Women More Likely To Die After Heart Attack
March 17, 2010
WebMD
By: Charlene Laino
Better heart treatment of women could help close the gender gap in heart deaths. Women would be more likely to survive a heart attack if they were treated more like men, French researchers say.
In a study of more than 3,500 people admitted to the hospital for a heart attack, women were far less likely than men to get angiography to visualize heart artery blockages or angioplasty to open up blocked arteries.
Women were about twice as likely to die within a month of having the heart attack, according to the study, presented at the American College of Cardiology’s annual meeting.
The higher death rate in women “is related to the fact that they don’t get the same treatments as men,” says Maria Rosa Costanzo, MD, an American Heart Association spokeswoman who was not involved with the study.
“If women had the same access to procedures and medication as men, they would derive the same benefit,” says Costanzo, of Midwest Heart Specialists in Naperville, Ill.
Study researcher Francois Schiele, MD, chief cardiologist at the University Hospital of Besancon in France, says that when possible, “women should be treated with all recommended strategies, including invasive ones.”
Closing the Gender Gap
Costanzo tells WebMD that it’s been known for some time that women fare worse after a heart attack than men, but it’s been unclear why. Some studies point to biological differences such as women’s smaller blood vessels that raise the risk of complications during angioplasty, she says.
Also, women tend to be older and have poorer overall health when they have heart attacks, and wait longer to seek medical care than men, research suggests.
But other studies suggest that women are undertreated, Costanzo says.
The new study attempted to level the playing ground by using statistical techniques that took into account women’s and men’s different characteristics and treatments when they had heart attacks.
The researchers analyzed data from a regional registry that included more than 3,500 patients, about a third of whom were women, treated for a heart attack between January 2006 and December 2007.
Women were, on average, nine years older than men, had more health problems, and received fewer effective treatments for heart attack. They were nearly twice as likely to die, both during the initial hospital stay and over the following month.
When the analysis was adjusted to take into account the differences in the women’s ages, blood pressure, kidney function, and other characteristics as well as the treatments they received, there was no difference in death rates, either in the hospital or at 30 days.
“Once they compared apples to apples, it shows women get the same benefit from [procedures to open blocked arteries] and medication as men,” Costanzo says.
Drugmakers GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Sanofi-Aventis helped fund the registry.
Click here for the full report.
Heart Treatments for Diabetes Causing Harm
March 16, 2010
The New York Times
By Gina Kolata
Three aggressive treatment strategies doctors had expected would prevent heart attacks among people with Type 2 diabetes and some who are the verge of developing it have proved to be ineffective or even harmful, new studies show.
The results are surprising and disappointing, heart and diabetes experts say. An estimated 21 million Americans have Type 2 diabetes, the kind once known as adult-onset, and they are at enormous risk for heart disease. The only measures proved to reduce their chances — avoiding cigarettes and taking medication to lower bad cholesterol and blood pressure — still leave diabetics with a heart attack risk equivalent to that of a nondiabetic who has already had a heart attack.
So doctors began trying other strategies they hoped would help: getting blood pressure to a normal range; raising levels of good cholesterol and lowering levels of dangerous triglycerides; or modulating sharp upswings in blood sugar after a meal.
It is not known how many doctors have been encouraging patients to take these measures, but medical specialists say it seemed reasonable and tempting to do so.
“Doctors always want to improve the lives of their patients, and that often leads to pressure to treat more and more,” said Dr. Henry N. Ginsberg, director of the Irving Institute for Clinical and Translational Research at Columbia University. The new studies, he says, could save a lot of people from taking drugs that will not help them.
The papers were presented at an American College of Cardiology meeting on Sunday and are being published online by The New England Journal of Medicine.
In Type 2 diabetes, the body is resistant to the hormone insulin, leading to abnormally high blood sugar levels that can cause eye, kidney and nerve disease. But heart disease is what kills most patients. A quarter to a third of heart attack patients have diabetes, even though diabetics constitute just 9 percent of the population. And 25 percent of heart attack patients are on the verge of diabetes, with abnormally high blood sugar levels.
