**
Smoking Habit									30.91 (<0.001)
No Smoker	415	77.7	44	68.8	154	72.6	261	63.5		NS	NS	<0.05	NS	NS	NS
Smoker	72	13.5	12	18.8	30	14.2	67	16.3		NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS
Past Smoker	47	8.8	8	12.5	28	13.2	83	20.2		NS	NS	<0.05	NS	NS	NS
Physical Activity Work Sphere									0.49 (0.92)
Inactive	408	75.8	50	78.1	159	74.6	307	74.7		NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS
Active	130	24.2	14	21.9	54	25.4	104	25.3		NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS
Physical Activity Transport Sphere									26.93 (<0.001)
Inactive	163	30.6	19	30.2	87	41.0	188	46.4		NS	<0.05	<0.05	NS	NS	NS
Active	369	69.4	44	69.8	125	59.0	217	53.6		NS	<0.05	<0.05	NS	NS	NS
Physical Activity Household Sphere									13.69 (<0.01)
Inactive	125	23.2	15	23.4	75	35.2	126	30.7		NS	<0.05	NS	NS	NS	NS
Active	413	76.8	49	76.6	138	64.8	285	69.3		NS	<0.05	NS	NS	NS	NS
Physical Activity Leisure Sphere									19.75 (<0.001)
Inactive	305	56.7	37	57.8	134	62.9	290	70.6		NS	NS	<0.05	NS	NS	NS
Active	233	43.3	27	42.2	79	37.1	121	29.4		NS	NS	<0.05	NS	NS	NS
Total	538	100	64	100	213	100	411	100

HNW (Healthy Normal Weight); MUNW (Metabolically Unhealthy Normal Weight); MHO (Metabolically Healthy Obese); MUO (Metabolically Unhealthy Obese). * Chi-Square Test. ** Z-test of proportions.

Phenotypes and endocrine-metabolic alterations

Distribution of subjects according to phenotypes and endocrine-metabolic alterations are shown in Table 4. A high percentage of MUNW and MUO individuals with insulin resistance was found in contrast to healthy subjects (79.7%, n=51 and 97.1%, n=399, respectively). On the other side, a higher percentage of MUNW with high TAG was found (34.4% n=22 vs 9.5% n=51 HNW; p<0.05) and also a higher prevalence of MS (29.7% n=19 vs 12.3% n=66; p<0.05 HNW); similar findings were observed in the obese phenotypes, where a minor prevalence of these alterations were found in the MHO subjects (high TAG levels: 28.8% n=60 vs 42.8% n=176, p<0.05; MS: 53.1% n=113 vs 69.3% n=285, p<0.05). Finally, a significant association was found between the metabolic phenotypes with low HDL-C (χ²=44.08; p<0.0001) and HTN (χ²= 182.22, p<0.0001).

Table 4. Endocrine-Metabolic Alterations according to metabolic phenotypes Maracaibo city, Venezuela.

	(HNW) A		(MUNW) B		(MHO) C		(MUO) D			A vs. B	A vs. C	A vs. D	B vs. C	B vs. D	C vs. D
	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	χ2 (p)*	p**	p**	p**	p**	p**	p**
HOMA2-IR									727.9 (<0.0001)
<2	434	80.7	13	20.3	193	90.6	12	2.9		<0.05	NS	<0.05	NS	<0.05	<0.05
≥2	104	19.3	51	79.7	20	9.4	399	97.1		<0.05	<0.05	<0.05	<0.05	<0.05	<0.05
Hypertension									182.22 (<0.0001)
Absent	331	87.3	32	82.1	53	43.1	96	39.8		NS	<0.05	<0.05	<0.05	<0.05	NS
Present‡	48	12.7	7	17.9	70	56.9	145	60.2		NS	<0.05	<0.05	<0.05	<0.05	NS
Triglycerides									142.09 (<0.0001)
Normal	487	90.5	42	65.6	153	71.8	235	57.2		<0.05	<0.05	<0.05	NS	NS	<0.05
High	51	9.5	22	34.4	60	28.2	176	42.8		<0.05	<0.05	<0.05	NS	NS	<0.05
HDL-C									44.08 (<0.0001)
Normal	283	52.6	30	46.9	85	39.9	129	31.4		NS	<0.05	<0.05	NS	NS	NS
Low	255	47.4	34	53.1	128	60.1	282	68.6		NS	<0.05	<0.05	NS	NS	NS
Metabolic Syndrome									339.38 (<0.0001)
Absent	472	87.7	45	70.3	100	46.9	126	30.7		<0.05	<0.05	<0.05	<0.05	<0.05	<0.05
Present	66	12.3	19	29.7	113	53.1	285	69.3		<0.05	<0.05	<0.05	<0.05	<0.05	<0.05
Total	538	100	64	100	213	100	411	100

HNW (Healthy Normal Weight); MUNW (Metabolically Unhealthy Normal Weight); MHO (Metabolically Healthy Obese); MUO (Metabolically Unhealthy Obese).

* Chi-Square Test.

** Z-test of proportions.

‡Personal history and Diagnosis in the Study.

Metabolic phenotypes and biologic-anthropometric variables

Biochemical and clinical characteristics according to metabolic phenotypes are shown in Table 5. An increasing tendency of their variable levels was observed, except on HOMA2-IR, HOMA2-βcell, HOMA2-S, insulin and glucose levels whose values were higher in sick subjects; while individuals with obesity had lower levels of HDL-C.

Table 5. Clinical and biochemical characteristics according to metabolic phenotypes.

Maracaibo city, Venezuela.

	HNW [A]		MUNW [B]		MHO [C]		MUO [D]
	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	p*	Pos-hoc Analysis §
Age (years)	32,5	14,7	34,1	16,5	42,9	13,5	43,1	13,2	<0.001	C and D > A and B
Body Mass Index (Kg/m²)	21,9	2,1	22,9	1,7	34,5	4,7	35,4	5,6	<0.001	C and D > A and B
Waist Circunference (cm)
Female	79,3	8,2	77,2	7,1	104,4	10,6	105,5	10,1	<0.001	C and D > A and B
Male	81,5	6,9	86,9	7,6	109,2	11,9	116,0	15,3	<0.001	C and D > A and B
HOMA2-βcell	127,2	40,4	204,5	88,2	118,9	37,0	188,7	80,8	<0.001	B > A and C
HOMA2-S	81,9	44,6	41,0	27,3	80,6	36,9	32,8	10,5	<0.001	A and C > B and D
HOMA2-IR	1,5	0,5	3,2	1,6	1,4	0,4	3,5	1,6	<0.001	B and D > A and C
Insulin (µU/mL)	9,9	3,6	22,3	11,9	9,6	2,9	23,7	11,8	<0.001	B and D > A and C
Glucose (mg/dL)	89,3	10,1	94,9	22,7	91,9	11,3	103,2	28,9	<0.001	D > A, B and C
Total Cholesterol (mg/dL)	174,9	38,8	180,1	44,9	196,5	52,3	200,8	45,4	<0.001	D and C > A
Triglycerides (mg/dL) ¶	73.4	53.0– 106.0	99.1	67.9– 209.0	107.7	75.0– 164.0	135.2	97.0– 193.0	<0.001	C and D > A and B
HDL-C (mg/dL)
Female	49,3	11,8	51,6	11,5	45,6	13,0	44,1	11,5	<0.001	B > C and D
Male	46,0	11,2	39,5	11,8	40,2	9,9	36,7	8,5	<0.001	A > B, C and D
VLDL-C (mg/dL)	17,1	9,3	31,0	28,5	26,7	20,4	32,5	21,5	<0.001	B and D > A
LDL-C (mg/dL)	109,8	34,5	106,4	40,2	126,3	35,1	128,0	37,2	<0.001	C and D > A and B
Lipoprotein(a) (mg/dL)	26,1	14,0	22,2	14,7	28,7	13,4	29,3	14,1	<0.001	C and D > B
hs-C Reactive Protein (mg/L) ¶	0.297	0.070– 0.598	0.235	0.099– 0.580	0.435	0.177– 0.814	0.562	0.195– 1.222	<0.001	C and D > A and B
Non HDL Cholesterol	126,9	38,6	135,3	45,5	153,8	51,9	160,3	45,1	<0.001	C and D > A and B
Triglycerides/ HDL-C Index¶	1.5	1.0–2.4	2.4	1.4–5.5	2.8	1.7–4.1	3.5	2.3–5.5	<0.001	C and D > A
Visceral Adiposity Index¶	1.7	0.7–1.8	1.6	0.9–3.3	1.8	1.2–2.9	2.4	1.7–3.9	<0.001	D > A, B and C
Systolic Blood Pressure (mmHg)	111,9	13,3	115,2	15,3	125,3	18,4	125,6	17,3	<0.001	C and D > A and B
Diastolic Blood Pressure (mmHg)	71,7	9,4	73,9	10,9	81,5	12,3	81,9	11,2	<0.001	C and D > A and B

