Pages

Saturday, 14 August 2010

Burger, fries and statins on the side? Don't dish out statins like ketchup says NHS Choices

further to my McStatin blog yesterday, NHS Choices says statins 'should not be dished out like ketchup':-


Fast-food restaurants could “dish out anti-cholesterol drugs to fight the effects of fatty grub,” the Daily Mirror has reported. The news story is based on a research paper arguing the case for handing out free cholesterol-lowering statin drugs whenever someone buys fast food. Its authors say that providing 'MacStatin' tablets would cancel out the health risks of high-fat food and offer customers cardiovascular benefits. They based this on calculations comparing some of the harms of fast food against the benefits of statins.

It is difficult to know how seriously to take this study. 

The high sugar, salt and fat content of junk food has many negative health consequences beyond just increasing cholesterol. Taking a statin pill while continuing with an unhealthy diet will not address all of these. Most importantly, statins are designed for longer-term use under medical supervision. They should not be dished out like ketchup.

Where did the story come from?

The study was carried out by researchers from Imperial College London and Imperial NHS Trust, London. No information is given about funding, although one of the authors is supported by a grant from the British Heart Foundation. The study was published in the peer-reviewed American Journal of Cardiology. The study was reported widely and fairly in the media. Several newspapers quoted the opinions of external experts, including some from the British Heart Foundation who were critical of its argument

What kind of research was this?

The authors say that cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains a leading cause of illness and death, with the greatest problems lying with the “at risk” segment of the population that are unaware of their condition. Given the frequency of fast-food consumption and its adverse health consequences, they argue that the fast food industry is well-placed to offer advice and supplements to counteract the harm arising from the foods they sell. They propose that, like salt, ketchup and other sauces provided free of charge, a statin could be added to the items in the self-service tray, in combination with other healthy lifestyle suggestions. Their study attempts to compare the risk increase involved in eating fast foods with a high fat content against the risk reduction in taking statins daily. They constructed a model to juxtapose these two risks and attempted to compose a “tariff” comparing the level of statin needed to neutralise the cardiovascular risk from eating fast food.

What did the research involve?

To quantify the cardiovascular risk of a higher dietary fat intake, the researchers looked at a large cohort study of nearly 47,000 men.

The study found that the relative risk of heart attack and coronary artery disease was 23% higher in the men with the highest fat intake (top 20% of the group). They consumed 89g total fat a day, while those in the bottom 20% with the lowest fat intake consumed 53g total fat a day. A similar trend was observed for trans fats. 

To determine the relative risk reduction due to statins, the researchers used a recent meta-analysis of statins in the primary prevention of coronary artery disease, which included seven randomised controlled trials and covered nearly 43,000 patients.

The combined relative risk reduction across all the trials with use of statins was just under 30%. They also quote a further study to show that statins taken regularly reduce the relative risk for a major cardiovascular event by 20-70%, depending on which drug and what dosage is taken. 

The researchers then plotted the reduction in relative risk associated with different statin trials, against the increase in relative risk associated with consumption of foods of increasing total fat and trans fat content.

They used a quarter-pounder burger (19g total fat), a quarter-pounder with cheese (26g total fat) and a small milkshake (10g total fat) from a fast-food chain as a proxy for foods with a high-fat content. 

They juxtaposed the high-fat content of these foods with the extent to which statins might offset the increased risk for cardiovascular disease associated with an unhealthy lifestyle.

What were the basic results?

The researchers calculate that: The reduction of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk associated with daily consumption of most statins (with the exception of parvastatin) was, on average, around 30%. The daily extra fat intake associated with a fast-food quarter-pounder with cheese and a small milkshake was calculated to increase the risk of CVD by just over 20%. On this basis, the researchers say that the CVD risk-reduction of a statin pill is greater than the risk increase of CVD after eating these foods.

How did the researchers interpret the results?

The researchers say their calculations show that statins can neutralise the increased risk for cardiovascular disease associated with the regular consumption of unhealthy foods. Individually, most of the statin regimes had the strength to counteract the risk caused by eating an additional 36g of total fat per day, with similar results found when they calculated consumption of transfats separately. 

They argue that the fast-food industry could provide a “McStatin” sachet that could be sprinkled onto a burger or into a milkshake at no extra charge. Food would also carry health warnings in the same way as cigarettes do currently, and advice on healthy lifestyle.

Conclusion

The study’s comparison of the risks associated with a high-fat diet with the risk reduction for statins is interesting.

However, there is no evidence to support its main contention that a statin taken every time someone has a fast-food meal would reduce the risk of heart disease. 