High blood sugar levels themselves increase the risk of heart disease, but researchers found two years ago that rigorously controlling blood sugar did not prevent heart disease or deaths in people with Type 2 diabetes. Researchers said the failure was probably because most of those patients also had other problems that made their odds of heart disease soar, like high levels of LDL cholesterol, low levels of HDL cholesterol, high levels of triglycerides and high blood pressure. And most were older and overweight.
Type 2 diabetes “captures all these risk factors in one patient,” said Dr. David Nathan, director of the diabetes center at Massachusetts General Hospital.
It seemed logical to look at the other risk factors. One large federal study asked if getting high blood pressure down to a level considered normal, a systolic pressure of no more than 120, would help protect diabetics from heart disease and save lives.
This hypothesis was promising because studies that observed populations found that heart disease and stroke risk increase continuously as systolic blood pressure rises from 115 on up, said Dr. William C. Cushman, a study investigator and chief of the preventive medicine section at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Memphis.
To put the idea of a normal blood pressure to the test, half of the study’s 4,773 participants took drugs to get their systolic blood pressure to 120 or below. The rest had a blood pressure goal of less than 140.
But lower blood pressure did not prevent heart attacks or cardiovascular deaths, and those with lower blood pressure were more likely to suffer severe side effects from the drugs, like high potassium levels or dangerously low blood pressures. They also took an average of 3.4 drugs to lower blood pressure, compared with an average of 2 drugs for those with the higher pressure.
A second, less rigorous study, involving 6,400 patients with Type 2 diabetes and heart disease, asked whether getting systolic blood pressure lower than 130 was any better than getting it to 130 to 140. It found that patients actually were worse off: those with the lower blood pressure ended up with a 50 percent greater risk of strokes, heart attacks or deaths.
National blood pressure treatment guidelines call for a systolic pressure of 130 or lower. That was based on expert opinion and observational studies, Dr. Cushman said. Now, he said, it is likely to be reconsidered when the group that sets the guidelines prepares a report this year.
People with diabetes also tend to have low levels of HDL cholesterol and high levels of triglycerides, a combination known to increase the risk of heart disease. And in some studies, treating that combination with a type of drug called a fibrate reduced risk in diabetics and nondiabetics who were not taking statins. So it made sense to see if fibrates also helped Type 2 diabetics who were taking statins.
It did not, concluded another arm of the federal study involving 5,518 people with Type 2 diabetes.
“It’s a disappointment,” said Dr. Ginsberg, a lead study investigator. “But it’s very, very important,” because it says most people will not be helped by taking the additional drug.
It means, said Dr. Denise Simons-Morton of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, the project officer for the federal study, that “doctors and patients now know that the inclination to do intensive treatment that people seemed to think would be better for cardiovascular risk reduction wasn’t better.”
A final studyinvestigated the popular hypothesis that rapid rises in blood glucose after a meal were dangerous and could lead to heart disease. Many doctors were giving drugs assuming the hypothesis was correct, Dr. Nathan said.
“Every meeting you go to, some academic is talking about how postprandial hyperglycemia is really bad and that you should aim specifically to get it lower,” Dr. Nathan said. The study, he said, “is a direct test of that.”
The study, which involved 9,300 patients at high risk for diabetes because their blood sugar was high, tested the drug nateglinide, which enhances insulin secretion. It also tested a blood pressure drug. Neither decreased heart disease risk.
“Neither drug should be used in people with impaired glucose tolerance but not diabetes in order to prevent cardiovascular events unless there is another indication, like significant hypertension,” said Dr. Robert M. Califf, vice chancellor for clinical research at Duke University School of Medicine and chairman of the study.
Dr. Nathan, who wrote an accompanying editorial in The New England Journal of Medicine, agreed. “It is a negative study,” he said.
Some, like Dr. Daniel Einhorn, president-elect of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, say the results of that study and the others would not necessarily dissuade him from taking such intensive measures with individual patients.
“It’s hard to make a case for a public health recommendation,” Dr. Einhorn said. “But that doesn’t mean there isn’t a benefit in an individual case.”
But no benefit has been shown, Dr. Nathan noted. The lesson, he said, is that while making logical leaps to aggressively treat patients with Type 2 diabetes was “totally understandable,” it was also dangerous.