HNW (Healthy Normal Weight); MUNW (Metabolically Unhealthy Normal Weight); MHO (Metabolically Healthy Obese); MUO (Metabolically Unhealthy Obese).

SD=Standar Deviation;

* One-way ANOVA Test.

¶ As Median (p25–p75^th) Comparison: Kruskal Wallis Test.

§ Pos-hoc Tukey analysis for means and ANOVA with Bonferroni correction for medians. Statistical significant difference (p<0.05).

Metabolic phenotypes and coronary risk classification

An association between metabolically unhealthy phenotypes and a higher risk of a coronary event was found in univariate analysis. However, results were statistically significant only for obese individuals when multivariate adjustment was applied (MHO: OR=1.85 CI95%: 1.11-3.09; p=0.02 and MUO: OR=2.09 CI95%: 1.34-3.28; p<0.01) (Table 6).

Table 6. Logistic regression model for metabolic phenotypes and coronary risk categories.

Maracaibo city, Venezuela.

	Crude Odds Ratio (IC 95%^a)	p^b	Adjusted Odds Ratio* (IC 95%^a)	p^b
Metabolic Phenotypes
Metabolically Healthy Normal Weight	1,00	-	1,00	-
Metabolically Unhealthy Normal Weight	3,41 (1,46 - 7,98)	< 0,01	2.24 (0,89 - 5.56)	0,08
Metabolically Healthy Obese	2,26 (1,40 - 3,64)	< 0,01	1.85 (1.11 - 3.09)	0,02
Metabolically Unhealthy Obese	2,85 (1,89 - 4,29)	< 0,01	2.09 (1.34 - 3.28)	< 0,01

a Confidence Interval (95%); b Level of significance

Dependent Variable: Coronary risk: <5% in 10 years vs ≥5% in 10 years

* Adjusted Model for: sex, age, ethnic group, socioeconomic status, smoking habit, physical activity in leisure dimension according to IPAQ, high TAG, and metabolic phenotypes.

Discussion

Obesity is a prioritized area for the world health systems because of its increasing prevalence, incidence, and associated costs in the last decade²⁰. This disease has been defined classically as “excessive presence of adipose tissue that is injurious for health” and given its association to other chronic-degenerative diseases^3,21 has been stereotyped as “more adiposity, more risk”. All the classic methods employed for obesity diagnosis, even central and global, are indirect measurements. For different populations they do not allow to determine the adipose tissue functioning from individuals, even though they have high sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values. Based on this, multiple epidemiologic studies have detected a considerable percentage of individuals who did not enter in the classic “HNW” and “MUO” phenotypes, showing the existence of atypical metabolic phenotypes called “MUNW” and “MHO”³. The defining criteria of these metabolic states differ significantly between studies and are defined under highly subjectivity levels, nonetheless insulin sensitivity and lipid profile are often used to define healthy and unhealthy phenotypes^22–24.

Giving this criteria and methods discrepancy, such as the psychobiologic, sociodemographic, and genetic patterns according to latitudes, the phenotype frequency presents high variability²⁵. This could bias the study by selecting predetermined variables and cut-off points to consider an individual as healthy or unhealthy. In this sense, data mining techniques were proposed to avoid potential bias. The program would group subjects according to spontaneous tendencies and biologic behavior of related variables.

Applied studies in Asia reported a prevalence of 8.7%–13.07% and 3.9%–15.5% for MUNW and MHO phenotypes, respectively^26,27. Likewise, studies conducted in Europe reported frequencies ranging between 18.9% and 45.8% for the MUNW phenotype, and between 2.1% and 18.5% for the MHO phenotype^28–30; a similar variability was observed in American research studies^31,32. Latin American reports are scant, however Fanghanel et al.³³ showed a 5.8% prevalence of the MUNW phenotype for the Mexico City, similar to the one showed in the present study, whereas contrasting the obese phenotypes the Maracaibo population exhibited the highest prevalence of MHO subjects (17% vs 10.8% of the Mexican population).

The atypical metabolic phenotypes, as MUNW and MHO, tend to be observed in females with more frequency^32,34. However, the present study reported these phenotypes were more frequent in males. Significant difference between sexes was found in the MUNW group, similar to the study by Hinnouko et al.³⁵. Smoking habit, age, and physical activity values, were discovered as influencing factors in these findings.

In the same manner, multiple studies have reported that healthy phenotype prevalence decreases with age^27,29, but in our population an increase was observed in the frequency of MHO individuals older than 30 years old. Yoo et al.³⁶ did not report differences in this phenotype prevalence between subjects older and younger than 35 years. Regarding the MUNW phenotype in the Maracaibo population, a higher frequency was found in subjects younger than 30 years. A considerable part of epidemiologic studies that evaluate this association possessed samples conformed by subjects older than 35 years. This may limit the establishment of a tendency in frequency of healthy phenotypes according to age. Similarly, factors such as ethnicity from African descendants³⁷ and socioeconomical status³⁸ have been related to the presence of atypical phenotypes, but no relationship was found between these variables in Maracaibo population.

One of the greatest enigmas formulated in relation to the atypical metabolic phenotypes, is focused on its conditioning factors. Psychobiologic habits have been considered key elements in comprehension of its biology and behavior related to time. Diniz et al.³⁹ found a significant association between healthy metabolic phenotypes with absence of smoking habit, also with increased PA levels, such as the present study. Ortega et al.⁴⁰ reported that MHO subjects present with better cardiorespiratory fitness profiles than their unhealthy counterpart, and by adjusting for this variable the MHO individuals showed less mortality. Other studies report that the phenotypes progression from health to unhealthiness is not related to the smoking habit, alcohol, or quantified PA through indirect methods³⁰ and depends fundamentally on abdominal circumference and visceral adiposity increment.

Regarding to cardiometabolic profiles, our study showed evidence of significantly higher HOMA2-βcell values in all of the unhealthy phenotypes, described previously by the NHANES study⁴¹ and by Madeira et al.⁴². Also higher HOMA2-IR and a lower HOMA2-S demonstrate again the importance to define metabolic states in lean and obese individuals. They could also elevate the risk of developing T2DM and CVD in the unhealthy phenotypes, given their hyper functioning pancreatic beta cell and hyperinsulinemia⁴³.

