<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<recommendedContent xmlns="http://api.mspoke.com">
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_352"
                     title="ICAO: Future Chronic Disease Risk Goes Beyond BMI (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.01"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Endocrinology/Diabetes/tb/18233?impressionId=1265740737752"
                     
      When it comes to predicting chronic disease, body mass index doesn&apos;t tell the whole story, according to a population-based study that found elevated risk with obesity and other metabolic risk factors independently.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;Metabolically-healthy obese people tended toward being at least twice as likely to develop multiple metabolic risk factors and diabetes as healthy, normal weight individuals over the subsequent 3.5 years of a study led by Sarah Appleton, a postgraduate student at the University of Adelaide, Australia.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;However, normal weight individuals with metabolic risk factors  --  a group the researchers called &quot;metabolically obese&quot;  --  were at greater risk, she told attendees at the International Congress on Abdominal Obesity in Hong Kong, a conference sponsored by the International Chair on Cardiometabolic Risk.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;Overall, just 4.1% of the 3,743 adults in the population-based, North West Adelaide Health Study were in the normal body mass index range at baseline but had at least two of the following metabolic risk factors:&lt;ul&gt; &lt;li&gt;Triglyceride levels of 1.7 mmol/L or greater&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;HDL cholesterol under 1.0mmol/L for men or 1.3 mmol/L for women&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Blood pressure of 130/85 mm Hg or higher&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;A fasting plasma glucose of at least 5.6mmol/L or self-reported diabetes&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Treatment for any of these disorders &lt;/li&gt; &lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Although free of cardiovascular disease when they entered the study through a random population sample of the northwest region of Adelaide, after a mean of 3.5 years of follow-up, this group was 2.48 times at risk of incident cardiovascular disease or stroke events (95% CI 1.1 to 5.4).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Compared with metabolically-healthy, normal weight individuals, those with metabolic risk factors tended to be&lt;strong&gt; &lt;/strong&gt;3.27 times as likely to develop diabetes (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.07).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Identifying these individuals for prevention efforts may require less emphasis on BMI and increased surveillance of central obesity in primary care, the researchers told the congress.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;The problem with BMI is it doesn&apos;t tell you where the fat is,&quot; Appleton added in an interview. &quot;Visceral fat is really bad for you.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Obese individuals without multiple metabolic risk factors at baseline comprised a larger group (12.1%).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;They were more likely to be middle age, live in a disadvantaged neighborhood, have smoked at some point, and get less exercise than their metabolically similar, but slimmer peers.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Over the subsequent 3.5 years, they were 2.82 times more likely to develop more than one metabolic risk factor than metabolically-healthy, normal weight individuals (95% CI 2.0 to 4.0).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The metabolically-normal obese also tended to be 2.36 times more likely to develop diabetes (95% CI 0.8 to 7.1). On the other hand, their risk of cardiovascular disease wasn&apos;t elevated, &quot;which likely related to the younger age of that group,&quot; Appleton told &lt;em&gt;MedPage Today&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Notably, abdominal obesity as determined by a waist circumference of 80 cm and over for men or 95 cm and greater for women was 6.1 times more likely among metabolically healthy individuals if their BMI was in the obese versus normal range.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But those who were in the normal BMI range were 2.2-fold more likely to be overweight or obese according to waist circumference if they had metabolic risk factors, which was statistically significant as well and likely contributed to the health risks they faced over the short-term future, Appleton said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Maintenance of metabolic health in the obese population was more likely for younger individuals (OR 2.83 for age 40 or younger, 95% CI 1.1 to 7.6) and those who were at least moderately physically active (OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.01 to 4.1).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Appleton noted that these findings generally fit with data from the U.S. National Health Assessment Survey and Examination.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Regardless of whether patients have abdominal obesity, BMI obesity, or other metabolic risk factors, the solution is likely similar  --  improved diet and exercise, she said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;The study was supported by the University of Adelaide and the South Australian Department of Health.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Appleton reported no conflicts of interest.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_315"
