Clinician Reviews

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

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

Judith Shidlowsky/Pixabay

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sleep habits may serve as red flag

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judith Shidlowsky/Pixabay

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sleep habits may serve as red flag

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judith Shidlowsky/Pixabay

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sleep habits may serve as red flag

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subjective and objective measures of sleep

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Underlying mechanisms remain unclear’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subjective and objective measures of sleep

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Underlying mechanisms remain unclear’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subjective and objective measures of sleep

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Underlying mechanisms remain unclear’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thinglass/iStock Editorial/Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nonsignificant lower risk for posttraumatic knee osteoarthritis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thinglass/iStock Editorial/Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nonsignificant lower risk for posttraumatic knee osteoarthritis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thinglass/iStock Editorial/Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nonsignificant lower risk for posttraumatic knee osteoarthritis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adherence difficult to IF plus early time-restricted eating

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A novel way to cut calories?

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

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

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

The participants were randomized to one of three groups:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No relevant financial relationships were declared.
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adherence difficult to IF plus early time-restricted eating

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A novel way to cut calories?

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

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

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

The participants were randomized to one of three groups:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No relevant financial relationships were declared.
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adherence difficult to IF plus early time-restricted eating

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A novel way to cut calories?

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

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

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

The participants were randomized to one of three groups:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No relevant financial relationships were declared.
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Universal screening of all U.S. adults aged 35-70 years for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes, regardless of body mass index, would provide the fairest means of detection, according to a new analysis.

This would better detect prediabetes and diabetes in ethnic groups that have a higher risk of diabetes at lower cutoffs. Compared with White individuals, Black or Hispanic adults have a higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes at a younger age, and Asian, Hispanic, and Black Americans all have a higher risk of developing it at a lower BMI. 

In the new study, researchers examined six different screening scenarios in a nationally representative sample without diabetes.

They compared screening for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes using criteria from the 2021 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations with the 2015 USPSTF recommendations, as well as four other screening thresholds with lower age or weight.

Universal screening for prediabetes and diabetes at age 35-70, regardless of BMI – which appears to be the sweet spot for most equitable detection in different races – may be easier to put into practice because it will mean clinicians don’t have to remember alternate cutoffs for different patient groups, the researchers suggested.

“All major racial and ethnic minority groups develop diabetes at lower weights than White adults, and it’s most pronounced for Asian Americans,” lead author Matthew J. O’Brien, MD, explained in a press release.

“If we make decisions about diabetes testing based on weight we will miss some people from racial and ethnic minority groups who are developing prediabetes and diabetes at lower weights,” said Dr. O’Brien, of Northwestern University, Chicago.

Going forward, to achieve equity in diagnosing prediabetes and diabetes “also requires addressing structural barriers [facing racial and ethnic minorities], which include not having a usual source of primary care, lacking health insurance, or having copays for screening tests based on insurance coverage,” the authors noted in their paper, published online in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

There is also a need for further study to examine the cost-effectiveness of any approach, and to study the impact of screening criteria on diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes in diverse populations.
 

Nationally representative sample, six screening scenarios

In the overall U.S. population, 81% of adults with prediabetes are unaware they have it, said Dr. O’Brien and colleagues, and 23% of diabetes cases are undiagnosed.

And Black, Hispanic, or Asian individuals have a nearly twofold higher prevalence of diabetes compared with White individuals.

The 2021 USPSTF recommendations state that clinicians should screen asymptomatic adults aged 35-70 years with overweight/obesity (BMI ≥ 25 kg/m²) and “should consider screening at an earlier age in persons from groups with disproportionately high incidence and prevalence (American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian American, Black, Hispanic/Latino, or Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander persons) or in persons who have a family history of diabetes, a history of gestational diabetes, or a history of polycystic ovarian syndrome, and at a lower BMI in Asian American persons. Data suggest that a BMI of 23 or greater may be an appropriate cut point in Asian American persons.”

Dr. O’Brien and colleagues identified 3,243 nonpregnant adults without diagnosed diabetes who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) in 2017-2020 and had an A1c blood test. (Half also had a fasting plasma glucose test.)

First, they compared screening using the more recent and earlier USPSTF criteria: BMI of at least 25 kg/m² and age 35-70 (2021 criteria) and BMI of at least 25 kg/m² and age 40-70 (2015 criteria).

They estimated that 13.9 million more adults would be eligible for screening using the 2021 versus the 2015 screening criteria.

The increases in screening eligibility were highest in Hispanic individuals (30.6%), followed by Asian individuals (17.9%), White individuals (14.0%), and Black individuals (13.9%).

Using the USPSTF 2021 versus 2015 screening criteria resulted in marginally higher sensitivity (58.6% vs. 52.9%) but lower specificity (69.3% vs. 76.4%) overall, as well as within each racial group.

Next, the researchers examined screening at two lower age cutoffs and two lower BMI cutoffs: BMI of at least 25 kg/m² and age 30-70, BMI of at least 25 kg/m² and age 18-70, age 35-70 and BMI of at least 23 kg/m², and age 35-70 and any BMI.

Screening at these lower age and weight thresholds resulted in even greater sensitivity and lower specificity than using the 2021 USPSTF criteria, especially among Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black, and Asian adults.

However, screening all adults aged 35-70 years regardless of BMI yielded the most equitable detection of prediabetes and diabetes – with a sensitivity of 67.8% and a specificity of 52.1% in the overall population, and a sensitivity of 70.1%, 70.4%, 68.4%, and 67.6%, and a specificity of 53.8%, 59.9%, 56.2%, and 48.9%, in the Asian, Black, Hispanic, and White subgroups, respectively.

The American Diabetes Association currently recommends screening all adults aged ≥ 35 years, or at any age if they have overweight/obesity and an additional diabetes risk factor, the researchers noted.

The study was partly funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Universal screening of all U.S. adults aged 35-70 years for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes, regardless of body mass index, would provide the fairest means of detection, according to a new analysis.

This would better detect prediabetes and diabetes in ethnic groups that have a higher risk of diabetes at lower cutoffs. Compared with White individuals, Black or Hispanic adults have a higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes at a younger age, and Asian, Hispanic, and Black Americans all have a higher risk of developing it at a lower BMI. 

In the new study, researchers examined six different screening scenarios in a nationally representative sample without diabetes.

They compared screening for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes using criteria from the 2021 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations with the 2015 USPSTF recommendations, as well as four other screening thresholds with lower age or weight.

Universal screening for prediabetes and diabetes at age 35-70, regardless of BMI – which appears to be the sweet spot for most equitable detection in different races – may be easier to put into practice because it will mean clinicians don’t have to remember alternate cutoffs for different patient groups, the researchers suggested.

“All major racial and ethnic minority groups develop diabetes at lower weights than White adults, and it’s most pronounced for Asian Americans,” lead author Matthew J. O’Brien, MD, explained in a press release.

“If we make decisions about diabetes testing based on weight we will miss some people from racial and ethnic minority groups who are developing prediabetes and diabetes at lower weights,” said Dr. O’Brien, of Northwestern University, Chicago.

Going forward, to achieve equity in diagnosing prediabetes and diabetes “also requires addressing structural barriers [facing racial and ethnic minorities], which include not having a usual source of primary care, lacking health insurance, or having copays for screening tests based on insurance coverage,” the authors noted in their paper, published online in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

There is also a need for further study to examine the cost-effectiveness of any approach, and to study the impact of screening criteria on diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes in diverse populations.
 

Nationally representative sample, six screening scenarios

In the overall U.S. population, 81% of adults with prediabetes are unaware they have it, said Dr. O’Brien and colleagues, and 23% of diabetes cases are undiagnosed.

And Black, Hispanic, or Asian individuals have a nearly twofold higher prevalence of diabetes compared with White individuals.

The 2021 USPSTF recommendations state that clinicians should screen asymptomatic adults aged 35-70 years with overweight/obesity (BMI ≥ 25 kg/m²) and “should consider screening at an earlier age in persons from groups with disproportionately high incidence and prevalence (American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian American, Black, Hispanic/Latino, or Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander persons) or in persons who have a family history of diabetes, a history of gestational diabetes, or a history of polycystic ovarian syndrome, and at a lower BMI in Asian American persons. Data suggest that a BMI of 23 or greater may be an appropriate cut point in Asian American persons.”

Dr. O’Brien and colleagues identified 3,243 nonpregnant adults without diagnosed diabetes who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) in 2017-2020 and had an A1c blood test. (Half also had a fasting plasma glucose test.)

First, they compared screening using the more recent and earlier USPSTF criteria: BMI of at least 25 kg/m² and age 35-70 (2021 criteria) and BMI of at least 25 kg/m² and age 40-70 (2015 criteria).

They estimated that 13.9 million more adults would be eligible for screening using the 2021 versus the 2015 screening criteria.

The increases in screening eligibility were highest in Hispanic individuals (30.6%), followed by Asian individuals (17.9%), White individuals (14.0%), and Black individuals (13.9%).

Using the USPSTF 2021 versus 2015 screening criteria resulted in marginally higher sensitivity (58.6% vs. 52.9%) but lower specificity (69.3% vs. 76.4%) overall, as well as within each racial group.

Next, the researchers examined screening at two lower age cutoffs and two lower BMI cutoffs: BMI of at least 25 kg/m² and age 30-70, BMI of at least 25 kg/m² and age 18-70, age 35-70 and BMI of at least 23 kg/m², and age 35-70 and any BMI.

Screening at these lower age and weight thresholds resulted in even greater sensitivity and lower specificity than using the 2021 USPSTF criteria, especially among Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black, and Asian adults.

However, screening all adults aged 35-70 years regardless of BMI yielded the most equitable detection of prediabetes and diabetes – with a sensitivity of 67.8% and a specificity of 52.1% in the overall population, and a sensitivity of 70.1%, 70.4%, 68.4%, and 67.6%, and a specificity of 53.8%, 59.9%, 56.2%, and 48.9%, in the Asian, Black, Hispanic, and White subgroups, respectively.

The American Diabetes Association currently recommends screening all adults aged ≥ 35 years, or at any age if they have overweight/obesity and an additional diabetes risk factor, the researchers noted.

The study was partly funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Universal screening of all U.S. adults aged 35-70 years for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes, regardless of body mass index, would provide the fairest means of detection, according to a new analysis.

This would better detect prediabetes and diabetes in ethnic groups that have a higher risk of diabetes at lower cutoffs. Compared with White individuals, Black or Hispanic adults have a higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes at a younger age, and Asian, Hispanic, and Black Americans all have a higher risk of developing it at a lower BMI. 

In the new study, researchers examined six different screening scenarios in a nationally representative sample without diabetes.

They compared screening for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes using criteria from the 2021 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations with the 2015 USPSTF recommendations, as well as four other screening thresholds with lower age or weight.

Universal screening for prediabetes and diabetes at age 35-70, regardless of BMI – which appears to be the sweet spot for most equitable detection in different races – may be easier to put into practice because it will mean clinicians don’t have to remember alternate cutoffs for different patient groups, the researchers suggested.

“All major racial and ethnic minority groups develop diabetes at lower weights than White adults, and it’s most pronounced for Asian Americans,” lead author Matthew J. O’Brien, MD, explained in a press release.

“If we make decisions about diabetes testing based on weight we will miss some people from racial and ethnic minority groups who are developing prediabetes and diabetes at lower weights,” said Dr. O’Brien, of Northwestern University, Chicago.

Going forward, to achieve equity in diagnosing prediabetes and diabetes “also requires addressing structural barriers [facing racial and ethnic minorities], which include not having a usual source of primary care, lacking health insurance, or having copays for screening tests based on insurance coverage,” the authors noted in their paper, published online in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

There is also a need for further study to examine the cost-effectiveness of any approach, and to study the impact of screening criteria on diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes in diverse populations.
 

Nationally representative sample, six screening scenarios

In the overall U.S. population, 81% of adults with prediabetes are unaware they have it, said Dr. O’Brien and colleagues, and 23% of diabetes cases are undiagnosed.

And Black, Hispanic, or Asian individuals have a nearly twofold higher prevalence of diabetes compared with White individuals.

The 2021 USPSTF recommendations state that clinicians should screen asymptomatic adults aged 35-70 years with overweight/obesity (BMI ≥ 25 kg/m²) and “should consider screening at an earlier age in persons from groups with disproportionately high incidence and prevalence (American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian American, Black, Hispanic/Latino, or Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander persons) or in persons who have a family history of diabetes, a history of gestational diabetes, or a history of polycystic ovarian syndrome, and at a lower BMI in Asian American persons. Data suggest that a BMI of 23 or greater may be an appropriate cut point in Asian American persons.”

Dr. O’Brien and colleagues identified 3,243 nonpregnant adults without diagnosed diabetes who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) in 2017-2020 and had an A1c blood test. (Half also had a fasting plasma glucose test.)

First, they compared screening using the more recent and earlier USPSTF criteria: BMI of at least 25 kg/m² and age 35-70 (2021 criteria) and BMI of at least 25 kg/m² and age 40-70 (2015 criteria).

They estimated that 13.9 million more adults would be eligible for screening using the 2021 versus the 2015 screening criteria.

The increases in screening eligibility were highest in Hispanic individuals (30.6%), followed by Asian individuals (17.9%), White individuals (14.0%), and Black individuals (13.9%).

Using the USPSTF 2021 versus 2015 screening criteria resulted in marginally higher sensitivity (58.6% vs. 52.9%) but lower specificity (69.3% vs. 76.4%) overall, as well as within each racial group.

Next, the researchers examined screening at two lower age cutoffs and two lower BMI cutoffs: BMI of at least 25 kg/m² and age 30-70, BMI of at least 25 kg/m² and age 18-70, age 35-70 and BMI of at least 23 kg/m², and age 35-70 and any BMI.

Screening at these lower age and weight thresholds resulted in even greater sensitivity and lower specificity than using the 2021 USPSTF criteria, especially among Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black, and Asian adults.

However, screening all adults aged 35-70 years regardless of BMI yielded the most equitable detection of prediabetes and diabetes – with a sensitivity of 67.8% and a specificity of 52.1% in the overall population, and a sensitivity of 70.1%, 70.4%, 68.4%, and 67.6%, and a specificity of 53.8%, 59.9%, 56.2%, and 48.9%, in the Asian, Black, Hispanic, and White subgroups, respectively.

The American Diabetes Association currently recommends screening all adults aged ≥ 35 years, or at any age if they have overweight/obesity and an additional diabetes risk factor, the researchers noted.

The study was partly funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Performing intimate exams under anesthesia (EUA) is a standard part of medical training. Yet, some researchers and opponents argue that pelvic and prostate exams too often occur without explicit patient consent, resulting in a professional breach of conduct that undermines institutional trust, leaves learners morally conflicted, raises racial equity concerns, and has more states stepping in to prohibit the practice.

“Whenever I talk about this at conferences around the country, people always come up to me and say it’s still happening at their institutions,” Lori Bruce, MA, MBE, HEC-C, associate director of the Interdisciplinary Center for Bioethics at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., told this news organization.

Most think this is a women’s issue, which occurs only in unconscious patients, she said. But Ms. Bruce found otherwise in a survey last year in which she polled the general public about their intimate exam experiences.

“Unconsented exams happen much more than we imagined, and they happen as often to men [having] prostate exams without consent as to women. Black [respondents] were nearly four times more likely to have reported receiving an unconsented intimate pelvic or prostate exam,” she said, based on her research. And Ms. Bruce believes it can happen across the economic spectrum.

Concern about unconsented EUAs arose in the early 2000s. In a study at that time, 75% of medical students reported that their patients had not given consent to be examined during surgical procedures. An ethics committee of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists published guidelines for EUAs and states began passing legislation with patient protections and medical training consent policies.

California is believed to be the first to adopt legislation outlawing unconsented pelvic exams for training purposes in 2003, followed by Virginia in 2007, along with a handful of other states.

In 2019, on the heels of the #MeToo movement and renewed calls to end unconsented exams, more patients and providers began to speak publicly about their experiences with the practice. Some posted on social media using the #MeTooPelvic hashtag. In 2022, an award-winning documentary was also released about consent, “At Your Cervix.”More states subsequently passed legislation, and some medical schools strengthened their EUA consent policies.

Today, nearly half the states in the country have enacted laws against unconsented intimate EUAs, with some carrying misdemeanor charges for both the individual conducting the exam and the supervising physician. Other states leave open the option to fine the physician and revoke or suspend medical licenses.

Much of the new legislation requires explicit consent for intimate exams involving the pelvis, prostate, and rectum, with exceptions for emergency procedures and, in some cases, the collection of court-ordered forensic evidence. In addition, several states, including Colorado, Indiana, and Ohio, have pending or recently introduced bills. Last month, sister bills in Missouri passed the House and Senate, gaining more traction than previous legislative attempts. A similar bill was introduced in the Kansas House several times, including this year, and is expected to be on the agenda again in the next session. 

Intimate exams on patients without consent are “unethical and unacceptable,” said Alison Whelan, MD, chief academic officer of the Association of American Medical Colleges. Although medical students learn sensitive procedures through simulation labs and gynecological teaching associates – individuals specifically trained to help students develop physical exam skills –  EUAs require strict adherence to widely accepted guidelines.

“Learners in the clinical setting should only perform such examinations for teaching purposes when the exam is explicitly consented to, related to the planned procedure, performed by a student who is recognized by the patient as a part of their care team, and done under direct supervision by an educator,” Dr. Whelan said.
 

Medical students bear moral burden

Arthur Caplan, PhD, director of medical ethics at New York University, has called unconsented intimate exams a “cousin issue” to abusive predatory behavior.

If the public is outraged that physicians “have misused their authority with athletes, then we should be equally outraged if that authority, even for a higher purpose [like] teaching and training, is still misused in terms of getting permission and consent,” he said in a video discussing Connecticut’s legislation to strengthen intimate exam requirements, which went into effect Jan. 1.   

Advocates of stricter EUA consent policies say the variability in consent practices destroys patient trust by ignoring the basic principles of respect and autonomy. Because patients are usually unaware a violation has occurred, reporting typically depends on medical students raising questions with educators and attendings, which they may hesitate to do for fear of repercussions.