This argument is based on the following unproven assumptions: In an unhealthy diet, each unhealthy meal eaten contributes directly to the increase in CVD risk. Each statin tablet taken individually provides a reduction in CVD risk. However, statins are designed for use in long-term cholesterol management programmes and virtually all studies on statins have looked at regular, rather than one-off use. 

The way that lifestyle, in addition to other medical and genetic factors, affects the risk of heart disease is more complex than this study suggests. For example, there are several established risk factors for heart disease, including lifestyle habits such as diet, exercise and smoking. In turn, medical risk factors that may in part be influenced by these lifestyle factors include high body mass index, high blood pressure, high cholesterol and diabetes. Further complicating these relationships is the influence of factors that cannot be modified, including family history, age and gender. Doctors usually consider all of these, as well as the risks attached to particular medications, when deciding with their patients whether drug treatment is appropriate.

When all of these things are taken into account, it is unclear how the researchers can conclude that statins taken only occasionally (rather than prescribed regularly) might help anyone.

Dishing out a statin with every burger also does not seem to be a responsible measure when you consider that they are not suitable drugs for everyone, including those with liver disease, those who drink alcohol excessively, and pregnant and breastfeeding women. Statins are also not without adverse effects, which can be severe in rare cases. 


Links to the headlines

Statins and chips please. Daily Mirror, August 13 2010
Doctors want statins served with fast food. The Independent, August 13 2010
McStatin with your burger? The Daily Telegraph, August 13 2010

Links to the science

Ferenczi EA, Asaria P, Hughes AD et al. Can a Statin Neutralize the Cardiovascular Risk of Unhealthy Dietary Choices? The American Journal of Cardiology Volume 106, Issue 4, 15 August 2010, Pages 587-592

Thursday, 12 August 2010

McStatin with your burger?


'Give out statins with junk food'

BurgerBurgers are loaded with fat
Fast food outlets should consider handing out cholesterol-lowering drugs to combat the effects of fatty food, say UK researchers.
Taking a statin pill every day would offset the harm caused by a daily cheeseburger and milkshake, the Imperial College London team said.
It would only cost 5p a customer - similar to a sachet of ketchup.
But the British Heart Foundation warned an unhealthy diet does more harm than just raising cholesterol.
Writing in the American Journal of Cardiology, Dr Darrel Francis and colleagues said it was about reducing harm in the same way that people who smoke are encouraged to use filters and those who drive are told to wear seatbelts.

“Start Quote

A junk food diet has a wealth of unhealthy consequences beyond raising cholesterol”
Professor Peter WeissbergBritish Heart Foundation
They took data from trials of almost 43,000 people to calculate whether the statins could override the effects of eating a junk food diet.
A statin a day can neutralise the risk of cardiovascular disease linked to a daily intake of a 7-oz cheeseburger and a small milkshake, they calculated.
The researchers said there could be no substitute for leading a healthy lifestyle, including eating a good diet, but that a complimentary statin would be at least one positive choice among a sea of negative ones.
For those only eating junk food once a year, an annual one-off statin dose would have little effect, but for those who partake more regularly it would have a greater opportunity to neutralise that risk, they added.
Heart risk
Statins are already taken by millions of Britons to reduce the risk of suffering a heart attack or stroke by lowering levels of bad cholesterol in the blood.
They are thought to be fairly safe, although some experts have raised concerns about side-effects.
One low-dose statin - simvastatin - is available in a low dose to buy from the pharmacist.
"Importantly, even partial adherence to statin therapy conveys a mortality benefit, suggesting that statins do not need to be taken daily to have some protective effect," said Dr Francis.

Related stories

But he pointed out that statins would not affect all the negative effects of an unhealthy diet.
"It's ironic that people are free to take as many unhealthy condiments in fast food outlets as they like, but statins, which are beneficial to heart health, have to be prescribed," he said.
"It makes sense to make risk-reducing supplements available just as easily as the unhealthy condiments that are provided free of charge."
But Professor Peter Weissberg, medical director at the British Heart Foundation, said the suggestion should not be taken literally.
"A junk food diet has a wealth of unhealthy consequences beyond raising cholesterol.
"It can cause high blood pressure through too much salt, or obesity through eating meals loaded with calories.
He added: "Statins are a vital medicine for people with - or at high risk of developing heart disease. "They are not a magic bullet."

The researchers note that studies should be conducted to assess the potential risks of allowing people to take statins freely, without medical supervision. They suggest that a warning on the packet should emphasise that no tablet can substitute for a healthy diet, and advise people to consult their doctor for more advice.

