Nahid Karamzad
1,2,3 
, Neda Izadi
4 , Sarvin Sanaie
5, Elham Ahmadian
6, Aziz Eftekhari
6, Mark J.M. Sullman
7,8, Saeid Safiri
9,10,11* 1 Student Research Committee, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran
2 Department of Biochemistry and Diet Therapy, Faculty of Nutrition and Food Sciences, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran
3 Nutrition Research Center, Faculty of Nutrition and Food Sciences, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran
4 Student Research Committee, Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health and Safety, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
5 Neurosciences Research Center, Aging Research Institute, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran
6 Department of Basic Sciences, Maragheh University of Medical Sciences, Maragheh, Iran
7 Department of Social Sciences, University of Nicosia, Nicosia, Cyprus
8 Department of Life and Health Sciences, University of Nicosia, Nicosia, Cyprus
9 Social Determinants of Health Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
10 Tuberculosis and Lung Disease Research Center, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran
11 Rahat Breath and Sleep Research Center, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran
Abstract
Introduction: This study aimed to perform a meta-analysis on the prevalence of metabolic syndrome (MetS) among patients with asthma and to measure the association asthma has with MetS.
Methods: The Web of Science, Medline, Scopus, Embase and Google Scholar were searched using the “Asthma”, “Metabolic Syndrome”, “Dysmetabolic Syndrome”, “Cardiovascular Syndrome”, “Insulin Resistance Syndrome”, “Prevalence”, “Odds Ratio”, “Cross-Sectional Studies”, and “Case-Control Studies” keywords. All observational studies reporting the prevalence of MetS among people with and without asthma were included in the study. In the presence of heterogeneity, random-effects models were used to pool the prevalence and odds ratios (OR), as measures of association in cross-sectional and case-control/ cohort studies, respectively.
Results: The prevalence of MetS among patients with asthma (8 studies) and the OR comparing the prevalence of MetS among patients with and without asthma (5 studies) were pooled separately. The pooled prevalence of MetS among patients with asthma was found to be 25% (95% confidence interval (CI): 13%–38%). In contrast, the overall pooled OR for MetS in patients with asthma, compared to healthy controls, was 1.34 (95% CI: 0.91–1.76), which was not statistically significant.
Conclusion: The prevalence of MetS was relatively high in patients with asthma. Furthermore, the odds of MetS was higher in patients with asthma, compared to healthy controls, although this difference was not statistically significant. More original studies among different populations are needed in order to more accurately examine the association between asthma and MetS, as well as the relationship asthma has with the individual components of MetS.