The effect of obesity management on body image in patients seeking treatment at medical centers

Objective: Body image dissatisfaction is common in treatment‐seeking patients with obesity. We aimed to investigate the effects of obesity management on body image in patients with obesity attending Italian medical centers for weight loss programs. Research Methods and Procedures: A total of 473 obese patients seeking treatment in 13 Italian medical centers (80% females; age, 45.9 ± standard deviation 11.0 years; BMI, 36.8 ± 5.7 kg/m²) were evaluated at baseline and after a 6‐month weight loss treatment. Body uneasiness, psychiatric distress, and binge eating were tested by Body Uneasiness Test (BUT, Part A), Symptom CheckList‐90 (SCL‐90), and Binge Eating Scale (BES), respectively. Results: At 6‐month follow‐up, the percentage weight loss was significantly higher in men (9.0 ± 6.3%) than in women (6.8 ± 7.3%; p = 0.010). Both men and women had a significant improvement in BUT Global Severity Index and in all of the BUT subscales with the exception of the Compulsive Self‐Monitoring subscale. Linear regression analysis selected baseline psychological and behavioral measures (global score of BUT and SCL‐90) and improved psychiatric distress and binge eating as independent predictors of changes in basal body dissatisfaction in females, whereas in males, changes were associated only with baseline BUT‐Global Severity Index score, binge eating, and its treatment‐associated improvement. Pre‐treatment BMI and BMI changes did not enter the regression. Discussion: Obesity treatment, even with a modest degree of weight loss, is associated with a significant improvement of body image, in both females and males. This effect depends mainly on psychological factors, not on the amount of weight loss.     

Critical issues in preparing for a mass casualty event: highlights from a new community planning guide

To assist community planners in allocating scarce resources in a mass casualty event, the Department of Health and Human Services' Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response collaborated with leading experts on a series of issue papers on preparedness and response. These papers were presented at an expert meeting in Washington, DC, in June 2006. The papers, revised based on meeting discussions, have been published by AHRQ as Mass Medical Care with Scarce Resources: A Community Planning Guide.     

Seeking causes: Classifying and evaluating congenital heart defects in etiologic studies

BACKGROUND: Classification and analysis of congenital heart defects (CHD) in etiologic studies is particularly challenging because of diversity of cardiac phenotypes and underlying developmental mechanisms. We describe an approach to classification for risk assessment of CHD based on developmental and epidemiologic considerations, and apply it to data from the National Birth Defect Prevention Study (NBDPS). METHODS: The classification system incorporated the three dimensions of cardiac phenotype, cardiac complexity, and extracardiac anomalies. The system was designed to facilitate the assessment of simple isolated defects and common associations. A team with cardiologic expertise applied the system to a large sample from the NBDPS. RESULTS: Of the 4,703 cases of CHDs in the NBDPS with birth years 1997 through 2002, 63.6% were simple, isolated cases. Specific associations of CHDs represented the majority of the remainder. The mapping strategy generated relatively large samples for most cardiac phenotypes and provided enough detail to isolate important subgroups of CHDs that may differ by etiology or mechanism. CONCLUSIONS: Classification of CHDs that considers cardiac and extracardiac phenotypes is practically feasible, and yields manageable groups of well-characterized phenotypes. Although best suited for large studies, this approach to classification and analysis can be a flexible and powerful tool in many types of etiologic studies of heart defects.     

Proteome-wide Mendelian randomization identifies causal links between blood proteins and severe COVID-19

In November 2021, the COVID-19 pandemic death toll surpassed five million individuals. We applied Mendelian randomization including >3,000 blood proteins as exposures to identify potential biomarkers that may indicate risk for hospitalization or need for respiratory support or death due to COVID-19, respectively. After multiple testing correction, using genetic instruments and under the assumptions of Mendelian Randomization, our results were consistent with higher blood levels of five proteins GCNT4, CD207, RAB14, C1GALT1C1, and ABO being causally associated with an increased risk of hospitalization or respiratory support/death due to COVID-19 (ORs = 1.12–1.35). Higher levels of FAAH2 were solely associated with an increased risk of hospitalization (OR = 1.19). On the contrary, higher levels of SELL, SELE, and PECAM-1 decrease risk of hospitalization or need for respiratory support/death (ORs = 0.80–0.91). Higher levels of LCTL, SFTPD, KEL, and ATP2A3 were solely associated with a decreased risk of hospitalization (ORs = 0.86–0.93), whilst higher levels of ICAM-1 were solely associated with a decreased risk of respiratory support/death of COVID-19 (OR = 0.84). Our findings implicate blood group markers and binding proteins in both hospitalization and need for respiratory support/death. They, additionally, suggest that higher levels of endocannabinoid enzymes may increase the risk of hospitalization. Our research replicates findings of blood markers previously associated with COVID-19 and prioritises additional blood markers for risk prediction of severe forms of COVID-19. Furthermore, we pinpoint druggable targets potentially implicated in disease pathology.     

Effects of preconception lifestyle intervention in infertile women with obesity: The FIT-PLESE randomized controlled trial

BackgroundWomen with obesity and infertility are counseled to lose weight prior to conception and infertility treatment to improve pregnancy rates and birth outcomes, although confirmatory evidence from randomized trials is lacking. We assessed whether a preconception intensive lifestyle intervention with acute weight loss is superior to a weight neutral intervention at achieving a healthy live birth.Methods and findingsIn this open-label, randomized controlled study (FIT-PLESE), 379 women with obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m²) and unexplained infertility were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to 2 preconception lifestyle modification groups lasting 16 weeks, between July 2015 and July 2018 (final follow-up September 2019) followed by infertility therapy. The primary outcome was the healthy live birth (term infant of normal weight without major anomalies) incidence. This was conducted at 9 academic health centers across the United States. The intensive group underwent increased physical activity and weight loss (target 7%) through meal replacements and medication (Orlistat) compared to a standard group with increased physical activity alone without weight loss. This was followed by standardized empiric infertility treatment consisting of 3 cycles of ovarian stimulation/intrauterine insemination. Outcomes of any resulting pregnancy were tracked. Among 191 women randomized to standard lifestyle group, 40 dropped out of the study before conception; among 188 women randomized to intensive lifestyle group, 31 dropped out of the study before conception. All the randomized women were included in the intent-to-treat analysis for primary outcome of a healthy live birth. There were no significant differences in the incidence of healthy live births [standard 29/191(15.2%), intensive 23/188(12.2%), rate ratio 0.81 (0.48 to 1.34), P = 0.40]. Intensive had significant weight loss compared to standard (−6.6 ± 5.4% versus −0.3 ± 3.2%, P < 0.001). There were improvements in metabolic health, including a marked decrease in incidence of the metabolic syndrome (baseline to 16 weeks: standard: 53.6% to 49.4%, intensive 52.8% to 32.2%, P = 0.003). Gastrointestinal side effects were significantly more common in intensive. There was a higher, but nonsignificant, first trimester pregnancy loss in the intensive group (33.3% versus 23.7% in standard, 95% rate ratio 1.40, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.79 to 2.50). The main limitations of the study are the limited power of the study to detect rare complications and the design difficulty in finding an adequate time matched control intervention, as the standard exercise intervention may have potentially been helpful or harmful.ConclusionsA preconception intensive lifestyle intervention for weight loss did not improve fertility or birth outcomes compared to an exercise intervention without targeted weight loss. Improvement in metabolic health may not translate into improved female fecundity.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT02432209","term_id":"NCT02432209"}}NCT02432209.

Richard Legro and colleagues investigate the impact of a preconception weight loss intervention on healthy live birth rates in women with obesity and unexplained infertility.