MHO subjects present with lower HOMA2-IR and higher TAG, LDL-C, PAS, PAD, and hs-CRP levels. In contrast to lean subjects, MHO has higher VAI. The latter constitutes an initial obesity state, without a significant risk of T2DM and CVD in the short term (7–11 years)⁴⁴, but there is in the long term (>16–30 years)⁴⁵. The natural history of the MHO is variable, only 16% of MHO individuals stay on that status without alteration for the following 7–8 years⁴⁶. Those who progress to an unhealthy state present a higher risk of high blood pressure, low-grade inflammation, bad metabolic control and high TAG³⁰. In spite of the metabolic “benign” state of the MHO adipose tissue, non-metabolic complications of obesity, do not exclude these subjects from getting T2DM, CVD, and chronic diseases associated with obesity in the future^34,35.

Healthy obese individuals must be classified in categories with higher risk of a coronary event compared to lean subjects. This is consistent with previous reports related to metabolic phenotypes and CVD, suggesting that healthy obese subjects have a higher risk profile in comparison to those with lower BMI³⁶; as well as an increased risk for CVD⁴⁷ and metabolic disorders such as fatty liver and low-grade inflammation⁷. Given the above, a profound evaluation of these patients is recommended. This includes not only obese subjects but also those who are overweight, which can go unnoticed in a routine consultation and CVD could be subclinical; as it has been demonstrated by Khan et al. in 475 women from the SWAN study⁴⁸.

Finally, despite the fact that our report presents a novel method to classify healthy and unhealthy subjects, the classification was made based on anthropometric measures due to the lack of availability of large-scale imaging studies to determine visceral adiposity in our region. Likewise, it is important to mention the difficulty to follow-up these individuals, the latter would show the atypical phenotype stability related to time, as well as the incidence of T2DM and CVD, this was another limitation of our study. In addition our study lacks nutritional data. For this reason, a through and constant evaluation of subjects with atypical metabolic phenotypes is recommended, given their demonstrated unsteadiness in time, and associated non metabolic comorbidities observed especially in the MHO individuals.

Data availability

Underlying data

Salazar, Juan; Bermudez, Valmore (2021): Biochemical and clinical characterization of metabolic phenotypes: a cross-sectional study from Maracaibo city, Venezuela _Dataset.xlsx. figshare. Dataset. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14213654.v1⁴⁹

Ethics and consent

The study was approved by the Bioethics Committee of the Endocrine and Metabolic Research Center – University of Zulia (approval number: BEC-006-0305). This ethical approval included all future studies that used the data from the Maracaibo City Metabolic Syndrome Prevalence Study (MMSPS). All participants signed written a informed consent for participation in the study before being questioned and physically examined by a trained team.

