Skip to main content

Obesity paradox in people newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes

Recent studies have raised the issue of ‘obesity paradox’ in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Sanjoy Paul and colleagues evaluated the cardiovascular and mortality risks associated with normal and overweight patients compared to obese at diagnosis of diabetes, separately for patients with and without cardiovascular disease (CVD) before diagnosis. The study was published in the journal Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism.

They carried out a retrospective study with two study cohorts with/without prior CVD with complete measures of body mass index (BMI) at diagnosis of T2DM from UK General Practice Research Database. Primary outcomes were long-term risks of cardiovascular events (CVEs) and all-cause mortality in patients with normal weight, overweight and obesity at diagnosis.

They reported that mortality rates per 1000 person-years in normal weight, overweight and obese patients among patients without prior CVD were 13.1, 8.6 and 6.0, respectively, during 5 years of median follow-up. For patients with prior CVD, these estimates were 30.1, 21.1 and 15.5, respectively. Among patients without and with prior CVD, normal weight patients had 47% (hazard ratio, HR CI: 1.29, 1.69) and 30% (HR CI: 1.11, 1.53) increased mortality risk respectively compared to obese patients. In the cohort without prior CVD, compared to obese patients, those with normal body weight did not have increased CVE risk. Interactions between age, HbA1c and BMI at diagnosis were observed in both cohorts.

They concluded that adults with normal weight at the time of diagnosis of T2DM have significantly higher mortality risk compared to those who are obese, with significant interactions between age, BMI and HbA1c. Elevated cardiovascular risk was not observed in normal weight patients without prior CVD.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Protecting Against the "Quad-demic": Influenza, Covid-19, Norovirus and RSV

As the NHS braces for a challenging winter season, it is grappling with a "quad-demic" of health emergencies caused by influenza, Covid-19, norovirus, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). This confluence of viral threats poses a significant risk to public health in the UK as well as putting strain on healthcare resources, emphasising the importance of preventive measures to safeguard public health. Public health measures such a vaccination and good personal hygiene are pivotal in reducing the impact of these illnesses, particularly for vulnerable groups. The Four Viruses: What Are They? Influenza: A highly contagious respiratory infection that causes significant illness each winter. It can lead to severe complications, particularly in the elderly, young children, pregnant women, and those with chronic health conditions. Covid-19: Though its most acute phase has passed, Covid-19 remains a concern, especially as new variants of SA...

The Hidden Cost of Cheaper NHS Contracts: Losing Community Trust

NHS budgets are under considerable pressure. It is therefore unsurprising that many NHS Integrated Care Boards (ICBs) In England will aim to prioritise price in contract awards, But this approach is a significant threat to community-centred healthcare. While competitive tendering is a legally required, an excessive focus on costs in awarding NHS contracts risks overshadowing key factors such as established community trust, local expertise, and the long-term impact on continuity of care. This shift towards cheaper, often external, commercial providers threatens to cut the links between communities and their local health services. The argument that competitive tendering is solely about legal compliance, and not cost, is undermined by the very nature of such tendering, which by design encourages the lowest bid. This approach risks eroding the social fabric of local healthcare provision, where established relationships and understanding of specific community needs are essential. Establishe...

MPH Student Presentations on the NHS Care.Data Programme

As part of a session on primary care data in the Health Informatics module on the Imperial Master of Public Health Programme, I asked students to work in two groups to present arguments for and against the NHS Care.Data programme. Care.Data is an NHS programme that will extract data from the medical records held by general practitioners (GPs) in England. The Care.Data programme takes advantage of the very high level of use of electronic medical records by GPs in England. After extraction, data will be uploaded to the NHS Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC). The data will then be used for functions such as health care planning, monitoring disease patterns and research. The programme has been controversial with proponents arguing that the programme will bring many benefits for the NHS and the population of England; and opponents arguing it is a major breach of privacy. You can view the two presentations to help inform you further about these arguments: Arguments fo...