“Lower is not necessarily better,” Dr. Nathan said.
Click here for the full report.
Commercial Drug Comparison Studies Non-Existent
March 15, 2010
Reuters
Most of the so-called comparative effectiveness research is done at academic institutions or by other noncommercial enterprises, and less than 20 percent examine the safety of treatments, researchers reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
“Most of the comparative effectiveness studies we reviewed simply tested whether medication ‘x’ is better than medication ‘y,’ rather than addressing fundamental questions such as: How can we use this medication more effectively? When is this medication better than surgery? Which among two effective approaches is the safest?” said Dr. Danny McCormick of Harvard Medical School in Boston, who led the study.
McCormick and Dr. Michael Hochman of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles chose 328 studies in major medical journals that evaluated drugs.
About a third, 104 of them, compared a drug to something else. Forty-three percent compared one drug to another, 11 percent compared a drug to a non-drug therapy, 15 percent focused on different dosing schedules, 19 percent looked at safety and just 2 percent included an analysis of cost effectiveness.
While most drug trials are sponsored by companies, noncommercial entities paid for 87 percent of the comparative effectiveness studies, Hochman and McCormick found.
“Many of our nation’s research priorities are driven by the pharmaceutical industry,” Hochman said in a statement.
“These companies, not surprisingly, focus most of their attention on new therapies.”
NEW NOT ALWAYS BETTER
Healthcare reform is U.S. President Barack Obama’s signature political strategy and he has proposed comparative effectiveness research as one big component. Last year Congress approved $1.1 billion for comparative effectiveness research as part of an economic stimulus plan.
“Additional information about existing comparative effectiveness research could help guide policy makers as they determine the amount and types of comparative effectiveness research that are most needed,” Hochman and McCormick wrote.
“In particular, our findings suggest government and noncommercial support should be increased for studies involving nonpharmacologic therapies, for studies comparing different therapeutic strategies, and for studies focusing on the comparative safety and cost of different therapies.”
The Food and Drug Administration should require such studies for drug approvals when possible, they added.
In a separate commentary, Dr. Alec O’Connor of the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York agreed.
“Given the continued progress of science, approval of a new drug or device implies to physicians and the general public that the product represents an advance over older treatments,” O’Connor wrote.
But this is not always true. Recent studies have shown, for instance, that older, cheap drugs such as generic diuretics to treat high blood pressure, or metformin to treat diabetes, work better than newer drugs in many cases.
“For example, if a new medication to treat depression is approved based only on placebo comparisons, it’s very difficult to know how the new drug compares with the dozens of medications already approved for depression,” he added in a statement.
Click here for the full report
Diabetes Heart Treatments May Cause Harm
March 15, 2010
The New York Times
By Gina Kolata
Three aggressive treatment strategies doctors had expected would prevent heart attacks among people with Type 2 diabetes and some who are the verge of developing it have proved to be ineffective or even harmful, new studies show.
The results are surprising and disappointing, heart and diabetes experts say. An estimated 21 million Americans have Type 2 diabetes, the kind once known as adult-onset, and they are at enormous risk for heart disease. The only measures proved to reduce their chances — avoiding cigarettes and taking medication to lower bad cholesterol and blood pressure — still leave diabetics with a heart attack risk equivalent to that of a nondiabetic who has already had a heart attack.
So doctors began trying other strategies they hoped would help: getting blood pressure to a normal range; raising levels of good cholesterol and lowering levels of dangerous triglycerides; or modulating sharp upswings in blood sugar after a meal.
It is not known how many doctors have been encouraging patients to take these measures, but medical specialists say it seemed reasonable and tempting to do so.
“Doctors always want to improve the lives of their patients, and that often leads to pressure to treat more and more,” said Dr. Henry N. Ginsberg, director of the Irving Institute for Clinical and Translational Research at Columbia University. The new studies, he says, could save a lot of people from taking drugs that will not help them.
The papers were presented at an American College of Cardiology meeting on Sunday and are being published online by The New England Journal of Medicine.
In Type 2 diabetes, the body is resistant to the hormone insulin, leading to abnormally high blood sugar levels that can cause eye, kidney and nerve disease. But heart disease is what kills most patients. A quarter to a third of heart attack patients have diabetes, even though diabetics constitute just 9 percent of the population. And 25 percent of heart attack patients are on the verge of diabetes, with abnormally high blood sugar levels.
High blood sugar levels themselves increase the risk of heart disease, but researchers found two years ago that rigorously controlling blood sugar did not prevent heart disease or deaths in people with Type 2 diabetes. Researchers said the failure was probably because most of those patients also had other problems that made their odds of heart disease soar, like high levels of LDL cholesterol, low levels of HDL cholesterol, high levels of triglycerides and high blood pressure. And most were older and overweight.
Type 2 diabetes “captures all these risk factors in one patient,” said Dr. David Nathan, director of the diabetes center at Massachusetts General Hospital.
It seemed logical to look at the other risk factors. One large federal study asked if getting high blood pressure down to a level considered normal, a systolic pressure of no more than 120, would help protect diabetics from heart disease and save lives.
This hypothesis was promising because studies that observed populations found that heart disease and stroke risk increase continuously as systolic blood pressure rises from 115 on up, said Dr. William C. Cushman, a study investigator and chief of the preventive medicine section at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Memphis.
To put the idea of a normal blood pressure to the test, half of the study’s 4,773 participants took drugs to get their systolic blood pressure to 120 or below. The rest had a blood pressure goal of less than 140.
But lower blood pressure did not prevent heart attacks or cardiovascular deaths, and those with lower blood pressure were more likely to suffer severe side effects from the drugs, like high potassium levels or dangerously low blood pressures. They also took an average of 3.4 drugs to lower blood pressure, compared with an average of 2 drugs for those with the higher pressure.
A second, less rigorous study, involving 6,400 patients with Type 2 diabetes and heart disease, asked whether getting systolic blood pressure lower than 130 was any better than getting it to 130 to 140. It found that patients actually were worse off: those with the lower blood pressure ended up with a 50 percent greater risk of strokes, heart attacks or deaths.
National blood pressure treatment guidelines call for a systolic pressure of 130 or lower. That was based on expert opinion and observational studies, Dr. Cushman said. Now, he said, it is likely to be reconsidered when the group that sets the guidelines prepares a report this year.
People with diabetes also tend to have low levels of HDL cholesterol and high levels of triglycerides, a combination known to increase the risk of heart disease. And in some studies, treating that combination with a type of drug called a fibrate reduced risk in diabetics and nondiabetics who were not taking statins. So it made sense to see if fibrates also helped Type 2 diabetics who were taking statins.
It did not, concluded another arm of the federal study involving 5,518 people with Type 2 diabetes.
“It’s a disappointment,” said Dr. Ginsberg, a lead study investigator. “But it’s very, very important,” because it says most people will not be helped by taking the additional drug.
It means, said Dr. Denise Simons-Morton of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, the project officer for the federal study, that “doctors and patients now know that the inclination to do intensive treatment that people seemed to think would be better for cardiovascular risk reduction wasn’t better.”
A final studyinvestigated the popular hypothesis that rapid rises in blood glucose after a meal were dangerous and could lead to heart disease. Many doctors were giving drugs assuming the hypothesis was correct, Dr. Nathan said.
“Every meeting you go to, some academic is talking about how postprandial hyperglycemia is really bad and that you should aim specifically to get it lower,” Dr. Nathan said. The study, he said, “is a direct test of that.”
The study, which involved 9,300 patients at high risk for diabetes because their blood sugar was high, tested the drug nateglinide, which enhances insulin secretion. It also tested a blood pressure drug. Neither decreased heart disease risk.
Click here for the full report
Strokes Up Among the Young, Down Among the Old
February 26, 2010
WebMD
By Charlene Laino
Strokes are on the rise among younger people, a group not traditionally considered at high risk for the debilitating condition, researchers report.
A total of 7.3% of stroke victims were younger than age 45 in 2005, up from 4.5% in 1993, says Brett M. Kissela, MD, of the University of Cincinnati Neuroscience Institute.
The most likely culprits: rising rates of obesity, high blood pressure, and diabetes — the major risk factors for stroke — among younger people, Kissela tells WebMD.
