Hiring in life sciences? Share your open positions with our professional community. Read more Close

Advertisement

Threshold effect of the METS-VF index on hyperuricemia in adults with hypertension: a cross-sectional study.

Created on 12 Jul 2026

Authors

Meihui Wu, Congcong Yan, Shiping Li, Lingjuan Zhu, Chao Yu, Tao Wang, Wei Zhou, Weifang Zhang, Huihui Bao, Xiaoshu Cheng

Published in

BMC endocrine disorders. Jul 11, 2026. Epub Jul 11, 2026.

Abstract

Hyperuricemia (HUA) is a major public health concern that is closely linked to obesity. The novel visceral adiposity index (METS-VF) demonstrates significant associations with multiple chronic diseases, yet its association with HUA risk in hypertensive patients remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate this association in a Chinese hypertensive population.
This study utilized data from the Chinese Hypertension Registry Study, including 13,341 hypertensive patients. Data collection was conducted through standardized questionnaires, physical examinations, and laboratory tests. We evaluated the association between METS-VF and HUA using multivariate logistic regression models. Robustness was assessed via multivariable-adjusted models and subgroup analyses.
The overall prevalence of HUA was 55.3%. Each unit increase in METS-VF was associated with a 8.48 (95% CI: 6.64, 10.32) µmol/L increase in serum uric acid levels and a 25% higher risk of HUA (OR = 1.25; 95% CI: 1.20, 1.30). HUA risk increased significantly across increasing METS-VF quartiles (P for trend < 0.001). Further analysis revealed a non-linear, threshold relationship. Subgroup analysis indicated a stronger association in women (P for interaction < 0.001).
In patients with hypertension, the visceral adiposity index (METS-VF) was positively associated with the risk of hyperuricemia (HUA).

PMID:
42436483
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 12 Jul 2026.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Advertisement

Stats

  • Community rating n/a 0 votes
  • Reviewers' rating n/a 0 votes
  • Your rating

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

  • Recommendations n/a n/a positive of 0 vote(s)
  • Views 8
  • Comments 0

Recommended by

  • No recommendations yet.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.

Advertisement