Clinician Reviews

Poor diets account for most newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes cases worldwide, a new analysis has found.

More specifically, the modeling study showed that roughly 14 million cases of type 2 diabetes – or 70% of total type 2 diabetes diagnoses in 2018 – were linked with a poor diet, found Meghan O’Hearn, a doctoral student at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University, Boston, and colleagues. The study was published online in Nature Medicine.

The results also indicate that the greatest burdens of type 2 diabetes were accounted for by excess wheat intake and refined rice (24.6%), excess processed meat consumption (20.3%), and inadequate whole-grain consumption (26.1%). Factors such as drinking too much fruit juice and not eating enough nonstarchy vegetables, nuts, or seeds, had less of an impact on new cases of the disease, the researchers determined.

“These findings can help inform nutritional priorities for clinicians, policymakers, and private sector actors as they encourage healthier dietary choices that address this global epidemic,” Ms. O’Hearn said in a press release.

Prior research has suggested that poor diet contributes to about 40% of type 2 diabetes cases worldwide, the researchers note.

The team attributes their finding of a 70% contribution to the new information in their analysis, such as the first-ever inclusion of refined grains, which was one of the top contributors to diabetes burden, and updated data on dietary habits based on national individual-level dietary surveys rather than agricultural estimates. 

“Our study suggests poor carbohydrate quality is a leading driver of diet-attributable type 2 diabetes globally and with important variation by nation and over time,” said senior author Dariush Mozaffarian, MD, DrPh, MPH, who is the Jean Mayer Professor of Nutrition at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy.

“These new findings reveal critical areas for national and global focus to improve nutrition and reduce devastating burdens of diabetes,” he noted.

“Left unchecked and with incidence only projected to rise, type 2 diabetes will continue to impact population health, economic productivity, [and] health care system capacity, [as well as] drive health inequities worldwide,” Ms. O’Hearn said.
 

It’s about reducing harmful dietary components

Ms. O’Hearn and colleagues set out to fill information gaps in knowledge about how the global burden of diet-associated type 2 diabetes is impacted by disparities and other factors known to influence risk, including dietary components.

They used information from the Global Dietary Database to study dietary intake in 184 nations from 1990 to 2018. They also studied demographics from multiple sources, estimates of type 2 diabetes incidence around the world, and data on food choices, including the effect of 11 dietary factors, from prior research.

They found that there were 8.6 million more cases of type 2 diabetes in 2018 than in 1990 because of poor diet. 

Regionally, Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia had the greatest number of type 2 diabetes cases linked to diet, particularly Poland and Russia, where diets tend to be rich in red meat, processed meat, and potatoes. Incidence was also high in Latin America and the Caribbean, especially in Colombia and Mexico, which was attributed to high consumption of sugary drinks and processed meat and low intake of whole grains.

Regions where diet had less of an impact on type 2 diabetes cases included South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, although the largest increases in type 2 diabetes due to poor diet between 1990 and 2018 were observed in sub-Saharan Africa.

Diet-attributable type 2 diabetes was generally larger among urban versus rural residents and higher versus lower educated individuals, except in high-income countries, Central and Eastern Europe, and Central Asia, where burdens were larger in rural residents and in lower educated individuals.

Notably, women had lower proportions of diet-related type 2 diabetes, compared with men, and these proportions were inversely related to age.

Excess intake of harmful dietary factors contributed a greater percentage of the burden of type 2 diabetes globally (60.8%) than did insufficient intake of protective dietary factors (39.2%).

“Future research should address whether more complex diet–type 2 diabetes dose–response relationships exist,” the authors conclude.

Ms. O’Hearn has reported receiving research funding from the Gates Foundation, as well as the National Institutes of Health and Vail Innovative Global Research and employment with Food Systems for the Future. Dr. Mozaffarian has reported receiving funding from the National Institutes of Health, the Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, Vail Innovative Global Research, and the Kaiser Permanente Fund at East Bay Community Foundation; personal fees from Acasti Pharma, Barilla, Danone, and Motif FoodWorks; is on the scientific advisory board for Beren Therapeutics, Brightseed, Calibrate, DiscernDx, Elysium Health, Filtricine, HumanCo, January, Perfect Day, Tiny Organics and (ended) Day Two and Season Health; has stock ownership in Calibrate and HumanCo; and receives chapter royalties from UpToDate.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Poor diets account for most newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes cases worldwide, a new analysis has found.

More specifically, the modeling study showed that roughly 14 million cases of type 2 diabetes – or 70% of total type 2 diabetes diagnoses in 2018 – were linked with a poor diet, found Meghan O’Hearn, a doctoral student at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University, Boston, and colleagues. The study was published online in Nature Medicine.

The results also indicate that the greatest burdens of type 2 diabetes were accounted for by excess wheat intake and refined rice (24.6%), excess processed meat consumption (20.3%), and inadequate whole-grain consumption (26.1%). Factors such as drinking too much fruit juice and not eating enough nonstarchy vegetables, nuts, or seeds, had less of an impact on new cases of the disease, the researchers determined.

“These findings can help inform nutritional priorities for clinicians, policymakers, and private sector actors as they encourage healthier dietary choices that address this global epidemic,” Ms. O’Hearn said in a press release.

Prior research has suggested that poor diet contributes to about 40% of type 2 diabetes cases worldwide, the researchers note.

The team attributes their finding of a 70% contribution to the new information in their analysis, such as the first-ever inclusion of refined grains, which was one of the top contributors to diabetes burden, and updated data on dietary habits based on national individual-level dietary surveys rather than agricultural estimates. 

“Our study suggests poor carbohydrate quality is a leading driver of diet-attributable type 2 diabetes globally and with important variation by nation and over time,” said senior author Dariush Mozaffarian, MD, DrPh, MPH, who is the Jean Mayer Professor of Nutrition at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy.

“These new findings reveal critical areas for national and global focus to improve nutrition and reduce devastating burdens of diabetes,” he noted.

“Left unchecked and with incidence only projected to rise, type 2 diabetes will continue to impact population health, economic productivity, [and] health care system capacity, [as well as] drive health inequities worldwide,” Ms. O’Hearn said.
 

It’s about reducing harmful dietary components

Ms. O’Hearn and colleagues set out to fill information gaps in knowledge about how the global burden of diet-associated type 2 diabetes is impacted by disparities and other factors known to influence risk, including dietary components.

They used information from the Global Dietary Database to study dietary intake in 184 nations from 1990 to 2018. They also studied demographics from multiple sources, estimates of type 2 diabetes incidence around the world, and data on food choices, including the effect of 11 dietary factors, from prior research.

They found that there were 8.6 million more cases of type 2 diabetes in 2018 than in 1990 because of poor diet. 

Regionally, Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia had the greatest number of type 2 diabetes cases linked to diet, particularly Poland and Russia, where diets tend to be rich in red meat, processed meat, and potatoes. Incidence was also high in Latin America and the Caribbean, especially in Colombia and Mexico, which was attributed to high consumption of sugary drinks and processed meat and low intake of whole grains.

Regions where diet had less of an impact on type 2 diabetes cases included South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, although the largest increases in type 2 diabetes due to poor diet between 1990 and 2018 were observed in sub-Saharan Africa.

Diet-attributable type 2 diabetes was generally larger among urban versus rural residents and higher versus lower educated individuals, except in high-income countries, Central and Eastern Europe, and Central Asia, where burdens were larger in rural residents and in lower educated individuals.

Notably, women had lower proportions of diet-related type 2 diabetes, compared with men, and these proportions were inversely related to age.

Excess intake of harmful dietary factors contributed a greater percentage of the burden of type 2 diabetes globally (60.8%) than did insufficient intake of protective dietary factors (39.2%).

“Future research should address whether more complex diet–type 2 diabetes dose–response relationships exist,” the authors conclude.

Ms. O’Hearn has reported receiving research funding from the Gates Foundation, as well as the National Institutes of Health and Vail Innovative Global Research and employment with Food Systems for the Future. Dr. Mozaffarian has reported receiving funding from the National Institutes of Health, the Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, Vail Innovative Global Research, and the Kaiser Permanente Fund at East Bay Community Foundation; personal fees from Acasti Pharma, Barilla, Danone, and Motif FoodWorks; is on the scientific advisory board for Beren Therapeutics, Brightseed, Calibrate, DiscernDx, Elysium Health, Filtricine, HumanCo, January, Perfect Day, Tiny Organics and (ended) Day Two and Season Health; has stock ownership in Calibrate and HumanCo; and receives chapter royalties from UpToDate.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Poor diets account for most newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes cases worldwide, a new analysis has found.

More specifically, the modeling study showed that roughly 14 million cases of type 2 diabetes – or 70% of total type 2 diabetes diagnoses in 2018 – were linked with a poor diet, found Meghan O’Hearn, a doctoral student at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University, Boston, and colleagues. The study was published online in Nature Medicine.

The results also indicate that the greatest burdens of type 2 diabetes were accounted for by excess wheat intake and refined rice (24.6%), excess processed meat consumption (20.3%), and inadequate whole-grain consumption (26.1%). Factors such as drinking too much fruit juice and not eating enough nonstarchy vegetables, nuts, or seeds, had less of an impact on new cases of the disease, the researchers determined.

“These findings can help inform nutritional priorities for clinicians, policymakers, and private sector actors as they encourage healthier dietary choices that address this global epidemic,” Ms. O’Hearn said in a press release.

Prior research has suggested that poor diet contributes to about 40% of type 2 diabetes cases worldwide, the researchers note.

The team attributes their finding of a 70% contribution to the new information in their analysis, such as the first-ever inclusion of refined grains, which was one of the top contributors to diabetes burden, and updated data on dietary habits based on national individual-level dietary surveys rather than agricultural estimates. 

“Our study suggests poor carbohydrate quality is a leading driver of diet-attributable type 2 diabetes globally and with important variation by nation and over time,” said senior author Dariush Mozaffarian, MD, DrPh, MPH, who is the Jean Mayer Professor of Nutrition at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy.

“These new findings reveal critical areas for national and global focus to improve nutrition and reduce devastating burdens of diabetes,” he noted.

“Left unchecked and with incidence only projected to rise, type 2 diabetes will continue to impact population health, economic productivity, [and] health care system capacity, [as well as] drive health inequities worldwide,” Ms. O’Hearn said.
 

It’s about reducing harmful dietary components

Ms. O’Hearn and colleagues set out to fill information gaps in knowledge about how the global burden of diet-associated type 2 diabetes is impacted by disparities and other factors known to influence risk, including dietary components.

They used information from the Global Dietary Database to study dietary intake in 184 nations from 1990 to 2018. They also studied demographics from multiple sources, estimates of type 2 diabetes incidence around the world, and data on food choices, including the effect of 11 dietary factors, from prior research.

They found that there were 8.6 million more cases of type 2 diabetes in 2018 than in 1990 because of poor diet. 

Regionally, Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia had the greatest number of type 2 diabetes cases linked to diet, particularly Poland and Russia, where diets tend to be rich in red meat, processed meat, and potatoes. Incidence was also high in Latin America and the Caribbean, especially in Colombia and Mexico, which was attributed to high consumption of sugary drinks and processed meat and low intake of whole grains.

Regions where diet had less of an impact on type 2 diabetes cases included South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, although the largest increases in type 2 diabetes due to poor diet between 1990 and 2018 were observed in sub-Saharan Africa.

Diet-attributable type 2 diabetes was generally larger among urban versus rural residents and higher versus lower educated individuals, except in high-income countries, Central and Eastern Europe, and Central Asia, where burdens were larger in rural residents and in lower educated individuals.

Notably, women had lower proportions of diet-related type 2 diabetes, compared with men, and these proportions were inversely related to age.

Excess intake of harmful dietary factors contributed a greater percentage of the burden of type 2 diabetes globally (60.8%) than did insufficient intake of protective dietary factors (39.2%).

“Future research should address whether more complex diet–type 2 diabetes dose–response relationships exist,” the authors conclude.

Ms. O’Hearn has reported receiving research funding from the Gates Foundation, as well as the National Institutes of Health and Vail Innovative Global Research and employment with Food Systems for the Future. Dr. Mozaffarian has reported receiving funding from the National Institutes of Health, the Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, Vail Innovative Global Research, and the Kaiser Permanente Fund at East Bay Community Foundation; personal fees from Acasti Pharma, Barilla, Danone, and Motif FoodWorks; is on the scientific advisory board for Beren Therapeutics, Brightseed, Calibrate, DiscernDx, Elysium Health, Filtricine, HumanCo, January, Perfect Day, Tiny Organics and (ended) Day Two and Season Health; has stock ownership in Calibrate and HumanCo; and receives chapter royalties from UpToDate.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has endorsed a plan to “allow” people over age 65 and those who are immunocompromised to get a second dose of the COVID-19 bivalent booster.

This backs the Food and Drug Administration’s authorization April 18 of the additional shot.

“Following FDA regulatory action, CDC has taken steps to simplify COVID-19 vaccine recommendations and allow more flexibility for people at higher risk who want the option of added protection from additional COVID-19 vaccine doses,” the CDC said in a statement.

The agency is following the recommendations made by its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). While there was no vote, the group reaffirmed its commitment to boosters overall, proposing that all Americans over age 6 who have not had a bivalent mRNA COVID-19 booster vaccine go ahead and get one.

But most others who’ve already had the bivalent shot – which targets the original COVID strain and the two Omicron variants BA.4 and BA.5 – should wait until the fall to get whatever updated vaccine is available.

The panel did carve out exceptions for people over age 65 and those who are immunocompromised because they are at higher risk for severe COVID-19 complications, Evelyn Twentyman, MD, MPH, the lead official in the CDC’s COVID-19 Vaccine Policy Unit, said during the meeting.

People over 65 can now choose to get a second bivalent mRNA booster shot as long as it has been at least 4 months since the last one, she said, and people who are immunocompromised also should have the flexibility to receive one or more additional bivalent boosters at least 2 months after an initial dose.

Regardless of whether someone is unvaccinated, and regardless of how many single-strain COVID vaccines an individual has previously received, they should get a mRNA bivalent shot, Dr. Twentyman said.

If an individual has already received a bivalent mRNA booster – made by either Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna – “your vaccination is complete,” she said. “No doses indicated at this time, come back and see us in autumn of 2023.”

The CDC is trying to encourage more people to get the updated COVID shot, as just 17% of Americans of any age have received a bivalent booster and only 43% of those age 65 and over.

The CDC followed the FDA’s lead in its statement, phasing out the original single-strain COVID vaccine, saying it will no longer be recommended for use in the United States.
 

‘Unnecessary drama’ over children’s recs

The CDC panel mostly followed the FDA’s guidance on who should get a booster, but many ACIP members expressed consternation and confusion about what was being recommended for children.

For children aged 6 months to 4 years, the CDC will offer tables to help physicians determine how many bivalent doses to give, depending on the child’s vaccination history.

All children those ages should get at least two vaccine doses, one of which is bivalent, Dr. Twentyman said. For children in that age group who have already received a monovalent series and a bivalent dose, “their vaccination is complete,” she said.

For 5-year-olds, the recommendations will be similar if they received a Pfizer monovalent series, but the shot regimen will have to be customized if they had previously received a Moderna shot, because of differences in the dosages.

ACIP member Sarah S. Long, MD, professor of pediatrics, Drexel University, Philadelphia, said that it was unclear why a set age couldn’t be established for COVID-19 vaccination as it had been for other immunizations.

“We picked 60 months for most immunizations in children,” Dr. Long said. “Immunologically there is not a difference between a 4-, a 5- and a 6-year-old.

“There isn’t a reason to have all this unnecessary drama around those ages,” she said, adding that having the different ages would make it harder for pediatricians to appropriately stock vaccines.

Dr. Twentyman said that the CDC would be providing more detailed guidance on its COVID-19 website soon and would be holding a call with health care professionals to discuss the updated recommendations on May 11.
 

New vaccine by fall

CDC and ACIP members both said they hoped to have an even simpler vaccine schedule by the fall, when it is anticipated that the FDA may have authorized a new, updated bivalent vaccine that targets other COVID variants.

“We all recognize this is a work in progress,” said ACIP Chair Grace M. Lee, MD, MPH, acknowledging that there is continued confusion over COVID-19 vaccination.

“The goal really is to try to simplify things over time to be able to help communicate with our provider community, and our patients and families what vaccine is right for them, when do they need it, and how often should they get it,” said Dr. Lee, professor of pediatrics, Stanford (Calif.) University.
 

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com .

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has endorsed a plan to “allow” people over age 65 and those who are immunocompromised to get a second dose of the COVID-19 bivalent booster.

This backs the Food and Drug Administration’s authorization April 18 of the additional shot.

“Following FDA regulatory action, CDC has taken steps to simplify COVID-19 vaccine recommendations and allow more flexibility for people at higher risk who want the option of added protection from additional COVID-19 vaccine doses,” the CDC said in a statement.

The agency is following the recommendations made by its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). While there was no vote, the group reaffirmed its commitment to boosters overall, proposing that all Americans over age 6 who have not had a bivalent mRNA COVID-19 booster vaccine go ahead and get one.

But most others who’ve already had the bivalent shot – which targets the original COVID strain and the two Omicron variants BA.4 and BA.5 – should wait until the fall to get whatever updated vaccine is available.

The panel did carve out exceptions for people over age 65 and those who are immunocompromised because they are at higher risk for severe COVID-19 complications, Evelyn Twentyman, MD, MPH, the lead official in the CDC’s COVID-19 Vaccine Policy Unit, said during the meeting.