The average age of stroke patients dropped from 71 in 1993 to 68 in 2005, he says.
Even among people under 45, strokes are still a relatively uncommon event, striking 25 of every 100,000 whites and 55 of every 100 blacks in 2005, he says.
The findings were presented at the American Stroke Association’s (ASA) International Stroke Conference 2010.
So why would strokes be increasing in younger people, while decreasing in older people?
Kissela says it’s probably because stroke prevention efforts aimed at controlling high blood pressure, diabetes, and obesity have largely been aimed at older people. And they’ve been successful, he says.
Because stroke is thought of as an older person’s disease, younger people fell through the cracks, Kissela says.
“If we don’t reverse this trend, there will be many years of productive life lost. Not just years of work lost; it can be as simple as a young mother no longer being able to hold her baby,” he tells WebMD.
So what’s the answer?
First, younger people need to be aware that they too are at risk, Kissela says.
Also, younger people tend to skip an annual exam if they’re feeling OK, he says. “Everyone should be checked regularly for treatable problems.”
Finally, you’ve heard it before, but Kissela says it’s worth repeating: The best way to ward off strokes, heart attacks, and a host of other diseases is to eat right, exercise, and refrain from smoking.
For the study, the researchers examined data from five counties in the greater Cincinnati and northern Kentucky region, which includes about 1.3 million people.
But the results apply to the entire U.S. population, says American Stroke Association spokesman Brain Silver, MD, a neurologist at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit.
Silver tells WebMD that he and colleagues nationwide are treating “a lot more patients in their 30s and 40s.”
Plus, rates of obesity and diabetes, the factors fueling the disturbing trend, are increasing throughout the country, Kissela says.
Click here for the full report
Low Levels of Vitamin D Linked to High Blood Pressure
February 22, 2010
Natural News
By David Gutierrez
Vitamin D deficiency may triple a person’s risk of high blood pressure, according to a study conducted by researchers from the University of Michigan School of Public Health and presented at a meeting of the American Heart Association in Chicago.
“Our results indicate that early vitamin D deficiency may increase the long-term risk of high blood pressure in women at mid-life,” researcher Flojaune Griffin said.
The researchers recruited 559 white women from Tecumseh, Michigan, who were between 24 and 44 years old when the study began in 1992. The participants’ vitamin D blood levels were measured at the beginning of the study and once a year after that for 15 years.
At the beginning of the study, 5.5 percent of the women who were deficient in vitamin D suffered from high blood pressure, compared with only 2.8 percent of the women who had sufficient levels of the vitamin. At the end of the study in 2007, 10 percent of the women in the deficiency group had high blood pressure, compared with only 3.7 percent in the “sufficient” group.
“This is preliminary data so we can’t say with certainty that low vitamin D levels are directly linked to high blood pressure,” Griffin said. “But this may be another example of how what you do early in life impacts your health years later.”
Vitamin D is known to play a crucial role in producing strong bones and teeth. New research increasingly suggests that it also helps regulate the immune system and protect against cancer, autoimmune disorders and heart disease.
The body naturally produces vitamin D upon exposure to sunlight. A number of factors have led to widespread deficiency, however, especially at latitudes far from the equator. These factors include less time spent outside and overuse of sunscreen. Dark-skinned people living at extreme latitudes are also especially vulnerable, as their bodies produce less vitamin D from the same amount of sun than those of lighter-skinned people.
Click here for the full report
British Hospitals Banning Bedside Flowers
February 22, 2010
Natural News
By Mike Adams
In an effort to prevent what they believe may cause patient health complications, some British hospitals have begun banning flower bouquets from hospital rooms. Citing the possibility of infection from bacteria in the water and the ill-conceived notion that flowers may use up all the oxygen in the room – even though plants actually release oxygen – some hospital officials are up in arms over the alleged dangers posed by plants.
Researchers from the Imperial College of London decided to survey hospital patients and staff to get their take on the situation. They found that most patients appreciate having flowers around while many staffers dislike them because they can be messy. Few made any correlation between plants and an increased risk for disease or infection.
