Cardiology

TOPLINE:

Hypertension prevalence remained stable in the United States at 30% after guidelines updated in 2017 lowered the threshold for the condition, while antihypertensive medication use rose about 3%, new research from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, a telephone survey of US adults aged 18 years and older.
• Self-reported diagnosed hypertension was defined as an affirmative response to the question, “Have you ever been told by a doctor, nurse, or other health professional that you have high blood pressure?”
• To determine treatment, respondents who answered the first question affirmatively were then asked, “Are you currently taking medicine for your high blood pressure?”
• Hypertension and treatment were assessed by age group (18-44, 45-64, and > 65 years), sex, race, ethnicity, level of education, and state of residence.

TAKEAWAY:

• The final analytic samples for 2017, 2019, and 2021 included 425,417, 392,100, and 410,318 participants, respectively.
• From 2017 to 2021, the overall age-standardized prevalence of hypertension did not change, remaining at almost exactly 30%.
• The age-standardized prevalence of antihypertensive medication use among individuals with hypertension increased by 3.1 percentage points, from 59.8% to 62.9%.
• Increases in medication use were seen in most sociodemographic groups; for example, in 2021, the prevalence was higher among women than among men (68.5% vs 59.4%), among adults aged ≥ 65 years than among those aged 18-44 years (92.5% vs 42.5%), and among Black patients than among White patients (71.3% vs 62%).
• Increases in medication use were also seen by state; use increased in 11 states, ranging from 52.2% in Utah to 72.8% in Mississippi in 2021, and did not decrease significantly in any state.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings can be used to increase awareness of hypertension and promote lifestyle modifications and antihypertensive medication use to optimize blood pressure control and reduce disparities in prevalence and control,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Ahlia Sekkarie, PhD, of CDC’s Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention, and published online in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had several limitations. The findings were based on self-report. Median response rates of less than 50% could lead to under- or overestimates of prevalence. Parts of the population, such as those in long-term care facilities or without a telephone, were not included in the analysis. Some demographic categories had small sample sizes; therefore, prevalence changes might not be detectable.

DISCLOSURES:

No specific funding was reported. The authors reported no potential conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Hypertension prevalence remained stable in the United States at 30% after guidelines updated in 2017 lowered the threshold for the condition, while antihypertensive medication use rose about 3%, new research from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, a telephone survey of US adults aged 18 years and older.
• Self-reported diagnosed hypertension was defined as an affirmative response to the question, “Have you ever been told by a doctor, nurse, or other health professional that you have high blood pressure?”
• To determine treatment, respondents who answered the first question affirmatively were then asked, “Are you currently taking medicine for your high blood pressure?”
• Hypertension and treatment were assessed by age group (18-44, 45-64, and > 65 years), sex, race, ethnicity, level of education, and state of residence.

TAKEAWAY:

• The final analytic samples for 2017, 2019, and 2021 included 425,417, 392,100, and 410,318 participants, respectively.
• From 2017 to 2021, the overall age-standardized prevalence of hypertension did not change, remaining at almost exactly 30%.
• The age-standardized prevalence of antihypertensive medication use among individuals with hypertension increased by 3.1 percentage points, from 59.8% to 62.9%.
• Increases in medication use were seen in most sociodemographic groups; for example, in 2021, the prevalence was higher among women than among men (68.5% vs 59.4%), among adults aged ≥ 65 years than among those aged 18-44 years (92.5% vs 42.5%), and among Black patients than among White patients (71.3% vs 62%).
• Increases in medication use were also seen by state; use increased in 11 states, ranging from 52.2% in Utah to 72.8% in Mississippi in 2021, and did not decrease significantly in any state.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings can be used to increase awareness of hypertension and promote lifestyle modifications and antihypertensive medication use to optimize blood pressure control and reduce disparities in prevalence and control,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Ahlia Sekkarie, PhD, of CDC’s Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention, and published online in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had several limitations. The findings were based on self-report. Median response rates of less than 50% could lead to under- or overestimates of prevalence. Parts of the population, such as those in long-term care facilities or without a telephone, were not included in the analysis. Some demographic categories had small sample sizes; therefore, prevalence changes might not be detectable.

DISCLOSURES:

No specific funding was reported. The authors reported no potential conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Hypertension prevalence remained stable in the United States at 30% after guidelines updated in 2017 lowered the threshold for the condition, while antihypertensive medication use rose about 3%, new research from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, a telephone survey of US adults aged 18 years and older.
• Self-reported diagnosed hypertension was defined as an affirmative response to the question, “Have you ever been told by a doctor, nurse, or other health professional that you have high blood pressure?”
• To determine treatment, respondents who answered the first question affirmatively were then asked, “Are you currently taking medicine for your high blood pressure?”
• Hypertension and treatment were assessed by age group (18-44, 45-64, and > 65 years), sex, race, ethnicity, level of education, and state of residence.

TAKEAWAY:

• The final analytic samples for 2017, 2019, and 2021 included 425,417, 392,100, and 410,318 participants, respectively.
• From 2017 to 2021, the overall age-standardized prevalence of hypertension did not change, remaining at almost exactly 30%.
• The age-standardized prevalence of antihypertensive medication use among individuals with hypertension increased by 3.1 percentage points, from 59.8% to 62.9%.
• Increases in medication use were seen in most sociodemographic groups; for example, in 2021, the prevalence was higher among women than among men (68.5% vs 59.4%), among adults aged ≥ 65 years than among those aged 18-44 years (92.5% vs 42.5%), and among Black patients than among White patients (71.3% vs 62%).
• Increases in medication use were also seen by state; use increased in 11 states, ranging from 52.2% in Utah to 72.8% in Mississippi in 2021, and did not decrease significantly in any state.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings can be used to increase awareness of hypertension and promote lifestyle modifications and antihypertensive medication use to optimize blood pressure control and reduce disparities in prevalence and control,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Ahlia Sekkarie, PhD, of CDC’s Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention, and published online in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had several limitations. The findings were based on self-report. Median response rates of less than 50% could lead to under- or overestimates of prevalence. Parts of the population, such as those in long-term care facilities or without a telephone, were not included in the analysis. Some demographic categories had small sample sizes; therefore, prevalence changes might not be detectable.

DISCLOSURES:

No specific funding was reported. The authors reported no potential conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Chronic smoking remains a major cause of premature mortality on a global scale. Despite intensified efforts to combat this scourge, a quarter of deaths among middle-aged adults in Europe and North America are attributed to it. However, over the past decades, antismoking campaigns have borne fruit, and many smokers have quit before the age of 40 years, enabling some case-control studies.

Among those abstainers who made the right choice, the excess mortality attributable to smoking over a lifetime would be reduced by 90% compared with controls who continued smoking. The estimated benefit is clear, but the analysis lacks nuance. Is smoking cessation beneficial even at older ages? If so, is the effect measurable in terms of magnitude and speed of the effect? An article published online in The New England Journal of Medicine Evidence provided some answers to these questions.
 

Four-Cohort Meta-Analysis

The study was a meta-analysis of individual data collected within four national cohort studies that were linked to each country’s death registry. Two of these studies were nationally representative. The National Health Interview Survey involved a sample of US citizens living in the community, aged 20-79 years, who were included annually in the cohort between 1997 and 2018. The second, the Canadian Community Health Survey, included subjects in the same age group, with samples analyzed between 2000 and 2014.

In Norway, three cohort studies conducted between 1974 and 2003, in which participants aged 25-79 years were included, were combined to form the Norwegian Health Screening Survey. These were the Counties Study (1974-1988), the 40 Years Study (1985-1999), and the Cohort of Norway (1994-2003), respectively. The fourth cohort was established through recruitment via the UK Biobank, with adults aged 40-73 years invited to participate in the survey. The data analysis ultimately covered a relatively heterogeneous total population of 1.48 million adults, all from high-income countries and followed for 15 years. It relied on the Cox proportional hazards model applied to each study, considering smoker vs nonsmoker status, as well as the time elapsed since smoking cessation (less than 3 years, between 3 and 9 years, or at least 10 years). Statistical adjustments made in the context of multivariate Cox analysis considered age, education, alcohol consumption, and obesity.
 

Excess Mortality Confirmed

At the end of follow-up, 122,697 deaths were recorded. The comparison of smokers and nonsmokers confirmed smoking-related excess mortality, with adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) estimated at 2.80 for women and 2.70 for men. Smoking shortened life expectancy in the 40- to 79-year-age group by 12 years for women and 13 years for men, in terms of overall mortality. In terms of smoking-attributable specific mortality, the corresponding figures reached 24 and 26 years, respectively. Respiratory diseases ranked highest in both sexes (HR, 7.6 for women and 6.3 for men), followed by cardiovascular diseases (HR, 3.1 for women and 2.9 for men) and cancers (HR, 2.8 for women and 3.1 for men).
 

The Earlier, the Better

Smoking cessation halves overall excess mortality. Above all, quitting before age 40 years brings overall mortality back to the level of nonsmokers as early as the third year after quitting. The excess mortality decreases even more as the cessation period is prolonged, even after age 40 years. Thus, cessation ≥ 10 years in smokers aged 40-49 years almost cancels out overall excess mortality (-99% in women, -96% in men). The trend is almost as favorable in the older age group (50-59 years), with corresponding figures of -95% and -92%, respectively.

Long-term survival increases in the early years after cessation, especially if it occurs at a younger age, but the benefit remains tangible even in older smokers. Thus, cessation of less than 3 years, effective in patients aged 50-59 years, reduces overall excess mortality by 63% in women and 54% in men. In patients aged 60-79 years, the figures are -40% and -33%, respectively.

Naturally, the earlier the cessation, the greater the number of years gained. It is 12 years for cessation before age 40 years, reduced to 6 years for cessation between 40 and 49 years, and 2.5 years when it is even later (50-59 years). These quantitative results are approximate, given the methodology (a meta-analysis) and some heterogeneity in the studies, as well as the multitude of potential confounding factors that have not all been considered. Nevertheless, the results probably contain a kernel of truth, and their optimistic implications should be highlighted to encourage smokers to abstain, even older ones. Better late than never, even if the benefit of cessation is maximal when it occurs as early as possible, knowing that a minimum of 3 years of cessation would be sufficient to gain years of life.

This story was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Chronic smoking remains a major cause of premature mortality on a global scale. Despite intensified efforts to combat this scourge, a quarter of deaths among middle-aged adults in Europe and North America are attributed to it. However, over the past decades, antismoking campaigns have borne fruit, and many smokers have quit before the age of 40 years, enabling some case-control studies.

Among those abstainers who made the right choice, the excess mortality attributable to smoking over a lifetime would be reduced by 90% compared with controls who continued smoking. The estimated benefit is clear, but the analysis lacks nuance. Is smoking cessation beneficial even at older ages? If so, is the effect measurable in terms of magnitude and speed of the effect? An article published online in The New England Journal of Medicine Evidence provided some answers to these questions.
 

Four-Cohort Meta-Analysis

The study was a meta-analysis of individual data collected within four national cohort studies that were linked to each country’s death registry. Two of these studies were nationally representative. The National Health Interview Survey involved a sample of US citizens living in the community, aged 20-79 years, who were included annually in the cohort between 1997 and 2018. The second, the Canadian Community Health Survey, included subjects in the same age group, with samples analyzed between 2000 and 2014.

In Norway, three cohort studies conducted between 1974 and 2003, in which participants aged 25-79 years were included, were combined to form the Norwegian Health Screening Survey. These were the Counties Study (1974-1988), the 40 Years Study (1985-1999), and the Cohort of Norway (1994-2003), respectively. The fourth cohort was established through recruitment via the UK Biobank, with adults aged 40-73 years invited to participate in the survey. The data analysis ultimately covered a relatively heterogeneous total population of 1.48 million adults, all from high-income countries and followed for 15 years. It relied on the Cox proportional hazards model applied to each study, considering smoker vs nonsmoker status, as well as the time elapsed since smoking cessation (less than 3 years, between 3 and 9 years, or at least 10 years). Statistical adjustments made in the context of multivariate Cox analysis considered age, education, alcohol consumption, and obesity.
 

Excess Mortality Confirmed

At the end of follow-up, 122,697 deaths were recorded. The comparison of smokers and nonsmokers confirmed smoking-related excess mortality, with adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) estimated at 2.80 for women and 2.70 for men. Smoking shortened life expectancy in the 40- to 79-year-age group by 12 years for women and 13 years for men, in terms of overall mortality. In terms of smoking-attributable specific mortality, the corresponding figures reached 24 and 26 years, respectively. Respiratory diseases ranked highest in both sexes (HR, 7.6 for women and 6.3 for men), followed by cardiovascular diseases (HR, 3.1 for women and 2.9 for men) and cancers (HR, 2.8 for women and 3.1 for men).
 

The Earlier, the Better

Smoking cessation halves overall excess mortality. Above all, quitting before age 40 years brings overall mortality back to the level of nonsmokers as early as the third year after quitting. The excess mortality decreases even more as the cessation period is prolonged, even after age 40 years. Thus, cessation ≥ 10 years in smokers aged 40-49 years almost cancels out overall excess mortality (-99% in women, -96% in men). The trend is almost as favorable in the older age group (50-59 years), with corresponding figures of -95% and -92%, respectively.

Long-term survival increases in the early years after cessation, especially if it occurs at a younger age, but the benefit remains tangible even in older smokers. Thus, cessation of less than 3 years, effective in patients aged 50-59 years, reduces overall excess mortality by 63% in women and 54% in men. In patients aged 60-79 years, the figures are -40% and -33%, respectively.

Naturally, the earlier the cessation, the greater the number of years gained. It is 12 years for cessation before age 40 years, reduced to 6 years for cessation between 40 and 49 years, and 2.5 years when it is even later (50-59 years). These quantitative results are approximate, given the methodology (a meta-analysis) and some heterogeneity in the studies, as well as the multitude of potential confounding factors that have not all been considered. Nevertheless, the results probably contain a kernel of truth, and their optimistic implications should be highlighted to encourage smokers to abstain, even older ones. Better late than never, even if the benefit of cessation is maximal when it occurs as early as possible, knowing that a minimum of 3 years of cessation would be sufficient to gain years of life.

This story was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Chronic smoking remains a major cause of premature mortality on a global scale. Despite intensified efforts to combat this scourge, a quarter of deaths among middle-aged adults in Europe and North America are attributed to it. However, over the past decades, antismoking campaigns have borne fruit, and many smokers have quit before the age of 40 years, enabling some case-control studies.

Among those abstainers who made the right choice, the excess mortality attributable to smoking over a lifetime would be reduced by 90% compared with controls who continued smoking. The estimated benefit is clear, but the analysis lacks nuance. Is smoking cessation beneficial even at older ages? If so, is the effect measurable in terms of magnitude and speed of the effect? An article published online in The New England Journal of Medicine Evidence provided some answers to these questions.
 

Four-Cohort Meta-Analysis

The study was a meta-analysis of individual data collected within four national cohort studies that were linked to each country’s death registry. Two of these studies were nationally representative. The National Health Interview Survey involved a sample of US citizens living in the community, aged 20-79 years, who were included annually in the cohort between 1997 and 2018. The second, the Canadian Community Health Survey, included subjects in the same age group, with samples analyzed between 2000 and 2014.

In Norway, three cohort studies conducted between 1974 and 2003, in which participants aged 25-79 years were included, were combined to form the Norwegian Health Screening Survey. These were the Counties Study (1974-1988), the 40 Years Study (1985-1999), and the Cohort of Norway (1994-2003), respectively. The fourth cohort was established through recruitment via the UK Biobank, with adults aged 40-73 years invited to participate in the survey. The data analysis ultimately covered a relatively heterogeneous total population of 1.48 million adults, all from high-income countries and followed for 15 years. It relied on the Cox proportional hazards model applied to each study, considering smoker vs nonsmoker status, as well as the time elapsed since smoking cessation (less than 3 years, between 3 and 9 years, or at least 10 years). Statistical adjustments made in the context of multivariate Cox analysis considered age, education, alcohol consumption, and obesity.
 

