<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<recommendedContent xmlns="http://api.mspoke.com">
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_443"
                     title="Evidence-Based Treatment Improves Older Stroke Victims&apos; Chances (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.015"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Cardiology/Strokes/tb/18360?impressionId=1265751311781"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;Older stroke patients remain at higher risk for adverse outcomes than younger ones, but the gap has narrowed with wider implementation of evidence-based guidelines, researchers say.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;More than 10% of stroke patients over 80 died in the hospital, compared with 3% of those under age 50, Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, of the University of California Los Angeles, and colleagues reported online in &lt;em&gt;Circulation&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But overall use of guideline-recommended therapies improved substantially in older patients from 2003 to 2009, particularly for patients over 90, they said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;During that time, several hospitals and stroke centers have adopted &quot;Get with the Guidelines,&quot; an intervention to apply evidence-based guidelines to care. Adopters have seen &quot;substantial improvements ... in performance measures for ischemic stroke patients, including pharmacological and nonpharmacological management in each age group,&quot; the researchers wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Before launching the initiative in 2003, studies generally showed lower use of guideline-recommended therapy and worse outcomes in older stroke patients.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To assess changes since initiative started, the researchers analyzed more than 502,036 ischemic stroke admissions to 1,256 hospitals participating in the guidelines program between 2003 and 2009. Mean patient age was 71, and 52.5% were women.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;They found that performance on most evidence-based measures was lower in older patients  --  those ages 80 and up  --  compared with younger patients.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The largest differences were seen in the proportion of eligible patients who received intravenous tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) treatments (51.1% for older patients versus 61.6% for those under 50, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.001).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Providers were also less likely to treat older stroke patients with lipid-lowering therapies than younger patients (54.2% versus 71.7%, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.001).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The smallest differences involved antithrombotic therapy within 48 hours of admission and at discharge.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In terms of outcomes, older patients had a significantly higher inhospital mortality rate (10.3% versus 3%), and they were less likely to be discharged home. Rather, they were more likely to be discharged to a skilled nursing facility (42.1% versus 5.3%, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.001) or hospice (12% versus 0.5%, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.001).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;With each 10-year age increase, patients with ischemic stroke were 31% less likely to be discharged home and 27% more likely to die in the hospital.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But the researchers said that, generally, the use of guideline-recommended therapies improved substantially in older patients from 2003 to 2009.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In those ages 90 and older, use of intravenous tPA increased threefold, from 20.4% in 2003 to 62.4% in 2009. And use of lipid lowering therapy increased from 15.6% in 2003 to 71.7%.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The researchers wrote that by 2009, &quot;many of the age-related differences in care had narrowed or were eliminated.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;They cautioned, however, that there could be residual confounding by unmeasured factors. For example, physicians may be uncertain about risks versus benefits in treating older patients who are under-represented in RCTs.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The authors noted that their study was limited by its reliance on the accuracy and completeness of medical records.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Also, they noted, the &quot;Get with the Guidelines&quot; program tends to attract larger teaching hospitals, which already have a &quot;strong interest in stroke care and quality improvement,&quot; and thus the findings may not be generalizable.&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 &quot;Get with the Guidelines&quot; program is supported by the American Heart Association and the American Stroke Association, as well as grants from Pfizer and the Merck-Schering Plough Partnership.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Fonarow reported relationships with Pfizer, Merck/Schering Plough, BMS/Sanofi.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Co-authors reported relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, Ferrer, CoAxia, Talecris, Concentric Medical, and Cygnis.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_323"
                     title="Peptide Predicts Heart Failure in Older Patients (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.008"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Cardiology/CHF/tb/18193?impressionId=1265751311781"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;Serial measurement of a natriuretic peptide predicted the risk of heart failure and cardiovascular death in older patients who were initially free of heart failure, data from a longitudinal cohort study showed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;An increase of more than 25% in levels of N-terminal pro-B type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) doubled the risk of heart failure and cardiovascular death. In contrast, a more than 25% decrease in NT-proBNP was associated with a greater than 40% reduction in the risk of both end points.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;NT-proBNP levels frequently change over time, and these fluctuations reflect dynamic changes in cardiovascular risk,&quot; Christopher R. deFilippi, MD, of the University of Maryland in Baltimore, and co-authors concluded in an article in the Feb. 2 issue of the &lt;em&gt;Journal of the American College of Cardiology&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;This change in [NT-proBNP] level reflects a significant change in patient risk independent of cardiovascular risk factors, ejection fraction, or medication use,&quot; they added. &quot;Ultimately, NT-proBNP levels may guide further diagnostic testing or potential preventive measures to reduce the risk of developing heart failure or dying of cardiovascular disease.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;About 80% of cardiovascular deaths occur in older adults. Assessing cardiovascular risk in older patients is challenging because traditional cardiovascular risk factors are less predictive in older versus middle-age populations, the authors wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Subclinical cardiovascular disease is common among older adults and increases the risk of cardiovascular events, including heart failure. Repeated measures of traditional markers of cardiovascular disease in patients with subclinical disease are associated with increased risk compared with patients who remain free of identifiable disease, the authors continued.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Levels of BNP and NT-proBNP are associated with long-term cardiovascular outcomes in the general population. However, the peptides&apos; ability to provide additional prognostic information beyond that of traditional risk factors remained controversial.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To examine the prognostic value of NT-proBNP in an older population, deFilippi and colleagues analyzed data on 3,000 participants in the Cardiovascular Health Study. The authors hypothesized that NT-proBNP levels in an ambulatory population of older patients would independently predict new-onset heart failure and cardiovascular death.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Furthermore, we anticipated that serial measurements of NT-proBNP, as a possible surrogate for change in subclinical disease status, identify a dynamic change in long-term risk of incident heart failure and cardiovascular mortality,&quot; the authors wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Stored serum samples obtained at enrollment and two to three years later were used to measure NT-proBNP levels. Median follow-up for the cohort was 11.9 years.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;After separating the study group into quintiles of NT-proBNP levels, investigators found that patients with the highest baseline levels of the peptide (&amp;gt;267.7 pg/mL) had a threefold greater risk of new-onset heart failure (HR 3.05, 95% CI 2.46 to 3.78) and cardiovascular death (HR 3.02, 95% CI 2.36 to 3.86) compared with patients in the lowest NT-proBNP quintile (&amp;lt;47.5 pg/mL).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The researchers identified 190 pg/mL as the NT-proBNP threshold for increased risk. Among study participants with baseline levels less than 190 pg/mL, an increase greater than 25% to a level above 190 pg/mL had a twofold increased risk of heart failure (HR 2.13, 95% CI 1.68 to 2.71) and cardiovascular death (HR 1.91, 95% CI 1.43 to 2.53) compared with participants whose NT-proBNP levels remained below 190 pg/mL.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Among study participants with elevated baseline NT-proBNP levels, an increase greater than 25% also doubled the risk of heart failure (HR 2.06, 95% CI 1.56 to 2.72) and cardiovascular disease (HR 1.88, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.57).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A decrease greater than 25% from baseline significantly reduced the risk of heart failure (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.93) and cardiovascular death (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.01) compared with participants whose baseline levels remained elevated.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The investigators noted limitations of the study including the fact that a quarter of the participants did not have a follow-up blood sample and those who did were younger and had fewer cardiac risk factors.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, the length of follow-up could not account for differences in treatment over time, and the accuracy of NT-proBNP levels in samples as much as 20 years old cannot be assured.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The study is noteworthy for highlighting the concept of dynamic risk assessment based on serial measurement of NT-proBNP, Richard W. Troughton, MB ChB, PhD, Matthew G. Daly, MB ChB, and Christopher M. Frampton, PhD, of the University of Otago in Christchurch, New Zealand, wrote in an editorial.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;The findings confirm a modest improvement in risk stratification by including a single measurement of NT-proBNP levels,&quot; they wrote &quot;The investigators take this a step further by showing that serial NT-proBNP measurement at a later time provides a further modest improvement in risk stratification.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Whether the improvement in risk stratification achieved by performing serial NT-proBNP testing crosses a threshold of definite clinical value needs further evaluation, with particular consideration of the cost-effectiveness of such a strategy,&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 study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, University of Pittsburgh, and Roche Diagnostics.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;DeFilippi disclosed relationships with Siemens, Roche Diagnostics, BG Medicine, and Critical Diagnostics. Co-author Robert H. Christenson disclosed relationships with Roche Diagnostics, Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, and Response Biomedical. Co-author Stephen L. Seliger disclosed a relationship with Roche.&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="0.007"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Geriatrics/GeneralGeriatrics/tb/18183?impressionId=1265751311781"
                     
      &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_268"
