Salivary cortisol differs with age and sex and shows inverse associations with WHR in Swedish women: a cross-sectional study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Most studies on cortisol have focused on smaller, selected samples. We therefore aimed to sex-specifically study the diurnal cortisol pattern and explore its association with abdominal obesity in a large unselected population.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In 2001–2004, 1811 men and women (30–75 years) were randomly selected from the Vara population, south-western Sweden (81% participation rate). Of these, 1671 subjects with full information on basal morning and evening salivary cortisol and anthropometric measurements were included in this cross-sectional study. Differences between groups were examined by general linear model and by logistic and linear regression analyses.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Morning and Δ-cortisol (morning – evening cortisol) were significantly higher in women than men. In both genders older age was significantly associated with higher levels of all cortisol measures, however, most consistently with evening cortisol. In women only, age-adjusted means of WHR were significantly lower in the highest compared to the lowest quartile of morning cortisol (p = 0.036) and Δ-cortisol (p < 0.001), respectively. Furthermore, when comparing WHR above and below the mean, the age-adjusted OR in women for the lowest quartile of cortisol compared to the highest was 1.5 (1.0–2.2, p = 0.058) for morning cortisol and 1.9 (1.3–2.8) for Δ-cortisol. All findings for Δ-cortisol remained after adjustments for multiple covariates and were also seen in a linear regression analysis (p = 0.003).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In summary, our findings of generally higher cortisol levels in women than men of all ages are novel and the stronger results seen for Δ-cortisol as opposed to morning cortisol in the association with WHR emphasise the need of studying cortisol variation intra-individually. To our knowledge, the associations in this study have never before been investigated in such a large population sample of both men and women. Our results therefore offer important knowledge on the descriptive characteristics of cortisol in relation to age and gender, and on the impact that associations previously seen between cortisol and abdominal obesity in smaller, selected samples have on a population level.</p

Does metformin reduce excess birthweight in offspring of obese pregnant women? A randomised controlled trial of efficacy, exploration of mechanisms and evaluation of other pregnancy complications

BackgroundMaternal obesity is associated with high birthweight, obesity and premature mortality in adult offspring, probably as a result of maternal hyperglycaemia and insulin resistance. We present the results of a trial designed to test the hypothesis that metformin will improve insulin sensitivity in obese pregnant women, thereby reducing the incidence of high-birthweight babies.ObjectiveTo determine the efficacy of metformin (up to 2500 mg daily) given to obese pregnant women in reducing the gestational age-, parity- and sex-adjusted birthweight centile of the baby.DesignDouble-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised controlled trial with embedded substudies.SettingFifteen NHS hospitals in the UK.ParticipantsPregnant women aged ≥ 16 years with a singleton fetus and a body mass index of ≥ 30 kg/m2.InterventionMetformin tablets (or placebo) administered between 12 and 16 weeks’ gestation until delivery of the baby.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome measure was z-score corresponding to the gestational age-, parity- and sex-adjusted birthweight centile of live-born babies delivered at ≥ 24 weeks’ gestation. The main secondary outcome was maternal insulin resistance at 36 weeks’ gestation. Embedded substudies were included to assess the effect of metformin on insulin sensitivity using the hyperinsulinaemic–euglycaemic clamp; endothelial function; maternal and fetal fat distribution using magnetic resonance imaging; placental expression of 11β-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase types 1 and 2 and glucocorticoid receptor; and myometrial contractility and glycogen storage.ResultsWe randomised 449 women to either placebo (n = 223) or metformin (n = 226), of whom 434 were included in the final intention-to-treat analysis. Mean birthweight at delivery was 3463 g [standard deviation (SD) 660 g] in the placebo group and 3462 g (SD 548 g) in the metformin group. The estimated effect size of metformin on the primary outcome was non-significant [adjusted mean difference in z-score –0.029, 95% confidence interval (CI) –0.217 to 0.158; p = 0.7597]. There was no evidence of a reduction in the main secondary outcome of homeostatic model assessment – insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) at 36 weeks’ gestation (mean HOMA-IR 5.98 and 6.30 molar units in the placebo and metformin groups, respectively; adjusted mean ratio 0.974, 95% CI 0.865 to 1.097). Metformin had no effect on the combined adverse outcome of miscarriage, termination of pregnancy, stillbirth or neonatal death. Subjects taking metformin demonstrated increased insulin sensitivity [glucose disposal per unit plasma insulin difference between means during high-dose insulin 0.02 mg/kg, 95% CI 0.001 to 0.03 mg/kg (fat-free mass)/minute/µIU/l; p = 0.04] compared with those taking placebo and enhanced endogenous glucose production [difference between means 0.54 mg/kg, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.00 mg/kg (fat-free mass)/minute; p = 0.02]. There were no differences in endothelial function, maternal or fetal body fat distribution, placental expression of 11β-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase types 1 and 2 and glucocorticoid receptor, or myometrial contractility and glycogen storage.ConclusionsMetformin has no clinically significant effect on birthweight centile in obese pregnant women. Follow-up studies of the children born to participants in the trial are required to determine whether or not there are any longer-term benefits or harms of maternal metformin for offspring weight, fat mass or metabolism.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN51279843.FundingThis project was funded by the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation programme, a Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research partnership