Excess Mortality Confirmed

At the end of follow-up, 122,697 deaths were recorded. The comparison of smokers and nonsmokers confirmed smoking-related excess mortality, with adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) estimated at 2.80 for women and 2.70 for men. Smoking shortened life expectancy in the 40- to 79-year-age group by 12 years for women and 13 years for men, in terms of overall mortality. In terms of smoking-attributable specific mortality, the corresponding figures reached 24 and 26 years, respectively. Respiratory diseases ranked highest in both sexes (HR, 7.6 for women and 6.3 for men), followed by cardiovascular diseases (HR, 3.1 for women and 2.9 for men) and cancers (HR, 2.8 for women and 3.1 for men).
 

The Earlier, the Better

Smoking cessation halves overall excess mortality. Above all, quitting before age 40 years brings overall mortality back to the level of nonsmokers as early as the third year after quitting. The excess mortality decreases even more as the cessation period is prolonged, even after age 40 years. Thus, cessation ≥ 10 years in smokers aged 40-49 years almost cancels out overall excess mortality (-99% in women, -96% in men). The trend is almost as favorable in the older age group (50-59 years), with corresponding figures of -95% and -92%, respectively.

Long-term survival increases in the early years after cessation, especially if it occurs at a younger age, but the benefit remains tangible even in older smokers. Thus, cessation of less than 3 years, effective in patients aged 50-59 years, reduces overall excess mortality by 63% in women and 54% in men. In patients aged 60-79 years, the figures are -40% and -33%, respectively.

Naturally, the earlier the cessation, the greater the number of years gained. It is 12 years for cessation before age 40 years, reduced to 6 years for cessation between 40 and 49 years, and 2.5 years when it is even later (50-59 years). These quantitative results are approximate, given the methodology (a meta-analysis) and some heterogeneity in the studies, as well as the multitude of potential confounding factors that have not all been considered. Nevertheless, the results probably contain a kernel of truth, and their optimistic implications should be highlighted to encourage smokers to abstain, even older ones. Better late than never, even if the benefit of cessation is maximal when it occurs as early as possible, knowing that a minimum of 3 years of cessation would be sufficient to gain years of life.

This story was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Snoring is a common disorder that affects 20%-40% of the general population. The mechanism of snoring is the vibration of anatomical structures in the pharyngeal airways. The flutter of the soft palate explains the harsh aspect of the snoring sound, which occurs during natural sleep or drug-induced sleep. The presentation of snoring may vary throughout the night or between nights, with a subjective, and therefore inconsistent, assessment of its loudness.

Objective evaluation of snoring is important for clinical decision-making and predicting the effect of therapeutic interventions. It also provides information regarding the site and degree of upper airway obstruction. Snoring is one of the main features of sleep-disordered breathing, including hypopnea events, which reflect partial upper airway obstruction.

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is characterized by episodes of complete (apnea) or partial (hypopnea) collapse of the upper airways with associated oxygen desaturation or awakening from sleep. Most patients with OSA snore loudly almost every night. However, in the Sleep Heart Health Study, one-third of participants with OSA reported no snoring, while one-third of snoring participants did not meet the criteria for OSA. Therefore, subjective assessments of snoring (self-reported) may not be sufficiently reliable to assess its potential impact on cardiovascular (CV) health outcomes.
 

CV Effects

OSA has been hypothesized as a modifiable risk factor for CV diseases (CVD), including hypertension, coronary artery disease (CAD), atrial fibrillation, heart failure, and stroke, primarily because of the results of traditional observational studies. Snoring is reported as a symptom of the early stage of OSA and has also been associated with a higher risk for CVD. However, establishing causality based on observational studies is difficult because of residual confounding from unknown or unmeasured factors and reverse causality (i.e., the scenario in which CVD increases the risk for OSA or snoring). A Mendelian randomization study, using the natural random allocation of genetic variants as instruments capable of producing results analogous to those of randomized controlled trials, suggested that OSA and snoring increase the risk for hypertension and CAD, with associations partly driven by body mass index (BMI). Conversely, no evidence was found that CVD causally influenced OSA or snoring.

Snoring has been associated with multiple subclinical markers of CV pathology, including high blood pressure, and loud snoring can interfere with restorative sleep and contribute to the risk for hypertension and other adverse outcomes in snorers. However, evidence on the associations between snoring and CV health outcomes remains limited and is primarily based on subjective assessments of snoring or small clinical samples with objective assessments of snoring for only 1 night.
 

Snoring and Hypertension

A study of 12,287 middle-aged patients (age, 50 years) who were predominantly males (88%) and generally overweight (BMI, 28 kg/m²) determined the prevalence of snoring and its association with the prevalence of hypertension using objective evaluation of snoring over multiple nights and multiple daytime blood pressure measurements. The findings included the following observations:

An increase in snoring duration was associated with a 3-mmHg increase in systolic (SBP) and a 4 mmHg increase in diastolic blood pressure (DBP) in patients with frequent and regular snoring, compared with those with infrequent snoring, regardless of age, BMI, sex, and estimated apnea/hypopnea index.

The association between severe OSA alone and blood pressure had an effect size similar to that of the association between snoring alone and blood pressure. In a model where OSA severity was classified and snoring duration was stratified into quartiles, severe OSA without snoring was associated with 3.6 mmHg higher SBP and 3.5 mmHg higher DBP, compared with the absence of snoring or OSA. Participants without OSA but with intense snoring (4th quartile) had 3.8 mmHg higher SBP and 4.5 mmHg higher DBP compared with participants without nighttime apnea or snoring.

Snoring was significantly associated with uncontrolled hypertension. There was a 20% increase in the probability of uncontrolled hypertension in subjects aged > 50 years with obesity and a 98% increase in subjects aged ≤ 50 years with normal BMI.

Duration of snoring was associated with an 87% increase in the likelihood of uncontrolled hypertension.
 

Implications for Practice

This study indicates that 15% of a predominantly overweight male population snore for > 20% of the night and about 10% of these subjects without nighttime apnea snore for > 12% of the night.

Regular nighttime snoring is associated with elevated blood pressure and uncontrolled hypertension, regardless of the presence or severity of OSA.

Physicians must be aware of the potential consequences of snoring on the risk for hypertension, and these results highlight the need to consider snoring in clinical care and in the management of sleep problems, especially in the context of managing arterial hypertension.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Snoring is a common disorder that affects 20%-40% of the general population. The mechanism of snoring is the vibration of anatomical structures in the pharyngeal airways. The flutter of the soft palate explains the harsh aspect of the snoring sound, which occurs during natural sleep or drug-induced sleep. The presentation of snoring may vary throughout the night or between nights, with a subjective, and therefore inconsistent, assessment of its loudness.

Objective evaluation of snoring is important for clinical decision-making and predicting the effect of therapeutic interventions. It also provides information regarding the site and degree of upper airway obstruction. Snoring is one of the main features of sleep-disordered breathing, including hypopnea events, which reflect partial upper airway obstruction.

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is characterized by episodes of complete (apnea) or partial (hypopnea) collapse of the upper airways with associated oxygen desaturation or awakening from sleep. Most patients with OSA snore loudly almost every night. However, in the Sleep Heart Health Study, one-third of participants with OSA reported no snoring, while one-third of snoring participants did not meet the criteria for OSA. Therefore, subjective assessments of snoring (self-reported) may not be sufficiently reliable to assess its potential impact on cardiovascular (CV) health outcomes.
 

CV Effects

OSA has been hypothesized as a modifiable risk factor for CV diseases (CVD), including hypertension, coronary artery disease (CAD), atrial fibrillation, heart failure, and stroke, primarily because of the results of traditional observational studies. Snoring is reported as a symptom of the early stage of OSA and has also been associated with a higher risk for CVD. However, establishing causality based on observational studies is difficult because of residual confounding from unknown or unmeasured factors and reverse causality (i.e., the scenario in which CVD increases the risk for OSA or snoring). A Mendelian randomization study, using the natural random allocation of genetic variants as instruments capable of producing results analogous to those of randomized controlled trials, suggested that OSA and snoring increase the risk for hypertension and CAD, with associations partly driven by body mass index (BMI). Conversely, no evidence was found that CVD causally influenced OSA or snoring.

Snoring has been associated with multiple subclinical markers of CV pathology, including high blood pressure, and loud snoring can interfere with restorative sleep and contribute to the risk for hypertension and other adverse outcomes in snorers. However, evidence on the associations between snoring and CV health outcomes remains limited and is primarily based on subjective assessments of snoring or small clinical samples with objective assessments of snoring for only 1 night.
 

Snoring and Hypertension

A study of 12,287 middle-aged patients (age, 50 years) who were predominantly males (88%) and generally overweight (BMI, 28 kg/m²) determined the prevalence of snoring and its association with the prevalence of hypertension using objective evaluation of snoring over multiple nights and multiple daytime blood pressure measurements. The findings included the following observations:

An increase in snoring duration was associated with a 3-mmHg increase in systolic (SBP) and a 4 mmHg increase in diastolic blood pressure (DBP) in patients with frequent and regular snoring, compared with those with infrequent snoring, regardless of age, BMI, sex, and estimated apnea/hypopnea index.

The association between severe OSA alone and blood pressure had an effect size similar to that of the association between snoring alone and blood pressure. In a model where OSA severity was classified and snoring duration was stratified into quartiles, severe OSA without snoring was associated with 3.6 mmHg higher SBP and 3.5 mmHg higher DBP, compared with the absence of snoring or OSA. Participants without OSA but with intense snoring (4th quartile) had 3.8 mmHg higher SBP and 4.5 mmHg higher DBP compared with participants without nighttime apnea or snoring.

Snoring was significantly associated with uncontrolled hypertension. There was a 20% increase in the probability of uncontrolled hypertension in subjects aged > 50 years with obesity and a 98% increase in subjects aged ≤ 50 years with normal BMI.

Duration of snoring was associated with an 87% increase in the likelihood of uncontrolled hypertension.
 

Implications for Practice

This study indicates that 15% of a predominantly overweight male population snore for > 20% of the night and about 10% of these subjects without nighttime apnea snore for > 12% of the night.

Regular nighttime snoring is associated with elevated blood pressure and uncontrolled hypertension, regardless of the presence or severity of OSA.

Physicians must be aware of the potential consequences of snoring on the risk for hypertension, and these results highlight the need to consider snoring in clinical care and in the management of sleep problems, especially in the context of managing arterial hypertension.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Snoring is a common disorder that affects 20%-40% of the general population. The mechanism of snoring is the vibration of anatomical structures in the pharyngeal airways. The flutter of the soft palate explains the harsh aspect of the snoring sound, which occurs during natural sleep or drug-induced sleep. The presentation of snoring may vary throughout the night or between nights, with a subjective, and therefore inconsistent, assessment of its loudness.

Objective evaluation of snoring is important for clinical decision-making and predicting the effect of therapeutic interventions. It also provides information regarding the site and degree of upper airway obstruction. Snoring is one of the main features of sleep-disordered breathing, including hypopnea events, which reflect partial upper airway obstruction.

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is characterized by episodes of complete (apnea) or partial (hypopnea) collapse of the upper airways with associated oxygen desaturation or awakening from sleep. Most patients with OSA snore loudly almost every night. However, in the Sleep Heart Health Study, one-third of participants with OSA reported no snoring, while one-third of snoring participants did not meet the criteria for OSA. Therefore, subjective assessments of snoring (self-reported) may not be sufficiently reliable to assess its potential impact on cardiovascular (CV) health outcomes.
 

CV Effects

OSA has been hypothesized as a modifiable risk factor for CV diseases (CVD), including hypertension, coronary artery disease (CAD), atrial fibrillation, heart failure, and stroke, primarily because of the results of traditional observational studies. Snoring is reported as a symptom of the early stage of OSA and has also been associated with a higher risk for CVD. However, establishing causality based on observational studies is difficult because of residual confounding from unknown or unmeasured factors and reverse causality (i.e., the scenario in which CVD increases the risk for OSA or snoring). A Mendelian randomization study, using the natural random allocation of genetic variants as instruments capable of producing results analogous to those of randomized controlled trials, suggested that OSA and snoring increase the risk for hypertension and CAD, with associations partly driven by body mass index (BMI). Conversely, no evidence was found that CVD causally influenced OSA or snoring.

Snoring has been associated with multiple subclinical markers of CV pathology, including high blood pressure, and loud snoring can interfere with restorative sleep and contribute to the risk for hypertension and other adverse outcomes in snorers. However, evidence on the associations between snoring and CV health outcomes remains limited and is primarily based on subjective assessments of snoring or small clinical samples with objective assessments of snoring for only 1 night.
 

Snoring and Hypertension

A study of 12,287 middle-aged patients (age, 50 years) who were predominantly males (88%) and generally overweight (BMI, 28 kg/m²) determined the prevalence of snoring and its association with the prevalence of hypertension using objective evaluation of snoring over multiple nights and multiple daytime blood pressure measurements. The findings included the following observations:

An increase in snoring duration was associated with a 3-mmHg increase in systolic (SBP) and a 4 mmHg increase in diastolic blood pressure (DBP) in patients with frequent and regular snoring, compared with those with infrequent snoring, regardless of age, BMI, sex, and estimated apnea/hypopnea index.

The association between severe OSA alone and blood pressure had an effect size similar to that of the association between snoring alone and blood pressure. In a model where OSA severity was classified and snoring duration was stratified into quartiles, severe OSA without snoring was associated with 3.6 mmHg higher SBP and 3.5 mmHg higher DBP, compared with the absence of snoring or OSA. Participants without OSA but with intense snoring (4th quartile) had 3.8 mmHg higher SBP and 4.5 mmHg higher DBP compared with participants without nighttime apnea or snoring.

Snoring was significantly associated with uncontrolled hypertension. There was a 20% increase in the probability of uncontrolled hypertension in subjects aged > 50 years with obesity and a 98% increase in subjects aged ≤ 50 years with normal BMI.

Duration of snoring was associated with an 87% increase in the likelihood of uncontrolled hypertension.
 

Implications for Practice

This study indicates that 15% of a predominantly overweight male population snore for > 20% of the night and about 10% of these subjects without nighttime apnea snore for > 12% of the night.

Regular nighttime snoring is associated with elevated blood pressure and uncontrolled hypertension, regardless of the presence or severity of OSA.

Physicians must be aware of the potential consequences of snoring on the risk for hypertension, and these results highlight the need to consider snoring in clinical care and in the management of sleep problems, especially in the context of managing arterial hypertension.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

According to a new study, patients found to have microplastics and nanoplastics in their carotid artery plaque had a higher risk for death or major cardiovascular events compared with patients who had plaques where particles were not found.

This is the first study to show plastic particles are present in atheroma plaques, but the most important finding is that this was related to a four times higher risk for cardiovascular events, study coauthor Antonio Ceriello, MD, IRCCS MultiMedica, Milan, told this news organization. 

“I believe we have demonstrated that plastics are a new risk factor for cardiovascular disease,” he added. And while plastics may have made our lives easier in many respects, it appears that the price we are paying for that is a shortening of our lives. That is not a good balance.”

The trial involved 304 patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy for asymptomatic carotid artery disease, whose excised plaque specimens were analyzed for the presence of microplastics and nanoplastics, ultimately found in almost 60% of patients. 

After a mean follow-up of 34 months, patients in whom microplastics and nanoplastics were detected within the atheroma had a 4.5 times higher risk for the composite endpoint of all cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke than those in whom these substances were not detected (hazard ratio, 4.53; 95% CI, 2.00-10.27; P < .001).

