Table 3.

Comparison of MRI and anthropometric measures of muscle and adiposity with 5-year mortality in HIV-infected FRAM participants.

	Final MRI model OR (95% CI) P	Alternative anthropometric model 1 OR (95% CI) P	Alternative anthropometric model 2 OR (95% CI) P
Arm SM: T2 vs. T1	0.59 (0.35, 0.99) P =0.044
Arm SM: T3 vs. T1	0.51 (0.25, 1.04) P =0.062
VAT: T2 vs. T1	1.77 (1.03, 3.03) P =0.039
VAT: T3 vs. T1	2.12 (1.13, 3.98) P =0.019
Leg SM: T2 vs. T1	0.92 (0.54, 1.57) P =0.75
Leg SM: T3 vs. T1	0.42 (0.21, 0.84) P =0.015
Mid-arm muscle circumference: T2 vs. T1		0.59 (0.36, 0.96) P =0.035	0.71 (0.42, 1.21) P =0.21
Mid-arm muscle circumference: T3 vs. T1		0.46 (0.26, 0.82) P =0.0080	0.63 (0.34, 1.16) P =0.13
Waist circumference: T2 vs. T1		2.32 (1.37, 3.95) P =0.0018	2.68 (1.56, 4.62) P =0.00038
Waist circumference: T3 vs. T1		2.10 (1.16, 3.80) P =0.014	2.73 (1.46, 5.10) P =0.0016
Thigh muscle circumference: T2 vs. T1			0.50 (0.31, 0.82) P =0.0055
Thigh muscle circumference: T3 vs. T1			0.30 (0.16, 0.55) P =0.00012
AIC (smaller is better)	705.6	716.7	707.4

Estimates also adjust for demographics, traditional CVD risk factors, HIV-related factors, inflammation, and renal disease. Waist circumference, mid-arm muscle circumference (MAMC), and mid-thigh muscle circumference (MTMC) were tertiled using cut-offs determined separately in men and women. Italicized variables are not included in the model above, but are shown added back to the model. AIC=Akaike information criterion, which indicates a better model fit when it is smaller, but penalizes models that contain more predictors