Standardisation of the waist circumference (WC) for each range of body mass index (BMI) in adult outpatients attended to in Endocrinology and Nutrition departments

By this study we seek the expectable range of waist circumference (WC) for every degree of body mass index (BMI), which will serve to studies targeting ascertaining the health risk. We studied 2,932 patients (39.6% men and 60.4% women, between 18 and 96 years ) of the same ethnic group who consecutively attended outpatient departments of our clinics between 2000 and 2004. BMI correlated linearly with the WC (cc: 0.85; p < 0.001). The men, the obese, and diabetics were older (p < 0.001). BMI was greater in women and WC in men. The women had a greater WC if they had diabetes (p < 0.01), being equal to diabetic males. The men had greater WC when they had diabetes (p < 0.001). Waist at risk was detected (men > or = 102 cm and women > or = 88 cm) in 94.3% of the obese, in 32.3% of overweight patients, in 3.8% of patients with BMI < 25, in 84.3% of diabetics, and in 72.6% of patients without diabetes. We made graphic standardisation of WC with regard to BMI, and we calculated the percentiles 10, 25, 50, 75 and 90, grouping in ranges of 2 kg/m(2) of BMI. The diabetic patients are grouped in ranges of 4 kg/m(2). As conclusion we present a standardisation of the WC measurement of patients attended to in our Endocrinology and Nutrition practices distributed in percentiles as a clinically usable tool to define the ranges of WC for every BMI value.

Unanswered clinical questions in the management of cardiometabolic risk in the elderly: a statement of the Spanish society of internal medicine.

BACKGROUND Despite the progressive increase in life expectancy and the relationship between aging with multi-morbidities and the increased use of healthcare resources, current clinical practice guidelines (CPG) on cardiometabolic risk cannot be adequately applied to elderly subjects with multiple chronic conditions. Its management frequently becomes complicated by both, an excessive use of medications that may lead to overtreatment, drug interactions and increased toxicity, and errors in dosage and non-compliance. Concerned by this gap, the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine created a group of independent experts on cardiometabolic risk who discussed what they considered to be unanswered questions in the management of elderly patients. DISCUSSION Current guidelines do not specifically address the problem of elderly with multiple chronic conditions. For this reason, the combined use of the limited available evidence, clinical experience and common sense, could all help us to address this unmet need. In very old people, life expectancy and functionality are the most important factors for guiding potential treatments. Their higher propensity to develop serious adverse events and their shorter lifespan could prevent them from obtaining the potential benefits of the interventions administered. SUMMARY In this document, experts on cardiometabolic risk factors have established a number of consensual recommendations that have taken into account international guidelines and clinical experience, and have also considered the more effective use of healthcare resources. This document is intended to provide general recommendations for clinicians and to promote the effective use of procedures and medications.

Liver safety assessment: required data elements and best practices for data collection and standardization in clinical trials.

A workshop was convened to discuss best practices for the assessment of drug-induced liver injury (DILI) in clinical trials. In a breakout session, workshop attendees discussed necessary data elements and standards for the accurate measurement of DILI risk associated with new therapeutic agents in clinical trials. There was agreement that in order to achieve this goal the systematic acquisition of protocol-specified clinical measures and lab specimens from all study subjects is crucial. In addition, standard DILI terms that address the diverse clinical and pathologic signatures of DILI were considered essential. There was a strong consensus that clinical and lab analyses necessary for the evaluation of cases of acute liver injury should be consistent with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance on pre-marketing risk assessment of DILI in clinical trials issued in 2009. A recommendation that liver injury case review and management be guided by clinicians with hepatologic expertise was made. Of note, there was agreement that emerging DILI signals should prompt the systematic collection of candidate pharmacogenomic, proteomic and/or metabonomic biomarkers from all study subjects. The use of emerging standardized clinical terminology, CRFs and graphic tools for data review to enable harmonization across clinical trials was strongly encouraged. Many of the recommendations made in the breakout session are in alignment with those made in the other parallel sessions on methodology to assess clinical liver safety data, causality assessment for suspected DILI, and liver safety assessment in special populations (hepatitis B, C, and oncology trials). Nonetheless, a few outstanding issues remain for future consideration.