Virtually all scientific research has shown that flowers pose no health risks to patients, yet many hospitals continue to cling to antiquated superstition that they are somehow dangerous to patients. The vast majority of studies have revealed that flowers have both immediate and long-term benefits for patients.
Aside from improving general morale and mood, flowers have been shown to increase patient memory, lead to fewer cases of postoperative analgesic application, reduce blood pressure and heart rate, and decrease pain. Though obvious, controlled studies found that patients who have flowers beside their beds are much happier than those who do not.
Simon Cohn, a medical anthropologist, sees the hysteria over bedside flowers as indicative of a trend in health care towards regimented, outcome-based delivery rather than relationship-based care of patients.
Comments by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
It’s hilarious, really, to think that hospitals would ban flowers out of a fear that they might make people sick. Should they also ban sunlight, too? How about banning laughter while you’re at it?
With few exceptions, hospitals are death traps. They are not places of healing; they’re places of health deterioration. And (nearly) everything you experience at a hospital is bad for you: The laughable “food” you’re served, the re-circulated air, the artificial lights, the onslaught of medications and even the tap water (which is contaminated with fluoride).
Flowers might be the one thing that’s actually good for you in a hospital, and now they want to ban those, too. Why am I not surprised? Allowing patients to experience joy would be counterproductive to the whole agenda of suppressing their healing response…
Click here for the full report
Exercise Fights Aging Process
February 15, 2010
Natural News
By Ethan A. Huff
A recent study conducted by researchers from Saarland University in Germany has found that engaging in long-term physical activity results in an anti-aging effect. Telomeres, the protective caps found on the ends of cell chromosomes that gradually shorten with age, were found to shorten more slowly in athletes who exercise regularly.
Every time a cell divides, its telomeres get a little bit shorter and the cell becomes slightly more susceptible to dying. Telomeres have been compared to the plastic ends on shoelaces that prevent them from unraveling. Recent telomere research has discovered that the shortening of telomeres is directly correlated to the aging process as cell integrity slowly degrades over time.
In the study, researchers evaluated two groups of healthy, non-smoking people and two groups of professional athletes. The one athletic group was composed of athletes averaging 20 years old who were members of the German national track and field team while the other athletic group was composed of middle-aged runners who had been training since they were young.
Researchers found that in both groups of athletes, physical exercise had led to the activation of the telomerase enzyme which is responsible for producing and stabilizing telomeres. Telomerase activation led to a reduced shortening of telomeres in the athletes’ leukocytes, white blood cells that protects the body against infection and disease. The most visible effect was noticed in the middle-aged participants who had been engaging in regular endurance training for several decades.
Other scientists believe that even moderate levels of exercise are responsible for slowing down the aging process and even reversing it. Many studies have shown that engaging in regular physical activity helps to prevent the onset of chronic disease and can help to lower cholesterol and reduce blood pressure. By slowing down the aging process, other diseases like cancer, stroke, and diabetes can also be prevented.
A similar study conducted in Sweden found that regular exercise also contributes to increased intelligence and boosted learning ability. More than 1.2 million 18-year-old Swedish men who enlisted for military service were evaluated. Researchers found that their intense physical training resulted in increased IQ and improved learning abilities.
Regular exercise increases blood flow to the brain which many believe helps to improve nerve function. Exercising also produces sweat which works to cleanse the body of toxic buildup and improve overall well being. A whole array of benefits can be achieved by regularly exercising.
Click here for the full report
Premature Death Could Await Obese Kids
February 10th, 2010
NY Times
Roni Caryn Rabin
A rare study that tracked thousands of children through adulthood found the heaviest youngsters were more than twice as likely as the thinnest to die prematurely, before age 55, of illness or a self-inflicted injury.
Youngsters with a condition called pre-diabetes were at almost double the risk of dying before 55, and those with high blood pressure were at some increased risk. But obesity was the factor most closely associated with an early death, researchers said.
The study, published Thursday in The New England Journal of Medicine, analyzed data gathered from Pima and Tohono O’odham Indians, whose rates of obesity and Type 2 diabetes soared decades before weight problems became widespread among other Americans. It is one of the largest studies to have tracked children for several decades after detailed information on weight and risk factors like high cholesterol were gathered.
