Yohei Oda

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Metabolically healthy obesity (MHO) is a unique obesity phenotype that apparently protects people from the metabolic complications of obesity. The association between MHO phenotype and incident CKD is unclear. Thus, this study investigated the association between MHO phenotype and incident CKD. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: A total of 3136 Japanese participants were enrolled in an 8-year follow-up cohort study in 2001. Metabolically healthy status was assessed by common clinical markers: BP, triglycerides, HDL cholesterol, and fasting plasma glucose concentrations. Body mass index ≥25.0 kg/m(2) was defined as obesity. CKD was defined by proteinuria or eGFR of <60 ml/min per 1.73 m(2). To calculate the odds ratio for incident CKD, logistic regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: The crude incidence proportions of CKD were 2.6% (56 of 2122 participants) in participants with the metabolically healthy nonobesity phenotype, 2.6% (8 of 302) in those with the MHO phenotype, 6.7% (30 of 445) in those with the metabolically abnormal nonobesity phenotype, and 10.9% (29 of 267) in those with the metabolically abnormal obesity phenotype. Compared with metabolically healthy nonobesity phenotype, the odds ratios for incident CKD were 0.83 (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.36 to 1.72; P=0.64) for MHO, 1.44 (95% CI, 0.80 to 2.57; P=0.22) for metabolically abnormal nonobesity, and 2.80 (95% CI, 1.45 to 5.35; P=0.02) for metabolically abnormal obesity phenotype after adjustment for confounders, including age, sex, smoking statues, alcohol use, creatinine, uric acid, systolic BP, HDL cholesterol, and impaired fasting glucose or diabetes. CONCLUSION: MHO phenotype was not associated with higher risk of incident CKD.

Skipping breakfast or irregular breakfast is associated with poor glycemic control. However, a relationship between the timing of dinner and glycemic control in people with type 2 diabetes remains indefinite. Therefore, we investigated the relationship between late-night-dinner and glycemic control in people with type 2 diabetes. We performed questionnaire survey for lifestyle factors in this cross-sectional study. We defined having dinner later than eight pm as late-night-dinner. We examined the differences in clinical and metabolic parameters between those who have late-night-dinner and those who do not have. We also examined the relationship between late-night-dinner and HbA1c, using multiple regression analysis. Ninety-five people (23.2%) had a late-night-dinner, among 409 people with type 2 diabetes. Metabolic parameters (mean (SD) or median (interquartile range)) of people with late-night-dinner were worse than those of without, including body mass index (BMI) (24.4 (4.0) vs. 23.2 (3.4) kg/m2, p = 0.006), triglycerides (1.5 (1.1–2.1) vs. 1.2 (0.8–1.7) mmol/L, p < 0.001), HDL-cholesterol (1.4 (0.4) vs. 1.6 (0.4) mmol/L, p = 0.004) and hemoglobin A1c (58.1 (13.3) vs. 55.2 (10.2) mmol/mol, (7.5 (1.2) vs. 7.2 (0.9) %), p = 0.023)). Late-night-dinner (standardized regression coefficient = 0.13, p = 0.028) was associated with hemoglobin A1c after adjusting for age, BMI, sex, duration of diabetes, smoking, exercise, alcohol, snacking after dinner, nighttime sleep duration, time from dinner to bedtime, skipping breakfast, and medication for diabetes. Late-night-dinner is independently associated with poor glycemic control in people with type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Multislice computed tomography (MSCT) permits direct visualization of not only coronary artery stenosis but also the characteristics of plaques in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Also, because of its potential to be a novel risk factor for cardiovascular disease, interest in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is increasing. METHODS AND RESULTS: Participants comprised 298 consecutive patients who received MSCT to diagnose CAD. Patients with an alcohol intake exceeding 20 g/day or with a history of known liver disease were excluded from the study. Liver steatosis and 4 coronary artery findings, including remodeling lesions, lipid core plaques, calcified plaques and narrowing of lumen, were assessed. Liver steatosis was evaluated by computed tomography density of the liver and spleen. In the study, NAFLD was defined as having a liver and spleen (L:S) ratio of <1.1. The L:S ratios of patients with remodeling lesions or lipid core plaques were significantly lower than those without. NAFLD was related significantly to those findings, but there was no correlation between calcified plaques, narrowing of lumen and L:S ratios. Adjusted odds ratio of NAFLD for remodeling lesions was 2.41 (95% confidence interval (CI), 1.24-4.67; p=0.009), and those for lipid core lesions was 2.29 (95% CI, 1.15-4.56; p=0.018). CONCLUSION: NAFLD is a novel risk factor for vulnerable plaques.