The study, led by Raffaele Marfella, MD, University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Naples, Italy, was published in The New England Journal of Medicine on March 7, 2024.

The researchers say the study does not prove causality, and many other unmeasured confounding factors could have contributed to the findings. 

However, Dr. Ceriello noted that many important risk factors such as diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia, were controlled for. 

“In this study, all the patients involved were at high risk of cardiovascular events and they were well treated with statins and antithrombotics, so the relationship between the presence of plastic particles in plaque and cardiovascular events is seen on top of good preventive therapy,” he said. 

“While we cannot say for sure that we have shown a causal relationship, we found a large effect and there is a great deal of literature than supports this. We know that plastic particles can penetrate cells and act at the mitochondrial level to increase free radical production and produce chronic inflammation which is the basis for atherosclerosis,” Dr. Ceriello added. 

He believes there is only one approach to addressing this issue, and that is to reduce the amount of plastic in the environment. 

“Plastic is everywhere — in water pipes, in the ocean. We are hoping that this study will increase the push for government to act on this. This is even more important for the long-term health of our children, who will be exposed to high levels of plastics for the whole of their lives,” he said. 
 

‘Strongly Suggestive of a Causal Relationship’

Commenting for this news organization, Philip J. Landrigan, MD, author of an editorial accompanying publication of the study in the NEJM, described the link as “strongly suggestive.”

“Because this was just a single observational study, it doesn’t prove cause and effect, but I think this is strongly suggestive of a causal relationship,” he said. “While there may be some other confounding factors at play, it is hard for me to imagine that these could account for a hazard ratio of 4.5 — that is a large and alarming increase in just 3 years.”

Dr. Landrigan, who is director of the Program for Global Public Health and the Common Good, Boston College, points out that although it is not known what other exposures may have contributed to the adverse outcomes in patients in this study, the finding of microplastics and nanoplastics in plaque tissue is itself a breakthrough discovery that raises a series of urgent questions. These include: “Should exposure to microplastics and nanoplastics be considered a cardiovascular risk factor? What organs in addition to the heart may be at risk? How can we reduce exposure?”

Dr. Landrigan said he was not surprised that plastic particles had been found in carotid plaques. “Previous studies have found microplastics in other tissues including the lungs, colon and placenta. Now they have turned up in the vessel wall,” he said. “But what is really striking about this study is that it suggests the presence of these plastic particles is causing serious harm.”

He says this should be a wake-up call. “It is telling us that we need to worry about the amount of plastic in our environment. And it is not something that’s going to be a problem down the line — it is affecting us now.” 

Dr. Landrigan explained that plastic particles are taken into the body predominantly by ingestion, which could include drinking from plastic bottles or eating food wrapped in plastic. He said it is particularly damaging to use plastic containers to heat food in the microwave, as heating plastic up drives particles into the food. “That will really increase exposure.” 

He noted that plastics are often already in the food itself, especially seafood. 

“Plastics are dumped in the ocean, they break down and get picked up by the fish. Especially if you eat fish at the top of the food chain like tuna, or if you eat oysters or mussels that are filter feeders, you are more likely to ingest microplastics.” 

Dr. Landrigan said he would not advise against eating fish in general, however. “Maybe tuna or other predatory fish may be an issue, but fish in general are good for us, and fish like salmon which have a mainly vegetarian diet are probably safer in this regard.”

The other route is inhalation, with these small plastic particles being widely present in the air, from sources such as vehicle tires becoming abraded from running along the highway.

While it is impossible to avoid taking in plastic completely, Dr. Landrigan says individuals can make efforts to reduce their exposure. 

“People can make intelligent choices in their homes about what they purchase for themselves and their families, and they can act in their local environments and workplace to try and reduce plastics.”

He noted that 40% of all plastic currently being made is single use plastic, and that percentage is growing, with global production of plastic on track to double by 2040 and triple by 2060, and most of this rapid growth being single use plastic. 

“We are all members of the broader society, and we need to become educated about the plastic situation and lobby our elected officials to come up with a good strong legally binding treaty that will place a cap on plastic production,” Dr. Landrigan said. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

According to a new study, patients found to have microplastics and nanoplastics in their carotid artery plaque had a higher risk for death or major cardiovascular events compared with patients who had plaques where particles were not found.

This is the first study to show plastic particles are present in atheroma plaques, but the most important finding is that this was related to a four times higher risk for cardiovascular events, study coauthor Antonio Ceriello, MD, IRCCS MultiMedica, Milan, told this news organization. 

“I believe we have demonstrated that plastics are a new risk factor for cardiovascular disease,” he added. And while plastics may have made our lives easier in many respects, it appears that the price we are paying for that is a shortening of our lives. That is not a good balance.”

The trial involved 304 patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy for asymptomatic carotid artery disease, whose excised plaque specimens were analyzed for the presence of microplastics and nanoplastics, ultimately found in almost 60% of patients. 

After a mean follow-up of 34 months, patients in whom microplastics and nanoplastics were detected within the atheroma had a 4.5 times higher risk for the composite endpoint of all cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke than those in whom these substances were not detected (hazard ratio, 4.53; 95% CI, 2.00-10.27; P < .001).

The study, led by Raffaele Marfella, MD, University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Naples, Italy, was published in The New England Journal of Medicine on March 7, 2024.

The researchers say the study does not prove causality, and many other unmeasured confounding factors could have contributed to the findings. 

However, Dr. Ceriello noted that many important risk factors such as diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia, were controlled for. 

“In this study, all the patients involved were at high risk of cardiovascular events and they were well treated with statins and antithrombotics, so the relationship between the presence of plastic particles in plaque and cardiovascular events is seen on top of good preventive therapy,” he said. 

“While we cannot say for sure that we have shown a causal relationship, we found a large effect and there is a great deal of literature than supports this. We know that plastic particles can penetrate cells and act at the mitochondrial level to increase free radical production and produce chronic inflammation which is the basis for atherosclerosis,” Dr. Ceriello added. 

He believes there is only one approach to addressing this issue, and that is to reduce the amount of plastic in the environment. 

“Plastic is everywhere — in water pipes, in the ocean. We are hoping that this study will increase the push for government to act on this. This is even more important for the long-term health of our children, who will be exposed to high levels of plastics for the whole of their lives,” he said. 
 

‘Strongly Suggestive of a Causal Relationship’

Commenting for this news organization, Philip J. Landrigan, MD, author of an editorial accompanying publication of the study in the NEJM, described the link as “strongly suggestive.”

“Because this was just a single observational study, it doesn’t prove cause and effect, but I think this is strongly suggestive of a causal relationship,” he said. “While there may be some other confounding factors at play, it is hard for me to imagine that these could account for a hazard ratio of 4.5 — that is a large and alarming increase in just 3 years.”

Dr. Landrigan, who is director of the Program for Global Public Health and the Common Good, Boston College, points out that although it is not known what other exposures may have contributed to the adverse outcomes in patients in this study, the finding of microplastics and nanoplastics in plaque tissue is itself a breakthrough discovery that raises a series of urgent questions. These include: “Should exposure to microplastics and nanoplastics be considered a cardiovascular risk factor? What organs in addition to the heart may be at risk? How can we reduce exposure?”

Dr. Landrigan said he was not surprised that plastic particles had been found in carotid plaques. “Previous studies have found microplastics in other tissues including the lungs, colon and placenta. Now they have turned up in the vessel wall,” he said. “But what is really striking about this study is that it suggests the presence of these plastic particles is causing serious harm.”

He says this should be a wake-up call. “It is telling us that we need to worry about the amount of plastic in our environment. And it is not something that’s going to be a problem down the line — it is affecting us now.” 

Dr. Landrigan explained that plastic particles are taken into the body predominantly by ingestion, which could include drinking from plastic bottles or eating food wrapped in plastic. He said it is particularly damaging to use plastic containers to heat food in the microwave, as heating plastic up drives particles into the food. “That will really increase exposure.” 

He noted that plastics are often already in the food itself, especially seafood. 

“Plastics are dumped in the ocean, they break down and get picked up by the fish. Especially if you eat fish at the top of the food chain like tuna, or if you eat oysters or mussels that are filter feeders, you are more likely to ingest microplastics.” 

Dr. Landrigan said he would not advise against eating fish in general, however. “Maybe tuna or other predatory fish may be an issue, but fish in general are good for us, and fish like salmon which have a mainly vegetarian diet are probably safer in this regard.”

The other route is inhalation, with these small plastic particles being widely present in the air, from sources such as vehicle tires becoming abraded from running along the highway.

While it is impossible to avoid taking in plastic completely, Dr. Landrigan says individuals can make efforts to reduce their exposure. 

“People can make intelligent choices in their homes about what they purchase for themselves and their families, and they can act in their local environments and workplace to try and reduce plastics.”

He noted that 40% of all plastic currently being made is single use plastic, and that percentage is growing, with global production of plastic on track to double by 2040 and triple by 2060, and most of this rapid growth being single use plastic. 

“We are all members of the broader society, and we need to become educated about the plastic situation and lobby our elected officials to come up with a good strong legally binding treaty that will place a cap on plastic production,” Dr. Landrigan said. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

According to a new study, patients found to have microplastics and nanoplastics in their carotid artery plaque had a higher risk for death or major cardiovascular events compared with patients who had plaques where particles were not found.

This is the first study to show plastic particles are present in atheroma plaques, but the most important finding is that this was related to a four times higher risk for cardiovascular events, study coauthor Antonio Ceriello, MD, IRCCS MultiMedica, Milan, told this news organization. 

“I believe we have demonstrated that plastics are a new risk factor for cardiovascular disease,” he added. And while plastics may have made our lives easier in many respects, it appears that the price we are paying for that is a shortening of our lives. That is not a good balance.”

The trial involved 304 patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy for asymptomatic carotid artery disease, whose excised plaque specimens were analyzed for the presence of microplastics and nanoplastics, ultimately found in almost 60% of patients. 

After a mean follow-up of 34 months, patients in whom microplastics and nanoplastics were detected within the atheroma had a 4.5 times higher risk for the composite endpoint of all cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke than those in whom these substances were not detected (hazard ratio, 4.53; 95% CI, 2.00-10.27; P < .001).

The study, led by Raffaele Marfella, MD, University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Naples, Italy, was published in The New England Journal of Medicine on March 7, 2024.

The researchers say the study does not prove causality, and many other unmeasured confounding factors could have contributed to the findings. 

However, Dr. Ceriello noted that many important risk factors such as diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia, were controlled for. 

“In this study, all the patients involved were at high risk of cardiovascular events and they were well treated with statins and antithrombotics, so the relationship between the presence of plastic particles in plaque and cardiovascular events is seen on top of good preventive therapy,” he said. 

“While we cannot say for sure that we have shown a causal relationship, we found a large effect and there is a great deal of literature than supports this. We know that plastic particles can penetrate cells and act at the mitochondrial level to increase free radical production and produce chronic inflammation which is the basis for atherosclerosis,” Dr. Ceriello added. 

He believes there is only one approach to addressing this issue, and that is to reduce the amount of plastic in the environment. 

“Plastic is everywhere — in water pipes, in the ocean. We are hoping that this study will increase the push for government to act on this. This is even more important for the long-term health of our children, who will be exposed to high levels of plastics for the whole of their lives,” he said. 
 

‘Strongly Suggestive of a Causal Relationship’

Commenting for this news organization, Philip J. Landrigan, MD, author of an editorial accompanying publication of the study in the NEJM, described the link as “strongly suggestive.”

“Because this was just a single observational study, it doesn’t prove cause and effect, but I think this is strongly suggestive of a causal relationship,” he said. “While there may be some other confounding factors at play, it is hard for me to imagine that these could account for a hazard ratio of 4.5 — that is a large and alarming increase in just 3 years.”

Dr. Landrigan, who is director of the Program for Global Public Health and the Common Good, Boston College, points out that although it is not known what other exposures may have contributed to the adverse outcomes in patients in this study, the finding of microplastics and nanoplastics in plaque tissue is itself a breakthrough discovery that raises a series of urgent questions. These include: “Should exposure to microplastics and nanoplastics be considered a cardiovascular risk factor? What organs in addition to the heart may be at risk? How can we reduce exposure?”

Dr. Landrigan said he was not surprised that plastic particles had been found in carotid plaques. “Previous studies have found microplastics in other tissues including the lungs, colon and placenta. Now they have turned up in the vessel wall,” he said. “But what is really striking about this study is that it suggests the presence of these plastic particles is causing serious harm.”

He says this should be a wake-up call. “It is telling us that we need to worry about the amount of plastic in our environment. And it is not something that’s going to be a problem down the line — it is affecting us now.” 

Dr. Landrigan explained that plastic particles are taken into the body predominantly by ingestion, which could include drinking from plastic bottles or eating food wrapped in plastic. He said it is particularly damaging to use plastic containers to heat food in the microwave, as heating plastic up drives particles into the food. “That will really increase exposure.” 

He noted that plastics are often already in the food itself, especially seafood. 

“Plastics are dumped in the ocean, they break down and get picked up by the fish. Especially if you eat fish at the top of the food chain like tuna, or if you eat oysters or mussels that are filter feeders, you are more likely to ingest microplastics.” 

Dr. Landrigan said he would not advise against eating fish in general, however. “Maybe tuna or other predatory fish may be an issue, but fish in general are good for us, and fish like salmon which have a mainly vegetarian diet are probably safer in this regard.”

The other route is inhalation, with these small plastic particles being widely present in the air, from sources such as vehicle tires becoming abraded from running along the highway.

While it is impossible to avoid taking in plastic completely, Dr. Landrigan says individuals can make efforts to reduce their exposure. 

“People can make intelligent choices in their homes about what they purchase for themselves and their families, and they can act in their local environments and workplace to try and reduce plastics.”

He noted that 40% of all plastic currently being made is single use plastic, and that percentage is growing, with global production of plastic on track to double by 2040 and triple by 2060, and most of this rapid growth being single use plastic. 

“We are all members of the broader society, and we need to become educated about the plastic situation and lobby our elected officials to come up with a good strong legally binding treaty that will place a cap on plastic production,” Dr. Landrigan said. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Drinking 2 L or more of artificially sweetened drinks per week was associated with a 20% increased risk for atrial fibrillation (AF) in a new observational study.

METHODOLOGY:

• The population-based cohort study looked at the associations of sugar-sweetened beverages, artificial sweetened beverages, and pure fruit juice consumption with the risk for incident AF and evaluated whether genetic susceptibility modifies these associations.
• The authors analyzed data from the UK Biobank on 201,856 participants who were free of baseline AF, had genetic data available, and completed a 24-hour diet questionnaire. The diagnosis of AF was obtained by linkage from primary care, hospital inpatient, and death register records.
• The results were adjusted for a wide range of potential confounders including age, sex, ethnicity, education level, socioeconomic status, smoking, alcohol consumption, physical activity level, sleep duration, body mass index, blood pressure, kidney function, sleep apnea, coronary heart disease, diabetes, and the use of lipid-lowering or antihypertensive medication.

TAKEAWAY:

• During a median follow-up of 9.9 years, 9362 incident AF cases were documented.
• Compared with nonconsumers, individuals who consumed more than 2 L per week of artificially sweetened beverages had a 20% increased risk of developing AF (hazard ratio [HR], 1.20; 95% CI, 1.10-1.31).
• Those who drank more than 2 L per week of sugar-sweetened beverages had a 10% increased risk for AF (HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.01-1.20).
• Consumption of 1 L or less per week of pure fruit juice was associated with an 8% lower risk of developing AF (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.87-0.97).
• The associations persisted after adjustment for genetic susceptibility for AF.

IN PRACTICE:

The study authors concluded that this study does not demonstrate that consumption of sugar-sweetened or artificially sweetened beverages alters AF risk but rather that the consumption of these drinks may predict AF risk beyond traditional risk factors. They added that intervention studies and basic research are warranted to confirm whether the observed associations are causal. Commenting on the study, Duane Mellor, MD, registered dietitian at Aston University, Birmingham, England, said it is unclear if the observations in this study are a chance finding as there is a lack of a clear biological link. Naveed Sattar, MD, professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, added that although the authors tried to adjust for many factors, there is a strong chance that other behavioral aspects linked to beverage choice could be more relevant as a cause of AF rather than the drinks themselves. Tom Sanders, MD, professor emeritus of nutrition and dietetics, King’s College London, London, England, pointed out that as this is the first study that has reported such an effect with artificially sweetened drinks, the finding needs replication before any conclusions can be drawn. “It remains good dietary advice to recommend the consumption of low-calorie artificially sweetened drink in place of sugar-sweetened drinks and alcohol,” he added.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Ying Sun, MD, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China, was published online in Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology.

LIMITATIONS:

The consumption of beverages was self-reported and based on only five separate single-day food intake recalls which were taken over the first 3 years of the study, which was extrapolated to estimate weekly intake. The researchers could not tell whether the sugar-sweetened and artificially sweetened drinks were caffeinated and could not rule out residual confounding by other unmeasured or unknown factors.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Shanghai Municipal Health Commission, Shanghai Municipal Human Resources and Social Security Bureau, Clinical Research Plan of Shanghai Hospital Development Center, Postdoctoral Scientific Research Foundation of Shanghai Ninth People’s Hospital, and Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Drinking 2 L or more of artificially sweetened drinks per week was associated with a 20% increased risk for atrial fibrillation (AF) in a new observational study.

METHODOLOGY:

• The population-based cohort study looked at the associations of sugar-sweetened beverages, artificial sweetened beverages, and pure fruit juice consumption with the risk for incident AF and evaluated whether genetic susceptibility modifies these associations.
• The authors analyzed data from the UK Biobank on 201,856 participants who were free of baseline AF, had genetic data available, and completed a 24-hour diet questionnaire. The diagnosis of AF was obtained by linkage from primary care, hospital inpatient, and death register records.
• The results were adjusted for a wide range of potential confounders including age, sex, ethnicity, education level, socioeconomic status, smoking, alcohol consumption, physical activity level, sleep duration, body mass index, blood pressure, kidney function, sleep apnea, coronary heart disease, diabetes, and the use of lipid-lowering or antihypertensive medication.

TAKEAWAY:

• During a median follow-up of 9.9 years, 9362 incident AF cases were documented.
• Compared with nonconsumers, individuals who consumed more than 2 L per week of artificially sweetened beverages had a 20% increased risk of developing AF (hazard ratio [HR], 1.20; 95% CI, 1.10-1.31).
• Those who drank more than 2 L per week of sugar-sweetened beverages had a 10% increased risk for AF (HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.01-1.20).
• Consumption of 1 L or less per week of pure fruit juice was associated with an 8% lower risk of developing AF (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.87-0.97).
• The associations persisted after adjustment for genetic susceptibility for AF.

IN PRACTICE:

The study authors concluded that this study does not demonstrate that consumption of sugar-sweetened or artificially sweetened beverages alters AF risk but rather that the consumption of these drinks may predict AF risk beyond traditional risk factors. They added that intervention studies and basic research are warranted to confirm whether the observed associations are causal. Commenting on the study, Duane Mellor, MD, registered dietitian at Aston University, Birmingham, England, said it is unclear if the observations in this study are a chance finding as there is a lack of a clear biological link. Naveed Sattar, MD, professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, added that although the authors tried to adjust for many factors, there is a strong chance that other behavioral aspects linked to beverage choice could be more relevant as a cause of AF rather than the drinks themselves. Tom Sanders, MD, professor emeritus of nutrition and dietetics, King’s College London, London, England, pointed out that as this is the first study that has reported such an effect with artificially sweetened drinks, the finding needs replication before any conclusions can be drawn. “It remains good dietary advice to recommend the consumption of low-calorie artificially sweetened drink in place of sugar-sweetened drinks and alcohol,” he added.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Ying Sun, MD, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China, was published online in Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology.

LIMITATIONS:

The consumption of beverages was self-reported and based on only five separate single-day food intake recalls which were taken over the first 3 years of the study, which was extrapolated to estimate weekly intake. The researchers could not tell whether the sugar-sweetened and artificially sweetened drinks were caffeinated and could not rule out residual confounding by other unmeasured or unknown factors.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Shanghai Municipal Health Commission, Shanghai Municipal Human Resources and Social Security Bureau, Clinical Research Plan of Shanghai Hospital Development Center, Postdoctoral Scientific Research Foundation of Shanghai Ninth People’s Hospital, and Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Drinking 2 L or more of artificially sweetened drinks per week was associated with a 20% increased risk for atrial fibrillation (AF) in a new observational study.

METHODOLOGY:

• The population-based cohort study looked at the associations of sugar-sweetened beverages, artificial sweetened beverages, and pure fruit juice consumption with the risk for incident AF and evaluated whether genetic susceptibility modifies these associations.
• The authors analyzed data from the UK Biobank on 201,856 participants who were free of baseline AF, had genetic data available, and completed a 24-hour diet questionnaire. The diagnosis of AF was obtained by linkage from primary care, hospital inpatient, and death register records.
• The results were adjusted for a wide range of potential confounders including age, sex, ethnicity, education level, socioeconomic status, smoking, alcohol consumption, physical activity level, sleep duration, body mass index, blood pressure, kidney function, sleep apnea, coronary heart disease, diabetes, and the use of lipid-lowering or antihypertensive medication.

TAKEAWAY:

• During a median follow-up of 9.9 years, 9362 incident AF cases were documented.
• Compared with nonconsumers, individuals who consumed more than 2 L per week of artificially sweetened beverages had a 20% increased risk of developing AF (hazard ratio [HR], 1.20; 95% CI, 1.10-1.31).
• Those who drank more than 2 L per week of sugar-sweetened beverages had a 10% increased risk for AF (HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.01-1.20).
• Consumption of 1 L or less per week of pure fruit juice was associated with an 8% lower risk of developing AF (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.87-0.97).
• The associations persisted after adjustment for genetic susceptibility for AF.

IN PRACTICE:

The study authors concluded that this study does not demonstrate that consumption of sugar-sweetened or artificially sweetened beverages alters AF risk but rather that the consumption of these drinks may predict AF risk beyond traditional risk factors. They added that intervention studies and basic research are warranted to confirm whether the observed associations are causal. Commenting on the study, Duane Mellor, MD, registered dietitian at Aston University, Birmingham, England, said it is unclear if the observations in this study are a chance finding as there is a lack of a clear biological link. Naveed Sattar, MD, professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, added that although the authors tried to adjust for many factors, there is a strong chance that other behavioral aspects linked to beverage choice could be more relevant as a cause of AF rather than the drinks themselves. Tom Sanders, MD, professor emeritus of nutrition and dietetics, King’s College London, London, England, pointed out that as this is the first study that has reported such an effect with artificially sweetened drinks, the finding needs replication before any conclusions can be drawn. “It remains good dietary advice to recommend the consumption of low-calorie artificially sweetened drink in place of sugar-sweetened drinks and alcohol,” he added.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Ying Sun, MD, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China, was published online in Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology.

LIMITATIONS:

The consumption of beverages was self-reported and based on only five separate single-day food intake recalls which were taken over the first 3 years of the study, which was extrapolated to estimate weekly intake. The researchers could not tell whether the sugar-sweetened and artificially sweetened drinks were caffeinated and could not rule out residual confounding by other unmeasured or unknown factors.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Shanghai Municipal Health Commission, Shanghai Municipal Human Resources and Social Security Bureau, Clinical Research Plan of Shanghai Hospital Development Center, Postdoctoral Scientific Research Foundation of Shanghai Ninth People’s Hospital, and Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Metformin cuts the risk for diabetic nephropathy (DN) and major kidney and cardiovascular events in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes (T2D) across various renal function states.

METHODOLOGY:

Metformin is a first-line treatment in US and South Korean T2D management guidelines, except for patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) (stage, ≥ 4; estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR], < 30).

The study used data from the databases of three tertiary hospitals in South Korea to assess the effect of metformin on long-term renal and cardiovascular outcomes across various renal function states in patients with newly diagnosed T2D.

Four groups of treatment-control comparative cohorts were identified at each hospital: Patients who had not yet developed DN at T2D diagnosis (mean age in treatment and control cohorts, 61-65 years) and those with reduced renal function (CKD stages 3A, 3B, and 4).

Patients who continuously received metformin after T2D diagnosis and beyond the observation period were 1:1 propensity score matched with controls who were prescribed oral hypoglycemic agents other than metformin.

Primary outcomes were net major adverse cardiovascular events including strokes (MACEs) or in-hospital death and a composite of major adverse kidney events (MAKEs) or in-hospital death.

TAKEAWAY:

Among patients without DN at T2D diagnosis, the continuous use of metformin vs other oral hypoglycemic agents was associated with a lower risk for:

Overt DN (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71-0.95),

MACEs (IRR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.64-0.92), and

MAKEs (IRR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.33-0.62).

Compared with non-metformin or discontinued metformin use, the continuous use of metformin was associated with a lower risk for MACE across CKD stages 3A (IRR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.57-0.87), 3B (IRR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.74-0.93), and 4 (IRR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.60-0.85).

Similarly, the risk for MAKE was lower among continuous metformin users than in nonusers or discontinuous metformin users across CKD stage 3A (IRR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.35-0.43), 3B (IRR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.40-0.48), and 4 (IRR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.39-0.51).

IN PRACTICE:

“The significance of the current study is highlighted by its integration of real-world clinical data, which encompasses patients diagnosed with CDK4 [eGRF, 15-29 mL/min/1.73 m2], a group currently considered contraindicated,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Yongjin Yi, MD, PhD, Department of Internal Medicine, Dankook University College of Medicine, Cheonan-si, Republic of Korea, was published in Scientific Reports.

LIMITATIONS:

There may be a possibility of selection bias because of the retrospective and observational nature of this study. Despite achieving a 1:1 propensity score matching to address the confounding factors, some variables, such as serum albumin and A1c levels, remained unbalanced after matching. The paper did not include observation length or patient numbers, but in response to an email query from Medscape, Yi notes that in one hospital, the mean duration of observation for the control and treatment groups was about 6.5 years, and the total number in the treatment groups across data from three hospitals was 11,675, with the same number of matched controls.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by a Young Investigator Research Grant from the Korean Society of Nephrology, a grant from the Seoul National University Bundang Hospital Research Fund, and the Bio&Medical Technology Development Program of the National Research Foundation funded by the Korean government. The authors disclosed no competing interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Metformin cuts the risk for diabetic nephropathy (DN) and major kidney and cardiovascular events in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes (T2D) across various renal function states.

METHODOLOGY:

Metformin is a first-line treatment in US and South Korean T2D management guidelines, except for patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) (stage, ≥ 4; estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR], < 30).

The study used data from the databases of three tertiary hospitals in South Korea to assess the effect of metformin on long-term renal and cardiovascular outcomes across various renal function states in patients with newly diagnosed T2D.

Four groups of treatment-control comparative cohorts were identified at each hospital: Patients who had not yet developed DN at T2D diagnosis (mean age in treatment and control cohorts, 61-65 years) and those with reduced renal function (CKD stages 3A, 3B, and 4).

Patients who continuously received metformin after T2D diagnosis and beyond the observation period were 1:1 propensity score matched with controls who were prescribed oral hypoglycemic agents other than metformin.

Primary outcomes were net major adverse cardiovascular events including strokes (MACEs) or in-hospital death and a composite of major adverse kidney events (MAKEs) or in-hospital death.

TAKEAWAY:

Among patients without DN at T2D diagnosis, the continuous use of metformin vs other oral hypoglycemic agents was associated with a lower risk for:

Overt DN (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71-0.95),

MACEs (IRR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.64-0.92), and

MAKEs (IRR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.33-0.62).

Compared with non-metformin or discontinued metformin use, the continuous use of metformin was associated with a lower risk for MACE across CKD stages 3A (IRR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.57-0.87), 3B (IRR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.74-0.93), and 4 (IRR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.60-0.85).

Similarly, the risk for MAKE was lower among continuous metformin users than in nonusers or discontinuous metformin users across CKD stage 3A (IRR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.35-0.43), 3B (IRR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.40-0.48), and 4 (IRR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.39-0.51).

IN PRACTICE:

“The significance of the current study is highlighted by its integration of real-world clinical data, which encompasses patients diagnosed with CDK4 [eGRF, 15-29 mL/min/1.73 m2], a group currently considered contraindicated,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Yongjin Yi, MD, PhD, Department of Internal Medicine, Dankook University College of Medicine, Cheonan-si, Republic of Korea, was published in Scientific Reports.

LIMITATIONS:

There may be a possibility of selection bias because of the retrospective and observational nature of this study. Despite achieving a 1:1 propensity score matching to address the confounding factors, some variables, such as serum albumin and A1c levels, remained unbalanced after matching. The paper did not include observation length or patient numbers, but in response to an email query from Medscape, Yi notes that in one hospital, the mean duration of observation for the control and treatment groups was about 6.5 years, and the total number in the treatment groups across data from three hospitals was 11,675, with the same number of matched controls.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by a Young Investigator Research Grant from the Korean Society of Nephrology, a grant from the Seoul National University Bundang Hospital Research Fund, and the Bio&Medical Technology Development Program of the National Research Foundation funded by the Korean government. The authors disclosed no competing interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Metformin cuts the risk for diabetic nephropathy (DN) and major kidney and cardiovascular events in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes (T2D) across various renal function states.

METHODOLOGY:

Metformin is a first-line treatment in US and South Korean T2D management guidelines, except for patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) (stage, ≥ 4; estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR], < 30).

The study used data from the databases of three tertiary hospitals in South Korea to assess the effect of metformin on long-term renal and cardiovascular outcomes across various renal function states in patients with newly diagnosed T2D.

Four groups of treatment-control comparative cohorts were identified at each hospital: Patients who had not yet developed DN at T2D diagnosis (mean age in treatment and control cohorts, 61-65 years) and those with reduced renal function (CKD stages 3A, 3B, and 4).

Patients who continuously received metformin after T2D diagnosis and beyond the observation period were 1:1 propensity score matched with controls who were prescribed oral hypoglycemic agents other than metformin.

Primary outcomes were net major adverse cardiovascular events including strokes (MACEs) or in-hospital death and a composite of major adverse kidney events (MAKEs) or in-hospital death.

TAKEAWAY:

Among patients without DN at T2D diagnosis, the continuous use of metformin vs other oral hypoglycemic agents was associated with a lower risk for:

Overt DN (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71-0.95),

MACEs (IRR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.64-0.92), and

MAKEs (IRR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.33-0.62).

Compared with non-metformin or discontinued metformin use, the continuous use of metformin was associated with a lower risk for MACE across CKD stages 3A (IRR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.57-0.87), 3B (IRR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.74-0.93), and 4 (IRR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.60-0.85).

Similarly, the risk for MAKE was lower among continuous metformin users than in nonusers or discontinuous metformin users across CKD stage 3A (IRR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.35-0.43), 3B (IRR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.40-0.48), and 4 (IRR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.39-0.51).

IN PRACTICE:

“The significance of the current study is highlighted by its integration of real-world clinical data, which encompasses patients diagnosed with CDK4 [eGRF, 15-29 mL/min/1.73 m2], a group currently considered contraindicated,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Yongjin Yi, MD, PhD, Department of Internal Medicine, Dankook University College of Medicine, Cheonan-si, Republic of Korea, was published in Scientific Reports.

