Local fast-food environment, diet and blood pressure: the moderating role of mastery.

PURPOSE: To examine the moderating role of mastery in the association of local fast-food restaurants (FFR) with diet quality and systolic blood pressure (SBP). METHODS: We used cross-sectional data from 1543 adults participating in wave six of the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA). Data were collected between 2013 and 2016. Diet quality was defined by adherence with the dietary approaches to stop hypertension (DASH) diet. Individuals reported on their food consumption through a food frequency questionnaire and SBP was measured. Density of FFR in 1600 m, 800 m and 400 m circular buffers around the home postal code was calculated using Geographic Information Systems. We assessed the association between density of FFR, diet and SBP using linear regression analyses, testing for moderation by mastery. RESULTS: Mean age was 52 years and 32.2% of the sample were men. Exposure to FFR ranged from 0 to 35 FFR per km2. Density of FFR was not significantly associated with DASH adherence or SBP. Only one out of the six interaction terms was significant, suggesting that for individuals with lower levels of mastery, higher density of FFR in an 800-m buffer was negatively associated with DASH adherence, while for individuals with higher levels of mastery, this association was positive. CONCLUSIONS: Exposure to FFR was not associated with diet quality and SBP, and we observed little evidence for moderation by level of mastery. This research question should be further explored in a large sample of healthy adults.

Anti-osteoporosis drug prescribing after hip fracture in the UK: 2000-2010.

UNLABELLED: The probability of initiating with anti-osteoporosis therapy increased from 7 % in 2000 to 46 % in 2010. This improvement was greater for patients over the age of 75 years. Men, those overweight, having dementia or exposed to antipsychotics, sedatives/hypnotics or opioid analgesics were significantly less likely to receive anti-osteoporosis drugs. INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to examine trends and determinants of anti-osteoporosis drug prescribing after hip fracture in the UK between 2000 and 2010. METHODS: Data were extracted from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink for patients ≥50 years who had a first hip fracture between 2000 and 2010 and who did not currently (≤6 months prior) receive anti-osteoporosis drugs (bisphosphonates, strontium ranelate, parathyroid hormone, calcitonin and raloxifene) (n = 27,542). The cumulative incidence probability of being prescribed anti-osteoporosis drugs within 1 year after hip fracture was estimated by Kaplan-Meier life-table analyses. Determinants for treatment initiation were estimated by Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: The probability of being prescribed any anti-osteoporosis drug after hip fracture increased from 7 % in 2000 to 46 % in 2010. This trend was more marked in patients ≥75 years. The increase in prescribing of anti-osteoporosis drugs was complemented by a similar increase in vitamin D/calcium provision. Cumulative incidence of receiving anti-osteoporosis therapy was greater at any given point in time in women (8 % in 2000, 51 % in 2010) compared to men (4 % in 2000, 34 % in 2010). In addition to male gender, multivariable Cox regression identified reduced likelihood of receiving anti-osteoporosis drugs for those being overweight, having dementia and exposed to psychotropic drugs (antipsychotics, sedatives/hypnotics) or opioid analgesics. CONCLUSION: Although the prescribing of anti-osteoporosis drugs after hip fracture has increased substantially since 2000, the overall rate remained inadequate, particularly in men. With the continuing increase in the absolute number of hip fractures, further research should be made into the barriers to optimise osteoporosis management.

The risk of major and any (non-hip) fragility fracture after hip fracture in the United Kingdom: 2000-2010.

UNLABELLED: The risk of a subsequent major or any fracture after a hip fracture and secular trends herein were examined. Within 1 year, 2.7 and 8.4% of patients sustained a major or any (non-hip) fracture, which increased to 14.7 and 32.5% after 5 years. Subsequent fracture rates increased during the study period both for major and any (non-hip) fracture. INTRODUCTION: Hip fractures are associated with subsequent fractures, particularly in the year following initial fracture. Age-adjusted hip fracture rates have stabilised in many developed countries, but secular trends in subsequent fracture remain poorly documented. We thus evaluated secular trends (2000-2010) and determinants for the risk of a subsequent major (humerus, vertebral, or forearm) and any (non-hip) fracture after hip fracture. METHODS: Patients ≥50 years with a hip fracture between 2000 and 2010 were extracted from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (n = 30,516). Incidence rates, cumulative incidence probabilities, and adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) were calculated. RESULTS: Within 1 year following hip fracture, 2.7 and 8.4% of patients sustained a major or any (non-hip) fracture, which increased to 14.7 and 32.5% after 5 years, respectively. The most important risk factors for a subsequent major fracture within 1 year were the female gender [aHR 1.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.51-2.40] and a history of secondary osteoporosis (aHR 1.54, 95% CI 1.17-2.02). The annual risk increased during the study period for both subsequent major (2009-2010 vs. 2000-2002: aHR 1.44, 95% CI 1.12-1.83) and any (non-hip) facture (2009-2010 vs. 2000-2002: aHR 1.80, 95% CI 1.58-2.06). CONCLUSION: The risk of sustaining a major or any (non-hip) fracture after hip fracture is small in the first year. However, given the recent rise in secondary fracture rates and the substantial risk of subsequent fracture in the longer term, fracture prevention is clearly indicated for patients who have sustained a hip fracture.