Explaining the complex impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on children with overweight and obesity : a comparative ecological analysis of parents’ perceptions in three countries

Background The Covid-19 pandemic has changed children’s eating and physical activity behaviours. These changes have been positive for some households and negative for others, revealing health inequalities that have ramifications for childhood obesity. This study investigates the pandemic’s impact on families of children aged 2–6 years with overweight or obesity. Methods Drawing on interviews conducted as part of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) for childhood obesity, thematic analysis was used to examine how parents of pre-schoolers perceived changes in their eating, screentime and physical activity behaviours between the first and second waves of Covid-19. Parents (n = 70, representing 68 families) were interviewed twice during a period of 6 months in three countries with markedly different pandemic policies – Sweden, Romania, and Spain. The analysis is informed by Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory, which embeds home- and school-based influences within societal and policy contexts. Results The findings show that, although all participants were recruited from an RCT for families of children with excess weight, they reported different responses to the pandemic’s second wave, with some children engaging in healthier eating and physical activity, and others engaging in comfort eating and a more sedentary lifestyle. Differences in children’s obesity-related behaviours were closely related to differences in parents’ practices, which were, in turn, linked to their emotional and social wellbeing. Notably, across all sites, parents’ feeding and physical activity facilitation practices, as well as their emotional and social wellbeing, were embedded in household resilience. In resilient households, where parents had secure housing and employment, they were better able to adapt to the challenges posed by the pandemic, whereas parents who experienced household insecurity found it more difficult to cope. Conclusions As the Covid-19 pandemic is turning into a long-term public health challenge, studies that address household resilience are crucial for developing effective prevention and treatment responses to childhood obesity

Edoxaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation

Contains fulltext : 125374.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Edoxaban is a direct oral factor Xa inhibitor with proven antithrombotic effects. The long-term efficacy and safety of edoxaban as compared with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation is not known. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy trial comparing two once-daily regimens of edoxaban with warfarin in 21,105 patients with moderate-to-high-risk atrial fibrillation (median follow-up, 2.8 years). The primary efficacy end point was stroke or systemic embolism. Each edoxaban regimen was tested for noninferiority to warfarin during the treatment period. The principal safety end point was major bleeding. RESULTS: The annualized rate of the primary end point during treatment was 1.50% with warfarin (median time in the therapeutic range, 68.4%), as compared with 1.18% with high-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 0.79; 97.5% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 0.99; P<0.001 for noninferiority) and 1.61% with low-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 1.07; 97.5% CI, 0.87 to 1.31; P=0.005 for noninferiority). In the intention-to-treat analysis, there was a trend favoring high-dose edoxaban versus warfarin (hazard ratio, 0.87; 97.5% CI, 0.73 to 1.04; P=0.08) and an unfavorable trend with low-dose edoxaban versus warfarin (hazard ratio, 1.13; 97.5% CI, 0.96 to 1.34; P=0.10). The annualized rate of major bleeding was 3.43% with warfarin versus 2.75% with high-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.91; P<0.001) and 1.61% with low-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.55; P<0.001). The corresponding annualized rates of death from cardiovascular causes were 3.17% versus 2.74% (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.97; P=0.01), and 2.71% (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.96; P=0.008), and the corresponding rates of the key secondary end point (a composite of stroke, systemic embolism, or death from cardiovascular causes) were 4.43% versus 3.85% (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.78 to 0.96; P=0.005), and 4.23% (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.05; P=0.32). CONCLUSIONS: Both once-daily regimens of edoxaban were noninferior to warfarin with respect to the prevention of stroke or systemic embolism and were associated with significantly lower rates of bleeding and death from cardiovascular causes. (Funded by Daiichi Sankyo Pharma Development; ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00781391.)