Published on in Vol 9 (2023)

Preprints (earlier versions) of this paper are available at, first published .
The Impact of Metabolic Syndrome Risk Factors on Lung Function Impairment: Cross-Sectional Study

The Impact of Metabolic Syndrome Risk Factors on Lung Function Impairment: Cross-Sectional Study

The Impact of Metabolic Syndrome Risk Factors on Lung Function Impairment: Cross-Sectional Study

Original Paper

1Estilos de Vida, Innovación y Salud, Instituto Maimónides de Investigación Biomédica de Córdoba (IMIBIC), Córdoba, Spain

2Departamento de Enfermería, Famarcología y Fisioterapia, Universidad de Córdoba, Córdoba, Spain

3Indorama Ventures Química, Sociedad Limitado Unipersonal, Polígono Industrial Guadarranque, San Roque, Cádiz, Spain

4Departamento de Salud y Seguridad del Trabajo, Ayuntamiento de Córdoba, Córdoba, Spain

5Departamento de Enfermería y Nutrición, Facultad de Ciencias Biomédicas y de la Salud, Villaviciosa de Odón, Madrid, Spain

Corresponding Author:

Guillermo Molina-Recio, RN, MSc, PhD

Estilos de Vida, Innovación y Salud

Instituto Maimónides de Investigación Biomédica de Córdoba (IMIBIC)

Avd Menéndez Pidal N/N

Córdoba, 14004


Phone: 34 957 21 37 00


Background: Metabolic syndrome (MetS) is a constellation of risk factors increasingly present in the world’s population. People with this syndrome are at an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Moreover, evidence has shown that it affects different organs. MetS and its risk factors are independently associated with impaired lung function, which can be quantified through spirometric variables.

Objective: This study aims to determine whether a high number of MetS criteria is associated with increased lung function decline.

Methods: We conducted a descriptive cross-sectional study with a random sample of 1980 workers. Workers with acute respiratory pathology (eg, influenza), chronic respiratory pathology (eg, chronic bronchitis), or exposure to substances harmful to the lungs (eg, organic and inorganic dust) were not included. MetS was established based on harmonized criteria, and lung function was assessed according to spirometric variables. On the basis of these, classification into restrictive lung disease (RLD), obstructive lung disease, and mixed lung disease (MLD) was performed. In addition, the association between MetS and lung function was established based on analysis of covariance, linear trend analysis, and multiple linear regression.

Results: MetS was associated with worse lung function according to all the spirometric parameters analyzed (percentage of predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second: mean 83, SD 13.8 vs mean 89.2, SD 12.8; P<.001 and percentage of predicted forced vital capacity: mean 85.9, SD 11.6 vs mean 92, SD 11.3; P<.001). Moreover, those diagnosed with MetS had a higher prevalence of lung dysfunction (41% vs 21.9%; P<.001), RLD (23.4% vs 11.2%; P<.001), and MLD (7.3% vs 2.2%; P<.001). Furthermore, an increasing number of MetS criteria was associated with a greater impairment of pulmonary mechanics (P<.001). Similarly, with an increasing number of MetS criteria, there was a significant linear trend (P<.001) in the growth of the prevalence ratio of RLD (0 criteria: 1, 1: 1.46, 2: 1.52, 3: 2.53, 4: 2.97, and 5: 5.34) and MLD (0 criteria: 1, 1: 2.68, 2: 6.18, 3: 9.69, and 4: 11.37). Regression analysis showed that the alteration of all MetS risk factors, adjusted for various explanatory variables, was significantly associated with a worsening of spirometric parameters, except for forced expiratory volume in 1 second/forced vital capacity.

Conclusions: The findings have shown that an increase in cardiometabolic risk factors is associated with a more significant worsening of spirometric variables and a higher prevalence of RLD and MLD. As spirometry could be a crucial tool for monitoring patients at risk of developing chronic pathologies, we conclude that this inexpensive and easily accessible test could help detect changes in lung function in patients with cardiometabolic disorders. This highlights the need to consider the importance of cardiometabolic health in lung function when formulating public health policies.

JMIR Public Health Surveill 2023;9:e43737




The impact of noncommunicable chronic diseases worldwide is increasingly important. Their prevalence and social and economic impact have increased in the recent years, placing them at the center of public health interest [1-4].

Among the most worrying pathological conditions, metabolic syndrome (MetS) stands out because it is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM), which are, in turn, the noncommunicable chronic diseases with the most significant impact worldwide [5,6]. MetS, according to the harmonized definition, is characterized by the comorbid presence of ≥3 of the following risk factors: dysglycemia, increased blood pressure, hypertriglyceridemia, abdominal obesity, and altered high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels [6]. The prevalence of MetS exceeds 30% in several countries and is expected to increase in the coming years [7,8]. All these make MetS one of the public health challenges of the 21st century; therefore, early detection is essential to avoid associated complications, even at an early age [9,10].

Lung Dysfunction and MetS

In addition to cardiovascular pathologies and type 2 DM, MetS has been associated with alterations in other systemic organs, most notably alterations in lung function [11,12]. For example, researchers have observed that MetS is associated with the worsening of parameters measuring pulmonary mechanics, leading to respiratory diseases (asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pulmonary hypertension, etc) [12-14]. Several MetS-related lung pathologies are currently the most prevalent, have significant morbidity and mortality, and are a major public health concern [15,16]. This link could be explained by insulin resistance, one of the main pathophysiological mechanisms of MetS, although its involvement in the modification of pneumocyte function is not yet clear [17-19].

Parameters for pulmonary function status are obtained through spirometry, which is the test of choice to assess lung function [20]. It is simple to execute for those who are well instructed and is routinely performed by health care professionals, for example, in primary care or during health examinations of workers [21,22]. A comparison of the values obtained in the test with the theoretical values, estimated from validated formulas (according to age, sex, height, etc), provides information on the lung condition [23,24]. It is, therefore, an essential public health tool for primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention of pathologies with a high impact on the population [25].

In this context, health care professionals, who play an essential role in disease prevention and health promotion, have a tool that, when used efficiently, would help to detect problems beyond pulmonary deterioration [26]. Regarding the latter, given that the onsets of MetS is reflected in spirometric variables, and its risk factors also do so independently, it is relevant to know whether a progressive deterioration of lung function is caused by the individual presence of the risk factors characterizing MetS. Thus, through public health programs (hospitals, communities, workplaces, etc) that include the study of these parameters from the perspective of cardiometabolic alterations, it would be possible to detect the risk factors and treat them early to prevent the development of MetS.

Therefore, the researchers hypothesized that the increase in the number of MetS components is associated with a greater decline in spirometric parameters and, therefore, an alteration in lung function. On this basis, the objective of this study was to determine how spirometric variables are affected because of the increase in the number of the MetS risk factors present.

Design, Population, and Sample

A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted in the working population of the Cordoba City Council (Spain). The minimum sample size estimated was 1685 workers based on an expected prevalence of MetS of 14.9%, a power of 80%, a precision of 1.5%, and a confidence of 95%. The sample was randomly selected from workers who underwent a health examination between 2015 and 2019 at the occupational health unit of the City Council. All employees of the Cordoba City Council (blue-collar workers and white-collar workers) undergo an annual occupational health test. Each of the measurements carried out is stored in a computer program of the occupational health unit, which allows for the subsequent extraction of anonymized data. For this study, the number of workers selected was increased by 20% over the minimum sample size calculated to compensate for losses owing to noncompliance with the eligibility criteria.

Workers who were diagnosed with any acute respiratory pathology (influenza, common cold, etc) or chronic pulmonary disease (chronic bronchitis, emphysema, pneumonia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, etc) and those who could not perform the spirometry test according to the protocol were excluded from the study. In addition, the occupational risk of the positions held by the workers was assessed, and it was confirmed that there was no exposure to organic and inorganic dust or substances of high molecular weight that could lead to occupational lung pathologies or affect, transiently, the spirometry test results.

Variables and Measures

Lung function was studied through spirometric parameters: forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1; in L), forced vital capacity (FVC; in L), and the FEV1/FVC ratio. To determine the status of pulmonary function, the expected values of FEV1 and FVC were estimated and related to those obtained in spirometry by calculating the percentage of predicted FEV1 (FEV1%) and percentage of predicted FVC (FVC%) [24].

In addition, the percentage reductions of FEV1 and FVC with respect to the theoretical or expected values of FEV1 and FVC were calculated:

FEV1 reduction (%) = ([FEV1 – expected FEV1]/FEVI) × 100 (1)
FVC reduction (%) = ([FVC – expected FVC]/FVC) × 100 (2)

Workers were also categorized according to their dysfunctional pattern [27]: normal: FEV1/FVC>0.7 and FVC%>0.8; restrictive lung disease (RLD): FEV1/FVC>0.7 and FVC%<0.8; obstructive lung disease (OLD): FEV1/FVC<0.7 and FVC%>0.8; and mixed lung disease (MLD): FEV1/FVC<0.7 and FVC%<0.8. In addition, the aforementioned categories were grouped into a new dichotomous variable with the following values: normal and lung dysfunction (encompassing RLD, OLD, and MLD).

The spirometry test was performed using the DATOSPIR 120 C spirometer (Silbemed) and following the recommendations of the Spanish Society of Pneumology and Thoracic Surgery [27]. Workers were instructed not to use bronchodilators during the previous 6 to 48 hours (depending on the drug), to avoid caffeine during the previous 8 hours, not to smoke during the previous 24 hours, avoid alcohol and sedatives during the last 4 hours, and not to exercise during the previous 30 minutes. During the measurement, the worker wore a nose clip and was seated upright with his back against the backrest. Once the posture was correct, the worker was asked to inhale as much air as possible and then exhale as fast and hard as possible until they were told to stop. Workers had to perform at least 3 valid tests, with the highest spirometric values being chosen. The researchers considered a test valid when the test had a rapid start (back-extrapolated volume <5% of the FVC) and was performed without hesitation, involved continuous expiration for a duration not <6 seconds, had no abrupt end (last changes in volume lower than 0.025 L for ≥1 s), and had no anomalies in the technique (cough, new inhalation, among others). Overall, 2 or 3 acceptable maneuvers were necessary for spirometry test’s interpretation in which the difference between the 2 best FVC and FEV1 measures was not >0.2 L.

Moreover, risk factors included in the harmonized criteria for the diagnosis of MetS were considered: waist circumference (WC) ≥102 cm in men and ≥88 cm in women, triglycerides ≥150 mg/dL, HDL cholesterol <50 mg/dL in women and <40 mg/dL in men, blood pressure ≥130/85 mm Hg or being on treatment for high blood pressure and fasting glucose ≥100 mg/dL, being on antidiabetic treatment, or diagnosed with DM. Thus, the presence of ≥3 of these risk factors implies a diagnosis of MetS [6].

The independent variables collected were age (years), sex (female and male), smoking status (nonsmoker, ex-smoker, and smoker), physical activity level (light, moderate, and heavy), weight (kg), height (cm), BMI (kg/m2), WC (cm), hip circumference (cm), body fat percentage (Equation Córdoba for Estimation of Body Fat [28]), waist to hip ratio, waist to height ratio, systolic blood pressure (mm Hg), diastolic blood pressure (mm Hg), fasting plasma glucose (mg/dL), HDL cholesterol (mg/dL), and triglycerides (mg/dL). In addition, the diagnoses of DM (yes or no) and hypertension (yes or no) were collected.

Anthropometric variables were measured according to international recommendations [29]. Weight and height were collected using an Atlántida S11 stadiometer and scale (Básculas y Balanzas Añó-Sayol), with an accuracy of 0.1 kg and 0.1 cm, respectively. BMI was calculated based on these variables, and workers were categorized into normal weight, overweight, and obese groups, as proposed by the World Health Organization. WC was measured at end-expiration at the midpoint between the last rib and the iliac crest. Hip circumference was assessed at the most prominent point of the buttocks. Both variables were measured using a flexible tape, with the worker standing and their feet placed together. Blood pressure was measured according to the recommendations of the manual of arterial hypertension in primary care clinical practice [30], with the patients seated, using a calibrated digital sphygmomanometer (Omron M3, Omron Healthcare). All measurements were performed by specialized personnel to minimize the coefficient of variation. Each measurement was repeated 3 times, and the mean was calculated. Finally, physical activity was estimated in metabolic equivalents using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire.

Ethics Approval

The study protocol complied with the Declaration of Helsinki for medical research involving human participants and was approved by the Andalusian Biomedical Research Ethics Committee (4427/Acta number 295).

Informed Consent

All participants were informed, verbally and in writing, about the objectives of the health study. The researchers obtained informed consent following the current regulations.

Statistical Analysis

Quantitative variables were presented as mean and SD, and qualitative variables were presented as absolute frequencies, percentages, and prevalence ratios. The goodness of fit of the quantitative variables to a normal distribution was studied using a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test with Lilliefors correction.

Hypothesis testing was performed with the 2-tailed Student t test for 2 means; z tests for independent proportions; and chi-square and Fisher exact tests, when necessary, for qualitative variables. In addition, linear trend tests, analysis of covariance, and multiple linear regression were used to determine the effect of other factors and covariates on the variation in spirometric parameters.

For all statistical analyses, an α error probability of <5% was accepted, and CIs were calculated at 95%. SPSS Statistics (version 22.0; IBM Corp) and EPIDAT 4.2 (Department of Sanidade, Xunta de Galicia) were used for statistical analysis.