People over 65 can now choose to get a second bivalent mRNA booster shot as long as it has been at least 4 months since the last one, she said, and people who are immunocompromised also should have the flexibility to receive one or more additional bivalent boosters at least 2 months after an initial dose.

Regardless of whether someone is unvaccinated, and regardless of how many single-strain COVID vaccines an individual has previously received, they should get a mRNA bivalent shot, Dr. Twentyman said.

If an individual has already received a bivalent mRNA booster – made by either Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna – “your vaccination is complete,” she said. “No doses indicated at this time, come back and see us in autumn of 2023.”

The CDC is trying to encourage more people to get the updated COVID shot, as just 17% of Americans of any age have received a bivalent booster and only 43% of those age 65 and over.

The CDC followed the FDA’s lead in its statement, phasing out the original single-strain COVID vaccine, saying it will no longer be recommended for use in the United States.
 

‘Unnecessary drama’ over children’s recs

The CDC panel mostly followed the FDA’s guidance on who should get a booster, but many ACIP members expressed consternation and confusion about what was being recommended for children.

For children aged 6 months to 4 years, the CDC will offer tables to help physicians determine how many bivalent doses to give, depending on the child’s vaccination history.

All children those ages should get at least two vaccine doses, one of which is bivalent, Dr. Twentyman said. For children in that age group who have already received a monovalent series and a bivalent dose, “their vaccination is complete,” she said.

For 5-year-olds, the recommendations will be similar if they received a Pfizer monovalent series, but the shot regimen will have to be customized if they had previously received a Moderna shot, because of differences in the dosages.

ACIP member Sarah S. Long, MD, professor of pediatrics, Drexel University, Philadelphia, said that it was unclear why a set age couldn’t be established for COVID-19 vaccination as it had been for other immunizations.

“We picked 60 months for most immunizations in children,” Dr. Long said. “Immunologically there is not a difference between a 4-, a 5- and a 6-year-old.

“There isn’t a reason to have all this unnecessary drama around those ages,” she said, adding that having the different ages would make it harder for pediatricians to appropriately stock vaccines.

Dr. Twentyman said that the CDC would be providing more detailed guidance on its COVID-19 website soon and would be holding a call with health care professionals to discuss the updated recommendations on May 11.
 

New vaccine by fall

CDC and ACIP members both said they hoped to have an even simpler vaccine schedule by the fall, when it is anticipated that the FDA may have authorized a new, updated bivalent vaccine that targets other COVID variants.

“We all recognize this is a work in progress,” said ACIP Chair Grace M. Lee, MD, MPH, acknowledging that there is continued confusion over COVID-19 vaccination.

“The goal really is to try to simplify things over time to be able to help communicate with our provider community, and our patients and families what vaccine is right for them, when do they need it, and how often should they get it,” said Dr. Lee, professor of pediatrics, Stanford (Calif.) University.
 

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com .

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has endorsed a plan to “allow” people over age 65 and those who are immunocompromised to get a second dose of the COVID-19 bivalent booster.

This backs the Food and Drug Administration’s authorization April 18 of the additional shot.

“Following FDA regulatory action, CDC has taken steps to simplify COVID-19 vaccine recommendations and allow more flexibility for people at higher risk who want the option of added protection from additional COVID-19 vaccine doses,” the CDC said in a statement.

The agency is following the recommendations made by its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). While there was no vote, the group reaffirmed its commitment to boosters overall, proposing that all Americans over age 6 who have not had a bivalent mRNA COVID-19 booster vaccine go ahead and get one.

But most others who’ve already had the bivalent shot – which targets the original COVID strain and the two Omicron variants BA.4 and BA.5 – should wait until the fall to get whatever updated vaccine is available.

The panel did carve out exceptions for people over age 65 and those who are immunocompromised because they are at higher risk for severe COVID-19 complications, Evelyn Twentyman, MD, MPH, the lead official in the CDC’s COVID-19 Vaccine Policy Unit, said during the meeting.

People over 65 can now choose to get a second bivalent mRNA booster shot as long as it has been at least 4 months since the last one, she said, and people who are immunocompromised also should have the flexibility to receive one or more additional bivalent boosters at least 2 months after an initial dose.

Regardless of whether someone is unvaccinated, and regardless of how many single-strain COVID vaccines an individual has previously received, they should get a mRNA bivalent shot, Dr. Twentyman said.

If an individual has already received a bivalent mRNA booster – made by either Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna – “your vaccination is complete,” she said. “No doses indicated at this time, come back and see us in autumn of 2023.”

The CDC is trying to encourage more people to get the updated COVID shot, as just 17% of Americans of any age have received a bivalent booster and only 43% of those age 65 and over.

The CDC followed the FDA’s lead in its statement, phasing out the original single-strain COVID vaccine, saying it will no longer be recommended for use in the United States.
 

‘Unnecessary drama’ over children’s recs

The CDC panel mostly followed the FDA’s guidance on who should get a booster, but many ACIP members expressed consternation and confusion about what was being recommended for children.

For children aged 6 months to 4 years, the CDC will offer tables to help physicians determine how many bivalent doses to give, depending on the child’s vaccination history.

All children those ages should get at least two vaccine doses, one of which is bivalent, Dr. Twentyman said. For children in that age group who have already received a monovalent series and a bivalent dose, “their vaccination is complete,” she said.

For 5-year-olds, the recommendations will be similar if they received a Pfizer monovalent series, but the shot regimen will have to be customized if they had previously received a Moderna shot, because of differences in the dosages.

ACIP member Sarah S. Long, MD, professor of pediatrics, Drexel University, Philadelphia, said that it was unclear why a set age couldn’t be established for COVID-19 vaccination as it had been for other immunizations.

“We picked 60 months for most immunizations in children,” Dr. Long said. “Immunologically there is not a difference between a 4-, a 5- and a 6-year-old.

“There isn’t a reason to have all this unnecessary drama around those ages,” she said, adding that having the different ages would make it harder for pediatricians to appropriately stock vaccines.

Dr. Twentyman said that the CDC would be providing more detailed guidance on its COVID-19 website soon and would be holding a call with health care professionals to discuss the updated recommendations on May 11.
 

New vaccine by fall

CDC and ACIP members both said they hoped to have an even simpler vaccine schedule by the fall, when it is anticipated that the FDA may have authorized a new, updated bivalent vaccine that targets other COVID variants.

“We all recognize this is a work in progress,” said ACIP Chair Grace M. Lee, MD, MPH, acknowledging that there is continued confusion over COVID-19 vaccination.

“The goal really is to try to simplify things over time to be able to help communicate with our provider community, and our patients and families what vaccine is right for them, when do they need it, and how often should they get it,” said Dr. Lee, professor of pediatrics, Stanford (Calif.) University.
 

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com .

Drinking sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) increases the risk of cardiovascular disease and all-cause death in people with type 2 diabetes, reveals a U.S. study that also suggests switching to coffee, tea, or low-fat milk may diminish these risks.

The researchers examined data on almost 15,500 participants with type 2 diabetes from two major studies, finding that the highest level of consumption of SSBs was associated with a 20% increased risk of all-cause mortality and a 25% raised risk of cardiovascular disease, compared with consumption of the least amounts of these products.

The research, published in BMJ, also showed that drinking coffee, tea, plain water, and low-fat milk reduced the risk of all-cause death and that switching from SSBs to the other beverages was linked to lower mortality.

“Overall, these results provide additional evidence that emphasizes the importance of beverage choices in maintaining overall health among adults with diabetes,” say senior author Le Ma, PhD, department of nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues.

“Collectively, these findings all point in the same direction. Lower consumption of SSBs and higher consumption of coffee, tea, plain water, or low-fat milk are optimal for better health outcomes in adults with type 2 diabetes,” Nita G. Forouhi, MD, PhD, emphasizes in an accompanying editorial.


 

Choice of drink matters

Dr. Forouhi, from the University of Cambridge (England), warned, however, that the findings “cannot be considered cause and effect,” despite the large-scale analysis.

Moreover, “questions remain,” such as the impact of beverage consumption on coronary heart disease and stroke risk, and cancer mortality, with the current study providing “inconclusive” data on the latter.

There was also no data on the addition of sugar to tea or coffee, “so the comparative health effects of unsweetened and sweetened hot beverages remain unclear,” Dr. Forouhi points out. Also unknown is whether the type of tea consumed has a differential effect.

Despite these and other reservations, she says that overall, “Choice of beverage clearly matters.”

“The case for avoiding sugar-sweetened beverages is compelling, and it is supported by various fiscal measures in more than 45 countries. It is reasonable to shift the focus to drinks that are most likely to have positive health impacts: coffee, tea, plain water, and low-fat milk,” she notes.

Dr. Forouhi ends by underlining that the current findings tally with those seen in the general population, so “one important message is that having diabetes does not have to be especially restrictive.”
 

Expanding the evidence

It was estimated that 537 million adults worldwide had type 2 diabetes in 2021, a figure set to increase to 783 million by 2045, say the authors.

Individuals with type 2 diabetes have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, among many other comorbidities, as well as premature death. Dietary interventions can play an important role in managing these risks.

Recommendations on the healthiest beverages to drink are largely based on evidence from the general population, and data are limited on the best options for adults with type 2 diabetes, who have altered metabolism, the researchers note.

To expand on this, they examined data from the Nurses’ Health Study, which enrolled female registered nurses aged 30-55 years and was initiated in 1976, and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, which included male health professionals aged 40-75 years and was initiated in 1996.

For the current analysis, 11,399 women and 4,087 men with type 2 diabetes were included from the two studies, of whom 2,715 were diagnosed before study entry.

Participants’ average daily beverage intake was assessed using a validated food frequency questionnaire administered every 2-4 years. SSBs included caffeinated and caffeine-free colas, other carbonated SSBs, and noncarbonated SSBs, such as fruit punches, lemonades, or other fruit drinks.

During 285,967 person-years of follow-up, there were 7,638 (49.3%) deaths, and 3,447 (22.3%) cases of incident cardiovascular disease were documented during 248,447 person-years of follow-up.

Fully adjusted multivariate analysis comparing the lowest and highest beverage intake indicated that SSBs were associated with a significant increase in all-cause mortality, at a pooled hazard ratio of 1.20, or 1.08 for each additional serving per day (P = .01).

In contrast, the associations between all-cause mortality and consumption of artificially sweetened beverages, fruit juice, and full-fat milk were not significant, whereas coffee (HR, 0.74), tea (HR, 0.79), plain water (HR, 0.77), and low-fat milk (HR, 0.88) were linked to a reduced risk.

The team reported that there were similar associations between beverage intake and cardiovascular disease incidence, at an HR of 1.25 for SSBs, as well as for cardiovascular disease mortality, at an HR of 1.29.

Participants who increased their tea, coffee, and low-fat milk consumption during the course of the study had lower all-cause mortality than those who did not. Switching from SSBs to other beverages was also associated with lower mortality.

The researchers note, however, that there are “several potential limitations” to their study, including that “individual beverage consumption may be correlated with other dietary and lifestyle risk factors for cardiovascular disease incidence and mortality among adults with [type 2] diabetes.”

The study was sponsored by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Ma has reported no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other authors are listed with the article. Dr. Forouhi has declared receiving support from the U.K. Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit and U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Research Biomedical Research Centre Cambridge.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Drinking sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) increases the risk of cardiovascular disease and all-cause death in people with type 2 diabetes, reveals a U.S. study that also suggests switching to coffee, tea, or low-fat milk may diminish these risks.

The researchers examined data on almost 15,500 participants with type 2 diabetes from two major studies, finding that the highest level of consumption of SSBs was associated with a 20% increased risk of all-cause mortality and a 25% raised risk of cardiovascular disease, compared with consumption of the least amounts of these products.

The research, published in BMJ, also showed that drinking coffee, tea, plain water, and low-fat milk reduced the risk of all-cause death and that switching from SSBs to the other beverages was linked to lower mortality.

“Overall, these results provide additional evidence that emphasizes the importance of beverage choices in maintaining overall health among adults with diabetes,” say senior author Le Ma, PhD, department of nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues.

“Collectively, these findings all point in the same direction. Lower consumption of SSBs and higher consumption of coffee, tea, plain water, or low-fat milk are optimal for better health outcomes in adults with type 2 diabetes,” Nita G. Forouhi, MD, PhD, emphasizes in an accompanying editorial.


 

Choice of drink matters

Dr. Forouhi, from the University of Cambridge (England), warned, however, that the findings “cannot be considered cause and effect,” despite the large-scale analysis.

Moreover, “questions remain,” such as the impact of beverage consumption on coronary heart disease and stroke risk, and cancer mortality, with the current study providing “inconclusive” data on the latter.

There was also no data on the addition of sugar to tea or coffee, “so the comparative health effects of unsweetened and sweetened hot beverages remain unclear,” Dr. Forouhi points out. Also unknown is whether the type of tea consumed has a differential effect.

Despite these and other reservations, she says that overall, “Choice of beverage clearly matters.”

“The case for avoiding sugar-sweetened beverages is compelling, and it is supported by various fiscal measures in more than 45 countries. It is reasonable to shift the focus to drinks that are most likely to have positive health impacts: coffee, tea, plain water, and low-fat milk,” she notes.

Dr. Forouhi ends by underlining that the current findings tally with those seen in the general population, so “one important message is that having diabetes does not have to be especially restrictive.”
 

Expanding the evidence

It was estimated that 537 million adults worldwide had type 2 diabetes in 2021, a figure set to increase to 783 million by 2045, say the authors.

Individuals with type 2 diabetes have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, among many other comorbidities, as well as premature death. Dietary interventions can play an important role in managing these risks.

Recommendations on the healthiest beverages to drink are largely based on evidence from the general population, and data are limited on the best options for adults with type 2 diabetes, who have altered metabolism, the researchers note.

To expand on this, they examined data from the Nurses’ Health Study, which enrolled female registered nurses aged 30-55 years and was initiated in 1976, and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, which included male health professionals aged 40-75 years and was initiated in 1996.

For the current analysis, 11,399 women and 4,087 men with type 2 diabetes were included from the two studies, of whom 2,715 were diagnosed before study entry.

Participants’ average daily beverage intake was assessed using a validated food frequency questionnaire administered every 2-4 years. SSBs included caffeinated and caffeine-free colas, other carbonated SSBs, and noncarbonated SSBs, such as fruit punches, lemonades, or other fruit drinks.

During 285,967 person-years of follow-up, there were 7,638 (49.3%) deaths, and 3,447 (22.3%) cases of incident cardiovascular disease were documented during 248,447 person-years of follow-up.

Fully adjusted multivariate analysis comparing the lowest and highest beverage intake indicated that SSBs were associated with a significant increase in all-cause mortality, at a pooled hazard ratio of 1.20, or 1.08 for each additional serving per day (P = .01).

In contrast, the associations between all-cause mortality and consumption of artificially sweetened beverages, fruit juice, and full-fat milk were not significant, whereas coffee (HR, 0.74), tea (HR, 0.79), plain water (HR, 0.77), and low-fat milk (HR, 0.88) were linked to a reduced risk.

The team reported that there were similar associations between beverage intake and cardiovascular disease incidence, at an HR of 1.25 for SSBs, as well as for cardiovascular disease mortality, at an HR of 1.29.

Participants who increased their tea, coffee, and low-fat milk consumption during the course of the study had lower all-cause mortality than those who did not. Switching from SSBs to other beverages was also associated with lower mortality.

The researchers note, however, that there are “several potential limitations” to their study, including that “individual beverage consumption may be correlated with other dietary and lifestyle risk factors for cardiovascular disease incidence and mortality among adults with [type 2] diabetes.”

The study was sponsored by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Ma has reported no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other authors are listed with the article. Dr. Forouhi has declared receiving support from the U.K. Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit and U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Research Biomedical Research Centre Cambridge.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Drinking sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) increases the risk of cardiovascular disease and all-cause death in people with type 2 diabetes, reveals a U.S. study that also suggests switching to coffee, tea, or low-fat milk may diminish these risks.

The researchers examined data on almost 15,500 participants with type 2 diabetes from two major studies, finding that the highest level of consumption of SSBs was associated with a 20% increased risk of all-cause mortality and a 25% raised risk of cardiovascular disease, compared with consumption of the least amounts of these products.

The research, published in BMJ, also showed that drinking coffee, tea, plain water, and low-fat milk reduced the risk of all-cause death and that switching from SSBs to the other beverages was linked to lower mortality.

“Overall, these results provide additional evidence that emphasizes the importance of beverage choices in maintaining overall health among adults with diabetes,” say senior author Le Ma, PhD, department of nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues.

“Collectively, these findings all point in the same direction. Lower consumption of SSBs and higher consumption of coffee, tea, plain water, or low-fat milk are optimal for better health outcomes in adults with type 2 diabetes,” Nita G. Forouhi, MD, PhD, emphasizes in an accompanying editorial.


 

Choice of drink matters

Dr. Forouhi, from the University of Cambridge (England), warned, however, that the findings “cannot be considered cause and effect,” despite the large-scale analysis.

Moreover, “questions remain,” such as the impact of beverage consumption on coronary heart disease and stroke risk, and cancer mortality, with the current study providing “inconclusive” data on the latter.

There was also no data on the addition of sugar to tea or coffee, “so the comparative health effects of unsweetened and sweetened hot beverages remain unclear,” Dr. Forouhi points out. Also unknown is whether the type of tea consumed has a differential effect.

