Kayalauesen4434

Obesity affects health-related quality of life (QoL); however, their relationship among elderly Asians is not well known.

Relationship of domain-specific QoL with body mass index (BMI) and waist circumference and the sex differences were investigated using a nationally representative sample of elderly Korean population.

In the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey phase VII (2016-2018), 3659 adults aged ≥ 65years (1551 men and 2108 women) participated. BMI and waist circumference were classified according to Asian- and Korean-specific criteria. QoL was evaluated using the European Quality of Life Scale-Five Dimensions (EQ-5D). Multivariable logistic regressions were used to examine the relationship of QoL with BMI and waist circumference.

Men with BMI < 18.5kg/m

and ≥ 25.0kg/m

had a significant association with poor QoL in mobility and self-care, but no relationship was found with the other domains. Women with BMI ≥ 25.0kg/m

had poor QoL in mobility and self-care, and those with BMI ≥ 30.0kg/m

had poor QoL in usual activities and pain/discomfort. There was no significant association with anxiety/depression. Both elderly men and women with abdominal obesity had a significant association with poor QoL in mobility, self-care, usual activities, and pain/discomfort; however, there was no significant relationship with waist circumference and anxiety/depression.

The association between QoL and BMI was different according to sex and the domains of QoL. Domain-specific QoL should be considered in the management of body weight of the elderly.

The association between QoL and BMI was different according to sex and the domains of QoL. Domain-specific QoL should be considered in the management of body weight of the elderly.Recent studies have identified notable disparities in SARS-CoV-2 infection risk among ethnic minorities. We evaluated SARS-CoV-2 test results from individuals presenting for testing in Los Angeles between June and December, 2020. We calculated prevalence ratios for various employment categories. Among 518,914 test results, of which 295,295 (56.9%) were from individuals reporting Hispanic ethnicity, SARS-CoV-2 positivity was 16.5% among Hispanic individuals compared to 5.0% among non-Hispanic individuals (p-value less then 0.01). The prevalence ratios comparing Hispanic and non-Hispanic individuals were highest for members of the media (PR = 6.7; 95% CI 4.3-10.4), government employees (PR = 4.0; 95% CI 3.3-4.9), and agricultural workers (PR = 4.0; 95% CI 3.2-5.0). click here Such heterogeneity warrants further investigation in order to develop targeted public health interventions towards specific drivers of SARS-CoV-2 transmission.Family health history (FHH) is a valuable yet underused healthcare tool for assessing health risks for both prevalent disorders like diabetes, cancer, and cardiovascular diseases, and for rare, monogenic disorders. Full implementation of FHH collection and analysis in healthcare could improve both primary and secondary disease prevention for individuals and, through cascade testing, make at risk family members eligible for pre-symptomatic testing and preventative interventions. In addition to risk assessment in the clinic, FHH is increasingly important for interpreting clinical genetic testing results and for research connecting health risks to genomic variation. Despite this value, diverse implementation gaps in clinical settings undermine its potential clinical value and limit the quality of connected health and genomic data. The NHGRI Family Health History Group, an open-membership, US-based group with international members, believes that integrating FHH in healthcare and research is more important than ever, and that achievable implementation advances, including education, are urgently needed to boost the pace of translational utility in genomic medicine. An inventory of implementation gaps and proposed achievable strategies to address them, representing a consensus developed in meetings from 2019-2020, is presented here. The proposed measures are diverse, interdisciplinary, and are guided by experience and ongoing implementation and research efforts.Since the first outbreak of Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) in January 2020, the medical community has been pursuing effective countermeasures. Early in the pandemic, several small clinical and in vitro studies from France and China reported on the efficacy of chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) against SARS-CoV-2 infections, which generated global attention towards these decades-old antimalarials (AM) and heralded numerous studies investigating their role in treating COVID-19. Despite several observational studies early in the pandemic affirming their beneficial role in treating COVID-19, 12 clinical studies reported no mortality benefits for CQ/HCQ in COVID-19 patients. The excitement over CQ/HCQ was ultimately quenched after three large randomized clinical trials, the COALITION-I trial in Brazil, the RECOVERY trial in the United Kingdom (UK), and the SOLIDARITY trial from World Health Organization (WHO) consistently reported no beneficial effects for CQ/HCQ in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. While initial studies suggested that CQ/HCQ might have a role in treating the early phases of infection, the results from three rigorously designed studies investigating their role in non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients were equivocal and inconsistent. Here we review the major social events related to the therapeutic use of CQ/HCQ in COVID-19, and the data from selected clinical studies evaluating their efficacy in hospitalized and non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients along with the major safety concerns.

To evaluate long-term efficacy of once-daily baricitinib 2mg in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis who had an inadequate response (IR) to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD) or biologic DMARDs (bDMARD).

Data from patients treated with baricitinib 2mg daily in two 24-week, phase III studies, RA-BUILD (csDMARD-IR; NCT01721057) and RA-BEACON (bDMARD-IR; NCT01721044), and one long-term extension study (RA-BEYOND; NCT01885078), were analyzed (120weeks). The main outcomes were achievement of low-disease activity (LDA; Simple Disease Activity Index [SDAI] ≤ 11), clinical remission (SDAI ≤ 3.3), Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) ≤ 0.5 and improvement from baseline of ≥ 0.22, and safety. Analysis populations included (1) all patients and (2) never-rescued patients. Completer and non-responder imputation (NRI) analyses were conducted on each population.

In RA-BUILD, 684 were randomized (229 to baricitinib 2mg, 180 of whom completed RA-BUILD and entered RA-BEYOND).