                     title="A Few Extra Pounds May Benefit Older People (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.006"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Geriatrics/GeneralGeriatrics/tb/18183?impressionId=1265740737752"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;A little excess weight after age 70 could do the body some good, according to results of a study involving 9,000 older patients.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Overweight participants in the cohort study had the lowest 10-year mortality. Normal-weight and obese participants ages 70 to 75 had a similar and slightly higher risk of death, Leon Flicker, PhD, of the Western Australian Center for Health and Aging in Perth, and colleagues found.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The findings add to evidence suggesting that being overweight in older age is not such a bad thing and might even be beneficial.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;These results lend further credence to claims that the body mass index [BMI] thresholds for overweight and obese are overly restrictive for older people,&quot; the researchers concluded in an article in the &lt;em&gt;Journal of the American Geriatrics Society&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The authors also found that a sedentary lifestyle doubled the mortality risk for older women but did not affect survival of older men.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The World Health Organization has established four BMI thresholds to characterize body weight: &lt;ul&gt; &lt;li&gt;&amp;lt;18.5 kg/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, underweight&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;18.5 to 24.9 kg/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, normal weight&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;25 to 29.9 kg/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, overweight&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;&amp;#8805;30 kg/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, obese&lt;/li&gt; &lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The authors noted that the thresholds were derived primarily from studies of younger and middle-age adults. Whether the cut points for overweight and obese are appropriate for older individuals has remained unclear.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Two systematic reviews and a meta-analysis showed no increased mortality risk associated with a BMI in the overweight range for older people (&lt;em&gt;Arch Intern Med&lt;/em&gt; 2001; 161: 1194-1203, &lt;em&gt;Obesity Rev&lt;/em&gt; 2007; 8: 41-59). However, methodologic differences complicated the comparison of different studies, Flicker and colleagues wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;So they sought to address some of the uncertainty by analyzing data from two large Australian cohort studies involving more than 9,000 individuals ages 70 to 75 (4,677 men, 4,563 women).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The principal objectives were to determine the BMI threshold associated with the lowest mortality in older people and to determine whether the relationship between BMI and mortality differed between men and women.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Data for the analysis came from self-reported measures of height and weight, which the authors used to calculate BMI for the study participants. Participants also provided demographic, lifestyle, and health information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Using the WHO criteria for BMI, the authors found that 1.3% of men and 3.1% of women were underweight; 43.5% of men and 50.3% of women were normal weight; 44.3% of men and 33.5% of women were overweight; and 11% of men and 13.1% of women were obese.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;During 10 years of follow-up, overweight study participants had a 13% lower risk of death compared with normal-weight participants (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.94). Obese participants had a mortality risk similar to that of normal-weight participants (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.11).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Self-reported sedentary lifestyle doubled the mortality risk for women across all BMI categories (HR 2.08, 95% CI 1.79 to 2.41). In contrast, sedentary lifestyle increased the mortality risk for men by 28% (HR 1.28, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.44).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Separate analyses involving common causes of death, such as cardiovascular disease and cancer, showed similar relationships between BMI and mortality risk.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Even after removing the effects of early mortality, those who were overweight were still at lowest risk, a finding consistent with the observation that weight loss in older age groups is associated with greater mortality,&quot; the authors wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Overweight older people are not at greater mortality risk, and there is little evidence that dieting in this age group confers any benefit,&quot; they added.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;The authors had no relevant disclosures&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_207"
                     title="ISET: Women Fare Better in Small Leg Vessel Procedures (CME/CE)"
