O'Hearn · Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2022 · Serial cross-sectional study · n=55,081

Trends and Disparities in Cardiometabolic Health Among U.S. Adults, 1999-2018.

Cited 171 times in the scientific literature.

Level 4 - case-series / case-control

Repeated cross-sectional survey design (NHANES)

PubMed 35798448 · doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2022.04.046 · record verified 2026-08-27

What was done

Authors analyzed serial cross-sectional data from 55,081 U.S. adults in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) between 1999 and 2018. They assessed trends in optimal cardiometabolic health—defined across adiposity, blood glucose, blood lipids, blood pressure, and clinical cardiovascular disease (CVD)—overall and across demographic subgroups including age, sex, education, and race/ethnicity.

What was found

In 2017–2018, 6.8% (95% CI: 5.4%–8.1%) of U.S. adults had optimal cardiometabolic health, declining from 1999–2000 (P trend = 0.02). Between 1999–2000 and 2017–2018, optimal adiposity fell from 33.8% to 24.0% while poor adiposity increased from 47.7% to 61.9% (P trend < 0.001). Optimal blood glucose decreased from 59.4% to 36.9% while poor glucose rose from 8.6% to 13.7% (P trend < 0.001). Conversely, optimal blood lipids increased from 29.9% to 37.0% and poor lipids dropped from 28.3% to 14.7% (P trend < 0.001). By 2017–2018, prevalence of optimal cardiometabolic health was lower among adults with lower education (5.0% [95% CI: 2.8%–7.2%]) vs higher education (10.3% [95% CI: 7.6%–13.0%]) and among Mexican American (3.2% [95% CI: 1.4%–4.9%]) vs non-Hispanic White (8.4% [95% CI: 6.3%–10.4%]) adults.

Why it matters

This paper shows that fewer than 1 in 14 U.S. adults meet optimal cardiometabolic criteria, with worsening population trends driven by adiposity and glycemic deterioration alongside persistent sociodemographic disparities.

Limits

The repeated cross-sectional design precludes longitudinal within-individual tracking and causal inference. Specific biomarker threshold criteria defining optimal, intermediate, and poor categories are not specified in the abstract, and clinical CVD was likely subject to self-report error.

Cited by