Validity of self-measured waist and hip circumferences: results from a community study in Malaysia

Background: Measures of central adiposity are better predictors of adverse health events than BMI. Nonetheless, BMI is more widely used in health research. One reason for this may be the limited research supporting the self-measurement of waist and hip circumference. The lack of validity studies is particularly acute in Asia. The main objective was to establish the validity of self-measurement of waist and hip circumference in a community setting and the correlation of those measures with BMI, blood pressure, and blood glucose levels. Methods. A community based, cross-sectional survey. A "healthy living expo" at a shopping mall in a rural town on peninsular Malaysia One hundred and thirty six (136) individuals volunteered to participate in the study, 125 of whom met the inclusion criteria. The ethnic distribution of the participants was 80% Chinese, 17% Malay and 3% Indian. Most participants were female (60%), with participants' ages ranging from 18 to 78 years (mean, 47.2). Self and assisted measurements of waist and hip were taken. Blood pressure, non-fasting blood glucose, height, and weight were also measured. Bland Altman plots and Lin's concordance coefficient were used to measure agreement between self and assisted measures. Pearson's correlation was used to examine the association of self and assisted measures with blood pressure, blood glucose, and BMI. Results: There was a downwards bias in self measured waist (-0.81 cm) and hip (-1 cm) circumferences compared with assisted measures. The concordance for the self and assisted measures of waist, hip and the ratio of the two were, respectively,.96,.93, and.84. The correlation between measures of central adiposity and BMI, blood pressure and blood glucose were similar for self and assisted measures. Conclusion: The results provide additional support for the use of self-measurement of waist and hip circumference studies of central adiposity, but is limited by the specificity of the setting. © 2013 Reidpath et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd

Efficacy and Safety of Whey Protein Supplements on Vital Sign and Physical Performance Among Athletes: A Network Meta-Analysis

Introduction: Athletes train physically to reach beyond their potential maximum aerobic threshold. Whey protein supplements (WPS) are often used in conjunction with physiotherapy and psychotherapy to regain better vital sign and physical performances. This review aimed to explore the clinical evidence on the efficacy and safety of WPS in sports performance and recovery among athletes.Methodology: A comprehensive literature search was performed to identify relevant randomized control trials (RCTs) that investigated the efficacy and safety of WPS on the vital sign and physical performance among athletes. The Cochrane Risk of Bias (ROB) Assessment tools were used to assess the quality of the studies. Meta-analysis was conducted using the frequentist model with STATA version 14.2®.Results: A total of 333,257 research articles were identified out of which 20 RCTs were included for qualitative synthesis and network meta-analysis with 351 participants. Among the studies, 7 had low ROB and 3 RCTs had high ROB. Of these 20 trials, 16 trials were randomized clinical trials which compared whey protein supplements (WPS) with various comparators i.e., L-alanine, bovine colostrum, carbohydrate, casein, leucine, maltodextrin, rice, protein + caffeine were compared with placebo. Analysis from the pairwise meta-analysis revealed that for respiratory exchange ratio (RER) WPS was found to be significantly improving compared to maltodextrin (WMD = 0.012; 95%CI = 0.001, 0.023). Similarity to RPE (Rate Perceived Exertion), slight difference between WPS and the comparators, however, when the estimation was favorable to the comparators, there was moderate-high heterogeneity. For VO2max, high heterogeneity appeared when WPS compared to maltodextrin with the I2 = 97.8% (WMD = 4.064; 95% CI = −4.230, 12.359), meanwhile bovine colostrum (WMD = −2.658; 95%CI = −6.180, 0.865) only comparator that was better than WPS. According to the estimated effect of the supplements on physical performance outcome results, maximum power (8 studies, 185 athletes), highest ranked was bovine colostrum (SUCRA = 70.7%) and the lowest ranked was placebo (SUCRA = 17.9%), yet all insignificant. Then again, on average power (nine studies, 187 athletes), WPS was the highest ranked (SUCRA = 75.4 %) about −112.00 watt (−187.91, −36.08) and most of the estimations were significant. Body mass was reported in 10 studies (171 athletes), carbohydrate may be at the highest ranked (SUCRA = 66.9%) but it is insignificant. Thought the second highest ranked was WPS (SUCRA = 64.7%) and it is significant (WMD = −6.89 kg; CI = −8.24, −5.54).Conclusion: The findings of this review support the efficacy and safety of WPS as an ergogenic aid on athletes' sports performance and recovery. The overall quality of clinical evidence was found to be valid and reliable from the comprehensive search strategy and ROB assessment