Abbreviations

CVD: cardiovascular disease

HDL-C: High Density Lipoprotein - Cholesterol

HNW: healthy normal-weight

HOMA: Homeostasis Model Assesment

HTN: hypertension

hs-CRP: high-sensitivity C-Reactive Protein

IR: insulin resistance

LDL-C: Low Density Lipoprotein – Cholesterol

MAP: mean arterial pressure

MET: Metabolic Equivalent

MMSPS: Maracaibo City Metabolic Syndrome Prevalence Study

MHO: metabolically healthy obese

MS: Metabolic Syndrome

MUNW: metabolically unhealthy normal-weight

MUO: metabolically unhealthy obese

PA: Physical activity

SD: standard deviation

TAG: triglycerides

T2DM: Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

VAI: Visceral Adiposity Index

Faculty Opinions recommended

References

1. World Health Organization (WHO): Obesity and overweight: Fact Sheet. 2016; [cited 2017 Mar 20]. Reference Source
2. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): Adult Obesity Causes & Consequences | Overweight & Obesity. 2016; [cited 2017 Mar 20]. Reference Source
3. Andres R: Effect of obesity on total mortality. Int J Obes. 1980; 4(4): 381–6. PubMed Abstract
4. Ferrannini E, Natali A, Bell P, et al.: Insulin resistance and hypersecretion in obesity. European Group for the Study of Insulin Resistance (EGIR). J Clin Invest. 1997; 100(5): 1166–73. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
5. Bernstein RS, Grant N, Kipnis DM: Hyperinsulinemia and enlarged adipocytes in patients with endogenous hyperlipoproteinemia without obesity or diabetes mellitus. Diabetes. 1975; 24(2): 207–13. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
6. Ruderman NB, Schneider SH, Berchtold P: The “metabolically-obese,” normal-weight individual. Am J Clin Nutr. 1981; 34(8): 1617–21. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
7. Shaharyar S, Roberson LL, Jamal O, et al.: Obesity and metabolic phenotypes (metabolically healthy and unhealthy variants) are significantly associated with prevalence of elevated C-reactive protein and hepatic steatosis in a large healthy Brazilian population. J Obes. 2015; 2015: 178526. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
8. Bermúdez V, Marcano RP, Cano C, et al.: The Maracaibo city metabolic syndrome prevalence study: design and scope. Am J Ther. 2010; 17(3): 288–94. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
9. Bermúdez V, Rojas J, Salazar J, et al.: Sensitivity and Specificity Improvement in Abdominal Obesity Diagnosis Using Cluster Analysis during Waist Circumference Cut-Off Point Selection. J Diabetes Res. 2015; 2015: 750265. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
10. Mendez Castellano H, de Mendez MC: Estratificacion social y biologia humana: metodo Graffar modificado. Arch Venez Pueric Pediatría. 1986; 49(3–4): 93–104. Reference Source
11. Chobanian AV, Bakris GL, Black HR, et al.: The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure: the JNC 7 report. JAMA. 2003; 289(19): 2560–72. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
12. World Health Organization (WHO): The world health report 2003 - shaping the future. 2003; [cited 2017 Nov 20]. Reference Source
13. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): Health Statistics, NHANES III Reference Manuals and Reports. 1996; [cited 2017 Nov 20]. Reference Source
14. Friedewald WT, Levy RI, Fredrickson DS: Estimation of the concentration of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in plasma, without use of the preparative ultracentrifuge. Clin Chem. 1972; 18(6): 499–502. PubMed Abstract
15. Bermudez V, Salazar J, Martínez MS, et al.: Prevalence and Associated Factors of Insulin Resistance in Adults from Maracaibo City, Venezuela. Adv Prev Med. 2016; 2016: 9405105. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
16. Levy JC, Matthews DR, Hermans MP: Correct homeostasis model assessment (HOMA) evaluation uses the computer program. Diabetes Care. 1998; 21(12): 2191–2. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
17. Amato MC, Giordano C, Galia M, et al.: Visceral Adiposity Index: a reliable indicator of visceral fat function associated with cardiometabolic risk. Diabetes Care. 2010; 33(4): 920–2. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
18. Alberti KG, Eckel RH, Grundy SM, et al.: Harmonizing the metabolic syndrome: a joint interim statement of the International Diabetes Federation Task Force on Epidemiology and Prevention; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; American Heart Association; World Heart Federation; International Atherosclerosis Society; and International Association for the Study of Obesity. Circulation. 2009; 120(16): 1640–5. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
19. Bermúdez V, Salazar J, Bello L, et al.: Coronary Risk Estimation According to a Recalibrated Framingham-Wilson Score in the Maracaibo City Metabolic Syndrome Prevalence Study. J Cardiol Photon. 2014; 107: 160–8. Reference Source
20. World Health Organization (WHO): Global action plan for the prevention and control of NCDs 2013–2020. 2013; [cited 2017 Nov 20]. Reference Source
21. Hubert HB, Feinleib M, McNamara PM, et al.: Obesity as an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease: a 26-year follow-up of participants in the Framingham Heart Study. Circulation. 1983; 67(5): 968–77. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
22. Brochu M, Tchernof A, Dionne IJ, et al.: What are the physical characteristics associated with a normal metabolic profile despite a high level of obesity in postmenopausal women? J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2001; 86(3): 1020–5. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
23. Stefan N, Kantartzis K, Machann J, et al.: Identification and characterization of metabolically benign obesity in humans. Arch Intern Med. 2008; 168(15): 1609–16. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
24. Aguilar-Salinas CA, García EG, Robles L, et al.: High adiponectin concentrations are associated with the metabolically healthy obese phenotype. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2008; 93(10): 4075–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
25. Martínez-Larrad MT, Corbatón Anchuelo A, Del Prado N, et al.: Profile of individuals who are metabolically healthy obese using different definition criteria. A population-based analysis in the Spanish population. PLoS One. 2014; 9(9): e106641. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
26. Lee K: Metabolically obese but normal weight (MONW) and metabolically healthy but obese (MHO) phenotypes in Koreans: characteristics and health behaviors. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2009; 18(2): 280–4. PubMed Abstract
27. Zheng R, Yang M, Bao Y, et al.: Prevalence and Determinants of Metabolic Health in Subjects with Obesity in Chinese Population. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2015; 12(11): 13662–77. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
28. Calori G, Lattuada G, Piemonti L, et al.: Prevalence, metabolic features, and prognosis of metabolically healthy obese Italian individuals: the Cremona Study. Diabetes Care. 2011; 34(1): 210–5. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
29. Lopez-Garcia E, Guallar-Castillon P, Leon-Muñoz L, et al.: Prevalence and determinants of metabolically healthy obesity in Spain. Atherosclerosis. 2013; 231(1): 152–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
30. Hamer M, Bell JA, Sabia S, et al.: Stability of metabolically healthy obesity over 8 years: the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. Eur J Endocrinol. 2015; 173(5): 703–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
31. Kuk JL, Ardern CI: Are metabolically normal but obese individuals at lower risk for all-cause mortality? Diabetes Care. 2009; 32(12): 2297–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
32. Wildman RP, Muntner P, Reynolds K, et al.: The obese without cardiometabolic risk factor clustering and the normal weight with cardiometabolic risk factor clustering: prevalence and correlates of 2 phenotypes among the US population (NHANES 1999–2004). Arch Intern Med. 2008; 168(15): 1617–24. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
33. Fanghänel-Salmón G, Gutiérrez-Salmeán G, Samaniego V, et al.: Obesity Phenotypes In Urban Middle-Class Cohorts; The Prit-Lindavista Merging Evidence In Mexico: The Opus Prime Study. Nutr Hosp. 2015; 32(1): 182–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
34. Bo S, Musso G, Gambino R, et al.: Prognostic implications for insulin-sensitive and insulin-resistant normal-weight and obese individuals from a population-based cohort. Am J Clin Nutr. 2012; 96(5): 962–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
35. Hinnouho GM, Czernichow S, Dugravot A, et al.: Metabolically healthy obesity and the risk of cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes: the Whitehall II cohort study. Eur Heart J. 2015; 36(9): 551–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
36. Yoo HK, Choi EY, Park EW, et al.: Comparison of Metabolic Characteristics of Metabolically Healthy but Obese (MHO) Middle-Aged Men According to Different Criteria. Korean J Fam Med. 2013; 34(1): 19–26. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
37. Schmiegelow MD, Hedlin H, Mackey RH, et al.: Race and ethnicity, obesity, metabolic health, and risk of cardiovascular disease in postmenopausal women. J Am Heart Assoc. 2015; 4(5): pii:e001695. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
38. Yang HK, Han K, Kwon HS, et al.: Obesity, metabolic health, and mortality in adults: a nationwide population-based study in Korea. Sci Rep. 2016; 6(6): 30329. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
39. Diniz Mde F, Beleigoli AM, Ribeiro AL, et al.: Factors associated with metabolically healthy status in obesity, overweight, and normal weight at baseline of ELSA-Brasil. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016; 95(27): e4010. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
40. Ortega FB, Lee DC, Katzmarzyk PT, et al.: The intriguing metabolically healthy but obese phenotype: cardiovascular prognosis and role of fitness. Eur Heart J. 2013; 34(5): 389–97. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
41. Romero-Corral A, Somers VK, Sierra-Johnson J, et al.: Normal weight obesity: a risk factor for cardiometabolic dysregulation and cardiovascular mortality. Eur Heart J. 2010; 31(6): 737–46. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
42. Madeira FB, Silva AA, Veloso HF, et al.: Normal weight obesity is associated with metabolic syndrome and insulin resistance in young adults from a middle-income country. PLoS One. 2013; 8(3): e60673. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
43. Succurro E, Marini MA, Frontoni S, et al.: Insulin secretion in metabolically obese, but normal weight, and in metabolically healthy but obese individuals. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2008; 16(8): 1881–6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
44. Ogorodnikova AD, Kim M, McGinn AP, et al.: Incident cardiovascular disease events in metabolically benign obese individuals. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2012; 20(3): 651–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
45. Hansen L, Netterstrøm MK, Johansen NB, et al.: Metabolically Healthy Obesity and Ischemic Heart Disease: A 10-Year Follow-Up of the Inter99 Study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2017; 102(6): 1934–1942. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
46. Kim NH, Seo JA, Cho H, et al.: Risk of the Development of Diabetes and Cardiovascular Disease in Metabolically Healthy Obese People: The Korean Genome and Epidemiology Study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016; 95(15): e3384. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
47. Durward CM, Hartman TJ, Nickols-Richardson SM: All-cause mortality risk of metabolically healthy obese individuals in NHANES III. J Obes. 2012; 2012: 460321. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
48. Khan UI, Wang D, Thurston RC, et al.: Burden of subclinical cardiovascular disease in “metabolically benign” and “at-risk” overweight and obese women: the Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation (SWAN). Atherosclerosis. 2011; 217(1): 179–86. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
49. Salazar J, Bermudez V: Biochemical and clinical characterization of metabolic phenotypes: a cross-sectional study from Maracaibo city, Venezuela _Dataset.xlsx. figshare. Dataset. 2021. http://www.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14213654.v1

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 3

VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 27 Feb 2018

Author details Author details

¹ Grupo de Investigación Altos Estudios de Frontera (ALEF), Universidad Simón Bolívar, Cucuta, Colombia
² Endocrine and Metabolic Diseases Research Center, The University of Zulia, Maracaibo, Venezuela
³ Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine Department, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
⁴ Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center (GRECC), U.S Department of Veterans Affairs, Miami, FL, USA
⁵ Department of Pharmacology, “JM Vargas” Medical School, Central University of Venezuela, Caracas, Venezuela

Valmore Bermudez
Roles: Conceptualization, Writing – Review & Editing

Joselyn Rojas
Roles: Conceptualization, Writing – Review & Editing

Juan Salazar
Roles: Formal Analysis, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Maria Sofia Martinez
Roles: Formal Analysis, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Luis Carlos Olivar
Roles: Data Curation, Investigation

Maria Jose Calvo
Roles: Data Curation, Investigation

Andres Mindiola
Roles: Investigation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Roberto Añez
Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis

Sandra Wilches-Duran
Roles: Funding Acquisition, Writing – Review & Editing

Marcos Cerda
Roles: Funding Acquisition, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Modesto Graterol
Roles: Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition

Rosemily Graterol
Roles: Funding Acquisition, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Juan Diego Hernandez
Roles: Formal Analysis, Investigation

Carlos Garicano
Roles: Investigation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Manuel Velasco
Roles: Investigation, Writing – Review & Editing

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

This work was supported by research grant Nº CC-0437-10-21-09-10 from the Technological, Humanistic, and Scientific Development Council (Consejo de Desarrollo Científico, Humanístico y Tecnológico; CONDES), University of Zulia.
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Article Versions (3)

version 3

Revised

Published: 24 Mar 2021, 7:230

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.13897.3

version 2

Revised

Published: 04 Jan 2019, 7:230

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.13897.2

version 1

Published: 27 Feb 2018, 7:230

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.13897.1

Copyright

© 2021 Bermudez V 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 work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

0

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Bermudez V, Rojas J, Salazar J et al. Biochemical and clinical characterization of metabolic phenotypes: a cross-sectional study from Maracaibo city, Venezuela [version 3; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2021, 7:230 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.13897.3)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status: ?

Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE

ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

Version 3

VERSION 3

PUBLISHED 24 Mar 2021

Revised

Views

7

Reviewer Report 27 Jan 2022

Hannah XY Hui, School of Biomedical Sciences, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.29764.r119708

The authors carried out a cross-sectional sub-analysis on The Maracaibo City Metabolic Syndrome Prevalence Study, to evaluate biochemical and clinical characteristics of metabolic phenotypes in Maracaibo city. The prevalence of healthy normal weight, unhealthy normal weight, healthy obese and unhealthy ... Continue reading

The authors carried out a cross-sectional sub-analysis on The Maracaibo City Metabolic Syndrome Prevalence Study, to evaluate biochemical and clinical characteristics of metabolic phenotypes in Maracaibo city. The prevalence of healthy normal weight, unhealthy normal weight, healthy obese and unhealthy obese subjects was obtained. “Metabolic Unhealthy Normal-Weight” and “Metabolic Healthy Obese” are interesting but has been controversial concepts, which makes the current study potentially important.

It is interesting to note that the tendency of atypical metabolic phenotypes in either male or female is different in the current cohort than the previously report ones. Could the authors elaborate more in the discussion section in terms of the possible reason and the clinical implications lying behind?

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required.
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Endocrine disorders, Obesity, Insulin resistance

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Views

13

Reviewer Report 31 Mar 2021

Manfred J. Müller, Institute of human nutrition and food science, Christian Albrechts Universität zu Kiel, Kiel, Germany

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.29764.r82112

I still feel that the authors did not specifically address my concerns. To refer to other authors (and their papers) who went the same way of thinking cannot provide an opportunity to do a next step forward. The arbitrary nature ... Continue reading

I still feel that the authors did not specifically address my concerns. To refer to other authors (and their papers) who went the same way of thinking cannot provide an opportunity to do a next step forward. The arbitrary nature of statistically defined phenotypes should be mentioned in the discussion of the paper. It is obvious that we need a functional approach rather than a static and statistical approach to address metabolic phenotypes. Metabolism is a process which cannot be characterized by e.g. assessing the plasma levels of metabolites and hormones in a basal state. By contrast, metabolism is about fluxes and substrate turnovers which again are related to systemic outcomes (e.g., body temperature, heart rate, blood pressure etc). The concept of functional body composition‘ provides a useful framework of future research. This has to be addressed in the discussion section. Resisting on a conventional approach is not solution-oriented research.

Repeating and repeating again that many scientists still use crude anthropometric variables cannot be taken as a justification to go on using them. Faced with the present methodological advances it is questionable to go on to apply outdated methods (i.e., anthropometry). Modern techniques used for body composition analysis are neither cumbersome nor expensive. They are already established in huge population studies like NHANES and the UK Biobank Study. If clinicians still insist to use the BMI and wc they are after now. This is a matter of fact. Again, referring to other authors who still work on BMI and wc cannot be taken as a justification to be after.

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Metabolism, phenotyping

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Version 2

VERSION 2

PUBLISHED 04 Jan 2019

Revised

Views

21

Reviewer Report 03 Sep 2020

Manfred J. Müller, Institute of human nutrition and food science, Christian Albrechts Universität zu Kiel, Kiel, Germany

Not Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.19357.r70666

My major concern is about the general idea of a metabolically healthy obese subjects. This is an arbitrary rather than a biological phenotype. BMI (and also fat mass) have a limited precision to estimate metabolic risks, i.e., the respective ROC ... Continue reading

My major concern is about the general idea of a metabolically healthy obese subjects. This is an arbitrary rather than a biological phenotype. BMI (and also fat mass) have a limited precision to estimate metabolic risks, i.e., the respective ROC estimates are around 0.7. Since obesity is about categorization (based on observational data on the association between BMI and mortality risk) the finding that about 30% of obese subjects have no measurable metabolic risks question that clinical categorization rather than generating a specific metabolic phenotype worthwhile to study in detail. Thus, the true message of the present paper should be about a metabolically based categorization of the BMI. To get the idea the authors are referred to e.g., Obes Sci & Pract 2017¹.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

References

1. Hübers M, Pourhassan M, Braun W, Geisler C, et al.: Definition of new cut-offs of BMI and waist circumference based on body composition and insulin resistance: differences between children, adolescents and adults.Obes Sci Pract. 3 (3): 272-281 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Metabolism, phenotyping

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Views

21

Reviewer Report 22 Jan 2019

Víctor A. Cortes, Department of Nutrition, Diabetes and Metabolism, School of Medicine, Pontifical Catholic University of Chile (UC), Santiago, Chile

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.19357.r42581

I believe the current version of ... Continue reading

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 27 Feb 2018

Views

34

Reviewer Report 19 Jul 2018

Víctor A. Cortes, Department of Nutrition, Diabetes and Metabolism, School of Medicine, Pontifical Catholic University of Chile (UC), Santiago, Chile

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.15107.r35881

The authors aimed to estimate the prevalence of “atypical metabolic phenotypes” i.e. lean metabolically unhealthy and obese metabolically healthy individuals in the city area of Maracaibo, Venezuela. For that, they analyzed previously generated data from a cross-sectional city-wide health survey ... Continue reading

The authors aimed to estimate the prevalence of “atypical metabolic phenotypes” i.e. lean metabolically unhealthy and obese metabolically healthy individuals in the city area of Maracaibo, Venezuela. For that, they analyzed previously generated data from a cross-sectional city-wide health survey (MMSPS), grouping individuals in three BMI categories (normal weight, overweight and obese) and in two “metabolic health” categories (healthy and unhealthy).

Overall, this study is incremental, reporting no new scientific information on the metabolic phenotypes whatsoever. Its relevance relay on the fact that is methodologically correct study of a Latin American population, which is largely underrepresented in the international literature.

Nevertheless, there are several specific caveats that must be addressed before the article be suitable for indexing:

Abstract:
Methodololgy:

It must tell the source of the sample to make clear that is a city-wide health survey.
It must indicate what was the specific criteria for this clustering individuals in healthy/unhealthy categories. It is not enough to tell that is was made upon a 2-step clustering analysis.

Results:

It should be re written to clearly indicate the frequency of each phenotype category and indicate if there were differences between the sexes in this distribution and the OR for casrdiovascular risk factors or diseases.
It must indicate what is the difference between unhealthy lean and unhealthy normal-weight individuals

Conclusions: There are no reasons to suppose that individuals of Maracaibo city will have no “atypical metabolic phenotypes” as the rest of the world populations, thus the authors should rephrase this sentence to make more scientifically sound. Also, the conclusion relative to the increased cardiovascular risk of “healthy obese” individuals should be better explained since it cannot be derived from the data reported in the
Results section of the abstract.

Introduction:
The phrase: “For this reason, the actual clinical practice catalogues an obese patient as an “unhealthy” patient and a lean patient is considered “healthy”, should be modified to make its medical meaning clearer, because it is evident for everybody that many lean people are unhealthy.

Also, the paper will gain interest if the authors comment what is the importance of researching the “atypical phenotypes”in general. For example, is there any evidence that these individuals can be misclassified in their cardiometabolic risk based solely in the BMI?

Finally, it is important that the authors comment the extent to what Maracaibo city population is representative of other Latin American populations. For international readers will be interesting to learn that American populations are extremely heterogenous in both genetic and cultural aspects.

Materials and methods:
“Population selection”: this whole methodological section is cryptic and is basically a summary of the published in the reference 9. I suggest to re write it to make more understandable for general readers. Specifically, it must be justified why the authors did choose not to use more a conventional definition of metabolic health, such as the metabolic syndrome definition used by ATP III guidelines.

“Physical activity”: it should be improved the explanation of what is the relevance and connection of table 1 with the rest of the paper. Also, in this table there is no quantitative definition of the “Work domain” and “lower/upper limit” categories. Information of the proportion of each category over the overall would be useful to summarize these data.

“Calibration of the Framingham-Wilson equation and coronary risk categorization for the population of Maracaibo city”: the authors must explain what asymptomatic angina is, since medically angina is a symptom by itself.

Results:
Table 2: change “Indian-american” for “native American”, if its corresponds since “Indian” correspond to India nationals

“Metabolic phenotypes and biologic-anthropometric variables” section: Since all the variables in this table are statistically different, a post test comparing individual groups should be important to make sense of the noted global differences.

Also, a better description and explanation of these particular results is required in the main text.

“Metabolic phenotypes and coronary risk classification” section: the meaning of the first phrase must be clarified since only obese individuals showed increased OR: other comparisons were not statistically significant with the adjusted model, thus were not different.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required.
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Basic and clinical research on adipose tissue disorders, diabetes, dyslipidemia and fatty liver

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 3

VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 27 Feb 2018

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2	3
Version 3 (revision) 24 Mar 21		read	read
Version 2 (revision) 04 Jan 19	read	read
Version 1 27 Feb 18	read

Víctor A. Cortes, Pontifical Catholic University of Chile (UC), Santiago, Chile
Manfred J. Müller, Christian Albrechts Universität zu Kiel, Kiel, Germany
Hannah XY Hui, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Sign up for content alerts

Browse by related subjects

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

7 Views

27 Jan 2022 | for Version 3

Hannah XY Hui, School of Biomedical Sciences, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

7 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

The authors carried out a cross-sectional sub-analysis on The Maracaibo City Metabolic Syndrome Prevalence Study, to evaluate biochemical and clinical characteristics of metabolic phenotypes in Maracaibo city. The prevalence of healthy normal weight, unhealthy normal weight, healthy obese and unhealthy obese subjects was obtained. “Metabolic Unhealthy Normal-Weight” and “Metabolic Healthy Obese” are interesting but has been controversial concepts, which makes the current study potentially important.

It is interesting to note that the tendency of atypical metabolic phenotypes in either male or female is different in the current cohort than the previously report ones. Could the authors elaborate more in the discussion section in terms of the possible reason and the clinical implications lying behind?

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required.
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Endocrine disorders, Obesity, Insulin resistance

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

13 Views

31 Mar 2021 | for Version 3

Manfred J. Müller, Institute of human nutrition and food science, Christian Albrechts Universität zu Kiel, Kiel, Germany

13 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved With Reservations

I still feel that the authors did not specifically address my concerns. To refer to other authors (and their papers) who went the same way of thinking cannot provide an opportunity to do a next step forward. The arbitrary nature of statistically defined phenotypes should be mentioned in the discussion of the paper. It is obvious that we need a functional approach rather than a static and statistical approach to address metabolic phenotypes. Metabolism is a process which cannot be characterized by e.g. assessing the plasma levels of metabolites and hormones in a basal state. By contrast, metabolism is about fluxes and substrate turnovers which again are related to systemic outcomes (e.g., body temperature, heart rate, blood pressure etc). The concept of functional body composition‘ provides a useful framework of future research. This has to be addressed in the discussion section. Resisting on a conventional approach is not solution-oriented research.

Repeating and repeating again that many scientists still use crude anthropometric variables cannot be taken as a justification to go on using them. Faced with the present methodological advances it is questionable to go on to apply outdated methods (i.e., anthropometry). Modern techniques used for body composition analysis are neither cumbersome nor expensive. They are already established in huge population studies like NHANES and the UK Biobank Study. If clinicians still insist to use the BMI and wc they are after now. This is a matter of fact. Again, referring to other authors who still work on BMI and wc cannot be taken as a justification to be after.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Metabolism, phenotyping

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

21 Views

03 Sep 2020 | for Version 2

Manfred J. Müller, Institute of human nutrition and food science, Christian Albrechts Universität zu Kiel, Kiel, Germany

21 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Not Approved

My major concern is about the general idea of a metabolically healthy obese subjects. This is an arbitrary rather than a biological phenotype. BMI (and also fat mass) have a limited precision to estimate metabolic risks, i.e., the respective ROC estimates are around 0.7. Since obesity is about categorization (based on observational data on the association between BMI and mortality risk) the finding that about 30% of obese subjects have no measurable metabolic risks question that clinical categorization rather than generating a specific metabolic phenotype worthwhile to study in detail. Thus, the true message of the present paper should be about a metabolically based categorization of the BMI. To get the idea the authors are referred to e.g., Obes Sci & Pract 2017¹.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

References

1. Hübers M, Pourhassan M, Braun W, Geisler C, et al.: Definition of new cut-offs of BMI and waist circumference based on body composition and insulin resistance: differences between children, adolescents and adults.Obes Sci Pract. 3 (3): 272-281 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Metabolism, phenotyping

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

21 Views

22 Jan 2019 | for Version 2

Víctor A. Cortes, Department of Nutrition, Diabetes and Metabolism, School of Medicine, Pontifical Catholic University of Chile (UC), Santiago, Chile

21 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

I believe the current version of the paper fully addresses my comments.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

34 Views

19 Jul 2018 | for Version 1

Víctor A. Cortes, Department of Nutrition, Diabetes and Metabolism, School of Medicine, Pontifical Catholic University of Chile (UC), Santiago, Chile

34 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved With Reservations

The authors aimed to estimate the prevalence of “atypical metabolic phenotypes” i.e. lean metabolically unhealthy and obese metabolically healthy individuals in the city area of Maracaibo, Venezuela. For that, they analyzed previously generated data from a cross-sectional city-wide health survey (MMSPS), grouping individuals in three BMI categories (normal weight, overweight and obese) and in two “metabolic health” categories (healthy and unhealthy).

Overall, this study is incremental, reporting no new scientific information on the metabolic phenotypes whatsoever. Its relevance relay on the fact that is methodologically correct study of a Latin American population, which is largely underrepresented in the international literature.