Despite these and other reservations, she says that overall, “Choice of beverage clearly matters.”

“The case for avoiding sugar-sweetened beverages is compelling, and it is supported by various fiscal measures in more than 45 countries. It is reasonable to shift the focus to drinks that are most likely to have positive health impacts: coffee, tea, plain water, and low-fat milk,” she notes.

Dr. Forouhi ends by underlining that the current findings tally with those seen in the general population, so “one important message is that having diabetes does not have to be especially restrictive.”
 

Expanding the evidence

It was estimated that 537 million adults worldwide had type 2 diabetes in 2021, a figure set to increase to 783 million by 2045, say the authors.

Individuals with type 2 diabetes have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, among many other comorbidities, as well as premature death. Dietary interventions can play an important role in managing these risks.

Recommendations on the healthiest beverages to drink are largely based on evidence from the general population, and data are limited on the best options for adults with type 2 diabetes, who have altered metabolism, the researchers note.

To expand on this, they examined data from the Nurses’ Health Study, which enrolled female registered nurses aged 30-55 years and was initiated in 1976, and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, which included male health professionals aged 40-75 years and was initiated in 1996.

For the current analysis, 11,399 women and 4,087 men with type 2 diabetes were included from the two studies, of whom 2,715 were diagnosed before study entry.

Participants’ average daily beverage intake was assessed using a validated food frequency questionnaire administered every 2-4 years. SSBs included caffeinated and caffeine-free colas, other carbonated SSBs, and noncarbonated SSBs, such as fruit punches, lemonades, or other fruit drinks.

During 285,967 person-years of follow-up, there were 7,638 (49.3%) deaths, and 3,447 (22.3%) cases of incident cardiovascular disease were documented during 248,447 person-years of follow-up.

Fully adjusted multivariate analysis comparing the lowest and highest beverage intake indicated that SSBs were associated with a significant increase in all-cause mortality, at a pooled hazard ratio of 1.20, or 1.08 for each additional serving per day (P = .01).

In contrast, the associations between all-cause mortality and consumption of artificially sweetened beverages, fruit juice, and full-fat milk were not significant, whereas coffee (HR, 0.74), tea (HR, 0.79), plain water (HR, 0.77), and low-fat milk (HR, 0.88) were linked to a reduced risk.

The team reported that there were similar associations between beverage intake and cardiovascular disease incidence, at an HR of 1.25 for SSBs, as well as for cardiovascular disease mortality, at an HR of 1.29.

Participants who increased their tea, coffee, and low-fat milk consumption during the course of the study had lower all-cause mortality than those who did not. Switching from SSBs to other beverages was also associated with lower mortality.

The researchers note, however, that there are “several potential limitations” to their study, including that “individual beverage consumption may be correlated with other dietary and lifestyle risk factors for cardiovascular disease incidence and mortality among adults with [type 2] diabetes.”

The study was sponsored by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Ma has reported no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other authors are listed with the article. Dr. Forouhi has declared receiving support from the U.K. Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit and U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Research Biomedical Research Centre Cambridge.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

My son needed a physical for his football team, and we couldn’t get an appointment. So, we went to the urgent care next to the H Mart in Cary, N.C. While I was waiting, I thought, let me go get a coffee or an iced tea at the H Mart. They have this French bakery in there.

I went in and ordered my drink, and I was waiting in line. I saw this woman pass me running with a baby. Another woman – I found out later it was her sister – was running after her, and she said: “Call 911!”

“I don’t have my phone,” I said. I left my phone with my son; he was using it.

The lady came running back holding the baby. She was hysterical, screaming: “My baby’s not breathing!”

I said: “Are you okay?” And she just handed me the baby. The baby was gray, and there was blood in her nose and mouth. The woman said: “She’s my baby. She’s 1 week old.”

I was trying to think very quickly. I didn’t see any bubbles in the blood around the baby’s nose or mouth to tell me if she was breathing. She was just limp. The mom was still screaming, but I couldn’t even hear her anymore. It was like I was having an out-of-body experience. All I could hear were my thoughts: “I need to put this baby down to start CPR. Someone was calling 911. I should go in the front of the store to save time, so EMS doesn’t have to look for me when they come.”

I started moving and trying to clean the blood from the baby’s face with her blanket. At the front of the store, I saw a display of rice bags. I put the baby on top of one of the bags. “Okay, where do I check for a pulse on a baby?” I took care of adults, never pediatric patients, never babies. She was so tiny. I put my hand on her chest and felt nothing. No heartbeat. She still wasn’t breathing.

People were around me, but I couldn’t see or hear anybody. All I was thinking was: “What can I do for this patient right now?” I started CPR with two fingers. Nothing was happening. It wasn’t that long, but it felt like forever for me. I couldn’t do mouth-to-mouth because there was so much blood on her face. I still don’t know what caused the bleeding.

It was COVID time, so I had my mask on. I was, like: “You know what? Screw this. She’s a 1-week-old baby. Her lungs are tiny. Maybe I don’t have to do mouth-to-mouth. I can just blow in her mouth.” I took off my mask and opened her mouth. I took a deep breath and blew a little bit of air in her mouth. I continued CPR for maybe 5 or 10 seconds.

And then she gasped! She opened her eyes, but they were rolled up. I was still doing CPR, and maybe 2 second after that, I could feel under my hand a very rapid heart rate. I took my hand away and lifted her up.

Just then the EMS got there. I gave them the baby and said: “I did CPR. I don’t know how long it lasted.” The EMS person looked at me, said: “Thank you for what you did. Now we need you to help us with mom.” I said, “okay.”

I turned around, and the mom was still screaming and crying. I asked one of the ladies that worked there, “Can you get me water?” She brought it, and I gave some to the mom, and she started talking to EMS.

People were asking me: “What happened? What happened?” It’s funny, I guess the nurse in me didn’t want to give out information. And I didn’t want to ask for information. I was thinking about privacy. I said, “I don’t know,” and walked away.

The mom’s sister came and hugged me and said thank you. I was still in this out-of-body zone, and I just wanted to get the hell out of there. So, I left. I went to my car and when I got in it, I started shaking and sweating and crying.

I had been so calm in the moment, not thinking about if the baby was going to survive or not. I didn’t know how long she was without oxygen, if she would have some anoxic brain injury or stroke. I’m a mom, too. I would have been just as terrified as that mom. I just hoped there was a chance that she could take her baby home.

I went back to the urgent care, and my son was, like, “are you okay?” I said: “You will not believe this. I just did CPR on a baby.” He said: “Oh. Okay.” I don’t think he even knew what that meant.

I’ve been an ICU nurse since 2008. I’ve been in very critical moments with patients, life or death situations. I help save people all the time at the hospital. Most of the time, you know what you’re getting. You can prepare. You have everything you need, and everyone knows what to do. You know what the worst will look like. You know the outcome.

But this was something else. You read about things like this. You hear about them. But you never think it’ll happen to you – until it happens.

I couldn’t stop thinking about the baby. So, 2 days later, I posted on Next Door to see if somebody would read it and say, “hey, the baby survived.” I was amazed at how many people responded, but no one knew the family.

The local news got hold of me and asked me to do a story. I told them, “the only way I can do a story is if the baby survived. I’m not going to do a story about a dead baby, and the mom has to live through it again.”

The reporter called me later on that day and said she had talked to the police. They said the family was visiting from out of state. The baby went to the hospital and was discharged home 2 days later. I said, “okay, then I can talk.”

When the news story came out, I started getting texts from people at work the same night. So many people were reaching out. Even people from out of state. But I never heard from the family. No one knew how to reach them.

Since I was very young, I wanted to work in a hospital, to help people. It really brings me joy, seeing somebody go home, knowing, yes, we did this. It’s a great feeling. I love this job. I wouldn’t trade it for anything.

I just wish I had asked the mom’s name. Because I always think about that baby. I always wonder, what did she become? I hope somebody reads this who might know that little girl. It would be so nice to meet her one day.

Ms. Diallo is an ICU nurse and now works as nurse care coordinator at the University of North Carolina’s Children’s Neurology Clinic in Chapel Hill.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

My son needed a physical for his football team, and we couldn’t get an appointment. So, we went to the urgent care next to the H Mart in Cary, N.C. While I was waiting, I thought, let me go get a coffee or an iced tea at the H Mart. They have this French bakery in there.

I went in and ordered my drink, and I was waiting in line. I saw this woman pass me running with a baby. Another woman – I found out later it was her sister – was running after her, and she said: “Call 911!”

“I don’t have my phone,” I said. I left my phone with my son; he was using it.

The lady came running back holding the baby. She was hysterical, screaming: “My baby’s not breathing!”

I said: “Are you okay?” And she just handed me the baby. The baby was gray, and there was blood in her nose and mouth. The woman said: “She’s my baby. She’s 1 week old.”

I was trying to think very quickly. I didn’t see any bubbles in the blood around the baby’s nose or mouth to tell me if she was breathing. She was just limp. The mom was still screaming, but I couldn’t even hear her anymore. It was like I was having an out-of-body experience. All I could hear were my thoughts: “I need to put this baby down to start CPR. Someone was calling 911. I should go in the front of the store to save time, so EMS doesn’t have to look for me when they come.”

I started moving and trying to clean the blood from the baby’s face with her blanket. At the front of the store, I saw a display of rice bags. I put the baby on top of one of the bags. “Okay, where do I check for a pulse on a baby?” I took care of adults, never pediatric patients, never babies. She was so tiny. I put my hand on her chest and felt nothing. No heartbeat. She still wasn’t breathing.

People were around me, but I couldn’t see or hear anybody. All I was thinking was: “What can I do for this patient right now?” I started CPR with two fingers. Nothing was happening. It wasn’t that long, but it felt like forever for me. I couldn’t do mouth-to-mouth because there was so much blood on her face. I still don’t know what caused the bleeding.

It was COVID time, so I had my mask on. I was, like: “You know what? Screw this. She’s a 1-week-old baby. Her lungs are tiny. Maybe I don’t have to do mouth-to-mouth. I can just blow in her mouth.” I took off my mask and opened her mouth. I took a deep breath and blew a little bit of air in her mouth. I continued CPR for maybe 5 or 10 seconds.

And then she gasped! She opened her eyes, but they were rolled up. I was still doing CPR, and maybe 2 second after that, I could feel under my hand a very rapid heart rate. I took my hand away and lifted her up.

Just then the EMS got there. I gave them the baby and said: “I did CPR. I don’t know how long it lasted.” The EMS person looked at me, said: “Thank you for what you did. Now we need you to help us with mom.” I said, “okay.”

I turned around, and the mom was still screaming and crying. I asked one of the ladies that worked there, “Can you get me water?” She brought it, and I gave some to the mom, and she started talking to EMS.

People were asking me: “What happened? What happened?” It’s funny, I guess the nurse in me didn’t want to give out information. And I didn’t want to ask for information. I was thinking about privacy. I said, “I don’t know,” and walked away.

The mom’s sister came and hugged me and said thank you. I was still in this out-of-body zone, and I just wanted to get the hell out of there. So, I left. I went to my car and when I got in it, I started shaking and sweating and crying.

I had been so calm in the moment, not thinking about if the baby was going to survive or not. I didn’t know how long she was without oxygen, if she would have some anoxic brain injury or stroke. I’m a mom, too. I would have been just as terrified as that mom. I just hoped there was a chance that she could take her baby home.

I went back to the urgent care, and my son was, like, “are you okay?” I said: “You will not believe this. I just did CPR on a baby.” He said: “Oh. Okay.” I don’t think he even knew what that meant.

I’ve been an ICU nurse since 2008. I’ve been in very critical moments with patients, life or death situations. I help save people all the time at the hospital. Most of the time, you know what you’re getting. You can prepare. You have everything you need, and everyone knows what to do. You know what the worst will look like. You know the outcome.

But this was something else. You read about things like this. You hear about them. But you never think it’ll happen to you – until it happens.

I couldn’t stop thinking about the baby. So, 2 days later, I posted on Next Door to see if somebody would read it and say, “hey, the baby survived.” I was amazed at how many people responded, but no one knew the family.

The local news got hold of me and asked me to do a story. I told them, “the only way I can do a story is if the baby survived. I’m not going to do a story about a dead baby, and the mom has to live through it again.”

The reporter called me later on that day and said she had talked to the police. They said the family was visiting from out of state. The baby went to the hospital and was discharged home 2 days later. I said, “okay, then I can talk.”

When the news story came out, I started getting texts from people at work the same night. So many people were reaching out. Even people from out of state. But I never heard from the family. No one knew how to reach them.

Since I was very young, I wanted to work in a hospital, to help people. It really brings me joy, seeing somebody go home, knowing, yes, we did this. It’s a great feeling. I love this job. I wouldn’t trade it for anything.

I just wish I had asked the mom’s name. Because I always think about that baby. I always wonder, what did she become? I hope somebody reads this who might know that little girl. It would be so nice to meet her one day.

Ms. Diallo is an ICU nurse and now works as nurse care coordinator at the University of North Carolina’s Children’s Neurology Clinic in Chapel Hill.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

My son needed a physical for his football team, and we couldn’t get an appointment. So, we went to the urgent care next to the H Mart in Cary, N.C. While I was waiting, I thought, let me go get a coffee or an iced tea at the H Mart. They have this French bakery in there.

I went in and ordered my drink, and I was waiting in line. I saw this woman pass me running with a baby. Another woman – I found out later it was her sister – was running after her, and she said: “Call 911!”

“I don’t have my phone,” I said. I left my phone with my son; he was using it.

The lady came running back holding the baby. She was hysterical, screaming: “My baby’s not breathing!”

I said: “Are you okay?” And she just handed me the baby. The baby was gray, and there was blood in her nose and mouth. The woman said: “She’s my baby. She’s 1 week old.”

I was trying to think very quickly. I didn’t see any bubbles in the blood around the baby’s nose or mouth to tell me if she was breathing. She was just limp. The mom was still screaming, but I couldn’t even hear her anymore. It was like I was having an out-of-body experience. All I could hear were my thoughts: “I need to put this baby down to start CPR. Someone was calling 911. I should go in the front of the store to save time, so EMS doesn’t have to look for me when they come.”

I started moving and trying to clean the blood from the baby’s face with her blanket. At the front of the store, I saw a display of rice bags. I put the baby on top of one of the bags. “Okay, where do I check for a pulse on a baby?” I took care of adults, never pediatric patients, never babies. She was so tiny. I put my hand on her chest and felt nothing. No heartbeat. She still wasn’t breathing.

People were around me, but I couldn’t see or hear anybody. All I was thinking was: “What can I do for this patient right now?” I started CPR with two fingers. Nothing was happening. It wasn’t that long, but it felt like forever for me. I couldn’t do mouth-to-mouth because there was so much blood on her face. I still don’t know what caused the bleeding.

It was COVID time, so I had my mask on. I was, like: “You know what? Screw this. She’s a 1-week-old baby. Her lungs are tiny. Maybe I don’t have to do mouth-to-mouth. I can just blow in her mouth.” I took off my mask and opened her mouth. I took a deep breath and blew a little bit of air in her mouth. I continued CPR for maybe 5 or 10 seconds.

And then she gasped! She opened her eyes, but they were rolled up. I was still doing CPR, and maybe 2 second after that, I could feel under my hand a very rapid heart rate. I took my hand away and lifted her up.

Just then the EMS got there. I gave them the baby and said: “I did CPR. I don’t know how long it lasted.” The EMS person looked at me, said: “Thank you for what you did. Now we need you to help us with mom.” I said, “okay.”

I turned around, and the mom was still screaming and crying. I asked one of the ladies that worked there, “Can you get me water?” She brought it, and I gave some to the mom, and she started talking to EMS.

People were asking me: “What happened? What happened?” It’s funny, I guess the nurse in me didn’t want to give out information. And I didn’t want to ask for information. I was thinking about privacy. I said, “I don’t know,” and walked away.

The mom’s sister came and hugged me and said thank you. I was still in this out-of-body zone, and I just wanted to get the hell out of there. So, I left. I went to my car and when I got in it, I started shaking and sweating and crying.

I had been so calm in the moment, not thinking about if the baby was going to survive or not. I didn’t know how long she was without oxygen, if she would have some anoxic brain injury or stroke. I’m a mom, too. I would have been just as terrified as that mom. I just hoped there was a chance that she could take her baby home.

I went back to the urgent care, and my son was, like, “are you okay?” I said: “You will not believe this. I just did CPR on a baby.” He said: “Oh. Okay.” I don’t think he even knew what that meant.

I’ve been an ICU nurse since 2008. I’ve been in very critical moments with patients, life or death situations. I help save people all the time at the hospital. Most of the time, you know what you’re getting. You can prepare. You have everything you need, and everyone knows what to do. You know what the worst will look like. You know the outcome.

But this was something else. You read about things like this. You hear about them. But you never think it’ll happen to you – until it happens.

I couldn’t stop thinking about the baby. So, 2 days later, I posted on Next Door to see if somebody would read it and say, “hey, the baby survived.” I was amazed at how many people responded, but no one knew the family.

The local news got hold of me and asked me to do a story. I told them, “the only way I can do a story is if the baby survived. I’m not going to do a story about a dead baby, and the mom has to live through it again.”

The reporter called me later on that day and said she had talked to the police. They said the family was visiting from out of state. The baby went to the hospital and was discharged home 2 days later. I said, “okay, then I can talk.”