Forget BMI, your waist size predicts early death

Crabsallover says 'the study strongly suggests that a high waist circumference WC increases chances of early death, irrespective of whether one has normal, overweight or obese BMI. Excess fat inside the belly (visceral fat) surrounds organs within the abdominal cavity and can more than double chances of death from respiratory diseases, other causes, cardiac diseases and cancers:-


  • a male with WC of 120cm (47") or more compared to WC of less than 90cm (35") increases chance of death by 2.02 times.
  • a female with WC of 110cm (43") or more compared to WC of less than 75cm (29") increases chance of death by 2.36 times. 
  • WC may be a better predictor of death risk than BMI.  
  • A large waist WC is linked to higher rates of type 2 diabetes, abnormal lipid levels, measures of inflammation and heart disease.
  • WC was positively associated with mortality within all categories of BMI. 
  • In men, a 10-cm increase in WC was associated with increased relative risks of 1.16, 1.18 and 1.21 within normal (18.5 to 25), overweight (25 to 30), and obese (30) BMI categories, respectively. 
  • In women, corresponding relative risks were 1.25, 1.15, and 1.13.
  • "Even if you have a normal BMI and a big tummy then you are just as much at risk as someone who is classified as obese with a large tummy."
The following article by NHS Choices is unedited except for my emphasis.


NHS Choices Tue Aug 10 2010 12:22:00 GMT+0100 (GMT Daylight Time) 

A large gut may mean fat is stored
around your organs
Waist Size 'predicts early death'
“Men and women with large waists are at increased risk of dying young,” BBC News has reported. The article said that people with a large gut all have the same risk of early death, regardless of whether their body mass index (BMI) is healthy.
The research behind the news tracked more than 100,000 men and women aged 50 and over for nine years. It found that people with very large waists – 47 inches (120cm) or more for men and 42 inches (110cm) or more in women – were about twice as likely to die during the follow-up period compared to thinner people. These deaths were not just from weight-related problems.
It has long been thought that fat collecting around the tummy puts people at greater risk than weight put on elsewhere. The strengths of this study lie in its large size and the collection data on the participants over time rather than their consulting records alone. It may eventually lead to guidance that both BMI and waist circumference need monitoring by people trying to maintain or regain a healthy weight. Regardless of overall weight, people should avoid becoming too big around the middle.

Where did the story come from?

The study was carried out by researchers from the Epidemiology Research Programme at the American Cancer Society in Atlanta, Georgia. No funding sources were reported. The study was published in the peer-reviewed medical journal, Archives of Internal Medicine.
BBC News reported this study fairly and included a quote from the National Obesity Forum saying that the research “underlines the message that fat inside the belly is dangerous”.

What kind of research was this?

The data for this study came from a large US cohort study designed to identify causes of cancer and prevent cancer that ran from 1997 and 2006. This subsequent study looked at waist circumference (WC), a measure of abdominal obesity and linked to higher rates of death independently of other measures of obesity such as body mass index (BMI). The researchers wanted to explore this link further as they say few studies have looked at WC in relation to sub-categories of BMI or the effect of  very high waist circumferences, which are becoming increasingly common.
The researchers were able to sub-divide the large population into men and women and eight different waist circumference categories, with sufficient data in each to examine links between weight circumference, BMI and risk of mortality in a meaningful way. 
This well-designed study also corrected for many of the other factors that could have been influencing the results, such as race, educational level, marital status, smoking status, alcohol use, height and physical activity.

What did the research involve?

The researchers explain that a large waist circumference (WC) is linked to higher rates of type 2 diabetes, abnormal lipid levels, measures of inflammation and heart disease. The theory is that WC may be associated with these conditions because it indicates “visceral fat”, a collection of fatty tissue surrounding the organs within the abdominal cavity. 
A person does not necessarily have to be obese or overweight to have high levels of visceral fat, which means that a simple waist measurement might be a better predictor of death risk than BMI alone.
The data was analysed for 48,500 men and 56,343 women who were all over 50 and enrolled in the Cancer Prevention Study II Nutrition Cohort. In the original cancer study participants had completed a 10-page questionnaire sent to them during 1992/3. This included information on things such as age, sex, medical history and behavioural lifestyle information on smoking and physical activity. WC was first measured by the participants themselves in 1997: they were sent a tape measure and asked to measure their WC just above the navel to the nearest quarter inch while standing, and to avoid measuring over bulky clothing.
The BMI of each participant was calculated from weight reported in the 1997 survey and height reported in the 1982 survey. They excluded participants with missing, extreme or implausible values for BMI or WC, or plus those with unknown smoking status. They also excluded a relatively large number of people (7,997 men and 7,482 women) who had shown a weight loss of 4.5kg or more between 1992 and 1997, on the basis that their weight loss may have been related to unknown or unrecorded disease. Deaths were recorded in the usual way on death certificates and the researchers were automatically notified of any deaths among the participants. The researchers then looked at how WC related to specific causes of death..