Clinical Evidence on Efficacy and Safety of Whey Protein Supplements on Performance and Recovery among Athletes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Athletes train physically to reach beyond their potential maximum aerobic threshold. However, due to declines in muscle performance, sports injuries and fatigue, athletes seek ergogenic aids to enhance performance and recovery. Whey protein supplements (WPS) are often used by athletes in conjunction with physiotherapy and psychotherapy to regain muscle performance and enhance the recovery process. However, some clinical evidence suggests that other protein supplements are better than WPS. My research uses systematic review and meta-analysis approach to draw a single conclusion on the efficacy and safety of WPS as compared to other protein supplements on performance and recovery among athletes

Pembrolizumab in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin compared with gemcitabine and cisplatin alone for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (KEYNOTE-966): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

Background: Biliary tract cancers, which arise from the intrahepatic or extrahepatic bile ducts and the gallbladder, generally have a poor prognosis and are rising in incidence worldwide. The standard-of-care treatment for advanced biliary tract cancer is chemotherapy with gemcitabine and cisplatin. Because most biliary tract cancers have an immune-suppressed microenvironment, immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy is associated with a low objective response rate. We aimed to assess whether adding the immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab to gemcitabine and cisplatin would improve outcomes compared with gemcitabine and cisplatin alone in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer.Methods: KEYNOTE-966 was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial done at 175 medical centres globally. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older; had previously untreated, unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic biliary tract cancer; had disease measurable per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1; and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Eligible participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo, both administered intravenously every 3 weeks (maximum 35 cycles), in combination with gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks; no maximum duration) and cisplatin (25 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks; maximum 8 cycles). Randomisation was done using a central interactive voice-response system and stratified by geographical region, disease stage, and site of origin in block sizes of four. The primary endpoint of overall survival was evaluated in the intention-to-treat population. The secondary endpoint of safety was evaluated in the as-treated population. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04003636.Findings: Between Oct 4, 2019, and June 8, 2021, 1564 patients were screened for eligibility, 1069 of whom were randomly assigned to pembrolizumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin (pembrolizumab group; n=533) or placebo plus gemcitabine and cisplatin (placebo group; n=536). Median study follow-up at final analysis was 25·6 months (IQR 21·7-30·4). Median overall survival was 12·7 months (95% CI 11·5-13·6) in the pembrolizumab group versus 10·9 months (9·9-11·6) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·83 [95% CI 0·72-0·95]; one-sided p=0·0034 [significance threshold, p=0·0200]). In the as-treated population, the maximum adverse event grade was 3 to 4 in 420 (79%) of 529 participants in the pembrolizumab group and 400 (75%) of 534 in the placebo group; 369 (70%) participants in the pembrolizumab group and 367 (69%) in the placebo group had treatment-related adverse events with a maximum grade of 3 to 4. 31 (6%) participants in the pembrolizumab group and 49 (9%) in the placebo group died due to adverse events, including eight (2%) in the pembrolizumab group and three (1%) in the placebo group who died due to treatment-related adverse events.Interpretation: Based on a statistically significant, clinically meaningful improvement in overall survival compared with gemcitabine and cisplatin without any new safety signals, pembrolizumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin could be a new treatment option for patients with previously untreated metastatic or unresectable biliary tract cancer