Bidirectional association between serum carcinoembryonic antigen and metabolic syndrome among the Chinese male population: two cohort studies

• Main Authors: Yafei Liu, Zhaohui Du, Jiadong Ji, Jingru Li, Deming Bi, Fang Tang
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: BMC 2020-11-01
• Series: Lipids in Health and Disease
• Subjects: Carcinoembryonic antigen; Metabolic syndrome; Cohort study; Bidirectional association; Smoking; Hazard ratio
• Online Access: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12944-020-01411-7

Abstract Purpose Previous studies have shown that serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) is independently associated with metabolic syndrome (MetS). However, these studies were mainly cross-sectional analyses, and cause was not clarified. In the present study, two bidirectional cohort studies were conducted to investigate the bidirectional associations between CEA and MetS using a Chinese male sample cohort. Methods The initial longitudinal cohort included 9629 Chinese males enrolled from January 2010 to December 2015. Two bidirectional cohorts were conducted in the study: subcohort A (from CEA to MetS, n = 6439) included participants without MetS at baseline to estimate the risk of developing incident MetS; subcohort B (from MetS to CEA, n = 8533) included participants without an elevated CEA level (Hyper-CEA) at baseline to examine the risk of developing incident Hyper-CEA. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models. Results In subcohort A, the incidence densities of MetS among participants with and without Hyper-CEA were 84.56 and 99.28 per 1000 person-years, respectively. No significant effects of Hyper-CEA on incident MetS were observed in subcohort A (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.12; P = 0.326). In subcohort B, a higher incidence density of Hyper-CEA was found among participants with MetS (33.42 and 29.13 per 1000 person-years for those with and without MetS, respectively). For nonsmoking participants aged > 65 years, MetS increased the risk of incident Hyper-CEA (HR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.09 to 3.20; P = 0.022). Conclusion For the direction of CEA on incident MetS, no significant association was observed. For the direction of MetS on incident Hyper-CEA, MetS in nonsmoking elderly men could increase the risk of incident Hyper-CEA, while this association was not found in other stratified participants. The clinical implications of the association between CEA and MetS should be interpreted with caution.