Current practices, such as patients signing consent documents in the outpatient setting where students aren’t always privy to the discussion, contribute to the lack of transparency, Karampreet Kaur, MD, a 2nd-year ob.gyn. resident at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said.

A 2019 survey of medical students by Elle magazine found that nearly half did not meet patients before conducting an intimate EUA. Of the 92% who performed a pelvic EUA, 61% reported doing so without obtaining explicit patient consent.

Dr. Kaur recently coauthored a survey of students from six medical schools and found that 84% completed at least one pelvic EUA during their ob.gyn. clerkships. About half of the students surveyed observed patients giving informed consent most or every time. Of those, 67% reported they never or rarely witnessed an explicit explanation that a medical student may perform a pelvic EUA.

This burden weighs on the consciences of medical students. Respondents reported that they wanted to honor patient autonomy but felt they lacked the authority to object to pelvic EUAs when consent was unclear, which led to significant emotional distress.

“It’s not that physicians don’t care,” Dr. Kaur said. “I think most want to make sure patients feel safe and fully informed of the care they are receiving.”
 

To consent or not 

Incorporating a separate EUA consent form, typically signed during a preoperative visit but occasionally on the day of surgery, offers one potential solution as it ensures “clear and consistent language is used and forces documentation of this conversation,” said Dr. Kaur. At her current institution, providers and medical students must review charted EUA documentation, then that information is “made clear to attendings, fellows, residents, students, and even the OR staff,” she said.  

In Dr. Kaur’s survey, 11% of respondents supported a separate consent. Another study of 3rd- and 4th-year medical students published last year found that 45% agreed with having a separate signature line on the surgical consent form.

Legislation introduced recently in Colorado states that medical students must meet the patient, and patients must receive a written or electronic document titled, in at least 18-point bolded font, “consent for examination of breasts, pelvic region, rectum, and/or prostate.” The form must also include the names of medical students performing or observing an intimate exam for educational purposes.

Elizabeth Newman, MPP, public policy director at the Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault and supporter of the state’s intimate exam bill, said the legislation will allow medical students to learn the intricacies of these sensitive body systems and provide better patient care, particularly following the rollback of Roe v. Wade.

“Abortion is available and accessible in Colorado, and we are surrounded by states where it’s not,” said Ms. Newman. “Medical students in states where it’s outright banned are coming to Colorado to learn how to provide abortion care in their residencies and fellowships, so we want to maintain that access and not take those learning opportunities away with this law.”

Opponents of a separate form say it complicates the consent process. Dr. Kaur said she originally thought it would involve a lot of extra work, but it only takes 3-5 minutes. Few patients decline the exam after the conversation, and students benefit from the clear guidelines and transparency, she said.

“I had hoped that the many medical association guidelines [supporting] explicit consent would have influenced hospital policy, but it did not have that effect,” said Ms. Bruce, adding that recent legislative efforts have largely been driven by concerned bioethicists, lawmakers, and some medical students and physicians. “It all circles back to the patient having the right to refuse; it’s their body.”

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

Performing intimate exams under anesthesia (EUA) is a standard part of medical training. Yet, some researchers and opponents argue that pelvic and prostate exams too often occur without explicit patient consent, resulting in a professional breach of conduct that undermines institutional trust, leaves learners morally conflicted, raises racial equity concerns, and has more states stepping in to prohibit the practice.

“Whenever I talk about this at conferences around the country, people always come up to me and say it’s still happening at their institutions,” Lori Bruce, MA, MBE, HEC-C, associate director of the Interdisciplinary Center for Bioethics at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., told this news organization.

Most think this is a women’s issue, which occurs only in unconscious patients, she said. But Ms. Bruce found otherwise in a survey last year in which she polled the general public about their intimate exam experiences.

“Unconsented exams happen much more than we imagined, and they happen as often to men [having] prostate exams without consent as to women. Black [respondents] were nearly four times more likely to have reported receiving an unconsented intimate pelvic or prostate exam,” she said, based on her research. And Ms. Bruce believes it can happen across the economic spectrum.

Concern about unconsented EUAs arose in the early 2000s. In a study at that time, 75% of medical students reported that their patients had not given consent to be examined during surgical procedures. An ethics committee of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists published guidelines for EUAs and states began passing legislation with patient protections and medical training consent policies.

California is believed to be the first to adopt legislation outlawing unconsented pelvic exams for training purposes in 2003, followed by Virginia in 2007, along with a handful of other states.

In 2019, on the heels of the #MeToo movement and renewed calls to end unconsented exams, more patients and providers began to speak publicly about their experiences with the practice. Some posted on social media using the #MeTooPelvic hashtag. In 2022, an award-winning documentary was also released about consent, “At Your Cervix.”More states subsequently passed legislation, and some medical schools strengthened their EUA consent policies.

Today, nearly half the states in the country have enacted laws against unconsented intimate EUAs, with some carrying misdemeanor charges for both the individual conducting the exam and the supervising physician. Other states leave open the option to fine the physician and revoke or suspend medical licenses.

Much of the new legislation requires explicit consent for intimate exams involving the pelvis, prostate, and rectum, with exceptions for emergency procedures and, in some cases, the collection of court-ordered forensic evidence. In addition, several states, including Colorado, Indiana, and Ohio, have pending or recently introduced bills. Last month, sister bills in Missouri passed the House and Senate, gaining more traction than previous legislative attempts. A similar bill was introduced in the Kansas House several times, including this year, and is expected to be on the agenda again in the next session. 

Intimate exams on patients without consent are “unethical and unacceptable,” said Alison Whelan, MD, chief academic officer of the Association of American Medical Colleges. Although medical students learn sensitive procedures through simulation labs and gynecological teaching associates – individuals specifically trained to help students develop physical exam skills –  EUAs require strict adherence to widely accepted guidelines.

“Learners in the clinical setting should only perform such examinations for teaching purposes when the exam is explicitly consented to, related to the planned procedure, performed by a student who is recognized by the patient as a part of their care team, and done under direct supervision by an educator,” Dr. Whelan said.
 

Medical students bear moral burden

Arthur Caplan, PhD, director of medical ethics at New York University, has called unconsented intimate exams a “cousin issue” to abusive predatory behavior.

If the public is outraged that physicians “have misused their authority with athletes, then we should be equally outraged if that authority, even for a higher purpose [like] teaching and training, is still misused in terms of getting permission and consent,” he said in a video discussing Connecticut’s legislation to strengthen intimate exam requirements, which went into effect Jan. 1.   

Advocates of stricter EUA consent policies say the variability in consent practices destroys patient trust by ignoring the basic principles of respect and autonomy. Because patients are usually unaware a violation has occurred, reporting typically depends on medical students raising questions with educators and attendings, which they may hesitate to do for fear of repercussions.

Current practices, such as patients signing consent documents in the outpatient setting where students aren’t always privy to the discussion, contribute to the lack of transparency, Karampreet Kaur, MD, a 2nd-year ob.gyn. resident at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said.

A 2019 survey of medical students by Elle magazine found that nearly half did not meet patients before conducting an intimate EUA. Of the 92% who performed a pelvic EUA, 61% reported doing so without obtaining explicit patient consent.

Dr. Kaur recently coauthored a survey of students from six medical schools and found that 84% completed at least one pelvic EUA during their ob.gyn. clerkships. About half of the students surveyed observed patients giving informed consent most or every time. Of those, 67% reported they never or rarely witnessed an explicit explanation that a medical student may perform a pelvic EUA.

This burden weighs on the consciences of medical students. Respondents reported that they wanted to honor patient autonomy but felt they lacked the authority to object to pelvic EUAs when consent was unclear, which led to significant emotional distress.

“It’s not that physicians don’t care,” Dr. Kaur said. “I think most want to make sure patients feel safe and fully informed of the care they are receiving.”
 

To consent or not 

Incorporating a separate EUA consent form, typically signed during a preoperative visit but occasionally on the day of surgery, offers one potential solution as it ensures “clear and consistent language is used and forces documentation of this conversation,” said Dr. Kaur. At her current institution, providers and medical students must review charted EUA documentation, then that information is “made clear to attendings, fellows, residents, students, and even the OR staff,” she said.  

In Dr. Kaur’s survey, 11% of respondents supported a separate consent. Another study of 3rd- and 4th-year medical students published last year found that 45% agreed with having a separate signature line on the surgical consent form.

Legislation introduced recently in Colorado states that medical students must meet the patient, and patients must receive a written or electronic document titled, in at least 18-point bolded font, “consent for examination of breasts, pelvic region, rectum, and/or prostate.” The form must also include the names of medical students performing or observing an intimate exam for educational purposes.

Elizabeth Newman, MPP, public policy director at the Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault and supporter of the state’s intimate exam bill, said the legislation will allow medical students to learn the intricacies of these sensitive body systems and provide better patient care, particularly following the rollback of Roe v. Wade.

“Abortion is available and accessible in Colorado, and we are surrounded by states where it’s not,” said Ms. Newman. “Medical students in states where it’s outright banned are coming to Colorado to learn how to provide abortion care in their residencies and fellowships, so we want to maintain that access and not take those learning opportunities away with this law.”

