Skip to main content

Back to 21

Photo by i yunmai on Unsplash


It looks like we have to rethink what a healthy BMI is! 

This study below shows that above a BMI of 23 kg/m2 there is a linear increase in risk of severe COVID-19 leading to admission to hospital and death, and a linear increase in admission to an ICU across the whole BMI range, which is not attributable to excess risks of related diseases. The important thing to point out is that the relative risk due to increasing BMI is particularly notable in people younger than 40 years and of black ethnicity.


This means that if your BMI (weight/height (m)-squared) is above 23 you should probably do something about it.


In parallel to this, I read an article a few weeks ago that said you need to get back to what you weighed when you were aged 21. If I did this I would need to lose 13kg (2 stones) and my BMI would be 22. So I am going to get on the case and will be joining the #BackTo21 challenge and in so doing maximising my chances of doing okay if I ever get COVID-19 or get infected with SARS-CoV-3 or whatever else causes the next pandemic. 


Fig. from Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol.


Gao et al. Associations between body-mass index and COVID-19 severity in 6·9 million people in England: a prospective, community-based, cohort study. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2021 Apr 28;S2213-8587(21)00089-9. 


Background: Obesity is a major risk factor for adverse outcomes after infection with SARS-CoV-2. We aimed to examine this association, including interactions with demographic and behavioural characteristics, type 2 diabetes, and other health conditions.


Methods: In this prospective, community-based, cohort study, we used de-identified patient-level data from the QResearch database of general practices in England, UK. We extracted data for patients aged 20 years and older who were registered at a practice eligible for inclusion in the QResearch database between Jan 24, 2020 (date of the first recorded infection in the UK) and April 30, 2020, and with available data on BMI. Data extracted included demographic, clinical, clinical values linked with Public Health England's database of positive SARS-CoV-2 test results, and death certificates from the Office of National Statistics. Outcomes, as a proxy measure of severe COVID-19, were admission to hospital, admission to an intensive care unit (ICU), and death due to COVID-19. We used Cox proportional hazard models to estimate the risk of severe COVID-19, sequentially adjusting for demographic characteristics, behavioural factors, and comorbidities.


Findings: Among 6 910 695 eligible individuals (mean BMI 26·78 kg/m2 [SD 5·59]), 13 503 (0·20%) were admitted to hospital, 1601 (0·02%) to an ICU, and 5479 (0·08%) died after a positive test for SARS-CoV-2. We found J-shaped associations between BMI and admission to hospital due to COVID-19 (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] per kg/m2 from the nadir at BMI of 23 kg/m2 of 1·05 [95% CI 1·05-1·05]) and death (1·04 [1·04-1·05]), and a linear association across the whole BMI range with ICU admission (1·10 [1·09-1·10]). We found a significant interaction between BMI and age and ethnicity, with higher HR per kg/m2 above BMI 23 kg/m2 for younger people (adjusted HR per kg/m2 above BMI 23 kg/m2 for hospital admission 1·09 [95% CI 1·08-1·10] in 20-39 years age group vs 80-100 years group 1·01 [1·00-1·02]) and Black people than White people (1·07 [1·06-1·08] vs 1·04 [1·04-1·05]). The risk of admission to hospital and ICU due to COVID-19 associated with unit increase in BMI was slightly lower in people with type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease than in those without these morbidities.


Interpretation: At a BMI of more than 23 kg/m2, we found a linear increase in risk of severe COVID-19 leading to admission to hospital and death, and a linear increase in admission to an ICU across the whole BMI range, which is not attributable to excess risks of related diseases. The relative risk due to increasing BMI is particularly notable people younger than 40 years and of Black ethnicity.


Conflicts of Interest

MS Research

Twitter

LinkedIn

Medium


Disclaimer: Please note that the opinions expressed here are those of Professor Giovannoni and do not reflect the position of the Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry nor Barts Health NHS Trust.

Comments

  1. For me 'back to 21' would give an EMI of about 17
    Back to 28 may be healthier

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Moved to substack

Dear Reader We have moved the preventive neurology unit blog to a new platform called substack . Google is discontinuing its Feedburner and has not added many new features to blogger for some time, which is why we have decided to move the site.  https://preventiveneurology.substack.com/  Thanks Gavin Giovannoni

Are you ready for an EBV vaccine to prevent MS?

"Professor Giovannoni, you tell me that my daughter has a 1 in 40 chance of developing multiple sclerosis and that MS has reached epidemic proportions in parts of the world? Is there anything I can do to reduce her chances of getting MS? Is there anything we can do to stop other people from getting MS?" Although multiple sclerosis (MS) is a complex disease due to the interaction of genetic and environmental factors data on the occurrence of MS at the population level (epidemiology) supports the Epstein Barr Virus (EBV) as being necessary, but not sufficient, for someone to develop MS. In other words, EBV is probably the cause of MS. Of all the putative causative agents that have been proposed to be associated with MS, EBV is the only one where the risk of getting MS if you are EBV negative is close to zero or zero if you limit the analyses to those studies which use a technique called immunofluorescence microscopy as the gold-standard assay to detect anti-EBV antibodies. EBV

The Aducanumab shitstorm

Congratulations to  Al Sandrock , from Biogen, for never giving up on science and for being a  risk-taker extraordinaire .   Photo by Markus Winkler on Unsplash The FDA’s controversial approval of aducanumab for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease on Monday has caused a shitstorm. The main reason is that in November the FDA’s independent advisory committee voted against recommending approval; they said the data failed to demonstrate persuasively that aducanumab slowed cognitive decline. In a NY Times article Dr Lon Schneider, director of the California Alzheimer’s Disease Center at the University of Southern California and one of the aducanumab site investigators said “This should not be approved, because substantial evidence of effectiveness hasn’t been shown and there’s very little potential that this will address the needs of patients.” What the FDA has done is use the so-called Accelerated Approval Pathway , which allows them to approve a drug for a serious or life-threatening