<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<recommendedContent xmlns="http://api.mspoke.com">
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_449"
                     title="FDA Okays Statin for Primary Prevention"
                     score="0.012"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/InfectiousDisease/PublicHealth/tb/18380?impressionId=1265795503972"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;WASHINGTON  --  The FDA has approved rosuvastatin (Crestor) for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease, making it the first statin to receive this indication.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The new labeling, recommended by an FDA advisory panel late last year, also marks the first time that a drug label will include an indication based on the biomarker highly-sensitive C-reactive protein, an inflammatory marker.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The new indication would be for men 50 or older and women 60 or older who have fasting LDL of less than 130 mg/dL, a highly-sensitive CRP of 2.0 mg/L or greater, triglycerides of less than 500 mg/dL, and no prior history of heart attack or stroke, or coronary heart disease risk.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The basis for the new labeling was the JUPITER trial, a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of 17,802 men and women with a mean age of 66 and no history of atherosclerosis. All participants had LDL of less than 130 mg/dL and a highly-sensitive C-reactive protein concentration of 2 mg/L or higher.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Patients were randomized to 20 mg of rosuvastatin for 1.9 years, which reduced median LDL cholesterol to 55 mg/dL, down from a median of 108 mg/dL at baseline. The corresponding relative reduction in the rate of MI, stroke, arterial revascularization, or cardiovascular death was 44% (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.00001).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The number needed to treat to avoid one cardiovascular event was 25.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Those results, according to Melvyn Rubenfire, MD, of the University of Michigan, were a &quot;home run for JUPITER,&quot; but it is not clear whether the results would be the same with another statin.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;And there were some risks associated with rosuvastatin, including 13 deaths due to gastrointestinal disorders in the rosuvastatin arm, and 18 patients reported experiencing a &quot;confused state&quot; while taking the drug.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The most troubling adverse event, however, was an uptick in investigator-reported, new onset diabetes mellitus in the treatment arm, 2.8% versus 2.5%, for a hazard ratio of 1.27 (95% CI 1.05 to 1.53, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.015).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Rosuvastatin in marketed by AstraZeneca, which also sponsored the JUPITER trial.&lt;/p&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_361"
                     title="Hidden Dangers of Herbal Meds Reviewed"
                     score="0.009"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/PrimaryCare/AlternativeMedicine/tb/18244?impressionId=1265795503972"
                     
      Herbal medicines are not always the harmless nostrums that many patients and even some physicians think, but may actually contribute to cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, researchers warned in a review covering 44 years of research into the subject.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;Many such products, including aloe vera, ginkgo biloba, ginseng, and green tea, can interact with conventional cardiovascular drugs and lead to serious adverse reactions, according to Arshad Jahangir, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, Ariz., and two other Mayo physicians.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;&quot;There is a clear need for better public and physician understanding of herbal products through health education, early detection and management of herbal toxicities, scientific scrutiny of their use, and research on their safety and effectiveness,&quot; they wrote in the Feb. 9 &lt;em&gt;Journal of the American College of Cardiology&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Jahangir and colleagues also called for increased regulation of such products, at least requiring manufacturers of herbal medicines to register with the FDA and provide evidence of good manufacturing practices.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Some of these adverse drug reactions are preventable,&quot; Jahangir told &lt;em&gt;MedPage Today&lt;/em&gt; in a telephone interview. &quot;Simple things like taking a good history or giving that history and discussing these issues, probably we can avoid [such reactions].&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Other physicians contacted by &lt;em&gt;MedPage Today&lt;/em&gt; and ABC News agreed that the growth in popularity of herbal medicines poses problems for physicians and patients.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Because these remedies are &apos;natural,&apos; their potential dangers are not considered the same way they would be if they were medication,&quot; commented Suzanne Steinbaum, MD, a cardiologist at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City, in an e-mail.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;For many reasons, patients tend not to disclose to their doctors if they are taking herbal remedies, including fear that their doctors won&apos;t approve or they will be told to stop them,&quot; Steinbaum added. &quot;This lack of knowledge and full-disclosure, for some, might be a fatal omission.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Jahangir and colleagues reviewed nearly 90 publications that have addressed herbal or complementary therapies and cardiovascular effects since 1966.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Their &lt;em&gt;JACC&lt;/em&gt; article listed 15 common herbal medicines known to interact adversely with conventional cardiovascular drugs.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In many cases, the herbal products compete with the regular medicines for the same drug-metabolizing cytochrome P450 enzymes, potentiating the latter&apos;s effects. In other cases, the herbal products have their own cardiovascular effects.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Many physicians already know that grapefruit juice occupies the CYP3A4 enzyme, leading to slower-than-expected metabolism and, therefore, higher blood levels of a host of pharmaceuticals.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;These include the statins, calcium channel antagonists, several common anti-arrhythmic drugs, and the angiotensin receptor blocker irbesartan (Avapro), Jahangir and colleagues noted.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Garlic is one of several common herbal remedies with specific cardiovascular effects in its own right (others include ginkgo biloba, ginseng, and saw palmetto). Garlic inhibits platelet aggregation and thus can lead to increased bleeding risks when combined with aspirin, clopidogrel (Plavix), or warfarin (Coumadin), the researchers noted.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Mayo group identified 10 herbal products that increase bleeding risks with anticoagulant and antiplatelet drugs, as well as 14 that can induce arrhythmias.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In all, Jahangir and colleagues listed 27 herbal products that patients with cardiovascular diseases would do well to avoid. These include such common and harmless-seeming products as green tea, capsicum pepper, licorice, and kelp, as well as grapefruit juice and garlic.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;We need to check with our patients what type of products they are using, to identify these potential interactions,&quot; Jahangir told &lt;em&gt;MedPage Today&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;He cited the previously reported figure of 100,000 deaths annually from drug interactions, adding, &quot;We don&apos;t even know how many of these are due to use of compounds that we are not aware that our patients are taking.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Jahangir said he was surprised, in preparing the review, at the scale of hebal medicine use in the U.S.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;He and his colleagues found data from the 1990s suggesting that more patients consult complementary and alternative medicine providers than regular physicians.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The total annual out-of-pocket expenditure on complementary and alternative medicine services and products also was greater than for conventional physician services.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;The surprise for me was . . . how much people are willing to spend on a type of therapy which has not shown, in any scientific way, to be effective or safe,&quot; Jahangir said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;He added that the trend may reflect shortcomings of the conventional medical system.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;What is the reason people are going there? Is it because there is some unmet type of need that we are not recognizing as practitioners of conventional medicine?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Jahangir said it may be that physicians aren&apos;t spending enough time with patients to understand their true needs. He said it appears that, &quot;despite the advancement in our technology and new medicines, there is a demand for alternative therapies that is increasing.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;He recommended that, in addition to asking patients in detail about herbal and other alternative therapies they may be using, physicians should educate themselves on what these therapies purport to do and what is known about their real biological effects.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://nccam.nih.gov&quot; mce_href=&quot;http://nccam.nih.gov&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine&lt;/a&gt; at the National Institutes of Health is a good starting point for such information, both for physicians and for patients, Jahangir said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Lenox Hill&apos;s Steinbaum said it was important that conventional physicians &quot;become more open-minded and accepting&quot; of alternative medicine, if only because so many of their patients are already practicing it.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;David Meyerson, MD, JD, a Johns Hopkins University cardiologist, told &lt;em&gt;MedPage Today&lt;/em&gt; and ABC News in an e-mail that he advises patients to limit their use of &quot;unstudied and unproven and FDA-unregulated herbal medications.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;It&apos;s unfortunately very big business, and potential drug interactions and potential harmful effects abound,&quot; he wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But another physician criticized the Mayo physicians&apos; emphasis on adverse effects in their review.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;For many of products listed, evidence for side effects seems to be minimal,&quot; Scott Grundy, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, argued in an e-mail.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;He agreed that the efficacy and safety of such drugs remains largely unproven, but added, &quot;It is mainly for these reasons that they cannot be recommended for use.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Creating alarm about side effects &quot;may not be the appropriate way to discourage their use,&quot; Grundy said.&lt;/p&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>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_358"
                     title="Poststroke Antidepressant Boosts Mental Agility (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.008"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Cardiology/Strokes/tb/18240?impressionId=1265795503972"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;Antidepressants in the first months after a stroke may aid cognitive recovery for patients without depression, according to a randomized trial analysis.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Global cognitive function scores improved significantly more with escitalopram (Lexapro) than with problem-solving therapy or placebo (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.01), according to Ricardo E. Jorge, MD, of the University of Iowa in Iowa City, and colleagues.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Memory scores rose significantly higher with the antidepressant as well (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.01), with both effects independent of those on depression, they reported in the February &lt;em&gt;Archives of General Psychiatry&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Adjunctive restorative therapies administered during the first few months after stroke, the period with the greatest degree of spontaneous recovery, reduce the number of stroke patients with significant disability,&quot; the researchers concluded.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/Cardiology/Strokes/9621&quot; mce_href=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/Cardiology/Strokes/9621&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;primary analysis&lt;/a&gt; of the trial, reported in the &lt;em&gt;Journal of the American Medical Association on&lt;/em&gt; May 28, 2008, showed that prophylactic escitalopram treatment would prevent poststroke depression in one patient for every 7.2 treated &lt;em&gt;(P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.001 compared with placebo). That article ultimately raised a controversy over an undisclosed conflict of interest.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Escitalopram is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI). Since serotonin plays a role in neuroplastic changes in the developing brain as well as in depression, Jorge&apos;s group analyzed whether there might be such an effect after a stroke.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The study randomized patients to double-blind treatment with escitalopram (10 mg/d under age 65 or 5 mg/day age 65 and older) or placebo or unblinded problem-solving therapy (12 sessions of going through steps to arrive at a course of action for a patient-selected problem).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The intent-to-treat analysis included 129 patients treated starting within the first three months after their mild to moderate severity stroke and who did not meet criteria for major or minor depression.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Overall, global cognitive functioning was significantly changed between groups as measured on the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.01).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;After controlling for change in depression score and type of stroke, escitalopram was associated with the best cognitive recovery, an adjusted mean change of 9.9 points compared with 1.9 for problem-solving therapy (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.01) and 4.0 for placebo (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.02).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Similarly, for delayed memory scores on the same test battery, escitalopram came out on top (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.01).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;After adjustment for depression score change and stroke mechanism, the antidepressant was associated with an 11.2 point improvement in delayed memory, compared with a change of -0.7 with problem-solving therapy (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.001) and 3.9 with placebo (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.02).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On test of immediate memory, escitalopram again yielded the best recovery.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The researchers found mean improvement of 13.4 points with the antidepressant compared with 2.0 with problem-solving therapy (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.001) and 7.2 with placebo (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.04), after adjustment for time between stroke and treatment, depression score change, and stroke type.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;These mental benefits appeared to have an impact on functional status as well.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Cognitive domain scores on the Functional Independence Measure were better for escitalopram-treated patients than those who didn&apos;t get the drug (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.05), as were memory domain scores on the same measure (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.03).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;At baseline, the global cognitive functioning and delayed and immediate memory scores were nonsignificantly lower in the antidepressant group than in the other two groups, which could have biased the results.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, the treatment effects appeared to be real, Jorge explained in an interview.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In an unpublished regression analysis, the baseline scores were not a significant covariate. &quot;If [the results were] related only to the difference in baseline, this would be significant but it wasn&apos;t,&quot; he told &lt;em&gt;MedPage Today&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Moreover, with an initially lower score it might have been expected that the escitalopram-treated group would have had a lower score at the end of the study than the other groups, added co-author Robert G. Robinson, MD, also of the University of Iowa.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But that wasn&apos;t the case, he said in an interview. With regard to delayed memory, for example, &quot;the escitalopram-treated group went from the most impaired to the best performing.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The researchers didn&apos;t compare end scores for the escitalopram, problem solving therapy, and placebo groups, but they were: &lt;ul&gt; &lt;li&gt;For global cognitive functioning 89.8, 89.1, and 91.0 points, respectively&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;For delayed memory, 96.6, 89.1, and 94.2, respectively&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;For immediate memory, 95.1, 94.9, and 98.5, respectively&lt;/li&gt; &lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The treatment showed no effect on other individual cognitive measurements, including those for attention, language, and IQ. Nor were there significant differences in changes in occupational or living conditions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Although SSRIs such as escitalopram have been associated with hospitalization for GI bleeding and falls in prior studies, these complications did not occur in Jorge&apos;s study.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Long-term administration of SSRIs appears to be an effective and safe treatment option to improve cognitive outcomes among patients with cerebrovascular disease,&quot; they concluded in the &lt;em&gt;Archives&lt;/em&gt; paper.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The researchers cautioned that the study was limited by lack of CT or MRI scans and the younger age of escitalopram-treated patients, compared with other groups. That may have been a source of bias, although age did not appear to be a significant factor in the trial results.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In this analysis, the researchers emphasized that the trial was not financially supported in any way by any drug company  --  a declaration hinting at the controversy that brewed last year over failure of one of the authors of the original &lt;em&gt;JAMA&lt;/em&gt; article to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/HealthPolicy/13391&quot; mce_href=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/HealthPolicy/13391&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;properly disclose ties&lt;/a&gt; to Forest Pharmaceuticals, which makes escitalopram.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Another scientist who discovered that omission published the information in a competing journal, inducing &lt;em&gt;JAMA&lt;/em&gt; to issue a gag rule on reporting of undisclosed conflicts of interest. That policy encourages those who discover such conflicts to report them to &lt;em&gt;JAMA&apos;s&lt;/em&gt; editors but prohibits them from disclosing the conflicts publicly pending an investigation by the journal.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the current analysis, the disclosure statement indicated that co-author Robertson, had received honoraria and speakers&apos; bureau fees from Forest, with the caveat that &quot;none of the design, analysis, or expenses (including the cost of medications) of this study were supported by monies, materials, or any intellectual input from Forest Laboratories.&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 solely by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Jorge reported having received travel awards to participate in national meetings from the former Hamilton Pharmaceutical Company and Avanir Pharmaceutical Company.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Co-authors reported financial conflicts of interest with Merck, NMT Medical, Eli Lilly, Centocor, Sanofi-Bristol-Meyers-Squibb, Boerhringer-Ingelheim, Schering-Plough, AstraZeneca, and GlaxoSmithKline, the former Hamilton Pharmaceutical Company, Avanir Pharmaceutical Company, Lubeck, Forest Laboratories, and Pfizer.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;No pharmaceutical company donated medications for or had any financial interest in the study.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_352"
                     title="ICAO: Future Chronic Disease Risk Goes Beyond BMI (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.008"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Endocrinology/Diabetes/tb/18233?impressionId=1265795503972"
                     
      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="0.004"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Geriatrics/GeneralGeriatrics/tb/18183?impressionId=1265795503972"
                     
      &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>
</recommendedContent>
