Cardiometabolic risk and the MTHFR C677T variant in children treated with second-generation antipsychotics

Second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) are increasingly being used to treat children with a variety of psychiatric illnesses. Metabolic syndrome (MetS), a risk factor for cardiovascular disease, is a side-effect of SGA-treatment. We conducted a cross-sectional study and assessed the association of the methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) C677T variant with features of MetS in SGA-treated (n=105) and SGA–naïve (n=112) children. We targeted the MTHFR C677T variant, because it is associated with risk for cardiovascular disease, and features of MetS in adults without psychiatric illness. MetS in children is based on the presence of any three of the following: waist circumference ⩾90th percentile for age and sex; plasma triglyceride ⩾1.24 mmol l−1; plasma high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol ⩽1.03 mmol l−1; systolic or diastolic blood pressure ⩾90th percentile for age, sex, and height; and fasting glucose ⩾5.6 mmol l−1. We found that 15% of SGA-treated children had MetS compared with 2% of SGA-naïve children (OR 8.113, P<0.05). No effect of the MTHFR C677T variant on psychiatric diagnosis was observed. The MTHFR 677T allele was associated (P<0.05) with MetS (OR 5.75, 95% CI= 1.18–28.12) in SGA-treated children. Models adjusted for duration of SGA treatment, ethnicity, sex, age and use of other medications revealed a positive relationship between the MTHFR 677T allele and diastolic blood pressure Z-scores (P=0.001) and fasting plasma glucose (P<0.05) in SGA-treated children. These findings illustrate the high prevalence of MetS in SGA-treated children and suggest metabolic alterations associated with the MTHFR C677T variant may have a role in the development of MetS features in SGA-treated children

Impact of Obesity on Metabolic Syndrome among Adolescents as Compared with Adults in Korea

PURPOSE: This study aimed to estimate the prevalence of metabolic syndrome (MetS) in adolescents and adults and to compare the impact of body mass index (BMI) on MetS between adolescents and adults in Korea. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were used from 6,186 subjects aged 10 years or more who representatively participated in the Third Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Body composition, blood test, and health behavioral factors were measured. We used the definition of MetS from the modified the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III (NCEP ATP III) for adolescents and the NCEP-ATP Ⅲ for adults. RESULTS: The prevalence of MetS was 6.4 (95% CI 4.5-8.4) and 22.3 (95% CI 20.8-23.8) in adolescents and adults, respectively. The prevalence of MetS among normal, overweight and obese body types for both adolescents and adults differed significantly (p<0.001). After adjustment for covariates, the odds ratios (ORs) of obese and overweight body types on MetS compared with normal BMI in adolescents were 28.1 (95% CI 11.4-69.1) and 8.7 (95% CI 2.3-33.1), respectively. The ORs of obesity on MetS were 32.0 (95% CI 7.5-136.9), 32.2 (95% CI 12.8-80.8), 16.2 (95% CI 9.4-27.9), 7.6 (95% CI 4.7-12.2) and 9.9 (95% CI 6.8-14.6) for subjects in their 20's, 30's, 40's, 50's and older than 60, in order. CONCLUSION: We found that the prevalence of MetS increased with age and was more prevalent in males. Moreover, the group younger than 39 years of age had a higher chance of having MetS than the group older than 40 years of age. Weight control is more vital in the earlier stages of life for the prevention and management of MetS.ope

Beyond the Evidence of the New Hypertension Guidelines. Blood pressure measurement – is it good enough for accurate diagnosis of hypertension? Time might be in, for a paradigm shift (I)

Despite widespread availability of a large body of evidence in the area of hypertension, the translation of that evidence into viable recommendations aimed at improving the quality of health care is very difficult, sometimes to the point of questionable acceptability and overall credibility of the guidelines advocating those recommendations. The scientific community world-wide and especially professionals interested in the topic of hypertension are witnessing currently an unprecedented debate over the issue of appropriateness of using different drugs/drug classes for the treatment of hypertension. An endless supply of recent and less recent "drug-news", some in support of, others against the current guidelines, justifying the use of selected types of drug treatment or criticising other, are coming out in the scientific literature on an almost weekly basis. The latest of such debate (at the time of writing this paper) pertains the safety profile of ARBs vs ACE inhibitors. To great extent, the factual situation has been fuelled by the new hypertension guidelines (different for USA, Europe, New Zeeland and UK) through, apparently small inconsistencies and conflicting messages, that might have generated substantial and perpetuating confusion among both prescribing physicians and their patients, regardless of their country of origin. The overwhelming message conveyed by most guidelines and opinion leaders is the widespread use of diuretics as first-line agents in all patients with blood pressure above a certain cut-off level and the increasingly aggressive approach towards diagnosis and treatment of hypertension. This, apparently well-justified, logical and easily comprehensible message is unfortunately miss-obeyed by most physicians, on both parts of the Atlantic. Amazingly, the message assumes a universal simplicity of both diagnosis and treatment of hypertension, while ignoring several hypertension-specific variables, commonly known to have high level of complexity, such as: - accuracy of recorded blood pressure and the great inter-observer variability, - diversity in the competency and training of diagnosing physician, - individual patient/disease profile with highly subjective preferences, - difficulty in reaching consensus among opinion leaders, - pharmaceutical industry's influence, and, nonetheless, - the large variability in the efficacy and safety of the antihypertensive drugs. The present 2-series article attempts to identify and review possible causes that might have, at least in part, generated the current healthcare anachronism (I); to highlight the current trend to account for the uncertainties related to the fixed blood pressure cut-off point and the possible solutions to improve accuracy of diagnosis and treatment of hypertension (II)