Description of the Sample

Of the 2069 randomly selected workers, 168 (8.12%) were excluded because they were diagnosed with an acute respiratory pathology or a chronic pulmonary pathology or were exposed to compounds that could alter their lung function, and in 41 (1.98%) other workers, it was impossible to assess MetS. Finally, 44 (2.13%) other workers were excluded because their clinical records did not include some spirometric variables. Thus, the final sample size was 1816.

The age of the sample ranged from 18.8 to 67 years. The prevalence of MetS was 18.3% (95% CI 16.5%-20.1%), being significantly higher in men (20.6%, 95% CI 18.5%-23.4%) than in women (16%, 95% CI 13.8%-18.5%; P<.001). BMI was higher among those with MetS (mean difference [MD] 7.1 kg/m2; P<.001). This group showed a higher prevalence of overweight and obesity (95.9% vs 49.3%; P<.001). In addition, in the MetS group, higher abdominal adiposity was observed according to the following parameters: (1) WC (MD 19.5 cm; P<.001), (2) waist to hip ratio (MD 0.1; P<.001), and (3) waist to height ratio (MD 0.12; P<.001).

All the other variables analyzed showed differences between those with and those without MetS, except for height (MD 0.2 cm; P=.73). Table 1 summarizes the main variables according to the presence or absence of MetS.

Table 1. Characteristics of the sample according to the presence of metabolic syndrome (MetS).
VariablesTotal (n=1816)With MetS (n=329, 18.1%)Without MetS (n=1487, 81.9%)P valuea
Age (years), mean (SD)43.8 (10.7)48.6 (9.5)42.8 (10.7)<.001
Sex, n (%).01

Female919 (50.6)146 (44.4)773 (52)

Male897 (49.4)183 (55.6)714 (48)
Height (cm), mean (SD)167.9 (9.3)167.9 (9.3)167.9 (9.4).98
Weight (kg), mean (SD)75.6 (17.3)91.7 (16.7)72.1 (15.3)<.001
BMI (kg/m2), mean (SD)26.7 (5.4)32.5 (5.3)25.5 (4.5)<.001

Underweight, n (%)36 (2)0 (0)36 (2.4)

Normal weight, n (%)731 (40.3)13 (4)718 (48.3)

Overweight, n (%)635 (35)95 (28.9)540 (36.3)

Obesity, n (%)414 (22.8)221 (67.2)193 (13)
Waist (cm), mean (SD)89.6 (14.1)105.5 (11.2)86 (12.1)<.001
Hip (cm), mean (SD)102.7 (10.1)111 (10.9)100.9 (9)<.001
WHRb, mean (SD)0.87 (0.097)0.95 (0.09)0.85 (0.09)<.001
WHtRc, mean (SD)0.53 (0.081)0.63 (0.07)0.51 (0.07)<.001
Body fat (%), mean (SD)31.4 (8.4)38.9 (8.2)29.8 (7.6)<.001
Physical activity, n (%).02

Light121 (6.7)31 (9.4)90 (6.1)

Moderate457 (25.2)93 (28.3)364 (24.5)

Heavy1238 (68.2)205 (62.3)1033 (69.5)
Smoking habit, n (%)<.001

Nonsmoker882 (48.6)130 (39.5)752 (50.6)

Ex-smoker312 (17.2)74 (22.5)238 (16)

Smoker620 (34.1)124 (37.7)496 (33.4)
Glucose (mg/dL), mean (SD)99.5 (28.1)119.8 (46.8)95.1 (19.3)<.001
HDLd cholesterol (mg/dL), mean (SD)63.2 (14.5)54.8 (13.2)65.1 (14.1)<.001
SBPe (mm Hg), mean (SD)123.7 (16.9)137.4 (16.7)120.6 (15.4)<.001
DBPf (mm Hg), mean (SD)76.9 (10.5)86 (9)74.9 (9.7)<.001
Triglycerides (mg/dL), mean (SD)108.3 (68.8)174.2 (101.3)93.7 (48.4)<.001
HBPg, n (%)704 (38.8)277 (84.2)427 (28.7)<.001
Type 2 DMh, n (%)110 (6.1)73 (22.2)37 (2.5)<.001
FEV1i (L), mean (SD)3.1 (0.8)2.8 (0.7)3.1 (0.8)<.001
FEV1%j, mean (SD)88.2 (13.2)83 (13.8)89.2 (12.8)<.001
FEV1 reductionk, mean (SD)−16.3 (20.7)−24.4 (24.4)−14.5 (19.4)<.001
FVCl (L), mean (SD)4 (0.9)3.7 (0.8)4 (0.9)<.001
FVC%m, mean (SD)90.9 (11.6)85.9 (11.6)92 (11.3)<.001
FVC reductionn, mean (SD)−11.9 (15.2)−18.7 (17.5)−10.4 (14.3)<.001
FEV1/FVC, mean (SD)0.77 (0.07)0.76 (0.07)0.78 (0.07)<.001
FEV1/FVC<0.7, n (%)218 (12)58 (17.6)160 (10.8)<.001
FVC%<0.8, n (%)300 (16.5)101 (30.7)199 (13.4)<.001
Lung dysfunction, n (%)461 (25.4)135 (41)326 (21.9)<.001

Restrictive lung disease243 (13.4)77 (23.4)166 (11.2)<.001

Obstructive lung disease161 (8.9)34 (10.3)127 (8.5).30

Mixed lung disease57 (3.1)24 (7.3)33 (2.2)<.001

aWith MetS versus without MetS.

bWHR: waist to hip ratio.

cWHtR: waist to height ratio.

dHDL: high-density lipoprotein.

eSBP: systolic blood pressure.

fDBP: diastolic blood pressure.

gHBP: high blood pressure.

hDM: diabetes mellitus.

iFEV1: forced expiratory volume in 1 second.

jFEV1%: percentage of predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second.

kFEV1 reduction (%) = ([FEV1 – expected FEV1]/FEV1) × 100.

lFVC: forced vital capacity.

mFVC%: percentage of predicted forced vital capacity.

nFVC reduction (%) = ([FVC – expected FVC]/FVC) × 100.

MetS and Lung Function (Spirometric Parameters)

In relation to lung function, workers with MetS showed lower values of FEV1 (MD 0.3 L; P<.001), FVC (MD 0.32 L; P<.001), and FEV1/FVC ratio (MD 0.015; P<.001). Similarly, higher proportions of FEV1/FVC<0.7 (17.6% vs 10.8%; P<.001) and FVC%<0.8 (30.7% vs 13.4%; P<.001) were found among participants with MetS. This translated into the presence of MetS being associated with a higher prevalence of lung dysfunction (41% vs 21.9%; P<.001). Table 1 provides more detailed results.