When the news story came out, I started getting texts from people at work the same night. So many people were reaching out. Even people from out of state. But I never heard from the family. No one knew how to reach them.

Since I was very young, I wanted to work in a hospital, to help people. It really brings me joy, seeing somebody go home, knowing, yes, we did this. It’s a great feeling. I love this job. I wouldn’t trade it for anything.

I just wish I had asked the mom’s name. Because I always think about that baby. I always wonder, what did she become? I hope somebody reads this who might know that little girl. It would be so nice to meet her one day.

Ms. Diallo is an ICU nurse and now works as nurse care coordinator at the University of North Carolina’s Children’s Neurology Clinic in Chapel Hill.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A green adaptation to the traditional Mediterranean diet improves proximal aortic stiffness (PAS), a distinct marker of vascular aging and increased cardiovascular risk, according to an exploratory post hoc analysis of the DIRECT-PLUS randomized clinical trial.

The green Mediterranean diet is distinct from the traditional Mediterranean diet because of its more abundant dietary polyphenols, from green tea and a Wolffia globosa (Mankai) plant green shake, and lower intake of red or processed meat.

NataliTerr/Fotolia.com

Independent of weight loss, the modified green Mediterranean diet regressed PAS by 15%, the traditional Mediterranean diet by 7.3%, and the healthy dietary guideline–based diet by 4.8%, the study team observed.

“The DIRECT-PLUS trial research team was the first to introduce the concept of the green-Mediterranean/high polyphenols diet,” lead researcher Iris Shai, RD, PhD, with Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be’er-Sheva, Israel, told this news organization.

This diet promoted “dramatic proximal aortic de-stiffening” as assessed by MRI over 18 months in roughly 300 participants with abdominal obesity/dyslipidemia. “To date, no dietary strategies have been shown to impact vascular aging physiology,” Dr. Shai said.

The analysis was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.  


 

Not all healthy diets are equal

Of the 294 participants, 281 had valid PAS measurements at baseline. The baseline PAS (6.1 m/s) was similar across intervention groups (P = .20). Increased PAS was associated with aging, hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes, and visceral adiposity (P < .05).

After 18 months’ intervention (retention rate 89.8%), all diet groups showed significant PAS reductions: –0.05 m/s with the standard healthy diet (4.8%), –0.08 m/s with the traditional Mediterranean diet (7.3%) and –0.15 the green Mediterranean diet (15%).

In the multivariable model, the green Mediterranean dieters had greater PAS reduction than did the healthy-diet and Mediterranean dieters (P = .003 and P = .032, respectively).

The researchers caution that DIRECT-PLUS had multiple endpoints and this exploratory post hoc analysis might be sensitive to type I statistical error and should be considered “hypothesis-generating.”
 

High-quality study, believable results

Reached for comment on the study, Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, director of Mount Sinai Heart in New York, said, “There is not a lot of high-quality research on diet, and I would call this high-quality research in as much as they used randomization which most dietary studies don’t do.

“The greener Mediterranean diet seemed to be the best one on the surrogate marker of MRI-defined aortic stiffness,” Dr. Bhatt, professor of cardiovascular medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization.

“It makes sense that a diet that has more green in it, more polyphenols, would be healthier. This has been shown in some other studies, that these plant-based polyphenols might have various cardiovascular protective aspects to them,” Dr. Bhatt said.

Overall, he said the results are “quite believable, with the caveat that it would be nice to see the results reproduced in a more diverse and larger sample.”

“There is emerging evidence that diets that are higher in fresh fruits and vegetables and whole grains and lower in overall caloric intake, in general, seem to be good diets to reduce cardiovascular risk factors and maybe even reduce actual cardiovascular risk,” Dr. Bhatt added.

The study was funded by grants from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation), the Rosetrees Trust, Israel Ministry of Health, Israel Ministry of Science and Technology, and the California Walnuts Commission. Dr. Shai and Dr. Bhatt have no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A green adaptation to the traditional Mediterranean diet improves proximal aortic stiffness (PAS), a distinct marker of vascular aging and increased cardiovascular risk, according to an exploratory post hoc analysis of the DIRECT-PLUS randomized clinical trial.

The green Mediterranean diet is distinct from the traditional Mediterranean diet because of its more abundant dietary polyphenols, from green tea and a Wolffia globosa (Mankai) plant green shake, and lower intake of red or processed meat.

NataliTerr/Fotolia.com

Independent of weight loss, the modified green Mediterranean diet regressed PAS by 15%, the traditional Mediterranean diet by 7.3%, and the healthy dietary guideline–based diet by 4.8%, the study team observed.

“The DIRECT-PLUS trial research team was the first to introduce the concept of the green-Mediterranean/high polyphenols diet,” lead researcher Iris Shai, RD, PhD, with Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be’er-Sheva, Israel, told this news organization.

This diet promoted “dramatic proximal aortic de-stiffening” as assessed by MRI over 18 months in roughly 300 participants with abdominal obesity/dyslipidemia. “To date, no dietary strategies have been shown to impact vascular aging physiology,” Dr. Shai said.

The analysis was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.  


 

Not all healthy diets are equal

Of the 294 participants, 281 had valid PAS measurements at baseline. The baseline PAS (6.1 m/s) was similar across intervention groups (P = .20). Increased PAS was associated with aging, hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes, and visceral adiposity (P < .05).

After 18 months’ intervention (retention rate 89.8%), all diet groups showed significant PAS reductions: –0.05 m/s with the standard healthy diet (4.8%), –0.08 m/s with the traditional Mediterranean diet (7.3%) and –0.15 the green Mediterranean diet (15%).

In the multivariable model, the green Mediterranean dieters had greater PAS reduction than did the healthy-diet and Mediterranean dieters (P = .003 and P = .032, respectively).

The researchers caution that DIRECT-PLUS had multiple endpoints and this exploratory post hoc analysis might be sensitive to type I statistical error and should be considered “hypothesis-generating.”
 

High-quality study, believable results

Reached for comment on the study, Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, director of Mount Sinai Heart in New York, said, “There is not a lot of high-quality research on diet, and I would call this high-quality research in as much as they used randomization which most dietary studies don’t do.

“The greener Mediterranean diet seemed to be the best one on the surrogate marker of MRI-defined aortic stiffness,” Dr. Bhatt, professor of cardiovascular medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization.

“It makes sense that a diet that has more green in it, more polyphenols, would be healthier. This has been shown in some other studies, that these plant-based polyphenols might have various cardiovascular protective aspects to them,” Dr. Bhatt said.

Overall, he said the results are “quite believable, with the caveat that it would be nice to see the results reproduced in a more diverse and larger sample.”

“There is emerging evidence that diets that are higher in fresh fruits and vegetables and whole grains and lower in overall caloric intake, in general, seem to be good diets to reduce cardiovascular risk factors and maybe even reduce actual cardiovascular risk,” Dr. Bhatt added.

The study was funded by grants from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation), the Rosetrees Trust, Israel Ministry of Health, Israel Ministry of Science and Technology, and the California Walnuts Commission. Dr. Shai and Dr. Bhatt have no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A green adaptation to the traditional Mediterranean diet improves proximal aortic stiffness (PAS), a distinct marker of vascular aging and increased cardiovascular risk, according to an exploratory post hoc analysis of the DIRECT-PLUS randomized clinical trial.

The green Mediterranean diet is distinct from the traditional Mediterranean diet because of its more abundant dietary polyphenols, from green tea and a Wolffia globosa (Mankai) plant green shake, and lower intake of red or processed meat.

NataliTerr/Fotolia.com

Independent of weight loss, the modified green Mediterranean diet regressed PAS by 15%, the traditional Mediterranean diet by 7.3%, and the healthy dietary guideline–based diet by 4.8%, the study team observed.

“The DIRECT-PLUS trial research team was the first to introduce the concept of the green-Mediterranean/high polyphenols diet,” lead researcher Iris Shai, RD, PhD, with Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be’er-Sheva, Israel, told this news organization.

This diet promoted “dramatic proximal aortic de-stiffening” as assessed by MRI over 18 months in roughly 300 participants with abdominal obesity/dyslipidemia. “To date, no dietary strategies have been shown to impact vascular aging physiology,” Dr. Shai said.

The analysis was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.  


 

Not all healthy diets are equal

Of the 294 participants, 281 had valid PAS measurements at baseline. The baseline PAS (6.1 m/s) was similar across intervention groups (P = .20). Increased PAS was associated with aging, hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes, and visceral adiposity (P < .05).

After 18 months’ intervention (retention rate 89.8%), all diet groups showed significant PAS reductions: –0.05 m/s with the standard healthy diet (4.8%), –0.08 m/s with the traditional Mediterranean diet (7.3%) and –0.15 the green Mediterranean diet (15%).

In the multivariable model, the green Mediterranean dieters had greater PAS reduction than did the healthy-diet and Mediterranean dieters (P = .003 and P = .032, respectively).

The researchers caution that DIRECT-PLUS had multiple endpoints and this exploratory post hoc analysis might be sensitive to type I statistical error and should be considered “hypothesis-generating.”
 

High-quality study, believable results

Reached for comment on the study, Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, director of Mount Sinai Heart in New York, said, “There is not a lot of high-quality research on diet, and I would call this high-quality research in as much as they used randomization which most dietary studies don’t do.

“The greener Mediterranean diet seemed to be the best one on the surrogate marker of MRI-defined aortic stiffness,” Dr. Bhatt, professor of cardiovascular medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization.

“It makes sense that a diet that has more green in it, more polyphenols, would be healthier. This has been shown in some other studies, that these plant-based polyphenols might have various cardiovascular protective aspects to them,” Dr. Bhatt said.

Overall, he said the results are “quite believable, with the caveat that it would be nice to see the results reproduced in a more diverse and larger sample.”

“There is emerging evidence that diets that are higher in fresh fruits and vegetables and whole grains and lower in overall caloric intake, in general, seem to be good diets to reduce cardiovascular risk factors and maybe even reduce actual cardiovascular risk,” Dr. Bhatt added.

The study was funded by grants from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation), the Rosetrees Trust, Israel Ministry of Health, Israel Ministry of Science and Technology, and the California Walnuts Commission. Dr. Shai and Dr. Bhatt have no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Napping for more than half an hour during the day was associated with a 90% increased risk of atrial fibrillation (AFib), but shorter naps were linked to a reduced risk, based on data from more than 20,000 individuals.

“Short daytime napping is a common, healthy habit, especially in Mediterranean countries,” Jesus Diaz-Gutierrez, MD, of Juan Ramon Jimenez University Hospital, Huelva, Spain, said in a presentation at the annual congress of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology (EAPC).

Judith Shidlowsky/Pixabay

Previous studies have shown a potential link between sleep patterns and AFib risk, but the association between specific duration of daytime naps and AFib risk has not been explored, he said.

Dr. Diaz-Gutierrez and colleagues used data from the University of Navarra Follow-up (SUN) Project, a prospective cohort of Spanish university graduates, to explore the possible link between naps and AFib. The study population included 20,348 individuals without AFib at baseline who were followed for a median of 13.8 years. The average age of participants at baseline was 38 years; 61% were women.

Daytime napping patterns were assessed at baseline, and participants were divided into nap groups of short nappers (defined as less than 30 minutes per day), and longer nappers (30 minutes or more per day), and those who reported no napping.

The researchers identified 131 incident cases of AFib during the follow-up period. Overall, the relative risk of incident AFib was significantly higher for the long nappers (adjusted hazard ratio 1.90) compared with short nappers in a multivariate analysis, while no significant risk appeared among non-nappers compared to short nappers (aHR 1.26).

The researchers then excluded the non-nappers in a secondary analysis to explore the impact of more specific daily nap duration on AFib risk. In a multivariate analysis, they found a 42% reduced risk of AF among those who napped for less than 15 minutes, and a 56% reduced risk for those who napped for 15-30 minutes, compared with those who napped for more than 30 minutes (aHR 0.56 and 0.42, respectively).

Potential explanations for the associations include the role of circadian rhythms, Dr. Diaz-Gutierrez said in a press release accompanying the presentation at the meeting. “Long daytime naps may disrupt the body’s internal clock (circadian rhythm), leading to shorter nighttime sleep, more nocturnal awakening, and reduced physical activity. In contrast, short daytime napping may improve circadian rhythm, lower blood pressure levels, and reduce stress.” More research is needed to validate the findings and the optimum nap duration, and whether a short nap is more advantageous than not napping in terms of AFib risk reduction, he said.

The study results suggest that naps of 15-30 minutes represent “a potential novel healthy lifestyle habit in the primary prevention of AFib,” Dr. Diaz-Gutierrez said in his presentation. However, the results also suggest that daily naps be limited to less than 30 minutes, he concluded.
 

Sleep habits may serve as red flag

“As we age, most if not all of us will develop sleep disturbances, such as insomnia, obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), and other sleep issues,” Lawrence S. Rosenthal, MD, of the University of Massachusetts, Worcester, said in an interview.

Therefore, “this study is near and dear to most people, and most would agree that poor sleeping habits affect our health.” In particular, OSA has been linked to AFib, although that was not measured in the current study, he added.

Dr. Rosenthal said he was not surprised by the current study findings. “It seems that a quick recharge of your ‘battery’ during the day is healthier than a long, deep sleep daytime nap,” he said. In addition, “Longer naps may be a marker of OSA,” he noted.

For clinicians, the take-home message of the current study is the need to consider underlying medical conditions in patients who regularly take long afternoon naps, and to consider these longer naps as a potential marker for AFib, said Dr. Rosenthal.

Looking ahead, a “deeper dive into the makeup of the populations studied” would be useful as a foundation for additional research, he said.

The SUN Project disclosed funding from the Spanish Government-Instituto de Salud Carlos III and the European Regional Development Fund (FEDER), the Navarra Regional Government, Plan Nacional Sobre Drogas, the University of Navarra, and the European Research Council. The researchers, and Dr. Rosenthal, had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Napping for more than half an hour during the day was associated with a 90% increased risk of atrial fibrillation (AFib), but shorter naps were linked to a reduced risk, based on data from more than 20,000 individuals.

“Short daytime napping is a common, healthy habit, especially in Mediterranean countries,” Jesus Diaz-Gutierrez, MD, of Juan Ramon Jimenez University Hospital, Huelva, Spain, said in a presentation at the annual congress of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology (EAPC).

Judith Shidlowsky/Pixabay

Previous studies have shown a potential link between sleep patterns and AFib risk, but the association between specific duration of daytime naps and AFib risk has not been explored, he said.

Dr. Diaz-Gutierrez and colleagues used data from the University of Navarra Follow-up (SUN) Project, a prospective cohort of Spanish university graduates, to explore the possible link between naps and AFib. The study population included 20,348 individuals without AFib at baseline who were followed for a median of 13.8 years. The average age of participants at baseline was 38 years; 61% were women.

Daytime napping patterns were assessed at baseline, and participants were divided into nap groups of short nappers (defined as less than 30 minutes per day), and longer nappers (30 minutes or more per day), and those who reported no napping.

The researchers identified 131 incident cases of AFib during the follow-up period. Overall, the relative risk of incident AFib was significantly higher for the long nappers (adjusted hazard ratio 1.90) compared with short nappers in a multivariate analysis, while no significant risk appeared among non-nappers compared to short nappers (aHR 1.26).

The researchers then excluded the non-nappers in a secondary analysis to explore the impact of more specific daily nap duration on AFib risk. In a multivariate analysis, they found a 42% reduced risk of AF among those who napped for less than 15 minutes, and a 56% reduced risk for those who napped for 15-30 minutes, compared with those who napped for more than 30 minutes (aHR 0.56 and 0.42, respectively).

Potential explanations for the associations include the role of circadian rhythms, Dr. Diaz-Gutierrez said in a press release accompanying the presentation at the meeting. “Long daytime naps may disrupt the body’s internal clock (circadian rhythm), leading to shorter nighttime sleep, more nocturnal awakening, and reduced physical activity. In contrast, short daytime napping may improve circadian rhythm, lower blood pressure levels, and reduce stress.” More research is needed to validate the findings and the optimum nap duration, and whether a short nap is more advantageous than not napping in terms of AFib risk reduction, he said.

The study results suggest that naps of 15-30 minutes represent “a potential novel healthy lifestyle habit in the primary prevention of AFib,” Dr. Diaz-Gutierrez said in his presentation. However, the results also suggest that daily naps be limited to less than 30 minutes, he concluded.
 

Sleep habits may serve as red flag

“As we age, most if not all of us will develop sleep disturbances, such as insomnia, obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), and other sleep issues,” Lawrence S. Rosenthal, MD, of the University of Massachusetts, Worcester, said in an interview.

Therefore, “this study is near and dear to most people, and most would agree that poor sleeping habits affect our health.” In particular, OSA has been linked to AFib, although that was not measured in the current study, he added.

Dr. Rosenthal said he was not surprised by the current study findings. “It seems that a quick recharge of your ‘battery’ during the day is healthier than a long, deep sleep daytime nap,” he said. In addition, “Longer naps may be a marker of OSA,” he noted.

For clinicians, the take-home message of the current study is the need to consider underlying medical conditions in patients who regularly take long afternoon naps, and to consider these longer naps as a potential marker for AFib, said Dr. Rosenthal.

Looking ahead, a “deeper dive into the makeup of the populations studied” would be useful as a foundation for additional research, he said.

