The advantages of intermittent versus continuous calorie restriction for long term weight loss

Posted on October 14, 2011 by Dr. Jonathan

There is an accumulation of fascinating scientific evidence that intermittent calorie restriction (ICR) offers a number of advantages over continuous calorie restriction (CCR) for successful long term weight loss and the ‘turning on’ of genes that favor longevity. Consider a study published recently in the International Journal of Obesity in which the investigators compared ICR and CCR for weight loss and metabolic disease risk markers in overweight women. The authors state:

“Excess weight and weight gain during adult life increases the risk of several diseases including diabetes, cardiovascular disease (CVD), dementia, certain forms of cancer including breast cancer, and can contribute to premature death. Observational and some randomised trials indicate that modest weight reduction (>5% of body weight) reduces the incidence and progression of many of these diseases. Although weight control is beneficial, the problem of poor compliance in weight loss programmes is well known.”

Moreover…

“Even where reduced weights are maintained, many of the benefits achieved during weight loss, including improvements in insulin sensitivity, may be attenuated due to non-compliance or adaptation. Sustainable and effective energy restriction strategies are thus required.”

In other words, a method that can be comfortable enough to be accepted into daily life for the long that also avoids loss of improvements due to adaption is required.

“One possible approach may be intermittent energy restriction (IER), with short spells of severe restriction between longer periods of habitual energy intake. For some subjects such an approach may be easier to follow than a daily or continuous energy restriction (CER) and may overcome adaption to the weight reduced state by repeated rapid improvements in metabolic control with each spell of energy restriction.”

So the authors set out to…

“…compare the feasibility and effectiveness of IER with CER for weight loss, insulin sensitivity and other metabolic disease risk markers…This is the largest randomised comparison of an isocalorific intermittent vs. continuous energy restriction to date in free living humans..”

They designed a randomised comparison of a 25% energy restriction as IER (~2266 kJ/day which equals 541 calories per day for 2 days/week) or CER (~6276 kJ/day equaling 1499 calories each day for 7 days/week) in 107 overweight or obese premenopausal women for a 6 month study period. They measured an extensive list of biomarkers at baseline and after 1, 3 and 6 months: weight, anthropometry (size, weight and proportions), biomarkers for breast cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and dementia risk; insulin resistance (HOMA), oxidative stress markers, leptin, adiponectin, IGF-1 and IGF binding proteins 1 and 2, androgens, prolactin, inflammatory markers (high sensitivity C-reactive protein and sialic acid), lipids, blood pressure and brain derived neurotrophic factor. What did the data show?

“Last observation carried forward analysis showed IER and CER are equally effective for weight loss, mean weight change for IER was −6.4 kg vs. −5.6 kg for CER. Both groups experienced comparable reductions in leptin, free androgen index, high sensitivity C-reactive protein, total and LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, blood pressure and increases in sex hormone binding globulin, IGF binding proteins 1 and 2. Reductions in fasting insulin and insulin resistance were modest in both groups, but greater with IER than CER; difference between groups for fasting insulin −1.2 μU/ml, and insulin resistance −1.2 μU/mmol/L.”

Regarding concerns about tolerance…

“A recent blinded trial of a 2 day VLCD [very low calorie diet] (1311 kJ/day [313 calories per day!]) reported no adverse effects on cognition, energy levels, sleep or mood, suggesting symptoms are expected with VLCD and therefore experienced and could potentially be overcome with appropriate counselling. Importantly IER did not lead to overeating on non-VLCD days.”

The authors briefly summarize the results of their comparison of IER and CER by concluding:

“IER is as effective as CER in regards to weight loss, insulin sensitivity and other health biomarkers and may be offered as an alternative equivalent to CER for weight loss and reducing disease risk.”

That’s not all though. The authors additionally note an extremely interesting observation with profound implications and potential for benefit regarding additional benefits of an intermittent very low calorie method:

“Recent reviews speculate that IER may be associated with greater disease prevention than CER due to increased cellular stress resistance, in particular increased resistance to oxidative stress. This is thought to be mediated by ‘hormesis’ whereby the moderate stress of energy restriction increases the production of cytoprotective, restorative proteins, antioxidant enzymes and protein chaperones. Alternate day fasting has been linked to increased SIRT-1 gene expression in muscle, and to greater neuronal resistance to injury compared to CER in C57BL/6 mice. The tendency for greater improvements in oxidative stress markers in our IER than in the CER group may support these assertions. Declines in long term protein oxidation product aggregates suggest IER as a possible activator of catabolism and autophagy.”

In other words, intermittent calorie restriction can be as effective as continuous calorie restriction for weight loss, but have the added advantage of ‘turning on’ genes beneficial for health and longevity and preventing adaptation that would result in regaining weight.

Other investigators also have compared intermittent with continuous calorie (daily) calorie restriction as in a study published recently in the journal Obesity Reviews. The authors set out to…

“…evaluate and compare the effects of daily CR versus intermittent CR on weight loss, fat mass loss, lean mass retention and visceral fat mass reduction, in overweight and obese adults.”

They undertook a review of studies that were randomized control trials, had a primary endpoint of weight loss and/or body composition changes, used daily CR or intermittent CR as the primary focus of the intervention; had a study duration of 4–24 weeks, and involved adult populations who were overweight or obese subjects but not diabetic. These included 11 daily continuous calorie restriction trials and five intermittent CR trials published between 2000 and 2010, along with two unpublished trials of intermittent CR from their own lab. What did all these studies add up to?

“Results reveal similar weight loss and fat mass loss with 3 to 12 weeks’ intermittent CR (4–8%, 11–16%, respectively) and daily CR (5–8%, 10–20%, respectively). In contrast, less fat free mass was lost in response to intermittent CR versus daily CR.”

This is a significant advantage of ICR over CCR (continuous = daily calorie restriction). The authors conclude by stating:

“In sum, intermittent CR and daily CR diets appear to be equally as effective in decreasing body weight, fat mass, and potentially, visceral fat mass. However, intermittent restriction regimens may be superior to daily restriction regimens in that they help conserve lean mass at the expense of fat mass. These findings add to the growing body of evidence showing that intermittent CR may be implemented as another viable option for weight loss in overweight and obese populations.”

Numerous other studies have examined the distinctive benefits of intermittent calorie restriction. A paper published recently in the journal Oncogene investigates the positive effects of brief ICR compared to CCR for cancer patients. The authors state:

“The dietary recommendation for cancer patients receiving chemotherapy, as described by the American Cancer Society, is to increase calorie and protein intake. Yet, in simple organisms, mice, and humans, fasting—no calorie intake—induces a wide range of changes associated with cellular protection, which would be difficult to achieve even with a cocktail of potent drugs. In mammals, the protective effect of fasting is mediated, in part, by an over 50% reduction in glucose and insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-I) levels.”

They point out that cancer cells are unable to respond to the positive stimuli of calorie restriction:

“Because proto-oncogenes function as key negative regulators of the protective changes induced by fasting, cells expressing oncogenes, and therefore the great majority of cancer cells, should not respond to the protective signals generated by fasting, promoting the differential protection (differential stress resistance) of normal and cancer cells.”

Moreover…

“Preliminary reports indicate that fasting for up to 5 days followed by a normal diet, may also protect patients against chemotherapy without causing chronic weight loss. By contrast, the long-term 20 to 40% restriction in calorie intake (dietary restriction, DR), whose effects on cancer progression have been studied extensively for decades, requires weeks–months to be effective, causes much more modest changes in glucose and/or IGF-I levels, and promotes chronic weight loss in both rodents and humans.”

They go on to review studies on fasting, cellular protection and chemotherapy resistance, and futher compare them to those on continuous calorie restriction and cancer treatment. The authors conclude:

“Although additional pre-clinical and clinical studies are necessary, fasting has the potential to be translated into effective clinical interventions for the protection of patients and the improvement of therapeutic index.”

A study published in the Journal of Molecular and Cellular Cardiology offers evidence that intermittent calorie restriction activates genes that help in the recovery from heart damage. The authors state:

“Chronic heart failure (CHF) is the major cause of death in the developed countries. Calorie restriction is known to improve the recovery in these patients; however, the exact mechanism behind this protective effect is unknown. Here we demonstrate the activation of cell survival PI3kinase/Akt and VEGF pathway as the mechanism behind the protection induced by intermittent fasting in a rat model of established chronic myocardial ischemia (MI).“

Two weeks after myocardial ischemia was induced in their study animals, they were randomly assigned to a normal feeding group (MI-NF) and an alternate-day feeding group (MI-IF). After 6 weeks the authors evaluated the effect of intermittent fasting on cellular and ventricular remodeling and long-term survival. The results were truly striking:

“Compared with the normally fed group, intermittent fasting markedly improved the survival of rats with CHF (88.5% versus 23% survival). The heart weight body weight ratio was significantly less in the MI-IF group compared to the MI-NF group (3.4 ± 0.17 versus 3.9 ± 0.18. Isolated heart perfusion studies exhibited well preserved cardiac functions in the MI-IF group compared to the MI-NF group. Molecular studies revealed the upregulation of angiogenic factors such asHIF-1-α (3010 ± 350% versus 650 ± 151%), BDNF (523 ± 32% versus 110 ± 12%), and VEGF (450 ± 21% versus 170 ± 30%) in the fasted hearts. Immunohistochemical studies confirmed increased capillary density in the border area of the ischemic myocardium and synthesis VEGF by cardiomyocytes. Moreover fasting also upregulated the expression of other anti-apoptotic factors such as Akt and Bcl-2 and reduced the TUNEL positive apoptotic nuclei in the border zone.”

This is a dramatic indication that intermittent calorie restriction can be used to protect and repair heart tissue. The authors conclude:

“Chronic intermittent fasting markedly improves the long-term survival after CHF by activation through its pro-angiogenic, anti-apoptotic and anti-remodeling effects.”

Another fascinating study published recently in the journal Cancer Prevention Research demonstrates that intermittent calorie restriction is clearly superior to both continuous calorie restriction and an unrestricted diet for breast cancer prevention. Specifically, the authors studied…

“The effect of chronic (CCR) and intermittent (ICR) caloric restriction on serum adiponectin and leptin levels…in relation to mammary tumorigenesis.”

Their subjects were assigned to ad libitum fed, ICR (3-week 50% caloric restriction followed by 3-wks 100% AL consumption), and CCR groups.

“Mammary tumor incidence was 71.0%, 35.4%, and 9.1% for AL, CCR, and ICR mice, respectively. Serum adiponectin levels were similar among groups with no impact of either CCR or ICR. Serum leptin level rose in AL mice with increasing age but was significantly reduced by long-term CCR and ICR. The ICR protocol was also associated with an elevated adiponectin/leptin ratio. In addition, ICR-restricted mice had increased mammary tissue AdipoR1 expression and decreased leptin and ObRb expression compared with AL mice. Mammary fat pads from tumor-free ICR-mice had higher adiponectin expression than AL and CCR mice whereas all tumor-bearing mice had weak adiponectin signal in mammary fat pad.”

This amounts to an impressive ‘turning on’ of genes that protect against breast cancer for ICR. In conclusion…

“…we did find that reduced serum leptin and elevated adiponectin/leptin ratio were associated with the protective effect of intermittent calorie restriction.”

A paper published in the journal Nutrition and Cancer demonstrates that ICR offers a greater protective effect than CCR for prostate cancer. The authors state:

“Prostate cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer in men. Whereas chronic calorie restriction (CCR) delays prostate tumorigenesis in some rodent models, the impact of intermittent caloric restriction (ICR) has not been determined. Here, transgenic adenocarcinoma of the mouse prostate (TRAMP) mice were used to compare how ICR and CCR affected prostate cancer development.”

Their animal models for prostate cancer were assigned to ad libitum (AL), ICR, and CCR groups. There were distinctive differences according to the manner of calorie restriction that dramatically favored the ICR over both the AL and CCR cohorts:

“ICR mice were older at tumor detection than AL and CCR mice. There was no difference for age of tumor detection between AL and CCR mice. Similar results were found for survival. Serum leptin, adiponectin, insulin, and IGF-I were all significantly different among the groups.”

Not only did the subjects on CCR live longer with healthier biomarkers than the ones on either the free diet or CCR, there was no difference between the AL and CCR groups for age of tumor detection or survival. The implication is exciting: the benefits were due not to the weight loss component but to the way in which ICR affects gene expression. The authors conclude:

“These results indicate that the way in which calories are restricted impacts both time to tumor detection and survival in TRAMP mice, with ICR providing greater protective effect compared to CCR.”

A paper published in the The Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry also offers evidence that intermittent calorie restriction protects heart tissue:

“It has been reported that dietary energy restriction, including intermittent fasting (IF), can protect heart and brain cells against injury and improve functional outcome in animal models of myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke. Here we report that IF improves glycemic control and protects the myocardium against ischemia-induced cell damage and inflammation in rats.”

The authors showed by echocardiographic analysis of heart structur and function that intermittent fasting attenuates the disease related increase in heart thickness, end systolic and diastolic volumes, and ejection fraction. Additionally…

“The size of the ischemic infarct 24 h following permanent ligation of a coronary artery was significantly smaller, and markers of inflammation (infiltration of leukocytes in the area at risk and plasma IL-6 levels) were less, in IF rats compared to rats on the control diet. IF resulted in increased levels of circulating adiponectin prior to and after MI.”

