In a study conducted on 7932 subjects, aged ≥ 30 years who were followed for 9.0 ± 2.3 years, WHO-defined MetS was a significant predictor of total and cardiovascular mortality in men (HR = 1.66, 95% CI = 1.23 - 2.24, and HR = 1.93, 95% CI = 1.26 - 2.94) and women (HR = 2.01, 95% CI = 1.39 - 2.88 and HR = 2.71, 95% CI = 1.44 - 5.09) (
46). WHO-defined MetS could also predict 10-year risk of CVD and all-cause mortality events (HR = 1.55, 95% CI = 1.15 - 2.09, and HR = 2.08 95% CI = 1.23 - 3.51, respectively) in 922 adults, aged ≥ 65 years (
47); JIS-defined MetS showed a risk for CVD mortality (HR = 1.65 (95% CI = 1.03 - 2.65) (
47). In a 9.3 year follow-up of 5198 non-diabetic individuals, aged ≥ 30 years (mean age 45.6 years, 45% men), the HRs of CVD events according to the NCEP-ATP III, AHA/NHLBI, IDF and JIS definitions of MetS were 1.55 (1.21 - 2.00), 1.73 (1.35 - 2.20), 1.54 (1.22 - 1.94) and 1.70 (1.34 - 2.17), respectively (
48). Evaluation of agreement between different definitions of MetS and insulin resistance in 347 non-diabetic individuals (aged ≥ 20 years) also showed poor agreement between ATP III or JIS and HOMA-IR (Kappa = 0.14 and 0.16, respectively); both criteria had also low sensitivities and specificities for detecting insulin resistance (
49). Moreover, findings of a principal component analysis, of data of a 10-year follow-up performed to extract standardized factors from MetS components, identified three factors including BP, lipids and glycemia; WC was shared in three all factors (
50); their results showed that BP, lipids and glycemia were related to the incidence of diabetes (OR = 2.23, 95% CI = 1.31 - 3.78, OR = 1.89, 95% CI = 1.27 - 3.67, and OR = 7.54, 95% CI = 4.09 - 13.91, respectively), in men and (OR = 2.13, 95% CI = 1.34 - 3.40, OR = 2.06, 95% CI = 1.35 - 3.15, and OR = 13.91, 95% CI = 7.29 - 26.51, respectively), in women, for the third versus the first tertile of these standardized factors (
50).
All definitions of MetS were associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD). In a cross-sectional study, all definitions of MetS were related to CHD after adjustment for controlling factors in both genders (
51). During 9.3 years of follow-up, the hazard ratios (HR) of MetS defined by JIS were 2.71 (1.57 - 4.68) and 2.07 (1.63 - 2.64) respectively for incident cardiovascular events and CHD; However, after controlling for MetS components, these relationship were no longer significant. In all definitions, high BP predicted both CVD and CHD events, and high FBS was also an independent predictor for CHD (
52,
53). In subjects with diabetes, adding MetS did not change the CVD risk compared to individuals without MetS; however, the risk of CVD in IFG/IGT subjects increased 2.5 fold after addition of MetS, compared to IFG/IGT individuals without MetS (
54).
Moreover, although all definitions of MetS seem to be predict type 2 diabetes, IGT had the highest predictive power for diabetes, compared to other definitions (
55).
Previous studies confirmed the potential role and clinical usefulness of MetS for predicting CVD events and type 2 diabetes. A 18-year follow-up of Finnish males and females indicated that subjects with MetS had a 2.01-fold (95% CI = 1.46 - 2.77) higher risk for cardiovascular events, compared with subjects without MetS; compared with those without any components of MetS, having five components of MetS was related to hazards of 7.89 (2.26 - 27.60) for cardiovascular events (
56). Having MetS was also related to incident diabetes, regardless of whether the MetS was defined according to NCEP ATPIII (OR = 2.03, 95% CI = 1.10 - 3.75) or the IDF criteria (OR = 2.14, 95% CI = 1.29 - 3.55) (
57). In a 20-year follow-up of adult men, baseline MetS was a predictor of developing CHD (RR = 1.64, 95% CI = 1.41 - 1.90), stroke (RR = 1.61, 95% CI = 1.26 - 2.06), and type 2 diabetes (RR = 3.57, 95% CI = 2.83 - 4.50); however MetS could not predict CHD as well as the Framingham risk score (
58). Overall, current evidence indicates that MetS can be used as a simple and useful predictor of future risk of CVD and type 2 diabetes; however MetS seems to be a more accurate tool for identifying individuals at risk of type 2 diabetes.