Issues related to modeling the body mass index-mortality association: the shape of the association and the effects of smoking status

Department of Preventive Medicine and Epidemiology, Loyola University, Maywood, IL 60153, USA.
International journal of obesity (2005) (Impact Factor: 5.39). 09/2008; 32 Suppl 3:S52-5. DOI: 10.1038/ijo.2008.86
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Research on the relationship between body mass index (BMI) and mortality has led to conflicting results; a lack of agreement about how to adjust for confounders, such as smoking status, has added to the problem. Complicating such analyses is the fact that the BMI-mortality association is not a symmetric quadratic relationship; the distribution tends to be skewed to the right, causing the optimal BMI--where mortality is at a minimum--to be overestimated. One way to overcome this problem is by transformation of the BMI distribution to normality. The authors suggest several approaches for doing so, including the use of 1/BMI, or lean body mass index, instead of BMI in modeling. Data sets on 50 cohorts from approximately 30 international studies were used to examine the association (direct, inverse, quadratic or none) between BMI and mortality and to investigate the possible interaction of smoking status. Of the 50 cohorts, 36 showed a quadratic association between BMI and mortality, 10 showed no association and 1 showed a direct association between lean BMI and mortality. Only three cohorts showed a significant interaction between BMI and smoking, which was approximately what one would expect from a 5% significance test, even if no interaction existed. The association between BMI and mortality is not changed when smoking status is ignored in a model or when data on smokers are excluded from analysis. The methodology used in this study could be extended to look for other interactions.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Setting a goal for controlling type 2 diabetes is important for planning health interventions. The purpose of this study was to explore what may be a feasible goal for type 2 diabetes prevention in California. We used the UCLA Health Forecasting Tool, a microsimulation model that simulates individual life courses in the population, to forecast the prevalence of type 2 diabetes in California's adult population in 2020. The first scenario assumes no further increases in average body mass index (BMI) for cohorts entering adolescence after 2003. The second scenario assumes a gradual BMI decrease for children entering adolescence after 2010. The third scenario builds on the second by extending the same BMI decrease to people aged 12 to 65 years. The fourth scenario builds on the third by eliminating racial/ethnic disparities in physical activity. We found the predicted diabetes prevalence of the first, second, third, and fourth scenarios in 2020 to be 9.93%, 9.91%, 9.76%, and 9.77%, respectively. We found obesity prevalence for type 2 diabetes patients in 2020 to be 34.2%, 34.0%, 25.7%, and 25.6% for the 4 scenarios. Life expectancy in the third (80.56 y) and fourth (80.94 y) scenarios compared favorably with that of the first (80.32 y) and second (80.32 y) scenarios. For the next 10 years, behavioral risk factor modifications are more likely to affect obesity prevalence and life expectancy in the general population and obesity prevalence among diabetic patients than to alter type 2 diabetes prevalence in the general population. We suggest setting more specific goals for reducing the prevalence of diabetes, such as reducing obesity-related diabetes complications, which may be more feasible and easier to evaluate than the omnibus goal of lowering overall type 2 diabetes prevalence by 2020.
    Preventing chronic disease 07/2011; 8(4):A80. · 1.96 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Body mass index (BMI), as an approximation of general adiposity, is an established risk factor for incidence of several adult cancer types, including colorectal cancer (CRC). There is a common perception that these relationships extrapolate directly as adverse prognostic factors after diagnosis, but evidence for this is lacking. The paper from Sclesinger et al. in this issue of the journal adds a new dimension to this debate focusing on relationships of post-diagnosis BMI (as a marker of the steady-state weight among survivors) and survival, and provides evidence on a decreased mortality risk among overweight (post-diagnosis BMI 25.0-29.9 kg/m(2)) compared with normal weight (post-diagnosis BMI 18.5-24.9 kg/m(2)) CRC survivors-an example of an 'obesity paradox.' The observation of the 'obesity paradox' is well documented in the methodology literature, but perhaps, less familiar to the cancer readership. Three broad classes of explanation are posited: (1) the associations are true and plausible; (2) the associations are false and reflect methodological issues; or (3) the observations represent a specific form of selection bias, known as collider bias. The present author argues that the obesity paradox reflects the latter-a product of a statistical bias-and emphasizes that, while these findings are hypothesis generating, they will not alter clinical practice or recommendations.
    Cancer Causes and Control 08/2014; 25(10). DOI:10.1007/s10552-014-0436-9 · 2.96 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective To discuss possible explanations for the obesity paradox and explore whether the paradox can be attributed to a form of selection bias known as collider stratification bias. Method The paper is divided into three parts. First, possible explanations for the obesity paradox are reviewed. Second, a simulated example is provided to describe collider stratification bias and how it could generate the obesity paradox. Finally, an example is provided using data from 17,636 participants in the US National and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III). Generalized linear models were fit to assess the effect of obesity on mortality both in the general population and among individuals with diagnosed cardiovascular disease (CVD). Additionally, results from a bias analysis are presented. Results In the general population, the adjusted risk ratio relating obesity and all-cause mortality was 1.24 (95% CI 1.11, 1.39). Adjusted risk ratios comparing obese and non-obese among individuals with and without CVD were 0.79 (95% CI 0.68, 0.91) and 1.30 (95% CI = 1.12, 1.50), indicating that obesity has a protective association among individuals with CVD. Conclusion Results demonstrate that collider stratification bias is one plausible explanation for the obesity paradox. After conditioning on CVD status in the design or analysis, obesity can appear protective among individuals with CVD.
    Preventive Medicine 05/2014; 62. DOI:10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.02.003 · 2.93 Impact Factor