There is now a large body of evidence showing that ICR increases the protective hormone adiponectin much more than CCR. The authors conclude:

“Because recent studies have shown that adiponectin can protect the heart against ischemic injury, our findings suggest a potential role for adiponectin as a mediator of the cardioprotective effect of IF.”

A paper published in the journal Ageing Research Reviews discusses how IFR and CCR can protect the brain from accelerated neurodegeneration associated with aging. The authors note:

“The vulnerability of the nervous system to advancing age is all too often manifest in neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases. In this review article we describe evidence suggesting that two dietary interventions, caloric restriction (CR) and intermittent fasting (IF), can prolong the health-span of the nervous system by impinging upon fundamental metabolic and cellular signaling pathways that regulate life-span.”

As we’ve seen regarding cardioprotection and tumorigenesis…

“CR and IF affect energy and oxygen radical metabolism, and cellular stress response systems, in ways that protect neurons against genetic and environmental factors to which they would otherwise succumb during aging. There are multiple interactive pathways and molecular mechanisms by which CR and IF benefit neurons including those involving insulin-like signaling, FoxO transcription factors, sirtuins and peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors. These pathways stimulate the production of protein chaperones, neurotrophic factors and antioxidant enzymes, all of which help cells cope with stress and resist disease.”

These studies comprise the first post that illustrates the scientific basis for the Lapis Light Weight Loss & Gene Modulation Program that customizes intermittent calorie restriction according to the individual’s weight management and other health needs. Subsequent posts will offer additional scientific evidence important for other aspects of the program.

Women can reduce sudden cardiac death with basic lifestyle practices

Posted on August 11, 2011 by Dr. Jonathan

It doesn’t hurt to have a reminder of the power of lifestyle factors to reduce chronic disease such as this study just published in JAMA (the Journal of the American Medical Association) in which the authors correlated several of them to the risk of sudden cardiac death. As they note, sudden death is often the first sign of heart disease:

“Sudden cardiac death (SCD) accounts for more than half of all cardiac deaths; the majority of SCD events occur as the first manifestation of heart disease, especially among women. Primary preventive strategies are needed to reduce SCD incidence.”

Sudden cardiac death means dying within an hour of the onset of symptoms. For their purpose they defined a “healthy lifestyle” as not smoking, having a body mass index (BMI) of less than 25, exercising for 30 minutes per day or longer, and to exceed 40% of the alternate Mediterranean diet score (defined as a high intake of vegetables, fruits, nuts, legumes, whole versus refined grains, fish and moderate alcohol. What did the data show?

“All 4 low-risk lifestyle factors were significantly and independently associated with a lower risk of SCD. The absolute risks of SCD were 22 cases/100 000 person-years among women with 0 low-risk factors, 17 cases/100 000 person-years with 1 low-risk factor, 18 cases/100 000 person-years with 2 low-risk factors, 13 cases/100 000 person-years with 3 low-risk factors, and 16 cases/100 000 person-years with 4 low-risk factors. Compared with women with 0 low-risk factors, the multivariable relative risk of SCD was 0.54 for women with 1 low-risk factor, 0.41 for 2 low-risk factors, 0.33 for 3 low-risk factors, and 0.08 for 4 low-risk factors. The proportion of SCD attributable to smoking, inactivity, overweight, and poor diet was 81%. Among women without clinically diagnosed coronary heart disease, the percentage of population attributable risk was 79%.”

Considering that the benefits of diet and exercise can be further enhanced by customization according to functional metabolic-genomic assessment needs and more effective time-saving interval training respectively, it is likely that even these significant percentages can be further improved. The authors conclude:

“Adherence to a low-risk lifestyle is associated with a low risk of SCD.”

Borderline anemia increases risk of death in coronary disease

Posted on June 12, 2011 by Dr. Jonathan

Earlier posts have offered evidence for the need to take even slightly low levels of hemoglobin very seriously. Now a research article just published in PLoS Medicine (Public Library of Science) reports that borderline anemia makes coronary artery disease significantly more lethal. The authors note:

“Coronary artery disease is the main cause of death in high-income countries and the second most common cause of death in middle- and low-income countries…Recent studies have suggested that low hemoglobin may be associated with mortality in patients with coronary artery disease. Therefore, using blood hemoglobin level as a prognostic biomarker for patients with stable coronary artery disease may be of potential benefit especially as measurement of hemoglobin is almost universal in such patients and there are available interventions that effectively increase hemoglobin concentration.”

They examined the data for 20,131 with stable angina and another 14,171 who had survived a first heart attack for an average of 3.2 years, correlating outcomes with hemoglobin values. Their findings are very important for clinicians and patients, who should inquire about their hemoglobin values, to bear in mind:

“For men with MI, the threshold value was 13.5 g/dl; the 29.5% of patients with haemoglobin below this threshold had an associated hazard ratio for mortality of 2.00 compared to those with haemoglobin values in the lowest risk range. Women tended to have lower threshold haemoglobin values (e.g, for MI 12.8 g/dl) but the shape and strength of association did not differ between the genders, nor between patients with angina and MI.”

In other words, hemoglobin below 13.5 g/dl in men and slightly lower in women doubled the risk of death. The authors conclude:

“There is an association between low haemoglobin concentration and increased mortality. A large proportion of patients with coronary disease have haemoglobin concentrations below the thresholds of risk defined here.“

Those who have had a heart attack should never take a NSAID

Posted on May 30, 2011 by Dr. Jonathan

Many people who have suffered a heart attack may be advised to take a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID, such as ibuprofen, Advil, Motrin, Aleve, Celebrex and others*) for a variety of reasons, but a nation-wide cohort study just published in the journal Circulation reports that taking an NSAID can significantly increase their risk of death and they should never do so even for short periods. The authors set the stage for their study:

“Despite the fact that nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are contraindicated among patients with established cardiovascular disease, many receive NSAID treatment for a short period of time. However, little is known about the association between NSAID treatment duration and risk of cardiovascular disease. We therefore studied the duration of NSAID treatment and cardiovascular risk in a nationwide cohort of patients with prior myocardial infarction (MI).”

They examined data for all Danish patients ≥30 years of age who had a first-time MI during 1997 to 2006 along with their subsequent NSAID use for risk of death and recurrent heart according to duration of NSAID treatment. What did the data show?

“Of the 83,677 patients included, 42.3% received NSAIDs during follow-up. There were 35 257 deaths/recurrent MIs. Overall, NSAID treatment was significantly associated with an increased risk of death/recurrent MI at the beginning of the treatment, and the risk persisted throughout the treatment course. Analyses of individual NSAIDs showed that the traditional NSAID diclofenac [Voltaren] was associated with the highest risk.”

This study is an alarm that should be clearly heard by clinicians and any heart attack survivors who self-medicate with over-the-counter preparations. Practitioners should also not fail to consider a corollary implication: what about patients who, though they have not yet suffered an MI, have significant heart attack risk factors such as elevated Lp-PLA2? Fortunately there are alternatives to NSAID use for chronic inflammation. The authors conclude:

“Even short-term treatment with most NSAIDs was associated with increased risk of death and recurrent MI in patients with prior MI. Neither short- nor long-term treatment with NSAIDs is advised in this population, and any NSAID use should be limited from a cardiovascular safety point of view.”

*including Nuprin, Naproxen, Relafen, Tolectin, etc.

The highest amounts of calcium intake increase the risk of fracture

Posted on May 28, 2011 by Dr. Jonathan

Patients are often surprised to learn that osteoporosis is not a calcium deficiency disorder but rather a failure to maintain the microarchitecture of the bone of which the protein matrix is a critical component. Moreover, earlier posts on magnesium and calcium have document the pro-inflammatory potential of calcium supplementation. Now fascinating research just published in the British Medical Journal offers evidence that calcium above the lowest quintile does not improve the risk of fracture of any type, while the highest levels actually increase the risk of fracture. The authors set out to…

“……investigate associations between long term dietary intake of calcium and risk of fracture of any type, hip fractures, and osteoporosis.”

They note that confusion regarding the issue of calcium requirements has been…

“…reflected by the wide range of daily calcium recommendations for individuals older than 50 years: at present 700 mg in the UK, 800 mg in Scandinavia, 1200 mg in the United States, and 1300 mg in Australia and New Zealand.”

The authors investigated 61,433 women born between 1914 and 1948 for 19 years for correlations between dietary intake of calcium and fractures of any type, hip fractures, and osteoporosis. They took into consideration vitamin D consumption, hormonal status, and other pertinent biological and lifestyle factors including physical activity. Perhaps not surprisingly in light of other evidence that has emerged recently about calcium, their data challenges the conventional wisdom:

“These findings show an association between a low habitual dietary calcium intake (lowest quintile) and an increased risk of fractures and of osteoporosis. Above this base level, we observed only minor differences in risk. The rate of hip fracture was even increased in those with high dietary calcium intakes.“

In others, amounts higher than the lowest level of calcium intake adequate to avoid gross insufficiency and compromised bone micoarchitecture there were not only no significant benefits, the highest levels of intake increased fracture risk. The authors comment:

“The present results may reflect a situation when a moderate intake of calcium* combined with adequate intake of other micronutrients is sufficient to meet the structural and functional demands of the skeleton. High levels of intake did not further decrease the rate of fracture, and might even increase the rate of hip fractures…Moreover, use of supplemental calcium has been associated with higher rates of hip fracture both in a cohort study and in randomised controlled trials…Furthermore, high calcium doses slow bone turnover and also reduce the number of active bone remodelling sites. This situation can lead to a delay of bone repair caused by fatigue, and thus increase the risk of fractures independent of bone mineral density.”

*Their data indicate that a total dietary intake of 700 mg of calcium per day is sufficient to prevent fracture and osteoporosis. The authors conclude:

“Incremental increases in calcium intake above the level corresponding to the first quintile of our female population were not associated with a further reduction of osteoporotic fracture rate.”

Considering that chronic inflammation can be a primary factor in causing loss of the protein ‘scaffolding’ of bone responsible for strength, resilience, and the matrix to which minerals attach, these findings invoke recollection of the recent evidence that calcium supplementation can increase the inflammation of cardiovascular disease. In case you missed it, a recent research paper published in the British Medical Journal follows up on earlier reports of this association. The authors’ intent was…

“To investigate the effects of personal calcium supplement use on cardiovascular risk in the Women’s Health Initiative Calcium/Vitamin D Supplementation Study (WHI CaD Study), using the WHI dataset, and to update the recent meta-analysis of calcium supplements and cardiovascular risk.”

The examined the data from a randomised, placebo controlled trial of calcium alone or with vitamin D in 36,282 postmenopausal women over seven years for myocardial infarction, coronary revascularisation, death from coronary heart disease, and stroke. The data told an interesting story:

“In the WHI CaD Study there was an interaction between personal use of calcium supplements and allocated calcium and vitamin D for cardiovascular events…Calcium or calcium and vitamin D increased the risk of myocardial infarction (relative risk 1.24 (1.07 to 1.45), P=0.004) and the composite of myocardial infarction or stroke (1.15 (1.03 to 1.27), P=0.009).”

Clinicians and patients need to appreciate that inflammation, a fundamental causal factor in both osteoporosis and cardiovascular disease, can be made worse by calcium supplements. The authors conclude:

“Calcium supplements with or without vitamin D modestly increase the risk of cardiovascular events, especially myocardial infarction, a finding obscured in the WHI CaD Study by the widespread use of personal calcium supplements. A reassessment of the role of calcium supplements in osteoporosis management is warranted.“

As insulin goes up so does the danger of arterial plaques

Posted on April 15, 2011 by Dr. Jonathan

Most readers of these posts, practitioner and layperson alike, have probably long been aware of the role of insulin resistance in cardiovascular disease, chronic inflammation and cancer as described in last week’s New York Times article. A fascinating study that adds to the mountain of scientific evidence was just published in the Public Library of Science (PLoS One) in which the authors show that higher insulin levels are associated with the unstable form of carotid artery plaque:

“The stability of atherosclerotic plaques determines the risk for rupture, which may lead to thrombus formation and potentially severe clinical complications such as myocardial infarction and stroke. Although the rate of plaque formation may be important for plaque stability, this process is not well understood. We took advantage of the atmospheric 14C-declination curve (a result of the atomic bomb tests in the 1950s and 1960s) to determine the average biological age of carotid plaques.”

The authors dissected the cores of carotid plaques from 29 patients with carotid stenosis and analyzed them for 14C. Their findings are fascinating:

“The average plaque age (i.e. formation time) was 9.6±3.3 years. All but two plaques had formed within 5–15 years before surgery. Plaque age was not associated with the chronological ages of the patients but was inversely related to plasma insulin levels…plaques in the lowest tercile of plaque age (most recently formed) were characterized by further instability with a higher content of lipids and macrophages…Microarray analysis of plaques in the lowest tercile also showed increased activity of genes involved in immune responses and oxidative phosphorylation.”

As readers here know, a heart attack or stroke occurs when a vulnerable plaque ruptures and blocks a smaller vessel downstream. These investigators show that unstable plaque is associated with higher insulin levels. Intervening to reduce insulin resistance is one of the most important things that clinicians and patients can do for a host of conditions. The authors conclude:

“Our results show, for the first time, that plaque age, as judge[d] by relative incorporation of 14C, can improve our understanding of carotid plaque stability and therefore risk for clinical complications. Our results also suggest that levels of plasma insulin might be involved in determining carotid plaque age.”

Regarding laboratory testing to determine the presence of inflamed vulnerable plaque, see the earlier post on Lp-PLA2.

Less mortality and cardiovascular risk with metformin than other diabetes drugs

Posted on April 11, 2011 by Dr. Jonathan

It’s by far best to prevent type 2 diabetes by acting on the earliest signs of metabolic syndrome with appropriate lifestyle changes and evidence-based support for genetic and epigenetic needs based on objective laboratory data. All too often, however, this isn’t accomplished and the case advances to type 2 diabetes as insulin resistance mounts and insulin production can no longer compensate. When we enter the realm of pharmaceuticals for T2DM there are choices. A huge study just published in the European Heart Journal offers valuable evidence that metformin is associated with much less risk of cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality. The authors state:

“The impact of insulin secretagogues (ISs) on long-term major clinical outcomes in type 2 diabetes remains unclear. We examined mortality and cardiovascular risk associated with all available ISs compared with metformin in a nationwide study.”

The authors examined the data for all Danish residents over 20 years old who starting taking an a single-agent insulin secretagogue (medication that provokes the secretion of insulin, ISs) or metformin between 1997 and 2006, a total of 107,806 subjects. They were followed for up to 9 years (3.3 years on average) for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and the combination of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and cardiovascular mortality. This was correlated with the use of individual ISs. What did their data show?

“Compared with metformin, glimepiride: 1.32, glibenclamide: 1.19, glipizide: 1.27, and tolbutamide: 1.28 were associated with increased all-cause mortality in patients without previous MI. The corresponding results for patients with previous MI were as follows: glimepiride: 1.30, glibenclamide: 1.47, glipizide: 1.53 (1.23–1.89), and tolbutamide: 1.47. Results for gliclazide and repaglinide and were not statistically different from metformin in both patients without and with previous MI, respectively. Results were similar for cardiovascular mortality and for the composite endpoint.”

In other words, for example, patients (who had never had a heart attack) taking glimepiride had a 32% increased chance of dying compared with taking metformin. The authors conclude by stating:

“Monotherapy with the most used ISs, including glimepiride, glibenclamide, glipizide, and tolbutamide, seems to be associated with increased mortality and cardiovascular risk compared with metformin. Gliclazide and repaglinide appear to be associated with a lower risk than other ISs.”

This outcome is not unexpected when we consider that, in addition to suppressing hepatic glucose production, metformin acts to increase insulin receptor sensitivity. The authors of an editorial published in the same journal comment on the gravity of this study:

“While this is not the first study to evaluate outcomes with these drug classes comparatively, the observations are among the most robust published based on the very large sample of patients with drug choices largely free of selection bias, sufficient numbers of events ascertained to yield substantial statistical power to analyse outcomes for each insulin secretagogue individually, with additional stratification by history of previous myocardial infarction.”

Important: metformin is known to interfere with vitamin B12 absorption (see previous posts). Patients should be followed carefully for indications of suboptimal vitamin B12 levels, preferably by urine or serum methylmalonic acid assays.

Heart attacks much more likely after a tiny stroke (TIA)

Posted on March 25, 2011 by Dr. Jonathan

Evidence supporting the expectation that the underlying causal factors resulting in a TIA (transient ischemic attack) also increase the risk of heart attacks was just published in the journal Stroke. The authors first observe that although…

“Coronary artery disease is the leading cause of death after TIA. Reliable estimates of the risk of MI [myocardial infarction = heart attack] after TIA, however, are lacking…Our purpose was to determine the incidence of and risk factors for MI after TIA.”

They cross-referenced data from the Rochester Epidemiology Project for TIA (1985–1994) and MI (1979–2006) to identify all community residents with incident MI after incident TIA. They then compared it to the age-, sex-, and period-specific MI incidences in the general population. What did the data show?

“Relative risk for incident MI in the TIA cohort compared to the general population was 2.09. This was highest in patients younger than 60 years old. “

In other words, having had a TIA doubles the risk of having a heart attack. And very interestingly…

“Increasing age, male sex, and the use of lipid-lowering therapy at the time of TIA were independent risk factors for MI after TIA.”

The hazard ratio for using lipid-lowering therapy (statins) was 3.10, meaning that this tripled the incidence of myocardial infarction.

This study alerts clinicians to think comprehensively and cautiously when considering lipid-lowering agents in cardiovascular prophylaxis after a TIA. Patients who consider a TIA to be a relatively minor event should understand that the underlying causal factors can be a ‘ticking time bomb’ if not addressed. The authors conclude:

“Average annual incidence of MI after TIA is…approximately double that of the general population. The relative risk increase is especially high in patients younger than 60 years old. These data are useful for identifying subgroups of patients with TIA at highest risk for subsequent MI.”

Risk for high blood pressure, kidney and cardiovascular disease can persist long after E. coli gastroenteritis

Posted on November 28, 2010 by Dr. Jonathan

Research just published in the British Medical Journal presents another example of acute gastrointestinal infection triggering chronic inflammation that persists long after the infection has subsided. The authors set out to…

“…evaluate the risk for hypertension, renal impairment, and cardiovascular disease within eight years of gastroenteritis from drinking water contaminated with Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Campylobacter.”

They followed 1977 adult participants, 1067 of whom came down with acute gastroenteritis when a municipal water system was contaminated. None of them had a history of the subsequent diseases they were looking for which included hypertension (blood pressure ≥140/90 mm Hg), kidney impairment (microalbuminuria or estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 ml/min/1.73 m2), and cardiovascular disease (heart attack, stroke, or congestive heart failure). What did the data show?

“The adjusted hazard ratios for hypertension and cardiovascular disease after acute gastroenteritis were 1.33 and 2.13 respectively. The adjusted hazard ratio for the presence of either indicator of renal impairment was 1.15 and was 3.41 for the presence of both.”

In other words, having a case of acute gastroenteritis resulted in a later increase of 33% in the risk for high blood pressure, 213% for cardiovascular disease, and a whopping 341% for a combination of the two indicators of kidney impairment (microalbuminuria and lower glomerular filtration rate). Thus the authors conclude:

“Acute gastroenteritis from drinking water contaminated with E coli O157:H7 and Campylobacter was associated with an increased risk for hypertension, renal impairment, and self reported cardiovascular disease…Our findings underline the need for following up individual cases of food or water poisoning by E coli O157:H7 to prevent or reduce silent progressive vascular injury…annual blood pressure monitoring and periodic monitoring of renal function may be warranted for individuals who experience acute gastroenteritis after exposure to food or water contaminated with E coli O157:H7.”

This is another example of how GI infections can trigger the long-term immune system dysregulation that promotes chronic inflammation, the biological basis of cardiovascular disease and renal impairment. Clinicians should be diligent in diagnosing GI infection and astute in examining for immune dysfunction and occult autoimmune disorders.

Proton pump inhibitors increase cardiovascular risk

Posted on November 2, 2010 by Dr. Jonathan

We can reason that disabling digestion by blocking the production of hydrochloric acid production in the stomach would be likely to have numerous unwanted effects as noted in an earlier report. Now a study published in Annals of Internal Medicine offers evidence that proton pump inhibitors (such as Prilosec, Prevacid, Nexium, etc) increase the risk of cardiovascular disease. The authors initially set out to…

“…examine the risk for adverse cardiovascular outcomes related to concomitant use of PPIs and clopidogrel compared with that of PPIs alone in adults hospitalized for myocardial infarction.”

They examined all the patients discharged from all the hospitals in Denmark after a first-time heart attack, 56,406 people,for re-hospitalization for heart attack, stroke or cardiovascular death. What did the data show?

“Of the 24 702 patients (43.8%) who received clopidogrel, 6753 (27.3%) received concomitant PPIs. The hazard ratio for cardiovascular death or rehospitalization for myocardial infarction or stroke for concomitant use of a PPI and clopidogrel among the cohort assembled at day 30 after discharge was 1.29. The corresponding ratio for use of a PPI in patients who did not receive clopidogrel was 1.29. No statistically significant interaction occurred between a PPI and clopidogrel.”

In other words, PPIs with or without clopidrogel increased the incidence of adverse cardiovascular events by almost 30%. The authors state in conclusion:

“Proton-pump inhibitors seem to be associated with increased risk for adverse cardiovascular outcomes after discharge, regardless of clopidogrel use for myocardial infarction.“