Opponents of a separate form say it complicates the consent process. Dr. Kaur said she originally thought it would involve a lot of extra work, but it only takes 3-5 minutes. Few patients decline the exam after the conversation, and students benefit from the clear guidelines and transparency, she said.

“I had hoped that the many medical association guidelines [supporting] explicit consent would have influenced hospital policy, but it did not have that effect,” said Ms. Bruce, adding that recent legislative efforts have largely been driven by concerned bioethicists, lawmakers, and some medical students and physicians. “It all circles back to the patient having the right to refuse; it’s their body.”

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

Performing intimate exams under anesthesia (EUA) is a standard part of medical training. Yet, some researchers and opponents argue that pelvic and prostate exams too often occur without explicit patient consent, resulting in a professional breach of conduct that undermines institutional trust, leaves learners morally conflicted, raises racial equity concerns, and has more states stepping in to prohibit the practice.

“Whenever I talk about this at conferences around the country, people always come up to me and say it’s still happening at their institutions,” Lori Bruce, MA, MBE, HEC-C, associate director of the Interdisciplinary Center for Bioethics at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., told this news organization.

Most think this is a women’s issue, which occurs only in unconscious patients, she said. But Ms. Bruce found otherwise in a survey last year in which she polled the general public about their intimate exam experiences.

“Unconsented exams happen much more than we imagined, and they happen as often to men [having] prostate exams without consent as to women. Black [respondents] were nearly four times more likely to have reported receiving an unconsented intimate pelvic or prostate exam,” she said, based on her research. And Ms. Bruce believes it can happen across the economic spectrum.

Concern about unconsented EUAs arose in the early 2000s. In a study at that time, 75% of medical students reported that their patients had not given consent to be examined during surgical procedures. An ethics committee of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists published guidelines for EUAs and states began passing legislation with patient protections and medical training consent policies.

California is believed to be the first to adopt legislation outlawing unconsented pelvic exams for training purposes in 2003, followed by Virginia in 2007, along with a handful of other states.

In 2019, on the heels of the #MeToo movement and renewed calls to end unconsented exams, more patients and providers began to speak publicly about their experiences with the practice. Some posted on social media using the #MeTooPelvic hashtag. In 2022, an award-winning documentary was also released about consent, “At Your Cervix.”More states subsequently passed legislation, and some medical schools strengthened their EUA consent policies.

Today, nearly half the states in the country have enacted laws against unconsented intimate EUAs, with some carrying misdemeanor charges for both the individual conducting the exam and the supervising physician. Other states leave open the option to fine the physician and revoke or suspend medical licenses.

Much of the new legislation requires explicit consent for intimate exams involving the pelvis, prostate, and rectum, with exceptions for emergency procedures and, in some cases, the collection of court-ordered forensic evidence. In addition, several states, including Colorado, Indiana, and Ohio, have pending or recently introduced bills. Last month, sister bills in Missouri passed the House and Senate, gaining more traction than previous legislative attempts. A similar bill was introduced in the Kansas House several times, including this year, and is expected to be on the agenda again in the next session. 

Intimate exams on patients without consent are “unethical and unacceptable,” said Alison Whelan, MD, chief academic officer of the Association of American Medical Colleges. Although medical students learn sensitive procedures through simulation labs and gynecological teaching associates – individuals specifically trained to help students develop physical exam skills –  EUAs require strict adherence to widely accepted guidelines.

“Learners in the clinical setting should only perform such examinations for teaching purposes when the exam is explicitly consented to, related to the planned procedure, performed by a student who is recognized by the patient as a part of their care team, and done under direct supervision by an educator,” Dr. Whelan said.
 

Medical students bear moral burden

Arthur Caplan, PhD, director of medical ethics at New York University, has called unconsented intimate exams a “cousin issue” to abusive predatory behavior.

If the public is outraged that physicians “have misused their authority with athletes, then we should be equally outraged if that authority, even for a higher purpose [like] teaching and training, is still misused in terms of getting permission and consent,” he said in a video discussing Connecticut’s legislation to strengthen intimate exam requirements, which went into effect Jan. 1.   

Advocates of stricter EUA consent policies say the variability in consent practices destroys patient trust by ignoring the basic principles of respect and autonomy. Because patients are usually unaware a violation has occurred, reporting typically depends on medical students raising questions with educators and attendings, which they may hesitate to do for fear of repercussions.

Current practices, such as patients signing consent documents in the outpatient setting where students aren’t always privy to the discussion, contribute to the lack of transparency, Karampreet Kaur, MD, a 2nd-year ob.gyn. resident at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said.

A 2019 survey of medical students by Elle magazine found that nearly half did not meet patients before conducting an intimate EUA. Of the 92% who performed a pelvic EUA, 61% reported doing so without obtaining explicit patient consent.

Dr. Kaur recently coauthored a survey of students from six medical schools and found that 84% completed at least one pelvic EUA during their ob.gyn. clerkships. About half of the students surveyed observed patients giving informed consent most or every time. Of those, 67% reported they never or rarely witnessed an explicit explanation that a medical student may perform a pelvic EUA.

This burden weighs on the consciences of medical students. Respondents reported that they wanted to honor patient autonomy but felt they lacked the authority to object to pelvic EUAs when consent was unclear, which led to significant emotional distress.

“It’s not that physicians don’t care,” Dr. Kaur said. “I think most want to make sure patients feel safe and fully informed of the care they are receiving.”
 

To consent or not 

Incorporating a separate EUA consent form, typically signed during a preoperative visit but occasionally on the day of surgery, offers one potential solution as it ensures “clear and consistent language is used and forces documentation of this conversation,” said Dr. Kaur. At her current institution, providers and medical students must review charted EUA documentation, then that information is “made clear to attendings, fellows, residents, students, and even the OR staff,” she said.  

In Dr. Kaur’s survey, 11% of respondents supported a separate consent. Another study of 3rd- and 4th-year medical students published last year found that 45% agreed with having a separate signature line on the surgical consent form.

Legislation introduced recently in Colorado states that medical students must meet the patient, and patients must receive a written or electronic document titled, in at least 18-point bolded font, “consent for examination of breasts, pelvic region, rectum, and/or prostate.” The form must also include the names of medical students performing or observing an intimate exam for educational purposes.

Elizabeth Newman, MPP, public policy director at the Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault and supporter of the state’s intimate exam bill, said the legislation will allow medical students to learn the intricacies of these sensitive body systems and provide better patient care, particularly following the rollback of Roe v. Wade.

“Abortion is available and accessible in Colorado, and we are surrounded by states where it’s not,” said Ms. Newman. “Medical students in states where it’s outright banned are coming to Colorado to learn how to provide abortion care in their residencies and fellowships, so we want to maintain that access and not take those learning opportunities away with this law.”

Opponents of a separate form say it complicates the consent process. Dr. Kaur said she originally thought it would involve a lot of extra work, but it only takes 3-5 minutes. Few patients decline the exam after the conversation, and students benefit from the clear guidelines and transparency, she said.

“I had hoped that the many medical association guidelines [supporting] explicit consent would have influenced hospital policy, but it did not have that effect,” said Ms. Bruce, adding that recent legislative efforts have largely been driven by concerned bioethicists, lawmakers, and some medical students and physicians. “It all circles back to the patient having the right to refuse; it’s their body.”

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

Cardiovascular disease deaths were significantly more common on days of high pollution and for the following 2 days, compared with other days, based on data from nearly 88,000 deaths over a 5-year period.

Previous research has shown the harmful effect of air pollution on human health in highly polluted areas, but Eastern Poland, a region with so-called “Polish smog” has exceptionally high levels of pollution. However, the specific impact of Polish smog, caused primarily by burning coal, on cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality has not been well studied, said Michal Swieczkowski, MD, of the Medical University of Bialystok (Poland) in a presentation at the annual congress of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology.

Ja&#039;Crispy/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Dr. Swieczkowski and colleagues reviewed all-cause deaths from five main cities in Eastern Poland during 2016-2020 for associations with pollution levels and days when deaths occurred. Mortality data were obtained from the Central Statistical Office. Air pollution concentrations for two types of particulate matter (PM2.5, PM10) and nitrogen oxide were collected from the Voivodeship Inspectorate for Environmental Protection. The main sources of the pollutants were road traffic and household heaters using coal or wood.

The final analysis included nearly 6 million person-years of follow-up. The researchers used a time-stratified case-crossover design. For each participant, the researchers compared levels of each pollutant on the day of the week a death occurred (such as a Wednesday) with pollutant levels on the same day of the week without any deaths in the same month (the remaining Wednesdays of that month). This design eliminated the potential confounding effects of participant characteristics, including other cardiovascular risk factors such as smoking and hyperlipidemia, and time trends. Essentially, participants “served as their own controls,” Dr. Swieczkowski said. The researchers conducted similar analyses for pollution levels 1 day and 2 days before a death occurred.

Overall, 87,990 deaths were identified during the study period; of these, 34,907 were from CVD, 9,688 from acute coronary syndromes, and 3,776 from ischemic stroke.

“Exposure to PM2.5 and PM10 was associated with increased mortality on the day of exposure, the next day, and up to 2 days after exposure,” said Dr. Swieczkowski.

