Context: Body mass index (BMI) is widely used as a measure of overweight and obesity, but underestimates the prevalence of both conditions, defined as an excess of body fat. Objective: We assessed the degree of misclassification on the diagnosis of obesity using BMI as compared with direct body fat percentage (BF%) determination and compared the cardiovascular and metabolic risk of non-obese and obese BMI-classified subjects with similar BF%. Design: We performed a cross-sectional study. Subjects: A total of 6123 (924 lean, 1637 overweight and 3562 obese classified according to BMI) Caucasian subjects (69% females), aged 18-80 years. Methods: BMI, BF% determined by air displacement plethysmography and well-established blood markers of insulin sensitivity, lipid profile and cardiovascular risk were measured. Results: We found that 29% of subjects classified as lean and 80% of individuals classified as overweight according to BMI had a BF% within the obesity range. Importantly, the levels of cardiometabolic risk factors, such as C-reactive protein, were higher in lean and overweight BMI-classified subjects with BF% within the obesity range (men 4.3 ± 9.2, women 4.9 ± 19.5 mg l À1 ) as well as in obese BMI-classified individuals (men 4.2 ± 5.5, women 5.1 ± 13.2 mg l À1 ) compared with lean volunteers with normal body fat amounts (men 0.9 ± 0.5, women 2.1 ± 2.6 mg l À1 ; Po0.001 for both genders). Conclusion: Given the elevated concentrations of cardiometabolic risk factors reported herein in non-obese individuals according to BMI but obese based on body fat, the inclusion of body composition measurements together with morbidity evaluation in the routine medical practice both for the diagnosis and the decision-making for instauration of the most appropriate treatment of obesity is desirable.

that has been made in this area, even in a short period of time. Tobacco dependence is increasingly acknowledged as a chronic condition that can require multiple interventions. In addition, recent evidence supports the critical role of counseling, in individual and group interventions, as well as in conjunction with pharmacological treatment.The evidence-based selection method was applied in order to identify appropriate references in the specialized litera- IntroductionThis update represents the strong commitment of the Brazilian Thoracic Association to smoking cessation. It provides health professionals with a comprehensive instrument to deal with the principal aspects of tobacco dependence. It includes new and effective clinical treatments and highlights changes in procedures in certain situations.The comparison between this content and that of the previous guidelines shows the significant scientific progress The use of the strength of recommendation associated with the bibliographic citations in the text has as the following principal objectives: to clarify the information source; to stimulate the search for stronger scientific evidence; and to introduce a didactic and simple way to aid in the critical evaluation on the part of the reader, who is the one responsible for making the decisions concerning the patient being treated. Diagnostic approach Clinical evaluationThe smoker should be submitted to clinical evaluation upon admission to the smoking cessation program. The objective is to identify functional alterations in the lungs, the existence of smoking related diseases (SRDs), possible contraindications and drug interactions during the pharmacological treatment of the dependence. The profile of the smoker, the level of nicotine dependence and the motivation to stop smoking are also evaluated at this time.This evaluation (Chart 1) should include accurate clinical history, complete physical examination, and some complementary tests, depending on local diagnostic resources.Chest X-ray is an essential tool during the treatment. A good physician-patient relationship, together with professional sensitivity and observation skills, will indicate the most appropriate time. Some people are afraid of what they might find, avoiding treatment so that they do not have to face the situation. ture. This was followed by critical review by pairs, who ultimately presented their recommendations.The decision to adopt any of these guidelines should be made by the professional, taking into consideration the resources available in the locale and the specific circumstances of the patient. Although this document describes the principal recommendations in each situation, there is limited space for publishing. Therefore, additional references are provided to those interested in broadening their scientific knowledge on this subject.These guidelines are an up-to-date and comprehensive tool to aid health professionals in treating smokers, in public or private health care clinics. This is the role of the government and the public poli...

Obesity is the major risk factor for the development of prediabetes and type 2 diabetes. BMI is widely used as a surrogate measure of obesity, but underestimates the prevalence of obesity, defined as an excess of body fat. We assessed the presence of impaired glucose tolerance or impaired fasting glucose (both considered together as prediabetes) or type 2 diabetes in relation to the criteria used for the diagnosis of obesity using BMI as compared to body fat percentage (BF%). We performed a cross‐sectional study including 4,828 (587 lean, 1,320 overweight, and 2,921 obese classified according to BMI) white subjects (66% females), aged 18–80 years. BMI, BF% determined by air‐displacement plethysmography (ADP) and conventional blood markers of glucose metabolism and lipid profile were measured. We found a higher than expected number of subjects with prediabetes or type 2 diabetes in the obese category according to BF% when the sample was globally analyzed (P < 0.0001) and in the lean BMI‐classified subjects (P < 0.0001), but not in the overweight or obese‐classified individuals. Importantly, BF% was significantly higher in lean (by BMI) women with prediabetes or type 2 diabetes as compared to those with normoglycemia (NG) (35.5 ± 7.0 vs. 30.3 ± 7.7%, P < 0.0001), whereas no differences were observed for BMI. Similarly, increased BF% was found in lean BMI‐classified men with prediabetes or type 2 diabetes (25.2 ± 9.0 vs. 19.9 ± 8.0%, P = 0.008), exhibiting no differences in BMI or waist circumference. In conclusion, assessing BF% may help to diagnose disturbed glucose tolerance beyond information provided by BMI and waist circumference in particular in male subjects with BMI <25 kg/m2 and over the age of 40.

A multifaceted approach to severe sepsis and septic shock patients in an emerging country setting led to high compliance with the resuscitation bundle. The intervention was cost-effective and associated with a reduction in mortality.

ObjectiveThe current definition of severe sepsis and septic shock includes a heterogeneous profile of patients. Although the prognostic value of hyperlactatemia is well established, hyperlactatemia is observed in patients with and without shock. The present study aimed to compare the prognosis of septic patients by stratifying them according to two factors: hyperlactatemia and persistent hypotension. MethodsThe present study is a secondary analysis of an observational study conducted in ten hospitals in Brazil (Rede Amil - SP). Septic patients with initial lactate measurements in the first 6 hours of diagnosis were included and divided into 4 groups according to hyperlactatemia (lactate >4mmol/L) and persistent hypotension: (1) severe sepsis (without both criteria); (2) cryptic shock (hyperlactatemia without persistent hypotension); (3) vasoplegic shock (persistent hypotension without hyperlactatemia); and (4) dysoxic shock (both criteria). ResultsIn total, 1,948 patients were analyzed, and the sepsis group represented 52% of the patients, followed by 28% with vasoplegic shock, 12% with dysoxic shock and 8% with cryptic shock. Survival at 28 days differed among the groups (p<0.001). Survival was highest among the severe sepsis group (69%, p<0.001 versus others), similar in the cryptic and vasoplegic shock groups (53%, p=0.39), and lowest in the dysoxic shock group (38%, p<0.001 versus others). In the adjusted analysis, the survival at 28 days remained different among the groups (p<0.001) and the dysoxic shock group exhibited the highest hazard ratio (HR=2.99, 95%CI 2.21-4.05). ConclusionThe definition of sepsis includes four different profiles if we consider the presence of hyperlactatemia. Further studies are needed to better characterize septic patients, to understand the etiology and to design adequate targeted treatments.