The SUN Project disclosed funding from the Spanish Government-Instituto de Salud Carlos III and the European Regional Development Fund (FEDER), the Navarra Regional Government, Plan Nacional Sobre Drogas, the University of Navarra, and the European Research Council. The researchers, and Dr. Rosenthal, had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Napping for more than half an hour during the day was associated with a 90% increased risk of atrial fibrillation (AFib), but shorter naps were linked to a reduced risk, based on data from more than 20,000 individuals.

“Short daytime napping is a common, healthy habit, especially in Mediterranean countries,” Jesus Diaz-Gutierrez, MD, of Juan Ramon Jimenez University Hospital, Huelva, Spain, said in a presentation at the annual congress of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology (EAPC).

Judith Shidlowsky/Pixabay

Previous studies have shown a potential link between sleep patterns and AFib risk, but the association between specific duration of daytime naps and AFib risk has not been explored, he said.

Dr. Diaz-Gutierrez and colleagues used data from the University of Navarra Follow-up (SUN) Project, a prospective cohort of Spanish university graduates, to explore the possible link between naps and AFib. The study population included 20,348 individuals without AFib at baseline who were followed for a median of 13.8 years. The average age of participants at baseline was 38 years; 61% were women.

Daytime napping patterns were assessed at baseline, and participants were divided into nap groups of short nappers (defined as less than 30 minutes per day), and longer nappers (30 minutes or more per day), and those who reported no napping.

The researchers identified 131 incident cases of AFib during the follow-up period. Overall, the relative risk of incident AFib was significantly higher for the long nappers (adjusted hazard ratio 1.90) compared with short nappers in a multivariate analysis, while no significant risk appeared among non-nappers compared to short nappers (aHR 1.26).

The researchers then excluded the non-nappers in a secondary analysis to explore the impact of more specific daily nap duration on AFib risk. In a multivariate analysis, they found a 42% reduced risk of AF among those who napped for less than 15 minutes, and a 56% reduced risk for those who napped for 15-30 minutes, compared with those who napped for more than 30 minutes (aHR 0.56 and 0.42, respectively).

Potential explanations for the associations include the role of circadian rhythms, Dr. Diaz-Gutierrez said in a press release accompanying the presentation at the meeting. “Long daytime naps may disrupt the body’s internal clock (circadian rhythm), leading to shorter nighttime sleep, more nocturnal awakening, and reduced physical activity. In contrast, short daytime napping may improve circadian rhythm, lower blood pressure levels, and reduce stress.” More research is needed to validate the findings and the optimum nap duration, and whether a short nap is more advantageous than not napping in terms of AFib risk reduction, he said.

The study results suggest that naps of 15-30 minutes represent “a potential novel healthy lifestyle habit in the primary prevention of AFib,” Dr. Diaz-Gutierrez said in his presentation. However, the results also suggest that daily naps be limited to less than 30 minutes, he concluded.
 

Sleep habits may serve as red flag

“As we age, most if not all of us will develop sleep disturbances, such as insomnia, obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), and other sleep issues,” Lawrence S. Rosenthal, MD, of the University of Massachusetts, Worcester, said in an interview.

Therefore, “this study is near and dear to most people, and most would agree that poor sleeping habits affect our health.” In particular, OSA has been linked to AFib, although that was not measured in the current study, he added.

Dr. Rosenthal said he was not surprised by the current study findings. “It seems that a quick recharge of your ‘battery’ during the day is healthier than a long, deep sleep daytime nap,” he said. In addition, “Longer naps may be a marker of OSA,” he noted.

For clinicians, the take-home message of the current study is the need to consider underlying medical conditions in patients who regularly take long afternoon naps, and to consider these longer naps as a potential marker for AFib, said Dr. Rosenthal.

Looking ahead, a “deeper dive into the makeup of the populations studied” would be useful as a foundation for additional research, he said.

The SUN Project disclosed funding from the Spanish Government-Instituto de Salud Carlos III and the European Regional Development Fund (FEDER), the Navarra Regional Government, Plan Nacional Sobre Drogas, the University of Navarra, and the European Research Council. The researchers, and Dr. Rosenthal, had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Poor-quality sleep and irregular sleep could be important drivers of breathlessness in patients who were previously hospitalized for COVID-19, according to data from the U.K.’s CircCOVID study.

The researchers, led by John Blaikley, MRCP, PhD, respiratory physician and clinical scientist from the University of Manchester (England), found that sleep disturbance is a common problem after hospital admission for COVID-19 and may last for at least 1 year.

The study also showed that sleep disturbance after COVID hospitalization was associated with dyspnea and lower lung function. Further in-depth analysis revealed that the effects of sleep disturbance on dyspnea were partially mediated through both anxiety and muscle weakness; however, “this does not fully explain the association, suggesting other pathways are involved,” said Dr. Blaikley.

The study was jointly conducted by researchers from the University of Leicester (England), as well as 20 other U.K. institutes and the University of Helsinki. It was presented at the European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases and was simultaneously published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.

“Sleep disturbance is a common problem after hospitalization for COVID-19 and is associated with several symptoms in the post-COVID syndrome,” said Dr. Blaikley. “Clinicians should be aware of this association in their post-COVID syndrome clinics.”

He added that further work needs to be done to define the mechanism and to see whether the links are causal. “However, if they are, then treating sleep disturbance could have beneficial effects beyond improving sleep quality,” he said in an interview.

A large study recently showed that 4 in 10 people with post-COVID syndrome had moderate to severe sleep problems. Black people were at least three times more likely than White people to experience sleep problems. A total of 59% of all participants with long COVID reported having normal sleep or mild sleep disturbances, and 41% reported having moderate to severe sleep disturbances.

Unlike prior studies that evaluated sleep quality after COVID-19, which used either objective or subjective measures of sleep disturbance, the current study used both. “Using both measures revealed previously poorly described associations between sleep disturbance, breathlessness, reduced lung function, anxiety, and muscle weakness,” Dr. Blaikley pointed out.

Subjective and objective measures of sleep

The multicenter CircCOVID cohort study aimed to shed light on the prevalence and nature of sleep disturbance after patients are discharged from hospital for COVID-19 and to assess whether this was associated with dyspnea.

The study recruited a total of 2,320 participants who were part of a larger parent PHOSP-COVID study. After attending an early follow-up visit (at a median of 5 months after discharge from 83 U.K. hospitals for COVID-19), 638 participants provided data for analysis as measured by the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (a subjective measure of sleep quality); 729 participants provided data for analysis as measured by actigraphy (an objective, wrist-worn, device-based measure of sleep quality) at a median of 7 months.

Breathlessness, the primary outcome, was assessed using the Dyspnea-12 validated questionnaire.

Actigraphy measurements were compared with an age-matched, sex-matched, body mass index (BMI)–matched, and time from discharge–matched cohort from the UK Biobank (a prepandemic comparator longitudinal cohort of 502,540 individuals, one-fifth of whom wore actigraphy devices). Sleep regularity was found to be 19% less in previously hospitalized patients with post-COVID syndrome, compared with matched controls who had been hospitalized for other reasons.

This “revealed that the actigraphy changes may be, in part, due to COVID-19 rather than hospitalization alone,” said Dr. Blaikley.

Data were collected at two time points after hospital discharge: 2-7 months (early), and 10-14 months (late). At the early time point, participants were clinically assessed with respect to anxiety, muscle function, and dyspnea, and lung function.

After discharge from hospital, the majority (62%) of post–COVID-19 participants reported poor sleep quality on the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index questionnaire. A “comparable” proportion (53%) felt that their quality of sleep had deteriorated following hospital discharge according to the numerical rating scale (subjective measure).

Also, sleep disturbance was found likely to persist for at least 12 months, since subjective sleep quality hardly changed between the early and late time points after hospital discharge.

Both subjective metrics (sleep quality and sleep quality deterioration after hospital discharge) and objective, device-based metrics (sleep regularity) were found to be associated with dyspnea and reduced lung function in patients with post-COVID syndrome.

“One of the striking findings in our study is the consistency with breathlessness and reduced lung function across different methods used to evaluate sleep,” highlighted Dr. Blaikley.

“The other striking finding was that participants following COVID-19 hospitalization actually slept longer [65 min; 95% confidence interval, 59-71 min] than participants hospitalized for non-COVID; however, their bedtimes were irregular, and it was this irregularity that was associated with breathlessness,” he added.

In comparison with nonhospitalized controls, also from the UK Biobank, study participants with lower sleep regularity had higher Dyspnea-12 scores (unadjusted effect estimate, 4.38; 95%: CI, 2.10-6.65). Those with poor sleep quality overall also had higher Dyspnea-12 scores (unadjusted effect estimate, 3.94; 95% CI, 2.78-5.10), and those who reported sleep quality deterioration had higher Dyspnea-12 scores (unadjusted effect estimate, 3,00; 95% CI, 1.82-4.28).

In comparison with hospitalized controls, CircCOVID participants had lower sleep regularity index (–19%; 95% CI, –20 to –16) and lower sleep efficiency (3.83 percentage points; 95% CI, 3.40-4.26).

Sleep disturbance after COVID hospitalization was also associated with lower lung function, from a 7% to a 14% reduction in predicted forced vital capacity, depending on which sleep measure used.

In an analysis of mediating factors active in the relationship between sleep disturbance and dyspnea/decreased lung function, the researchers found that reduced muscle function and anxiety, which are both recognized causes of dyspnea, could partially contribute to the association.

Regarding anxiety, and depending on the sleep metric, anxiety mediated 18%-39% of the effect of sleep disturbance on dyspnea, while muscle weakness mediated 27%-41% of this effect, reported Dr. Blaikley. Those with poor sleep quality were more likely to have mild, moderate, or severe anxiety, compared with participants who reported good-quality sleep.

A similar association was observed between anxiety and sleep quality deterioration.

“Two key questions are raised by our study: Do sleep interventions have a beneficial effect in post–COVID-19 syndrome, and are the associations causal?” asked Dr. Blaikley. “We hope to do a sleep intervention trial to answer these questions to explore if this is an effective treatment for post–COVID-19 syndrome.”

‘Underlying mechanisms remain unclear’

Amitava Banerjee, MD, professor of clinical data science and honorary consultant cardiologist, Institute of Health Informatics, UCL, London, welcomed the study but noted that it did not include nonhospitalized post-COVID patients.

“The majority of people with long COVID were not hospitalized for COVID, so the results may not be generalizable to this larger group,” she said in an interview. “Good-quality sleep is important for health and reduces risk of chronic diseases; quality of sleep is therefore likely to be important for those with long COVID in reducing their risk of chronic disease, but the role of sleep in the mechanism of long COVID needs further research.”

In a commentary also published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, W. Cameron McGuire, MD, pulmonary and critical care specialist from San Diego, California, and colleagues wrote: “These findings suggest that sleep disturbance, dyspnea, and anxiety are common after COVID-19 and are associated with one another, although the underlying mechanisms remain unclear.”

The commentators “applauded” the work overall but noted that the findings represent correlation rather than causation. “It is unclear whether sleep disturbance is causing anxiety or whether anxiety is contributing to poor sleep. ... For the sleep disturbances, increased BMI in the cohort reporting poor sleep, compared with those reporting good sleep might suggest underlying obstructive sleep apnea,” they wrote.

Dr. McGuire and colleagues added that many questions remain for researchers and clinicians, including “whether anxiety and dyspnoea are contributing to a low arousal threshold [disrupting sleep] ... whether the observed abnormalities (e.g., in dyspnea score) are clinically significant,” and “whether therapies such as glucocorticoids, anticoagulants, or previous vaccinations mitigate the observed abnormalities during COVID-19 recovery.”

Dr. Blaikley has received support to his institute from an MRC Transition Fellowship, Asthma + Lung UK, NIHR Manchester BRC, and UKRI; grants to his institution from the Small Business Research Initiative Home Spirometer and the National Institute of Academic Anaesthesia; and support from TEVA and Therakos for attending meetings. He is a committee member of the Royal Society of Medicine. A coauthor received funding from the National Institutes of Health and income for medical education from Zoll, Livanova, Jazz, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Banerjee is the chief investigator of STIMULATE-ICP (an NIHR-funded study) and has received research funding from AstraZeneca.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Poor-quality sleep and irregular sleep could be important drivers of breathlessness in patients who were previously hospitalized for COVID-19, according to data from the U.K.’s CircCOVID study.

The researchers, led by John Blaikley, MRCP, PhD, respiratory physician and clinical scientist from the University of Manchester (England), found that sleep disturbance is a common problem after hospital admission for COVID-19 and may last for at least 1 year.

The study also showed that sleep disturbance after COVID hospitalization was associated with dyspnea and lower lung function. Further in-depth analysis revealed that the effects of sleep disturbance on dyspnea were partially mediated through both anxiety and muscle weakness; however, “this does not fully explain the association, suggesting other pathways are involved,” said Dr. Blaikley.

The study was jointly conducted by researchers from the University of Leicester (England), as well as 20 other U.K. institutes and the University of Helsinki. It was presented at the European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases and was simultaneously published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.

“Sleep disturbance is a common problem after hospitalization for COVID-19 and is associated with several symptoms in the post-COVID syndrome,” said Dr. Blaikley. “Clinicians should be aware of this association in their post-COVID syndrome clinics.”

He added that further work needs to be done to define the mechanism and to see whether the links are causal. “However, if they are, then treating sleep disturbance could have beneficial effects beyond improving sleep quality,” he said in an interview.

A large study recently showed that 4 in 10 people with post-COVID syndrome had moderate to severe sleep problems. Black people were at least three times more likely than White people to experience sleep problems. A total of 59% of all participants with long COVID reported having normal sleep or mild sleep disturbances, and 41% reported having moderate to severe sleep disturbances.

Unlike prior studies that evaluated sleep quality after COVID-19, which used either objective or subjective measures of sleep disturbance, the current study used both. “Using both measures revealed previously poorly described associations between sleep disturbance, breathlessness, reduced lung function, anxiety, and muscle weakness,” Dr. Blaikley pointed out.

Subjective and objective measures of sleep

The multicenter CircCOVID cohort study aimed to shed light on the prevalence and nature of sleep disturbance after patients are discharged from hospital for COVID-19 and to assess whether this was associated with dyspnea.

The study recruited a total of 2,320 participants who were part of a larger parent PHOSP-COVID study. After attending an early follow-up visit (at a median of 5 months after discharge from 83 U.K. hospitals for COVID-19), 638 participants provided data for analysis as measured by the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (a subjective measure of sleep quality); 729 participants provided data for analysis as measured by actigraphy (an objective, wrist-worn, device-based measure of sleep quality) at a median of 7 months.

Breathlessness, the primary outcome, was assessed using the Dyspnea-12 validated questionnaire.

Actigraphy measurements were compared with an age-matched, sex-matched, body mass index (BMI)–matched, and time from discharge–matched cohort from the UK Biobank (a prepandemic comparator longitudinal cohort of 502,540 individuals, one-fifth of whom wore actigraphy devices). Sleep regularity was found to be 19% less in previously hospitalized patients with post-COVID syndrome, compared with matched controls who had been hospitalized for other reasons.

This “revealed that the actigraphy changes may be, in part, due to COVID-19 rather than hospitalization alone,” said Dr. Blaikley.

Data were collected at two time points after hospital discharge: 2-7 months (early), and 10-14 months (late). At the early time point, participants were clinically assessed with respect to anxiety, muscle function, and dyspnea, and lung function.

After discharge from hospital, the majority (62%) of post–COVID-19 participants reported poor sleep quality on the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index questionnaire. A “comparable” proportion (53%) felt that their quality of sleep had deteriorated following hospital discharge according to the numerical rating scale (subjective measure).

Also, sleep disturbance was found likely to persist for at least 12 months, since subjective sleep quality hardly changed between the early and late time points after hospital discharge.

Both subjective metrics (sleep quality and sleep quality deterioration after hospital discharge) and objective, device-based metrics (sleep regularity) were found to be associated with dyspnea and reduced lung function in patients with post-COVID syndrome.

“One of the striking findings in our study is the consistency with breathlessness and reduced lung function across different methods used to evaluate sleep,” highlighted Dr. Blaikley.

“The other striking finding was that participants following COVID-19 hospitalization actually slept longer [65 min; 95% confidence interval, 59-71 min] than participants hospitalized for non-COVID; however, their bedtimes were irregular, and it was this irregularity that was associated with breathlessness,” he added.

In comparison with nonhospitalized controls, also from the UK Biobank, study participants with lower sleep regularity had higher Dyspnea-12 scores (unadjusted effect estimate, 4.38; 95%: CI, 2.10-6.65). Those with poor sleep quality overall also had higher Dyspnea-12 scores (unadjusted effect estimate, 3.94; 95% CI, 2.78-5.10), and those who reported sleep quality deterioration had higher Dyspnea-12 scores (unadjusted effect estimate, 3,00; 95% CI, 1.82-4.28).

In comparison with hospitalized controls, CircCOVID participants had lower sleep regularity index (–19%; 95% CI, –20 to –16) and lower sleep efficiency (3.83 percentage points; 95% CI, 3.40-4.26).

Sleep disturbance after COVID hospitalization was also associated with lower lung function, from a 7% to a 14% reduction in predicted forced vital capacity, depending on which sleep measure used.

In an analysis of mediating factors active in the relationship between sleep disturbance and dyspnea/decreased lung function, the researchers found that reduced muscle function and anxiety, which are both recognized causes of dyspnea, could partially contribute to the association.

