Dataset Information

A statin a day keeps the doctor away: comparative proverb assessment modelling study

ABSTRACT: Objective To model the effect on UK vascular mortality of all adults over 50 years old being prescribed either a statin or an apple a day. Design Comparative proverb assessment modelling study. Setting United Kingdom. Population Adults aged over 50 years. Intervention Either a statin a day for people not already taking a statin or an apple a day for everyone, assuming 70% compliance and no change in calorie consumption. The modelling used routinely available UK population datasets; parameters describing the relations between statins, apples, and health were derived from meta-analyses. Main outcome measure Mortality due to vascular disease. Results The estimated annual reduction in deaths from vascular disease of a statin a day, assuming 70% compliance and a reduction in vascular mortality of 12% (95% confidence interval 9% to 16%) per 1.0 mmol/L reduction in low density lipoprotein cholesterol, is 9400 (7000 to 12 500). The equivalent reduction from an apple a day, modelled using the PRIME model (assuming an apple weighs 100 g and that overall calorie consumption remains constant) is 8500 (95% credible interval 6200 to 10 800). Conclusions Both nutritional and pharmaceutical approaches to the prevention of vascular disease may have the potential to reduce UK mortality significantly. With similar reductions in mortality, a 150 year old health promotion message is able to match modern medicine and is likely to have fewer side effects.

SUBMITTER: Briggs A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3898162 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Fruit consumption is believed to have beneficial health effects, and some claim, "An apple a day keeps the doctor away."To examine the relationship between eating an apple a day and keeping the doctor away.A cross-sectional study of a nationally representative sample of the noninstitutionalized US adult population. A total of 8728 adults 18 years and older from the 2007-2008 and 2009-2010 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey completed a 24-hour dietary recall questionnaire and reported that the quantity of food they ate was reflective of their usual daily diet.Daily apple eaters (consuming the equivalent of at least 1 small apple daily, or 149 g of raw apple) vs non-apple eaters, based on the reported quantity of whole apple consumed during the 24-hour dietary recall period.The primary outcome measure was success at "keeping the doctor away," measured as no more than 1 visit (self-reported) to a physician during the past year; secondary outcomes included successful avoidance of other health care services (ie, no overnight hospital stays, visits to a mental health professional, or prescription medications).Of 8399 eligible study participants who completed the dietary recall questionnaire, we identified 753 adult apple eaters (9.0%)--those who typically consume at least 1 small apple per day. Compared with the 7646 non-apple eaters (91.0%), apple eaters had higher educational attainment, were more likely to be from a racial or ethnic minority, and were less likely to smoke (P<.001 for each comparison). Apple eaters were more likely, in the crude analysis, to keep the doctor (and prescription medications) away: 39.0% of apple eaters avoided physician visits vs 33.9% of non-apple eaters (P=.03). After adjusting for sociodemographic and health-related characteristics, however, the association was no longer statistically significant (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.93-1.53; P=.15). In the adjusted analysis, apple eaters also remained marginally more successful at avoiding prescription medications (odds ratio, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.00-1.63). There were no differences seen in overnight hospital stay or mental health visits.Evidence does not support that an apple a day keeps the doctor away; however, the small fraction of US adults who eat an apple a day do appear to use fewer prescription medications.

Project description:Smoking leads to the development of automatic tendencies that promote approach behavior toward smoking-related stimuli which in turn may maintain addictive behavior. The present study examined whether automatic approach tendencies toward smoking-related stimuli can be measured by using an adapted version of the Approach-Avoidance Task (AAT). Given that progression of addictive behavior has been associated with a decreased reactivity of the brain reward system for stimuli signaling natural rewards, we also used the AAT to measure approach behavior toward natural rewarding stimuli in smokers. During the AAT, 92 smokers and 51 non-smokers viewed smoking-related vs. non-smoking-related pictures and pictures of natural rewards (i.e. highly palatable food) vs. neutral pictures. They were instructed to ignore image content and to respond to picture orientation by either pulling or pushing a joystick. Within-group comparisons revealed that smokers showed an automatic approach bias exclusively for smoking-related pictures. Contrary to our expectations, there was no difference in smokers' and non-smokers' approach bias for nicotine-related stimuli, indicating that non-smokers also showed approach tendencies for this picture category. Yet, in contrast to non-smokers, smokers did not show an approach bias for food-related pictures. Moreover, self-reported smoking attitude could not predict approach-avoidance behavior toward nicotine-related pictures in smokers or non-smokers. Our findings indicate that the AAT is suited for measuring smoking-related approach tendencies in smokers. Furthermore, we provide evidence for a diminished approach tendency toward food-related stimuli in smokers, suggesting a decreased sensitivity to natural rewards in the course of nicotine addiction. Our results indicate that in contrast to similar studies conducted in alcohol, cannabis and heroin users, the AAT might only be partially suited for measuring smoking-related approach tendencies in smokers. Nevertheless, our findings are of special importance for current etiological models and smoking cessation programs aimed at modifying nicotine-related approach tendencies in the context of a nicotine addiction.

Project description:BackgroundIn March, 2016, the UK Government proposed a tiered levy on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs; high tax for drinks with >8 g of sugar per 100 mL, moderate tax for 5-8 g, and no tax for <5 g). We estimate the effect of possible industry responses to the levy on obesity, diabetes, and dental caries.MethodsWe modelled three possible industry responses: reformulation to reduce sugar concentration, an increase of product price, and a change of the market share of high-sugar, mid-sugar, and low-sugar drinks. For each response, we defined a better-case and worse-case health scenario. We developed a comparative risk assessment model to estimate the UK health impact of each scenario on prevalence of obesity and incidence of dental caries and type 2 diabetes. The model combined data for sales and consumption of SSBs, disease incidence and prevalence, price elasticity estimates, and estimates of the association between SSB consumption and disease outcomes. We drew the disease association parameters from a meta-analysis of experimental studies (SSBs and weight change), a meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies (type 2 diabetes), and a prospective cohort study (dental caries).FindingsThe best modelled scenario for health is SSB reformulation, resulting in a reduction of 144 383 (95% uncertainty interval 5102-306 743; 0·9%) of 15 470 813 adults and children with obesity in the UK, 19 094 (6920-32 678; incidence reduction of 31·1 per 100 000 person-years) fewer incident cases of type 2 diabetes per year, and 269 375 (82 211-470 928; incidence reduction of 4·4 per 1000 person-years) fewer decayed, missing, or filled teeth annually. An increase in the price of SSBs in the better-case scenario would result in 81 594 (3588-182 669; 0·5%) fewer adults and children with obesity, 10 861 (3899-18 964; 17·7) fewer incident cases of diabetes per year, and 149 378 (45 231-262 013; 2·4) fewer decayed, missing, or filled teeth annually. Changes to market share to increase the proportion of low-sugar drinks sold in the better-case scenario would result in 91 042 (4289-204 903; 0·6%) fewer adults and children with diabetes, 1528 (4414-21 785; 19·7) fewer incident cases of diabetes per year, and 172 718 (47 919-294 499; 2·8) fewer decayed, missing, or filled teeth annually. The greatest benefit for obesity and oral health would be among individuals aged younger than 18 years, with people aged older than 65 years having the largest absolute decreases in diabetes incidence.InterpretationThe health impact of the soft drinks levy is dependent on its implementation by industry. Uncertainty exists as to how industry will react and about estimation of health outcomes. Health gains could be maximised by substantial product reformulation, with additional benefits possible if the levy is passed on to purchasers through raising of the price of high-sugar and mid-sugar drinks and activities to increase the market share of low-sugar products.FundingNone.

Dataset Information

A statin a day keeps the doctor away: comparative proverb assessment modelling study

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets