| Literature DB >> 34327498 |
Sophia Figueroa Katz1,2, Fatima Rodriguez1, Joshua W Knowles1,3,4.
Abstract
Cardiometabolic risk factors in children and adolescents track into adulthood and are associated with increased risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. The purpose of this review is to examine the pervasive race and ethnic disparities in cardiometabolic risk factors among Black and Hispanic youth in the United States. We focus on three traditional cardiometabolic risk factors (obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and dyslipidemia) as well as on the emerging cardiometabolic risk factor of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Additionally, we highlight interventions aimed at improving cardiometabolic health among these minority pediatric populations. Finally, we advocate for continued research on effective prevention strategies to reduce cardiometabolic risk and avert further disparities in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.Entities:
Keywords: Diabetes; Disparities; Hyperlipidemia; NAFLD; Obesity; Pediatrics; Race/ethnicity
Year: 2021 PMID: 34327498 PMCID: PMC8315636 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajpc.2021.100175
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Am J Prev Cardiol ISSN: 2666-6677
Fig. 1Prevalence of obesity (A), type 2 diabetes (B), dyslipidemia* (C), and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (D) among children and adolescents by race and Hispanic origin in the United States.
*Dyslipidemia is defined as high non-HDL-C.
NAFLD=non-alcoholic fatty liver disease; non-HDL-C= non high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; T2D=Type 2 diabetes mellitus.
Interventions to reduce cardiometabolic risk factors in diverse pediatric populations.
| Trial,year | # | Age in years | % Black | % Hispanic | Follow-up time | Significant findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bright Bodies2011 | 174 | 8–12 | 39% | 25% | 2 years | 1. Design: Parallel group, RCT with a 12-month extension phase involving children with BMI≥95th percentile in a pediatric obesity clinic in CT. 2. Intervention: 1-year intervention offered at school was tailored to inner-city, ethnically diverse populations and consisted of exercise twice and nutrition/behavior modification once per week (with caregivers attending the nutrition component) vs. usual care at the obesity clinic. 3. Outcomes: Treatment effect was sustained at 2 years in the intervention group vs. control group for BMI |
| TODAY2015 | 699 | 10–17 | 33% | 40% | 2–6.5 years | 1. Design: Multicenter, RCT for youth with recent-onset T2D and BMI≥85th percentile, comparing metformin monotherapy, metformin + rosiglitazone, and metformin + intensive lifestyle intervention program. 2. Intervention: The lifestyle intervention involved a family-based, behavioral approach to weight loss. 3. Primary outcome: Rate of glycemic control loss (defined as glycated hemoglobin level of at least 8% for 6 months or sustained metabolic decompensation requiring insulin) was 51.7% for metformin alone, 38.6% for metformin + rosiglitazone, and 46.6% for metformin + lifestyle intervention. Metformin + rosiglitazone was significantly superior to metformin alone ( |
| Connect for Health2017 | 721 | 2–12 | 33% | 22% | 1 year | 1. Design: Two-arm, blinded, RCT for children with BMI≥85th percentile involving 6 pediatric primary care practices in MA to support behavior change and linkage of families to neighborhood resources. 2. Intervention: 1-year intervention of enhanced primary care (flagging and clinical decision support tools for pediatric weight management, caregiver educational materials, a Neighborhood Resource Guide, and monthly text messages) plus contextually-tailored, individual health coaching vs. enhanced primary care alone. 3. Primary outcome: BMI |
| FAMILIA2019 | 562 | 3–5 | 37% | 54% | 5 months | 1. Design: Cluster-RCT involving 15 Head Start preschools in NY to teach healthy diet, physical activity, body/heart awareness, and emotion management. 2. Intervention: 4-month (50 h) educational intervention for children and caregivers. Control: Standard curriculum. 3. Primary outcome: Change from baseline to 5 months in the overall knowledge, attitudes, and habits score was ~2.2 fold higher in the intervention group [difference of 2.86 points (95% CI: 0.58–5.14 points; |