Rapid increases in obesity in Jamaica, compared to Nigeria and the United States

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Weight gain in adulthood is now common in many populations, ranging from modest gains in developing countries to a substantial percentage of body weight in some Western societies. To examine the rate of change across the spectrum of low to high-income countries we compared rates of weight change in samples drawn from three countries, Nigeria, Jamaica and the United States.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Population samples from Nigeria (n = 1,242), Jamaica (n = 1,409), and the US (n = 809) were selected during the period 1995–1999 in adults over the age of 19; participation rates in the original survey were 96%, 60%, and 60%, respectively. Weight in (kg) was measured on 3 different occasions, ending in 2005. Multi-level regression models were used to estimate weight change over time and pattern-mixture models were applied to assess the potential effect of missing data on estimates of the model parameters.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The unadjusted weight gain rate (standard error) was 0.34(0.06), 1.26(0.12), 0.34(0.19) kg/year among men and 0.43(0.06), 1.28(0.10), 0.40(0.15) kg/year among women in Nigeria, Jamaica, US, respectively. Regression-adjusted weight change rates were significantly different across country, sex, and baseline BMI. Adjusted weight gain in Nigeria, Jamaica and US was 0.31(0.05), 1.37(.04), and 0.52(0.05) kg/year respectively. Women in Nigeria and the US had higher weight gains than men, with the converse observed among Jamaicans. The obese experienced weight loss across all three samples, whereas the normal weight (BMI < 25) had significant weight gains. Missing data patterns had an effect on the rates of weight change.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Weight change in sample cohorts from a middle-income country was greater than in cohorts from either of the low- or high-income countries. The steep trajectory of weight gain in Jamaica, relative to Nigeria and the US, is most likely attributable to the accelerating effects of the cultural and behavioral shifts which have come to bear on transitional societies.</p

Immunoglobulin, glucocorticoid, or combination therapy for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children: a propensity-weighted cohort study

Background: Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), a hyperinflammatory condition associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, has emerged as a serious illness in children worldwide. Immunoglobulin or glucocorticoids, or both, are currently recommended treatments. Methods: The Best Available Treatment Study evaluated immunomodulatory treatments for MIS-C in an international observational cohort. Analysis of the first 614 patients was previously reported. In this propensity-weighted cohort study, clinical and outcome data from children with suspected or proven MIS-C were collected onto a web-based Research Electronic Data Capture database. After excluding neonates and incomplete or duplicate records, inverse probability weighting was used to compare primary treatments with intravenous immunoglobulin, intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids, or glucocorticoids alone, using intravenous immunoglobulin as the reference treatment. Primary outcomes were a composite of inotropic or ventilator support from the second day after treatment initiation, or death, and time to improvement on an ordinal clinical severity scale. Secondary outcomes included treatment escalation, clinical deterioration, fever, and coronary artery aneurysm occurrence and resolution. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN69546370. Findings: We enrolled 2101 children (aged 0 months to 19 years) with clinically diagnosed MIS-C from 39 countries between June 14, 2020, and April 25, 2022, and, following exclusions, 2009 patients were included for analysis (median age 8·0 years [IQR 4·2–11·4], 1191 [59·3%] male and 818 [40·7%] female, and 825 [41·1%] White). 680 (33·8%) patients received primary treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin, 698 (34·7%) with intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids, 487 (24·2%) with glucocorticoids alone; 59 (2·9%) patients received other combinations, including biologicals, and 85 (4·2%) patients received no immunomodulators. There were no significant differences between treatments for primary outcomes for the 1586 patients with complete baseline and outcome data that were considered for primary analysis. Adjusted odds ratios for ventilation, inotropic support, or death were 1·09 (95% CI 0·75–1·58; corrected p value=1·00) for intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids and 0·93 (0·58–1·47; corrected p value=1·00) for glucocorticoids alone, versus intravenous immunoglobulin alone. Adjusted average hazard ratios for time to improvement were 1·04 (95% CI 0·91–1·20; corrected p value=1·00) for intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids, and 0·84 (0·70–1·00; corrected p value=0·22) for glucocorticoids alone, versus intravenous immunoglobulin alone. Treatment escalation was less frequent for intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids (OR 0·15 [95% CI 0·11–0·20]; p<0·0001) and glucocorticoids alone (0·68 [0·50–0·93]; p=0·014) versus intravenous immunoglobulin alone. Persistent fever (from day 2 onward) was less common with intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids compared with either intravenous immunoglobulin alone (OR 0·50 [95% CI 0·38–0·67]; p<0·0001) or glucocorticoids alone (0·63 [0·45–0·88]; p=0·0058). Coronary artery aneurysm occurrence and resolution did not differ significantly between treatment groups. Interpretation: Recovery rates, including occurrence and resolution of coronary artery aneurysms, were similar for primary treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin when compared to glucocorticoids or intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids. Initial treatment with glucocorticoids appears to be a safe alternative to immunoglobulin or combined therapy, and might be advantageous in view of the cost and limited availability of intravenous immunoglobulin in many countries. Funding: Imperial College London, the European Union's Horizon 2020, Wellcome Trust, the Medical Research Foundation, UK National Institute for Health and Care Research, and National Institutes of Health

Immunoglobulin, glucocorticoid, or combination therapy for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children: a propensity-weighted cohort study