Regarding anxiety, and depending on the sleep metric, anxiety mediated 18%-39% of the effect of sleep disturbance on dyspnea, while muscle weakness mediated 27%-41% of this effect, reported Dr. Blaikley. Those with poor sleep quality were more likely to have mild, moderate, or severe anxiety, compared with participants who reported good-quality sleep.

A similar association was observed between anxiety and sleep quality deterioration.

“Two key questions are raised by our study: Do sleep interventions have a beneficial effect in post–COVID-19 syndrome, and are the associations causal?” asked Dr. Blaikley. “We hope to do a sleep intervention trial to answer these questions to explore if this is an effective treatment for post–COVID-19 syndrome.”

‘Underlying mechanisms remain unclear’

Amitava Banerjee, MD, professor of clinical data science and honorary consultant cardiologist, Institute of Health Informatics, UCL, London, welcomed the study but noted that it did not include nonhospitalized post-COVID patients.

“The majority of people with long COVID were not hospitalized for COVID, so the results may not be generalizable to this larger group,” she said in an interview. “Good-quality sleep is important for health and reduces risk of chronic diseases; quality of sleep is therefore likely to be important for those with long COVID in reducing their risk of chronic disease, but the role of sleep in the mechanism of long COVID needs further research.”

In a commentary also published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, W. Cameron McGuire, MD, pulmonary and critical care specialist from San Diego, California, and colleagues wrote: “These findings suggest that sleep disturbance, dyspnea, and anxiety are common after COVID-19 and are associated with one another, although the underlying mechanisms remain unclear.”

The commentators “applauded” the work overall but noted that the findings represent correlation rather than causation. “It is unclear whether sleep disturbance is causing anxiety or whether anxiety is contributing to poor sleep. ... For the sleep disturbances, increased BMI in the cohort reporting poor sleep, compared with those reporting good sleep might suggest underlying obstructive sleep apnea,” they wrote.

Dr. McGuire and colleagues added that many questions remain for researchers and clinicians, including “whether anxiety and dyspnoea are contributing to a low arousal threshold [disrupting sleep] ... whether the observed abnormalities (e.g., in dyspnea score) are clinically significant,” and “whether therapies such as glucocorticoids, anticoagulants, or previous vaccinations mitigate the observed abnormalities during COVID-19 recovery.”

Dr. Blaikley has received support to his institute from an MRC Transition Fellowship, Asthma + Lung UK, NIHR Manchester BRC, and UKRI; grants to his institution from the Small Business Research Initiative Home Spirometer and the National Institute of Academic Anaesthesia; and support from TEVA and Therakos for attending meetings. He is a committee member of the Royal Society of Medicine. A coauthor received funding from the National Institutes of Health and income for medical education from Zoll, Livanova, Jazz, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Banerjee is the chief investigator of STIMULATE-ICP (an NIHR-funded study) and has received research funding from AstraZeneca.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Poor-quality sleep and irregular sleep could be important drivers of breathlessness in patients who were previously hospitalized for COVID-19, according to data from the U.K.’s CircCOVID study.

The researchers, led by John Blaikley, MRCP, PhD, respiratory physician and clinical scientist from the University of Manchester (England), found that sleep disturbance is a common problem after hospital admission for COVID-19 and may last for at least 1 year.

The study also showed that sleep disturbance after COVID hospitalization was associated with dyspnea and lower lung function. Further in-depth analysis revealed that the effects of sleep disturbance on dyspnea were partially mediated through both anxiety and muscle weakness; however, “this does not fully explain the association, suggesting other pathways are involved,” said Dr. Blaikley.

The study was jointly conducted by researchers from the University of Leicester (England), as well as 20 other U.K. institutes and the University of Helsinki. It was presented at the European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases and was simultaneously published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.

“Sleep disturbance is a common problem after hospitalization for COVID-19 and is associated with several symptoms in the post-COVID syndrome,” said Dr. Blaikley. “Clinicians should be aware of this association in their post-COVID syndrome clinics.”

He added that further work needs to be done to define the mechanism and to see whether the links are causal. “However, if they are, then treating sleep disturbance could have beneficial effects beyond improving sleep quality,” he said in an interview.

A large study recently showed that 4 in 10 people with post-COVID syndrome had moderate to severe sleep problems. Black people were at least three times more likely than White people to experience sleep problems. A total of 59% of all participants with long COVID reported having normal sleep or mild sleep disturbances, and 41% reported having moderate to severe sleep disturbances.

Unlike prior studies that evaluated sleep quality after COVID-19, which used either objective or subjective measures of sleep disturbance, the current study used both. “Using both measures revealed previously poorly described associations between sleep disturbance, breathlessness, reduced lung function, anxiety, and muscle weakness,” Dr. Blaikley pointed out.

Subjective and objective measures of sleep

The multicenter CircCOVID cohort study aimed to shed light on the prevalence and nature of sleep disturbance after patients are discharged from hospital for COVID-19 and to assess whether this was associated with dyspnea.

The study recruited a total of 2,320 participants who were part of a larger parent PHOSP-COVID study. After attending an early follow-up visit (at a median of 5 months after discharge from 83 U.K. hospitals for COVID-19), 638 participants provided data for analysis as measured by the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (a subjective measure of sleep quality); 729 participants provided data for analysis as measured by actigraphy (an objective, wrist-worn, device-based measure of sleep quality) at a median of 7 months.

Breathlessness, the primary outcome, was assessed using the Dyspnea-12 validated questionnaire.

Actigraphy measurements were compared with an age-matched, sex-matched, body mass index (BMI)–matched, and time from discharge–matched cohort from the UK Biobank (a prepandemic comparator longitudinal cohort of 502,540 individuals, one-fifth of whom wore actigraphy devices). Sleep regularity was found to be 19% less in previously hospitalized patients with post-COVID syndrome, compared with matched controls who had been hospitalized for other reasons.

This “revealed that the actigraphy changes may be, in part, due to COVID-19 rather than hospitalization alone,” said Dr. Blaikley.

Data were collected at two time points after hospital discharge: 2-7 months (early), and 10-14 months (late). At the early time point, participants were clinically assessed with respect to anxiety, muscle function, and dyspnea, and lung function.

After discharge from hospital, the majority (62%) of post–COVID-19 participants reported poor sleep quality on the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index questionnaire. A “comparable” proportion (53%) felt that their quality of sleep had deteriorated following hospital discharge according to the numerical rating scale (subjective measure).

Also, sleep disturbance was found likely to persist for at least 12 months, since subjective sleep quality hardly changed between the early and late time points after hospital discharge.

Both subjective metrics (sleep quality and sleep quality deterioration after hospital discharge) and objective, device-based metrics (sleep regularity) were found to be associated with dyspnea and reduced lung function in patients with post-COVID syndrome.

“One of the striking findings in our study is the consistency with breathlessness and reduced lung function across different methods used to evaluate sleep,” highlighted Dr. Blaikley.

“The other striking finding was that participants following COVID-19 hospitalization actually slept longer [65 min; 95% confidence interval, 59-71 min] than participants hospitalized for non-COVID; however, their bedtimes were irregular, and it was this irregularity that was associated with breathlessness,” he added.

In comparison with nonhospitalized controls, also from the UK Biobank, study participants with lower sleep regularity had higher Dyspnea-12 scores (unadjusted effect estimate, 4.38; 95%: CI, 2.10-6.65). Those with poor sleep quality overall also had higher Dyspnea-12 scores (unadjusted effect estimate, 3.94; 95% CI, 2.78-5.10), and those who reported sleep quality deterioration had higher Dyspnea-12 scores (unadjusted effect estimate, 3,00; 95% CI, 1.82-4.28).

In comparison with hospitalized controls, CircCOVID participants had lower sleep regularity index (–19%; 95% CI, –20 to –16) and lower sleep efficiency (3.83 percentage points; 95% CI, 3.40-4.26).

Sleep disturbance after COVID hospitalization was also associated with lower lung function, from a 7% to a 14% reduction in predicted forced vital capacity, depending on which sleep measure used.

In an analysis of mediating factors active in the relationship between sleep disturbance and dyspnea/decreased lung function, the researchers found that reduced muscle function and anxiety, which are both recognized causes of dyspnea, could partially contribute to the association.

Regarding anxiety, and depending on the sleep metric, anxiety mediated 18%-39% of the effect of sleep disturbance on dyspnea, while muscle weakness mediated 27%-41% of this effect, reported Dr. Blaikley. Those with poor sleep quality were more likely to have mild, moderate, or severe anxiety, compared with participants who reported good-quality sleep.

A similar association was observed between anxiety and sleep quality deterioration.

“Two key questions are raised by our study: Do sleep interventions have a beneficial effect in post–COVID-19 syndrome, and are the associations causal?” asked Dr. Blaikley. “We hope to do a sleep intervention trial to answer these questions to explore if this is an effective treatment for post–COVID-19 syndrome.”

‘Underlying mechanisms remain unclear’

Amitava Banerjee, MD, professor of clinical data science and honorary consultant cardiologist, Institute of Health Informatics, UCL, London, welcomed the study but noted that it did not include nonhospitalized post-COVID patients.

“The majority of people with long COVID were not hospitalized for COVID, so the results may not be generalizable to this larger group,” she said in an interview. “Good-quality sleep is important for health and reduces risk of chronic diseases; quality of sleep is therefore likely to be important for those with long COVID in reducing their risk of chronic disease, but the role of sleep in the mechanism of long COVID needs further research.”

In a commentary also published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, W. Cameron McGuire, MD, pulmonary and critical care specialist from San Diego, California, and colleagues wrote: “These findings suggest that sleep disturbance, dyspnea, and anxiety are common after COVID-19 and are associated with one another, although the underlying mechanisms remain unclear.”

The commentators “applauded” the work overall but noted that the findings represent correlation rather than causation. “It is unclear whether sleep disturbance is causing anxiety or whether anxiety is contributing to poor sleep. ... For the sleep disturbances, increased BMI in the cohort reporting poor sleep, compared with those reporting good sleep might suggest underlying obstructive sleep apnea,” they wrote.

Dr. McGuire and colleagues added that many questions remain for researchers and clinicians, including “whether anxiety and dyspnoea are contributing to a low arousal threshold [disrupting sleep] ... whether the observed abnormalities (e.g., in dyspnea score) are clinically significant,” and “whether therapies such as glucocorticoids, anticoagulants, or previous vaccinations mitigate the observed abnormalities during COVID-19 recovery.”

Dr. Blaikley has received support to his institute from an MRC Transition Fellowship, Asthma + Lung UK, NIHR Manchester BRC, and UKRI; grants to his institution from the Small Business Research Initiative Home Spirometer and the National Institute of Academic Anaesthesia; and support from TEVA and Therakos for attending meetings. He is a committee member of the Royal Society of Medicine. A coauthor received funding from the National Institutes of Health and income for medical education from Zoll, Livanova, Jazz, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Banerjee is the chief investigator of STIMULATE-ICP (an NIHR-funded study) and has received research funding from AstraZeneca.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients taking metformin for type 2 diabetes had a lower risk of developing osteoarthritis than did patients taking a sulfonylurea, according to a cohort study published in JAMA Network Open. The findings jibe with those seen in a 2022 systematic review of preclinical and observational human studies finding potentially protective effects of metformin on osteoarthritis.

“Our study provides further, robust epidemiological evidence that metformin may be associated with protection in the development and progression of osteoarthritis in individuals with type 2 diabetes,” wrote Matthew C. Baker, MD, MS, an assistant professor of medicine in immunology and rheumatology at Stanford (Calif.) University, and his colleagues.

Thinglass/iStock Editorial/Getty Images

The findings also fit with the results of a poster presented at the Osteoarthritis Research Society International 2023 World Congress, although that abstract’s findings did not reach statistical significance.

In the published study, the researchers analyzed deidentified claims data from Optum’s Clinformatics Data Mart Database between December 2003 and December 2019. The database includes more than 15 million people with private insurance or Medicare Advantage Part D but does not include people with Medicaid, thereby excluding people from lower socioeconomic groups.

The researchers included all patients who were at least 40 years old, had type 2 diabetes, were taking metformin, and had been enrolled in the database for at least 1 uninterrupted year. They excluded anyone with type 1 diabetes or a prior diagnosis of osteoarthritis, inflammatory arthritis, or joint replacement. The authors then compared the incidence of osteoarthritis and joint replacement in these 20,937 participants to 20,937 control participants who were taking a sulfonylurea, matched to those taking metformin on the basis of age, sex, race, a comorbidity score, and duration of treatment. More than half the overall population (58%) was male with an average age of 62.

Patients needed to be on either drug for at least 3 months, but those who were initially treated with metformin before later taking a sulfonylurea could also be included and contribute to both groups. Those who first took a sulfonylurea and later switched to metformin were included only for the sulfonylurea group and censored after their switch to ensure the sulfonylurea group had enough participants. The comparison was further adjusted for age, sex, race, ethnicity, geographic region, education, comorbidities, and outpatient visit frequency.

The results revealed that those who were taking metformin were 24% less likely to develop osteoarthritis at least 3 months after starting the medication than were those taking a sulfonylurea (P < .001). The rate of joint replacements was not significantly different between those taking metformin and those taking a sulfonylurea. These two results did not change in a sensitivity analysis that compared patients who only ever took metformin or a sulfonylurea (as opposed to those who took one drug before switching to the other).

“When stratified by prior exposure to metformin within the sulfonylurea group, the observed benefit associated with metformin ... was attenuated in the people treated with a sulfonylurea with prior exposure to metformin, compared with those treated with a sulfonylurea with no prior exposure to metformin,” the authors further reported. A possible reason for this finding is that those taking a sulfonylurea after having previously taken metformin gained some protection from the earlier metformin exposure, the authors hypothesized.

This observational study could not show a causative effect from the metformin, but the researchers speculated on potential mechanisms if a causative effect were present, based on past research.

”Several preclinical studies have suggested a protective association of metformin in osteoarthritis through activating AMP-activated protein kinase signaling, decreasing the level of matrix metalloproteinase, increasing autophagy and reducing chondrocyte apoptosis, and augmenting chondroprotective and anti-inflammatory properties of mesenchymal stem cells,” the authors wrote.

Among this study’s limitations, however, was the lack of data on body mass index, which is associated with osteoarthritis in the literature and may differ between patients taking metformin versus a sulfonylurea. The researchers also did not have data on physical activity or a history of trauma to the joints, though there’s no reason to think these rates might differ between those taking one or the other medication.

Another substantial limitation is that all patients had type 2 diabetes, making it impossible to determine whether a similar protective effect from metformin might exist in people without diabetes.

Nonsignificant lower risk for posttraumatic knee osteoarthritis

Similar to the published study, the OARSI poster compared 5-year odds of incident osteoarthritis or total knee replacement surgery between patients taking metformin and those taking sulfonylureas, but it focused on younger patients, aged 18-40 years, who underwent anterior cruciate ligament or meniscus surgery.

Using data from MarketScan commercial insurance claims databases between 2006 and 2020, the authors identified 2,376 participants who were taking metformin or a sulfonylurea when they underwent their surgery or began taking it in the 6 months after their surgery. More than half the participants were female (57%) with an average age of 35.

Within 5 years, 10.8% of those taking metformin developed osteoarthritis, compared with 17.9% of those taking a sulfonylurea. In addition, 3% of those taking metformin underwent a total knee replacement, compared with 5.3% of those taking a sulfonylurea. After adjustment for age, sex, obesity, and a history of chronic kidney disease, liver disease, and depression, however, both risk difference and odds ratios were not statistically significant.

Risk of osteoarthritis was 17% lower in patients taking metformin (95% confidence interval, –0.18 to 0.09), whose odds of osteoarthritis were approximately half the odds of those taking a sulfonylurea (OR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.21-1.67). Risk of a total knee replacement was 10% lower in metformin users (95% CI, –0.28 to 0.08) with a similar reduction in odds, compared with those taking a sulfonylurea (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.2-1.44).

In this study, the researchers did not specifically determine whether the participants were diagnosed with diabetes, but they assumed all, or at least most, were, according to S. Reza Jafarzadeh, PhD, DVM, an assistant professor of medicine at Boston University.

“The goal was not to only focus on the diabetes population, but on people who received that exposure [of metformin or sulfonylureas],” Dr. Jafarzadeh said in an interview. Dr. Jafarzadeh noted that a larger randomized controlled trial is underway to look at whether metformin reduces the risk of osteoarthritis independent of whether a patient has diabetes.

The published study was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and Stanford University, and the authors reported no disclosures. The poster at OARSI was funded by NIH and the Arthritis Foundation, and the authors reported no disclosures.

Patients taking metformin for type 2 diabetes had a lower risk of developing osteoarthritis than did patients taking a sulfonylurea, according to a cohort study published in JAMA Network Open. The findings jibe with those seen in a 2022 systematic review of preclinical and observational human studies finding potentially protective effects of metformin on osteoarthritis.

“Our study provides further, robust epidemiological evidence that metformin may be associated with protection in the development and progression of osteoarthritis in individuals with type 2 diabetes,” wrote Matthew C. Baker, MD, MS, an assistant professor of medicine in immunology and rheumatology at Stanford (Calif.) University, and his colleagues.

Thinglass/iStock Editorial/Getty Images

The findings also fit with the results of a poster presented at the Osteoarthritis Research Society International 2023 World Congress, although that abstract’s findings did not reach statistical significance.

In the published study, the researchers analyzed deidentified claims data from Optum’s Clinformatics Data Mart Database between December 2003 and December 2019. The database includes more than 15 million people with private insurance or Medicare Advantage Part D but does not include people with Medicaid, thereby excluding people from lower socioeconomic groups.

The researchers included all patients who were at least 40 years old, had type 2 diabetes, were taking metformin, and had been enrolled in the database for at least 1 uninterrupted year. They excluded anyone with type 1 diabetes or a prior diagnosis of osteoarthritis, inflammatory arthritis, or joint replacement. The authors then compared the incidence of osteoarthritis and joint replacement in these 20,937 participants to 20,937 control participants who were taking a sulfonylurea, matched to those taking metformin on the basis of age, sex, race, a comorbidity score, and duration of treatment. More than half the overall population (58%) was male with an average age of 62.

Patients needed to be on either drug for at least 3 months, but those who were initially treated with metformin before later taking a sulfonylurea could also be included and contribute to both groups. Those who first took a sulfonylurea and later switched to metformin were included only for the sulfonylurea group and censored after their switch to ensure the sulfonylurea group had enough participants. The comparison was further adjusted for age, sex, race, ethnicity, geographic region, education, comorbidities, and outpatient visit frequency.

The results revealed that those who were taking metformin were 24% less likely to develop osteoarthritis at least 3 months after starting the medication than were those taking a sulfonylurea (P < .001). The rate of joint replacements was not significantly different between those taking metformin and those taking a sulfonylurea. These two results did not change in a sensitivity analysis that compared patients who only ever took metformin or a sulfonylurea (as opposed to those who took one drug before switching to the other).

“When stratified by prior exposure to metformin within the sulfonylurea group, the observed benefit associated with metformin ... was attenuated in the people treated with a sulfonylurea with prior exposure to metformin, compared with those treated with a sulfonylurea with no prior exposure to metformin,” the authors further reported. A possible reason for this finding is that those taking a sulfonylurea after having previously taken metformin gained some protection from the earlier metformin exposure, the authors hypothesized.

This observational study could not show a causative effect from the metformin, but the researchers speculated on potential mechanisms if a causative effect were present, based on past research.

”Several preclinical studies have suggested a protective association of metformin in osteoarthritis through activating AMP-activated protein kinase signaling, decreasing the level of matrix metalloproteinase, increasing autophagy and reducing chondrocyte apoptosis, and augmenting chondroprotective and anti-inflammatory properties of mesenchymal stem cells,” the authors wrote.

Among this study’s limitations, however, was the lack of data on body mass index, which is associated with osteoarthritis in the literature and may differ between patients taking metformin versus a sulfonylurea. The researchers also did not have data on physical activity or a history of trauma to the joints, though there’s no reason to think these rates might differ between those taking one or the other medication.

Another substantial limitation is that all patients had type 2 diabetes, making it impossible to determine whether a similar protective effect from metformin might exist in people without diabetes.

Nonsignificant lower risk for posttraumatic knee osteoarthritis

Similar to the published study, the OARSI poster compared 5-year odds of incident osteoarthritis or total knee replacement surgery between patients taking metformin and those taking sulfonylureas, but it focused on younger patients, aged 18-40 years, who underwent anterior cruciate ligament or meniscus surgery.

Using data from MarketScan commercial insurance claims databases between 2006 and 2020, the authors identified 2,376 participants who were taking metformin or a sulfonylurea when they underwent their surgery or began taking it in the 6 months after their surgery. More than half the participants were female (57%) with an average age of 35.

Within 5 years, 10.8% of those taking metformin developed osteoarthritis, compared with 17.9% of those taking a sulfonylurea. In addition, 3% of those taking metformin underwent a total knee replacement, compared with 5.3% of those taking a sulfonylurea. After adjustment for age, sex, obesity, and a history of chronic kidney disease, liver disease, and depression, however, both risk difference and odds ratios were not statistically significant.

Risk of osteoarthritis was 17% lower in patients taking metformin (95% confidence interval, –0.18 to 0.09), whose odds of osteoarthritis were approximately half the odds of those taking a sulfonylurea (OR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.21-1.67). Risk of a total knee replacement was 10% lower in metformin users (95% CI, –0.28 to 0.08) with a similar reduction in odds, compared with those taking a sulfonylurea (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.2-1.44).

In this study, the researchers did not specifically determine whether the participants were diagnosed with diabetes, but they assumed all, or at least most, were, according to S. Reza Jafarzadeh, PhD, DVM, an assistant professor of medicine at Boston University.

“The goal was not to only focus on the diabetes population, but on people who received that exposure [of metformin or sulfonylureas],” Dr. Jafarzadeh said in an interview. Dr. Jafarzadeh noted that a larger randomized controlled trial is underway to look at whether metformin reduces the risk of osteoarthritis independent of whether a patient has diabetes.

The published study was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and Stanford University, and the authors reported no disclosures. The poster at OARSI was funded by NIH and the Arthritis Foundation, and the authors reported no disclosures.

Patients taking metformin for type 2 diabetes had a lower risk of developing osteoarthritis than did patients taking a sulfonylurea, according to a cohort study published in JAMA Network Open. The findings jibe with those seen in a 2022 systematic review of preclinical and observational human studies finding potentially protective effects of metformin on osteoarthritis.

“Our study provides further, robust epidemiological evidence that metformin may be associated with protection in the development and progression of osteoarthritis in individuals with type 2 diabetes,” wrote Matthew C. Baker, MD, MS, an assistant professor of medicine in immunology and rheumatology at Stanford (Calif.) University, and his colleagues.

Thinglass/iStock Editorial/Getty Images

The findings also fit with the results of a poster presented at the Osteoarthritis Research Society International 2023 World Congress, although that abstract’s findings did not reach statistical significance.

In the published study, the researchers analyzed deidentified claims data from Optum’s Clinformatics Data Mart Database between December 2003 and December 2019. The database includes more than 15 million people with private insurance or Medicare Advantage Part D but does not include people with Medicaid, thereby excluding people from lower socioeconomic groups.

The researchers included all patients who were at least 40 years old, had type 2 diabetes, were taking metformin, and had been enrolled in the database for at least 1 uninterrupted year. They excluded anyone with type 1 diabetes or a prior diagnosis of osteoarthritis, inflammatory arthritis, or joint replacement. The authors then compared the incidence of osteoarthritis and joint replacement in these 20,937 participants to 20,937 control participants who were taking a sulfonylurea, matched to those taking metformin on the basis of age, sex, race, a comorbidity score, and duration of treatment. More than half the overall population (58%) was male with an average age of 62.

Patients needed to be on either drug for at least 3 months, but those who were initially treated with metformin before later taking a sulfonylurea could also be included and contribute to both groups. Those who first took a sulfonylurea and later switched to metformin were included only for the sulfonylurea group and censored after their switch to ensure the sulfonylurea group had enough participants. The comparison was further adjusted for age, sex, race, ethnicity, geographic region, education, comorbidities, and outpatient visit frequency.

The results revealed that those who were taking metformin were 24% less likely to develop osteoarthritis at least 3 months after starting the medication than were those taking a sulfonylurea (P < .001). The rate of joint replacements was not significantly different between those taking metformin and those taking a sulfonylurea. These two results did not change in a sensitivity analysis that compared patients who only ever took metformin or a sulfonylurea (as opposed to those who took one drug before switching to the other).

“When stratified by prior exposure to metformin within the sulfonylurea group, the observed benefit associated with metformin ... was attenuated in the people treated with a sulfonylurea with prior exposure to metformin, compared with those treated with a sulfonylurea with no prior exposure to metformin,” the authors further reported. A possible reason for this finding is that those taking a sulfonylurea after having previously taken metformin gained some protection from the earlier metformin exposure, the authors hypothesized.

This observational study could not show a causative effect from the metformin, but the researchers speculated on potential mechanisms if a causative effect were present, based on past research.

”Several preclinical studies have suggested a protective association of metformin in osteoarthritis through activating AMP-activated protein kinase signaling, decreasing the level of matrix metalloproteinase, increasing autophagy and reducing chondrocyte apoptosis, and augmenting chondroprotective and anti-inflammatory properties of mesenchymal stem cells,” the authors wrote.

Among this study’s limitations, however, was the lack of data on body mass index, which is associated with osteoarthritis in the literature and may differ between patients taking metformin versus a sulfonylurea. The researchers also did not have data on physical activity or a history of trauma to the joints, though there’s no reason to think these rates might differ between those taking one or the other medication.

Another substantial limitation is that all patients had type 2 diabetes, making it impossible to determine whether a similar protective effect from metformin might exist in people without diabetes.

Nonsignificant lower risk for posttraumatic knee osteoarthritis

Similar to the published study, the OARSI poster compared 5-year odds of incident osteoarthritis or total knee replacement surgery between patients taking metformin and those taking sulfonylureas, but it focused on younger patients, aged 18-40 years, who underwent anterior cruciate ligament or meniscus surgery.

Using data from MarketScan commercial insurance claims databases between 2006 and 2020, the authors identified 2,376 participants who were taking metformin or a sulfonylurea when they underwent their surgery or began taking it in the 6 months after their surgery. More than half the participants were female (57%) with an average age of 35.

Within 5 years, 10.8% of those taking metformin developed osteoarthritis, compared with 17.9% of those taking a sulfonylurea. In addition, 3% of those taking metformin underwent a total knee replacement, compared with 5.3% of those taking a sulfonylurea. After adjustment for age, sex, obesity, and a history of chronic kidney disease, liver disease, and depression, however, both risk difference and odds ratios were not statistically significant.

Risk of osteoarthritis was 17% lower in patients taking metformin (95% confidence interval, –0.18 to 0.09), whose odds of osteoarthritis were approximately half the odds of those taking a sulfonylurea (OR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.21-1.67). Risk of a total knee replacement was 10% lower in metformin users (95% CI, –0.28 to 0.08) with a similar reduction in odds, compared with those taking a sulfonylurea (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.2-1.44).

In this study, the researchers did not specifically determine whether the participants were diagnosed with diabetes, but they assumed all, or at least most, were, according to S. Reza Jafarzadeh, PhD, DVM, an assistant professor of medicine at Boston University.

“The goal was not to only focus on the diabetes population, but on people who received that exposure [of metformin or sulfonylureas],” Dr. Jafarzadeh said in an interview. Dr. Jafarzadeh noted that a larger randomized controlled trial is underway to look at whether metformin reduces the risk of osteoarthritis independent of whether a patient has diabetes.

The published study was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and Stanford University, and the authors reported no disclosures. The poster at OARSI was funded by NIH and the Arthritis Foundation, and the authors reported no disclosures.

Individuals at increased risk of type 2 diabetes may be able to reduce their risk via a novel intervention combining intermittent fasting (IF) with early time-restricted eating, indicate the results of a randomized controlled trial.

The study involved more than 200 individuals randomized to one of three groups: eat only in the morning (from 8:00 a.m. to noon) followed by 20 hours of fasting 3 days per week and eat as desired on the other days; daily calorie restriction to 70% of requirements; or standard weight loss advice.

The IF plus early time-restricted eating intervention was associated with a significant improvement in a key measure of glucose control versus calorie restriction at 6 months, while both interventions were linked to benefits in terms of cardiovascular risk markers and body composition, compared with the standard weight loss advice.

However, the research, published in Nature Medicine, showed that the additional benefit of IF plus early time-restricted eating did not persist, and less than half of participants were still following the plan at 18 months, compared with almost 80% of those in the calorie-restriction group.

“Following a time-restricted, IF diet could help lower the chances of developing type 2 diabetes,” senior author Leonie K. Heilbronn, PhD, University of Adelaide, South Australia, said in a press release.

This is “the largest study in the world to date, and the first powered to assess how the body processes and uses glucose after eating a meal,” with the latter being a better indicator of diabetes risk than a fasting glucose test, added first author Xiao Tong Teong, a PhD student, also at the University of Adelaide.

“The results of this study add to the growing body of evidence to indicate that meal timing and fasting advice extends the health benefits of a restricted-calorie diet, independently from weight loss, and this may be influential in clinical practice,” Ms. Teong added.
 

Adherence difficult to IF plus early time-restricted eating

Asked to comment, Krista Varady, PhD, said that the study design “would have been stronger if the time-restricted eating and IF interventions were separated” and compared.

“Time-restricted eating has been shown to naturally reduce calorie intake by 300-500 kcal/day,” she said in an interview, “so I’m not sure why the investigators chose to combine [it] with IF. It ... defeats the point of time-restricted eating.”

Dr. Varady, who recently coauthored a review of the clinical application of IF for weight loss, also doubted whether individuals would adhere to combined early time-restricted eating and IF. “In all honesty, I don’t think anyone would follow this diet for very long,” she said.

She added that the feasibility of this particular approach is “very questionable. In general, people don’t like diets that require them to skip dinner with family/friends on multiple days of the week,” explained Dr. Varady, professor of nutrition at the University of Illinois, Chicago.  “These regimens make social eating very difficult, which results in high attrition.

“Indeed, evidence from a recent large-scale observational study of nearly 800,000 adults shows that Americans who engage in time-restricted eating placed their eating window in the afternoon or evening,” she noted.

Dr. Varady therefore suggested that future trials should test “more feasible time-restricted eating approaches,” such as those with later eating windows and without “vigilant calorie monitoring.”

“These types of diets are much easier to follow and are more likely to produce lasting weight and glycemic control in people with obesity and prediabetes,” she observed.
 

A novel way to cut calories?

The Australian authors say there is growing interest in extending the established health benefits of calorie restriction through new approaches such as timing of meals and prolonged fasting, with IF – defined as fasting interspersed with days of ad libitum eating – gaining in popularity as an alternative to simple calorie restriction.

Time-restricted eating, which emphasizes shorter daily eating windows in alignment with circadian rhythms, has also become popular in recent years, although the authors acknowledge that current evidence suggests any benefits over calorie restriction alone in terms of body composition, blood lipids, or glucose parameters are small.

To examine the combination of IF plus early time-restricted eating, in the DIRECT trial, the team recruited individuals aged 35-75 years who had a score of at least 12 on the Australian Type 2 Diabetes Risk Assessment Tool but did not have a diagnosis of diabetes and had stable weight for more than 6 months prior to study entry.

The participants were randomized to one of three groups:

• IF plus early time-restricted eating, which allowed consumption of 30% of calculated baseline energy requirements between 8:00 a.m. and midday, followed by a 20-hour fast from midday on 3 nonconsecutive days per week. They consumed their regular diet on nonfasting days.
• Calorie restriction, where they consumed 70% of daily calculated baseline energy requirements each day and were given rotating menu plans, but no specific mealtimes.
• Standard care, where they were given a booklet on current guidelines, with no counseling or meal replacement.

There were clinic visits every 2 weeks for the first 6 months of follow-up, and then monthly visits for 12 months. The two intervention groups had one-on-one diet counseling for the first 6 months. All groups were instructed to maintain their usual physical activity levels.

A total of 209 individuals were enrolled between Sept. 26, 2018, and May 4, 2020. Their mean age was 58 years, and 57% were women. Mean body mass index was 34.8 kg/m².

In all, 40.7% of participants were allocated to IF plus early time-restricted eating, 39.7% to calorie restriction, and the remaining 19.6% to standard care.

The results showed that IF plus early time-restricted eating was associated with a significantly greater improvement in the primary outcome of postprandial glucose area under the curve (AUC) at month 6 compared with calorie restriction, at –10.1 mg/dL/min versus –3.6 mg/dL/min (P = .03).

“To our knowledge, no [prior] studies have been powered for postprandial assessments of glycemia, which are better indicators of diabetes risk than fasting assessment,” the authors underlined.

IF plus early time-restricted eating was also associated with greater reductions in postprandial insulin AUC versus calorie restriction at 6 months (P = .04). However, the differences between the IF plus early time-restricted eating and calorie restriction groups for postmeal insulin did not remain significant at 18 months of follow-up.

Both IF plus early time-restricted eating and calorie restriction were associated with greater reductions in A1c levels at 6 months versus standard care, but there was no significant difference between the two active interventions (P = .46).

Both interventions were also associated with improvements in markers of cardiovascular risk versus standard care, such as systolic blood pressure at 2 months, diastolic blood pressure at 6 months, and fasting triglycerides at both time points, with no significant differences between the two intervention groups.

IF plus early time-restricted eating and calorie restriction were also both associated with greater reductions in BMI and fat mass in the first 6 months, as well as in waist circumference.
 

Calorie restriction easier to stick to, less likely to cause fatigue

When offered the chance to modify their diet plan at 6 months, 46% of participants in the IF plus early time-restricted eating group said they would maintain 3 days of restrictions per week, while 51% chose to reduce the restrictions to 2 days per week.

In contrast, 97% of those who completed the calorie-restriction plan indicated they would continue with their current diet plan.

At 18 months, 42% of participants in the IF plus early time-restricted eating group said they still undertook 2-3 days of restrictions per week, while 78% of those assigned to calorie restriction reported that they followed a calorie-restricted diet.

Fatigue was more common with IF plus early time-restricted eating, reported by 56% of participants versus 37% of those following calorie restriction, and 35% of those in the standard care group at 6 months. Headaches and constipation were more common in the intervention groups than with standard care.

The study was supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Project Grant, an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship from the University of Adelaide, and a Diabetes Australia Research Program Grant.

No relevant financial relationships were declared.
 

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Individuals at increased risk of type 2 diabetes may be able to reduce their risk via a novel intervention combining intermittent fasting (IF) with early time-restricted eating, indicate the results of a randomized controlled trial.