“This suggests,” said Helen C. Looker, senior author of the paper and assistant professor of medicine at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York City, “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.” Dr. Looker added, “We all expect to get beyond 55 these days.”
Nearly one in three American children is now considered to be either overweight or obese, and this week, the first lady, Michelle Obama, kicked off a campaign intended to end childhood obesity.
The new study analyzed data gathered about 4,857 nondiabetic American Indian children born between 1945 and 1984, when the children were 11 years old on average, and assessed the extent to which body mass index, glucose tolerance, blood pressure and total cholesterol levels predicted premature death.
By 2003, 559 participants had died, including 166 who died of causes other than accidents and homicides, like cardiovascular disease, infections, cancer, diabetes, alcohol poisoning or drug overdose and a large number who died of alcoholic liver disease, which the study’s authors suggested might be exacerbated by diabetes.
Adults who had the highest body mass index scores as children were 2.3 times as likely to have died early as those with the lowest scores, and those with the highest glucose levels were 73 percent as likely to have died prematurely.
“This really points a finger at impaired glucose tolerance, or pre-diabetes, in ways we have not seen before,” said Edward W. Gregg, who is with the diabetes branch of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and wrote an editorial accompanying the article. “We’ve been aware that pre-diabetes in adults is related to a lot of adverse outcomes, but the relationship in youth has not been as clear. There are not as many long-term studies to document a risk factor like pre-diabetes in youth all the way to adult outcomes.”
The study found that high blood pressure in childhood was only a weak predictor of early death and high cholesterol was not associated with premature death, but experts suggested those factors were easier to control with medication.
And though the American Indian community is not representative of the nation’s population as a whole, Dr. Gregg said its experience was instructive because “they’ve tended to be just a decade or two ahead of the rest of the U.S. population” in obesity.
“The message here is that if you take your kid to the doctor and the doctor says, ‘Well, their blood pressure is O.K., their cholesterol is O.K. and their sugar’s O.K..,’ the kid who’s obese still warrants our attention,” said Dr. Peter F. Belamarich, chief of specialty medicine at the Children’s Hospital at Montefiore in the Bronx.
Click here for the full report
Studies Show Special Blueberry Drink May Fight Diabetes, Obesity
January 18, 2010
Natural News
By David Gutierrez
A special blueberry drink fortified by processing it with bacteria that naturally occur on the fruit’s skin proved effective at preventing the development of obesity and diabetes in mice predisposed to the conditions, in a study conducted by researchers from the University of Montreal, the Institut Armand-Frappier and the Université de Moncton, and published in the International Journal of Obesity.
Researchers “biotransformed” juice from the North American lowbush blueberry by fermenting it with Serratia vaccinii, a bacteria naturally found on the berry’s skin. They then fed mice either the biotransformed juice or unmodified blueberry juice for three days. All the mice had been bred for resistance to the hormone leptin, thus predisposing them to obesity, insulin resistance, diabetes and high blood pressure
“Consumption of fermented blueberry juice gradually and significantly reduced high blood glucose levels in diabetic mice,” lead author Tri Vuong said. “After three days, our mice subjects reduced their glycemia levels by 35 percent.”
The mice drinking the biotransformed juice also ate less and gained less weight than the mice in the control group.
“Results of this study clearly show that biotransformed blueberry juice has strong anti-obesity and anti-diabetic potential,” senior author Pierre S. Haddad said. “Biotransformed blueberry juice may represent a novel therapeutic agent.”
The researchers are unsure why the biotransformed juice proves so much more effective, but they believe that the fermentation process enhances the effectiveness of the fruit’s naturally occurring antioxidants. The researchers suggested that these antioxidants might assist the activity of the hormone adiponectin, which is associated with a lower risk of obesity.
The anthocyanins found in blueberries have also previously been linked to a reduced risk of retinopathy, an eye disorder, in diabetics.
“The identification of the active compounds in biotransformed blueberry juice may result in the discovery of promising new anti-obesity and anti-diabetic molecules,” Haddad said.
An estimated 24 million people in the United States suffer from diabetes, and another 57 million are considered pre-diabetic.
Click here for the full report