Overall, an increase of 10 mcg/m³ in the three pollutants was significantly associated with increase in CVD mortality on the day of exposure to the increased pollution levels, with odds ratios of 1.034, 1.033, and 1.083 for PM2.5, PM10, and NO₂, respectively (all P < .001).

The risks of dying from CVD were similar 1 and 2 days after the polluted day.

An increase in PM levels, but not NO₂, was significantly associated with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) on the day of exposure to increased pollutants (ORs, 1.029 for PM2.5 [P = .002] and 1.015 [P = .049] for PM10). Both ischemic stroke and ACS mortality were significantly higher at 1 day after exposure, compared with other days. Ischemic stroke was associated with increases in PM2.5 and PM10, while ACS was associated with increases in PM2.5, PM10, and NO₂.

When stratified by gender, the effects were more noticeable in women, Dr. Swieczkowski said. “Exposure to both types of particulate caused increased mortality due to acute coronary syndrome as well as ischemic stroke.” Among men, only death from acute coronary syndrome was significantly associated with exposure to increased particulate matter.

In a head-to-head comparison, women were more vulnerable to air pollution by up to 2.5%, he added.

When stratified by age, the effects of all three pollutants were associated with increased risk of death from ischemic stroke and ACS in participants older than 65 years. For those aged 65 years and younger, the only significant association was between ACS-associated mortality and ischemic stroke.

The results suggest “a special need for developing calculators to estimate the risk of CVD incidence depending on the place of residence that could be used for everyday practice,” said Dr. Swieczkowski. “Systemic changes should become a priority for policy makers, and, simultaneously, we as physicians should educate and protect our patients, especially those with high risk of cardiovascular disease,” he said.
 

Gender differences rooted in anatomy

When asked for an explanation of the difference in the impact of pollution on mortality between men and women, Dr. Swieczkowski explained that women are likely more vulnerable because of differences in anatomy of the pharynx and larynx, and breathing patterns. Previous studies have shown that air pollution causes more oxidative stress in women. Also, in the current study, the mean age of the women was 8 to 9 years older, he said.

The study design was an “elegant way to take away the impact of other cardiovascular risk factors,” noted session moderator Maryam Kavousi, MD, of Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

The study was supported by the National Science Centre, Poland. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

Cardiovascular disease deaths were significantly more common on days of high pollution and for the following 2 days, compared with other days, based on data from nearly 88,000 deaths over a 5-year period.

Previous research has shown the harmful effect of air pollution on human health in highly polluted areas, but Eastern Poland, a region with so-called “Polish smog” has exceptionally high levels of pollution. However, the specific impact of Polish smog, caused primarily by burning coal, on cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality has not been well studied, said Michal Swieczkowski, MD, of the Medical University of Bialystok (Poland) in a presentation at the annual congress of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology.

Ja&#039;Crispy/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Dr. Swieczkowski and colleagues reviewed all-cause deaths from five main cities in Eastern Poland during 2016-2020 for associations with pollution levels and days when deaths occurred. Mortality data were obtained from the Central Statistical Office. Air pollution concentrations for two types of particulate matter (PM2.5, PM10) and nitrogen oxide were collected from the Voivodeship Inspectorate for Environmental Protection. The main sources of the pollutants were road traffic and household heaters using coal or wood.

The final analysis included nearly 6 million person-years of follow-up. The researchers used a time-stratified case-crossover design. For each participant, the researchers compared levels of each pollutant on the day of the week a death occurred (such as a Wednesday) with pollutant levels on the same day of the week without any deaths in the same month (the remaining Wednesdays of that month). This design eliminated the potential confounding effects of participant characteristics, including other cardiovascular risk factors such as smoking and hyperlipidemia, and time trends. Essentially, participants “served as their own controls,” Dr. Swieczkowski said. The researchers conducted similar analyses for pollution levels 1 day and 2 days before a death occurred.

Overall, 87,990 deaths were identified during the study period; of these, 34,907 were from CVD, 9,688 from acute coronary syndromes, and 3,776 from ischemic stroke.

“Exposure to PM2.5 and PM10 was associated with increased mortality on the day of exposure, the next day, and up to 2 days after exposure,” said Dr. Swieczkowski.

Overall, an increase of 10 mcg/m³ in the three pollutants was significantly associated with increase in CVD mortality on the day of exposure to the increased pollution levels, with odds ratios of 1.034, 1.033, and 1.083 for PM2.5, PM10, and NO₂, respectively (all P < .001).

The risks of dying from CVD were similar 1 and 2 days after the polluted day.

An increase in PM levels, but not NO₂, was significantly associated with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) on the day of exposure to increased pollutants (ORs, 1.029 for PM2.5 [P = .002] and 1.015 [P = .049] for PM10). Both ischemic stroke and ACS mortality were significantly higher at 1 day after exposure, compared with other days. Ischemic stroke was associated with increases in PM2.5 and PM10, while ACS was associated with increases in PM2.5, PM10, and NO₂.

When stratified by gender, the effects were more noticeable in women, Dr. Swieczkowski said. “Exposure to both types of particulate caused increased mortality due to acute coronary syndrome as well as ischemic stroke.” Among men, only death from acute coronary syndrome was significantly associated with exposure to increased particulate matter.

In a head-to-head comparison, women were more vulnerable to air pollution by up to 2.5%, he added.

When stratified by age, the effects of all three pollutants were associated with increased risk of death from ischemic stroke and ACS in participants older than 65 years. For those aged 65 years and younger, the only significant association was between ACS-associated mortality and ischemic stroke.

The results suggest “a special need for developing calculators to estimate the risk of CVD incidence depending on the place of residence that could be used for everyday practice,” said Dr. Swieczkowski. “Systemic changes should become a priority for policy makers, and, simultaneously, we as physicians should educate and protect our patients, especially those with high risk of cardiovascular disease,” he said.
 

Gender differences rooted in anatomy

When asked for an explanation of the difference in the impact of pollution on mortality between men and women, Dr. Swieczkowski explained that women are likely more vulnerable because of differences in anatomy of the pharynx and larynx, and breathing patterns. Previous studies have shown that air pollution causes more oxidative stress in women. Also, in the current study, the mean age of the women was 8 to 9 years older, he said.

The study design was an “elegant way to take away the impact of other cardiovascular risk factors,” noted session moderator Maryam Kavousi, MD, of Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

The study was supported by the National Science Centre, Poland. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

Cardiovascular disease deaths were significantly more common on days of high pollution and for the following 2 days, compared with other days, based on data from nearly 88,000 deaths over a 5-year period.

Previous research has shown the harmful effect of air pollution on human health in highly polluted areas, but Eastern Poland, a region with so-called “Polish smog” has exceptionally high levels of pollution. However, the specific impact of Polish smog, caused primarily by burning coal, on cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality has not been well studied, said Michal Swieczkowski, MD, of the Medical University of Bialystok (Poland) in a presentation at the annual congress of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology.

Ja&#039;Crispy/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Dr. Swieczkowski and colleagues reviewed all-cause deaths from five main cities in Eastern Poland during 2016-2020 for associations with pollution levels and days when deaths occurred. Mortality data were obtained from the Central Statistical Office. Air pollution concentrations for two types of particulate matter (PM2.5, PM10) and nitrogen oxide were collected from the Voivodeship Inspectorate for Environmental Protection. The main sources of the pollutants were road traffic and household heaters using coal or wood.

The final analysis included nearly 6 million person-years of follow-up. The researchers used a time-stratified case-crossover design. For each participant, the researchers compared levels of each pollutant on the day of the week a death occurred (such as a Wednesday) with pollutant levels on the same day of the week without any deaths in the same month (the remaining Wednesdays of that month). This design eliminated the potential confounding effects of participant characteristics, including other cardiovascular risk factors such as smoking and hyperlipidemia, and time trends. Essentially, participants “served as their own controls,” Dr. Swieczkowski said. The researchers conducted similar analyses for pollution levels 1 day and 2 days before a death occurred.

Overall, 87,990 deaths were identified during the study period; of these, 34,907 were from CVD, 9,688 from acute coronary syndromes, and 3,776 from ischemic stroke.

“Exposure to PM2.5 and PM10 was associated with increased mortality on the day of exposure, the next day, and up to 2 days after exposure,” said Dr. Swieczkowski.

Overall, an increase of 10 mcg/m³ in the three pollutants was significantly associated with increase in CVD mortality on the day of exposure to the increased pollution levels, with odds ratios of 1.034, 1.033, and 1.083 for PM2.5, PM10, and NO₂, respectively (all P < .001).

The risks of dying from CVD were similar 1 and 2 days after the polluted day.

An increase in PM levels, but not NO₂, was significantly associated with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) on the day of exposure to increased pollutants (ORs, 1.029 for PM2.5 [P = .002] and 1.015 [P = .049] for PM10). Both ischemic stroke and ACS mortality were significantly higher at 1 day after exposure, compared with other days. Ischemic stroke was associated with increases in PM2.5 and PM10, while ACS was associated with increases in PM2.5, PM10, and NO₂.

When stratified by gender, the effects were more noticeable in women, Dr. Swieczkowski said. “Exposure to both types of particulate caused increased mortality due to acute coronary syndrome as well as ischemic stroke.” Among men, only death from acute coronary syndrome was significantly associated with exposure to increased particulate matter.

In a head-to-head comparison, women were more vulnerable to air pollution by up to 2.5%, he added.

When stratified by age, the effects of all three pollutants were associated with increased risk of death from ischemic stroke and ACS in participants older than 65 years. For those aged 65 years and younger, the only significant association was between ACS-associated mortality and ischemic stroke.

The results suggest “a special need for developing calculators to estimate the risk of CVD incidence depending on the place of residence that could be used for everyday practice,” said Dr. Swieczkowski. “Systemic changes should become a priority for policy makers, and, simultaneously, we as physicians should educate and protect our patients, especially those with high risk of cardiovascular disease,” he said.
 

Gender differences rooted in anatomy

When asked for an explanation of the difference in the impact of pollution on mortality between men and women, Dr. Swieczkowski explained that women are likely more vulnerable because of differences in anatomy of the pharynx and larynx, and breathing patterns. Previous studies have shown that air pollution causes more oxidative stress in women. Also, in the current study, the mean age of the women was 8 to 9 years older, he said.

The study design was an “elegant way to take away the impact of other cardiovascular risk factors,” noted session moderator Maryam Kavousi, MD, of Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

The study was supported by the National Science Centre, Poland. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

The 30-second commercial, part of the government’s We Can Do This campaign, shows everyday people going about their lives, then reminds them that, “because COVID is still out there and so are you,” it might be time to update your vaccine.

But in real life, the message that COVID-19 is still a major concern is muffled if not absent for many. Many data tracking sources, both federal and others, are no longer reporting, as often, the number of COVID cases, hospitalizations, and deaths. 

The Department of Health & Human Services in February stopped updating its public COVID data site, instead directing all queries to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which itself has been updating only weekly instead of daily since 2022. 

Nongovernmental sources, such as John Hopkins University, stopped reporting pandemic data in March, The New York Times also ended its COVID data-gathering project in March, stating that “the comprehensive real-time reporting that The Times has prioritized is no longer possible.” It will rely on reporting weekly CDC data moving forward. 

Along with the tracking sites, masking and social distancing mandates have mostly disappeared. President Joe Biden signed a bipartisan bill on April 10 that ended the national emergency for COVID. While some programs will stay in place for now, such as free vaccines, treatments, and tests, that too will go away when the federal public health emergency expires on May 11. The HHS already has issued its transition roadmap.

Many Americans, meanwhile, are still on the fence about the pandemic. A Gallup poll from March shows that about half of the American public say it’s over, and about half disagree. 

Are we closing up shop on COVID-19 too soon, or is it time? Not surprisingly, experts don’t agree. Some say the pandemic is now endemic – which broadly means the virus and its patterns are predictable and steady in designated regions – and that it’s critical to catch up on health needs neglected during the pandemic, such as screenings and other vaccinations

But others don’t think it’s reached that stage yet, saying that we are letting our guard down too soon and we can’t be blind to the possibility of another strong variant – or pandemic – emerging. Surveillance must continue, not decline, and be improved.
 

Time to move on?

In its transition roadmap released in February, the HHS notes that daily COVID reported cases are down over 90%, compared with the peak of the Omicron surge at the end of January 2022; deaths have declined by over 80%; and new hospitalizations caused by COVID have dropped by nearly 80%.

It is time to move on, said Ali Mokdad, PhD, a professor and chief strategy officer of population health at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, Seattle. 

“Many people were delaying a lot of medical care, because they were afraid” during COVID’s height, he said, explaining that elective surgeries were postponed, prenatal care went down, as did screenings for blood pressure and diabetes.

His institute was tracking COVID projections every week but stopped in December.

As for emerging variants, “we haven’t seen a variant that scares us since Omicron” in November 2021, said Dr. Mokdad, who agrees that COVID is endemic now. The subvariants that followed it are very similar, and the current vaccines are working. 

“We can move on, but we cannot drop the ball on keeping an eye on the genetic sequencing of the virus,” he said. That will enable quick identification of new variants.

If a worrisome new variant does surface, Dr. Mokdad said, certain locations and resources will be able to gear up quickly, while others won’t be as fast, but overall the United States is in a much better position now. 

Amesh Adalja, MD, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Baltimore, also believes the pandemic phase is behind us

“This can’t be an emergency in perpetuity,” he said “Just because something is not a pandemic [anymore] does not mean that all activities related to it cease.”

COVID is highly unlikely to overwhelm hospitals again, and that was the main reason for the emergency declaration, he said. 

“It’s not all or none – collapsing COVID-related [monitoring] activities into the routine monitoring that is done for other infectious disease should be seen as an achievement in taming the virus,” he said.
 

Not endemic yet

Closing up shop too early could mean we are blindsided, said Rajendram Rajnarayanan, PhD, an assistant dean of research and associate professor at the New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine at Arkansas State University in Jonesboro. 

Already, he said, large labs have closed or scaled down as testing demand has declined, and many centers that offered community testing have also closed. Plus, home test results are often not reported.

Continued monitoring is key, he said. “You have to maintain a base level of sequencing for new variants,” he said. “Right now, the variant that is ‘top dog’ in the world is XBB.1.16.” 

That’s an Omicron subvariant that the World Health Organization is currently keeping its eye on, according to a media briefing on March 29. There are about 800 sequences of it from 22 countries, mostly India, and it’s been in circulation a few months. 

Dr. Rajnarayanan said he’s not overly worried about this variant, but surveillance must continue. His own breakdown of XBB.1.16 found the subvariant in 27 countries, including the United States, as of April 10.

Ideally, Dr. Rajnarayanan would suggest four areas to keep focusing on, moving forward:

• Active, random surveillance for new variants, especially in hot spots.
• Hospital surveillance and surveillance of long-term care, especially in congregate settings where people can more easily spread the virus.
• Travelers’ surveillance, now at , according to the CDC.
• Surveillance of animals such as mink and deer, because these animals can not only pick up the virus, but the virus can mutate in the animals, which could then transmit it back to people. 

With less testing, baseline surveillance for new variants has declined. The other three surveillance areas need improvement, too, he said, as the reporting is often delayed. 

Continued surveillance is crucial, agreed Katelyn Jetelina, PhD, an epidemiologist and data scientist who publishes a newsletter, Your Local Epidemiologist, updating developments in COVID and other pressing health issues. 

“It’s a bit ironic to have a date for the end of a public health emergency; viruses don’t care about calendars,” said Dr. Jetelina, who is also director of population health analytics for the Meadows Mental Health Policy Institute. “COVID-19 is still going to be here, it’s still going to mutate,” and still cause grief for those affected. “I’m most concerned about our ability to track the virus. It’s not clear what surveillance we will still have in the states and around the globe.” 

It’s a bit ironic to have a date for the end of a public health emergency; viruses don’t care about calendars.

For surveillance, she calls wastewater monitoring “the lowest-hanging fruit.” That’s because it “is not based on bias testing and has the potential to help with other outbreaks, too.” Hospitalization data is also essential, she said, as that information is the basis for public health decisions on updated vaccines and other protective measures.

While Dr. Jetelina is hopeful that COVID will someday be universally viewed as endemic, with predictable seasonal patterns, “I don’t think we are there yet. We still need to approach this virus with humility; that’s at least what I will continue to do.”

Dr. Rajnarayanan agreed that the pandemic has not yet reached endemic phase, though the situation is much improved. “Our vaccines are still protecting us from severe disease and hospitalization, and [the antiviral drug] Paxlovid is a great tool that works.”
 

Keeping tabs

While some data tracking has been eliminated, not all has, or will be. The CDC, as mentioned, continues to post cases, deaths, and a daily average of new hospital admissions weekly. The WHO’s dashboard tracks deaths, cases, and vaccine doses globally. 

In March, the WHO updated its working definitions and tracking system for SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and variants of interest, with goals of evaluating the sublineages independently and to classify new variants more clearly when that’s needed. 

Still, WHO is considering ending its declaration of COVID as a public health emergency of international concern sometime in 2023.

Some public companies are staying vigilant. The drugstore chain Walgreens said it plans to maintain its COVID-19 Index, which launched in January 2022. 

“Data regarding spread of variants is important to our understanding of viral transmission and, as new variants emerge, it will be critical to continue to track this information quickly to predict which communities are most at risk,” Anita Patel, PharmD, vice president of pharmacy services development for Walgreens, said in a statement.

The data also reinforces the importance of vaccinations and testing in helping to stop the spread of COVID-19, she said.

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

The 30-second commercial, part of the government’s We Can Do This campaign, shows everyday people going about their lives, then reminds them that, “because COVID is still out there and so are you,” it might be time to update your vaccine.

But in real life, the message that COVID-19 is still a major concern is muffled if not absent for many. Many data tracking sources, both federal and others, are no longer reporting, as often, the number of COVID cases, hospitalizations, and deaths. 

The Department of Health & Human Services in February stopped updating its public COVID data site, instead directing all queries to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which itself has been updating only weekly instead of daily since 2022. 

Nongovernmental sources, such as John Hopkins University, stopped reporting pandemic data in March, The New York Times also ended its COVID data-gathering project in March, stating that “the comprehensive real-time reporting that The Times has prioritized is no longer possible.” It will rely on reporting weekly CDC data moving forward. 