LIMITATIONS:

There may be a possibility of selection bias because of the retrospective and observational nature of this study. Despite achieving a 1:1 propensity score matching to address the confounding factors, some variables, such as serum albumin and A1c levels, remained unbalanced after matching. The paper did not include observation length or patient numbers, but in response to an email query from Medscape, Yi notes that in one hospital, the mean duration of observation for the control and treatment groups was about 6.5 years, and the total number in the treatment groups across data from three hospitals was 11,675, with the same number of matched controls.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by a Young Investigator Research Grant from the Korean Society of Nephrology, a grant from the Seoul National University Bundang Hospital Research Fund, and the Bio&Medical Technology Development Program of the National Research Foundation funded by the Korean government. The authors disclosed no competing interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced the removal of the endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from food packaging.

Issued on February 28, 2024, “this means the major source of dietary exposure to PFAS from food packaging like fast-food wrappers, microwave popcorn bags, take-out paperboard containers, and pet food bags is being eliminated,” the FDA said in a statement.

In 2020, the FDA had secured commitments from manufacturers to stop selling products containing PFAS used in the food packaging for grease-proofing. “Today’s announcement marks the fulfillment of these voluntary commitments,” according to the agency.

PFAS, a class of thousands of chemicals also called “forever chemicals” are widely used in consumer and industrial products. People may be exposed via contaminated food packaging (although perhaps no longer in the United States) or occupationally. Studies have found that some PFAS disrupt hormones including estrogen and testosterone, whereas others may impair thyroid function.
 

Endocrine Society Report Sounds the Alarm About PFAS and Others

The FDA’s announcement came just 2 days after the Endocrine Society issued a new alarm about the human health dangers from environmental EDCs including PFAS in a report covering the latest science.

“Endocrine disrupting chemicals” are individual substances or mixtures that can interfere with natural hormonal function, leading to disease or even death. Many are ubiquitous in the modern environment and contribute to a wide range of human diseases.

The new report Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals: Threats to Human Health was issued jointly with the International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN), a global advocacy organization. It’s an update to the Endocrine Society’s 2015 report, providing new data on the endocrine-disrupting substances previously covered and adding four EDCs not discussed in that document: Pesticides, plastics, PFAS, and children’s products containing arsenic.

At a briefing held during the United Nations Environment Assembly meeting in Nairobi, Kenya, last week, the new report’s lead author Andrea C. Gore, PhD, of the University of Texas at Austin, noted, “A well-established body of scientific research indicates that endocrine-disrupting chemicals that are part of our daily lives are making us more susceptible to reproductive disorders, cancer, diabetes, obesity, heart disease, and other serious health conditions.”

Added Dr. Gore, who is also a member of the Endocrine Society’s Board of Directors, “These chemicals pose particularly serious risks to pregnant women and children. Now is the time for the UN Environment Assembly and other global policymakers to take action to address this threat to public health.”

While the science has been emerging rapidly, global and national chemical control policies haven’t kept up, the authors said. Of particular concern is that EDCs behave differently from other chemicals in many ways, including that even very low-dose exposures can pose health threats, but policies thus far haven’t dealt with that aspect.

Moreover, “the effects of low doses cannot be predicted by the effects observed at high doses. This means there may be no safe dose for exposure to EDCs,” according to the report.

Exposures can come from household products, including furniture, toys, and food packages, as well as electronics building materials and cosmetics. These chemicals are also in the outdoor environment, via pesticides, air pollution, and industrial waste.

“IPEN and the Endocrine Society call for chemical regulations based on the most modern scientific understanding of how hormones act and how EDCs can perturb these actions. We work to educate policy makers in global, regional, and national government assemblies and help ensure that regulations correlate with current scientific understanding,” they said in the report.
 

New Data on Four Classes of EDCs

Chapters of the report summarized the latest information about the science of EDCs and their links to endocrine disease and real-world exposure. It included a special section about “EDCs throughout the plastics life cycle” and a summary of the links between EDCs and climate change.

The report reviewed three pesticides, including the world’s most heavily applied herbicide, glycophosphate. Exposures can occur directly from the air, water, dust, and food residues. Recent data linked glycophosphate to adverse reproductive health outcomes.

Two toxic plastic chemicals, phthalates and bisphenols, are present in personal care products, among others. Emerging evidence links them with impaired neurodevelopment, leading to impaired cognitive function, learning, attention, and impulsivity.

Arsenic has long been linked to human health conditions including cancer, but more recent evidence finds it can disrupt multiple endocrine systems and lead to metabolic conditions including diabetes, reproductive dysfunction, and cardiovascular and neurocognitive conditions.

The special section about plastics noted that they are made from fossil fuels and chemicals, including many toxic substances that are known or suspected EDCs. People who live near plastic production facilities or waste dumps may be at greatest risk, but anyone can be exposed using any plastic product. Plastic waste disposal is increasingly problematic and often foisted on lower- and middle-income countries.
 

‘Additional Education and Awareness-Raising Among Stakeholders Remain Necessary’

Policies aimed at reducing human health risks from EDCs have included the 2022 Plastics Treaty, a resolution adopted by 175 countries at the United Nations Environmental Assembly that “may be a significant step toward global control of plastics and elimination of threats from exposures to EDCs in plastics,” the report said.

The authors added, “While significant progress has been made in recent years connecting scientific advances on EDCs with health-protective policies, additional education and awareness-raising among stakeholders remain necessary to achieve a safer and more sustainable environment that minimizes exposure to these harmful chemicals.”

The document was produced with financial contributions from the Government of Sweden, the Tides Foundation, Passport Foundation, and other donors.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced the removal of the endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from food packaging.

Issued on February 28, 2024, “this means the major source of dietary exposure to PFAS from food packaging like fast-food wrappers, microwave popcorn bags, take-out paperboard containers, and pet food bags is being eliminated,” the FDA said in a statement.

In 2020, the FDA had secured commitments from manufacturers to stop selling products containing PFAS used in the food packaging for grease-proofing. “Today’s announcement marks the fulfillment of these voluntary commitments,” according to the agency.

PFAS, a class of thousands of chemicals also called “forever chemicals” are widely used in consumer and industrial products. People may be exposed via contaminated food packaging (although perhaps no longer in the United States) or occupationally. Studies have found that some PFAS disrupt hormones including estrogen and testosterone, whereas others may impair thyroid function.
 

Endocrine Society Report Sounds the Alarm About PFAS and Others

The FDA’s announcement came just 2 days after the Endocrine Society issued a new alarm about the human health dangers from environmental EDCs including PFAS in a report covering the latest science.

“Endocrine disrupting chemicals” are individual substances or mixtures that can interfere with natural hormonal function, leading to disease or even death. Many are ubiquitous in the modern environment and contribute to a wide range of human diseases.

The new report Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals: Threats to Human Health was issued jointly with the International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN), a global advocacy organization. It’s an update to the Endocrine Society’s 2015 report, providing new data on the endocrine-disrupting substances previously covered and adding four EDCs not discussed in that document: Pesticides, plastics, PFAS, and children’s products containing arsenic.

At a briefing held during the United Nations Environment Assembly meeting in Nairobi, Kenya, last week, the new report’s lead author Andrea C. Gore, PhD, of the University of Texas at Austin, noted, “A well-established body of scientific research indicates that endocrine-disrupting chemicals that are part of our daily lives are making us more susceptible to reproductive disorders, cancer, diabetes, obesity, heart disease, and other serious health conditions.”

Added Dr. Gore, who is also a member of the Endocrine Society’s Board of Directors, “These chemicals pose particularly serious risks to pregnant women and children. Now is the time for the UN Environment Assembly and other global policymakers to take action to address this threat to public health.”

While the science has been emerging rapidly, global and national chemical control policies haven’t kept up, the authors said. Of particular concern is that EDCs behave differently from other chemicals in many ways, including that even very low-dose exposures can pose health threats, but policies thus far haven’t dealt with that aspect.

Moreover, “the effects of low doses cannot be predicted by the effects observed at high doses. This means there may be no safe dose for exposure to EDCs,” according to the report.

Exposures can come from household products, including furniture, toys, and food packages, as well as electronics building materials and cosmetics. These chemicals are also in the outdoor environment, via pesticides, air pollution, and industrial waste.

“IPEN and the Endocrine Society call for chemical regulations based on the most modern scientific understanding of how hormones act and how EDCs can perturb these actions. We work to educate policy makers in global, regional, and national government assemblies and help ensure that regulations correlate with current scientific understanding,” they said in the report.
 

New Data on Four Classes of EDCs

Chapters of the report summarized the latest information about the science of EDCs and their links to endocrine disease and real-world exposure. It included a special section about “EDCs throughout the plastics life cycle” and a summary of the links between EDCs and climate change.

The report reviewed three pesticides, including the world’s most heavily applied herbicide, glycophosphate. Exposures can occur directly from the air, water, dust, and food residues. Recent data linked glycophosphate to adverse reproductive health outcomes.

Two toxic plastic chemicals, phthalates and bisphenols, are present in personal care products, among others. Emerging evidence links them with impaired neurodevelopment, leading to impaired cognitive function, learning, attention, and impulsivity.

Arsenic has long been linked to human health conditions including cancer, but more recent evidence finds it can disrupt multiple endocrine systems and lead to metabolic conditions including diabetes, reproductive dysfunction, and cardiovascular and neurocognitive conditions.

The special section about plastics noted that they are made from fossil fuels and chemicals, including many toxic substances that are known or suspected EDCs. People who live near plastic production facilities or waste dumps may be at greatest risk, but anyone can be exposed using any plastic product. Plastic waste disposal is increasingly problematic and often foisted on lower- and middle-income countries.
 

‘Additional Education and Awareness-Raising Among Stakeholders Remain Necessary’

Policies aimed at reducing human health risks from EDCs have included the 2022 Plastics Treaty, a resolution adopted by 175 countries at the United Nations Environmental Assembly that “may be a significant step toward global control of plastics and elimination of threats from exposures to EDCs in plastics,” the report said.

The authors added, “While significant progress has been made in recent years connecting scientific advances on EDCs with health-protective policies, additional education and awareness-raising among stakeholders remain necessary to achieve a safer and more sustainable environment that minimizes exposure to these harmful chemicals.”

The document was produced with financial contributions from the Government of Sweden, the Tides Foundation, Passport Foundation, and other donors.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced the removal of the endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from food packaging.

Issued on February 28, 2024, “this means the major source of dietary exposure to PFAS from food packaging like fast-food wrappers, microwave popcorn bags, take-out paperboard containers, and pet food bags is being eliminated,” the FDA said in a statement.

In 2020, the FDA had secured commitments from manufacturers to stop selling products containing PFAS used in the food packaging for grease-proofing. “Today’s announcement marks the fulfillment of these voluntary commitments,” according to the agency.

PFAS, a class of thousands of chemicals also called “forever chemicals” are widely used in consumer and industrial products. People may be exposed via contaminated food packaging (although perhaps no longer in the United States) or occupationally. Studies have found that some PFAS disrupt hormones including estrogen and testosterone, whereas others may impair thyroid function.
 

Endocrine Society Report Sounds the Alarm About PFAS and Others

The FDA’s announcement came just 2 days after the Endocrine Society issued a new alarm about the human health dangers from environmental EDCs including PFAS in a report covering the latest science.

“Endocrine disrupting chemicals” are individual substances or mixtures that can interfere with natural hormonal function, leading to disease or even death. Many are ubiquitous in the modern environment and contribute to a wide range of human diseases.

The new report Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals: Threats to Human Health was issued jointly with the International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN), a global advocacy organization. It’s an update to the Endocrine Society’s 2015 report, providing new data on the endocrine-disrupting substances previously covered and adding four EDCs not discussed in that document: Pesticides, plastics, PFAS, and children’s products containing arsenic.

At a briefing held during the United Nations Environment Assembly meeting in Nairobi, Kenya, last week, the new report’s lead author Andrea C. Gore, PhD, of the University of Texas at Austin, noted, “A well-established body of scientific research indicates that endocrine-disrupting chemicals that are part of our daily lives are making us more susceptible to reproductive disorders, cancer, diabetes, obesity, heart disease, and other serious health conditions.”

Added Dr. Gore, who is also a member of the Endocrine Society’s Board of Directors, “These chemicals pose particularly serious risks to pregnant women and children. Now is the time for the UN Environment Assembly and other global policymakers to take action to address this threat to public health.”

While the science has been emerging rapidly, global and national chemical control policies haven’t kept up, the authors said. Of particular concern is that EDCs behave differently from other chemicals in many ways, including that even very low-dose exposures can pose health threats, but policies thus far haven’t dealt with that aspect.

Moreover, “the effects of low doses cannot be predicted by the effects observed at high doses. This means there may be no safe dose for exposure to EDCs,” according to the report.

Exposures can come from household products, including furniture, toys, and food packages, as well as electronics building materials and cosmetics. These chemicals are also in the outdoor environment, via pesticides, air pollution, and industrial waste.

“IPEN and the Endocrine Society call for chemical regulations based on the most modern scientific understanding of how hormones act and how EDCs can perturb these actions. We work to educate policy makers in global, regional, and national government assemblies and help ensure that regulations correlate with current scientific understanding,” they said in the report.
 

New Data on Four Classes of EDCs

Chapters of the report summarized the latest information about the science of EDCs and their links to endocrine disease and real-world exposure. It included a special section about “EDCs throughout the plastics life cycle” and a summary of the links between EDCs and climate change.

The report reviewed three pesticides, including the world’s most heavily applied herbicide, glycophosphate. Exposures can occur directly from the air, water, dust, and food residues. Recent data linked glycophosphate to adverse reproductive health outcomes.

Two toxic plastic chemicals, phthalates and bisphenols, are present in personal care products, among others. Emerging evidence links them with impaired neurodevelopment, leading to impaired cognitive function, learning, attention, and impulsivity.

Arsenic has long been linked to human health conditions including cancer, but more recent evidence finds it can disrupt multiple endocrine systems and lead to metabolic conditions including diabetes, reproductive dysfunction, and cardiovascular and neurocognitive conditions.

The special section about plastics noted that they are made from fossil fuels and chemicals, including many toxic substances that are known or suspected EDCs. People who live near plastic production facilities or waste dumps may be at greatest risk, but anyone can be exposed using any plastic product. Plastic waste disposal is increasingly problematic and often foisted on lower- and middle-income countries.
 

‘Additional Education and Awareness-Raising Among Stakeholders Remain Necessary’

Policies aimed at reducing human health risks from EDCs have included the 2022 Plastics Treaty, a resolution adopted by 175 countries at the United Nations Environmental Assembly that “may be a significant step toward global control of plastics and elimination of threats from exposures to EDCs in plastics,” the report said.

The authors added, “While significant progress has been made in recent years connecting scientific advances on EDCs with health-protective policies, additional education and awareness-raising among stakeholders remain necessary to achieve a safer and more sustainable environment that minimizes exposure to these harmful chemicals.”

The document was produced with financial contributions from the Government of Sweden, the Tides Foundation, Passport Foundation, and other donors.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A 73-year-old man with hypertension is evaluated for right great toe pain. A tap of the toe reveals uric acid crystals. He has a history of hypertension and hyperlipidemia. His current medications are hydrochlorothiazide, amlodipine, and atorvastatin.

Which blood pressure medication would you recommend to replace his hydrochlorothiazide?

A. Furosemide

B. Chlorthalidone

C. Lisinopril

D. Losartan

E. Irbesartan

Losartan

Diuretics should be avoided if possible in a patient with gout, as they increase uric acid levels. Of the other three options, losartan offers the added benefit of lowering uric acid levels. Losartan has uricosuric effects — a property that is unique to losartan of the angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) that have been studied.^1,2 The uric acid lowering appears to be a probenecid-like effect.

