This review considers a variety of perspectives on overweight and obesity (OW/obesity), including measurement and classification; prevalence and changes in prevalence in recent years; genetic, biological, medical, individual, and social correlates of OW/obesity; and treatment approaches. Despite increased attention, OW/obesity is escalating in prevalence worldwide, and the causes are exceedingly complex. A range of innovative studies, including basic research on gut microflora, dietary composition, pharmacologic interventions, and surgical procedures, is generating findings with potential for future prevention and treatment of OW/obesity. Social system changes such as school programs and the awareness of the roles of personal, family, health provider, and cultural experiences related to OW/obesity have also gained traction for vital prevention and treatment efforts over the past decade.

No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundBlack persons have an excess burden of cardiovascular disease (CVD) compared with white persons. This burden persists after adjustment for socioeconomic status and other known CVD risk factors. This study evaluated the CVD burden and the socioeconomic gradient of CVD among black participants in the JHS (Jackson Heart Study).Methods and Results CVD burden was evaluated by comparing the observed prevalence of myocardial infarction, stroke, and hypertension in the JHS at baseline (2000–2004) with the expected prevalence according to US national surveys during a similar time period. The socioeconomic gradient of CVD was evaluated using logistic regression models. Compared with the national data, the JHS age‐ and sex‐standardized prevalence ratios for myocardial infarction, stroke, and hypertension were 1.07 (95% CI, 0.90–1.27), 1.46 (95% CI, 1.18–1.78), and 1.51 (95% CI, 1.42–1.60), respectively, in men and 1.50 (95% CI, 1.27–1.76), 1.33 (95% CI, 1.12–1.57), and 1.43 (95% CI, 1.37–1.50), respectively, in women. A significant and inverse relationship was observed between socioeconomic status and CVD within the JHS cohort. The strongest and most consistent socioeconomic correlate after adjusting for age and sex was income for myocardial infarction (odds ratio: 3.53; 95% CI, 2.31–5.40) and stroke (odds ratio: 3.73; 95% CI, 2.32–5.97), comparing the poor and affluent income categories.ConclusionsExcept for myocardial infarction in men, CVD burden in the JHS cohort was higher than expected. A strong inverse socioeconomic gradient of CVD was also observed within the JHS cohort.

<p class="Pa5"><strong>Objectives: </strong>1) To examine the association of multiple dimensions of discrimination with reported trust and satisfaction with providers; 2) to report within-group differences among African Americans (AAs). </p><p class="Pa5"><strong>Methods: </strong>Descriptive cross sectional study. The study population included AAs aged 35 to 84 years from the Jackson Heart Study (JHS) (N=5,301). Poisson regression (PR) was used to quantify the association between perceived discrimination and reported trust and satisfaction with providers before and after controlling for selected characteristics. </p><p class="Pa5"><strong>Main Measures: </strong>Measures of perceived discrimination included everyday, lifetime, burden from lifetime discrimination, and stress from discrimination. Outcomes included trust and satisfaction with providers. </p><p class="Pa5"><strong>Results: </strong>The mean everyday discrimination score was 2.11 (SD±1.02), and the mean lifetime discrimination score was 2.92 (SD±2.12). High (vs low) levels of everyday discrimination were associated with a 3% reduction in the prevalence of trust in providers (PR .97, 95% CI .96, .99) in all models. In fully-adjusted models, high (vs low) lifetime discrimination was associated with a 4% reduction in the prevalence of trust and satisfaction (PR .96, 95% CI .95, .98). Burden of discrimination was not associated with trust or satisfaction, but stress from discrimination was inversely associated with satisfaction. </p><p class="Pa5"><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The significant association between discrimination and mistrust and dissatisfaction suggests that health care providers should be made aware of AA perceptions of discrimination, which likely affects their levels of trust and satisfaction.</p><p class="Pa5"><em>Ethn Dis. </em>2017;27(3):209-216; doi:10.18865/ed.27.3.209 </p>

Objective: The objective of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness of inorganic nitrate on blood pressure in hypertensive adults. Introduction: Hypertension is associated with increased risk of morbidity and mortality in adults. Inorganic nitrate could be beneficial for lowering blood pressure and reducing cardiovascular disease risks. Evidence related to the treatment of hypertension through sources of inorganic nitrate has been presented. Inclusion criteria: The review considered studies on adults aged 18 years and over, with blood pressure greater than 120/80 mmHg, undergoing interventions focusing on the effects of inorganic nitrate on blood pressure. Studies that included inorganic nitrate intake via dietary modification, in the form of a dietary supplement, and/or by the consumption of beetroot juice were considered. The comparator was no intervention of inorganic nitrate; different dosage, frequency, duration of inorganic nitrate; and other interventions that are administered to reduce and manage blood pressure. The primary outcomes were systolic and diastolic blood pressure effects. Experimental, quasi-experimental, analytical observational and pilot study designs were considered for inclusion. Methods: Databases were searched for published and unpublished studies, available in English, from January 2013 to January 2018. Critical appraisal was conducted using standardized instruments from the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) and the methodological quality of included studies was considered to be moderate. Data were extracted using the JBI data extraction instrument. Data were presented in a narrative form due to the heterogeneity of included studies. Results: Twelve papers were included in the systematic review with a total of 321 participants. Ten were randomized controlled trials and two were quasi-experimental studies. All participants had baseline blood pressures greater than 120/80 mmHg. Some studies included participants with comorbidities such as diabetes or heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Inorganic nitrate was administered multiple ways throughout the studies including the following: beetroot juice, beetroot gel, nitric oxide lozenge, high nitrate diet, and raw and cooked beet juice. Doses and treatment intervals varied. Some studies included exercise as part of the intervention protocol. Meta-analysis was not conducted due to heterogeneity that existed within the studies. Blood pressure was measured in multiple settings by manual, digital or ambulatory means. The noted outcome patterns were as follows: no change in systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure, decrease in systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure, or decrease in systolic blood pressure with no change in diastolic blood pressure. Possible reasons for the diverse findings include the following: age, comorbidities, use of antihypertensives by participants; source and dose of nitrate; and intervention and follow-up time frames. Conclusions: There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of inorganic nitrate for any effect on blood pressure at this time. Therefore, there is no concrete base for the development of practice guidelines until stronger evidence becomes available. The gaps in the literature along with the study limitations identified necessitate the need for more research on inorganic nitrate and how it relates to blood pressure.

Specific patient factors and individual medication classes were associated with distinct patterns of intentional and unintentional non-adherence, yet the overall modest discrimination of the models suggests contributions from other unmeasured factors. These findings provide a construct for understanding reasons for non-adherence and provide rationale to assess whether personalized interventions can improve adherence.

The Collaborative Cohort of Cohorts for COVID-19 Research (C4R) is a national prospective study of adults comprising 14 established United States (US) prospective cohort studies. Starting as early as 1971, C4R cohorts have collected data on clinical and subclinical diseases and their risk factors, including behavior, cognition, biomarkers, and social determinants of health. C4R links this pre-COVID phenotyping to information on SARS-CoV-2 infection and acute and post-acute COVID-related illness. C4R is largely population-based, has an age range of 18–108 years, and reflects the racial, ethnic, socioeconomic, and geographic diversity of the US. C4R ascertains SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 illness using standardized questionnaires, ascertainment of COVID-related hospitalizations and deaths, and a SARS-CoV-2 serosurvey via dried blood spots. Master protocols leverage existing robust retention rates for telephone and in-person examinations, and high-quality events surveillance. Extensive pre-pandemic data minimize referral, survival, and recall bias. Data are harmonized with research-quality phenotyping unmatched by clinical and survey-based studies; these will be pooled and shared widely to expedite collaboration and scientific findings. This resource will allow evaluation of risk and resilience factors for COVID-19 severity and outcomes, including post-acute sequelae, and assessment of the social and behavioral impact of the pandemic on long-term trajectories of health.