Individual MetS Criteria and Lung Function (Spirometric Parameters)

Several adjusted multiple linear regression models are presented in Table 2, where the dependent variables, spirometric variables, are represented in the rows, and the independent variables are represented in the columns. The adjusted multiple linear regression study confirms that a quantitative modification of the variables related to MetS criteria (increased WC, elevated plasma triglycerides, raised blood pressure, increased blood glucose, and decreased HDL) causes an alteration of the spirometric variables (Table 2). Specifically, it is observed that an increase in abdominal adiposity and insulin resistance–related variables lead to a significant decrease in FVC and FEV1. Finally, MetS was associated with reductions of 0.220 L and 0.277 L in FEV1 and FVC, respectively.

Table 2. Multiple linear regression for spirometric parameters (n=1816)a.
VariableWaistGlucoseHDLbTriglyceridesHigh blood pressureMetabolic syndrome


Standardized β−.065−.116.066−.130−.050−.110

t test (df)−3.728 (1809)−7.410 (1809)4.026 (1809)−8.090 (1809)−2.858 (1809)−6.929 (1809)

R2 adjusted0.5540.5640.5540.5660.5520.562

P value<.001<.001<.001<.001<.001<.001


Standardized β−.156−.152.106−.180−.059−.177

t test (df)−6.186 (1809)−6.597 (1809)4.390 (1809)−7.656 (1809)−2.345 (1809)−7.596 (1809)

R2 adjusted0.0590.0610.0490.0690.0420.069

P value<.001<.001<.001<.001.02<.001
FEV1 reductione


Standardized β−.162−.142.089−.171−.071−.170

t test (df)−6.397 (1809)−6.201 (1809)3.678 (1809)−7.239 (1809)−2.803 (1809)−7.278 (1809)

R2 adjusted0.0550.0540.0410.0610.0380.061

P value<.001<.001<.001<.001.005<.001


Standardized β−.064−.115.067−.121−.050−.115

t test (df)−3.790 (1809)−7.532 (1809)4.184 (1809)−7.714 (1809)−2.977 (1809)−7.390 (1809)

R2 adjusted0.5760.5860.5770.5860.5750.585

P value<.001<.001<.001<.001<.001<.001


Standardized β−.178−.154.121−.172−.064−.197

t test (df)−7.016 (1809)−6.640 (1809)4.969 (1809)−7.256 (1809)−2.511 (1809)−8.422 (1809)

R2 adjusted0.0450.0420.0320.0470.0220.056

P value<.001<.001<.001<.001.01<.001
FVC reductionh


Standardized β−.187−.163.118−.173−.068−.202

t test (df)−7.365 (1809)−7.041 (1809)4.870 (1809)−7.270 (1809)−2.655 (1809)−8.638 (1809)

R2 adjusted0.0470.0450.0310.0460.0220.057

P value<.001<.001<.001<.001.008<.001


Standardized β−.009−.023−.007−.052−.004−.006

t test (df)−0.376 (1809)−1.043 (1809)−0.316 (1809)−2.284 (1809)−0.161 (1809)−0.247 (1809)

R2 adjusted0.1260.1270.1260.1290.1260.126

P value.

aThe variables in the rows are the dependent variables, and the variables in the columns are the independent variables. Models were adjusted by age, height, smoking habit, sex, and physical activity (dichotomized: light and active [moderate and heavy]).

bHDL: high-density lipoprotein.

cFEV1: forced expiratory volume in 1 second (L).

dFEV1%: percentage of predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second.

eFEV1 reduction (%) = ([FEV1 − expected FEV1]/FEV1) × 100.

fFVC: forced vital capacity (L).

gFVC%: percentage of predicted forced vital capacity.

hFVC reduction (%) = ([FVC – expected FVC]/FVC) × 100.

Number of MetS Criteria and Lung Function (Spirometric Parameters)

Table 3 shows the effect of the spirometric variables as a function of the number of MetS components.

FVC and FVC% showed a decrease in values with an increasing number of MetS criteria. However, the differences found between having 1 or 2 criteria (FVC: MD 0.046 L, P=.16; FVC%: MD 1.330, P=.08; FVC reduction: MD 1.481%, P=.13), 3 or 4 criteria (FVC: MD 0.107 L, P=.06; FVC%: MD 2.066, P=.13; FVC reduction: MD 3.257%, P=.07), 3 or 5 criteria (FVC: MD 0.165 L, P=.15; FVC%: MD 4.322, P=.21; FVC reduction: MD 7.228%, P=.11), and 4 or 5 criteria (FVC: MD 0.058 L, P=.16; FVC%: MD 2.256, P=.53; FVC reduction: MD 3.971%, P=.40) were not significant in any of the variables studied. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that the percentage reduction of FVC from what was expected showed a clear linear downward trend, with an MD of 16 (SD 20) percentage points between those with 0 criteria and those with 5 criteria (P<.001; Figure 1). These results were also observed for FEV1, FEV1%, and FEV1 reduction. These findings indicate that an increase in the number of MetS criteria is associated with a significant reduction in lung function.

Table 3. Lung function according to the number of metabolic syndrome criteria.
VariablesNumber of components, mean (SD)P valuea

0 (n=540)1 (n=554)2 (n=393)3 (n=223)4 (n=95)5 (n=11)
FEV1b3.16 (0.44)3.09 (0.42)c3.04 (0.44)c2.93 (0.43)d2.85 (0.44)d2.77 (0.45)d<.001
FEV1%e91 (13)89.1 (12.7)c87.5 (12.7)c84 (12.8)d81.6 (12.8)d80.8 (12.7)d<.001
FEV1 reductionf−12 (20)−15.2 (20)c−17.2 (20)c−22.6 (20.1)d−25.8 (20.1)d−28.1 (20.1)d<.001
FVCg4.07 (0.51)3.99 (0.49)c3.95 (0.5)c3.78 (0.49)d3.68 (0.5)d3.62 (0.49)d<.001
FVC%h93.5 (11.5)91.8 (11.3)c90.4 (11.3)c86.7 (11.4)d84.6 (11.4)d82.3 (11.3)d<.001
FVC reductioni−8.7 (14.8)−10.8 (14.8)c−12.3 (14.8)c−17.2 (14.8)d−20.4 (14.8)d−24.4 (14.8)d<.001
FEV1/FVC77.7 (6.6)77.4 (6.5)77 (6.5)77.3 (6.5)77.1 (6.5)77.8 (6.5).73

aAnalysis of covariance was adjusted for sex, age, height, smoking habits, and physical activity (dichotomized: light and active [moderate and heavy]).

bFEV1: forced expiratory volume in 1 second (L).

cThe presence of the same symbol in the same row indicates that there were no significant differences between pulmonary function and the number of components.

dThe presence of the same symbol in the same row indicates that there were no significant differences between pulmonary function and the number of components.

eFEV1%: percentage of predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second.

fFEV1 reduction (%) = ([FEV1 − expected FEV1]/FEV1) × 100.

gFVC: forced vital capacity (L).

hFVC%: percentage of predicted forced vital capacity.

iFVC reduction (%) = ([FVC − expected FVC]/FVC) × 100.