Losartan has also been evaluated to see whether using it in combination with a thiazide diuretic can reduce the rise in uric acid that occurs with thiazides. Matsumura and colleagues looked at data from the COMFORT trial, focusing on the effect of combining losartan with hydrochlorothiazide on uric acid levels.³ They looked at a group of 118 patients on an ARB other than losartan plus a diuretic, who were then randomly assigned to losartan 50 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg or continuation of another ARB plus a diuretic. Blood pressure control was the same between groups, but the patients who received the losartan combination had lower uric acid levels (P = .01).

Ferreira and colleagues looked at the difference in uric acid lowering between high-dose (150 mg/day) vs low-dose losartan (50 mg/day).⁴ Compared with low-dose, high-dose losartan reduced serum uric acid by 0.27 (0.34 to 0.21) mg/dL, P < .001.
 

SGLT2 inhibitors

SGLT2 inhibitors also lower uric acid. Suijik and colleagues conducted an analysis of two randomized trials of SGLT2 inhibitors (empagliflozin and dapagliflozin), and concluded that SGLT2 inhibitors induce uric acid excretion, which is strongly linked to urinary glucose excretion.⁵

Metformin

Metformin is used as a firstline drug for the treatment of diabetes. It also has evidence for decreasing colonic polyps. Cho and colleagues looked at over 12,000 patients with diabetes over a 12-year period; 3775 underwent colonoscopies.⁶ They compared frequency of polyps in patients who were using metformin with those who were not treated with metformin. The polyp detection rate was lower in the metformin group than in the no metformin group (39.4% vs. 62.4%, P < .01).

Higurashi and colleagues performed a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of metformin in nondiabetic patients for the prevention of colon polyps.⁷ The dose of metformin used in this study was very low (250 mg/day). There were significantly fewer adenomas in the metformin group (22 of 71 patients) than in the placebo group (32 of 62) (relative risk, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.39-0.92, P = .016).
 

Thiazide diuretics

Thiazide diuretics have long been used to help prevent kidney stones in addition to treating hypertension. They decrease urinary calcium excretion, which may reduce kidney stones. Could this reduction in calcium excretion be good for bones?

Xiao and colleagues did a meta-analysis of 11 prospective studies involving 2,193,160 participants.⁸ Thiazide diuretic users had a significant 14% reduction in the risk of all fractures (RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.80-0.93; P = .009) and an 18% reduction in the risk of hip fracture (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.80-0.93; P = .009). Kruse and colleagues found that long duration and continuity of thiazide exposure seemed to be important to obtain this protective effect on fracture risk.⁹

Pearls:

• Losartan, but not other ARBs, lowers uric acid levels and may be helpful in managing hypertension in gout patients; higher doses lower uric acid more.
• Metformin use appears to decrease colon polyp formation.
• Thiazide diuretics may reduce fracture risk while patients are taking them.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at imnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Würzner G et al. Comparative effects of losartan and irbesartan on serum uric acid in hypertensive patients with hyperuricaemia and gout. J Hypertens. 2001 Oct;19(10):1855-60.

2. Puig JG et al. Effect of eprosartan and losartan on uric acid metabolism in patients with essential hypertension. J Hypertens. 1999 Jul;17(7):1033-9.

3. Matsumura K et al. Effect of losartan on serum uric acid in hypertension treated with a diuretic: The COMFORT study. Clin Exp Hypertens. 2015;37(3):192-6.

4. Ferreira JP et al. High- versus low-dose losartan and uric acid: An analysis from HEAAL. J Cardiol. 2023 Jul;82(1):57-61.

5. Suijk DLS et al. SGLT2 inhibition and uric acid excretion in patients with type 2 diabetes and normal kidney function. Soc Nephrol. 2022 May;17(5):663-71.

6. Youn Hee Cho et al. Does metformin affect the incidence of colonic polyps and adenomas in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus? Intestinal Res. 2014 Apr;12(2):139-45.

7. Higurashi T et al. Metformin for chemoprevention of metachronous colorectal adenoma or polyps in post-polypectomy patients without diabetes: A multicentre double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:475-83.

8. Xiao X et al. Thiazide diuretic usage and risk of fracture: a meta-analysis of cohort studies. Osteoporos Int. 2018 Jul;29(7):1515-24.

9. Kruse C et al. Continuous and long-term treatment is more important than dosage for the protective effect of thiazide use on bone metabolism and fracture risk. J Intern Med. 2016 Jan;279(1):110-22.

A 73-year-old man with hypertension is evaluated for right great toe pain. A tap of the toe reveals uric acid crystals. He has a history of hypertension and hyperlipidemia. His current medications are hydrochlorothiazide, amlodipine, and atorvastatin.

Which blood pressure medication would you recommend to replace his hydrochlorothiazide?

A. Furosemide

B. Chlorthalidone

C. Lisinopril

D. Losartan

E. Irbesartan

Losartan

Diuretics should be avoided if possible in a patient with gout, as they increase uric acid levels. Of the other three options, losartan offers the added benefit of lowering uric acid levels. Losartan has uricosuric effects — a property that is unique to losartan of the angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) that have been studied.^1,2 The uric acid lowering appears to be a probenecid-like effect.

Losartan has also been evaluated to see whether using it in combination with a thiazide diuretic can reduce the rise in uric acid that occurs with thiazides. Matsumura and colleagues looked at data from the COMFORT trial, focusing on the effect of combining losartan with hydrochlorothiazide on uric acid levels.³ They looked at a group of 118 patients on an ARB other than losartan plus a diuretic, who were then randomly assigned to losartan 50 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg or continuation of another ARB plus a diuretic. Blood pressure control was the same between groups, but the patients who received the losartan combination had lower uric acid levels (P = .01).

Ferreira and colleagues looked at the difference in uric acid lowering between high-dose (150 mg/day) vs low-dose losartan (50 mg/day).⁴ Compared with low-dose, high-dose losartan reduced serum uric acid by 0.27 (0.34 to 0.21) mg/dL, P < .001.
 

SGLT2 inhibitors

SGLT2 inhibitors also lower uric acid. Suijik and colleagues conducted an analysis of two randomized trials of SGLT2 inhibitors (empagliflozin and dapagliflozin), and concluded that SGLT2 inhibitors induce uric acid excretion, which is strongly linked to urinary glucose excretion.⁵

Metformin

Metformin is used as a firstline drug for the treatment of diabetes. It also has evidence for decreasing colonic polyps. Cho and colleagues looked at over 12,000 patients with diabetes over a 12-year period; 3775 underwent colonoscopies.⁶ They compared frequency of polyps in patients who were using metformin with those who were not treated with metformin. The polyp detection rate was lower in the metformin group than in the no metformin group (39.4% vs. 62.4%, P < .01).

Higurashi and colleagues performed a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of metformin in nondiabetic patients for the prevention of colon polyps.⁷ The dose of metformin used in this study was very low (250 mg/day). There were significantly fewer adenomas in the metformin group (22 of 71 patients) than in the placebo group (32 of 62) (relative risk, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.39-0.92, P = .016).
 

Thiazide diuretics

Thiazide diuretics have long been used to help prevent kidney stones in addition to treating hypertension. They decrease urinary calcium excretion, which may reduce kidney stones. Could this reduction in calcium excretion be good for bones?

Xiao and colleagues did a meta-analysis of 11 prospective studies involving 2,193,160 participants.⁸ Thiazide diuretic users had a significant 14% reduction in the risk of all fractures (RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.80-0.93; P = .009) and an 18% reduction in the risk of hip fracture (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.80-0.93; P = .009). Kruse and colleagues found that long duration and continuity of thiazide exposure seemed to be important to obtain this protective effect on fracture risk.⁹

Pearls:

• Losartan, but not other ARBs, lowers uric acid levels and may be helpful in managing hypertension in gout patients; higher doses lower uric acid more.
• Metformin use appears to decrease colon polyp formation.
• Thiazide diuretics may reduce fracture risk while patients are taking them.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at imnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Würzner G et al. Comparative effects of losartan and irbesartan on serum uric acid in hypertensive patients with hyperuricaemia and gout. J Hypertens. 2001 Oct;19(10):1855-60.

2. Puig JG et al. Effect of eprosartan and losartan on uric acid metabolism in patients with essential hypertension. J Hypertens. 1999 Jul;17(7):1033-9.

3. Matsumura K et al. Effect of losartan on serum uric acid in hypertension treated with a diuretic: The COMFORT study. Clin Exp Hypertens. 2015;37(3):192-6.

4. Ferreira JP et al. High- versus low-dose losartan and uric acid: An analysis from HEAAL. J Cardiol. 2023 Jul;82(1):57-61.

5. Suijk DLS et al. SGLT2 inhibition and uric acid excretion in patients with type 2 diabetes and normal kidney function. Soc Nephrol. 2022 May;17(5):663-71.

6. Youn Hee Cho et al. Does metformin affect the incidence of colonic polyps and adenomas in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus? Intestinal Res. 2014 Apr;12(2):139-45.

7. Higurashi T et al. Metformin for chemoprevention of metachronous colorectal adenoma or polyps in post-polypectomy patients without diabetes: A multicentre double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:475-83.

8. Xiao X et al. Thiazide diuretic usage and risk of fracture: a meta-analysis of cohort studies. Osteoporos Int. 2018 Jul;29(7):1515-24.

9. Kruse C et al. Continuous and long-term treatment is more important than dosage for the protective effect of thiazide use on bone metabolism and fracture risk. J Intern Med. 2016 Jan;279(1):110-22.

A 73-year-old man with hypertension is evaluated for right great toe pain. A tap of the toe reveals uric acid crystals. He has a history of hypertension and hyperlipidemia. His current medications are hydrochlorothiazide, amlodipine, and atorvastatin.

Which blood pressure medication would you recommend to replace his hydrochlorothiazide?

A. Furosemide

B. Chlorthalidone

C. Lisinopril

D. Losartan

E. Irbesartan

Losartan

Diuretics should be avoided if possible in a patient with gout, as they increase uric acid levels. Of the other three options, losartan offers the added benefit of lowering uric acid levels. Losartan has uricosuric effects — a property that is unique to losartan of the angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) that have been studied.^1,2 The uric acid lowering appears to be a probenecid-like effect.

Losartan has also been evaluated to see whether using it in combination with a thiazide diuretic can reduce the rise in uric acid that occurs with thiazides. Matsumura and colleagues looked at data from the COMFORT trial, focusing on the effect of combining losartan with hydrochlorothiazide on uric acid levels.³ They looked at a group of 118 patients on an ARB other than losartan plus a diuretic, who were then randomly assigned to losartan 50 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg or continuation of another ARB plus a diuretic. Blood pressure control was the same between groups, but the patients who received the losartan combination had lower uric acid levels (P = .01).

Ferreira and colleagues looked at the difference in uric acid lowering between high-dose (150 mg/day) vs low-dose losartan (50 mg/day).⁴ Compared with low-dose, high-dose losartan reduced serum uric acid by 0.27 (0.34 to 0.21) mg/dL, P < .001.
 

SGLT2 inhibitors

SGLT2 inhibitors also lower uric acid. Suijik and colleagues conducted an analysis of two randomized trials of SGLT2 inhibitors (empagliflozin and dapagliflozin), and concluded that SGLT2 inhibitors induce uric acid excretion, which is strongly linked to urinary glucose excretion.⁵

Metformin

Metformin is used as a firstline drug for the treatment of diabetes. It also has evidence for decreasing colonic polyps. Cho and colleagues looked at over 12,000 patients with diabetes over a 12-year period; 3775 underwent colonoscopies.⁶ They compared frequency of polyps in patients who were using metformin with those who were not treated with metformin. The polyp detection rate was lower in the metformin group than in the no metformin group (39.4% vs. 62.4%, P < .01).

Higurashi and colleagues performed a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of metformin in nondiabetic patients for the prevention of colon polyps.⁷ The dose of metformin used in this study was very low (250 mg/day). There were significantly fewer adenomas in the metformin group (22 of 71 patients) than in the placebo group (32 of 62) (relative risk, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.39-0.92, P = .016).
 

Thiazide diuretics

Thiazide diuretics have long been used to help prevent kidney stones in addition to treating hypertension. They decrease urinary calcium excretion, which may reduce kidney stones. Could this reduction in calcium excretion be good for bones?

Xiao and colleagues did a meta-analysis of 11 prospective studies involving 2,193,160 participants.⁸ Thiazide diuretic users had a significant 14% reduction in the risk of all fractures (RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.80-0.93; P = .009) and an 18% reduction in the risk of hip fracture (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.80-0.93; P = .009). Kruse and colleagues found that long duration and continuity of thiazide exposure seemed to be important to obtain this protective effect on fracture risk.⁹

Pearls:

• Losartan, but not other ARBs, lowers uric acid levels and may be helpful in managing hypertension in gout patients; higher doses lower uric acid more.
• Metformin use appears to decrease colon polyp formation.
• Thiazide diuretics may reduce fracture risk while patients are taking them.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at imnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Würzner G et al. Comparative effects of losartan and irbesartan on serum uric acid in hypertensive patients with hyperuricaemia and gout. J Hypertens. 2001 Oct;19(10):1855-60.

2. Puig JG et al. Effect of eprosartan and losartan on uric acid metabolism in patients with essential hypertension. J Hypertens. 1999 Jul;17(7):1033-9.

3. Matsumura K et al. Effect of losartan on serum uric acid in hypertension treated with a diuretic: The COMFORT study. Clin Exp Hypertens. 2015;37(3):192-6.

4. Ferreira JP et al. High- versus low-dose losartan and uric acid: An analysis from HEAAL. J Cardiol. 2023 Jul;82(1):57-61.

5. Suijk DLS et al. SGLT2 inhibition and uric acid excretion in patients with type 2 diabetes and normal kidney function. Soc Nephrol. 2022 May;17(5):663-71.

6. Youn Hee Cho et al. Does metformin affect the incidence of colonic polyps and adenomas in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus? Intestinal Res. 2014 Apr;12(2):139-45.

7. Higurashi T et al. Metformin for chemoprevention of metachronous colorectal adenoma or polyps in post-polypectomy patients without diabetes: A multicentre double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:475-83.

8. Xiao X et al. Thiazide diuretic usage and risk of fracture: a meta-analysis of cohort studies. Osteoporos Int. 2018 Jul;29(7):1515-24.

9. Kruse C et al. Continuous and long-term treatment is more important than dosage for the protective effect of thiazide use on bone metabolism and fracture risk. J Intern Med. 2016 Jan;279(1):110-22.

People with gout are 58% more likely to develop cardiovascular disease (CVD), according to a new analysis. This increased risk was observed across 12 different cardiovascular conditions, including heart failure, arrhythmias, and valve diseases.

“These findings suggest that the organ damage associated with gout is likely to be much broader than originally thought,” Nathalie Conrad, PhD, senior author of the research and cardiovascular epidemiologist at KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium, said in an email. This could be useful for future research on underlying biological mechanisms driving CVD risk in gout, she added.

While previous research has tied gout to increased cardiovascular risk, these studies “largely focused on coronary heart disease, stroke, and thromboembolic outcomes,” she explained, and have been smaller in size.

This new study included more than 862,000 individuals, which permitted researchers to investigate rarer CVD outcomes such as myocarditis and pericarditis.

For the study, researchers used electronic health records from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink, a primary care database that contains anonymized health data for about 22 million individuals. Using these data, they identified more than 152,600 individuals with gout. Patients included in the analysis were diagnosed between 2000 and 2017, younger than 80 years at diagnosis, and free of CVD for at least 12 months after their gout diagnosis.

Patients with gout were compared with nearly 710,000 controls, matched on demographic factors such as age, sex, and geographic region.

Researchers then investigated the incidence of 12 CVDs, including atherosclerotic diseases, degenerative and thromboembolic diseases, and arrythmias, between the two groups from January 1, 2000, to June 30, 2019.

The findings were published in the March 2024 issue of The Lancet Rheumatology. Overall, patients with gout were 58% more likely to develop any CVD than their matched comparators without gout. There was a higher disease incidence among patients with gout for each of the 12 conditions. This association was more pronounced in women (hazard ratio [HR], 1.88) than in men (HR, 1.49), and gout amplified the risk for CVD in younger individuals to a greater extent.

Individuals younger than 45 years with gout were more than twice as likely to develop CVD compared with similarly aged individuals without gout. For comparison, individuals aged 45-54 years with gout were 84% more likely to develop CVD, and individuals aged 55-64 years were 57% more likely to develop CVD than matched controls.

Conduction system disease had the highest incident risk (HR, 1.88), followed by heart failure and valve disease (HR, 1.85 for both).

Individuals with gout had higher rates of comorbidities than the controls, including hypertension, obesity, and dyslipidemia. Overall, CVD risk was slightly attenuated after adjustment for traditional CVD risk factors such as smoking, blood pressure, and body mass index but still significant: Patients with gout had a 31% higher risk for CVD than comparators.

This shows “that known CVD risk factors only explain part of the CVD risks seen in patients with gout,” Dr. Conrad said. Other factors such as inflammation and other disease activity factors could be at play, she explained, which would need to be explored in future research.

The study “shows the whole landscape” of CVD and gout, Michael H. Pillinger, MD, rheumatologist and professor of medicine, biochemistry, and molecular pharmacology at NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York City, said in an interview. He was not involved with the research.

“Every possible cardiovascular disease that they could think of was something that gout patients had more of than the non-gout patients,” he added. “I think this is going to be a paper that gets cited a lot, at minimum when describing the background of risk when we look at gout patients.”

The study had some limitations, including that researchers were unable to account for how medications such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, corticosteroids, colchicine, or allopurinol may have affected the association between gout and CVD.

“This is because analyses of nonrandomized treatment can be confounded by indication, wherein it is difficult to differentiate the effects of the treatment from underlying disease severity,” the authors wrote.

There was also a large amount of missing data on blood pressure, body mass index, smoking status, and other health information relevant to cardiovascular risk, so sensitivity analyses adjusting for these factors “should be interpreted with caution,” they added.

Dr. Pillinger also noted that the rates of comorbidities in the gout study population were lower than what have been found in US study populations. For example, about 40% of patients with gout in the analysis had hypertension, while other studies have suggested higher rates of 60%-70%, he said. However, it’s not clear if these differences could have affected outcomes. He added that these limitations do not “in any way weaken [the authors’] conclusion.”

The findings call for better strategies to reduce CVD risk in patients with gout, Dr. Conrad noted.

“Further improvements could come from better recognition and intervention on CVD risk factors (eg, through lifestyle changes or drug therapies where they are indicated), as well as proactive screening for heart disease in patients with gout, which could allow early diagnosis and interventions to delay more severe outcomes,” she added.

This study was funded by Research Foundation Flanders. Dr. Conrad was funded by a personal fellowship from the Research Foundation Flanders and a European Society of Cardiology research grant. She received royalties from Oxford University Innovation. Four of Dr. Conrad’s eight coauthors also reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Pillinger served as a consultant to Amgen, Federation Bio, Fortress Biotech, and Scilex, and he holds an investigator-initiated grant from Hikma.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

People with gout are 58% more likely to develop cardiovascular disease (CVD), according to a new analysis. This increased risk was observed across 12 different cardiovascular conditions, including heart failure, arrhythmias, and valve diseases.

“These findings suggest that the organ damage associated with gout is likely to be much broader than originally thought,” Nathalie Conrad, PhD, senior author of the research and cardiovascular epidemiologist at KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium, said in an email. This could be useful for future research on underlying biological mechanisms driving CVD risk in gout, she added.

While previous research has tied gout to increased cardiovascular risk, these studies “largely focused on coronary heart disease, stroke, and thromboembolic outcomes,” she explained, and have been smaller in size.

This new study included more than 862,000 individuals, which permitted researchers to investigate rarer CVD outcomes such as myocarditis and pericarditis.

For the study, researchers used electronic health records from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink, a primary care database that contains anonymized health data for about 22 million individuals. Using these data, they identified more than 152,600 individuals with gout. Patients included in the analysis were diagnosed between 2000 and 2017, younger than 80 years at diagnosis, and free of CVD for at least 12 months after their gout diagnosis.

Patients with gout were compared with nearly 710,000 controls, matched on demographic factors such as age, sex, and geographic region.

Researchers then investigated the incidence of 12 CVDs, including atherosclerotic diseases, degenerative and thromboembolic diseases, and arrythmias, between the two groups from January 1, 2000, to June 30, 2019.

The findings were published in the March 2024 issue of The Lancet Rheumatology. Overall, patients with gout were 58% more likely to develop any CVD than their matched comparators without gout. There was a higher disease incidence among patients with gout for each of the 12 conditions. This association was more pronounced in women (hazard ratio [HR], 1.88) than in men (HR, 1.49), and gout amplified the risk for CVD in younger individuals to a greater extent.

Individuals younger than 45 years with gout were more than twice as likely to develop CVD compared with similarly aged individuals without gout. For comparison, individuals aged 45-54 years with gout were 84% more likely to develop CVD, and individuals aged 55-64 years were 57% more likely to develop CVD than matched controls.

Conduction system disease had the highest incident risk (HR, 1.88), followed by heart failure and valve disease (HR, 1.85 for both).

Individuals with gout had higher rates of comorbidities than the controls, including hypertension, obesity, and dyslipidemia. Overall, CVD risk was slightly attenuated after adjustment for traditional CVD risk factors such as smoking, blood pressure, and body mass index but still significant: Patients with gout had a 31% higher risk for CVD than comparators.

This shows “that known CVD risk factors only explain part of the CVD risks seen in patients with gout,” Dr. Conrad said. Other factors such as inflammation and other disease activity factors could be at play, she explained, which would need to be explored in future research.

The study “shows the whole landscape” of CVD and gout, Michael H. Pillinger, MD, rheumatologist and professor of medicine, biochemistry, and molecular pharmacology at NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York City, said in an interview. He was not involved with the research.

“Every possible cardiovascular disease that they could think of was something that gout patients had more of than the non-gout patients,” he added. “I think this is going to be a paper that gets cited a lot, at minimum when describing the background of risk when we look at gout patients.”

The study had some limitations, including that researchers were unable to account for how medications such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, corticosteroids, colchicine, or allopurinol may have affected the association between gout and CVD.

“This is because analyses of nonrandomized treatment can be confounded by indication, wherein it is difficult to differentiate the effects of the treatment from underlying disease severity,” the authors wrote.

There was also a large amount of missing data on blood pressure, body mass index, smoking status, and other health information relevant to cardiovascular risk, so sensitivity analyses adjusting for these factors “should be interpreted with caution,” they added.

Dr. Pillinger also noted that the rates of comorbidities in the gout study population were lower than what have been found in US study populations. For example, about 40% of patients with gout in the analysis had hypertension, while other studies have suggested higher rates of 60%-70%, he said. However, it’s not clear if these differences could have affected outcomes. He added that these limitations do not “in any way weaken [the authors’] conclusion.”

The findings call for better strategies to reduce CVD risk in patients with gout, Dr. Conrad noted.

“Further improvements could come from better recognition and intervention on CVD risk factors (eg, through lifestyle changes or drug therapies where they are indicated), as well as proactive screening for heart disease in patients with gout, which could allow early diagnosis and interventions to delay more severe outcomes,” she added.

This study was funded by Research Foundation Flanders. Dr. Conrad was funded by a personal fellowship from the Research Foundation Flanders and a European Society of Cardiology research grant. She received royalties from Oxford University Innovation. Four of Dr. Conrad’s eight coauthors also reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Pillinger served as a consultant to Amgen, Federation Bio, Fortress Biotech, and Scilex, and he holds an investigator-initiated grant from Hikma.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

People with gout are 58% more likely to develop cardiovascular disease (CVD), according to a new analysis. This increased risk was observed across 12 different cardiovascular conditions, including heart failure, arrhythmias, and valve diseases.

“These findings suggest that the organ damage associated with gout is likely to be much broader than originally thought,” Nathalie Conrad, PhD, senior author of the research and cardiovascular epidemiologist at KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium, said in an email. This could be useful for future research on underlying biological mechanisms driving CVD risk in gout, she added.

While previous research has tied gout to increased cardiovascular risk, these studies “largely focused on coronary heart disease, stroke, and thromboembolic outcomes,” she explained, and have been smaller in size.

This new study included more than 862,000 individuals, which permitted researchers to investigate rarer CVD outcomes such as myocarditis and pericarditis.

For the study, researchers used electronic health records from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink, a primary care database that contains anonymized health data for about 22 million individuals. Using these data, they identified more than 152,600 individuals with gout. Patients included in the analysis were diagnosed between 2000 and 2017, younger than 80 years at diagnosis, and free of CVD for at least 12 months after their gout diagnosis.

Patients with gout were compared with nearly 710,000 controls, matched on demographic factors such as age, sex, and geographic region.

Researchers then investigated the incidence of 12 CVDs, including atherosclerotic diseases, degenerative and thromboembolic diseases, and arrythmias, between the two groups from January 1, 2000, to June 30, 2019.

The findings were published in the March 2024 issue of The Lancet Rheumatology. Overall, patients with gout were 58% more likely to develop any CVD than their matched comparators without gout. There was a higher disease incidence among patients with gout for each of the 12 conditions. This association was more pronounced in women (hazard ratio [HR], 1.88) than in men (HR, 1.49), and gout amplified the risk for CVD in younger individuals to a greater extent.

Individuals younger than 45 years with gout were more than twice as likely to develop CVD compared with similarly aged individuals without gout. For comparison, individuals aged 45-54 years with gout were 84% more likely to develop CVD, and individuals aged 55-64 years were 57% more likely to develop CVD than matched controls.

Conduction system disease had the highest incident risk (HR, 1.88), followed by heart failure and valve disease (HR, 1.85 for both).

Individuals with gout had higher rates of comorbidities than the controls, including hypertension, obesity, and dyslipidemia. Overall, CVD risk was slightly attenuated after adjustment for traditional CVD risk factors such as smoking, blood pressure, and body mass index but still significant: Patients with gout had a 31% higher risk for CVD than comparators.

This shows “that known CVD risk factors only explain part of the CVD risks seen in patients with gout,” Dr. Conrad said. Other factors such as inflammation and other disease activity factors could be at play, she explained, which would need to be explored in future research.

The study “shows the whole landscape” of CVD and gout, Michael H. Pillinger, MD, rheumatologist and professor of medicine, biochemistry, and molecular pharmacology at NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York City, said in an interview. He was not involved with the research.

“Every possible cardiovascular disease that they could think of was something that gout patients had more of than the non-gout patients,” he added. “I think this is going to be a paper that gets cited a lot, at minimum when describing the background of risk when we look at gout patients.”

The study had some limitations, including that researchers were unable to account for how medications such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, corticosteroids, colchicine, or allopurinol may have affected the association between gout and CVD.

“This is because analyses of nonrandomized treatment can be confounded by indication, wherein it is difficult to differentiate the effects of the treatment from underlying disease severity,” the authors wrote.

There was also a large amount of missing data on blood pressure, body mass index, smoking status, and other health information relevant to cardiovascular risk, so sensitivity analyses adjusting for these factors “should be interpreted with caution,” they added.

Dr. Pillinger also noted that the rates of comorbidities in the gout study population were lower than what have been found in US study populations. For example, about 40% of patients with gout in the analysis had hypertension, while other studies have suggested higher rates of 60%-70%, he said. However, it’s not clear if these differences could have affected outcomes. He added that these limitations do not “in any way weaken [the authors’] conclusion.”

The findings call for better strategies to reduce CVD risk in patients with gout, Dr. Conrad noted.

“Further improvements could come from better recognition and intervention on CVD risk factors (eg, through lifestyle changes or drug therapies where they are indicated), as well as proactive screening for heart disease in patients with gout, which could allow early diagnosis and interventions to delay more severe outcomes,” she added.

This study was funded by Research Foundation Flanders. Dr. Conrad was funded by a personal fellowship from the Research Foundation Flanders and a European Society of Cardiology research grant. She received royalties from Oxford University Innovation. Four of Dr. Conrad’s eight coauthors also reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Pillinger served as a consultant to Amgen, Federation Bio, Fortress Biotech, and Scilex, and he holds an investigator-initiated grant from Hikma.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For many, stretching is the fitness equivalent of awkward small talk. It’s the opening act, the thing you tolerate because you know it will be over soon. 

Others have challenged the practice, suggesting that stretching isn’t necessary at all. Some research has found that a preworkout stretch may even be disadvantageous, weakening muscles and hindering performance.

To put it plainly, no one seems terribly enthusiastic about touching their toes. 

That’s why a 2020 study on exercise and mortality was such a head-scratcher. The study found that stretching was uniquely associated with a lower risk for all-cause mortality among American adults. That’s after controlling for participation in other types of exercise. 

The finding seemed like a fluke, until a 2023 study found essentially the same thing. 

Among Korean adults, those who did flexibility exercise at least five times a week had a 20% lower risk of dying during the follow-up period than those who didn’t stretch at all. That was slightly better than the risk reduction associated with high volumes of aerobic exercise and resistance training. 

How can that be ? It turns out, stretching is linked to several health benefits that you might not expect.
 

The Surprising Benefits of Stretching

When we talk about stretching, we usually mean static stretching — getting into and holding a position that challenges a muscle, with the goal of improving range of motion around a joint. 

It doesn’t need to be a big challenge. “Research shows you can get increases in flexibility by stretching to the initial point of discomfort,” said David Behm, PhD, an exercise scientist at Memorial University of Newfoundland in Canada who’s published dozens of studies on stretching over the past quarter-century. 

That brings us to the first benefit.
 

Stretching Benefit #1: More Strength

At first glance, flexibility training and strength training have little in common. You lengthen muscles in the former and contract them in the latter. 

But in both cases, Dr. Behm said, you’re applying tension to muscles and connective tissues. Tension activates proteins called integrins, which send and receive signals across cellular membranes. Those signals are the start of a cascade that leads to protein synthesis. That’s how muscles get bigger and stronger when you lift weights. 

That mechanism could explain the small gains in muscle strength and size associated with static stretching, Dr. Behm said. 

But can you really stretch your way to muscle growth? Theoretically, yes. But strength training is far more time-efficient, Dr. Behm says. Studies showing increases in muscle mass have typically stretched a single muscle (usually the calves, using a specialized device) for > 30 min/session, 6 d/wk for 6 weeks. And that’s for just one leg.

Still, stretching may be more accessible for some patients — research suggested that older and more sedentary people are most likely to benefit from stretching-induced gains in strength.

 

Stretching Benefit #2: Reduced Arterial Stiffness

“Most people don’t think about the cardiovascular benefits of stretching,” Dr. Behm said. There are some big ones. 

If your body doesn’t move well, it’s not unreasonable to assume your blood doesn’t flow well. That is indeed the case: Poor flexibility is associated with arterial stiffness. 

Stretching is associated not only with improved arterial function but also with reductions in resting heart rate and blood pressure and increased vasodilation.

Mobility improvements may have an indirect benefit on cardiovascular health as well. 

“Studies show runners are more economical when they’re more flexible,” Dr. Behm said. If your movement is more efficient, you’ll probably do more of it. Doing more, in turn, would lead to improved fitness. 
 