The study involved more than 200 individuals randomized to one of three groups: eat only in the morning (from 8:00 a.m. to noon) followed by 20 hours of fasting 3 days per week and eat as desired on the other days; daily calorie restriction to 70% of requirements; or standard weight loss advice.

The IF plus early time-restricted eating intervention was associated with a significant improvement in a key measure of glucose control versus calorie restriction at 6 months, while both interventions were linked to benefits in terms of cardiovascular risk markers and body composition, compared with the standard weight loss advice.

However, the research, published in Nature Medicine, showed that the additional benefit of IF plus early time-restricted eating did not persist, and less than half of participants were still following the plan at 18 months, compared with almost 80% of those in the calorie-restriction group.

“Following a time-restricted, IF diet could help lower the chances of developing type 2 diabetes,” senior author Leonie K. Heilbronn, PhD, University of Adelaide, South Australia, said in a press release.

This is “the largest study in the world to date, and the first powered to assess how the body processes and uses glucose after eating a meal,” with the latter being a better indicator of diabetes risk than a fasting glucose test, added first author Xiao Tong Teong, a PhD student, also at the University of Adelaide.

“The results of this study add to the growing body of evidence to indicate that meal timing and fasting advice extends the health benefits of a restricted-calorie diet, independently from weight loss, and this may be influential in clinical practice,” Ms. Teong added.
 

Adherence difficult to IF plus early time-restricted eating

Asked to comment, Krista Varady, PhD, said that the study design “would have been stronger if the time-restricted eating and IF interventions were separated” and compared.

“Time-restricted eating has been shown to naturally reduce calorie intake by 300-500 kcal/day,” she said in an interview, “so I’m not sure why the investigators chose to combine [it] with IF. It ... defeats the point of time-restricted eating.”

Dr. Varady, who recently coauthored a review of the clinical application of IF for weight loss, also doubted whether individuals would adhere to combined early time-restricted eating and IF. “In all honesty, I don’t think anyone would follow this diet for very long,” she said.

She added that the feasibility of this particular approach is “very questionable. In general, people don’t like diets that require them to skip dinner with family/friends on multiple days of the week,” explained Dr. Varady, professor of nutrition at the University of Illinois, Chicago.  “These regimens make social eating very difficult, which results in high attrition.

“Indeed, evidence from a recent large-scale observational study of nearly 800,000 adults shows that Americans who engage in time-restricted eating placed their eating window in the afternoon or evening,” she noted.

Dr. Varady therefore suggested that future trials should test “more feasible time-restricted eating approaches,” such as those with later eating windows and without “vigilant calorie monitoring.”

“These types of diets are much easier to follow and are more likely to produce lasting weight and glycemic control in people with obesity and prediabetes,” she observed.
 

A novel way to cut calories?

The Australian authors say there is growing interest in extending the established health benefits of calorie restriction through new approaches such as timing of meals and prolonged fasting, with IF – defined as fasting interspersed with days of ad libitum eating – gaining in popularity as an alternative to simple calorie restriction.

Time-restricted eating, which emphasizes shorter daily eating windows in alignment with circadian rhythms, has also become popular in recent years, although the authors acknowledge that current evidence suggests any benefits over calorie restriction alone in terms of body composition, blood lipids, or glucose parameters are small.

To examine the combination of IF plus early time-restricted eating, in the DIRECT trial, the team recruited individuals aged 35-75 years who had a score of at least 12 on the Australian Type 2 Diabetes Risk Assessment Tool but did not have a diagnosis of diabetes and had stable weight for more than 6 months prior to study entry.

The participants were randomized to one of three groups:

• IF plus early time-restricted eating, which allowed consumption of 30% of calculated baseline energy requirements between 8:00 a.m. and midday, followed by a 20-hour fast from midday on 3 nonconsecutive days per week. They consumed their regular diet on nonfasting days.
• Calorie restriction, where they consumed 70% of daily calculated baseline energy requirements each day and were given rotating menu plans, but no specific mealtimes.
• Standard care, where they were given a booklet on current guidelines, with no counseling or meal replacement.

There were clinic visits every 2 weeks for the first 6 months of follow-up, and then monthly visits for 12 months. The two intervention groups had one-on-one diet counseling for the first 6 months. All groups were instructed to maintain their usual physical activity levels.

A total of 209 individuals were enrolled between Sept. 26, 2018, and May 4, 2020. Their mean age was 58 years, and 57% were women. Mean body mass index was 34.8 kg/m².

In all, 40.7% of participants were allocated to IF plus early time-restricted eating, 39.7% to calorie restriction, and the remaining 19.6% to standard care.

The results showed that IF plus early time-restricted eating was associated with a significantly greater improvement in the primary outcome of postprandial glucose area under the curve (AUC) at month 6 compared with calorie restriction, at –10.1 mg/dL/min versus –3.6 mg/dL/min (P = .03).

“To our knowledge, no [prior] studies have been powered for postprandial assessments of glycemia, which are better indicators of diabetes risk than fasting assessment,” the authors underlined.

IF plus early time-restricted eating was also associated with greater reductions in postprandial insulin AUC versus calorie restriction at 6 months (P = .04). However, the differences between the IF plus early time-restricted eating and calorie restriction groups for postmeal insulin did not remain significant at 18 months of follow-up.

Both IF plus early time-restricted eating and calorie restriction were associated with greater reductions in A1c levels at 6 months versus standard care, but there was no significant difference between the two active interventions (P = .46).

Both interventions were also associated with improvements in markers of cardiovascular risk versus standard care, such as systolic blood pressure at 2 months, diastolic blood pressure at 6 months, and fasting triglycerides at both time points, with no significant differences between the two intervention groups.

IF plus early time-restricted eating and calorie restriction were also both associated with greater reductions in BMI and fat mass in the first 6 months, as well as in waist circumference.
 

Calorie restriction easier to stick to, less likely to cause fatigue

When offered the chance to modify their diet plan at 6 months, 46% of participants in the IF plus early time-restricted eating group said they would maintain 3 days of restrictions per week, while 51% chose to reduce the restrictions to 2 days per week.

In contrast, 97% of those who completed the calorie-restriction plan indicated they would continue with their current diet plan.

At 18 months, 42% of participants in the IF plus early time-restricted eating group said they still undertook 2-3 days of restrictions per week, while 78% of those assigned to calorie restriction reported that they followed a calorie-restricted diet.

Fatigue was more common with IF plus early time-restricted eating, reported by 56% of participants versus 37% of those following calorie restriction, and 35% of those in the standard care group at 6 months. Headaches and constipation were more common in the intervention groups than with standard care.

The study was supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Project Grant, an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship from the University of Adelaide, and a Diabetes Australia Research Program Grant.

No relevant financial relationships were declared.
 

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Individuals at increased risk of type 2 diabetes may be able to reduce their risk via a novel intervention combining intermittent fasting (IF) with early time-restricted eating, indicate the results of a randomized controlled trial.

The study involved more than 200 individuals randomized to one of three groups: eat only in the morning (from 8:00 a.m. to noon) followed by 20 hours of fasting 3 days per week and eat as desired on the other days; daily calorie restriction to 70% of requirements; or standard weight loss advice.

The IF plus early time-restricted eating intervention was associated with a significant improvement in a key measure of glucose control versus calorie restriction at 6 months, while both interventions were linked to benefits in terms of cardiovascular risk markers and body composition, compared with the standard weight loss advice.

However, the research, published in Nature Medicine, showed that the additional benefit of IF plus early time-restricted eating did not persist, and less than half of participants were still following the plan at 18 months, compared with almost 80% of those in the calorie-restriction group.

“Following a time-restricted, IF diet could help lower the chances of developing type 2 diabetes,” senior author Leonie K. Heilbronn, PhD, University of Adelaide, South Australia, said in a press release.

This is “the largest study in the world to date, and the first powered to assess how the body processes and uses glucose after eating a meal,” with the latter being a better indicator of diabetes risk than a fasting glucose test, added first author Xiao Tong Teong, a PhD student, also at the University of Adelaide.

“The results of this study add to the growing body of evidence to indicate that meal timing and fasting advice extends the health benefits of a restricted-calorie diet, independently from weight loss, and this may be influential in clinical practice,” Ms. Teong added.
 

Adherence difficult to IF plus early time-restricted eating

Asked to comment, Krista Varady, PhD, said that the study design “would have been stronger if the time-restricted eating and IF interventions were separated” and compared.

“Time-restricted eating has been shown to naturally reduce calorie intake by 300-500 kcal/day,” she said in an interview, “so I’m not sure why the investigators chose to combine [it] with IF. It ... defeats the point of time-restricted eating.”

Dr. Varady, who recently coauthored a review of the clinical application of IF for weight loss, also doubted whether individuals would adhere to combined early time-restricted eating and IF. “In all honesty, I don’t think anyone would follow this diet for very long,” she said.

She added that the feasibility of this particular approach is “very questionable. In general, people don’t like diets that require them to skip dinner with family/friends on multiple days of the week,” explained Dr. Varady, professor of nutrition at the University of Illinois, Chicago.  “These regimens make social eating very difficult, which results in high attrition.

“Indeed, evidence from a recent large-scale observational study of nearly 800,000 adults shows that Americans who engage in time-restricted eating placed their eating window in the afternoon or evening,” she noted.

Dr. Varady therefore suggested that future trials should test “more feasible time-restricted eating approaches,” such as those with later eating windows and without “vigilant calorie monitoring.”

“These types of diets are much easier to follow and are more likely to produce lasting weight and glycemic control in people with obesity and prediabetes,” she observed.
 

A novel way to cut calories?

The Australian authors say there is growing interest in extending the established health benefits of calorie restriction through new approaches such as timing of meals and prolonged fasting, with IF – defined as fasting interspersed with days of ad libitum eating – gaining in popularity as an alternative to simple calorie restriction.

Time-restricted eating, which emphasizes shorter daily eating windows in alignment with circadian rhythms, has also become popular in recent years, although the authors acknowledge that current evidence suggests any benefits over calorie restriction alone in terms of body composition, blood lipids, or glucose parameters are small.

To examine the combination of IF plus early time-restricted eating, in the DIRECT trial, the team recruited individuals aged 35-75 years who had a score of at least 12 on the Australian Type 2 Diabetes Risk Assessment Tool but did not have a diagnosis of diabetes and had stable weight for more than 6 months prior to study entry.

The participants were randomized to one of three groups:

• IF plus early time-restricted eating, which allowed consumption of 30% of calculated baseline energy requirements between 8:00 a.m. and midday, followed by a 20-hour fast from midday on 3 nonconsecutive days per week. They consumed their regular diet on nonfasting days.
• Calorie restriction, where they consumed 70% of daily calculated baseline energy requirements each day and were given rotating menu plans, but no specific mealtimes.
• Standard care, where they were given a booklet on current guidelines, with no counseling or meal replacement.

There were clinic visits every 2 weeks for the first 6 months of follow-up, and then monthly visits for 12 months. The two intervention groups had one-on-one diet counseling for the first 6 months. All groups were instructed to maintain their usual physical activity levels.

A total of 209 individuals were enrolled between Sept. 26, 2018, and May 4, 2020. Their mean age was 58 years, and 57% were women. Mean body mass index was 34.8 kg/m².

In all, 40.7% of participants were allocated to IF plus early time-restricted eating, 39.7% to calorie restriction, and the remaining 19.6% to standard care.

The results showed that IF plus early time-restricted eating was associated with a significantly greater improvement in the primary outcome of postprandial glucose area under the curve (AUC) at month 6 compared with calorie restriction, at –10.1 mg/dL/min versus –3.6 mg/dL/min (P = .03).

“To our knowledge, no [prior] studies have been powered for postprandial assessments of glycemia, which are better indicators of diabetes risk than fasting assessment,” the authors underlined.

IF plus early time-restricted eating was also associated with greater reductions in postprandial insulin AUC versus calorie restriction at 6 months (P = .04). However, the differences between the IF plus early time-restricted eating and calorie restriction groups for postmeal insulin did not remain significant at 18 months of follow-up.

Both IF plus early time-restricted eating and calorie restriction were associated with greater reductions in A1c levels at 6 months versus standard care, but there was no significant difference between the two active interventions (P = .46).

Both interventions were also associated with improvements in markers of cardiovascular risk versus standard care, such as systolic blood pressure at 2 months, diastolic blood pressure at 6 months, and fasting triglycerides at both time points, with no significant differences between the two intervention groups.

IF plus early time-restricted eating and calorie restriction were also both associated with greater reductions in BMI and fat mass in the first 6 months, as well as in waist circumference.
 

Calorie restriction easier to stick to, less likely to cause fatigue

When offered the chance to modify their diet plan at 6 months, 46% of participants in the IF plus early time-restricted eating group said they would maintain 3 days of restrictions per week, while 51% chose to reduce the restrictions to 2 days per week.

In contrast, 97% of those who completed the calorie-restriction plan indicated they would continue with their current diet plan.

At 18 months, 42% of participants in the IF plus early time-restricted eating group said they still undertook 2-3 days of restrictions per week, while 78% of those assigned to calorie restriction reported that they followed a calorie-restricted diet.

Fatigue was more common with IF plus early time-restricted eating, reported by 56% of participants versus 37% of those following calorie restriction, and 35% of those in the standard care group at 6 months. Headaches and constipation were more common in the intervention groups than with standard care.

The study was supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Project Grant, an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship from the University of Adelaide, and a Diabetes Australia Research Program Grant.

No relevant financial relationships were declared.
 

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The new COVID-19 strain known as “Arcturus” has increased in the United States so much that it has been added to the Centers for Disease and Control’s watch list.

Officially labeled XBB.1.16, Arcturus is a subvariant of Omicron that was first seen in India and has been on the World Health Organization’s watchlist since the end of March. The CDC’s most recent update now lists Arcturus as causing 7% of U.S. coronavirus cases, landing it in second place behind its long-predominant Omicron cousin XBB.1.5, which causes 78% of cases.

Arcturus is more transmissible but not more dangerous than recent chart-topping strains, experts say.

“It is causing increasing case counts in certain parts of the world, including India. We’re not seeing high rates of XBB.1.16 yet in the United States, but it may become more prominent in coming weeks,” Mayo Clinic viral disease expert Matthew Binnicker, PhD, told The Seattle Times.

Arcturus has been causing a new symptom in children, Indian medical providers have reported.

“One new feature of cases caused by this variant is that it seems to be causing conjunctivitis, or red and itchy eyes, in young patients,” Dr. Binnicker said. “This is not something that we’ve seen with prior strains of the virus.”

More than 11,000 people in the United States remained hospitalized with COVID at the end of last week, and 1,327 people died of the virus last week, CDC data show. To date, 6.9 million people worldwide have died from COVID, the WHO says. Of those deaths, more than 1.1 million occurred in the U.S.

A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.

The new COVID-19 strain known as “Arcturus” has increased in the United States so much that it has been added to the Centers for Disease and Control’s watch list.

Officially labeled XBB.1.16, Arcturus is a subvariant of Omicron that was first seen in India and has been on the World Health Organization’s watchlist since the end of March. The CDC’s most recent update now lists Arcturus as causing 7% of U.S. coronavirus cases, landing it in second place behind its long-predominant Omicron cousin XBB.1.5, which causes 78% of cases.

Arcturus is more transmissible but not more dangerous than recent chart-topping strains, experts say.

“It is causing increasing case counts in certain parts of the world, including India. We’re not seeing high rates of XBB.1.16 yet in the United States, but it may become more prominent in coming weeks,” Mayo Clinic viral disease expert Matthew Binnicker, PhD, told The Seattle Times.

Arcturus has been causing a new symptom in children, Indian medical providers have reported.

“One new feature of cases caused by this variant is that it seems to be causing conjunctivitis, or red and itchy eyes, in young patients,” Dr. Binnicker said. “This is not something that we’ve seen with prior strains of the virus.”

More than 11,000 people in the United States remained hospitalized with COVID at the end of last week, and 1,327 people died of the virus last week, CDC data show. To date, 6.9 million people worldwide have died from COVID, the WHO says. Of those deaths, more than 1.1 million occurred in the U.S.

A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.

The new COVID-19 strain known as “Arcturus” has increased in the United States so much that it has been added to the Centers for Disease and Control’s watch list.

Officially labeled XBB.1.16, Arcturus is a subvariant of Omicron that was first seen in India and has been on the World Health Organization’s watchlist since the end of March. The CDC’s most recent update now lists Arcturus as causing 7% of U.S. coronavirus cases, landing it in second place behind its long-predominant Omicron cousin XBB.1.5, which causes 78% of cases.

Arcturus is more transmissible but not more dangerous than recent chart-topping strains, experts say.

“It is causing increasing case counts in certain parts of the world, including India. We’re not seeing high rates of XBB.1.16 yet in the United States, but it may become more prominent in coming weeks,” Mayo Clinic viral disease expert Matthew Binnicker, PhD, told The Seattle Times.

Arcturus has been causing a new symptom in children, Indian medical providers have reported.

“One new feature of cases caused by this variant is that it seems to be causing conjunctivitis, or red and itchy eyes, in young patients,” Dr. Binnicker said. “This is not something that we’ve seen with prior strains of the virus.”

More than 11,000 people in the United States remained hospitalized with COVID at the end of last week, and 1,327 people died of the virus last week, CDC data show. To date, 6.9 million people worldwide have died from COVID, the WHO says. Of those deaths, more than 1.1 million occurred in the U.S.

A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.