The present study determined the optimal cut-off points of cMetS-S for predicting CVD and CVD mortality in a large, representative sample of Iranian adults during an 18-year follow-up in a population-based cohort study. The cMetS-S cut-off points of 0.13 (SS: 65.5%, SP: 59.6%, AUC: 67.2%) and 0.53 (SS: 51.3%, SP: 71.9%, AUC: 65.5%) were found to be the most appropriate for predicting the risk of CVD and CVD mortality, respectively, and these thresholds were lower in women than in men. Given that the AUC for CVD and CVD mortality was higher for cMetS-S compared to the JIS and IDF's definition of MetS, cMetS-S could be a better predictive tool for CVD and CVD mortality than MetS.
The traditional MetS, characterized by having at least three abnormal MetS components, cannot assess the risk in patients with various combinations of components (
10). It was challenging to classify participants whose biological measurement test values were at the threshold of the defined criteria (
10). In other words, it remains uncertain whether individuals exhibiting a triad of components face a significantly elevated risk of CVD compared to those with just a dyad of components. Although MetS is a predictor of CVD, its binary criteria cannot determine the importance and severity of its components. This definition is not very useful in clinical settings as a tool for evaluation or management. Some researchers have calculated cMetS-S using traditional MetS components’ values to overcome these limitations (
10-
12). The cMetS-S not only detects individuals with MetS but also provides cardiometabolic insights for those without MetS (
10). Furthermore, it enables the comparative assessment of associated health risks across both groups.
Many studies have reported the correlation between MetS and both CVD and CVD mortality (
1). A meta-analysis study in Japan revealed that MetS significantly increased the risk of CVD morbidity with HR (95% CI) of 1.71 (1.34 - 2.18) and 1.89 (1.45 - 2.46) for men and women, respectively, and the risk of CVD mortality with HR (95% CI) of 1.68 (1.37 - 2.06) and 1.73 (1.39 - 2.15) for men and women, respectively (
24). Ramezankhani et al. investigated how changes in MetS status and its components were related to the risk of CVD and compared these relations in women versus men. Their findings indicated an independent relation between MetS and an increased risk of CVD in both genders. The associations were stronger in women with HR (95% CI) of 2.76 (2.00 - 3.82) than in men with HR (95% CI) of 1.60 (1.23 - 2.09) for CVD (
25).
Regarding the association of cMetS-S, a few studies have assessed the relation of cMetS-S with CVD and mortality. In a study conducted by Honarvar et al., cMetS-S had a strong correlation with CVD and all-cause mortality with an HR (95%CI) of 1.67 (1.47 - 1.89) and 1.37 (1.11 - 1.69) per 1 - SD increase in cMetS-S, respectively (
6). The Kailuan cohort study revealed a consistent increase in the risk of CVD and all-cause mortality as the MetS score increased. The HRs (95% CI) for CVD and all-cause mortality were 2.05 (1.86 - 2.25) and 1.45 (1.35 - 1.56), respectively, in individuals above the 75th percentile compared to those below the 25th percentile (
9). Also, a recent cohort study in Chinese adults showed that the MetS severity score was strongly related to CVD risk. Compared with the lowest quartile (Q1) of the MetS severity score, the HRs (95% CI) for CVD in the Q2, Q3, and Q4 were 1.812 (1.329 - 2.470), 1.746 (1.265 - 2.410), and 2.817 (2.015 - 3.938), respectively (
26). Jang et al. showed that the MetS score among fairly healthy middle-aged Korean adults could predict future CVD better (AUC: 0.72) than the traditional MetS definition (AUC: 0.718) using National Adult Treatment Panel III (ATPIII) criteria (the presence of at least three of MetS components) and demonstrated that CVD risk was gradually higher in the higher MetS score quartile compared to the lowest MetS score quartile (
15). However, a cut-off point for cMetS-S for CVD and CVD mortality has not been established.
Lower cut-off points for cMetS-S in women may be justified by sex disparities in the impact of MetS and its components on CVD and CVD mortality, with distinct mechanisms influencing outcomes in men and women. Research indicates that while men generally exhibit a higher prevalence of metabolic risk factors, women experience more severe consequences from certain components of MetS, such as low HDL cholesterol and high fasting glycemia, which are linked to increased mortality rates. These sex differences may be due to various factors, including sex hormones, body composition, and differences in the experience and response to MetS (
27-
29).
In the current study, SBP was more strongly associated with the risk of CVD and CVD mortality than other MetS components. Additionally, SBP exhibited even greater AUC and predictive power for CVD and CVD mortality compared to cMetS-S. The higher association of SBP than other MetS components with CVD and CVD mortality has been reported previously (
1,
30). Furthermore, SBP was reported to be a better predictive factor for CVD than MetS as a whole entity (
30). The comparative advantage of cMetS-S over SBP for predicting CVD and CVD mortality requires further studies.
This study has several strengths. First, the prospective cohort was well designed, with a large sample of Iranian adults and a long follow - up period of 18 years. Furthermore, this is the first study to determine the cut-off point of cMetS-S to use as an index for predicting CVD and CVD mortality, which makes it a more clinically applicable health metric. Some limitations should also be acknowledged. First, this study was carried out with a group of people living in Tehran, so our results might not be generalized to the entire country or other populations. It is also challenging to establish the cut-off point for cMetS-S in other age groups and races.
To sum up, the cMetS-S cut-off points differed between men and women and had better SS and SP for predicting CVD and CVD mortality than MetS in the Iranian population. This can assist physicians in screening and managing individuals at high risk. Moreover, it is essential to conduct multicenter studies to confirm the results presented in the existing literature.