                     score="-0.002"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Cardiology/PeripheralArteryDisease/tb/18051?impressionId=1265740737752"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;HOLLYWOOD, Fla.  --  Contrary to expectations, women who undergo last-ditch, minimally-invasive procedures to open small blood vessels in the leg  --  and forestall amputation  --  generally have better outcomes than men, researchers reported here.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Overall, 87.5% of women who underwent the infragenicular endoscopic angioplasty avoided amputation for at least two years, compared with 82.9% of the men who were similarly treated (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.041), according to Tejas Shah, MD, of Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York City.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;This study is the first to compare the outcomes of men and women being treated for blocked lower-leg arteries with endovascular therapy,&quot; Shah said at the International Symposium on Endovascular Therapy (ISET). &quot;The results suggest endovascular therapy should be strongly considered in women with blocked arteries below the knee.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In many endovascular procedures, women tend to do worse then men, generally because they tend to have smaller blood vessels. But in this study, involving the smallest leg blood vessels, the opposite occurred. &quot;We really don&apos;t have any good reason why there should be this gender difference,&quot; Shah said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;What made this difference significant,&quot; Shah told &lt;em&gt;MedPage Today&lt;/em&gt;, &quot;was that the women in the study, overall, were at significantly greater risk of amputation than the male patients.&quot; He said that about 22.3% of men underwent treatment for claudication, compared with 12.3% of the women, but 77.7% of men were being treated for limb-threatening conditions compared with 87.7% of women.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The retrospective study involved review of angioplasties, stenting, and atherectomies performed on 152 men and 125 women at Mount Sinai between July 1999 and November 2009.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When adjusted for comorbidities, women treated for tibial lesions with concurrent proximal disease had higher 24-month primary patency rates compared with men.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Some 46% of treated leg arteries in women remained open, compared with 30% (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.016) in men. Shah said that a subanalysis of isolated tibial lesions indicated that 50% of women achieved 24-month primary patency rates, compared with 28.8% of men (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt; =0.002).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On the downside, women experienced higher rates of blood clots forming at the access site of the treatment (9% versus 0.6%, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;.0001). Clotting, typically treated with blood thinners, may require a longer stay in the hospital (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.0001).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;In both men and women it is hard to keep these smaller leg blood vessels open,&quot; said Constantino Pe&amp;#241;a, MD, medical director of vascular imaging at Baptist Cardiac &amp;amp; Vascular Institute, Miami.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;It might be possible that women do better because of their hormone status. But we need to do prospective clinical trials to see if we can determine what factor is involved in making the procedure work better for women.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;Shah listed no relevant disclosures.  Pe&amp;#241;a reported financial relationships with Bard and Medtronic.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20090101_19_1870"
                     title="ADA: New Screening Modes Work for Diabetic Retinopathy"
                     score="-0.005"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/ADA/tb/14663?impressionId=1265740737752"
                     
      NEW ORLEANS, June 11 -- For diabetic retinopathy screening, telemedicine and photographing fewer fields allow for faster detection for more patients, researchers said. 
              &lt;p&gt; 
              &lt;p&gt;These screening approaches appeared to retain good specificity and sensitivity for diabetic retinopathy detection while reducing the burden on ophthalmologists and patients in two studies reported here at the American Diabetes Association meeting.
              &lt;p&gt; 
              &lt;p&gt;These kinds of studies are important to improving the rates of annual screening recommended for all diabetic patients by the ADA, particularly in underserved areas, commented Sue Kirkman, M.D., ADA vice-president of clinical affairs.
              &lt;p&gt; 
              &lt;p&gt;In the U.S., the average retinal screening rate is only 65%, noted Athena Philis-Tsimikas, M.D., of the Scripps Whittier Diabetes Institute in San Diego, and colleagues.
              &lt;p&gt; 
              &lt;p&gt;Since that rate falls even lower in underserved communities, her group partnered with community health centers to bring a mobile medical unit equipped with a nonmydriatic digital retinal camera to those areas in San Diego County.
              &lt;p&gt; 
              &lt;p&gt;Over an 18-month period, 1,229 people with diabetes and no or minimal insurance were screened. 
              &lt;p&gt; 
              &lt;p&gt;A trained technician took retinal pictures, determined the presence of significant retinopathy using EyePacs imaging software, and provided immediate referral if it was present.
              &lt;p&gt; 
              &lt;p&gt;A retinal specialist independently read all the images to determine accuracy of the screening.
              &lt;p&gt; 
              &lt;p&gt;Comparing them, the technician&apos;s screening had an overall accuracy of 92% with a specificity of 96% and sensitivity of 86%. 
              &lt;p&gt; 
              &lt;p&gt;The negative predictive value was 79%; the positive predictive value was 97%. 
              &lt;p&gt; 
              &lt;p&gt;The researchers did not calculate number needed to screen, but diagnosed diabetic retinopathy in 183 of 1,229 screened individuals.
              &lt;p&gt; 
              &lt;p&gt;With this screening strategy, the technician could do preliminary screening, with only positive screens sent to a retinal specialist for review to maximize use of the specialist&apos;s time and expertise, Dr. Philis-Tsimikas said.
              &lt;p&gt; 
              &lt;p&gt;Patients also benefited from accurate, sameday evaluation without long wait times as well as an opportunity for patient education, Dr. Philis-Tsimikas noted.
              &lt;p&gt; 
              &lt;p&gt;The accuracy of another strategy to increase efficiency and resource utilization was examined in a second study by Jyothis George, M.B.B.S., of the Queen&apos;s Medical Research Institute in Edinburgh, Scotland, and colleagues.
              &lt;p&gt; 
              &lt;p&gt;Dilated seven-field retinal photography is the gold standard but &quot;too resource intensive to be used for screening,&quot; they noted.
              &lt;p&gt; 
              &lt;p&gt;Single-field photography -- which encompasses only the central 45� of the retina most vital for vision-threatening complications -- without dilation is more popular for screening, Dr. George said.
              &lt;p&gt; 
              &lt;p&gt;His group compared the two approaches in a subanalysis of the Edinburgh Type 2 Diabetes Study that included 751 asymptomatic individuals screened with dilated, seven-field methods who also had routine single-field retinal photography within a year.
              &lt;p&gt; 
              &lt;p&gt;Despite small numbers, the researchers found 92.3% sensitivity (95% CI 73 to 98) for diabetic retinopathy detection and referral for further investigation in the patients with at least moderate diabetic retinopathy (24 of 26 cases). 
              &lt;p&gt; 
              &lt;p&gt;Specificity was even higher at 99.8% (99.1-99.9) for single-field screening.
              &lt;p&gt; 
              &lt;p&gt;There was one false positive with single-field screening -- a case of venous occlusion wrongly classified as referable diabetic retinopathy.
              &lt;p&gt; 
              &lt;p&gt;However, the performance of single-field methods in the overall cohort was not as good:
              &lt;p&gt; 
              &lt;ul&gt;
                &lt;li&gt;65.4% sensitivity (95% CI 59.1 to 71.3)
                &lt;li&gt;86.5% specificity (95% CI 83 to 89.3)
                 &lt;li&gt;12.8% of those without diabetic retinopathy were labeled as mild cases
                  &lt;li&gt;36.7% with mild diabetic retinopathy were missed
                            &lt;/ul&gt;
                              &lt;p&gt; 
                              &lt;p&gt;But the researchers said &quot;this is clinically not significant as our screening strategy is to recall all these patients for yearly single-field nonmydriatic retinal screening.&quot;
                              &lt;p&gt; 
                              &lt;p&gt;They concluded that their single-field method would be accurate &quot;when used in conjunction with integrated diabetes care.&quot;
                              &lt;p&gt; 
                              &lt;p&gt; 
                              &lt;p&gt;&lt;table cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; hspace=&quot;1&quot; style=&quot;border-style:solid; border-width:1px; border-color:#8dabbc; font-family:arial; font-size:12px; background-color:#DBE9F2; padding:5px 5px 5px 5px;&quot;&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Dr. Philis-Tsimikas&apos; study was funded by the Fonseca Family Foundation, Blue Shield Foundation, and the NIH National Center for Research Resources.
                              &lt;p&gt; 
                              &lt;p&gt;The Edinburgh Type 2 Diabetes study was funded, in part, by Pfizer.
                              &lt;p&gt; 
                              &lt;p&gt;Drs. Philis-Tsimikas, George, and Kirkman reported that they had no conflicts of interest.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/table&gt;
                          
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20090101_9_152"
                     title="ADA: Once-Daily Therapy Shows to Age Barrier"
                     score="-0.005"
                     href="