Background Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), a hyperinflammatory condition associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, has emerged as a serious illness in children worldwide. Immunoglobulin or glucocorticoids, or both, are currently recommended treatments. Methods The Best Available Treatment Study evaluated immunomodulatory treatments for MIS-C in an international observational cohort. Analysis of the first 614 patients was previously reported. In this propensity-weighted cohort study, clinical and outcome data from children with suspected or proven MIS-C were collected onto a web-based Research Electronic Data Capture database. After excluding neonates and incomplete or duplicate records, inverse probability weighting was used to compare primary treatments with intravenous immunoglobulin, intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids, or glucocorticoids alone, using intravenous immunoglobulin as the reference treatment. Primary outcomes were a composite of inotropic or ventilator support from the second day after treatment initiation, or death, and time to improvement on an ordinal clinical severity scale. Secondary outcomes included treatment escalation, clinical deterioration, fever, and coronary artery aneurysm occurrence and resolution. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN69546370. Findings We enrolled 2101 children (aged 0 months to 19 years) with clinically diagnosed MIS-C from 39 countries between June 14, 2020, and April 25, 2022, and, following exclusions, 2009 patients were included for analysis (median age 8·0 years [IQR 4·2–11·4], 1191 [59·3%] male and 818 [40·7%] female, and 825 [41·1%] White). 680 (33·8%) patients received primary treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin, 698 (34·7%) with intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids, 487 (24·2%) with glucocorticoids alone; 59 (2·9%) patients received other combinations, including biologicals, and 85 (4·2%) patients received no immunomodulators. There were no significant differences between treatments for primary outcomes for the 1586 patients with complete baseline and outcome data that were considered for primary analysis. Adjusted odds ratios for ventilation, inotropic support, or death were 1·09 (95% CI 0·75–1·58; corrected p value=1·00) for intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids and 0·93 (0·58–1·47; corrected p value=1·00) for glucocorticoids alone, versus intravenous immunoglobulin alone. Adjusted average hazard ratios for time to improvement were 1·04 (95% CI 0·91–1·20; corrected p value=1·00) for intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids, and 0·84 (0·70–1·00; corrected p value=0·22) for glucocorticoids alone, versus intravenous immunoglobulin alone. Treatment escalation was less frequent for intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids (OR 0·15 [95% CI 0·11–0·20]; p<0·0001) and glucocorticoids alone (0·68 [0·50–0·93]; p=0·014) versus intravenous immunoglobulin alone. Persistent fever (from day 2 onward) was less common with intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids compared with either intravenous immunoglobulin alone (OR 0·50 [95% CI 0·38–0·67]; p<0·0001) or glucocorticoids alone (0·63 [0·45–0·88]; p=0·0058). Coronary artery aneurysm occurrence and resolution did not differ significantly between treatment groups. Interpretation Recovery rates, including occurrence and resolution of coronary artery aneurysms, were similar for primary treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin when compared to glucocorticoids or intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids. Initial treatment with glucocorticoids appears to be a safe alternative to immunoglobulin or combined therapy, and might be advantageous in view of the cost and limited availability of intravenous immunoglobulin in many countries. Funding Imperial College London, the European Union's Horizon 2020, Wellcome Trust, the Medical Research Foundation, UK National Institute for Health and Care Research, and National Institutes of Health

Socioeconomic status and age at menarche in indigenous and non-indigenous Chilean adolescents Nivel socioeconómico y edad de la menarquia en adolescentes chilenas indígenas y no indígenas

The objective was to analyze the relationship between socioeconomic status and age at menarche among indigenous and non-indigenous girls in the Araucanía Region of Chile, controlling for nutritional status and mother's age at menarche. A total of 8,624 randomly selected girls from 168 schools were screened, resulting in the selection of 207 indigenous and 200 non-indigenous girls who had recently experienced menarche. Age at menarche was 149.6±10.7 months in the indigenous group and 146.6±10.8 months in the non-indigenous group. Among the non-indigenous, the analysis showed no significant association between age at menarche and socioeconomic status. In the indigenous group, age at menarche among girls with low socioeconomic status was 5.4 months later than among those with higher socioeconomic status. There were no differences in nutritional status according to socioeconomic level. Obesity was associated with earlier menarche. Menarche occurred earlier than in previous generations. An inverse relationship between socioeconomic status and age at menarche was seen in the indigenous group only; low socioeconomic status was associated with delayed menarche, regardless of nutritional status or mother's age at menarche.<br>El objetivo fue analizar la relación entre nivel socioeconómico y edad de menarquia en adolescentes indígenas y no indígenas de la Región de la Araucanía, Chile, controlando el efecto del estado nutricional, y la edad de menarquia de las madres. Se estudiaron 8.624 niñas de 168 escuelas elegidas aleatoriamente, seleccionando 207 indígenas y 200 no indígenas que habían tenido recientemente la menarquia. La edad de menarquia ocurrió a los 149,6±10,7 meses en indígenas y a los 146,6±10,8 meses en no indígenas. En el grupo no indígena, hubo una relación significativa entre edad de menarquia y nivel socioeconómico. En el grupo indígena, edad de menarquia del nivel socioeconómico bajo fue de 5,4 meses más tarde que el nivel socioeconómico más alto. No se observaron diferencias de estado nutricional por nivel socioeconómico. La obesidad adelantó la menarquia y la edad de menarquia ocurrió antes que la de sus madres. Existe una relación inversa entre nivel socioeconómico y edad de menarquia sólo en el grupo indígena; en los niveles socioeconómicos más bajos la edad de menarquia se retrasa independiente del estado nutricional y de la edad de menarquia de la madre