Along with the tracking sites, masking and social distancing mandates have mostly disappeared. President Joe Biden signed a bipartisan bill on April 10 that ended the national emergency for COVID. While some programs will stay in place for now, such as free vaccines, treatments, and tests, that too will go away when the federal public health emergency expires on May 11. The HHS already has issued its transition roadmap.

Many Americans, meanwhile, are still on the fence about the pandemic. A Gallup poll from March shows that about half of the American public say it’s over, and about half disagree. 

Are we closing up shop on COVID-19 too soon, or is it time? Not surprisingly, experts don’t agree. Some say the pandemic is now endemic – which broadly means the virus and its patterns are predictable and steady in designated regions – and that it’s critical to catch up on health needs neglected during the pandemic, such as screenings and other vaccinations

But others don’t think it’s reached that stage yet, saying that we are letting our guard down too soon and we can’t be blind to the possibility of another strong variant – or pandemic – emerging. Surveillance must continue, not decline, and be improved.
 

Time to move on?

In its transition roadmap released in February, the HHS notes that daily COVID reported cases are down over 90%, compared with the peak of the Omicron surge at the end of January 2022; deaths have declined by over 80%; and new hospitalizations caused by COVID have dropped by nearly 80%.

It is time to move on, said Ali Mokdad, PhD, a professor and chief strategy officer of population health at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, Seattle. 

“Many people were delaying a lot of medical care, because they were afraid” during COVID’s height, he said, explaining that elective surgeries were postponed, prenatal care went down, as did screenings for blood pressure and diabetes.

His institute was tracking COVID projections every week but stopped in December.

As for emerging variants, “we haven’t seen a variant that scares us since Omicron” in November 2021, said Dr. Mokdad, who agrees that COVID is endemic now. The subvariants that followed it are very similar, and the current vaccines are working. 

“We can move on, but we cannot drop the ball on keeping an eye on the genetic sequencing of the virus,” he said. That will enable quick identification of new variants.

If a worrisome new variant does surface, Dr. Mokdad said, certain locations and resources will be able to gear up quickly, while others won’t be as fast, but overall the United States is in a much better position now. 

Amesh Adalja, MD, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Baltimore, also believes the pandemic phase is behind us

“This can’t be an emergency in perpetuity,” he said “Just because something is not a pandemic [anymore] does not mean that all activities related to it cease.”

COVID is highly unlikely to overwhelm hospitals again, and that was the main reason for the emergency declaration, he said. 

“It’s not all or none – collapsing COVID-related [monitoring] activities into the routine monitoring that is done for other infectious disease should be seen as an achievement in taming the virus,” he said.
 

Not endemic yet

Closing up shop too early could mean we are blindsided, said Rajendram Rajnarayanan, PhD, an assistant dean of research and associate professor at the New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine at Arkansas State University in Jonesboro. 

Already, he said, large labs have closed or scaled down as testing demand has declined, and many centers that offered community testing have also closed. Plus, home test results are often not reported.

Continued monitoring is key, he said. “You have to maintain a base level of sequencing for new variants,” he said. “Right now, the variant that is ‘top dog’ in the world is XBB.1.16.” 

That’s an Omicron subvariant that the World Health Organization is currently keeping its eye on, according to a media briefing on March 29. There are about 800 sequences of it from 22 countries, mostly India, and it’s been in circulation a few months. 

Dr. Rajnarayanan said he’s not overly worried about this variant, but surveillance must continue. His own breakdown of XBB.1.16 found the subvariant in 27 countries, including the United States, as of April 10.

Ideally, Dr. Rajnarayanan would suggest four areas to keep focusing on, moving forward:

• Active, random surveillance for new variants, especially in hot spots.
• Hospital surveillance and surveillance of long-term care, especially in congregate settings where people can more easily spread the virus.
• Travelers’ surveillance, now at , according to the CDC.
• Surveillance of animals such as mink and deer, because these animals can not only pick up the virus, but the virus can mutate in the animals, which could then transmit it back to people. 

With less testing, baseline surveillance for new variants has declined. The other three surveillance areas need improvement, too, he said, as the reporting is often delayed. 

Continued surveillance is crucial, agreed Katelyn Jetelina, PhD, an epidemiologist and data scientist who publishes a newsletter, Your Local Epidemiologist, updating developments in COVID and other pressing health issues. 

“It’s a bit ironic to have a date for the end of a public health emergency; viruses don’t care about calendars,” said Dr. Jetelina, who is also director of population health analytics for the Meadows Mental Health Policy Institute. “COVID-19 is still going to be here, it’s still going to mutate,” and still cause grief for those affected. “I’m most concerned about our ability to track the virus. It’s not clear what surveillance we will still have in the states and around the globe.” 

It’s a bit ironic to have a date for the end of a public health emergency; viruses don’t care about calendars.

For surveillance, she calls wastewater monitoring “the lowest-hanging fruit.” That’s because it “is not based on bias testing and has the potential to help with other outbreaks, too.” Hospitalization data is also essential, she said, as that information is the basis for public health decisions on updated vaccines and other protective measures.

While Dr. Jetelina is hopeful that COVID will someday be universally viewed as endemic, with predictable seasonal patterns, “I don’t think we are there yet. We still need to approach this virus with humility; that’s at least what I will continue to do.”

Dr. Rajnarayanan agreed that the pandemic has not yet reached endemic phase, though the situation is much improved. “Our vaccines are still protecting us from severe disease and hospitalization, and [the antiviral drug] Paxlovid is a great tool that works.”
 

Keeping tabs

While some data tracking has been eliminated, not all has, or will be. The CDC, as mentioned, continues to post cases, deaths, and a daily average of new hospital admissions weekly. The WHO’s dashboard tracks deaths, cases, and vaccine doses globally. 

In March, the WHO updated its working definitions and tracking system for SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and variants of interest, with goals of evaluating the sublineages independently and to classify new variants more clearly when that’s needed. 

Still, WHO is considering ending its declaration of COVID as a public health emergency of international concern sometime in 2023.

Some public companies are staying vigilant. The drugstore chain Walgreens said it plans to maintain its COVID-19 Index, which launched in January 2022. 

“Data regarding spread of variants is important to our understanding of viral transmission and, as new variants emerge, it will be critical to continue to track this information quickly to predict which communities are most at risk,” Anita Patel, PharmD, vice president of pharmacy services development for Walgreens, said in a statement.

The data also reinforces the importance of vaccinations and testing in helping to stop the spread of COVID-19, she said.

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

The 30-second commercial, part of the government’s We Can Do This campaign, shows everyday people going about their lives, then reminds them that, “because COVID is still out there and so are you,” it might be time to update your vaccine.

But in real life, the message that COVID-19 is still a major concern is muffled if not absent for many. Many data tracking sources, both federal and others, are no longer reporting, as often, the number of COVID cases, hospitalizations, and deaths. 

The Department of Health & Human Services in February stopped updating its public COVID data site, instead directing all queries to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which itself has been updating only weekly instead of daily since 2022. 

Nongovernmental sources, such as John Hopkins University, stopped reporting pandemic data in March, The New York Times also ended its COVID data-gathering project in March, stating that “the comprehensive real-time reporting that The Times has prioritized is no longer possible.” It will rely on reporting weekly CDC data moving forward. 

Along with the tracking sites, masking and social distancing mandates have mostly disappeared. President Joe Biden signed a bipartisan bill on April 10 that ended the national emergency for COVID. While some programs will stay in place for now, such as free vaccines, treatments, and tests, that too will go away when the federal public health emergency expires on May 11. The HHS already has issued its transition roadmap.

Many Americans, meanwhile, are still on the fence about the pandemic. A Gallup poll from March shows that about half of the American public say it’s over, and about half disagree. 

Are we closing up shop on COVID-19 too soon, or is it time? Not surprisingly, experts don’t agree. Some say the pandemic is now endemic – which broadly means the virus and its patterns are predictable and steady in designated regions – and that it’s critical to catch up on health needs neglected during the pandemic, such as screenings and other vaccinations

But others don’t think it’s reached that stage yet, saying that we are letting our guard down too soon and we can’t be blind to the possibility of another strong variant – or pandemic – emerging. Surveillance must continue, not decline, and be improved.
 

Time to move on?

In its transition roadmap released in February, the HHS notes that daily COVID reported cases are down over 90%, compared with the peak of the Omicron surge at the end of January 2022; deaths have declined by over 80%; and new hospitalizations caused by COVID have dropped by nearly 80%.

It is time to move on, said Ali Mokdad, PhD, a professor and chief strategy officer of population health at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, Seattle. 

“Many people were delaying a lot of medical care, because they were afraid” during COVID’s height, he said, explaining that elective surgeries were postponed, prenatal care went down, as did screenings for blood pressure and diabetes.

His institute was tracking COVID projections every week but stopped in December.

As for emerging variants, “we haven’t seen a variant that scares us since Omicron” in November 2021, said Dr. Mokdad, who agrees that COVID is endemic now. The subvariants that followed it are very similar, and the current vaccines are working. 

