Focusing on fast food restaurants alone underestimates the relationship between neighborhood deprivation and exposure to fast food in a large rural area

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Individuals and families are relying more on food prepared outside the home as a source for at-home and away-from-home consumption. Restricting the estimation of fast-food access to fast-food restaurants alone may underestimate potential spatial access to fast food.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The study used data from the 2006 Brazos Valley Food Environment Project (BVFEP) and the 2000 U.S. Census Summary File 3 for six rural counties in the Texas Brazos Valley region. BVFEP ground-truthed data included identification and geocoding of all fast-food restaurants, convenience stores, supermarkets, and grocery stores in study area and on-site assessment of the availability and variety of fast-food lunch/dinner entrées and side dishes. Network distance was calculated from the population-weighted centroid of each census block group to all retail locations that marketed fast food (<it>n </it>= 205 fast-food opportunities).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Spatial access to fast-food opportunities (FFO) was significantly better than to traditional fast-food restaurants (FFR). The median distance to the nearest FFO was 2.7 miles, compared with 4.5 miles to the nearest FFR. Residents of high deprivation neighborhoods had better spatial access to a variety of healthier fast-food entrée and side dish options than residents of low deprivation neighborhoods.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Our analyses revealed that identifying fast-food restaurants as the sole source of fast-food entrées and side dishes underestimated neighborhood exposure to fast food, in terms of both neighborhood proximity and coverage. Potential interventions must consider all retail opportunities for fast food, and not just traditional FFR.</p

Comparative efficacy and safety of the fixed versus unfixed combination of latanoprost and timolol in Chinese patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>A noninferiority trial was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of a single evening dose of fixed-combination latanoprost 50 μg/mL and timolol 0.5 mg/mL (Xalacom^®; LTFC), in Chinese patients with primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) or ocular hypertension (OH) who were insufficiently controlled on β-blocker monotherapy or β-blocker-based dual therapy.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This 8-week, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, noninferiority study compared once-daily evening dosing of LTFC with the unfixed combination of latanoprost, one drop in the evening, and timolol, one drop in the morning (LTuFC). The primary efficacy endpoint was the mean change from baseline to week 8 in diurnal intraocular pressure (IOP; mean of 8 AM, 10 AM, 2 PM, 4 PM IOPs). LTFC was considered noninferior to LTuFC if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference was < 1.5 mmHg (analysis of covariance).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Baseline characteristics were similar for LTFC (N = 125; POAG, 70%; mean IOP, 25.8 mmHg) and LTuFC (N = 125; POAG, 69%; mean IOP, 26.0 mmHg). Mean diurnal IOP changes from baseline to week 8 were -8.6 mmHg with LTFC and -8.9 mmHg with LTuFC (between-treatment difference: 0.3 mmHg; 95%-CI, -0.3 to 1.0). Both treatments were well tolerated.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>A single evening dose of LTFC was at least as effective as the unfixed combination of latanoprost in the PM and timolol in the AM in reducing IOP in Chinese subjects with POAG or OH whose IOP was insufficiently reduced with β-blocker monotherapy or β-blocker-based dual therapy. LTFC is an effective and well tolerated once-daily treatment for POAG and OH.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Clinicaltrials.gov registration: <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00219596">NCT00219596</a></p

Principles of Rehabilitation in Male Osteoporosis

Osteoporosis represents an important issue for men with a growing burden for public health system. About 40% of new osteoporotic fractures occur in men with more severe consequences in comparison with women. Indeed, disability and mortality as results from hip fractures are significantly higher in men than those reported in women, due to a higher comorbidity burden in male population. An adequate assessment of these patients has to include the evaluation of physical performance (muscle strength, coordination, agility, and balance) and personal and environmental risk factors. Physical activity, in association with pharmacological approach and nutrition, is a cornerstone as a strategy of primary and secondary prevention for fragility fractures. Rehabilitation plan after fragility fracture based on targeted exercises is mandatory for a full physical recovery and a better functional outcome