Stretching Benefit #3: Improved Performance

Research is equivocal on whether stretching improves athletic performance, said Joe Yoon, a sports massage therapist in Orlando, Florida, and author of Better Stretching. 

“But I’ve always taken the approach that if you can improve your range of motion and get into positions” required for your sport, you’ll probably perform better, with less risk for injury, Mr. Yoon said. 

It’s worth noting that some research over the past 30 years has linked pre-exercise static stretching with a loss of strength, power, and/or speed. 

But consider this: In a 2016 review, Dr. Behm and his coauthors showed that performance reductions were most likely to occur in two situations: 

When participants did extremely long stretches (duration, ≥ 60 sec per muscle).

When researchers tested the participants’ strength, power, or speed immediately after they stretched.

Avoiding those problems is easy, Dr. Behm said: Stretch each muscle for < 60 sec, and combine static stretches with more active warm-up exercises. 

“Stretching can impair your performance but only if you do it wrong,” he said.
 

Stretching Benefit #4: Fewer Injuries

When you stretch, the point where you feel tension is where the muscle is most vulnerable. “That’s where injuries usually happen,” Dr. Behm said. 

More flexibility in those areas allows your muscles to safely generate force at longer lengths. For an athlete, that means fewer injuries when they’re doing explosive movements or changing direction. 

For nonathletes, flexibility reduces injuries by improving balance. Better balance reduces the risk of falling and helps mitigate the damage if you do take a tumble.
 

Help Your Patients Get the Benefits of Stretching

Stretching, like training for endurance or strength, can be as complex as you want to make it. But Mr. Yoon advocates a simpler approach. 

“You see this flashy stuff online,” he said. “But if you see those trainers in real life or you book a session with them, they go right back to the basics.” 

Ideally, Mr. Yoon said, a flexibility routine will work the entire body. But if that’s too big a stretch for your patient, he recommends starting with one or two stretches for the most problematic area. 

For example, for a stiff back, try doing the puppy pose at least once a day, although twice is better. Hold the position for 30 seconds to 2 minutes, said Mr. Yoon. Even if you combine it with a dynamic movement like the cat-cow, the two exercises would take just a few minutes a day. 

“There’s this misconception that you have to do a lot of it to be successful,” Mr. Yoon said. 

Consistency is far more important than volume. Mr. Yoon recommends “a little bit every day — the minimum viable dose.” 

As a bonus, stretching an area like your upper back will probably improve your shoulder mobility, Mr. Yoon said. Same with your lower body: Stretches for your hips, over time, should also benefit your knees and lower back. 

And thanks to a phenomenon called nonlocal flexibility transfer, lower-body stretches should improve upper-body flexibility, at least temporarily. Shoulder stretches can also have an immediate effect on hip mobility. 

“It’s all connected,” Mr. Yoon said, which brings us back to where we started. 

If stretching can indeed reduce mortality risk, it’s probably because of interconnected pathways, rather than any single mechanism. 

Most obviously, stretching improves flexibility, which makes movement easier, improves balance, and reduces the risk for falls and other types of injuries. It can also lead to small improvements in strength. Less obviously, stretching improves several aspects of cardiovascular function, including circulation. 

“There seems to be a global effect in everything we do,” Dr. Behm said. “Whether you’re stretching or weight training, the message is sent throughout your body."

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For many, stretching is the fitness equivalent of awkward small talk. It’s the opening act, the thing you tolerate because you know it will be over soon. 

Others have challenged the practice, suggesting that stretching isn’t necessary at all. Some research has found that a preworkout stretch may even be disadvantageous, weakening muscles and hindering performance.

To put it plainly, no one seems terribly enthusiastic about touching their toes. 

That’s why a 2020 study on exercise and mortality was such a head-scratcher. The study found that stretching was uniquely associated with a lower risk for all-cause mortality among American adults. That’s after controlling for participation in other types of exercise. 

The finding seemed like a fluke, until a 2023 study found essentially the same thing. 

Among Korean adults, those who did flexibility exercise at least five times a week had a 20% lower risk of dying during the follow-up period than those who didn’t stretch at all. That was slightly better than the risk reduction associated with high volumes of aerobic exercise and resistance training. 

How can that be ? It turns out, stretching is linked to several health benefits that you might not expect.
 

The Surprising Benefits of Stretching

When we talk about stretching, we usually mean static stretching — getting into and holding a position that challenges a muscle, with the goal of improving range of motion around a joint. 

It doesn’t need to be a big challenge. “Research shows you can get increases in flexibility by stretching to the initial point of discomfort,” said David Behm, PhD, an exercise scientist at Memorial University of Newfoundland in Canada who’s published dozens of studies on stretching over the past quarter-century. 

That brings us to the first benefit.
 

Stretching Benefit #1: More Strength

At first glance, flexibility training and strength training have little in common. You lengthen muscles in the former and contract them in the latter. 

But in both cases, Dr. Behm said, you’re applying tension to muscles and connective tissues. Tension activates proteins called integrins, which send and receive signals across cellular membranes. Those signals are the start of a cascade that leads to protein synthesis. That’s how muscles get bigger and stronger when you lift weights. 

That mechanism could explain the small gains in muscle strength and size associated with static stretching, Dr. Behm said. 

But can you really stretch your way to muscle growth? Theoretically, yes. But strength training is far more time-efficient, Dr. Behm says. Studies showing increases in muscle mass have typically stretched a single muscle (usually the calves, using a specialized device) for > 30 min/session, 6 d/wk for 6 weeks. And that’s for just one leg.

Still, stretching may be more accessible for some patients — research suggested that older and more sedentary people are most likely to benefit from stretching-induced gains in strength.

 

Stretching Benefit #2: Reduced Arterial Stiffness

“Most people don’t think about the cardiovascular benefits of stretching,” Dr. Behm said. There are some big ones. 

If your body doesn’t move well, it’s not unreasonable to assume your blood doesn’t flow well. That is indeed the case: Poor flexibility is associated with arterial stiffness. 

Stretching is associated not only with improved arterial function but also with reductions in resting heart rate and blood pressure and increased vasodilation.

Mobility improvements may have an indirect benefit on cardiovascular health as well. 

“Studies show runners are more economical when they’re more flexible,” Dr. Behm said. If your movement is more efficient, you’ll probably do more of it. Doing more, in turn, would lead to improved fitness. 
 

Stretching Benefit #3: Improved Performance

Research is equivocal on whether stretching improves athletic performance, said Joe Yoon, a sports massage therapist in Orlando, Florida, and author of Better Stretching. 

“But I’ve always taken the approach that if you can improve your range of motion and get into positions” required for your sport, you’ll probably perform better, with less risk for injury, Mr. Yoon said. 

It’s worth noting that some research over the past 30 years has linked pre-exercise static stretching with a loss of strength, power, and/or speed. 

But consider this: In a 2016 review, Dr. Behm and his coauthors showed that performance reductions were most likely to occur in two situations: 

When participants did extremely long stretches (duration, ≥ 60 sec per muscle).

When researchers tested the participants’ strength, power, or speed immediately after they stretched.

Avoiding those problems is easy, Dr. Behm said: Stretch each muscle for < 60 sec, and combine static stretches with more active warm-up exercises. 

“Stretching can impair your performance but only if you do it wrong,” he said.
 

Stretching Benefit #4: Fewer Injuries

When you stretch, the point where you feel tension is where the muscle is most vulnerable. “That’s where injuries usually happen,” Dr. Behm said. 

More flexibility in those areas allows your muscles to safely generate force at longer lengths. For an athlete, that means fewer injuries when they’re doing explosive movements or changing direction. 

For nonathletes, flexibility reduces injuries by improving balance. Better balance reduces the risk of falling and helps mitigate the damage if you do take a tumble.
 

Help Your Patients Get the Benefits of Stretching

Stretching, like training for endurance or strength, can be as complex as you want to make it. But Mr. Yoon advocates a simpler approach. 

“You see this flashy stuff online,” he said. “But if you see those trainers in real life or you book a session with them, they go right back to the basics.” 

Ideally, Mr. Yoon said, a flexibility routine will work the entire body. But if that’s too big a stretch for your patient, he recommends starting with one or two stretches for the most problematic area. 

For example, for a stiff back, try doing the puppy pose at least once a day, although twice is better. Hold the position for 30 seconds to 2 minutes, said Mr. Yoon. Even if you combine it with a dynamic movement like the cat-cow, the two exercises would take just a few minutes a day. 

“There’s this misconception that you have to do a lot of it to be successful,” Mr. Yoon said. 

Consistency is far more important than volume. Mr. Yoon recommends “a little bit every day — the minimum viable dose.” 

As a bonus, stretching an area like your upper back will probably improve your shoulder mobility, Mr. Yoon said. Same with your lower body: Stretches for your hips, over time, should also benefit your knees and lower back. 

And thanks to a phenomenon called nonlocal flexibility transfer, lower-body stretches should improve upper-body flexibility, at least temporarily. Shoulder stretches can also have an immediate effect on hip mobility. 

“It’s all connected,” Mr. Yoon said, which brings us back to where we started. 

If stretching can indeed reduce mortality risk, it’s probably because of interconnected pathways, rather than any single mechanism. 

Most obviously, stretching improves flexibility, which makes movement easier, improves balance, and reduces the risk for falls and other types of injuries. It can also lead to small improvements in strength. Less obviously, stretching improves several aspects of cardiovascular function, including circulation. 

“There seems to be a global effect in everything we do,” Dr. Behm said. “Whether you’re stretching or weight training, the message is sent throughout your body."

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For many, stretching is the fitness equivalent of awkward small talk. It’s the opening act, the thing you tolerate because you know it will be over soon. 

Others have challenged the practice, suggesting that stretching isn’t necessary at all. Some research has found that a preworkout stretch may even be disadvantageous, weakening muscles and hindering performance.

To put it plainly, no one seems terribly enthusiastic about touching their toes. 

That’s why a 2020 study on exercise and mortality was such a head-scratcher. The study found that stretching was uniquely associated with a lower risk for all-cause mortality among American adults. That’s after controlling for participation in other types of exercise. 

The finding seemed like a fluke, until a 2023 study found essentially the same thing. 

Among Korean adults, those who did flexibility exercise at least five times a week had a 20% lower risk of dying during the follow-up period than those who didn’t stretch at all. That was slightly better than the risk reduction associated with high volumes of aerobic exercise and resistance training. 

How can that be ? It turns out, stretching is linked to several health benefits that you might not expect.
 

The Surprising Benefits of Stretching

When we talk about stretching, we usually mean static stretching — getting into and holding a position that challenges a muscle, with the goal of improving range of motion around a joint. 

It doesn’t need to be a big challenge. “Research shows you can get increases in flexibility by stretching to the initial point of discomfort,” said David Behm, PhD, an exercise scientist at Memorial University of Newfoundland in Canada who’s published dozens of studies on stretching over the past quarter-century. 

That brings us to the first benefit.
 

Stretching Benefit #1: More Strength

At first glance, flexibility training and strength training have little in common. You lengthen muscles in the former and contract them in the latter. 

But in both cases, Dr. Behm said, you’re applying tension to muscles and connective tissues. Tension activates proteins called integrins, which send and receive signals across cellular membranes. Those signals are the start of a cascade that leads to protein synthesis. That’s how muscles get bigger and stronger when you lift weights. 

That mechanism could explain the small gains in muscle strength and size associated with static stretching, Dr. Behm said. 

But can you really stretch your way to muscle growth? Theoretically, yes. But strength training is far more time-efficient, Dr. Behm says. Studies showing increases in muscle mass have typically stretched a single muscle (usually the calves, using a specialized device) for > 30 min/session, 6 d/wk for 6 weeks. And that’s for just one leg.

Still, stretching may be more accessible for some patients — research suggested that older and more sedentary people are most likely to benefit from stretching-induced gains in strength.

 

Stretching Benefit #2: Reduced Arterial Stiffness

“Most people don’t think about the cardiovascular benefits of stretching,” Dr. Behm said. There are some big ones. 

If your body doesn’t move well, it’s not unreasonable to assume your blood doesn’t flow well. That is indeed the case: Poor flexibility is associated with arterial stiffness. 

Stretching is associated not only with improved arterial function but also with reductions in resting heart rate and blood pressure and increased vasodilation.

Mobility improvements may have an indirect benefit on cardiovascular health as well. 

“Studies show runners are more economical when they’re more flexible,” Dr. Behm said. If your movement is more efficient, you’ll probably do more of it. Doing more, in turn, would lead to improved fitness. 
 

Stretching Benefit #3: Improved Performance

Research is equivocal on whether stretching improves athletic performance, said Joe Yoon, a sports massage therapist in Orlando, Florida, and author of Better Stretching. 

“But I’ve always taken the approach that if you can improve your range of motion and get into positions” required for your sport, you’ll probably perform better, with less risk for injury, Mr. Yoon said. 

It’s worth noting that some research over the past 30 years has linked pre-exercise static stretching with a loss of strength, power, and/or speed. 

But consider this: In a 2016 review, Dr. Behm and his coauthors showed that performance reductions were most likely to occur in two situations: 

When participants did extremely long stretches (duration, ≥ 60 sec per muscle).

When researchers tested the participants’ strength, power, or speed immediately after they stretched.

Avoiding those problems is easy, Dr. Behm said: Stretch each muscle for < 60 sec, and combine static stretches with more active warm-up exercises. 

“Stretching can impair your performance but only if you do it wrong,” he said.
 

Stretching Benefit #4: Fewer Injuries

When you stretch, the point where you feel tension is where the muscle is most vulnerable. “That’s where injuries usually happen,” Dr. Behm said. 

More flexibility in those areas allows your muscles to safely generate force at longer lengths. For an athlete, that means fewer injuries when they’re doing explosive movements or changing direction. 

For nonathletes, flexibility reduces injuries by improving balance. Better balance reduces the risk of falling and helps mitigate the damage if you do take a tumble.
 

Help Your Patients Get the Benefits of Stretching

Stretching, like training for endurance or strength, can be as complex as you want to make it. But Mr. Yoon advocates a simpler approach. 

“You see this flashy stuff online,” he said. “But if you see those trainers in real life or you book a session with them, they go right back to the basics.” 

Ideally, Mr. Yoon said, a flexibility routine will work the entire body. But if that’s too big a stretch for your patient, he recommends starting with one or two stretches for the most problematic area. 

For example, for a stiff back, try doing the puppy pose at least once a day, although twice is better. Hold the position for 30 seconds to 2 minutes, said Mr. Yoon. Even if you combine it with a dynamic movement like the cat-cow, the two exercises would take just a few minutes a day. 

“There’s this misconception that you have to do a lot of it to be successful,” Mr. Yoon said. 

Consistency is far more important than volume. Mr. Yoon recommends “a little bit every day — the minimum viable dose.” 

As a bonus, stretching an area like your upper back will probably improve your shoulder mobility, Mr. Yoon said. Same with your lower body: Stretches for your hips, over time, should also benefit your knees and lower back. 

And thanks to a phenomenon called nonlocal flexibility transfer, lower-body stretches should improve upper-body flexibility, at least temporarily. Shoulder stretches can also have an immediate effect on hip mobility. 

“It’s all connected,” Mr. Yoon said, which brings us back to where we started. 

If stretching can indeed reduce mortality risk, it’s probably because of interconnected pathways, rather than any single mechanism. 

Most obviously, stretching improves flexibility, which makes movement easier, improves balance, and reduces the risk for falls and other types of injuries. It can also lead to small improvements in strength. Less obviously, stretching improves several aspects of cardiovascular function, including circulation. 

“There seems to be a global effect in everything we do,” Dr. Behm said. “Whether you’re stretching or weight training, the message is sent throughout your body."

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.