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

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is the difference between primordial prevention and primary prevention?

Primordial prevention and primary prevention are both crucial strategies for promoting health, but they operate at different levels. Primordial prevention aims to address the root causes of health problems and improve the wider determinants of health. It focuses on preventing the emergence of risk factors in the first place by tackling the underlying social, economic, and environmental determinants of health. This involves broad, population-wide interventions such as: Policies that promote healthy food choices: Think about initiatives like taxing sugary drinks to discourage unhealthy consumption, or providing subsidies for fruits and vegetables to make them more accessible. Urban planning that prioritises well-being: This could include creating walkable neighborhoods with safe cycling routes, ensuring access to green spaces for recreation and relaxation, and designing communities that foster social connections. Social programs that address inequality: Initiatives aimed at reducing pov...
Post a Comment
Read more

What makes a good doctor – and who gets to decide?

What Makes a Good Doctor? This is the question that Waseem Jerjes and I explore in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine . It is a key question that underpins the architecture of medical education, clinical practice, regulation, and professional identity. It cannot be answered by regulators, educators, or employers in isolation. It must be answered together – by doctors and patients – revisited throughout a career, and adapted as society and the profession change. Without that shared reflection, the danger is not simply disillusionment, but the erosion of the moral foundations of clinical work. As we enter an era when diagnosis will increasingly involve artificial intelligence and when performance metrics reward volume over value, reclaiming this question as a professional one is imperative. The integrity of our institutions – and of the practitioners within them – depends on reimagining excellence in inclusive, relational terms. A good doctor is not a flawless technician or a f...
Post a Comment
Read more

Relevance Over Recall: Rethinking How AI Uses Clinical Data

Our article in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine argues that safe and effective AI in healthcare must incorporate mechanisms that emulate human judgement - down-weighting old, inaccurate or superseded information and prioritising what is recent, clinically relevant and reaffirmed - so that AI supports, rather than disrupts, high-quality patient care.  Clinicians constantly revise, reinterpret and filter past information so that only what is relevant, accurate and timely shapes present-day management decisions; medical records function as dynamic “working tools” rather than fixed archives. By contrast, many AI systems lack this capacity for selective forgetting and often treat all historical data as equally meaningful.  This can lead to outdated or low-confidence diagnoses being repeatedly resurfaced, persistent labels influencing clinical expectations, and irrelevant, long-resolved events cluttering summaries and decision-support outputs. Such indiscriminate recall...
Post a Comment
Read more