Figure 1. Percentage reductions of forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and forced vital capacity (FVC) according to number of metabolic syndrome criteria. Same color means that there were no significant differences between values within a variable.

Number of MetS Criteria and Lung Dysfunction

This effect on pulmonary function variables was reflected in the distribution of the prevalence of respiratory disorders. In other words, the alteration of the spirometric values detailed in the MetS and Lung Function (Spirometric Parameters), Individual MetS Criteria and Lung Function (Spirometric Parameters) and Number of MetS Criteria and Lung Function (Spirometric Parameters) sections has clinical repercussions in the appearance of pathological respiratory patterns. In this respect, the proportion of participants who presented FEV1/FVC<0.7 (0: 8.9%, 1: 11.2%, 2: 12.7%, 3: 16.6%, 4: 21.1%, 5: 9.1%; P=.006) and FVC%<0.8 (0: 9.3%, 1: 14.4%, 2: 17.6%, 3: 28.7%, 4: 33.7%, 5: 45.5%; P<.001) was significantly higher among those with the most risk factors. This trend was also observed in the rates of lung dysfunction (0: 17.4%, 1: 23.6%, 2: 25.7%, 3: 38.1%, 4: 46.3%, 5: 45.5%; P<.001), in RLD (0: 8.5%, 1: 12.5%, 2: 13%, 3: 21.5%, 4: 25.3%, 5: 45.5%; P<.001), and in MLD (0: 0.7%, 1: 2%, 2: 4.6%, 3: 7.2%, 4: 8.4%, 5: 0%; P<.001) but not in OLD (0: 8.1%, 1: 9.2%, 2: 8.1%, 3: 9.4%, 4: 12.6%, 5: 9.1%; P=.79). Table 4 shows the prevalence ratios as a function of the number of components. The results show a significant linear increase in the prevalence ratio of all the pulmonary disorders studied with an increasing number of components (P<.001), except for OLD.

Table 4. Prevalence ratios for lung disorders according to the number of metabolic syndrome criteria.
VariablesNumber of components, prevalence ratios (95% CI)P valueaP valueb

0 (n=540)1 (n=554)2 (n=393)3 (n=223)4 (n=95)5 (n=11)

FEV1c/FVCd<0.71 (reference)e1.26 (0.88-1.80)1.43 (0.99-2.08)1.87 (1.25-2.78)2.37 (1.48-3.8)1.02 (0.16-6.78).006<.001
FVC%f<0.81 (reference)1.56 (1.12-2.18)1.9 (1.35-2.66)3.1 (2.22-4.34)3.64 (2.47-5.35)4.91 (2.43-9.88)<.001<.001
Lung dysfunction1 (reference)1.36 (1.07-1.72)1.48 (1.15-1.89)2.19 (1.71-2.81)2.66 (2-3.53)3.13 (1.77-5.54)<.001<.001

RLDg1 (reference)1.46 (1.03-2.08)1.52 (1.05-2.22)2.53 (1.74-3.67)2.97 (1.91-4.62)5.34 (2.64-10.8)<.001<.001

OLDh1 (reference)1.13 (0.77-1.66)1 (0.65-1.55)1.16 (0.70-1.90)1.55 (0.85-2.82)1.12 (0.17-7.39).79.33

MLDi1 (reference)2.68 (0.86-8.37)6.18 (2.11-18.13)9.69 (3.27-28.65)11.37 (3.49-37.01)0<.001<.001

aChi-square test.

bLinear trend.

cFEV1: forced expiratory volume in 1 second (L).

dFVC: forced vital capacity (L).

eReference category in statistical analysis.

fFVC%: percentage of predicted forced vital capacity.

gRLD: restrictive lung disease.

hOLD: obstructive lung disease.

iMLD: mixed lung disease.

Principal Findings

This study aimed to identify the association between MetS and changes in spirometric parameters and precisely determine whether a higher number of MetS components is related to a worse state of lung function.

The results show that the presence of MetS is associated with worse lung function. In this study, participants with MetS showed lower mean FEV1, FEV1%, FVC, and FVC%. These findings were confirmed when adjusting for different explanatory variables, showing a clear effect of MetS on different spirometric parameters. In the case of FEV1/FVC, although its mean was lower in the MetS group, this association was lost when adjusting for other independent variables. This trend has been evidenced in populations of different ethnicities across cross-sectional and longitudinal designs, although discrepancies in FEV1/FVC have been observed [31-36]. Kim et al [32] showed that after 6 years of follow-up, participants who had MetS at the beginning of the study or developed MetS during the study had a greater decline in FVC and FEV1 than those who were healthy. However, the difference was not significant in the case of FEV1. Ford et al [33] found that participants with MetS had lower FEV1, FEV1%, FVC, and FVC% and higher FEV1/FVC.

These changes in spirometric parameters have clinical relevance, as they translate into the development of lung dysfunction. However, there are inconsistencies in the type of alteration most present in participants with MetS. Some authors state that OLD is more prevalent [12,34,37], whereas others show that RLD is predominant [12,33,36,38-40]. The results of our study show a higher proportion of participants with FEV1/FVC<0.7 and FVC%<0.8 among those diagnosed with MetS. This was reflected in a higher prevalence of lung dysfunction, RLD, and MLD, with no difference observed in OLD. In contrast to our results, Buchman et al [34] found that among men and women aged >60 years with MetS, there was no higher prevalence of FEV1/FVC<0.7 compared with those without MetS. However, we did not analyze by age group, so we do not know what happens specifically in those aged >60 years. Scarlata et al [39] observed that participants with RLD had 3-fold higher odds of MetS (95% CI 1.16-7.89) than those with normal spirometry, similar to findings by other authors [33]. Inconsistencies in the obstructive pattern may be (1) because some studies do not consider the mixed pattern, which may increase the percentage of patients with an obstructive pattern [37] or (2) because of the noninclusion of the restrictive pattern in the study [34]. However, it seems clear that there is a greater tendency for the presence of RLD in people with MetS [12,33,36,40].

Despite the clear association of MetS with lung dysfunction, the pathophysiological process remains unclear. However, several mechanisms that could be crucial in the process have been described, such as insulin resistance and low-grade inflammation, both of which are present in MetS [17,18,41], which is reflected in the lungs through different markers [42]. Therefore, it seems reasonable to state that damage in other body systems, identified according to MetS risk factors, is associated with lung damage [41]. In this regard, our results have shown that each MetS component (WC, triglycerides, HDL, glucose, and high blood pressure) can significantly modify each spirometric parameter once adjusted for explanatory variables. This fact has also been evidenced by other authors [37,38,43,44].

