Association of a low density lipoprotein receptor microsatellite variant with obesity

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a microsatellite polymorphism located towards the 3' end of the low density lipoprotein receptor gene (LDLR) is associated with obesity. DESIGN: A cross-sectional case-control study. SUBJECTS: One hundred and seven obese individuals, defined as a body mass index (BMI) > or = 26 kg/m2, and 163 lean individuals, defined as a BMI < 26 kg/m2. MEASUREMENTS: BMI, blood pressure, serum lipids, alleles of LDLR microsatellite (106 bp, 108 bp and 112 bp). RESULTS: There was a significant association between variants of the LDLR microsatellite and obesity, in the overall tested population, due to a contributing effect in females (chi 2 = 12.3, P = 0.002), but not in males (chi 2 = 0.3, P = 0.87). In females, individuals with the 106 bp allele were more likely to be lean, while individuals with the 112 bp and/or 108 bp alleles tended to be obese. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that in females, LDLR may play a role in the development of obesity.

Cross-sectional study of a microsatellite marker in the low density lipoprotein receptor gene in obese normotensives

1. The low density lipoprotein receptor is an important regulator of serum cholesterol which may have implications for the development of both hypertension and obesity. In this study, genotypes for a low density lipoprotein receptor gene (LDLR) dinucleotide polymorphism were determined in both lean and obese normotensive populations. 2. In previous cross-sectional association studies an ApaLI and a HincII polymorphism for LDLR were shown to be associated with obesity in essential hypertensives. However, these polymorphisms did not show an association with obesity in normotensives. 3. In contrast, this study reports that preliminary results for an LDLR microsatellite marker, located more towards the 3' end of the gene, show a significant association with obesity in the normotensive population studied. These results indicate that LDLR could play an important role in the development of obesity, which might be independent of hypertension.

Does vigorous physical activity provide additional benefits beyond those of moderate?

Background Although guidelines suggest that vigorous physical activity (PA) confers “extra” benefits compared with those from moderate-intensity activity alone, the magnitude of this additional benefit is unclear. The aim was to compare the reduction in risk of hypertension (HT) and depressive symptoms (DS) for 12 yr in middle-age women who reported (a) only moderate-intensity PA (MOPA) and (b) a combination of moderate and vigorous PA (MVPA), after controlling for overall volume of activity. Methods The study involved 11,285 participants in the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women’s Health, who completed surveys in 1998 (age = 46–52 yr), 2001, 2004, 2007, and 2010. Generalized estimating equation models (with 3-yr time lag) were used to examine the relationship between PA in seven categories from 0 to >2000 MET·min·wk−1 and occurrence of HT and DS for women who reported MOPA or MVPA. Results For HT, risk was slightly lower for MVPA than for MOPA across the entire range of PA levels, but this difference was only significant at the highest PA level (>2000; odds ratio [OR] = 0.80 MOPA and 0.56 MVPA). For DS, OR values were similar in both groups up to 500 MET·min·wk−1, then slightly lower for MVPA than for MOPA at higher PA levels. Again, this difference was only significant at the highest PA level (>2000; OR = 0.57 MOPA and 0.42 MVPA). OR values were slightly attenuated in adjusted models. Conclusions Doing both vigorous and moderate activity does not have significant additional benefits in terms of HT and DS, above those from moderate-intensity activity alone, except at very high levels of PA.

What kind of sick person would see a Foot Doctor! The Foot Disease in Inpatients Study (FDIS)

Background Many different guidelines recommend people with foot complications, or those at risk, should attend multiple health professionals for foot care each year. However, few studies have investigated the characteristics of those attending health professionals for foot care and if those characteristics match those requiring foot care as per guideline recommendations. The aim of this paper was to determine the associated characteristics of people who attended a health professional for foot care in the year prior to their hospitalisation. Methods Eligible participants were all adults admitted overnight, for any reason, into five diverse hospitals on one day; excluding maternity, mental health and cognitively impaired patients. Participants underwent a foot examination to clinically diagnose different foot complications; including wounds, infections, deformity, peripheral arterial disease and peripheral neuropathy. They were also surveyed on social determinant, medical history, self-care, foot complication history, and, past health professional attendance for foot care in the year prior to hospitalisation. Results Overall, 733 participants consented; mean(±SD) age 62(±19) years, 408 (55.8%) male, 172 (23.5%) diabetes. Two hundred and fifty-six (34.9% (95% CI) (31.6-38.4)) participants had attended a health professional for foot care; including attending podiatrists 180 (24.5%), GPs 93 (24.6%), and surgeons 36 (4.9%). In backwards stepwise multivariate analyses attending any health professional for foot care was independently associated (OR (95% CI)) with diabetes (3.0 (2.1-4.5)), arthritis (1.8 (1.3-2.6)), mobility impairment (2.0 (1.4-2.9)) and previous foot ulcer (5.4 (2.9-10.0)). Attending a podiatrist was independently associated with female gender (2.6 (1.7-3.9)), increasing years of age (1.06 (1.04-1.08), diabetes (5.0 (3.2-7.9)), arthritis (2.0 (1.3-3.0)), hypertension (1.7 (1.1-2.6) and previous foot ulcer (4.5 (2.4-8.1). While attending a GP was independently associated with having a foot ulcer (10.4 (5.6-19.2). Conclusions Promisingly these findings indicate that people with a diagnosis of diabetes and arthritis are more likely to attend health professionals for foot care. However, it also appears those with active foot complications, or significant risk factors, may not be more likely to receive the multi-disciplinary foot care recommended by guidelines. More concerted efforts are required to ensure all people with foot complications are receiving recommended foot care.