Nevertheless, there are several specific caveats that must be addressed before the article be suitable for indexing:

Abstract:
Methodololgy:

It must tell the source of the sample to make clear that is a city-wide health survey.
It must indicate what was the specific criteria for this clustering individuals in healthy/unhealthy categories. It is not enough to tell that is was made upon a 2-step clustering analysis.

Results:

It should be re written to clearly indicate the frequency of each phenotype category and indicate if there were differences between the sexes in this distribution and the OR for casrdiovascular risk factors or diseases.
It must indicate what is the difference between unhealthy lean and unhealthy normal-weight individuals

Conclusions: There are no reasons to suppose that individuals of Maracaibo city will have no “atypical metabolic phenotypes” as the rest of the world populations, thus the authors should rephrase this sentence to make more scientifically sound. Also, the conclusion relative to the increased cardiovascular risk of “healthy obese” individuals should be better explained since it cannot be derived from the data reported in the
Results section of the abstract.

Introduction:
The phrase: “For this reason, the actual clinical practice catalogues an obese patient as an “unhealthy” patient and a lean patient is considered “healthy”, should be modified to make its medical meaning clearer, because it is evident for everybody that many lean people are unhealthy.

Also, the paper will gain interest if the authors comment what is the importance of researching the “atypical phenotypes”in general. For example, is there any evidence that these individuals can be misclassified in their cardiometabolic risk based solely in the BMI?

Finally, it is important that the authors comment the extent to what Maracaibo city population is representative of other Latin American populations. For international readers will be interesting to learn that American populations are extremely heterogenous in both genetic and cultural aspects.

Materials and methods:
“Population selection”: this whole methodological section is cryptic and is basically a summary of the published in the reference 9. I suggest to re write it to make more understandable for general readers. Specifically, it must be justified why the authors did choose not to use more a conventional definition of metabolic health, such as the metabolic syndrome definition used by ATP III guidelines.

“Physical activity”: it should be improved the explanation of what is the relevance and connection of table 1 with the rest of the paper. Also, in this table there is no quantitative definition of the “Work domain” and “lower/upper limit” categories. Information of the proportion of each category over the overall would be useful to summarize these data.

“Calibration of the Framingham-Wilson equation and coronary risk categorization for the population of Maracaibo city”: the authors must explain what asymptomatic angina is, since medically angina is a symptom by itself.

Results:
Table 2: change “Indian-american” for “native American”, if its corresponds since “Indian” correspond to India nationals

“Metabolic phenotypes and biologic-anthropometric variables” section: Since all the variables in this table are statistically different, a post test comparing individual groups should be important to make sense of the noted global differences.

Also, a better description and explanation of these particular results is required in the main text.

“Metabolic phenotypes and coronary risk classification” section: the meaning of the first phrase must be clarified since only obese individuals showed increased OR: other comparisons were not statistically significant with the adjusted model, thus were not different.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required.
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Basic and clinical research on adipose tissue disorders, diabetes, dyslipidemia and fatty liver

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

[1] 1. World Health Organization (WHO): Obesity and overweight: Fact Sheet. 2016; [cited 2017 Mar 20]. Reference Source

[2] 2. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): Adult Obesity Causes & Consequences | Overweight & Obesity. 2016; [cited 2017 Mar 20]. Reference Source

[3] 3. Andres R: Effect of obesity on total mortality. Int J Obes. 1980; 4(4): 381–6. PubMed Abstract

[4] 4. Ferrannini E, Natali A, Bell P, et al.: Insulin resistance and hypersecretion in obesity. European Group for the Study of Insulin Resistance (EGIR). J Clin Invest. 1997; 100(5): 1166–73. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[5] 5. Bernstein RS, Grant N, Kipnis DM: Hyperinsulinemia and enlarged adipocytes in patients with endogenous hyperlipoproteinemia without obesity or diabetes mellitus. Diabetes. 1975; 24(2): 207–13. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[6] 6. Ruderman NB, Schneider SH, Berchtold P: The “metabolically-obese,” normal-weight individual. Am J Clin Nutr. 1981; 34(8): 1617–21. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[7] 7. Shaharyar S, Roberson LL, Jamal O, et al.: Obesity and metabolic phenotypes (metabolically healthy and unhealthy variants) are significantly associated with prevalence of elevated C-reactive protein and hepatic steatosis in a large healthy Brazilian population. J Obes. 2015; 2015: 178526. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[8] 8. Bermúdez V, Marcano RP, Cano C, et al.: The Maracaibo city metabolic syndrome prevalence study: design and scope. Am J Ther. 2010; 17(3): 288–94. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[9] 9. Bermúdez V, Rojas J, Salazar J, et al.: Sensitivity and Specificity Improvement in Abdominal Obesity Diagnosis Using Cluster Analysis during Waist Circumference Cut-Off Point Selection. J Diabetes Res. 2015; 2015: 750265. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[10] 10. Mendez Castellano H, de Mendez MC: Estratificacion social y biologia humana: metodo Graffar modificado. Arch Venez Pueric Pediatría. 1986; 49(3–4): 93–104. Reference Source

[11] 11. Chobanian AV, Bakris GL, Black HR, et al.: The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure: the JNC 7 report. JAMA. 2003; 289(19): 2560–72. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[12] 12. World Health Organization (WHO): The world health report 2003 - shaping the future. 2003; [cited 2017 Nov 20]. Reference Source

[13] 13. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): Health Statistics, NHANES III Reference Manuals and Reports. 1996; [cited 2017 Nov 20]. Reference Source

[14] 14. Friedewald WT, Levy RI, Fredrickson DS: Estimation of the concentration of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in plasma, without use of the preparative ultracentrifuge. Clin Chem. 1972; 18(6): 499–502. PubMed Abstract

[15] 15. Bermudez V, Salazar J, Martínez MS, et al.: Prevalence and Associated Factors of Insulin Resistance in Adults from Maracaibo City, Venezuela. Adv Prev Med. 2016; 2016: 9405105. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[16] 16. Levy JC, Matthews DR, Hermans MP: Correct homeostasis model assessment (HOMA) evaluation uses the computer program. Diabetes Care. 1998; 21(12): 2191–2. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[17] 17. Amato MC, Giordano C, Galia M, et al.: Visceral Adiposity Index: a reliable indicator of visceral fat function associated with cardiometabolic risk. Diabetes Care. 2010; 33(4): 920–2. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[18] 18. Alberti KG, Eckel RH, Grundy SM, et al.: Harmonizing the metabolic syndrome: a joint interim statement of the International Diabetes Federation Task Force on Epidemiology and Prevention; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; American Heart Association; World Heart Federation; International Atherosclerosis Society; and International Association for the Study of Obesity. Circulation. 2009; 120(16): 1640–5. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[19] 19. Bermúdez V, Salazar J, Bello L, et al.: Coronary Risk Estimation According to a Recalibrated Framingham-Wilson Score in the Maracaibo City Metabolic Syndrome Prevalence Study. J Cardiol Photon. 2014; 107: 160–8. Reference Source

[20] 20. World Health Organization (WHO): Global action plan for the prevention and control of NCDs 2013–2020. 2013; [cited 2017 Nov 20]. Reference Source

