Dataset Information

Asian Americans: diabetes prevalence across U.S. and World Health Organization weight classifications.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To compare diabetes prevalence among Asian Americans by World Health Organization and U.S. BMI classifications.

Research design and methods

Data on Asian American adults (n = 7,414) from the National Health Interview Survey for 1997-2005 were analyzed. Diabetes prevalence was estimated across weight and ethnic group strata.

Results

Regardless of BMI classification, Asian Indians and Filipinos had the highest prevalence of overweight (34-47 and 35-47%, respectively, compared with 20-38% in Chinese; P < 0.05). Asian Indians also had the highest ethnic-specific diabetes prevalence (ranging from 6-7% among the normal weight to 19-33% among the obese) compared with non-Hispanic whites: odds ratio (95% CI) for Asian Indians 2.0 (1.5-2.6), adjusted for age and sex, and 3.1 (2.4-4.0) with additional adjustment for BMI.

Conclusions

Asian Indian ethnicity, but not other Asian ethnicities, was strongly associated with diabetes. Weight classification as a marker of diabetes risk may need to accommodate differences across Asian subgroups.

SUBMITTER: Oza-Frank R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2732150 | biostudies-literature | 2009 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Asian Americans: diabetes prevalence across U.S. and World Health Organization weight classifications.

Oza-Frank Reena R Ali Mohammed K MK Vaccarino Viola V Narayan K M Venkat KM

Diabetes care 20090609 9

<h4>Objective</h4>To compare diabetes prevalence among Asian Americans by World Health Organization and U.S. BMI classifications.<h4>Research design and methods</h4>Data on Asian American adults (n = 7,414) from the National Health Interview Survey for 1997-2005 were analyzed. Diabetes prevalence was estimated across weight and ethnic group strata.<h4>Results</h4>Regardless of BMI classification, Asian Indians and Filipinos had the highest prevalence of overweight (34-47 and 35-47%, respectively ...[more]

PMID: 19509010

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundFor ages 5-19 years, the World Health Organization (WHO) publishes reference charts based on 'core data' from the US National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), collected from 1963-75 on 22,917 US children. To promote the use of body mass index in older children, weight-for-age was omitted after age 10. Health providers have subsequently expressed concerns about this omission and the selection of centiles. We therefore sought to extend weight-for-age reference curves from 10 to 19 years by applying WHO exclusion criteria and curve fitting methods to the core NCHS data and to revise the choice of displayed centiles.MethodsWHO analysts first excluded ~ 3% of their reference population in order to achieve a "non-obese sample with equal height". Based on these exclusion criteria, 314 girls and 304 boys were first omitted for 'unhealthy' weights-for-height. By applying WHO global deviance and information criteria, optimal Box-Cox power exponential models were used to fit smoothed weight-for-age centiles. Bootstrap resampling was used to assess the precision of centile estimates. For all charts, additional centiles were included in the healthy range (3 to 97%), and the more extreme WHO centiles 0.1 and 99.9% were dropped.ResultsIn addition to weight-for-age beyond 10 years, our charts provide more granularity in the centiles in the healthy range -2 to +2 SD (3-97%). For both weight and BMI, the bootstrap confidence intervals for the 99.9th centile were at least an order of magnitude wider than the corresponding 50th centile values.ConclusionsThese charts complement existing WHO charts by allowing weight-for-age to be plotted concurrently with height in older children. All modifications followed strict WHO methodology and utilized the same core data from the US NCHS. The additional centiles permit a more precise assessment of normal growth and earlier detection of aberrant growth as it crosses centiles. Elimination of extreme centiles reduces the risk of misclassification. A complete set of charts is available at the CPEG web site (http://cpeg-gcep.net).

Project description:Approximately 11% of infants are born preterm, and complications of prematurity are the most common cause of death in children aged under five years. Almost one million preterm infants die each year across low, high and middle income countries. In 2021, the World Health Organization (WHO) convened a Guideline Development Group (GDG) to examine evidence and formulate recommendations for care of preterm or low birthweight (LBW) infants according to WHO Guideline Review Committee (GRC) criteria. GRADE methods were used to assess the certainty of evidence and the GDG developed judgements using the DECIDE (Developing and Evaluating Communication strategies to support Informed Decisions and practice based on Evidence) framework. Twenty-five recommendations were made; 11 recommendations were new, and 16 were for preventive and promotive care. Kangaroo Mother Care (KMC) was recommended to start immmediately after birth as routine care for all preterm or LBW newborns (except for critically ill infants who are in shock, unable to breath spontaneously after resuscitation, or require ventilatory support) both in the facility and at home. New recommendations were also made for caffeine to treat apnoea and for extubation; family involvement in routine care for preterm or LBW infants; and for post-discharge home-visit follow-up care. New recommendations were also made to consider use of probiotics, emollient therapy, caffeine for prevention of apnoea, continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) immediately after birth (with or without respiratory distress) in infants less than 32 weeks gestational age; and for family support to enable the care of preterm or LBW infants. The recommendations confirm the pivotal role of preventive and promotive care for preterm and LBW infants, especially the importance of keeping the baby and mother together, and empowering and supporting families to care for their preterm or LBW infant. WHO is now working to help scale up care for small and sick newborns, including organizational shifts in all 'health system building blocks' such as infrastructure, commodities, workforce and monitoring.FundingNil.

