To provide substantial benefits, interventions may need to be more intensive, target specific sub-groups, and/or to be fully integrated into local health care.
An important related concept is that the ease with which more intensive targets are reached influences treatment decisions; logically, lower targets are attractive if they can be achieved with less complex regimens and no or minimal adverse effects.
Interventions that are more intensive, target younger children (<12 years) and include both exercise and dietary modification are associated with the greatest reductions in measures of adiposity [ 35, 38, 60].
More intensive and targeted interventions are needed to address anti-obesity bias.
These studies suggest that more intensive and targeted interventions are needed to address anti-obesity bias.
It is recommended that such interventions be provided under a policy of "progressive universalism" with universal services provided for all families, and progressively more intensive support targeted toward families with greater need (Lynch et al., 2010; The Marmot Review, 2010).
It is suggested that dietary interventions targeting overweight/obese women should be more intensive than interventions targeting normal weight women.
If this observation is true, it suggests that intensive management to a SBP target of <120 mmHg may be of benefit in those who are not targeting an A1C of <6% and/or that the benefit of intensive blood pressure management is diminished by more intensive glycemia management targeting an A1C of <6%.
If this observation is true, it suggests that intensive management to a systolic blood pressure target of <120 mmHg may be of benefit in those who are not targeting an A1C of <6% and/or that the benefit of intensive blood pressure management is diminished by more intensive glycemia management targeting an A1C of <6%.
Whether individuals at highest risk ultimately achieved or failed to achieve more intensive treatment targets will require additional analysis.