The accumulation of systemic damage, measured by the number of MetS criteria, has been associated with more significant organ damage [45-48]. In this regard, we have shown that having a higher number of MetS criteria was related to a significantly worse lung function (spirometric parameters, except for FEV1/FVC), although no statistically significant differences were found between some analysis groups defined by the number of MetS criteria. In addition, linear percentage reductions of FVC and FEV1 were observed among the different groups. This inverse relationship has been observed in other populations, highlighting the association of central obesity with lung function decline [31,33,35-38,49,50].

These findings are essential for public health in any country. Therefore, it could be recommended that when health care professionals observe a progressive loss of lung function in a patient, they should be alerted and explore for possible cardiometabolic impairment. Concerning the latter, it is noteworthy that a significant linear increase in the prevalence ratios of pulmonary disorders was observed when the number of MetS components increased. Specifically, the decreases in FVC% below 80% and in the restrictive pattern stand out. In this regard, Lee et al [38] found a linear growth trend in the prevalence of RLD in men but not in women. Chen et al [50] reported a significant linear trend between the accumulation of MetS components and the decline in FVC% and FEV1% in both men and women. Similar results were found by Yoon et al [36]. They also reported that a significant increase in the odds ratio for RLD was observed with an increasing number of risk factors, with the magnitude varying according to the adjustment made. This trend was not observed for OLD [36].

Regardless of the type of lung disorder associated with MetS, several researchers have highlighted the need to intervene in these patients to ensure better respiratory health [12,32,33,50]. From our perspective and based on the results obtained, we believe that governments should promote public health programs that include the detection of cardiometabolic disorders and their impacts on lung health. Although some organizations consider the magnitude of the most critical public health problems as risk factors for lung disease [15,51,52], only a few consider metabolic disorders such as obesity [53]. The accumulation of visceral fat, the primary pathophysiological mechanism in the development of insulin resistance and thus of major metabolic disturbances, requires public health attention [54]. Therefore, metabolic disorders, such as MetS, should be included in the programs more concretely, as the evidence is increasingly strong regarding the relationship between metabolic disorders and lung disorders [55,56], even pointing to lung cancer [57].

With this inclusion, health professionals could be encouraged to perform routine spirometry in health examinations to detect early lung disorders, both those of both respiratory origin and those of cardiometabolic origin, not only in the working population (higher risk) but also in the general population [25]. Health professionals are on the frontline, and public health must provide strategies to diagnose and prevent lung disorders and protect and promote health [58], which has been advocated for years [59,60]. This idea gains relevance in a context where spirometry may be underused or, when used, misused [61,62].

Limitations and Strengths

Owing to the epidemiological design, it is impossible to establish a cause-effect relationship between the increase in the number of cardiometabolic risk factors and the progressive alteration of spirometric variables. It would be interesting to conduct a retrospective cohort study to determine whether exposure to different cardiometabolic alterations modifies lung function and increases pulmonary disease incidence. Another possible limitation is the small number of participants in the group with 5 MetS criteria, which makes it difficult to analyze their lung function status. However, given the sample’s representativeness, we consider that its small size is linked to what can be found in real settings, where the presence of these individuals is scarce. Moreover, given the particular characteristics of the sample (workers, ie, the working population), extrapolation to the general population (more sedentary) is challenging. However, workers represent a significant proportion of the people, meaning that the participants analyzed cover an essential demographic stratum. Although workers’ smoking habits have been controlled, including the number of annual packs of cigarettes in data collection could improve the accuracy of the analysis. Despite the limitations, the robustness of the statistical tests, the control of confounding variables, and the large sample size make the results consistent. Furthermore, the methodology used has facilitated comparison with similar studies, making it possible to reinforce knowledge on the topic.


The presence of a greater number of MetS criteria (cardiometabolic risk factors) has been associated with increased lung dysfunction and a higher prevalence of pulmonary impairments, especially those of the restrictive and mixed types. In addition, the findings show that the comorbid occurrence of risk factors leads to a deterioration of FVC and FEV1. The findings highlight the need for governments to consider the importance of cardiometabolic health in lung function when formulating public health policies that are to be implemented in hospitals, health centers, companies, etc. In this context, spirometry could be crucial for health professionals to monitor patients at a risk of developing chronic pathologies. In addition, routine spirometry helps detect changes in lung function related to cardiometabolic disorders. In short, spirometry is an accessible method that should be used to prevent and provide early care for diseases, including those not of pulmonary origin.

Data Availability

The data sets generated and analyzed during this study are not publicly available because they belong to a public institution but are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

None declared.

  1. Noncommunicable diseases. World Health Organization. 2022 Sep 16. URL: [accessed 2023-04-29]
  2. NCD Countdown 2030 collaborators. NCD countdown 2030: worldwide trends in non-communicable disease mortality and progress towards sustainable development goal target 3.4. Lancet 2018 Sep 22;392(10152):1072-1088 [] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  3. Forouzanfar MH, Afshin A, Alexander LT, Anderson HR, Bhutta ZA, Biryukov S. Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 79 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks in 188 countries, 1990–2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. Br Dent J 2015 Oct 09;219(7):329 [] [CrossRef]
  4. Global Burden of Cardiovascular Diseases Collaboration, Roth GA, Johnson CO, Abate KH, Abd-Allah F, Ahmed M, et al. The burden of cardiovascular diseases among US states, 1990-2016. JAMA Cardiol 2018 May 01;3(5):375-389 [] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  5. Yusuf S, Joseph P, Rangarajan S, Islam S, Mente A, Hystad P, et al. Modifiable risk factors, cardiovascular disease, and mortality in 155 722 individuals from 21 high-income, middle-income, and low-income countries (PURE): a prospective cohort study. Lancet 2020 Mar 07;395(10226):795-808 [] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  6. Alberti K, Eckel RH, Grundy SM, Zimmet PZ, Cleeman JI, Donato KA, 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 Oct 20;120(16):1640-1645 [CrossRef]
  7. Fernández-Bergés D, Cabrera de León A, Sanz H, Elosua R, Guembe MJ, Alzamora M, et al. Síndrome metabólico en España: prevalencia y riesgo coronario asociado a la definición armonizada y a la propuesta por la OMS. Estudio DARIOS. Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed) 2012 Mar;65(3):241-248 [CrossRef] [Medline]
  8. Shin D, Kongpakpaisarn K, Bohra C. Trends in the prevalence of metabolic syndrome and its components in the United States 2007-2014. Int J Cardiol 2018 May 15;259:216-219 [CrossRef] [Medline]
  9. Christian Flemming GM, Bussler S, Körner A, Kiess W. Definition and early diagnosis of metabolic syndrome in children. J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab 2020 Jul 28;33(7):821-833 [CrossRef] [Medline]
  10. Gesteiro E, Megía A, Guadalupe-Grau A, Fernandez-Veledo S, Vendrell J, González-Gross M. Early identification of metabolic syndrome risk: a review of reviews and proposal for defining pre-metabolic syndrome status. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis 2021 Aug 26;31(9):2557-2574 [] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  11. Mendrick DL, Diehl AM, Topor LS, Dietert RR, Will Y, La Merrill MA, et al. Metabolic syndrome and associated diseases: from the bench to the clinic. Toxicol Sci 2018 Mar 01;162(1):36-42 [] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  12. Baffi CW, Wood L, Winnica D, Strollo PJJ, Gladwin MT, Que LG, et al. Metabolic syndrome and the lung. Chest 2016 Jun;149(6):1525-1534 [] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  13. Lee K. Lung function and impaired kidney function in relation to metabolic syndrome. Int Urol Nephrol 2017 Jul;49(7):1217-1223 [CrossRef] [Medline]
  14. Kwon S, Lee M, Crowley G, Schwartz T, Zeig-Owens R, Prezant DJ, et al. Dynamic metabolic risk profiling of world trade center lung disease: a longitudinal cohort study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2021 Nov 01;204(9):1035-1047 [CrossRef]
  15. Chronic respiratory diseases. World Health Organization. URL: [accessed 2023-06-26]
  16. Safiri S, Carson-Chahhoud K, Noori M, Nejadghaderi SA, Sullman MJ, Ahmadian Heris J, et al. Burden of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and its attributable risk factors in 204 countries and territories, 1990-2019: results from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. BMJ 2022 Jul 27;378:e069679 [] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  17. Lee YB, Kim YS, Lee DH, Kim HY, Lee JI, Ahn HS, et al. Association between HOMA-IR and lung function in Korean young adults based on the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Sci Rep 2017 Sep 15;7(1):11726 [] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  18. McNeill JN, Lau ES, Zern EK, Nayor M, Malhotra R, Liu EE, et al. Association of obesity-related inflammatory pathways with lung function and exercise capacity. Respir Med 2021 Jul;183:106434 [] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  19. Yang G, Han YY, Forno E, Yan Q, Rosser F, Chen W, et al. Glycated hemoglobin A1c, lung function, and hospitalizations among adults with asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 2020 Nov;8(10):3409-15.e1 [] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  20. Global initiative for chronic obstructive lung disease. Global Strategy for the Diagnosis, Management, and Prevention of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. 2020. URL: [accessed 2022-04-29]
  21. Represas-Represas C, Botana-Rial M, Leiro-Fernández V, González-Silva AI, García-Martínez A, Fernández-Villar A. Short- and long-term effectiveness of a supervised training program in spirometry use for primary care professionals. Arch Bronconeumol 2013 Sep;49(9):378-382 [CrossRef] [Medline]
  22. Ranzieri S, Corradi M. Conducting spirometry in occupational health at COVID-19 times: international standards. Med Lav 2021 Apr 20;112(2):95-106 [] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  23. de Vicente CM, de Mir Messa I, Amigo SR, Vernetta AT, Gartner S, Serrano II, et al. Validación de las ecuaciones de referencia para la espirometría forzada en niños sanos preescolares españoles. Arch Bronconeumol 2018 Jan;54(1):24-30 [CrossRef] [Medline]
  24. Quanjer PH, Stanojevic S, Cole TJ, Baur X, Hall GL, Culver BH, ERS Global Lung Function Initiative. Multi-ethnic reference values for spirometry for the 3-95-yr age range: the global lung function 2012 equations. Eur Respir J 2012 Dec;40(6):1324-1343 [] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  25. Spirometry monitoring technology. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. URL: [accessed 2023-06-26]
  26. Vaz Fragoso CA, Van Ness PH, McAvay GJ. FEV1 as a standalone spirometric predictor and the attributable fraction for death in older persons. Respir Care 2020 Feb;65(2):217-226 [] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  27. García-Rio F, Calle M. Normativa sobre la espirometría (revisión 2013). Barcelona, Spain: Separ; 2013.
  28. Molina-Luque R, Romero-Saldaña M, Álvarez-Fernández C, Bennasar-Veny M, Álvarez-López Á, Molina-Recio G. Equation Córdoba: a simplified method for estimation of body fat (ECORE-BF). Int J Environ Res Public Health 2019 Nov 15;16(22):4529 [] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  29. Callaway CW, Chumlea WC, Bouchard C, Himes JH, Lohman TG, Martin AD, et al. Circumferences. In: Lohman TG, Roche AF, Martorell R, editors. Anthropometric Standardization Reference Manual. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Books; 1998:44-45
  30. Sociedad Española de Medicina Interna (SEMI) y Sociedad Española de Medicina Familiar y Comunitaria (SEMFYC). [Improving the care of people with chronic conditions in Spain. Common position statement of the Spanish society of internal medicine and the Spanish society of family and community medicine]. Aten Primaria 2020 Jan;52(1):1-2 [] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  31. Qin L, Yang Z, Zhang W, Gu H, Lu S, Shi Q, et al. Association between metabolic syndrome and lung function in middle-aged and elderly Chinese individuals. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2015 Jun;108(3):e46-e48 [CrossRef] [Medline]
  32. Kim SK, Bae JC, Baek JH, Jee JH, Hur KY, Lee MK, et al. Decline in lung function rather than baseline lung function is associated with the development of metabolic syndrome: a six-year longitudinal study. PLoS One 2017 Mar 27;12(3):e0174228 [] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  33. Ford ES, Cunningham TJ, Mercado CI. Lung function and metabolic syndrome: findings of national health and nutrition examination survey 2007–2010. J Diabetes 2014 Nov 27;6(6):603-613 [] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  34. Buchmann N, Norman K, Steinhagen-Thiessen E, Demuth I, Eckardt R. Lung function in elderly subjects with metabolic syndrome and type II diabetes : data from the berlin aging study II. Z Gerontol Geriatr (Forthcoming) 2015 Oct 27 [CrossRef] [Medline]
  35. Inomoto A, Fukuda R, Phn JD, Kato G, Rpt RK, Rpt KH, Rpt, et al. The association between the body composition and lifestyle affecting pulmonary function in Japanese workers. J Phys Ther Sci 2016 Oct;28(10):2883-2889 [] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  36. Yoon H, Gi MY, Cha JA, Yoo CU, Park SM. The association between the metabolic syndrome and metabolic syndrome score and pulmonary function in non-smoking adults. Diab Vasc Dis Res 2018 Mar;15(2):131-138 [ 0pubmed] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  37. Wang F, Tian D, Zhao Y, Li J, Chen X, Zhang Y. High-density lipoprotein cholesterol: a component of the metabolic syndrome with a new role in lung function. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med 2021 Jun 2;2021:6615595-6615599 [] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  38. Lee YY, Tsao YC, Yang CK, Chuang CH, Yu W, Chen JC, et al. Association between risk factors of metabolic syndrome with lung function. Eur J Clin Nutr 2020 May;74(5):811-817 [] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  39. Scarlata S, Fimognari FL, Cesari M, Giua R, Franco A, Pasqualetti P, et al. Lung function changes in older people with metabolic syndrome and diabetes. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2013 Oct;13(4):894-900 [CrossRef] [Medline]
  40. Lim SY, Rhee EJ, Sung KC. Metabolic syndrome, insulin resistance and systemic inflammation as risk factors for reduced lung function in Korean nonsmoking males. J Korean Med Sci 2010 Oct;25(10):1480-1486 [] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  41. Wielscher M, Amaral AF, van der Plaat D, Wain LV, Sebert S, Mosen-Ansorena D, et al. Genetic correlation and causal relationships between cardio-metabolic traits and lung function impairment. Genome Med 2021 Jun 21;13(1):104 [] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  42. Brandao-Rangel MA, Moraes-Ferreira R, Oliveira-Junior MC, Santos-Dias AL, Bachi A, Gabriela-Pereira G, et al. Pulmonary function changes in older adults with and without metabolic syndrome. Sci Rep 2021 Aug 30;17337:11 [] [CrossRef]
  43. Yamamoto Y, Oya J, Nakagami T, Uchigata Y. Association between lung function and metabolic syndrome independent of insulin in Japanese men and women. Jpn Clin Med 2014 Apr 24;5:1-8 [ 0pubmed] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  44. Koo HK, Kim DK, Chung HS, Lee CH. Association between metabolic syndrome and rate of lung function decline: a longitudinal analysis. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2013 Nov;17(11):1507-1514 [CrossRef] [Medline]
  45. Aboonabi A, Meyer RR, Singh I. The association between metabolic syndrome components and the development of atherosclerosis. J Hum Hypertens 2019 Dec;33(12):844-855 [CrossRef] [Medline]
  46. Okada R, Yasuda Y, Tsushita K, Wakai K, Hamajima N, Matsuo S. The number of metabolic syndrome components is a good risk indicator for both early- and late-stage kidney damage. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis 2014 Mar;24(3):277-285 [CrossRef] [Medline]
  47. Eguchi K, Schwartz JE, Roman MJ, Devereux RB, Gerin W, Pickering TG. Metabolic syndrome less strongly associated with target organ damage than syndrome components in a healthy, working population. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) 2007 May;9(5):337-344 [] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  48. Gui MH, Ling Y, Liu L, Jiang JJ, Li XY, Gao X. Effect of metabolic syndrome score, metabolic syndrome, and its individual components on the prevalence and severity of angiographic coronary artery disease. Chin Med J (Engl) 2017 Mar 20;130(6):669-677 [] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  49. Yu D, Simmons D. Association between lung capacity measurements and abnormal glucose metabolism: findings from the Crossroads study. Diabet Med 2014 May;31(5):595-599 [CrossRef] [Medline]
  50. Chen WL, Wang CC, Wu LW, Kao TW, Chan JY, Chen YJ, et al. Relationship between lung function and metabolic syndrome. PLoS One 2014 Oct 9;9(10):e108989 [] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  51. Risks and causes of lung cancer. Cancer Research UK. URL: [accessed 2023-06-26]
  52. COPD causes and risk factors. American Lung Association. URL: https:/​/www.​​lung-health-diseases/​lung-disease-lookup/​copd/​what-causes-copd#:~:text=COPD%20Risk%20Factors,coal%20or%20wood%20burning%20stove [accessed 2023-06-26]
  53. How public health issues affect lung health. American Lung Association. URL: [accessed 2023-06-26]
  54. Neeland IJ, Ross R, Després JP, Matsuzawa Y, Yamashita S, Shai I, International Atherosclerosis Society, International Chair on Cardiometabolic Risk Working Group on Visceral Obesity. Visceral and ectopic fat, atherosclerosis, and cardiometabolic disease: a position statement. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2019 Sep;7(9):715-725 [] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  55. Fekete M, Szollosi G, Tarantini S, Lehoczki A, Nemeth AN, Bodola C, et al. Metabolic syndrome in patients with COPD: causes and pathophysiological consequences. Physiol Int 2022 Mar 03;109(1):90-105 [CrossRef] [Medline]
  56. Chan SM, Selemidis S, Bozinovski S, Vlahos R. Pathobiological mechanisms underlying metabolic syndrome (MetS) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): clinical significance and therapeutic strategies. Pharmacol Ther 2019 Jun;198:160-188 [] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  57. Sin S, Lee CH, Choi SM, Han KD, Lee J. Metabolic syndrome and risk of lung cancer: an analysis of Korean National Health Insurance Corporation database. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2020 Nov 01;105(11):dgaa596 [CrossRef] [Medline]
  58. Respiratory disease: applying All Our Health. Public Health England. URL: https:/​/www.​​government/​publications/​respiratory-disease-applying-all-our-health/​respiratory-disease-applying-all-our-health#:~:text=Respiratory%20disease%20covers%20a%20wide,interstitial%20lung%20disease%20and%20mesothelioma [accessed 2023-06-26]
  59. Schluger NW, Koppaka R. Lung disease in a global context. A call for public health action. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2014 Mar;11(3):407-416 [CrossRef] [Medline]
  60. GBD 2019 Chronic Respiratory Diseases Collaborators. Global burden of chronic respiratory diseases and risk factors, 1990-2019: an update from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. EClinicalMedicine 2023 May 13;59(3):101936 [] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  61. Ramalho SH, Shah AM. Lung function and cardiovascular disease: a link. Trends Cardiovasc Med 2021 Feb;31(2):93-98 [] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  62. Perret J, Yip SW, Idrose NS, Hancock K, Abramson MJ, Dharmage SC, et al. Undiagnosed and 'overdiagnosed' COPD using postbronchodilator spirometry in primary healthcare settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open Respir Res 2023 Apr;10(1):e001478 [] [CrossRef] [Medline]

DM: diabetes mellitus
FEV1%: percentage of predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second
FEV1: forced expiratory volume in 1 second
FVC%: percentage of predicted forced vital capacity
FVC: forced vital capacity
HDL: high-density lipoprotein
MD: mean difference
MetS: metabolic syndrome
MLD: mixed lung disease
OLD: obstructive lung disease
RLD: restrictive lung disease
WC: waist circumference

Edited by A Mavragani, T Sanchez; submitted 22.10.22; peer-reviewed by J Edwards, UK Chalwadi, GP Arutyunov; comments to author 15.03.23; revised version received 17.05.23; accepted 18.07.23; published 05.09.23


©Rafael Molina-Luque, Guillermo Molina-Recio, Domingo de-Pedro–Jiménez, Carlos Álvarez Fernández, María García–Rodríguez, Manuel Romero-Saldaña. Originally published in JMIR Public Health and Surveillance (, 05.09.2023.

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, first published in JMIR Public Health and Surveillance, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.