“We can move on, but we cannot drop the ball on keeping an eye on the genetic sequencing of the virus,” he said. That will enable quick identification of new variants.

If a worrisome new variant does surface, Dr. Mokdad said, certain locations and resources will be able to gear up quickly, while others won’t be as fast, but overall the United States is in a much better position now. 

Amesh Adalja, MD, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Baltimore, also believes the pandemic phase is behind us

“This can’t be an emergency in perpetuity,” he said “Just because something is not a pandemic [anymore] does not mean that all activities related to it cease.”

COVID is highly unlikely to overwhelm hospitals again, and that was the main reason for the emergency declaration, he said. 

“It’s not all or none – collapsing COVID-related [monitoring] activities into the routine monitoring that is done for other infectious disease should be seen as an achievement in taming the virus,” he said.
 

Not endemic yet

Closing up shop too early could mean we are blindsided, said Rajendram Rajnarayanan, PhD, an assistant dean of research and associate professor at the New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine at Arkansas State University in Jonesboro. 

Already, he said, large labs have closed or scaled down as testing demand has declined, and many centers that offered community testing have also closed. Plus, home test results are often not reported.

Continued monitoring is key, he said. “You have to maintain a base level of sequencing for new variants,” he said. “Right now, the variant that is ‘top dog’ in the world is XBB.1.16.” 

That’s an Omicron subvariant that the World Health Organization is currently keeping its eye on, according to a media briefing on March 29. There are about 800 sequences of it from 22 countries, mostly India, and it’s been in circulation a few months. 

Dr. Rajnarayanan said he’s not overly worried about this variant, but surveillance must continue. His own breakdown of XBB.1.16 found the subvariant in 27 countries, including the United States, as of April 10.

Ideally, Dr. Rajnarayanan would suggest four areas to keep focusing on, moving forward:

• Active, random surveillance for new variants, especially in hot spots.
• Hospital surveillance and surveillance of long-term care, especially in congregate settings where people can more easily spread the virus.
• Travelers’ surveillance, now at , according to the CDC.
• Surveillance of animals such as mink and deer, because these animals can not only pick up the virus, but the virus can mutate in the animals, which could then transmit it back to people. 

With less testing, baseline surveillance for new variants has declined. The other three surveillance areas need improvement, too, he said, as the reporting is often delayed. 

Continued surveillance is crucial, agreed Katelyn Jetelina, PhD, an epidemiologist and data scientist who publishes a newsletter, Your Local Epidemiologist, updating developments in COVID and other pressing health issues. 

“It’s a bit ironic to have a date for the end of a public health emergency; viruses don’t care about calendars,” said Dr. Jetelina, who is also director of population health analytics for the Meadows Mental Health Policy Institute. “COVID-19 is still going to be here, it’s still going to mutate,” and still cause grief for those affected. “I’m most concerned about our ability to track the virus. It’s not clear what surveillance we will still have in the states and around the globe.” 

It’s a bit ironic to have a date for the end of a public health emergency; viruses don’t care about calendars.

For surveillance, she calls wastewater monitoring “the lowest-hanging fruit.” That’s because it “is not based on bias testing and has the potential to help with other outbreaks, too.” Hospitalization data is also essential, she said, as that information is the basis for public health decisions on updated vaccines and other protective measures.

While Dr. Jetelina is hopeful that COVID will someday be universally viewed as endemic, with predictable seasonal patterns, “I don’t think we are there yet. We still need to approach this virus with humility; that’s at least what I will continue to do.”

Dr. Rajnarayanan agreed that the pandemic has not yet reached endemic phase, though the situation is much improved. “Our vaccines are still protecting us from severe disease and hospitalization, and [the antiviral drug] Paxlovid is a great tool that works.”
 

Keeping tabs

While some data tracking has been eliminated, not all has, or will be. The CDC, as mentioned, continues to post cases, deaths, and a daily average of new hospital admissions weekly. The WHO’s dashboard tracks deaths, cases, and vaccine doses globally. 

In March, the WHO updated its working definitions and tracking system for SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and variants of interest, with goals of evaluating the sublineages independently and to classify new variants more clearly when that’s needed. 

Still, WHO is considering ending its declaration of COVID as a public health emergency of international concern sometime in 2023.

Some public companies are staying vigilant. The drugstore chain Walgreens said it plans to maintain its COVID-19 Index, which launched in January 2022. 

“Data regarding spread of variants is important to our understanding of viral transmission and, as new variants emerge, it will be critical to continue to track this information quickly to predict which communities are most at risk,” Anita Patel, PharmD, vice president of pharmacy services development for Walgreens, said in a statement.

The data also reinforces the importance of vaccinations and testing in helping to stop the spread of COVID-19, she said.

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

Life expectancy in New York City fell to 78 years from 2019 to 2020, a 4.6-year drop mostly caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, NYC Health said in releasing its annual summary of vital statistics. 

Non-White demographic groups had the highest drops. Life expectancy fell to 73 years for Black New Yorkers (a 5.5-year drop from 2019) and 77.3 years for Hispanic/Latino New Yorkers (a 6-year drop.) For White New Yorkers life expectancy only fell to 80.1 years (about a 3-year drop.)

Overall, the city had a mortality rate of 241.3 deaths per 100,000 population in 2020. That’s even higher than the 228.9 deaths per 100,000 reported during the 2018 influenza pandemic, NYC Health said in a news release. 

“The sharp decline in life expectancy from 2019 was largely due to the COVID-19 pandemic,” said NYC Health Commissioner Ashwin Vasan, MD.

Another factor was a 42.2% rise in unintentional drug overdoses from 2019 to 2020. Again, racial disparities were highlighted, with the drug-related death rate highest among Black New Yorkers.

The pandemic also affected the premature death rate, meaning deaths before age 65. That rate went up 48.8% from 2019 to 2020. In the 8 previous years, from 2011 to 2019, it fell 8.6%“New Yorkers’ lifespans are falling, on top of years of relative flattening before COVID, and that cannot continue,” Dr. Vasan said in a news release. 

“It is the great challenge of our time, our city, and our Department to lay out an agenda for the next era of public health, to reverse these trends, and set us out on a new path where all New Yorkers can lead healthier, longer lives,” Dr. Vasan said.

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

Life expectancy in New York City fell to 78 years from 2019 to 2020, a 4.6-year drop mostly caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, NYC Health said in releasing its annual summary of vital statistics. 

Non-White demographic groups had the highest drops. Life expectancy fell to 73 years for Black New Yorkers (a 5.5-year drop from 2019) and 77.3 years for Hispanic/Latino New Yorkers (a 6-year drop.) For White New Yorkers life expectancy only fell to 80.1 years (about a 3-year drop.)

Overall, the city had a mortality rate of 241.3 deaths per 100,000 population in 2020. That’s even higher than the 228.9 deaths per 100,000 reported during the 2018 influenza pandemic, NYC Health said in a news release. 

“The sharp decline in life expectancy from 2019 was largely due to the COVID-19 pandemic,” said NYC Health Commissioner Ashwin Vasan, MD.

Another factor was a 42.2% rise in unintentional drug overdoses from 2019 to 2020. Again, racial disparities were highlighted, with the drug-related death rate highest among Black New Yorkers.

The pandemic also affected the premature death rate, meaning deaths before age 65. That rate went up 48.8% from 2019 to 2020. In the 8 previous years, from 2011 to 2019, it fell 8.6%“New Yorkers’ lifespans are falling, on top of years of relative flattening before COVID, and that cannot continue,” Dr. Vasan said in a news release. 

“It is the great challenge of our time, our city, and our Department to lay out an agenda for the next era of public health, to reverse these trends, and set us out on a new path where all New Yorkers can lead healthier, longer lives,” Dr. Vasan said.

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

Life expectancy in New York City fell to 78 years from 2019 to 2020, a 4.6-year drop mostly caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, NYC Health said in releasing its annual summary of vital statistics. 

Non-White demographic groups had the highest drops. Life expectancy fell to 73 years for Black New Yorkers (a 5.5-year drop from 2019) and 77.3 years for Hispanic/Latino New Yorkers (a 6-year drop.) For White New Yorkers life expectancy only fell to 80.1 years (about a 3-year drop.)

Overall, the city had a mortality rate of 241.3 deaths per 100,000 population in 2020. That’s even higher than the 228.9 deaths per 100,000 reported during the 2018 influenza pandemic, NYC Health said in a news release. 

“The sharp decline in life expectancy from 2019 was largely due to the COVID-19 pandemic,” said NYC Health Commissioner Ashwin Vasan, MD.

Another factor was a 42.2% rise in unintentional drug overdoses from 2019 to 2020. Again, racial disparities were highlighted, with the drug-related death rate highest among Black New Yorkers.

The pandemic also affected the premature death rate, meaning deaths before age 65. That rate went up 48.8% from 2019 to 2020. In the 8 previous years, from 2011 to 2019, it fell 8.6%“New Yorkers’ lifespans are falling, on top of years of relative flattening before COVID, and that cannot continue,” Dr. Vasan said in a news release. 

“It is the great challenge of our time, our city, and our Department to lay out an agenda for the next era of public health, to reverse these trends, and set us out on a new path where all New Yorkers can lead healthier, longer lives,” Dr. Vasan said.

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