Results were analysed appropriately and presented as the relative risk of death adjusted for age, race, educational level, marital status, smoking status, alcohol use, height, and physical activity. Analyses of women were also adjusted for hormone therapy. An additional separate analysis was done adjusting for BMI.

What were the basic results?

Over a nine-year follow-up period, 9,315 men (19.2%) and 5,332 (9.4%) women died. When the researchers analysed the data with the adjustments for BMI and other risk factors they found that in both men and women a very high WC carried about twice the risk of mortality than those in the lowest WC group:
  • 2.02 times greater for male WC of 120cm or more compared to WC of less than 90cm (Relative Risk [RR] 2.02, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.71 to 2.39)
  • 2.36 times greater for female WC of 110cm or more compared to WC of less than 75cm (Relative Risk [RR] 2.36, 95% CI 1.98 to 2.82)
Increasing waist circumference was associated with increasing mortality across all categories of BMI (normal, overweight, and obese). In contrast, when analysed by categories of WC, mortality rates did not increase with increasing levels of BMI.
Increased WC was associated with increased risk of mortality for all specific causes of death they analysed; cancer, cardiovascular, respiratory and all other causes. The strength of the association was strongest for respiratory disease and all other causes of death, followed by cardiovascular disease and then cancer as a cause of death.

How did the researchers interpret the results?

The researchers conclude that their results emphasise the importance of waist circumference as a risk factor for mortality in older adults, regardless of BMI.

Conclusion

This large, prospective cohort study was well-conducted and analysed. The new finding is that, after making appropriate adjustments for BMI, increasing levels of WC were associated with higher risk of mortality in men and women. Although this was suspected before, this is the first study that has analysed such a large number or participants in so many sub-categories of waist size and within the three standard clinical categories of BMI (normal, overweight, and obese).
Other points worth noting are that:
  • Waist circumference was measured and reported by the participants, which may have introduced some error.
  • As this is an observational study, the link between WC and mortality might be overestimated because of confounding by unmeasured or unknown factors associated with both larger WC and higher mortality.
  • As all study participants were 50 years or older and nearly all white. The results may not apply to younger populations or those of other racial or ethnic backgrounds.
Overall, this large, well-conducted study emphasises the importance of considering obesity in different ways. In any of the standard clinical groups of BMI, (normal, overweight and obese) it appears that avoiding excessive abdominal obesity can reduce risk of premature death.

Links To The Headlines

Links To Science

Jacobs EJ, Newton CC, Wang Y, et al. Waist Circumference and All-Cause Mortality in a Large US Cohort. Archives of Internal Medicine 2010;170(15):1293-1301


WAIST SIZES - MEN*

  • Small - up to 78cm (30")
  • Medium - 82.5-87.5cm (32"-34")
  • Large - 90-94cm (35"-37")
  • X Large - 96.5-101.5cm (38"-40")
  • XX Large - 104-109cm
  • XXX Large - 112-117cm
  • All sizes according to M&S*

Sunday, 8 August 2010

Which BMI gives the lowest risk of death? Why the pot belly is a killer.

source: New Scientist, 12 November 2008
An expanding waistline could double your risk of death
(Image: Wikimedia commons)




Updated: 8/8/10.
Crabsallover Notes: Among male participants who had never smoked, the risk of death was lowest:
  1. at a BMI of 24.5 (supplementary Figure 2)
  2. 85cm waist circumference (supplementary Figure 3)
  3. 0.88 waist to hip ratio.(supplimentary Figure 3).




22:00 12 November 2008 by David Robson
Having trouble slipping into those jeans? That expanding belly could as much as double your risk of premature death, even if your weight is considered healthy.
While obesity is a well-known predictor of diabetes, heart disease and some kinds of cancer, a major new study shows that a paunch poses its own particular risks, independently of fat stored elsewhere in the body. This suggests that the size of someone's waistline as well as their body mass index should be taken into account in assessing their health.
The team behind the study, including researchers from Imperial College London and the German Institute of Human Nutrition in Potsdam-Rehbrücke, followed the health of 359,387 people from nine European countries over roughly 10 years. They wanted to examine a link between waistline and health that had been found in earlier smaller-scale studies. Previous animal studies had also suggested that visceral fat around the belly has more negative effects on health than fat in the thighs of the hind legs.
After controlling for factors such as overall obesity, the team found that the risk of premature death among subjects with a waist exceeding 120cm (47.2in) for men and 100cm (39.4in) for women was twice that for those whose waists were under 80cm (31.5in) for men and 65cm (25.6in) for women.
For a given BMI, a 5cm increase in waistline increased the risk of premature death by 17% in men and 13% in women.

