Multidisciplinary Approach to the Treatment of Obese Adolescents: Effects on Cardiovascular Risk Factors, Inflammatory Profile, and Neuroendocrine Regulation of Energy Balance

Department of Biosciences, Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), Rua Silva Jardim, 136 Térreo, Vila Mathias, 11015-020 Santos, SP, Brazil
International Journal of Endocrinology (Impact Factor: 1.52). 10/2013; 2013:541032. DOI: 10.1155/2013/541032
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The prevention of obesity and health concerns related to body fat is a major challenge worldwide. The aim of this study was to investigate the role of a medically supervised, multidisciplinary approach, on reduction in the prevalence of obesity related comorbidities, inflammatory profile, and neuroendocrine regulation of energy balance in a sample of obese adolescents. A total of 97 postpuberty obese adolescents were enrolled in this study. Body composition, neuropeptides, and adipokines were analysed. The metabolic syndrome was defined by the International Diabetes Federation (IDF). The abdominal ultrasonography was performed to measure visceral, subcutaneous fat and hepatic steatosis. All measures were performed at baseline and after one year of therapy. The multidisciplinary management promoted the control of obesity reducing body fat mass. The prevalence of metabolic syndrome, asthma, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), binge eating, and hyperleptinemia was reduced. An improvement in the inflammatory profile was demonstrated by an increase in anti-inflammatory adiponectin and reduction in proinflammatory adipokines, plasminogen activator inhibitor-1, interleukin-6 concentrations, and in the Lep/Adipo ratio. Moreover, a reduction in the AgRP and an increase in the alfa-MSH were noted. The multidisciplinary approach not only reduced obesity but also is efficacious in cardiovascular risk factors, inflammatory profile, and neuroendocrine regulation of energy balance.

Download full-text


Available from: Marco Túlio De Mello, Jun 30, 2015
1 Follower
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Metabolic syndrome (MS) prevalence between different populations in obese adolescents is scanty to date. To compare the MS prevalence and related risk factors in Brazilian and Italian obese adolescents. Methods: A total of 509 adolescents (110 Brazilian, 399 Italian), aged 15-19 years. Anthropometric characteristics, triglycerides (TG), total, low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-, high-density lipoprotein (HDL)-cholesterol, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), insulin, homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) and blood pressure were measured. Age, body mass index (BMI) and BMI z-score were not significantly different between the two subgroups. BMI z-score, TG, FPG, HOMA-IR and systolic blood pressure (SBP) were significantly higher in boys than in girls both in Brazilian and Italian adolescents, while HDL-cholesterol levels were lower in boys than in girls. No significant differences were observed in BMI, LDL and total-cholesterol and DBP in two genders and groups. Insulin, FPG, HOMA-IR and TG were significantly higher, while LDL-cholesterol and SBP were significantly lower in Brazilian than in Italian subjects, both in males and females. HDL and total-cholesterol and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) were not significantly different between the two subgroups and genders. MS prevalence was higher in Brazilian than in Italian obese boys (34.8 vs. 23.6%, p < 0.001) and girls (15.6 vs. 12.5%, p < 0.01). The most frequently altered parameter was HOMA-IR both in subjects with MS (100% in Brazilian and 81.8% in Italian) and without MS (42.9% and 11.7%). Metabolic syndrome represents a worldwide emerging health problem in different ethnical populations, the alterations of the risk factors related to MS (different in their prevalence between different subgroups) being strictly linked to the degree of obesity.
    International Journal of Clinical Practice 11/2008; 62(10):1526-32. DOI:10.1111/j.1742-1241.2008.01826.x · 2.54 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Zimmet P, Alberti K George MM, Kaufman F, Tajima N, Silink M, Arslanian S, Wong G, Bennett P, Shaw J, Caprio S; IDF Consensus Group. The metabolic syndrome in children and adolescents – an IDF consensus report.Pediatric Diabetes 2007: 8: 299–306.
    Pediatric Diabetes 11/2007; 8(5):299-306. DOI:10.1111/j.1399-5448.2007.00271.x · 2.13 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To test the hypothesis that family intervention to promote effective parenting in early childhood affects obesity in preadolescence. Participants were 186 minority youth at risk for behavior problems who enrolled in long-term follow-up studies after random assignment to family intervention or control condition at age 4. Follow-up Study 1 included 40 girls at familial risk for behavior problems; Follow-up Study 2 included 146 boys and girls at risk for behavior problems based on teacher ratings. Family intervention aimed to promote effective parenting and prevent behavior problems during early childhood; it did not focus on physical health. BMI and health behaviors were measured an average of 5 years after intervention in Study 1 and 3 years after intervention in Study 2. Youth randomized to intervention had significantly lower BMI at follow-up relative to controls (Study 1 P = .05; Study 2 P = .006). Clinical impact is evidenced by lower rates of obesity (BMI ≥95th percentile) among intervention girls and boys relative to controls (Study 2: 24% vs 54%, P = .002). There were significant intervention-control group differences on physical and sedentary activity, blood pressure, and diet. Two long-term follow-up studies of randomized trials show that relative to controls, youth at risk for behavior problems who received family intervention at age 4 had lower BMI and improved health behaviors as they approached adolescence. Efforts to promote effective parenting and prevent behavior problems early in life may contribute to the reduction of obesity and health disparities.
    PEDIATRICS 03/2012; 129(3):e621-8. DOI:10.1542/peds.2011-1568 · 5.30 Impact Factor