[21] 21. Hubert HB, Feinleib M, McNamara PM, et al.: Obesity as an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease: a 26-year follow-up of participants in the Framingham Heart Study. Circulation. 1983; 67(5): 968–77. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[22] 22. Brochu M, Tchernof A, Dionne IJ, et al.: What are the physical characteristics associated with a normal metabolic profile despite a high level of obesity in postmenopausal women? J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2001; 86(3): 1020–5. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[23] 23. Stefan N, Kantartzis K, Machann J, et al.: Identification and characterization of metabolically benign obesity in humans. Arch Intern Med. 2008; 168(15): 1609–16. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[24] 24. Aguilar-Salinas CA, García EG, Robles L, et al.: High adiponectin concentrations are associated with the metabolically healthy obese phenotype. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2008; 93(10): 4075–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[25] 25. Martínez-Larrad MT, Corbatón Anchuelo A, Del Prado N, et al.: Profile of individuals who are metabolically healthy obese using different definition criteria. A population-based analysis in the Spanish population. PLoS One. 2014; 9(9): e106641. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[26] 26. Lee K: Metabolically obese but normal weight (MONW) and metabolically healthy but obese (MHO) phenotypes in Koreans: characteristics and health behaviors. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2009; 18(2): 280–4. PubMed Abstract

[27] 27. Zheng R, Yang M, Bao Y, et al.: Prevalence and Determinants of Metabolic Health in Subjects with Obesity in Chinese Population. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2015; 12(11): 13662–77. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[28] 28. Calori G, Lattuada G, Piemonti L, et al.: Prevalence, metabolic features, and prognosis of metabolically healthy obese Italian individuals: the Cremona Study. Diabetes Care. 2011; 34(1): 210–5. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[29] 29. Lopez-Garcia E, Guallar-Castillon P, Leon-Muñoz L, et al.: Prevalence and determinants of metabolically healthy obesity in Spain. Atherosclerosis. 2013; 231(1): 152–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[30] 30. Hamer M, Bell JA, Sabia S, et al.: Stability of metabolically healthy obesity over 8 years: the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. Eur J Endocrinol. 2015; 173(5): 703–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[31] 31. Kuk JL, Ardern CI: Are metabolically normal but obese individuals at lower risk for all-cause mortality? Diabetes Care. 2009; 32(12): 2297–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[32] 32. Wildman RP, Muntner P, Reynolds K, et al.: The obese without cardiometabolic risk factor clustering and the normal weight with cardiometabolic risk factor clustering: prevalence and correlates of 2 phenotypes among the US population (NHANES 1999–2004). Arch Intern Med. 2008; 168(15): 1617–24. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[33] 33. Fanghänel-Salmón G, Gutiérrez-Salmeán G, Samaniego V, et al.: Obesity Phenotypes In Urban Middle-Class Cohorts; The Prit-Lindavista Merging Evidence In Mexico: The Opus Prime Study. Nutr Hosp. 2015; 32(1): 182–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[34] 34. Bo S, Musso G, Gambino R, et al.: Prognostic implications for insulin-sensitive and insulin-resistant normal-weight and obese individuals from a population-based cohort. Am J Clin Nutr. 2012; 96(5): 962–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[35] 35. Hinnouho GM, Czernichow S, Dugravot A, et al.: Metabolically healthy obesity and the risk of cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes: the Whitehall II cohort study. Eur Heart J. 2015; 36(9): 551–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[36] 36. Yoo HK, Choi EY, Park EW, et al.: Comparison of Metabolic Characteristics of Metabolically Healthy but Obese (MHO) Middle-Aged Men According to Different Criteria. Korean J Fam Med. 2013; 34(1): 19–26. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[37] 37. Schmiegelow MD, Hedlin H, Mackey RH, et al.: Race and ethnicity, obesity, metabolic health, and risk of cardiovascular disease in postmenopausal women. J Am Heart Assoc. 2015; 4(5): pii:e001695. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[38] 38. Yang HK, Han K, Kwon HS, et al.: Obesity, metabolic health, and mortality in adults: a nationwide population-based study in Korea. Sci Rep. 2016; 6(6): 30329. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[39] 39. Diniz Mde F, Beleigoli AM, Ribeiro AL, et al.: Factors associated with metabolically healthy status in obesity, overweight, and normal weight at baseline of ELSA-Brasil. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016; 95(27): e4010. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[40] 40. Ortega FB, Lee DC, Katzmarzyk PT, et al.: The intriguing metabolically healthy but obese phenotype: cardiovascular prognosis and role of fitness. Eur Heart J. 2013; 34(5): 389–97. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[41] 41. Romero-Corral A, Somers VK, Sierra-Johnson J, et al.: Normal weight obesity: a risk factor for cardiometabolic dysregulation and cardiovascular mortality. Eur Heart J. 2010; 31(6): 737–46. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[42] 42. Madeira FB, Silva AA, Veloso HF, et al.: Normal weight obesity is associated with metabolic syndrome and insulin resistance in young adults from a middle-income country. PLoS One. 2013; 8(3): e60673. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[43] 43. Succurro E, Marini MA, Frontoni S, et al.: Insulin secretion in metabolically obese, but normal weight, and in metabolically healthy but obese individuals. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2008; 16(8): 1881–6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[44] 44. Ogorodnikova AD, Kim M, McGinn AP, et al.: Incident cardiovascular disease events in metabolically benign obese individuals. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2012; 20(3): 651–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[45] 45. Hansen L, Netterstrøm MK, Johansen NB, et al.: Metabolically Healthy Obesity and Ischemic Heart Disease: A 10-Year Follow-Up of the Inter99 Study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2017; 102(6): 1934–1942. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[46] 46. Kim NH, Seo JA, Cho H, et al.: Risk of the Development of Diabetes and Cardiovascular Disease in Metabolically Healthy Obese People: The Korean Genome and Epidemiology Study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016; 95(15): e3384. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[47] 47. Durward CM, Hartman TJ, Nickols-Richardson SM: All-cause mortality risk of metabolically healthy obese individuals in NHANES III. J Obes. 2012; 2012: 460321. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[48] 48. Khan UI, Wang D, Thurston RC, et al.: Burden of subclinical cardiovascular disease in “metabolically benign” and “at-risk” overweight and obese women: the Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation (SWAN). Atherosclerosis. 2011; 217(1): 179–86. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[49] 49. Salazar J, Bermudez V: Biochemical and clinical characterization of metabolic phenotypes: a cross-sectional study from Maracaibo city, Venezuela _Dataset.xlsx. figshare. Dataset. 2021. http://www.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14213654.v1

Biochemical and clinical characterization of metabolic phenotypes: a cross-sectional study from Maracaibo city, Venezuela

Abstract

Keywords

Revised Amendments from Version 2

Introduction

Materials and methods

Population selection

Figure 1. Patient selection diagram. Maracaibo city, Venezuela.

Clinical evaluation

Biochemical analyses

Calibration of the Framingham-Wilson equation and coronary risk categorization for the population of Maracaibo city

Statistical analysis

Results

Population general characteristics

Figure 2. Distribution of individuals according to metabolic phenotypes.

Table 1. General Characteristics of the studied sample.

Metabolic phenotypes and sociodemographic characteristics

Table 2. Sociodemographic characteristics according to metabolic phenotypes.

Metabolic phenotypes and psychobiologic habits

Table 3. Psychobiologic Habits according to metabolic phenotypes.

Phenotypes and endocrine-metabolic alterations

Table 4. Endocrine-Metabolic Alterations according to metabolic phenotypes Maracaibo city, Venezuela.

Metabolic phenotypes and biologic-anthropometric variables

Table 5. Clinical and biochemical characteristics according to metabolic phenotypes.

Metabolic phenotypes and coronary risk classification

Table 6. Logistic regression model for metabolic phenotypes and coronary risk categories.

Discussion

Data availability

Underlying data

Ethics and consent

Abbreviations

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated