Obese children are at high risk of death before middle age

childhood obesityA study published in the New England Journal of Medicine has found that children who were obese were almost twice as likely to die before 55 years of age than those who were not obese. Moreover, children whose weight was in the top 25% out of nearly 5,000 kids were 2.3 times more likely to die from diseases before middle age than those whose weight fell in the bottom 25%.

The authors of this big, long study looked at body mass index (BMI; a measure of weight that takes into account a person’s height) and risk factors for cardiovascular disease in 4,857 children aged 5-19 years who lived on an American Indian reserve in Arizona.

BMI and markers of cardiovascular disease were measured in all children when the study started in 1966 or after. The participants were then followed up until their death, their 55th birthday, or the end of 2003, whichever came first.

A total of 559 (11.5%) participants died before the age of 55, 166 (3.4%) of whom died from a disease or from self inflicted injury such as alcohol or drug abuse – so-called “endogenous causes.”

Children whose BMI fell within the top 25% of all those in the study were 2.3 times more likely to die from endogenous causes before the age of 55 than those whose BMI was in the lowest 25%. In fact, each one unit increase in BMI increased the risk of early death from endogenous causes by 40%.  This relationship persisted but at a slightly lower level once factors like cholesterol level and blood pressure were taken into account.

The authors then looked specifically at the 1394 (28.7%) children who were obese – those whose BMI fell in the top 5% on growth charts from governmental public health body the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Compared with non-obese children, these kids were 31% more likely to die before they reached 55.

Children with high blood glucose levels – a sign that diabetes might be on the horizon – were at 73% higher risk of dying early, whereas those with hypertension were at 57% higher risk. This link prompted the authors to say that the link between obesity and premature death “may be partially mediated by the development of glucose intolerance and hypertension in childhood.”

Childhood cholesterol level and blood pressure, however, had no effect on the risk of premature death from endogenous causes.

Speaking to the New York Times, senior author Helen Looker said, “This suggests that obesity in children, even prepubescent children, may have very serious long-term health effects through midlife — that there is something serious being set in motion by obesity at early ages. We all expect to get beyond 55 these days.”

American Indians were studied because childhood obesity has been common for decades in this ethnic group. The prevalence of obesity in young Arizona Pima Indians in the 1960s, when this study was initiated, was similar to that seen in Hispanic and African American children today, so hopefully the results from this long study should be generalisable to kids today.

In a linked editorial, Edward W Gregg of the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention pointed out: “Since the trends with respect to obesity and diabetes among the Pima Indians have been a reliable harbinger for trends in the rest of the U.S. population during recent decades, the present study should intensify the debate about whether interventions that are initiated during childhood and young adulthood can affect our broader diabetes epidemic.”

Furthermore, in a previous study the same authors found that BMI correlated closely with total body fat – adiposity – and that adiposity in turn correlated with cardiovascular risk factors. By extension, the link between BMI and early death in this study suggests that actual body fat is linked with early death.

This is important because BMI is an imperfect measure of weight – for example, some very muscular people might be heavy for their height and thus have a high BMI – thus despite the study results weight might not genuinely be associated with early death. On the other hand, high adiposity – “fatness” – is a more indicative of an unhealthy weight.

“Childhood obesity is becoming increasingly prevalent around the globe. Our observations, combined with those of other investigators, suggest that failure to reverse this trend may have wide-reaching consequences for the quality of life and longevity,” conclude the study authors.

————————————————————————————————–
Franks P et al. (2010) Childhood Obesity, Other Cardiovascular Risk Factors, and Premature Death. New England Journal of Medicine 362 (6): 485-493. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa0904130

Continue Reading

Reducing dietary salt by half a teaspoon could save 92,000 lives a year

SaltA Californian population based study has found that if everyone in the US reduced their daily salt intake by 3 grams – half a teaspoon – the annual number of deaths could be slashed by up to 92,000. In addition, the number of new people who get cardiovascular disease each year could drop by up to 120,000 – that’s equivalent to the population of Cambridge!

In fact, cutting dietary salt intake by as little as 1 gram a day could reduce the number of deaths from any cause by 15,000 to 32,000 and the number of new cases of cardiovascular disease by 20,000 to 40,000.

US regulations recommend that people consume less than 5.8 g of salt a day, yet the average American man gets through almost double that – 10.4 g of salt daily. This is bad news – high salt intake is associated with an increased risk of stroke and cardiovascular disease.

In this study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the authors used computer modelling to simulate heart disease and stroke in US adults aged 35-84 years.

They found that a population wide reduction in dietary salt of 3 g per day could potentially reduce the annual number of cases of cardiovascular disease by 60,000 to 120,000, stroke by 32,000 to 66,000, and heart attack by 54,000 to 99,000. The annual number of deaths from any cause could be cut by by 44,000 to 92,000.

Even a modest reduction of 1 g of salt per day could cut the yearly rates of cardiovascular disease, stroke, and heart attack by at least 20,000, 18,000, and 11,000, respectively. “It was a surprise to see the magnitude of the impact on the population, given the small reductions in salt that we were modeling,” Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, lead author of the study, told Science Daily.

The effects seemed greater in black people – a population with high rates of hypertension and cardiovascular disease – and women would benefit in particular from a reduction in stroke incidence. The number of events related to cardiovascular disease – such as heart attack – would drop in older adults, whereas young people would benefit from lower overall mortality rates.

The public health benefits of a drop in salt intake of 3 g a day would be equivalent to half of all smokers quitting or a 5% reduction in body fat among obese adults, and would save $10 billion to $24 billion a year in healthcare costs.

“Reducing dietary salt is one of those rare interventions that has a huge health benefit and actually saves large amounts of money,” said senior author Lee Goldman. “At a time when so much public debate has focused on the costs of health care for the sick, here is a simple remedy, already proven to be feasible in other countries.”

————————————————————————————————–
Bibbins-Domingo K et al. (2010) Projected Effect of Dietary Salt Reductions on Future Cardiovascular Disease. New England Journal of Medicine DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa0907355

Continue Reading

NEJM vs the South Dakota abortion script

gavelIn the recent US election, several pieces of legislation that aimed to limit reproductive rights were voted down.  Colorado said no to the Definition of a person initiative that would have given fertilized eggs the same rights as humans, and California rejected a proposition that would have required parents to be notified when a patient under 18 has an abortion. Importantly, in South Dakota Measure 11 – which sought to ban abortion in all cases bar incest, rape and danger to the the health or life of the mother – was narrowly defeated.

Despite all this good news, one hefty piece of reproductive rights legislation slipped through the net this year.  In July, following the Planned Parenthood Minnesota vs Rounds court case, statute 34-23A-10.1 was passed.  This measure states that the physician performing an abortion must inform the pregnant mother that “the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being”, that she “has an existing relationship with that unborn human being “, and that she is, supposedly, at “increased risk of suicide ideation and suicide”.

The New England Journal of Medicine has taken up the case of the ‘South Dakota abortion script’, which seems to have been largely ignored by the media.

The Perspective article ‘South Dakota’s Abortion Script — Threatening the Physician–Patient Relationship‘, published in November, outlines the small print of the legislation and issues at stake.  The authors write:

The law requires that doctors give pregnant women a description of medical and “statistically significant” risks of abortion, among which it includes depression and other psychological distress, suicide, danger to subsequent pregnancies, and death. Physicians must tell women the approximate gestational age of the fetus and describe its state of development … The physician must answer all the woman’s questions in writing and enter them into her medical record … Physicians who do not satisfy the statute are subject to license suspension or revocation and may be charged with a class 2 misdemeanor.

In addition, the authors state that the increased risks of psychological distress, depression, and suicide included in the script are not supported by the bulk of the scientific literature, and that the legislation should be viewed in the context of South Dakota’s repeated attempts to outlaw abortion outright, not least in 2005 and 2008.

The article also points out that in forcing doctors to parrot the state’s message as if it were their own opinion, the law violates physicians’ First Amendment rights.  The December 4 Editorial ‘Physicians and the First Amendment‘ picks up on this issue of the right of the physician to freedom of speech.  The “ideological speech” included in the script is clearly in breach of the First Amendment, which enshrines “both the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all.”  If the state is able to dictate that doctors give emotive and partisan information about abortions, there is a precedent for the state determine the medical advice given on other contentious issues such as contraception.  The authors of the editorial call for prompt overturning of the law and boldly state:

The South Dakota ‘script law’ is an affront to the First Amendment rights of physicians and an embarrassment to the people of South Dakota.

The New England Journal of Medicine certainly has a lot of clout in the medical community and beyond, but whether they will succeed in overturning law is another matter. What is needed is for the journal and the physician community to mobilize behind this issue and either as a body or via a proxy patient take on South Dakota law the way that the landmark Roe vs Wade case took on the state of Texas. Let’s hope that this issue gets some wider publicity and that someone is willing to take on the state to protect the reproductive and constitutional rights of the people of North Dakota.

Continue Reading

Cardiologists circumspect on stellar JUPITER results

The publication this week in New England Journal of Medicine of the JUPITER trial – which found that the statin rosuvastatin reduces the risk of heart attack and other cardiovascular events in people with normal cholesterol levels – has cause quite a stir. The likes of the BBC and the Daily Mail squealed that statins should be prescribed to all healthy adults, but what did the study actually look at, and what do doctors think of the findings?

In patients with raised cholesterol levels, treatment with statins reduces the risk of cardiovascular events such as heart attack and stroke; however, nearly half of all first cardiovascular events occur in people whose cholesterol levels are below current thresholds for pharmacological therapy. The JUPITER trial investigated the benefits of treatment with rosuvastatin (also known as crestor) in 17,802 patients over 50 years of age who had normal blood levels of low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol (‘bad’ cholesterol), but elevated levels of another marker of heart disease called C-reactive protein (CRP).

Compared with a placebo, statin treatment reduced the levels of both LDL cholesterol and CRP by considerable amounts (50% and 37%, respectively), and also almost halved the likelihood of a major cardiovascular event such as a heart attack or stroke. When the results were broken down, it was found that the risk specifically of heart attack was reduced by 54% and the risk of fatal or nonfatal stroke decreased by 48%.

CRP levels are not usually measured in people at risk of heart disease, yet statin treatment had a remarkable effect in people who were otherwise apparently healthy but had elevated levels of this marker. Doctors are now been asking whether measurement of CRP levels should be undertaken in all people at risk of heart disease, and whether statins should be prescribed as a preventative measure to a wider range of people, regardless of whether their cholesterol levels indicate that they should receive such treatment.

In an editorial in the same issue of New England Journal of Medicine, Mark A Hlatky from Stanford University School of Medicine in California goes through the trial with a fine tooth comb to decide whether or not doctors should change how they prescribe statins.

He notes that “JUPITER was a trial of statin therapy, not high-sensitivity CRP testing”, and opines that “the evidence still favors [a] selective strategy for measuring high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, not routine measurement”. Dr Hlatky also points out that the trial was only 2 years long, so could not assess the effects of long-term statin treatment, and that the cost of rosuvastatin is much higher than that of generic statins, so the benefits of broader prescription of rosuvastatin treatment need to be weighed up against these factors.

You don’t have to just take Dr Hlatky’s word though. New England Journal of Medicine are hosting an online Clinical Directions poll to find out directly from doctors whether they are likely to change how they practice on the basis of the JUPITER results.

So far over 1,500 doctors and medical professionals have voted in the poll, and only 53% believe that the approach to laboratory screening and therapeutic use of statins in apparently healthy adults should be changed. The comments on the poll are just as cautious – Greg Rice of Libby, Montana says “Certainly what this study clearly shows most is that there is a large cohort of high risk patients we are missing. However, simply giving them a statin is not a very cost effective way to reduce the risk of coronary disease”, whereas Timur Timurkaynak of Ankara, Turkey states “I really wonder what have we learned from jupiter trial that we don’t know before”.

So it seems that the jury is going to being deliberating for some time as to whether apparently healthy people should have their CRP levels measured and should receive statins. The JUPITER trial seems to have thrown up more questions than it has answered, and it is clear that more research is needed before statins start getting dished out willy nilly.

  • Nature News has a good run down of the JUPITER study and whether you should be heading straight to your doctor for preventative statin treatment

——————————————————————————————————————
Ridker PM et al. (2008). Rosuvastatin to Prevent Vascular Events in Men and Women with Elevated C-Reactive Protein New England Journal of Medicine DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa0807646

Continue Reading