A simple predictor of risk

"There aren't many simple individual characteristics that can increase a person's risk of premature death to this extent, independently from smoking and drinking," says Elio Riboli from Imperial College London, who was part of the team.
The ratio of waist size to hip measurement also appears to be an important predictor of the risk of premature death. Most waist-to-hip ratios for men ranged from 0.78 and 1.10 for men, and for a given ratio, an increase by 0.1 increased the chance of premature death by a whopping 34%. Most female waist-to-hip ratios were in the 0.66-0.98 range, and (again for a given ratio) an increase of 0.1 resulted in a 24% jump in risk.
The team speculate that fatty deposits around the waist could secrete elevated levels of hormones and other signalling proteins called cytokines that lead to chronic illnesses like heart disease and cancer.
"Abdominal fat is not a mere energy depot, but it also releases messenger substances that can contribute to the development of chronic diseases. This may be the reason for the link,"
says Tobias Pischon of the German Institute of Human Nutrition.

Review by Crabsallover
Journal reference: New England Journal of Medicine, vol 359, p 2105 (Full Text)
Table 1. Relative Risk of Death According to BMI among Men and Women in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition.
Current guidelines with respect to obesity recommend the measurement of waist circumference in persons with a BMI between 25.0 and 34.9 and propose cutoff points for waist circumference of 102 cm in men and 88 cm in women (and cutoff points for waist-to-hip ratio of 1.0 in men and 0.85 in women) to define abdominal obesity and to identify persons at risk for disease.2 However, less is known about the association of waist circumference or waist-to-hip ratio with the risk of death.

There was a significant nonlinear association of BMI with the risk of death, with the lowest risks at a BMI of 25.3 among men and 24.3 among women
and increased risks in the lower and upper BMI categories (Table 1 and Figure 1).
Figure 1. Adjusted Relative Risk of Death among Men and Women in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition, According to BMI, Waist Circumference, and Waist-to-Hip Ratio.
The relative risk of death in association with body-mass index (BMI, the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters), waist circumference, and waist-to-hip ratio is shown in Panel A for men and in Panel B for women. Solid lines indicate relative risks, and dashed lines indicate 95% confidence intervals. The relative risks are plotted on a logarithmic scale.







Table 2. Relative Risk of Death According to Quintiles of Waist Circumference among Men and Women.
According to the Crude measure
the optimum waist measurement is 86-<91.5cm>
After further adjustment for BMI, waist circumference and waist-to-hip ratio showed a strong positive association with the risk of death (Table 2 and Figure 2, and Table 3 in the Supplementary Appendix). For a given BMI in men and women, a waist circumference that was 5 cm larger was associated with a risk of death that was increased by a factor of 1.17 among men and by a factor of 1.13 among women, and a waist-to-hip ratio that was 0.1 unit higher was associated with a risk that was increased by a factor of 1.34 among men and by a factor of 1.24 among women. In models that included waist circumference or waist-to-hip ratio, BMI remained significantly associated with the risk of death. Hip circumference was not significantly associated with the risk of death after adjustment for BMI.

Figure 2. Adjusted Relative Risk of Death among Men and Women, According to Waist Circumference and Waist-to-Hip Ratio after Adjustment for BMI.
The relative risk of death in association with waist circumference and waist-to-hip ratio, after adjustment for BMI, is shown in Panel A for men and in Panel B for women. Solid lines indicate relative risks, and dashed lines indicate 95% confidence intervals. The relative risks are plotted on a logarithmic scale.
Subgroup Analyses

Among participants who had never smoked, the risk of death was lowest at a BMI of 24.5 for men and 23.9 for women

Amongst Men who have never smoked (Supplimentary Figure 3) the lowest risk of death was with 85cm waist circumference / 0.88 waist to hip ratio.
(Figure 2 and Figure 3 in the Supplementary Appendix).

BMI Prime calculates percentage overweight

How overweight are you? What percentage? BMI Prime calculates. Divide your BMI by 25*. For example my BMI today was 26.2. My BMI Prime is 26.2/25=1.05. I'm 5% overweight. A couple of years ago my BMI was 29.9 so I was 29.9/25 = 1.19 ie 19% overweight.

* if you're BMI is more than 25 you're overweight. BMI = your weight in kg divided by your height in metres squared. (kg/m2)