                     title="No Meds Needed for Two Effective OA Regimens (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.004"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Rheumatology/GeneralRheumatology/tb/18119?impressionId=1265751311781"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;Middle-aged patients with early knee osteoarthritis can benefit from either a self-managment program or strength training, but a combination of the two did not provide additional gains, a study found.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;During a two-year trial, roughly two-thirds of participants randomized to one of three groups achieved clinically meaningful improvements in functioning, defined as a 26% change from baseline, according to a new report in the Jan. 15 &lt;em&gt;Arthritis Care &amp;amp; Research&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Patients also achieved clinically meaningful improvements in pain -- defined as a 40% change from baseline -- regardless of treatment group, wrote Patrick E. McKnight, PhD, of George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., and colleagues.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The functional improvements were 70% for patients in the strength training group, 64% for those in the self-management group, and a 66% improvement in the combined treatment group. For pain, the breakdown was as follows: &lt;ul&gt; &lt;li&gt;Strength training, 65%&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Self-management, 56%&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Combined treatment, 65%&lt;/li&gt; &lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;McKnight and colleagues wrote that studies in older patients have reported positive changes for both strength training and self-management.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To see if these modalities also could benefit younger patients with milder disease, and whether combining the two would lead to additional benefits, the investigators recruited 273 subjects ages 35 to 64 years.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Participants all had pain on most days in at least one knee, had symptoms for less than five years, had radiographic evidence of osteoarthritis, and had self-reported disability.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The strength training program consisted of two phases, the first being nine months focused on stretching and balance, range of motion and flexibility, and isotonic muscle strengthening in three sessions each week.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Phase two involved the development of self-directed long-term exercising habits, following the guidance and advice of trainers.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The self-management program also included two phases. During the first nine-month phase, participants attended 12 weekly 90-minute classroom sessions addressing coping and self-efficacy skills, promoting active adaptive strategies and increasing perception of control for physical function and pain management.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Phase two consisted of telephone calls from instructors and problem-solving discussions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The combined treatment group concurrently participated in both strength training and self-management programs, adjusted to maintain equivalent contact time with the other two groups.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Overall compliance was modest, with 55.8% of those in the strength training group completing the study, along with 69.1% and 59.6% of the self-management and combined groups, respectively.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Objective measures of physical functioning consisted of five physical performance tests measured at baseline and at months nine and 24. Pain and disability were self-reported.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;All of these outcomes showed significant changes over time in all three treatment groups, with effect sizes computed using the standard Cohen&apos;s d units: &lt;ul&gt; &lt;li&gt;Leg press, d=0.85&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Range of motion, d=1.00&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Work capacity, d=0.60&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Balance, d=0.59&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Stair climbing, d=0.59&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Pain, d= &amp;#8722;0.51&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Disability, d= &amp;#8722;0.55&lt;/li&gt; &lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Both men and women improved, although benefits were greater among men, who gained more large muscle mass strength. Study-related adverse effects included accident, injury, or increased pain with strength training.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Within-group and between-group effect sizes were also computed. All within-group effect sizes differed significantly from zero, with the exception of the pain outcome in the strength training group, but none of the between-group effects were significant.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;The logic behind the combined treatment was that the different factors addressed in physical and psychological treatments might produce an additive effect if administered together. These results suggest otherwise,&quot; the investigators conceded.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As to why there were no differences between the three treatment arms, the length of the study and the relative youth of the participants may have contributed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The sample was younger than are included in typical osteoarthritis studies and were higher functioning at baseline, which could mean that there was less opportunity to produce a significant effect, the investigators suggested.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Also, the increased burden of the combined treatment may have diluted the effects of the two programs.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Despite the fact that combined treatment in this study had negligible benefits beyond that seen with strength training and self-management, other long-term outcomes such as physical activity level might show a greater response. This remains speculative, but deserves further study, according to the investigators.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Limitations of the study include the fact that the researchers did not assess effects of the treatment on articular cartilage or inflammation, and they did not include a no-treatment arm.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Also, there may have been differences in self-medication practices between the groups.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Nonetheless, the study findings suggest that the two nonpharmacologic approaches can produce gains in middle-age patients with osteoarthritis, and both can be recommended.&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 National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;One co-author is an employee of Bristol-Myers Squibb and holds stock and/or stock options in the company.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_222"
                     title="Benefits of Cutting Down on Salt Quantified (CME/CE)"
                     score="-0"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Cardiology/Prevention/tb/18075?impressionId=1265751311781"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;Cutting daily salt intake by 3 grams a day  --  about 30% of the current average  --  could prevent 32,000 strokes and 54,000 myocardial infarctions a year, if a computer model developed by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco accurately depicts the clinical impact of salt reduction.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The results of the analysis, which used a computer simulation of heart disease in U.S. adults ages 35 to 84, also suggest that even a 1 gram per day reduction in salt over the next decade would be a more cost-effective strategy for treating hypertension than use of even the cheapest antihypertensive, wrote Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, MD, PhD, and colleagues in a paper published online by the &lt;em&gt;New England Journal of Medicine.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Lee Goldman, MD, MPH, of Columbia University, who co-authored the paper, told &lt;em&gt;MedPage Today&lt;/em&gt; that their study builds on what has long been known about the adverse health effects of salt on a society that believes it to be the spice of life.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For example, Goldman said that most people seeking a healthy choice will check food labels and restaurant menus for calorie counts and trans fats, but will not pay attention to salt.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is not the first time a call for salt reduction has been issued. As recently as last November, a meta-analysis published in &lt;em&gt;BMJ &lt;/em&gt;suggested that cutting salt intake in half  --  a reduction of about 5 grams a day or roughly a teaspoonful  --  would lower the stroke rate by 23% and reduce overall cardiovascular disease by as much as 17%.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Americans, like those in many Western countries, take in an average of about 10 g of salt a day; whereas the World Health Organization recommends only 5 g per day, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture recommends daily intake be limited to 5.8 g.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Bibbins-Domingo and colleagues reported that a 3 gram per day reduction in dietary salt would &quot;save 194,00 to 392,00 quality-adjusted life-years and $10 billion to $24 billion in healthcare costs annually.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In an editorial that accompanied the study, Lawrence J. Appel, MD, MPH, and Cheryl A.M. Anderson, PhD, MPH, of Johns Hopkins University, wrote that &quot;the evidence supporting the call to reduce salt intake as a means of preventing cardiovascular disease is compelling.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;They concluded with this admonition: &quot;As we deliberate healthcare reform, let us not neglect this inexpensive, yet highly effective public health intervention for the prevention of disease.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It should be noted that Appel was also first author on a position paper from the American Society of Hypertension that also called for salt reduction as public policy.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Franz H. Messerli, MD, director of the hypertension program at St. Luke&apos;s-Roosevelt Hospital and a colleague of Goldman&apos;s, said the computer model used in the study was impressive but probably underestimates the benefit of reducing dietary salt &quot;because salt reduction has been shown to have a direct (blood pressure independent) effect on the heart, the brain, the kidneys, and also reduces stomach cancer and osteoporosis  --  factors that were not considered in this analysis.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But Messerli found it difficult to lead the victory parade, noting &quot;this is a modeling study and statements such as &apos;A modest reduction of 1 gm per day would be more cost-effective than using medication to lower blood pressure in all persons with hypertension&apos; are to be taken with a good grain of salt.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Messerli&apos;s measured response was not echoed by his colleagues in the hypertension world.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For example, Henry Black, MD, president of the American Society of Hypertension, and director of hypertension research at the New York University School of Medicine said that, although the paper extended the findings of many other studies, it is &quot;more comprehensive and is especially useful by comparing the benefits of [sodium] and [salt] reduction to those of other widely accepted public health approaches that the public and governmental bodies have embraced, including drug treatment.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Clyde Yancy, MD, president of the American Heart Association, said that while the study was a computer modeling analysis that may be as good as it gets because &quot;it would be impossible to do a randomized trial in large numbers of high versus low sodium consumption, and the use of modeling with reasonable assumptions represents a solid if not ideal alternative.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Moreover, Yancy argued that &quot;the costs and effort involved in setting and/or changing policy&quot; require strong imperatives, and he thought the data reported today &quot;provide that imperative.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Three grams of salt comes to about a teaspoonful, but Goldman said it was foolish to think of sodium reduction in terms of such measurements because so much sodium comes from processed foods and from restaurant food. Achieving the needed reduction requires a concerted national effort.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Bibbins-Domingo noted that their study was limited &quot;by any uncertainty concerning the data entered into the model.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Also they noted that they did not &quot;account fully for the possible effects of salt reduction that are unrelated to control of blood pressure  --  for example, potential improvements in outcomes for the increasing numbers of patients with heart failure or prevention of other serious conditions, such as end-stage renal disease.&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;The study was supported in part by a grant from the American Heart Association Western States Affiliate and a grant from the University of California, San Francisco Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The authors said they had &quot;no potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;This article was developed in collaboration with ABC News. &lt;/em&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/upload/2009/10/1/14357_1.jpg&quot; mce_src=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/upload/2009/10/1/14357_1.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
</recommendedContent>