Project description:BackgroundWe assessed the impact of adopting the 2013 World Health Organization (WHO) diagnostic criteria on the rates of gestational diabetes (GDM), pregnancy outcomes and identification of women at future risk of type 2 diabetes.MethodsDuring a period when the 1999 WHO GDM criteria were in effect, pregnant women were universally screened using a one-step 75 g 2-h oral glucose tolerance test at 26-28 weeks' gestation. Women were retrospectively reclassified according to the 2013 criteria, but without the 1-h glycaemia measurement. Pregnancy outcomes and glucose tolerance at 4-5 years post-delivery were compared for women with GDM classified by the 1999 criteria alone, GDM by the 2013 criteria alone, GDM by both criteria and without GDM by both sets of criteria.ResultsOf 1092 women, 204 (18.7%) and 142 (13.0%) were diagnosed with GDM by the 1999 and 2013 WHO criteria, respectively, with 27 (2.5%) reclassified to GDM and 89 (8.2%) reclassified to non-GDM when shifting from the 1999 to 2013 criteria. Compared to women without GDM by both criteria, cases reclassified to GDM by the 2013 criteria had an increased risk of neonatal jaundice requiring phototherapy (relative risk (RR) = 2.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.32, 5.86); despite receiving treatment for GDM, cases reclassified to non-GDM by the 2013 criteria had higher risks of prematurity (RR = 2.17, 95% CI 1.12, 4.24), neonatal hypoglycaemia (RR = 3.42, 95% CI 1.04, 11.29), jaundice requiring phototherapy (RR = 1.71, 95% CI 1.04, 2.82), and a higher rate of abnormal glucose tolerance at 4-5 years post-delivery (RR = 3.39, 95% CI 2.30, 5.00).ConclusionsAdoption of the 2013 WHO criteria, without the 1-h glycaemia measurement, reduced the GDM rate. Lowering the fasting glucose threshold identified women who might benefit from treatment, but raising the 2-h threshold may fail to identify women at increased risk of adverse pregnancy and future metabolic outcomes.Trial registrationNCT01174875 . Registered 1 July 2010 (retrospectively registered).

Project description:The MDS-IWG and NCCN currently endorse both FAB and WHO classifications of MDS and AML, thus allowing patients with 20-30 % bone marrow blasts (AML20-30, formerly MDS-RAEB-t) to be categorised and treated as either MDS or AML. In addition, an artificial distinction between AML20-30 and AML30+ was made by regulatory agencies by initially restricting approval of azacitidine to AML20-30. Thus, uncertainty prevails regarding the diagnosis, prognosis and optimal treatment timing and strategy for patients with AML20-30. Here, we aim to provide clarification for patients treated with azacitidine front-line.The Austrian Azacitidine Registry is a multicentre database (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01595295). For this analysis, we selected 339 patients treated with azacitidine front-line. According to the WHO classification 53, 96 and 190 patients had MDS-RAEB-I, MDS-RAEB-II and AML (AML20-30: n?=?79; AML30+: n?=?111), respectively. According to the FAB classification, 131, 101 and 111 patients had MDS-RAEB, MDS-RAEB-t and AML, respectively.The median ages of patients with MDS and AML were 72 (range 37-87) and 77 (range 23-93) years, respectively. Overall, 80 % of classifiable patients (?30 % bone marrow blasts) had intermediate-2 or high-risk IPSS scores. Most other baseline, treatment and response characteristics were similar between patients diagnosed with MDS or AML. WHO-classified patients with AML20-30 had significantly worse OS than patients with MDS-RAEB-II (13.1 vs 18.9 months; p?=?0.010), but similar OS to patients with AML30+ (10.9 vs 13.1 months; p?=?0.238). AML patients that showed MDS-related features did not have worse outcomes compared with patients who did not (13.2 vs 8.9 months; p?=?0.104). FAB-classified patients with MDS-RAEB-t had similar survival to patients with AML30+ (12.8 vs 10.9 months; p?=?0.376), but significantly worse OS than patients with MDS-RAEB (10.9 vs 24.4 months; p?<?0.001).Our data demonstrate the validity of the WHO classification of MDS and AML, and its superiority over the former FAB classification, for patients treated with azacitidine front-line. Neither bone marrow blast count nor presence of MDS-related features had an adverse prognostic impact on survival. Patients with AML20-30 should therefore be regarded as having 'true AML' and in our opinion treatment should be initiated without delay.

Dataset Information

Asian Americans: diabetes prevalence across U.S. and World Health Organization weight classifications.

Objective

Research design and methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Asian Americans: diabetes prevalence across U.S. and World Health Organization weight classifications.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets