Metabolic syndrome, variously known also as syndrome X, insulin resistance, etc., is defined by WHO as a pathologic condition characterized by abdominal obesity, insulin resistance, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia. Though there is some variation in the definition by other health care organization, the differences are minor. With the successful conquest of communicable infectious diseases in most of the world, this new non-communicable disease (NCD) has become the major health hazard of modern world. Though it started in the Western world, with the spread of the Western lifestyle across the globe, it has become now a truly global problem. The prevalence of the metabolic syndrome is often more in the urban population of some developing countries than in its Western counterparts. The two basic forces spreading this malady are the increase in consumption of high calorie-low fiber fast food and the decrease in physical activity due to mechanized transportations and sedentary form of leisure time activities. The syndrome feeds into the spread of the diseases like type 2 diabetes, coronary diseases, stroke, and other disabilities. The total cost of the malady including the cost of health care and loss of potential economic activity is in trillions. The present trend is not sustainable unless a magic cure is found (unlikely) or concerted global/governmental/societal efforts are made to change the lifestyle that is promoting it. There are certainly some elements in the causation of the metabolic syndrome that cannot be changed but many are amenable for corrections and curtailments. For example, better urban planning to encourage active lifestyle, subsidizing consumption of whole grains and possible taxing high calorie snacks, restricting media advertisement of unhealthy food, etc. Revitalizing old fashion healthier lifestyle, promoting old-fashioned foods using healthy herbs rather than oil and sugar, and educating people about choosing healthy/wholesome food over junks are among the steps that can be considered.

BACKGROUND Inflammation is causally related to atherothrombosis. Treatment with canakinumab, a monoclonal antibody that inhibits inflammation by neutralizing interleukin-1β, resulted in a lower rate of cardiovascular events than placebo in a previous randomized trial. We sought to determine whether an alternative approach to inflammation inhibition with low-dose methotrexate might provide similar benefit. METHODS We conducted a randomized, double-blind trial of low-dose methotrexate (at a target dose of 15 to 20 mg weekly) or matching placebo in 4786 patients with previous myocardial infarction or multivessel coronary disease who additionally had either type 2 diabetes or the metabolic syndrome. All participants received 1 mg of folate daily. The primary end point at the onset of the trial was a composite of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or cardiovascular death. Near the conclusion of the trial, but before unblinding, hospitalization for unstable angina that led to urgent revascularization was added to the primary end point. RESULTS The trial was stopped after a median follow-up of 2.3 years. Methotrexate did not result in lower interleukin-1β, interleukin-6, or C-reactive protein levels than placebo. The final primary end point occurred in 201 patients in the methotrexate group and in 207 in the placebo group (incidence rate, 4.13 vs. 4.31 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.16). The original primary end point occurred in 170 patients in the methotrexate group and in 167 in the placebo group (incidence rate, 3.46 vs. 3.43 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.25). Methotrexate was associated with elevations in liver-enzyme levels, reductions in leukocyte counts and hematocrit levels, and a higher incidence of non–basal-cell skin cancers than placebo. CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable atherosclerosis, low-dose methotrexate did not reduce levels of interleukin-1β, interleukin-6, or C-reactive protein and did not result in fewer cardiovascular events than placebo. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; CIRT ClinicalTrials.gov number, .)

No abstract

BackgroundHypertension and proteinuria are critically involved in the progression of chronic kidney disease. Despite treatment with renin angiotensin system inhibition, kidney function declines in many patients. Aldosterone excess is a risk factor for progression of kidney disease. Hyperkalaemia is a concern with the use of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. We aimed to determine whether the renal protective benefits of mineralocorticoid antagonists outweigh the risk of hyperkalaemia associated with this treatment in patients with chronic kidney disease.MethodsWe conducted a meta-analysis investigating renoprotective effects and risk of hyperkalaemia in trials of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists in chronic kidney disease. Trials were identified from MEDLINE (1966–2014), EMBASE (1947–2014) and the Cochrane Clinical Trials Database. Unpublished summary data were obtained from investigators. We included randomised controlled trials, and the first period of randomised cross over trials lasting ≥4 weeks in adults.ResultsNineteen trials (21 study groups, 1 646 patients) were included. In random effects meta-analysis, addition of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists to renin angiotensin system inhibition resulted in a reduction from baseline in systolic blood pressure (−5.7 [−9.0, −2.3] mmHg), diastolic blood pressure (−1.7 [−3.4, −0.1] mmHg) and glomerular filtration rate (−3.2 [−5.4, −1.0] mL/min/1.73 m2). Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonism reduced weighted mean protein/albumin excretion by 38.7 % but with a threefold higher relative risk of withdrawing from the trial due to hyperkalaemia (3.21, [1.19, 8.71]). Death, cardiovascular events and hard renal end points were not reported in sufficient numbers to analyse.ConclusionsMineralocorticoid receptor antagonism reduces blood pressure and urinary protein/albumin excretion with a quantifiable risk of hyperkalaemia above predefined study upper limit.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12882-016-0337-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract