Ob.Gyn. News

Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) are associated with a greater than twofold risk of developing hypertension a decade later, new research suggests.

Investigators prospectively studied patients who had and who had not experienced HDP 10 years earlier; most self-identified as Black. They found that those with a history of HDP had a 2.4-fold higher risk for new hypertension than those without such a history.

Patients who developed hypertension showed greater left ventricular (LV) remodeling (including greater relative wall thickness), worse diastolic function, more abnormal longitudinal strain, and higher effective arterial elastance than those without hypertension, regardless of the presence or absence of an HDP history.

“We know that patients with preeclampsia are at a higher risk for heart disease later in life, and it seems to be driven by the development of new hypertension,” lead author Lisa Levine, MD, MSCE, director, pregnancy and heart disease program, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told this news organization.

It is critically important to “study a more diverse population, including a larger percentage of Black patients, since HDP and CVD both disproportionately affect Black women,” Dr. Levine said. “And it is important to screen patients for hypertension, getting them into primary care for visits, getting them diagnosed sooner, and treating them early for hypertension.”

The study was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Understudied population

HDP includes gestational hypertension and preeclampsia, Dr. Levine explained. “We already know that patients who have had preeclampsia are at higher risk for stroke, heart failure [HF], and myocardial infarction later in life,” she said. The goal of this study was to see whether, instead of waiting 20-30 years, they could look only 10 years later to see which patients would be at highest risk for future heart disease, Dr. Levine said.

In particular, it’s known that cardiovascular disease (CVD) and HDP “disproportionately affect Black women,” Dr. Levine continued. “What makes our study different from other studies is that we focused predominantly on the Black African American population, since it’s understudied and also at highest risk for preeclampsia and heart disease,” she said.

They set out to “evaluate differences in CV risk factors as well as subclinical CVD among a well-characterized group of racially diverse patients with and without a history of HDP 10 years earlier,” the authors state.

To investigate the question, the researchers performed a prospective, cross-sectional study between April 2016 and December 2019 of patients with and without a diagnosis of HDP during a previous pregnancy at least 10 years earlier (from 2005 to 2007). Patients were drawn from a parent cohort in a previously performed observational study of patients with preeclampsia or HDP and normotensive control subjects.

The current study focused on 135 patients (85% Black), 84 with a history of HDP and 51 without. Of the Black patients, 91.7% had a history of HDP, compared with 8.3% of the White patients.

During an in-person visit, the researchers assessed participants’ blood pressure and other clinical risk factors for CVD, including fasting glucose and lipids. They also used noninvasive means to measure cardiac and vascular structure and function.
 

Importance of routine screening

The risk for new hypertension was 2.4 times higher in patients with a history of HDP than in those without HDP, with stage 2 hypertension noted in 56.0% of patients with and in 23.5% without HDP (P < .001). This equates to a relative risk of 2.4 (95% confidence interval, 1.39-4.14), even after adjustment for race, maternal age, body mass index, and history of preterm birth.

“Importantly, 18% of patients with a history of HDP met criteria for a new diagnosis of hypertension identified through the study visit,” the authors report.

There were no differences in many cardiac measures (left ventricular (LV) structure, global longitudinal strain, diastolic function, arterial stiffness, or endothelial function) between patients with and without a history of HDP.

However, patients with chronic hypertension (CHTN), regardless of HDP history, had other cardiac abnormalities, including greater LV remodeling, worse diastolic function, and higher effective arterial elastance.

“The data regarding increased risk of hypertension after HDP is not a novel finding, however our cohort is unique in the high baseline rate of stage 2 hypertension, even among patients without a history of HDP,” the authors comment.

In fact, when they looked at the diagnosis of either stage 1 or stage 2 hypertension, they found that more than 80% of patients with and 60% of patients without a history of HDP had hypertension. Notably, among patients with a history of HDP, only 39% had a formal diagnosis of either stage 1 or stage 2 hypertension, further highlighting “the importance of routine screening for CHTN in this population,” they state.

“Further studies should evaluate the optimal time period to screen for postpartum hypertension and a monitoring plan for these at-risk women,” Dr. Levine added.
 

‘Opportunity of a lifetime’

Commenting for this news organization, Malamo Countouris, MD, MS, assistant professor of medicine and codirector, postpartum hypertension program, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, said hypertension is “underrecognized and undertreated among young, premenopausal, Black women.”

Pregnancy “gives us a clue, through HDP, as to who is high risk to develop chronic hypertension and subsequent subclinical structural cardiac changes in the decade after delivery,” said Dr. Countouris, who was not involved with the study.

“The jury is still out on whether HDP contributes independently to cardiovascular changes in the years after delivery. Ongoing research is needed to clarify the unique or compounding contributions of pregnancy complications and hypertension,” she added.

In an accompanying editorial , Josephine Chou, MD, MS, director of cardio-obstetrics and codirector of maternal cardiology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., called the study a “laudable contribution to understanding of HDP and hypertension within the first decade after pregnancy,” saying that it “paves the way for future efforts to improve postpartum CV care, enabling us to grasp this opportunity of a lifetime to ultimately reduce maternal and pregnancy-related morbidity and mortality.”

This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and the American Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Foundation. Dr. Levine reports no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper. Dr. Countouris reports receiving funding from the American Heart Association. Dr. Chou reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) are associated with a greater than twofold risk of developing hypertension a decade later, new research suggests.

Investigators prospectively studied patients who had and who had not experienced HDP 10 years earlier; most self-identified as Black. They found that those with a history of HDP had a 2.4-fold higher risk for new hypertension than those without such a history.

Patients who developed hypertension showed greater left ventricular (LV) remodeling (including greater relative wall thickness), worse diastolic function, more abnormal longitudinal strain, and higher effective arterial elastance than those without hypertension, regardless of the presence or absence of an HDP history.

“We know that patients with preeclampsia are at a higher risk for heart disease later in life, and it seems to be driven by the development of new hypertension,” lead author Lisa Levine, MD, MSCE, director, pregnancy and heart disease program, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told this news organization.

It is critically important to “study a more diverse population, including a larger percentage of Black patients, since HDP and CVD both disproportionately affect Black women,” Dr. Levine said. “And it is important to screen patients for hypertension, getting them into primary care for visits, getting them diagnosed sooner, and treating them early for hypertension.”

The study was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Understudied population

HDP includes gestational hypertension and preeclampsia, Dr. Levine explained. “We already know that patients who have had preeclampsia are at higher risk for stroke, heart failure [HF], and myocardial infarction later in life,” she said. The goal of this study was to see whether, instead of waiting 20-30 years, they could look only 10 years later to see which patients would be at highest risk for future heart disease, Dr. Levine said.

In particular, it’s known that cardiovascular disease (CVD) and HDP “disproportionately affect Black women,” Dr. Levine continued. “What makes our study different from other studies is that we focused predominantly on the Black African American population, since it’s understudied and also at highest risk for preeclampsia and heart disease,” she said.

They set out to “evaluate differences in CV risk factors as well as subclinical CVD among a well-characterized group of racially diverse patients with and without a history of HDP 10 years earlier,” the authors state.

To investigate the question, the researchers performed a prospective, cross-sectional study between April 2016 and December 2019 of patients with and without a diagnosis of HDP during a previous pregnancy at least 10 years earlier (from 2005 to 2007). Patients were drawn from a parent cohort in a previously performed observational study of patients with preeclampsia or HDP and normotensive control subjects.

The current study focused on 135 patients (85% Black), 84 with a history of HDP and 51 without. Of the Black patients, 91.7% had a history of HDP, compared with 8.3% of the White patients.

During an in-person visit, the researchers assessed participants’ blood pressure and other clinical risk factors for CVD, including fasting glucose and lipids. They also used noninvasive means to measure cardiac and vascular structure and function.
 

Importance of routine screening

The risk for new hypertension was 2.4 times higher in patients with a history of HDP than in those without HDP, with stage 2 hypertension noted in 56.0% of patients with and in 23.5% without HDP (P < .001). This equates to a relative risk of 2.4 (95% confidence interval, 1.39-4.14), even after adjustment for race, maternal age, body mass index, and history of preterm birth.

“Importantly, 18% of patients with a history of HDP met criteria for a new diagnosis of hypertension identified through the study visit,” the authors report.

There were no differences in many cardiac measures (left ventricular (LV) structure, global longitudinal strain, diastolic function, arterial stiffness, or endothelial function) between patients with and without a history of HDP.

However, patients with chronic hypertension (CHTN), regardless of HDP history, had other cardiac abnormalities, including greater LV remodeling, worse diastolic function, and higher effective arterial elastance.

“The data regarding increased risk of hypertension after HDP is not a novel finding, however our cohort is unique in the high baseline rate of stage 2 hypertension, even among patients without a history of HDP,” the authors comment.

In fact, when they looked at the diagnosis of either stage 1 or stage 2 hypertension, they found that more than 80% of patients with and 60% of patients without a history of HDP had hypertension. Notably, among patients with a history of HDP, only 39% had a formal diagnosis of either stage 1 or stage 2 hypertension, further highlighting “the importance of routine screening for CHTN in this population,” they state.

“Further studies should evaluate the optimal time period to screen for postpartum hypertension and a monitoring plan for these at-risk women,” Dr. Levine added.
 

‘Opportunity of a lifetime’

Commenting for this news organization, Malamo Countouris, MD, MS, assistant professor of medicine and codirector, postpartum hypertension program, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, said hypertension is “underrecognized and undertreated among young, premenopausal, Black women.”

Pregnancy “gives us a clue, through HDP, as to who is high risk to develop chronic hypertension and subsequent subclinical structural cardiac changes in the decade after delivery,” said Dr. Countouris, who was not involved with the study.

“The jury is still out on whether HDP contributes independently to cardiovascular changes in the years after delivery. Ongoing research is needed to clarify the unique or compounding contributions of pregnancy complications and hypertension,” she added.

In an accompanying editorial , Josephine Chou, MD, MS, director of cardio-obstetrics and codirector of maternal cardiology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., called the study a “laudable contribution to understanding of HDP and hypertension within the first decade after pregnancy,” saying that it “paves the way for future efforts to improve postpartum CV care, enabling us to grasp this opportunity of a lifetime to ultimately reduce maternal and pregnancy-related morbidity and mortality.”

This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and the American Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Foundation. Dr. Levine reports no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper. Dr. Countouris reports receiving funding from the American Heart Association. Dr. Chou reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) are associated with a greater than twofold risk of developing hypertension a decade later, new research suggests.

Investigators prospectively studied patients who had and who had not experienced HDP 10 years earlier; most self-identified as Black. They found that those with a history of HDP had a 2.4-fold higher risk for new hypertension than those without such a history.

Patients who developed hypertension showed greater left ventricular (LV) remodeling (including greater relative wall thickness), worse diastolic function, more abnormal longitudinal strain, and higher effective arterial elastance than those without hypertension, regardless of the presence or absence of an HDP history.

“We know that patients with preeclampsia are at a higher risk for heart disease later in life, and it seems to be driven by the development of new hypertension,” lead author Lisa Levine, MD, MSCE, director, pregnancy and heart disease program, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told this news organization.

It is critically important to “study a more diverse population, including a larger percentage of Black patients, since HDP and CVD both disproportionately affect Black women,” Dr. Levine said. “And it is important to screen patients for hypertension, getting them into primary care for visits, getting them diagnosed sooner, and treating them early for hypertension.”

The study was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Understudied population

HDP includes gestational hypertension and preeclampsia, Dr. Levine explained. “We already know that patients who have had preeclampsia are at higher risk for stroke, heart failure [HF], and myocardial infarction later in life,” she said. The goal of this study was to see whether, instead of waiting 20-30 years, they could look only 10 years later to see which patients would be at highest risk for future heart disease, Dr. Levine said.

In particular, it’s known that cardiovascular disease (CVD) and HDP “disproportionately affect Black women,” Dr. Levine continued. “What makes our study different from other studies is that we focused predominantly on the Black African American population, since it’s understudied and also at highest risk for preeclampsia and heart disease,” she said.

They set out to “evaluate differences in CV risk factors as well as subclinical CVD among a well-characterized group of racially diverse patients with and without a history of HDP 10 years earlier,” the authors state.

To investigate the question, the researchers performed a prospective, cross-sectional study between April 2016 and December 2019 of patients with and without a diagnosis of HDP during a previous pregnancy at least 10 years earlier (from 2005 to 2007). Patients were drawn from a parent cohort in a previously performed observational study of patients with preeclampsia or HDP and normotensive control subjects.

The current study focused on 135 patients (85% Black), 84 with a history of HDP and 51 without. Of the Black patients, 91.7% had a history of HDP, compared with 8.3% of the White patients.

During an in-person visit, the researchers assessed participants’ blood pressure and other clinical risk factors for CVD, including fasting glucose and lipids. They also used noninvasive means to measure cardiac and vascular structure and function.
 

Importance of routine screening

The risk for new hypertension was 2.4 times higher in patients with a history of HDP than in those without HDP, with stage 2 hypertension noted in 56.0% of patients with and in 23.5% without HDP (P < .001). This equates to a relative risk of 2.4 (95% confidence interval, 1.39-4.14), even after adjustment for race, maternal age, body mass index, and history of preterm birth.

“Importantly, 18% of patients with a history of HDP met criteria for a new diagnosis of hypertension identified through the study visit,” the authors report.

There were no differences in many cardiac measures (left ventricular (LV) structure, global longitudinal strain, diastolic function, arterial stiffness, or endothelial function) between patients with and without a history of HDP.

However, patients with chronic hypertension (CHTN), regardless of HDP history, had other cardiac abnormalities, including greater LV remodeling, worse diastolic function, and higher effective arterial elastance.

“The data regarding increased risk of hypertension after HDP is not a novel finding, however our cohort is unique in the high baseline rate of stage 2 hypertension, even among patients without a history of HDP,” the authors comment.

In fact, when they looked at the diagnosis of either stage 1 or stage 2 hypertension, they found that more than 80% of patients with and 60% of patients without a history of HDP had hypertension. Notably, among patients with a history of HDP, only 39% had a formal diagnosis of either stage 1 or stage 2 hypertension, further highlighting “the importance of routine screening for CHTN in this population,” they state.

“Further studies should evaluate the optimal time period to screen for postpartum hypertension and a monitoring plan for these at-risk women,” Dr. Levine added.
 

‘Opportunity of a lifetime’

Commenting for this news organization, Malamo Countouris, MD, MS, assistant professor of medicine and codirector, postpartum hypertension program, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, said hypertension is “underrecognized and undertreated among young, premenopausal, Black women.”

Pregnancy “gives us a clue, through HDP, as to who is high risk to develop chronic hypertension and subsequent subclinical structural cardiac changes in the decade after delivery,” said Dr. Countouris, who was not involved with the study.

“The jury is still out on whether HDP contributes independently to cardiovascular changes in the years after delivery. Ongoing research is needed to clarify the unique or compounding contributions of pregnancy complications and hypertension,” she added.

In an accompanying editorial , Josephine Chou, MD, MS, director of cardio-obstetrics and codirector of maternal cardiology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., called the study a “laudable contribution to understanding of HDP and hypertension within the first decade after pregnancy,” saying that it “paves the way for future efforts to improve postpartum CV care, enabling us to grasp this opportunity of a lifetime to ultimately reduce maternal and pregnancy-related morbidity and mortality.”

This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and the American Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Foundation. Dr. Levine reports no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper. Dr. Countouris reports receiving funding from the American Heart Association. Dr. Chou reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Similar to a phenomenon already well documented in women, inadequate nutrition appears to be linked to hormonal abnormalities and potentially preventable tibial cortical bone density loss in athletic men, according to results of a small, prospective study.

Based on these findings, “we suspect that a subset of male runners might not be fueling their bodies with enough nutrition and calories for their physical activity,” reported Melanie S. Haines, MD, at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

This is not the first study to suggest male athletes are at risk of a condition equivalent to what has been commonly referred to as the female athlete triad, but it enlarges the objective data that the phenomenon is real, and it makes insufficient availability of energy the likely cause.

In women, the triad is described as a lack of adequate stored energy, irregular menses, and bone density loss. In men, menstrual cycles are not relevant, of course, but this study like others suggests a link between the failure to maintain adequate stores of energy, disturbances in hormone function, and decreased bone density in both men and women, Dr. Haines explained.
 

RED-S vs. male or female athlete triad

“There is now a move away from the term female athlete triad or male athlete triad,” Dr. Haines reported. Rather the factors of failing to maintain adequate energy for metabolic demands, hormonal disturbances, and bone density loss appear to be relevant to both sexes, according to Dr. Haines, an endocrinologist at Massachusetts General Hospital and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. She said several groups, including the International Olympic Committee (IOC), have transitioned to the term RED-S to apply to both sexes.

“RED-S is an acronym for relative energy deficiency in sport, and it appears to be gaining traction,” Dr. Haines said in an interview.

According to her study and others, excessive lean body mass from failure to supply sufficient energy for physiological needs “negatively affects hormones and bone,” Dr. Haines explained. In men and women, endocrine disturbances are triggered when insufficient calories lead to inadequate macro- and micronutrients.

In this study, 31 men aged 16-30 years were evaluated. Fifteen were in the athlete group, defined by running at least 30 miles per week for at least the previous 6 months. There were 16 control subjects; all exercised less than 2 hours per week and did not participate in team sports, but they were not permitted in the study if their body mass index exceeded 27.5 kg/m².
 

Athletes vs. otherwise healthy controls

Conditions that affect bone health were exclusion criteria in both groups, and neither group was permitted to take medications affecting bone health other than dietary calcium or vitamin D supplements for 2 months prior to the study.

Tibial cortical porosity was significantly greater – signaling deterioration in microarchitecture – in athletes, compared with control subjects (P = .003), according to quantitative computed tomography measurements. There was also significantly lower tibial cortical bone mineral density (P = .008) among athletes relative to controls.

Conversely, tibial trabecular measures of bone density and architecture were better among athletes than controls, but this was expected and did not contradict the hypothesis of the study.

“Trabecular bone refers to the inner part of the bone, which increases with weight-bearing exercise, but cortical bone is the outer shell, and the source of stress fractures,” Dr. Haines explained.

The median age of both the athletes and the controls was 24 years. Baseline measurements were similar. Body mass index, fat mass, estradiol, and leptin were all numerically lower in the athletes than controls, but none were significant, although there was a trend for the difference in leptin (P = .085).
 

Hormones correlated with tibial failure load

When these characteristics were evaluated in the context of mean tibial failure load, a metric related to strength, there was a strongly significant positive association with lean body mass (R = 0.85; P < 0.001) and estradiol level (R = 0.66; P = .007). The relationship with leptin also reached significance (R = 0.59; P = .046).

Unexpectedly, there was no relationship between testosterone and tibial failure load. The reason is unclear, but Dr. Haines’s interpretation is that the relationship between specific hormonal disturbances and bone density loss “might not be as simple” as once hypothesized.

The next step is a longitudinal evaluation of the same group of athletes to follow changes in the relationship between these variables over time, according to Dr. Haines.

Eventually, with evidence that there is a causal relationship between nutrition, hormonal changes, and bone loss, the research in this area will focus on better detection of risk and prophylactic strategies.

“Intervention trials to show that we can prevent stress factors will be difficult to perform,” Dr. Haines acknowledged, but she said that preventing adverse changes in bone at relatively young ages could have implications for long-term bone health, including protection from osteoporosis later in life.

The research presented by Dr. Haines is consistent with an area of research that is several decades old, at least in females, according to Siobhan M. Statuta, MD, a sports medicine primary care specialist at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville. The evidence that the same phenomenon occurs in men is more recent, but she said that it is now well accepted the there is a parallel hormonal issue in men and women.

“It is not a question of not eating enough. Often, athletes continue to consume the same diet, but their activity increases,” Dr. Statuta explained. “The problem is that they are not supplying enough of the calories they need to sustain the energy they are expending. You might say they are not fueling their engines appropriately.”

In 2014, the International Olympic Committee published a consensus statement on RED-S. They described this as a condition in which a state of energy deficiency leads to numerous complications in athletes, not just osteoporosis. Rather, a host of physiological systems, ranging from gastrointestinal complaints to cardiovascular events, were described.
 

RED-S addresses health beyond bones

“The RED-S theory is better described as a spoke-and-wheel concept rather than a triad. While inadequate energy availability is important to both, RED-S places this at the center of the wheel with spokes leading to all the possible complications rather than as a first event in a limited triad,” Dr. Statuta said in an interview.

However, she noted that the term RED-S is not yet appropriate to replace that of the male and female athlete triad.

“More research is required to hash out the relationship of a body in a state of energy deficiency and how it affects the entire body, which is the principle of RED-S,” Dr. Statuta said. “There likely are scientific effects, and we are currently investigating these relationships more.”

“These are really quite similar entities but have different foci,” she added. Based on data collected over several decades, “the triad narrows in on two body systems affected by low energy – the reproductive system and bones. RED-S incorporates these same systems yet adds on many more organ systems.

The original group of researchers have remained loyal to the concept of the triad that involves inadequate availability of energy followed by hormonal irregularities and osteoporosis. This group, the Female and Male Athlete Triad Coalition, has issued publications on this topic several times. Consensus statements were updated last year.

“The premise is that the triad leading to bone loss is shared by both men and women, even if the clinical manifestations differ,” said Dr. Statuta. The most notable difference is that men do not experience menstrual irregularities, but Dr. Statuta suggested that the clinical consequences are not necessarily any less.

“Males do not have menstrual cycles as an outward marker of an endocrine disturbance, so it is harder to recognize clinically, but I think there is agreement that not having enough energy available is the trigger of endocrine changes and then bone loss is relevant to both sexes,” she said. She said this is supported by a growing body of evidence, including the data presented by Dr. Haines at the Endocrine Society meeting.

Dr. Haines and Dr. Statuta report no potential conflicts of interest.

Similar to a phenomenon already well documented in women, inadequate nutrition appears to be linked to hormonal abnormalities and potentially preventable tibial cortical bone density loss in athletic men, according to results of a small, prospective study.

Based on these findings, “we suspect that a subset of male runners might not be fueling their bodies with enough nutrition and calories for their physical activity,” reported Melanie S. Haines, MD, at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

This is not the first study to suggest male athletes are at risk of a condition equivalent to what has been commonly referred to as the female athlete triad, but it enlarges the objective data that the phenomenon is real, and it makes insufficient availability of energy the likely cause.

In women, the triad is described as a lack of adequate stored energy, irregular menses, and bone density loss. In men, menstrual cycles are not relevant, of course, but this study like others suggests a link between the failure to maintain adequate stores of energy, disturbances in hormone function, and decreased bone density in both men and women, Dr. Haines explained.
 

RED-S vs. male or female athlete triad

“There is now a move away from the term female athlete triad or male athlete triad,” Dr. Haines reported. Rather the factors of failing to maintain adequate energy for metabolic demands, hormonal disturbances, and bone density loss appear to be relevant to both sexes, according to Dr. Haines, an endocrinologist at Massachusetts General Hospital and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. She said several groups, including the International Olympic Committee (IOC), have transitioned to the term RED-S to apply to both sexes.

“RED-S is an acronym for relative energy deficiency in sport, and it appears to be gaining traction,” Dr. Haines said in an interview.

According to her study and others, excessive lean body mass from failure to supply sufficient energy for physiological needs “negatively affects hormones and bone,” Dr. Haines explained. In men and women, endocrine disturbances are triggered when insufficient calories lead to inadequate macro- and micronutrients.

In this study, 31 men aged 16-30 years were evaluated. Fifteen were in the athlete group, defined by running at least 30 miles per week for at least the previous 6 months. There were 16 control subjects; all exercised less than 2 hours per week and did not participate in team sports, but they were not permitted in the study if their body mass index exceeded 27.5 kg/m².
 

Athletes vs. otherwise healthy controls

Conditions that affect bone health were exclusion criteria in both groups, and neither group was permitted to take medications affecting bone health other than dietary calcium or vitamin D supplements for 2 months prior to the study.

Tibial cortical porosity was significantly greater – signaling deterioration in microarchitecture – in athletes, compared with control subjects (P = .003), according to quantitative computed tomography measurements. There was also significantly lower tibial cortical bone mineral density (P = .008) among athletes relative to controls.

Conversely, tibial trabecular measures of bone density and architecture were better among athletes than controls, but this was expected and did not contradict the hypothesis of the study.

“Trabecular bone refers to the inner part of the bone, which increases with weight-bearing exercise, but cortical bone is the outer shell, and the source of stress fractures,” Dr. Haines explained.

The median age of both the athletes and the controls was 24 years. Baseline measurements were similar. Body mass index, fat mass, estradiol, and leptin were all numerically lower in the athletes than controls, but none were significant, although there was a trend for the difference in leptin (P = .085).
 

Hormones correlated with tibial failure load

When these characteristics were evaluated in the context of mean tibial failure load, a metric related to strength, there was a strongly significant positive association with lean body mass (R = 0.85; P < 0.001) and estradiol level (R = 0.66; P = .007). The relationship with leptin also reached significance (R = 0.59; P = .046).

Unexpectedly, there was no relationship between testosterone and tibial failure load. The reason is unclear, but Dr. Haines’s interpretation is that the relationship between specific hormonal disturbances and bone density loss “might not be as simple” as once hypothesized.

The next step is a longitudinal evaluation of the same group of athletes to follow changes in the relationship between these variables over time, according to Dr. Haines.

Eventually, with evidence that there is a causal relationship between nutrition, hormonal changes, and bone loss, the research in this area will focus on better detection of risk and prophylactic strategies.

“Intervention trials to show that we can prevent stress factors will be difficult to perform,” Dr. Haines acknowledged, but she said that preventing adverse changes in bone at relatively young ages could have implications for long-term bone health, including protection from osteoporosis later in life.

The research presented by Dr. Haines is consistent with an area of research that is several decades old, at least in females, according to Siobhan M. Statuta, MD, a sports medicine primary care specialist at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville. The evidence that the same phenomenon occurs in men is more recent, but she said that it is now well accepted the there is a parallel hormonal issue in men and women.

“It is not a question of not eating enough. Often, athletes continue to consume the same diet, but their activity increases,” Dr. Statuta explained. “The problem is that they are not supplying enough of the calories they need to sustain the energy they are expending. You might say they are not fueling their engines appropriately.”

In 2014, the International Olympic Committee published a consensus statement on RED-S. They described this as a condition in which a state of energy deficiency leads to numerous complications in athletes, not just osteoporosis. Rather, a host of physiological systems, ranging from gastrointestinal complaints to cardiovascular events, were described.
 

RED-S addresses health beyond bones

“The RED-S theory is better described as a spoke-and-wheel concept rather than a triad. While inadequate energy availability is important to both, RED-S places this at the center of the wheel with spokes leading to all the possible complications rather than as a first event in a limited triad,” Dr. Statuta said in an interview.

However, she noted that the term RED-S is not yet appropriate to replace that of the male and female athlete triad.

“More research is required to hash out the relationship of a body in a state of energy deficiency and how it affects the entire body, which is the principle of RED-S,” Dr. Statuta said. “There likely are scientific effects, and we are currently investigating these relationships more.”

“These are really quite similar entities but have different foci,” she added. Based on data collected over several decades, “the triad narrows in on two body systems affected by low energy – the reproductive system and bones. RED-S incorporates these same systems yet adds on many more organ systems.

The original group of researchers have remained loyal to the concept of the triad that involves inadequate availability of energy followed by hormonal irregularities and osteoporosis. This group, the Female and Male Athlete Triad Coalition, has issued publications on this topic several times. Consensus statements were updated last year.

“The premise is that the triad leading to bone loss is shared by both men and women, even if the clinical manifestations differ,” said Dr. Statuta. The most notable difference is that men do not experience menstrual irregularities, but Dr. Statuta suggested that the clinical consequences are not necessarily any less.

“Males do not have menstrual cycles as an outward marker of an endocrine disturbance, so it is harder to recognize clinically, but I think there is agreement that not having enough energy available is the trigger of endocrine changes and then bone loss is relevant to both sexes,” she said. She said this is supported by a growing body of evidence, including the data presented by Dr. Haines at the Endocrine Society meeting.

Dr. Haines and Dr. Statuta report no potential conflicts of interest.

Similar to a phenomenon already well documented in women, inadequate nutrition appears to be linked to hormonal abnormalities and potentially preventable tibial cortical bone density loss in athletic men, according to results of a small, prospective study.

Based on these findings, “we suspect that a subset of male runners might not be fueling their bodies with enough nutrition and calories for their physical activity,” reported Melanie S. Haines, MD, at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

This is not the first study to suggest male athletes are at risk of a condition equivalent to what has been commonly referred to as the female athlete triad, but it enlarges the objective data that the phenomenon is real, and it makes insufficient availability of energy the likely cause.

In women, the triad is described as a lack of adequate stored energy, irregular menses, and bone density loss. In men, menstrual cycles are not relevant, of course, but this study like others suggests a link between the failure to maintain adequate stores of energy, disturbances in hormone function, and decreased bone density in both men and women, Dr. Haines explained.
 

RED-S vs. male or female athlete triad

“There is now a move away from the term female athlete triad or male athlete triad,” Dr. Haines reported. Rather the factors of failing to maintain adequate energy for metabolic demands, hormonal disturbances, and bone density loss appear to be relevant to both sexes, according to Dr. Haines, an endocrinologist at Massachusetts General Hospital and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. She said several groups, including the International Olympic Committee (IOC), have transitioned to the term RED-S to apply to both sexes.

“RED-S is an acronym for relative energy deficiency in sport, and it appears to be gaining traction,” Dr. Haines said in an interview.

According to her study and others, excessive lean body mass from failure to supply sufficient energy for physiological needs “negatively affects hormones and bone,” Dr. Haines explained. In men and women, endocrine disturbances are triggered when insufficient calories lead to inadequate macro- and micronutrients.

In this study, 31 men aged 16-30 years were evaluated. Fifteen were in the athlete group, defined by running at least 30 miles per week for at least the previous 6 months. There were 16 control subjects; all exercised less than 2 hours per week and did not participate in team sports, but they were not permitted in the study if their body mass index exceeded 27.5 kg/m².
 

Athletes vs. otherwise healthy controls

Conditions that affect bone health were exclusion criteria in both groups, and neither group was permitted to take medications affecting bone health other than dietary calcium or vitamin D supplements for 2 months prior to the study.

Tibial cortical porosity was significantly greater – signaling deterioration in microarchitecture – in athletes, compared with control subjects (P = .003), according to quantitative computed tomography measurements. There was also significantly lower tibial cortical bone mineral density (P = .008) among athletes relative to controls.

Conversely, tibial trabecular measures of bone density and architecture were better among athletes than controls, but this was expected and did not contradict the hypothesis of the study.

“Trabecular bone refers to the inner part of the bone, which increases with weight-bearing exercise, but cortical bone is the outer shell, and the source of stress fractures,” Dr. Haines explained.

The median age of both the athletes and the controls was 24 years. Baseline measurements were similar. Body mass index, fat mass, estradiol, and leptin were all numerically lower in the athletes than controls, but none were significant, although there was a trend for the difference in leptin (P = .085).
 

Hormones correlated with tibial failure load

When these characteristics were evaluated in the context of mean tibial failure load, a metric related to strength, there was a strongly significant positive association with lean body mass (R = 0.85; P < 0.001) and estradiol level (R = 0.66; P = .007). The relationship with leptin also reached significance (R = 0.59; P = .046).

Unexpectedly, there was no relationship between testosterone and tibial failure load. The reason is unclear, but Dr. Haines’s interpretation is that the relationship between specific hormonal disturbances and bone density loss “might not be as simple” as once hypothesized.

The next step is a longitudinal evaluation of the same group of athletes to follow changes in the relationship between these variables over time, according to Dr. Haines.

Eventually, with evidence that there is a causal relationship between nutrition, hormonal changes, and bone loss, the research in this area will focus on better detection of risk and prophylactic strategies.

“Intervention trials to show that we can prevent stress factors will be difficult to perform,” Dr. Haines acknowledged, but she said that preventing adverse changes in bone at relatively young ages could have implications for long-term bone health, including protection from osteoporosis later in life.

The research presented by Dr. Haines is consistent with an area of research that is several decades old, at least in females, according to Siobhan M. Statuta, MD, a sports medicine primary care specialist at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville. The evidence that the same phenomenon occurs in men is more recent, but she said that it is now well accepted the there is a parallel hormonal issue in men and women.

“It is not a question of not eating enough. Often, athletes continue to consume the same diet, but their activity increases,” Dr. Statuta explained. “The problem is that they are not supplying enough of the calories they need to sustain the energy they are expending. You might say they are not fueling their engines appropriately.”

In 2014, the International Olympic Committee published a consensus statement on RED-S. They described this as a condition in which a state of energy deficiency leads to numerous complications in athletes, not just osteoporosis. Rather, a host of physiological systems, ranging from gastrointestinal complaints to cardiovascular events, were described.
 

RED-S addresses health beyond bones

“The RED-S theory is better described as a spoke-and-wheel concept rather than a triad. While inadequate energy availability is important to both, RED-S places this at the center of the wheel with spokes leading to all the possible complications rather than as a first event in a limited triad,” Dr. Statuta said in an interview.

However, she noted that the term RED-S is not yet appropriate to replace that of the male and female athlete triad.

“More research is required to hash out the relationship of a body in a state of energy deficiency and how it affects the entire body, which is the principle of RED-S,” Dr. Statuta said. “There likely are scientific effects, and we are currently investigating these relationships more.”

“These are really quite similar entities but have different foci,” she added. Based on data collected over several decades, “the triad narrows in on two body systems affected by low energy – the reproductive system and bones. RED-S incorporates these same systems yet adds on many more organ systems.

The original group of researchers have remained loyal to the concept of the triad that involves inadequate availability of energy followed by hormonal irregularities and osteoporosis. This group, the Female and Male Athlete Triad Coalition, has issued publications on this topic several times. Consensus statements were updated last year.

“The premise is that the triad leading to bone loss is shared by both men and women, even if the clinical manifestations differ,” said Dr. Statuta. The most notable difference is that men do not experience menstrual irregularities, but Dr. Statuta suggested that the clinical consequences are not necessarily any less.

“Males do not have menstrual cycles as an outward marker of an endocrine disturbance, so it is harder to recognize clinically, but I think there is agreement that not having enough energy available is the trigger of endocrine changes and then bone loss is relevant to both sexes,” she said. She said this is supported by a growing body of evidence, including the data presented by Dr. Haines at the Endocrine Society meeting.

Dr. Haines and Dr. Statuta report no potential conflicts of interest.

The White House announced an effort on June 21 to require tobacco companies to reduce nicotine levels in cigarettes sold in the United States.

The Department of Health and Human Services posted a notice that details plans for a new rule to create a maximum allowed amount of nicotine in certain tobacco products. The Food and Drug Administration would take the action, the notice said, “to reduce addictiveness to certain tobacco products, thus giving addicted users a greater ability to quit.” The product standard would also help keep nonsmokers interested in trying tobacco, mainly youth, from starting to smoke and become regulars.

AtnoYdur/Thinkstock

“Lowering nicotine levels to minimally addictive or non-addictive levels would decrease the likelihood that future generations of young people become addicted to cigarettes and help more currently addicted smokers to quit,” FDA Commissioner Robert Califf, MD, said in a statement.

The FDA, in charge of regulating cigarettes, issues a proposed rule when changes are discussed. That would be followed by a period for public comments before a final rule could be issued.

The proposed rule was first reported by The Washington Post.

The FDA in 2018 published a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that estimated that a potential limit on nicotine in cigarettes could, by the year 2100, prevent more than 33 million people from becoming regular smokers, and prevent the deaths of more than 8 million people from tobacco-related illnesses.

The action to reduce nicotine levels would fit in with President Joe Biden’s goal of reducing cancer death rates by half over 25 years. Each year, according to the American Cancer Society, about 480,000 deaths (about 1 in 5) are related to smoking. Currently, about 34 million American adults still smoke cigarettes.

Matthew Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, called the proposed rule a “truly game-changing proposal.”

“There is no other single action our country can take that would prevent more young people from becoming addicted to tobacco or have a greater impact on reducing deaths from cancer, cardiovascular disease and respiratory disease,” Mr. Myers said in a statement.

However, he said, “these gains will only be realized if the administration and the FDA demonstrate a full-throated commitment to finalizing and implementing this proposal.”

The FDA proposed the nicotine reduction strategy in talks with the White House and the Department of Health and Human Services early in 2021, according to the Post.

Earlier this year, the FDA issued a proposed rule to ban menthol flavoring in cigarettes. The agency is accepting public comments though July 5.

The action of reducing nicotine levels would likely take years to complete, Mitch Zeller, JD, recently retired director of the FDA Center for Tobacco Products, told the Post.

In 2018, the FDA issued a proposed ruling to set a standard for maximum nicotine levels in cigarettes.

Advocates say the action of slashing nicotine, the active – and addictive – ingredient in cigarettes, would save millions of lives for generations to come. Opponents liken it to the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s and predict the action will fail.

Others say that if limits are put on nicotine levels, adults should have greater access to noncombustible alternatives.

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

The White House announced an effort on June 21 to require tobacco companies to reduce nicotine levels in cigarettes sold in the United States.

The Department of Health and Human Services posted a notice that details plans for a new rule to create a maximum allowed amount of nicotine in certain tobacco products. The Food and Drug Administration would take the action, the notice said, “to reduce addictiveness to certain tobacco products, thus giving addicted users a greater ability to quit.” The product standard would also help keep nonsmokers interested in trying tobacco, mainly youth, from starting to smoke and become regulars.

AtnoYdur/Thinkstock

“Lowering nicotine levels to minimally addictive or non-addictive levels would decrease the likelihood that future generations of young people become addicted to cigarettes and help more currently addicted smokers to quit,” FDA Commissioner Robert Califf, MD, said in a statement.

The FDA, in charge of regulating cigarettes, issues a proposed rule when changes are discussed. That would be followed by a period for public comments before a final rule could be issued.

The proposed rule was first reported by The Washington Post.

The FDA in 2018 published a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that estimated that a potential limit on nicotine in cigarettes could, by the year 2100, prevent more than 33 million people from becoming regular smokers, and prevent the deaths of more than 8 million people from tobacco-related illnesses.

The action to reduce nicotine levels would fit in with President Joe Biden’s goal of reducing cancer death rates by half over 25 years. Each year, according to the American Cancer Society, about 480,000 deaths (about 1 in 5) are related to smoking. Currently, about 34 million American adults still smoke cigarettes.

Matthew Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, called the proposed rule a “truly game-changing proposal.”

“There is no other single action our country can take that would prevent more young people from becoming addicted to tobacco or have a greater impact on reducing deaths from cancer, cardiovascular disease and respiratory disease,” Mr. Myers said in a statement.

However, he said, “these gains will only be realized if the administration and the FDA demonstrate a full-throated commitment to finalizing and implementing this proposal.”

The FDA proposed the nicotine reduction strategy in talks with the White House and the Department of Health and Human Services early in 2021, according to the Post.

Earlier this year, the FDA issued a proposed rule to ban menthol flavoring in cigarettes. The agency is accepting public comments though July 5.

The action of reducing nicotine levels would likely take years to complete, Mitch Zeller, JD, recently retired director of the FDA Center for Tobacco Products, told the Post.

In 2018, the FDA issued a proposed ruling to set a standard for maximum nicotine levels in cigarettes.

Advocates say the action of slashing nicotine, the active – and addictive – ingredient in cigarettes, would save millions of lives for generations to come. Opponents liken it to the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s and predict the action will fail.

Others say that if limits are put on nicotine levels, adults should have greater access to noncombustible alternatives.

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

The White House announced an effort on June 21 to require tobacco companies to reduce nicotine levels in cigarettes sold in the United States.

The Department of Health and Human Services posted a notice that details plans for a new rule to create a maximum allowed amount of nicotine in certain tobacco products. The Food and Drug Administration would take the action, the notice said, “to reduce addictiveness to certain tobacco products, thus giving addicted users a greater ability to quit.” The product standard would also help keep nonsmokers interested in trying tobacco, mainly youth, from starting to smoke and become regulars.

AtnoYdur/Thinkstock

“Lowering nicotine levels to minimally addictive or non-addictive levels would decrease the likelihood that future generations of young people become addicted to cigarettes and help more currently addicted smokers to quit,” FDA Commissioner Robert Califf, MD, said in a statement.

The FDA, in charge of regulating cigarettes, issues a proposed rule when changes are discussed. That would be followed by a period for public comments before a final rule could be issued.

The proposed rule was first reported by The Washington Post.

The FDA in 2018 published a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that estimated that a potential limit on nicotine in cigarettes could, by the year 2100, prevent more than 33 million people from becoming regular smokers, and prevent the deaths of more than 8 million people from tobacco-related illnesses.

The action to reduce nicotine levels would fit in with President Joe Biden’s goal of reducing cancer death rates by half over 25 years. Each year, according to the American Cancer Society, about 480,000 deaths (about 1 in 5) are related to smoking. Currently, about 34 million American adults still smoke cigarettes.

Matthew Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, called the proposed rule a “truly game-changing proposal.”

“There is no other single action our country can take that would prevent more young people from becoming addicted to tobacco or have a greater impact on reducing deaths from cancer, cardiovascular disease and respiratory disease,” Mr. Myers said in a statement.

However, he said, “these gains will only be realized if the administration and the FDA demonstrate a full-throated commitment to finalizing and implementing this proposal.”

The FDA proposed the nicotine reduction strategy in talks with the White House and the Department of Health and Human Services early in 2021, according to the Post.

Earlier this year, the FDA issued a proposed rule to ban menthol flavoring in cigarettes. The agency is accepting public comments though July 5.

The action of reducing nicotine levels would likely take years to complete, Mitch Zeller, JD, recently retired director of the FDA Center for Tobacco Products, told the Post.

In 2018, the FDA issued a proposed ruling to set a standard for maximum nicotine levels in cigarettes.

Advocates say the action of slashing nicotine, the active – and addictive – ingredient in cigarettes, would save millions of lives for generations to come. Opponents liken it to the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s and predict the action will fail.

Others say that if limits are put on nicotine levels, adults should have greater access to noncombustible alternatives.

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

ATLANTA – Disturbances in ovulation that didn’t produce any actual changes in the menstrual cycle of women were extremely common during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic and were linked to emotional stress, according to the findings of an “experiment of nature” that allowed for comparison with women a decade earlier.

Findings from two studies of reproductive-age women, one conducted in 2006-2008 and the other in 2020-2021, were presented by Jerilynn C. Prior, MD, at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

The comparison of the two time periods yielded several novel findings. “I was taught in medical school that when women don’t eat enough they lose their period. But what we now understand is there’s a graded response to various stressors, acting through the hypothalamus in a common pathway. There is a gradation of disturbances, some of which are subclinical or not obvious,” said Dr. Prior, professor of endocrinology and metabolism at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver.

Moreover, women’s menstrual cycle lengths didn’t differ across the two time periods, despite a dramatic 63% decrement in normal ovulatory function related to increased depression, anxiety, and outside stresses that the women reported in diaries.

“Assuming that regular cycles need normal ovulation is something we should just get out of our minds. It changes our concept about what’s normal if we only know about the cycle length,” she observed.

It will be critical going forward to see whether the ovulatory disturbances have resolved as the pandemic has shifted “because there’s strong evidence that ovulatory disturbances, even with normal cycle length, are related to bone loss and some evidence it’s related to early heart attacks, breast and endometrial cancers,” Dr. Prior said during a press conference.

Lisa Nainggolan/MDedge News

Asked to comment, session moderator Genevieve Neal-Perry, MD, PhD, told this news organization: “I think what we can take away is that stress itself is a modifier of the way the brain and the gonads communicate with each other, and that then has an impact on ovulatory function.”

Dr. Neal-Perry noted that the association of stress and ovulatory disruption has been reported in various ways previously, but “clearly it doesn’t affect everyone. What we don’t know is who is most susceptible. There have been some studies showing a genetic predisposition and a genetic anomaly that actually makes them more susceptible to the impact of stress on the reproductive system.”

But the lack of data on weight change in the study cohorts is a limitation. “To me one of the more important questions was what was going on with weight. Just looking at a static number doesn’t tell you whether there were changes. We know that weight gain or weight loss can stress the reproductive axis,” noted Dr. Neal-Parry of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
 

‘Experiment of nature’ revealed invisible effect of pandemic stress

The women in both cohorts of the Menstruation Ovulation Study (MOS) were healthy volunteers aged 19-35 years recruited from the metropolitan Vancouver region. All were menstruating monthly and none were taking hormonal birth control. Recruitment for the second cohort had begun just prior to the March 2020 COVID-19 pandemic lockdown.

Interviewer-administered questionnaires (CaMos) covering demographics, socioeconomic status, and reproductive history, and daily diaries kept by the women (menstrual cycle diary) were identical for both cohorts.

Assessments of ovulation differed for the two studies but were cross-validated. For the earlier time period, ovulation was assessed by a threefold increase in follicular-to-luteal urinary progesterone (PdG). For the pandemic-era study, the validated quantitative basal temperature (QBT) method was used.

There were 301 women in the earlier cohort and 125 during the pandemic. Both were an average age of about 29 years and had a body mass index of about 24.3 kg/m² (within the normal range). The pandemic cohort was more racially/ethnically diverse than the earlier one and more in-line with recent census data.

More of the women were nulliparous during the pandemic than earlier (92.7% vs. 80.4%; P = .002).

The distribution of menstrual cycle lengths didn’t differ, with both cohorts averaging about 30 days (P = .893). However, while 90% of the women in the earlier cohort ovulated normally, only 37% did during the pandemic, a highly significant difference (P < .0001).

Thus, during the pandemic, 63% of women had “silent ovulatory disturbances,” either with short luteal phases after ovulation or no ovulation, compared with just 10% in the earlier cohort, “which is remarkable, unbelievable actually,” Dr. Prior remarked.  

The difference wasn’t explained by any of the demographic information collected either, including socioeconomic status, lifestyle, or reproductive history variables.

And it wasn’t because of COVID-19 vaccination, as the vaccine wasn’t available when most of the women were recruited, and of the 79 who were recruited during vaccine availability, only two received a COVID-19 vaccine during the study (and both had normal ovulation).

Employment changes, caring responsibilities, and worry likely causes

The information from the diaries was more revealing. Several diary components were far more common during the pandemic, including negative mood (feeling depressed or anxious, sleep problems, and outside stresses), self-worth, interest in sex, energy level, and appetite. All were significantly different between the two cohorts (P < .001) and between those with and without ovulatory disturbances.

“So menstrual cycle lengths and long cycles didn’t differ, but there was a much higher prevalence of silent or subclinical ovulatory disturbances, and these were related to the increased stresses that women recorded in their diaries. This means that the estrogen levels were pretty close to normal but the progesterone levels were remarkably decreased,” Dr. Prior said.

Interestingly, reported menstrual cramps were also significantly more common during the pandemic and associated with ovulatory disruption.

“That is a new observation because previously we’ve always thought that you needed to ovulate in order to even have cramps,” she commented.

Asked whether COVID-19 itself might have played a role, Dr. Prior said no woman in the study tested positive for the virus or had long COVID.

“As far as I’m aware, it was the changes in employment … and caring for elders and worry about illness in somebody you loved that was related,” she said.

Asked what she thinks the result would be if the study were conducted now, she said: “I don’t know. We’re still in a stressful time with inflation and not complete recovery, so probably the issue is still very present.”

Dr. Prior and Dr. Neal-Perry have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

ATLANTA – Disturbances in ovulation that didn’t produce any actual changes in the menstrual cycle of women were extremely common during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic and were linked to emotional stress, according to the findings of an “experiment of nature” that allowed for comparison with women a decade earlier.

Findings from two studies of reproductive-age women, one conducted in 2006-2008 and the other in 2020-2021, were presented by Jerilynn C. Prior, MD, at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

The comparison of the two time periods yielded several novel findings. “I was taught in medical school that when women don’t eat enough they lose their period. But what we now understand is there’s a graded response to various stressors, acting through the hypothalamus in a common pathway. There is a gradation of disturbances, some of which are subclinical or not obvious,” said Dr. Prior, professor of endocrinology and metabolism at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver.

Moreover, women’s menstrual cycle lengths didn’t differ across the two time periods, despite a dramatic 63% decrement in normal ovulatory function related to increased depression, anxiety, and outside stresses that the women reported in diaries.

“Assuming that regular cycles need normal ovulation is something we should just get out of our minds. It changes our concept about what’s normal if we only know about the cycle length,” she observed.

It will be critical going forward to see whether the ovulatory disturbances have resolved as the pandemic has shifted “because there’s strong evidence that ovulatory disturbances, even with normal cycle length, are related to bone loss and some evidence it’s related to early heart attacks, breast and endometrial cancers,” Dr. Prior said during a press conference.

Lisa Nainggolan/MDedge News

Asked to comment, session moderator Genevieve Neal-Perry, MD, PhD, told this news organization: “I think what we can take away is that stress itself is a modifier of the way the brain and the gonads communicate with each other, and that then has an impact on ovulatory function.”

Dr. Neal-Perry noted that the association of stress and ovulatory disruption has been reported in various ways previously, but “clearly it doesn’t affect everyone. What we don’t know is who is most susceptible. There have been some studies showing a genetic predisposition and a genetic anomaly that actually makes them more susceptible to the impact of stress on the reproductive system.”

But the lack of data on weight change in the study cohorts is a limitation. “To me one of the more important questions was what was going on with weight. Just looking at a static number doesn’t tell you whether there were changes. We know that weight gain or weight loss can stress the reproductive axis,” noted Dr. Neal-Parry of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
 

‘Experiment of nature’ revealed invisible effect of pandemic stress

The women in both cohorts of the Menstruation Ovulation Study (MOS) were healthy volunteers aged 19-35 years recruited from the metropolitan Vancouver region. All were menstruating monthly and none were taking hormonal birth control. Recruitment for the second cohort had begun just prior to the March 2020 COVID-19 pandemic lockdown.

Interviewer-administered questionnaires (CaMos) covering demographics, socioeconomic status, and reproductive history, and daily diaries kept by the women (menstrual cycle diary) were identical for both cohorts.

Assessments of ovulation differed for the two studies but were cross-validated. For the earlier time period, ovulation was assessed by a threefold increase in follicular-to-luteal urinary progesterone (PdG). For the pandemic-era study, the validated quantitative basal temperature (QBT) method was used.

There were 301 women in the earlier cohort and 125 during the pandemic. Both were an average age of about 29 years and had a body mass index of about 24.3 kg/m² (within the normal range). The pandemic cohort was more racially/ethnically diverse than the earlier one and more in-line with recent census data.

More of the women were nulliparous during the pandemic than earlier (92.7% vs. 80.4%; P = .002).

The distribution of menstrual cycle lengths didn’t differ, with both cohorts averaging about 30 days (P = .893). However, while 90% of the women in the earlier cohort ovulated normally, only 37% did during the pandemic, a highly significant difference (P < .0001).

Thus, during the pandemic, 63% of women had “silent ovulatory disturbances,” either with short luteal phases after ovulation or no ovulation, compared with just 10% in the earlier cohort, “which is remarkable, unbelievable actually,” Dr. Prior remarked.  

The difference wasn’t explained by any of the demographic information collected either, including socioeconomic status, lifestyle, or reproductive history variables.

And it wasn’t because of COVID-19 vaccination, as the vaccine wasn’t available when most of the women were recruited, and of the 79 who were recruited during vaccine availability, only two received a COVID-19 vaccine during the study (and both had normal ovulation).

Employment changes, caring responsibilities, and worry likely causes

The information from the diaries was more revealing. Several diary components were far more common during the pandemic, including negative mood (feeling depressed or anxious, sleep problems, and outside stresses), self-worth, interest in sex, energy level, and appetite. All were significantly different between the two cohorts (P < .001) and between those with and without ovulatory disturbances.

“So menstrual cycle lengths and long cycles didn’t differ, but there was a much higher prevalence of silent or subclinical ovulatory disturbances, and these were related to the increased stresses that women recorded in their diaries. This means that the estrogen levels were pretty close to normal but the progesterone levels were remarkably decreased,” Dr. Prior said.

Interestingly, reported menstrual cramps were also significantly more common during the pandemic and associated with ovulatory disruption.

“That is a new observation because previously we’ve always thought that you needed to ovulate in order to even have cramps,” she commented.

Asked whether COVID-19 itself might have played a role, Dr. Prior said no woman in the study tested positive for the virus or had long COVID.

“As far as I’m aware, it was the changes in employment … and caring for elders and worry about illness in somebody you loved that was related,” she said.

Asked what she thinks the result would be if the study were conducted now, she said: “I don’t know. We’re still in a stressful time with inflation and not complete recovery, so probably the issue is still very present.”

Dr. Prior and Dr. Neal-Perry have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

ATLANTA – Disturbances in ovulation that didn’t produce any actual changes in the menstrual cycle of women were extremely common during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic and were linked to emotional stress, according to the findings of an “experiment of nature” that allowed for comparison with women a decade earlier.

Findings from two studies of reproductive-age women, one conducted in 2006-2008 and the other in 2020-2021, were presented by Jerilynn C. Prior, MD, at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

The comparison of the two time periods yielded several novel findings. “I was taught in medical school that when women don’t eat enough they lose their period. But what we now understand is there’s a graded response to various stressors, acting through the hypothalamus in a common pathway. There is a gradation of disturbances, some of which are subclinical or not obvious,” said Dr. Prior, professor of endocrinology and metabolism at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver.

Moreover, women’s menstrual cycle lengths didn’t differ across the two time periods, despite a dramatic 63% decrement in normal ovulatory function related to increased depression, anxiety, and outside stresses that the women reported in diaries.

“Assuming that regular cycles need normal ovulation is something we should just get out of our minds. It changes our concept about what’s normal if we only know about the cycle length,” she observed.

It will be critical going forward to see whether the ovulatory disturbances have resolved as the pandemic has shifted “because there’s strong evidence that ovulatory disturbances, even with normal cycle length, are related to bone loss and some evidence it’s related to early heart attacks, breast and endometrial cancers,” Dr. Prior said during a press conference.

Lisa Nainggolan/MDedge News

Asked to comment, session moderator Genevieve Neal-Perry, MD, PhD, told this news organization: “I think what we can take away is that stress itself is a modifier of the way the brain and the gonads communicate with each other, and that then has an impact on ovulatory function.”

Dr. Neal-Perry noted that the association of stress and ovulatory disruption has been reported in various ways previously, but “clearly it doesn’t affect everyone. What we don’t know is who is most susceptible. There have been some studies showing a genetic predisposition and a genetic anomaly that actually makes them more susceptible to the impact of stress on the reproductive system.”

But the lack of data on weight change in the study cohorts is a limitation. “To me one of the more important questions was what was going on with weight. Just looking at a static number doesn’t tell you whether there were changes. We know that weight gain or weight loss can stress the reproductive axis,” noted Dr. Neal-Parry of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
 

‘Experiment of nature’ revealed invisible effect of pandemic stress

The women in both cohorts of the Menstruation Ovulation Study (MOS) were healthy volunteers aged 19-35 years recruited from the metropolitan Vancouver region. All were menstruating monthly and none were taking hormonal birth control. Recruitment for the second cohort had begun just prior to the March 2020 COVID-19 pandemic lockdown.

Interviewer-administered questionnaires (CaMos) covering demographics, socioeconomic status, and reproductive history, and daily diaries kept by the women (menstrual cycle diary) were identical for both cohorts.

Assessments of ovulation differed for the two studies but were cross-validated. For the earlier time period, ovulation was assessed by a threefold increase in follicular-to-luteal urinary progesterone (PdG). For the pandemic-era study, the validated quantitative basal temperature (QBT) method was used.

There were 301 women in the earlier cohort and 125 during the pandemic. Both were an average age of about 29 years and had a body mass index of about 24.3 kg/m² (within the normal range). The pandemic cohort was more racially/ethnically diverse than the earlier one and more in-line with recent census data.

More of the women were nulliparous during the pandemic than earlier (92.7% vs. 80.4%; P = .002).

The distribution of menstrual cycle lengths didn’t differ, with both cohorts averaging about 30 days (P = .893). However, while 90% of the women in the earlier cohort ovulated normally, only 37% did during the pandemic, a highly significant difference (P < .0001).

Thus, during the pandemic, 63% of women had “silent ovulatory disturbances,” either with short luteal phases after ovulation or no ovulation, compared with just 10% in the earlier cohort, “which is remarkable, unbelievable actually,” Dr. Prior remarked.  

The difference wasn’t explained by any of the demographic information collected either, including socioeconomic status, lifestyle, or reproductive history variables.

And it wasn’t because of COVID-19 vaccination, as the vaccine wasn’t available when most of the women were recruited, and of the 79 who were recruited during vaccine availability, only two received a COVID-19 vaccine during the study (and both had normal ovulation).

Employment changes, caring responsibilities, and worry likely causes

The information from the diaries was more revealing. Several diary components were far more common during the pandemic, including negative mood (feeling depressed or anxious, sleep problems, and outside stresses), self-worth, interest in sex, energy level, and appetite. All were significantly different between the two cohorts (P < .001) and between those with and without ovulatory disturbances.

“So menstrual cycle lengths and long cycles didn’t differ, but there was a much higher prevalence of silent or subclinical ovulatory disturbances, and these were related to the increased stresses that women recorded in their diaries. This means that the estrogen levels were pretty close to normal but the progesterone levels were remarkably decreased,” Dr. Prior said.

Interestingly, reported menstrual cramps were also significantly more common during the pandemic and associated with ovulatory disruption.

“That is a new observation because previously we’ve always thought that you needed to ovulate in order to even have cramps,” she commented.

Asked whether COVID-19 itself might have played a role, Dr. Prior said no woman in the study tested positive for the virus or had long COVID.

“As far as I’m aware, it was the changes in employment … and caring for elders and worry about illness in somebody you loved that was related,” she said.

Asked what she thinks the result would be if the study were conducted now, she said: “I don’t know. We’re still in a stressful time with inflation and not complete recovery, so probably the issue is still very present.”

Dr. Prior and Dr. Neal-Perry have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

COPENHAGEN – Chronic exposure to high levels of particulate matter (PM) air pollution 2.5 mcm (PM2.5) or larger, and 10 mcm (PM10) or larger, in size is associated with a significantly higher likelihood of having osteoporosis, according to research presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

The results of the 7-year longitudinal study carried out across Italy from 2013 to 2019 dovetail with other recent published accounts from the same team of Italian researchers, led by Giovanni Adami, MD, of the rheumatology unit at the University of Verona (Italy). In addition to the current report presented at EULAR 2022, Dr. Adami and associates have reported an increased risk of flares of both rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis following periods of elevated pollution, as well as an overall elevated risk for autoimmune diseases with higher concentrations of PM2.5 and PM10.

The pathogenesis of osteoporosis is thought to involve both genetic and environmental input, such as smoking, which is itself environmental air pollution, Dr. Adami said. The biological rationale for why air pollution might contribute to risk for osteoporosis comes from studies showing that exposure to indoor air pollution from biomass combustion raises serum levels of RANKL (receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappa ligand 1) but lowers serum osteoprotegerin – suggesting an increased risk of bone resorption – and that toxic metals such as lead, cadmium, mercury, and aluminum accumulate in the skeleton and negatively affect bone health.

In their study, Dr. Adami and colleagues found that, overall, the average exposure during the period 2013-2019 across Italy was 16.0 mcg/m³ for PM2.5 and 25.0 mcg/m³ for PM10.

“I can tell you that [25.0 mcg/m3 for PM10] is a very high exposure. It’s not very good for your health,” Dr. Adami said.

Data on more than 59,000 Italian women

Dr. Adami and colleagues used clinical characteristics and densitometric data from Italy’s osteoporosis fracture risk and osteoporosis screening reimbursement tool known as DeFRAcalc79, which has amassed variables from more than 59,000 women across the country. They used long-term average PM concentrations across Italy during 2013-2019 that were obtained from the Italian Institute for Environmental Protection and Research’s 617 air quality stations in 110 Italian provinces. The researchers linked individuals to a PM exposure value determined from the average concentration of urban, rural, and near-traffic stations in each person’s province of residence.

For 59,950 women across Italy who were at high risk for fracture, the researchers found 64.5% with bone mineral density that was defined as osteoporotic. At PM10 concentrations of 30 mcg/m³ or greater, there was a significantly higher likelihood of osteoporosis at both the femoral neck (odds ratio, 1.15) and lumbar spine (OR, 1.17).

The likelihood of osteoporosis was slightly greater with PM2.5 at concentrations of 25 mcg/m³ or more at the femoral neck (OR, 1.22) and lumbar spine (OR, 1.18). These comparisons were adjusted for age, body mass index (BMI), presence of prevalent fragility fractures, family history of osteoporosis, menopause, glucocorticoid use, comorbidities, and for residency in northern, central, or southern Italy.

Both thresholds of PM10 > 30 mcg/m³ and PM2.5 > 25 mcg/m³ “are considered safe … by the World Health Organization,” Dr. Adami pointed out.

“If you live in a place where the chronic exposure is less than 30 mcg/m³, you probably have slightly lower risk of osteoporosis as compared to those who live in a highly industrialized, polluted zone,” he explained.

“The cortical bone – femoral neck – seemed to be more susceptible, compared to trabecular bone, which is the lumbar spine. We have no idea why this is true, but we might speculate that somehow chronic inflammation like the [kind] seen in rheumatoid arthritis might be responsible for cortical bone impairment and not trabecular bone impairment,” Dr. Adami said.

One audience member, Kenneth Poole, BM, PhD, senior lecturer and honorary consultant in Metabolic Bone Disease and Rheumatology at the University of Cambridge (England), asked whether it was possible to account for the possibility of confounding caused by areas with dense housing in places where the particulate matter would be highest, and where residents may be less active and use stairs less often.

Dr. Adami noted that confounding is indeed a possibility, but he said Italy is unique in that its most polluted area – the Po River valley – is also its most wealthy area and in general has less crowded living situations with a healthier population, which could have attenuated, rather than reinforced, the results.

Does air pollution have an immunologic effect?

In interviews with this news organization, session comoderators Filipe Araújo, MD, and Irene Bultink, MD, PhD, said that the growth in evidence for the impact of air pollution on risk for, and severity of, various diseases suggests air pollution might have an immunologic effect.

“I think it’s very important to point this out. I also think it’s very hard to rule out confounding, because when you’re living in a city with crowded housing you may not walk or ride your bike but instead go by car or metro, and [the lifestyle is different],” said Dr. Bultink of Amsterdam University Medical Centers.

“It stresses that these diseases [that are associated with air pollution] although they are different in their pathophysiology, it points toward the systemic nature of rheumatic diseases, including osteoporosis,” said Dr. Araújo of Hospital Cuf Cascais (Portugal) and Hospital Ortopédico de Sant’Ana, Parede, Portugal.

The study was independently supported.Dr. Adami disclosed being a shareholder of Galapagos and Theramex.

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

COPENHAGEN – Chronic exposure to high levels of particulate matter (PM) air pollution 2.5 mcm (PM2.5) or larger, and 10 mcm (PM10) or larger, in size is associated with a significantly higher likelihood of having osteoporosis, according to research presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

The results of the 7-year longitudinal study carried out across Italy from 2013 to 2019 dovetail with other recent published accounts from the same team of Italian researchers, led by Giovanni Adami, MD, of the rheumatology unit at the University of Verona (Italy). In addition to the current report presented at EULAR 2022, Dr. Adami and associates have reported an increased risk of flares of both rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis following periods of elevated pollution, as well as an overall elevated risk for autoimmune diseases with higher concentrations of PM2.5 and PM10.

The pathogenesis of osteoporosis is thought to involve both genetic and environmental input, such as smoking, which is itself environmental air pollution, Dr. Adami said. The biological rationale for why air pollution might contribute to risk for osteoporosis comes from studies showing that exposure to indoor air pollution from biomass combustion raises serum levels of RANKL (receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappa ligand 1) but lowers serum osteoprotegerin – suggesting an increased risk of bone resorption – and that toxic metals such as lead, cadmium, mercury, and aluminum accumulate in the skeleton and negatively affect bone health.

In their study, Dr. Adami and colleagues found that, overall, the average exposure during the period 2013-2019 across Italy was 16.0 mcg/m³ for PM2.5 and 25.0 mcg/m³ for PM10.

“I can tell you that [25.0 mcg/m3 for PM10] is a very high exposure. It’s not very good for your health,” Dr. Adami said.

Data on more than 59,000 Italian women

Dr. Adami and colleagues used clinical characteristics and densitometric data from Italy’s osteoporosis fracture risk and osteoporosis screening reimbursement tool known as DeFRAcalc79, which has amassed variables from more than 59,000 women across the country. They used long-term average PM concentrations across Italy during 2013-2019 that were obtained from the Italian Institute for Environmental Protection and Research’s 617 air quality stations in 110 Italian provinces. The researchers linked individuals to a PM exposure value determined from the average concentration of urban, rural, and near-traffic stations in each person’s province of residence.

For 59,950 women across Italy who were at high risk for fracture, the researchers found 64.5% with bone mineral density that was defined as osteoporotic. At PM10 concentrations of 30 mcg/m³ or greater, there was a significantly higher likelihood of osteoporosis at both the femoral neck (odds ratio, 1.15) and lumbar spine (OR, 1.17).

The likelihood of osteoporosis was slightly greater with PM2.5 at concentrations of 25 mcg/m³ or more at the femoral neck (OR, 1.22) and lumbar spine (OR, 1.18). These comparisons were adjusted for age, body mass index (BMI), presence of prevalent fragility fractures, family history of osteoporosis, menopause, glucocorticoid use, comorbidities, and for residency in northern, central, or southern Italy.

Both thresholds of PM10 > 30 mcg/m³ and PM2.5 > 25 mcg/m³ “are considered safe … by the World Health Organization,” Dr. Adami pointed out.

“If you live in a place where the chronic exposure is less than 30 mcg/m³, you probably have slightly lower risk of osteoporosis as compared to those who live in a highly industrialized, polluted zone,” he explained.

“The cortical bone – femoral neck – seemed to be more susceptible, compared to trabecular bone, which is the lumbar spine. We have no idea why this is true, but we might speculate that somehow chronic inflammation like the [kind] seen in rheumatoid arthritis might be responsible for cortical bone impairment and not trabecular bone impairment,” Dr. Adami said.

One audience member, Kenneth Poole, BM, PhD, senior lecturer and honorary consultant in Metabolic Bone Disease and Rheumatology at the University of Cambridge (England), asked whether it was possible to account for the possibility of confounding caused by areas with dense housing in places where the particulate matter would be highest, and where residents may be less active and use stairs less often.

Dr. Adami noted that confounding is indeed a possibility, but he said Italy is unique in that its most polluted area – the Po River valley – is also its most wealthy area and in general has less crowded living situations with a healthier population, which could have attenuated, rather than reinforced, the results.

Does air pollution have an immunologic effect?

In interviews with this news organization, session comoderators Filipe Araújo, MD, and Irene Bultink, MD, PhD, said that the growth in evidence for the impact of air pollution on risk for, and severity of, various diseases suggests air pollution might have an immunologic effect.

“I think it’s very important to point this out. I also think it’s very hard to rule out confounding, because when you’re living in a city with crowded housing you may not walk or ride your bike but instead go by car or metro, and [the lifestyle is different],” said Dr. Bultink of Amsterdam University Medical Centers.

“It stresses that these diseases [that are associated with air pollution] although they are different in their pathophysiology, it points toward the systemic nature of rheumatic diseases, including osteoporosis,” said Dr. Araújo of Hospital Cuf Cascais (Portugal) and Hospital Ortopédico de Sant’Ana, Parede, Portugal.

The study was independently supported.Dr. Adami disclosed being a shareholder of Galapagos and Theramex.

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

COPENHAGEN – Chronic exposure to high levels of particulate matter (PM) air pollution 2.5 mcm (PM2.5) or larger, and 10 mcm (PM10) or larger, in size is associated with a significantly higher likelihood of having osteoporosis, according to research presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

The results of the 7-year longitudinal study carried out across Italy from 2013 to 2019 dovetail with other recent published accounts from the same team of Italian researchers, led by Giovanni Adami, MD, of the rheumatology unit at the University of Verona (Italy). In addition to the current report presented at EULAR 2022, Dr. Adami and associates have reported an increased risk of flares of both rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis following periods of elevated pollution, as well as an overall elevated risk for autoimmune diseases with higher concentrations of PM2.5 and PM10.

The pathogenesis of osteoporosis is thought to involve both genetic and environmental input, such as smoking, which is itself environmental air pollution, Dr. Adami said. The biological rationale for why air pollution might contribute to risk for osteoporosis comes from studies showing that exposure to indoor air pollution from biomass combustion raises serum levels of RANKL (receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappa ligand 1) but lowers serum osteoprotegerin – suggesting an increased risk of bone resorption – and that toxic metals such as lead, cadmium, mercury, and aluminum accumulate in the skeleton and negatively affect bone health.

In their study, Dr. Adami and colleagues found that, overall, the average exposure during the period 2013-2019 across Italy was 16.0 mcg/m³ for PM2.5 and 25.0 mcg/m³ for PM10.

“I can tell you that [25.0 mcg/m3 for PM10] is a very high exposure. It’s not very good for your health,” Dr. Adami said.

Data on more than 59,000 Italian women

Dr. Adami and colleagues used clinical characteristics and densitometric data from Italy’s osteoporosis fracture risk and osteoporosis screening reimbursement tool known as DeFRAcalc79, which has amassed variables from more than 59,000 women across the country. They used long-term average PM concentrations across Italy during 2013-2019 that were obtained from the Italian Institute for Environmental Protection and Research’s 617 air quality stations in 110 Italian provinces. The researchers linked individuals to a PM exposure value determined from the average concentration of urban, rural, and near-traffic stations in each person’s province of residence.

For 59,950 women across Italy who were at high risk for fracture, the researchers found 64.5% with bone mineral density that was defined as osteoporotic. At PM10 concentrations of 30 mcg/m³ or greater, there was a significantly higher likelihood of osteoporosis at both the femoral neck (odds ratio, 1.15) and lumbar spine (OR, 1.17).

The likelihood of osteoporosis was slightly greater with PM2.5 at concentrations of 25 mcg/m³ or more at the femoral neck (OR, 1.22) and lumbar spine (OR, 1.18). These comparisons were adjusted for age, body mass index (BMI), presence of prevalent fragility fractures, family history of osteoporosis, menopause, glucocorticoid use, comorbidities, and for residency in northern, central, or southern Italy.

Both thresholds of PM10 > 30 mcg/m³ and PM2.5 > 25 mcg/m³ “are considered safe … by the World Health Organization,” Dr. Adami pointed out.

“If you live in a place where the chronic exposure is less than 30 mcg/m³, you probably have slightly lower risk of osteoporosis as compared to those who live in a highly industrialized, polluted zone,” he explained.

“The cortical bone – femoral neck – seemed to be more susceptible, compared to trabecular bone, which is the lumbar spine. We have no idea why this is true, but we might speculate that somehow chronic inflammation like the [kind] seen in rheumatoid arthritis might be responsible for cortical bone impairment and not trabecular bone impairment,” Dr. Adami said.

One audience member, Kenneth Poole, BM, PhD, senior lecturer and honorary consultant in Metabolic Bone Disease and Rheumatology at the University of Cambridge (England), asked whether it was possible to account for the possibility of confounding caused by areas with dense housing in places where the particulate matter would be highest, and where residents may be less active and use stairs less often.

Dr. Adami noted that confounding is indeed a possibility, but he said Italy is unique in that its most polluted area – the Po River valley – is also its most wealthy area and in general has less crowded living situations with a healthier population, which could have attenuated, rather than reinforced, the results.

Does air pollution have an immunologic effect?

In interviews with this news organization, session comoderators Filipe Araújo, MD, and Irene Bultink, MD, PhD, said that the growth in evidence for the impact of air pollution on risk for, and severity of, various diseases suggests air pollution might have an immunologic effect.

“I think it’s very important to point this out. I also think it’s very hard to rule out confounding, because when you’re living in a city with crowded housing you may not walk or ride your bike but instead go by car or metro, and [the lifestyle is different],” said Dr. Bultink of Amsterdam University Medical Centers.

“It stresses that these diseases [that are associated with air pollution] although they are different in their pathophysiology, it points toward the systemic nature of rheumatic diseases, including osteoporosis,” said Dr. Araújo of Hospital Cuf Cascais (Portugal) and Hospital Ortopédico de Sant’Ana, Parede, Portugal.

The study was independently supported.Dr. Adami disclosed being a shareholder of Galapagos and Theramex.

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

Vaccines against human papillomavirus have been hailed as a success: they have been shown to decrease the incidence of cervical lesions associated with the HPV types that are in the vaccine.

However, new evidence suggests that HPV vaccination makes women more susceptible than their nonvaccinated peers to HPV genotypes not covered by the vaccine.

An expert not involved in the research said the new data “tell us to be a little bit careful.” Although the HPV types not included in the vaccine are rarer and less aggressive, they can still cause cancer.

The data come from the Costa Rica HPV Vaccine Trial, which involved more than 10,000 women aged 18-25 years. The HPV vaccine used in the trial was Cervarix, from GlaxoSmithKline. It covers the two leading causes of cervical cancer, HPV-16 and -18, and provides partial protection against three other genotypes.

After a follow-up of 11 years, among vaccinated women, there was an excess of precancerous cervical lesions caused by genotypes not included in the vaccine, resulting in negative vaccine efficacy for those HPV variants.

The increase wasn’t enough to offset the overall benefit of vaccination when all genotypes were considered, said the researchers, led by Jaimie Shing, PhD, a postdoctoral research fellow at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md.

Vaccinated women “still had long-term absolute reductions in high-grade lesions,” they pointed out.

The net protection “remained considerable, emphasizing the importance of HPV vaccination for cervical cancer prevention,” the team concluded.

The findings were published online in The Lancet Oncology.

The results are likely the first evidence to date of “clinical unmasking” with HPV vaccination, meaning that protection against the strains covered by the vaccine leaves women more prone to attack from other carcinogenic HPV variants.

This phenomenon “could attenuate long-term reductions in high-grade disease following successful implementation of HPV vaccination programs,” the investigators commented.
 

Highlighting a need for caution

The take-home message from the trial is that “we have to be careful,” said Marc Steben, MD, co-President of HPV Global Action and a professor at the University of Montreal.

He noted that the Cervarix HPV vaccine used in the trial is not the vaccine that is used now in developed nations.

The current standard HPV vaccine is Gardasil 9 (Merck), which offers broader coverage against nine HPV types (types 6, 11, 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58).

There are 12 main carcinogenic HPV genotypes, so unmasking of other strains is still possible with Gardasil 9, he said.

There is another issue, Dr. Steben added. The success of HPV vaccinations - a nearly 90% reduction in invasive cervical cancer in women who are vaccinated at a young age – has led to questions about the future role of routine cervical cancer screening.

“Some people are saying that if we achieve 90% coverage, we might” eliminate community transmission and no longer need to screen, he said.

These trial results “tell us to be a little bit careful,” Dr. Steben continued. Those HPV types that are less aggressive and rarer than HPV-16 and -18 “can still cause cancer and might be there and surprise us. It could take more time than we thought” to get to the point where screening can be eliminated.

“There might be a little problem if we stop too early,” he said.
 

Study details

During the period 2004-2005, the investigators randomly assigned 3,727 women aged 18-25 years to receive Cervarix and 3,739 to a control group that received the hepatitis A vaccine; after 4 years, the control group also received Cervarix and exited the study. They were replaced by an unvaccinated control group of 2,836 women. The new control group and the original HPV vaccine group were followed for an additional 7 years.

In years 7-11 of the trial, the investigators found 9.2 additional cervical intraepithelial neoplasias of grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) from HPV types not covered by Cervarix per 1,000 vaccinated women in comparison with unvaccinated participants. This corresponds to –71.2% negative vaccine efficacy against CIN2+ lesions of HPV types not covered by the vaccine.

There were 8.3 additional CIN3+ lesions from nontargeted HPV strains per 1,000 vaccinated women in comparison with unvaccinated participants, which corresponds to –135% negative vaccine efficacy.

Overall, however, there was a net benefit of vaccination, with 27 fewer CIN2+ lesions when all HPV genotypes – vaccine covered or not – were considered per 1,000 vaccinated women over the entire 11 years of follow-up.

There were also 8.7 fewer CIN3+ lesions across all genotypes per 1,000 vaccinated women, but the benefit was not statistically significant.

Among the study limits, the team was unable to evaluate the effect of clinical unmasking on cervical cancer, because women were treated for high-grade cervical lesions before cases could progress to cervical cancer.

The trial was funded by the National Cancer Institute and the National Institutes of Health Office of Research on Women’s Health. GlaxoSmithKline provided the Cervarix vaccine and supported aspects of the trial. Two authors are named inventors on U.S. government–owned HPV vaccine patents with expired licenses to GlaxoSmithKline and Merck. Dr. Steben is an adviser/speaker for many companies, including GlaxoSmithKline and Merck.

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

Vaccines against human papillomavirus have been hailed as a success: they have been shown to decrease the incidence of cervical lesions associated with the HPV types that are in the vaccine.

However, new evidence suggests that HPV vaccination makes women more susceptible than their nonvaccinated peers to HPV genotypes not covered by the vaccine.

An expert not involved in the research said the new data “tell us to be a little bit careful.” Although the HPV types not included in the vaccine are rarer and less aggressive, they can still cause cancer.

The data come from the Costa Rica HPV Vaccine Trial, which involved more than 10,000 women aged 18-25 years. The HPV vaccine used in the trial was Cervarix, from GlaxoSmithKline. It covers the two leading causes of cervical cancer, HPV-16 and -18, and provides partial protection against three other genotypes.

After a follow-up of 11 years, among vaccinated women, there was an excess of precancerous cervical lesions caused by genotypes not included in the vaccine, resulting in negative vaccine efficacy for those HPV variants.

The increase wasn’t enough to offset the overall benefit of vaccination when all genotypes were considered, said the researchers, led by Jaimie Shing, PhD, a postdoctoral research fellow at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md.

Vaccinated women “still had long-term absolute reductions in high-grade lesions,” they pointed out.

The net protection “remained considerable, emphasizing the importance of HPV vaccination for cervical cancer prevention,” the team concluded.

The findings were published online in The Lancet Oncology.

The results are likely the first evidence to date of “clinical unmasking” with HPV vaccination, meaning that protection against the strains covered by the vaccine leaves women more prone to attack from other carcinogenic HPV variants.

This phenomenon “could attenuate long-term reductions in high-grade disease following successful implementation of HPV vaccination programs,” the investigators commented.
 

Highlighting a need for caution

The take-home message from the trial is that “we have to be careful,” said Marc Steben, MD, co-President of HPV Global Action and a professor at the University of Montreal.

He noted that the Cervarix HPV vaccine used in the trial is not the vaccine that is used now in developed nations.

The current standard HPV vaccine is Gardasil 9 (Merck), which offers broader coverage against nine HPV types (types 6, 11, 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58).

There are 12 main carcinogenic HPV genotypes, so unmasking of other strains is still possible with Gardasil 9, he said.

There is another issue, Dr. Steben added. The success of HPV vaccinations - a nearly 90% reduction in invasive cervical cancer in women who are vaccinated at a young age – has led to questions about the future role of routine cervical cancer screening.

“Some people are saying that if we achieve 90% coverage, we might” eliminate community transmission and no longer need to screen, he said.

These trial results “tell us to be a little bit careful,” Dr. Steben continued. Those HPV types that are less aggressive and rarer than HPV-16 and -18 “can still cause cancer and might be there and surprise us. It could take more time than we thought” to get to the point where screening can be eliminated.

“There might be a little problem if we stop too early,” he said.
 

Study details

During the period 2004-2005, the investigators randomly assigned 3,727 women aged 18-25 years to receive Cervarix and 3,739 to a control group that received the hepatitis A vaccine; after 4 years, the control group also received Cervarix and exited the study. They were replaced by an unvaccinated control group of 2,836 women. The new control group and the original HPV vaccine group were followed for an additional 7 years.

In years 7-11 of the trial, the investigators found 9.2 additional cervical intraepithelial neoplasias of grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) from HPV types not covered by Cervarix per 1,000 vaccinated women in comparison with unvaccinated participants. This corresponds to –71.2% negative vaccine efficacy against CIN2+ lesions of HPV types not covered by the vaccine.

There were 8.3 additional CIN3+ lesions from nontargeted HPV strains per 1,000 vaccinated women in comparison with unvaccinated participants, which corresponds to –135% negative vaccine efficacy.

Overall, however, there was a net benefit of vaccination, with 27 fewer CIN2+ lesions when all HPV genotypes – vaccine covered or not – were considered per 1,000 vaccinated women over the entire 11 years of follow-up.

There were also 8.7 fewer CIN3+ lesions across all genotypes per 1,000 vaccinated women, but the benefit was not statistically significant.

Among the study limits, the team was unable to evaluate the effect of clinical unmasking on cervical cancer, because women were treated for high-grade cervical lesions before cases could progress to cervical cancer.

The trial was funded by the National Cancer Institute and the National Institutes of Health Office of Research on Women’s Health. GlaxoSmithKline provided the Cervarix vaccine and supported aspects of the trial. Two authors are named inventors on U.S. government–owned HPV vaccine patents with expired licenses to GlaxoSmithKline and Merck. Dr. Steben is an adviser/speaker for many companies, including GlaxoSmithKline and Merck.

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

Vaccines against human papillomavirus have been hailed as a success: they have been shown to decrease the incidence of cervical lesions associated with the HPV types that are in the vaccine.

However, new evidence suggests that HPV vaccination makes women more susceptible than their nonvaccinated peers to HPV genotypes not covered by the vaccine.

An expert not involved in the research said the new data “tell us to be a little bit careful.” Although the HPV types not included in the vaccine are rarer and less aggressive, they can still cause cancer.

The data come from the Costa Rica HPV Vaccine Trial, which involved more than 10,000 women aged 18-25 years. The HPV vaccine used in the trial was Cervarix, from GlaxoSmithKline. It covers the two leading causes of cervical cancer, HPV-16 and -18, and provides partial protection against three other genotypes.

After a follow-up of 11 years, among vaccinated women, there was an excess of precancerous cervical lesions caused by genotypes not included in the vaccine, resulting in negative vaccine efficacy for those HPV variants.

The increase wasn’t enough to offset the overall benefit of vaccination when all genotypes were considered, said the researchers, led by Jaimie Shing, PhD, a postdoctoral research fellow at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md.

Vaccinated women “still had long-term absolute reductions in high-grade lesions,” they pointed out.

The net protection “remained considerable, emphasizing the importance of HPV vaccination for cervical cancer prevention,” the team concluded.

The findings were published online in The Lancet Oncology.

The results are likely the first evidence to date of “clinical unmasking” with HPV vaccination, meaning that protection against the strains covered by the vaccine leaves women more prone to attack from other carcinogenic HPV variants.

This phenomenon “could attenuate long-term reductions in high-grade disease following successful implementation of HPV vaccination programs,” the investigators commented.
 

Highlighting a need for caution

The take-home message from the trial is that “we have to be careful,” said Marc Steben, MD, co-President of HPV Global Action and a professor at the University of Montreal.

He noted that the Cervarix HPV vaccine used in the trial is not the vaccine that is used now in developed nations.

The current standard HPV vaccine is Gardasil 9 (Merck), which offers broader coverage against nine HPV types (types 6, 11, 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58).

There are 12 main carcinogenic HPV genotypes, so unmasking of other strains is still possible with Gardasil 9, he said.

There is another issue, Dr. Steben added. The success of HPV vaccinations - a nearly 90% reduction in invasive cervical cancer in women who are vaccinated at a young age – has led to questions about the future role of routine cervical cancer screening.

“Some people are saying that if we achieve 90% coverage, we might” eliminate community transmission and no longer need to screen, he said.

These trial results “tell us to be a little bit careful,” Dr. Steben continued. Those HPV types that are less aggressive and rarer than HPV-16 and -18 “can still cause cancer and might be there and surprise us. It could take more time than we thought” to get to the point where screening can be eliminated.

“There might be a little problem if we stop too early,” he said.
 

Study details

During the period 2004-2005, the investigators randomly assigned 3,727 women aged 18-25 years to receive Cervarix and 3,739 to a control group that received the hepatitis A vaccine; after 4 years, the control group also received Cervarix and exited the study. They were replaced by an unvaccinated control group of 2,836 women. The new control group and the original HPV vaccine group were followed for an additional 7 years.

In years 7-11 of the trial, the investigators found 9.2 additional cervical intraepithelial neoplasias of grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) from HPV types not covered by Cervarix per 1,000 vaccinated women in comparison with unvaccinated participants. This corresponds to –71.2% negative vaccine efficacy against CIN2+ lesions of HPV types not covered by the vaccine.

There were 8.3 additional CIN3+ lesions from nontargeted HPV strains per 1,000 vaccinated women in comparison with unvaccinated participants, which corresponds to –135% negative vaccine efficacy.

Overall, however, there was a net benefit of vaccination, with 27 fewer CIN2+ lesions when all HPV genotypes – vaccine covered or not – were considered per 1,000 vaccinated women over the entire 11 years of follow-up.

There were also 8.7 fewer CIN3+ lesions across all genotypes per 1,000 vaccinated women, but the benefit was not statistically significant.

Among the study limits, the team was unable to evaluate the effect of clinical unmasking on cervical cancer, because women were treated for high-grade cervical lesions before cases could progress to cervical cancer.

The trial was funded by the National Cancer Institute and the National Institutes of Health Office of Research on Women’s Health. GlaxoSmithKline provided the Cervarix vaccine and supported aspects of the trial. Two authors are named inventors on U.S. government–owned HPV vaccine patents with expired licenses to GlaxoSmithKline and Merck. Dr. Steben is an adviser/speaker for many companies, including GlaxoSmithKline and Merck.

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

For most of us, the “best” time of day to work out is simple: When we can.

Maybe that’s before or after work. Or when the gym offers free daycare. Or when our favorite instructor teaches our favorite class.

That’s why we call it a “routine.” And if the results are the same, it’s hard to imagine changing it up.

But what if the results aren’t the same?

pojoslaw/Thinkstock

They may not be, according to a new study from a research team at Skidmore College in Saratoga Springs, N.Y. The results of a 12-week exercise program were different for morning versus evening workouts.

Women who worked out in the morning lost more fat, while those who trained in the evening gained more upper-body strength and power. As for men, the performance improvements were similar no matter when they exercised. But those who did so in the evening had a significant drop in blood pressure, among other benefits.

The study is part of a growing body of research showing different results for different times of day among different populations. As it turns out, when you exercise can ultimately have a big effect, not just on strength and fat loss, but also heart health, mood, and quality of sleep.
 

An accidental discovery

The original goal of the Skidmore study was to test a unique fitness program with a group of healthy, fit, and extremely active adults in early middle age.

The program includes four workouts a week, each with a different focus: strength, steady-pace endurance, high-intensity intervals, and flexibility (traditional stretching combined with yoga and Pilates exercises).

But because the group was so large – 27 women and 20 men completed the 3-month program – they had to split them into morning and evening workout groups.

It wasn’t until researchers looked at the results that they saw the differences between morning and evening exercise, says lead author Paul Arciero, PhD.

Dr. Arciero stressed that participants in every group got leaner and stronger. But the women who worked out in the morning got much bigger reductions in body fat and body-fat percentage than the evening group. Meanwhile, women in the evening group got much bigger gains in upper-body strength, power, and muscular endurance than their morning counterparts.

Among the men, the evening group had significantly larger improvements in blood pressure, cholesterol levels, and the percentage of fat they burned for energy, along with a bigger drop in feelings of fatigue.
 

Strategic timing for powerful results

Some of these findings are consistent with previous research. For example, a study published in 2021 showed that the ability to exert high effort and express strength and power peaks in the late afternoon, about the same time that your core body temperature is at its highest point.

On the other hand, you’ll probably perform better in the morning when the activity requires a lot of skill and coordination or depends on strategic decision-making.

The findings apply to both men and women.

Performance aside, exercise timing might offer strong health benefits for men with type 2 diabetes, or at high risk for it.

A study showed that men who exercised between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. saw dramatic improvements in blood sugar management and insulin sensitivity, compared to a group that worked out between 8 a.m. and 10 a.m.

They also lost more fat during the 12-week program, even though they were doing the exact same workouts.
 

Train consistently, sleep well

When you exercise can affect your sleep quality in many ways, said neuroscientist Jennifer Heisz, PhD, of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

First, she said, “exercise helps you fall asleep faster and sleep deeper at night.” (The only exception is if you exercise so intensely or so close to bedtime that your heart rate is still elevated.)

Second, “exercising at a consistent time every day helps regulate the body’s circadian rhythms.” It doesn’t matter if the exercise is in the morning, evening, or anywhere in between. As long as it’s predictable, it will help you fall asleep and wake up at the same times.

Outdoor exercise is even better, she said. The sun is the most powerful regulator of the circadian clock and works in tandem with physical activity.

Third, exercising at specific times can help you overcome jet lag or adjust to an earlier or later shift at work.

“Exercising at 7 a.m. or between 1 and 4 p.m. helps your circadian clock to ‘fall back’ in time, making it easier to wake up earlier,” Dr. Heisz said. If you need to train your body to wake up later in the morning, try working out between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m.
 

All exercise is good, but the right timing can make it even better

“The best time to exercise is when you can fit it in,” Dr. Arciero said. “You’ve got to choose the time that fits your lifestyle best.”

But context matters, he noted.

“For someone needing to achieve an improvement in their risk for cardiometabolic disease,” his study shows an advantage to working out later in the day, especially for men. If you’re more focused on building upper-body strength and power, you’ll probably get better results from training in the afternoon or evening.

And for fat loss, the Skidmore study shows better results for women who did morning workouts.

And if you’re still not sure? Try sleeping on it – preferably after your workout.

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

For most of us, the “best” time of day to work out is simple: When we can.

Maybe that’s before or after work. Or when the gym offers free daycare. Or when our favorite instructor teaches our favorite class.

That’s why we call it a “routine.” And if the results are the same, it’s hard to imagine changing it up.

But what if the results aren’t the same?

pojoslaw/Thinkstock

They may not be, according to a new study from a research team at Skidmore College in Saratoga Springs, N.Y. The results of a 12-week exercise program were different for morning versus evening workouts.

Women who worked out in the morning lost more fat, while those who trained in the evening gained more upper-body strength and power. As for men, the performance improvements were similar no matter when they exercised. But those who did so in the evening had a significant drop in blood pressure, among other benefits.

The study is part of a growing body of research showing different results for different times of day among different populations. As it turns out, when you exercise can ultimately have a big effect, not just on strength and fat loss, but also heart health, mood, and quality of sleep.
 

An accidental discovery

The original goal of the Skidmore study was to test a unique fitness program with a group of healthy, fit, and extremely active adults in early middle age.

The program includes four workouts a week, each with a different focus: strength, steady-pace endurance, high-intensity intervals, and flexibility (traditional stretching combined with yoga and Pilates exercises).

But because the group was so large – 27 women and 20 men completed the 3-month program – they had to split them into morning and evening workout groups.

It wasn’t until researchers looked at the results that they saw the differences between morning and evening exercise, says lead author Paul Arciero, PhD.

Dr. Arciero stressed that participants in every group got leaner and stronger. But the women who worked out in the morning got much bigger reductions in body fat and body-fat percentage than the evening group. Meanwhile, women in the evening group got much bigger gains in upper-body strength, power, and muscular endurance than their morning counterparts.

Among the men, the evening group had significantly larger improvements in blood pressure, cholesterol levels, and the percentage of fat they burned for energy, along with a bigger drop in feelings of fatigue.
 

Strategic timing for powerful results

Some of these findings are consistent with previous research. For example, a study published in 2021 showed that the ability to exert high effort and express strength and power peaks in the late afternoon, about the same time that your core body temperature is at its highest point.

On the other hand, you’ll probably perform better in the morning when the activity requires a lot of skill and coordination or depends on strategic decision-making.

The findings apply to both men and women.

Performance aside, exercise timing might offer strong health benefits for men with type 2 diabetes, or at high risk for it.

A study showed that men who exercised between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. saw dramatic improvements in blood sugar management and insulin sensitivity, compared to a group that worked out between 8 a.m. and 10 a.m.

They also lost more fat during the 12-week program, even though they were doing the exact same workouts.
 

Train consistently, sleep well

When you exercise can affect your sleep quality in many ways, said neuroscientist Jennifer Heisz, PhD, of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

First, she said, “exercise helps you fall asleep faster and sleep deeper at night.” (The only exception is if you exercise so intensely or so close to bedtime that your heart rate is still elevated.)

Second, “exercising at a consistent time every day helps regulate the body’s circadian rhythms.” It doesn’t matter if the exercise is in the morning, evening, or anywhere in between. As long as it’s predictable, it will help you fall asleep and wake up at the same times.

Outdoor exercise is even better, she said. The sun is the most powerful regulator of the circadian clock and works in tandem with physical activity.

Third, exercising at specific times can help you overcome jet lag or adjust to an earlier or later shift at work.

“Exercising at 7 a.m. or between 1 and 4 p.m. helps your circadian clock to ‘fall back’ in time, making it easier to wake up earlier,” Dr. Heisz said. If you need to train your body to wake up later in the morning, try working out between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m.
 

All exercise is good, but the right timing can make it even better

“The best time to exercise is when you can fit it in,” Dr. Arciero said. “You’ve got to choose the time that fits your lifestyle best.”

But context matters, he noted.

“For someone needing to achieve an improvement in their risk for cardiometabolic disease,” his study shows an advantage to working out later in the day, especially for men. If you’re more focused on building upper-body strength and power, you’ll probably get better results from training in the afternoon or evening.

And for fat loss, the Skidmore study shows better results for women who did morning workouts.

And if you’re still not sure? Try sleeping on it – preferably after your workout.

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

For most of us, the “best” time of day to work out is simple: When we can.

Maybe that’s before or after work. Or when the gym offers free daycare. Or when our favorite instructor teaches our favorite class.

That’s why we call it a “routine.” And if the results are the same, it’s hard to imagine changing it up.

But what if the results aren’t the same?

pojoslaw/Thinkstock

They may not be, according to a new study from a research team at Skidmore College in Saratoga Springs, N.Y. The results of a 12-week exercise program were different for morning versus evening workouts.

Women who worked out in the morning lost more fat, while those who trained in the evening gained more upper-body strength and power. As for men, the performance improvements were similar no matter when they exercised. But those who did so in the evening had a significant drop in blood pressure, among other benefits.

The study is part of a growing body of research showing different results for different times of day among different populations. As it turns out, when you exercise can ultimately have a big effect, not just on strength and fat loss, but also heart health, mood, and quality of sleep.
 

An accidental discovery

The original goal of the Skidmore study was to test a unique fitness program with a group of healthy, fit, and extremely active adults in early middle age.

The program includes four workouts a week, each with a different focus: strength, steady-pace endurance, high-intensity intervals, and flexibility (traditional stretching combined with yoga and Pilates exercises).

But because the group was so large – 27 women and 20 men completed the 3-month program – they had to split them into morning and evening workout groups.

It wasn’t until researchers looked at the results that they saw the differences between morning and evening exercise, says lead author Paul Arciero, PhD.

Dr. Arciero stressed that participants in every group got leaner and stronger. But the women who worked out in the morning got much bigger reductions in body fat and body-fat percentage than the evening group. Meanwhile, women in the evening group got much bigger gains in upper-body strength, power, and muscular endurance than their morning counterparts.

Among the men, the evening group had significantly larger improvements in blood pressure, cholesterol levels, and the percentage of fat they burned for energy, along with a bigger drop in feelings of fatigue.
 

Strategic timing for powerful results

Some of these findings are consistent with previous research. For example, a study published in 2021 showed that the ability to exert high effort and express strength and power peaks in the late afternoon, about the same time that your core body temperature is at its highest point.

On the other hand, you’ll probably perform better in the morning when the activity requires a lot of skill and coordination or depends on strategic decision-making.

The findings apply to both men and women.

Performance aside, exercise timing might offer strong health benefits for men with type 2 diabetes, or at high risk for it.

A study showed that men who exercised between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. saw dramatic improvements in blood sugar management and insulin sensitivity, compared to a group that worked out between 8 a.m. and 10 a.m.

They also lost more fat during the 12-week program, even though they were doing the exact same workouts.
 

Train consistently, sleep well

When you exercise can affect your sleep quality in many ways, said neuroscientist Jennifer Heisz, PhD, of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

First, she said, “exercise helps you fall asleep faster and sleep deeper at night.” (The only exception is if you exercise so intensely or so close to bedtime that your heart rate is still elevated.)

Second, “exercising at a consistent time every day helps regulate the body’s circadian rhythms.” It doesn’t matter if the exercise is in the morning, evening, or anywhere in between. As long as it’s predictable, it will help you fall asleep and wake up at the same times.

Outdoor exercise is even better, she said. The sun is the most powerful regulator of the circadian clock and works in tandem with physical activity.

Third, exercising at specific times can help you overcome jet lag or adjust to an earlier or later shift at work.

“Exercising at 7 a.m. or between 1 and 4 p.m. helps your circadian clock to ‘fall back’ in time, making it easier to wake up earlier,” Dr. Heisz said. If you need to train your body to wake up later in the morning, try working out between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m.
 

All exercise is good, but the right timing can make it even better

“The best time to exercise is when you can fit it in,” Dr. Arciero said. “You’ve got to choose the time that fits your lifestyle best.”

But context matters, he noted.

“For someone needing to achieve an improvement in their risk for cardiometabolic disease,” his study shows an advantage to working out later in the day, especially for men. If you’re more focused on building upper-body strength and power, you’ll probably get better results from training in the afternoon or evening.

And for fat loss, the Skidmore study shows better results for women who did morning workouts.

And if you’re still not sure? Try sleeping on it – preferably after your workout.

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

Although breast cancer occurs less frequently in Black women, compared with White women, they have a much higher risk of dying from the disease.

In the United States, age-adjusted breast cancer mortality between 2014 and 2018 was approximately 40% higher among Black women than among non-Hispanic White women.

This mortality gap likely reflects the fact that Black women face substantial barriers to obtaining timely, high-quality medical care, compared with White women, lead author Ismail Jatoi, MD, PhD, University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, and colleagues suggest in a recent opinion piece.

The article was published online  in The New England Journal of Medicine.

When the team examined the statistics for breast cancer mortality, they found a surprise: The mortality gap between races only dates back to 1980.

Prior to 1980, mortality from breast cancer among Black women was slightly lower than White women, Dr. Jatoi and colleagues point out.

That year was a turning point in breast cancer management, as in 1980, both mammography screening and adjuvant endocrine therapy became available.

This was also when the mortality gap between the races started to show up.

It was disparities in access to the two new interventions that precipitated the divergence, as the authors suggest. Why this occurred is fairly self-evident, they comment.

“Black women are more likely than White women to lack health insurance or to have inadequate coverage, which has limited their access to mammography screening and adversely affected therapeutic decisionmaking,” researchers point out.

Moreover, both mammography screening and endocrine therapy primarily benefit patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive breast cancer, which is equally common in Black and White patients. However, Black women have a 65% higher rate of HR-negative cancers than White women – and HR-negative tumors are often detected during the interval between mammography screening exams as palpable cancers.

Black women also have an 81% higher rate of triple-negative breast cancer, so they have benefited less from mammography screening and adjuvant endocrine therapy, both of which favor the detection and treatment of HR-positive breast cancer, the authors emphasize.

Some have suggested that the excess HR-negative breast cancer in Black women might be explained by hereditary factors. Yet as Dr. Jatoi and colleagues point out, the incidence of HR-negative breast cancer has actually been falling across all races in the United States since 1992.

However, the declines have been slower among Black women, and reductions in its incidence have been smaller among White women living in less affluent regions of the United States compared with White women from more affluent regions.

These patterns suggest that social determinants of health influence not only access to and quality of health care but also the development of HR-negative breast cancers, as the authors observe.

“If all people with breast cancer benefited equally from effective medical interventions, racial differences in mortality for individual tumor subtypes would largely reflect differences in incidence,” Dr. Jatoi and colleagues continue.

Yet the statistics show that the substantial racial disparities in mortality for both HR-positive and HR-negative cancers between Black and White women cannot be explained by differences in the incidence of either tumor alone, they write.

For example, mortality for HR-positive breast cancer is 19% higher among Black women than among White women, yet the incidence of HR-positive breast cancer is 22% lower among Black women.

Similarly, mortality from HR-negative breast cancer is over twice as high among Black women as it is among White women – a substantially larger disparity, compared with the 65% relative difference in the incidence of HR-negative breast cancer between the two races.

“Universal health care coverage could reduce disparities in treatment for cancers of all subtypes, including triple-negative breast cancer,” Dr. Jatoi and colleagues emphasize.

“Ensuring universal access to high-quality medical care can substantially narrow the racial disparity in U.S. breast-cancer mortality,” they conclude. 

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Although breast cancer occurs less frequently in Black women, compared with White women, they have a much higher risk of dying from the disease.

In the United States, age-adjusted breast cancer mortality between 2014 and 2018 was approximately 40% higher among Black women than among non-Hispanic White women.

This mortality gap likely reflects the fact that Black women face substantial barriers to obtaining timely, high-quality medical care, compared with White women, lead author Ismail Jatoi, MD, PhD, University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, and colleagues suggest in a recent opinion piece.

The article was published online  in The New England Journal of Medicine.

When the team examined the statistics for breast cancer mortality, they found a surprise: The mortality gap between races only dates back to 1980.

Prior to 1980, mortality from breast cancer among Black women was slightly lower than White women, Dr. Jatoi and colleagues point out.

That year was a turning point in breast cancer management, as in 1980, both mammography screening and adjuvant endocrine therapy became available.

This was also when the mortality gap between the races started to show up.

It was disparities in access to the two new interventions that precipitated the divergence, as the authors suggest. Why this occurred is fairly self-evident, they comment.

“Black women are more likely than White women to lack health insurance or to have inadequate coverage, which has limited their access to mammography screening and adversely affected therapeutic decisionmaking,” researchers point out.

Moreover, both mammography screening and endocrine therapy primarily benefit patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive breast cancer, which is equally common in Black and White patients. However, Black women have a 65% higher rate of HR-negative cancers than White women – and HR-negative tumors are often detected during the interval between mammography screening exams as palpable cancers.

Black women also have an 81% higher rate of triple-negative breast cancer, so they have benefited less from mammography screening and adjuvant endocrine therapy, both of which favor the detection and treatment of HR-positive breast cancer, the authors emphasize.

Some have suggested that the excess HR-negative breast cancer in Black women might be explained by hereditary factors. Yet as Dr. Jatoi and colleagues point out, the incidence of HR-negative breast cancer has actually been falling across all races in the United States since 1992.

However, the declines have been slower among Black women, and reductions in its incidence have been smaller among White women living in less affluent regions of the United States compared with White women from more affluent regions.

These patterns suggest that social determinants of health influence not only access to and quality of health care but also the development of HR-negative breast cancers, as the authors observe.

“If all people with breast cancer benefited equally from effective medical interventions, racial differences in mortality for individual tumor subtypes would largely reflect differences in incidence,” Dr. Jatoi and colleagues continue.

Yet the statistics show that the substantial racial disparities in mortality for both HR-positive and HR-negative cancers between Black and White women cannot be explained by differences in the incidence of either tumor alone, they write.

For example, mortality for HR-positive breast cancer is 19% higher among Black women than among White women, yet the incidence of HR-positive breast cancer is 22% lower among Black women.

Similarly, mortality from HR-negative breast cancer is over twice as high among Black women as it is among White women – a substantially larger disparity, compared with the 65% relative difference in the incidence of HR-negative breast cancer between the two races.

“Universal health care coverage could reduce disparities in treatment for cancers of all subtypes, including triple-negative breast cancer,” Dr. Jatoi and colleagues emphasize.

“Ensuring universal access to high-quality medical care can substantially narrow the racial disparity in U.S. breast-cancer mortality,” they conclude. 

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Although breast cancer occurs less frequently in Black women, compared with White women, they have a much higher risk of dying from the disease.

In the United States, age-adjusted breast cancer mortality between 2014 and 2018 was approximately 40% higher among Black women than among non-Hispanic White women.

This mortality gap likely reflects the fact that Black women face substantial barriers to obtaining timely, high-quality medical care, compared with White women, lead author Ismail Jatoi, MD, PhD, University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, and colleagues suggest in a recent opinion piece.

The article was published online  in The New England Journal of Medicine.

When the team examined the statistics for breast cancer mortality, they found a surprise: The mortality gap between races only dates back to 1980.

Prior to 1980, mortality from breast cancer among Black women was slightly lower than White women, Dr. Jatoi and colleagues point out.

That year was a turning point in breast cancer management, as in 1980, both mammography screening and adjuvant endocrine therapy became available.

This was also when the mortality gap between the races started to show up.

It was disparities in access to the two new interventions that precipitated the divergence, as the authors suggest. Why this occurred is fairly self-evident, they comment.

“Black women are more likely than White women to lack health insurance or to have inadequate coverage, which has limited their access to mammography screening and adversely affected therapeutic decisionmaking,” researchers point out.

Moreover, both mammography screening and endocrine therapy primarily benefit patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive breast cancer, which is equally common in Black and White patients. However, Black women have a 65% higher rate of HR-negative cancers than White women – and HR-negative tumors are often detected during the interval between mammography screening exams as palpable cancers.

Black women also have an 81% higher rate of triple-negative breast cancer, so they have benefited less from mammography screening and adjuvant endocrine therapy, both of which favor the detection and treatment of HR-positive breast cancer, the authors emphasize.

Some have suggested that the excess HR-negative breast cancer in Black women might be explained by hereditary factors. Yet as Dr. Jatoi and colleagues point out, the incidence of HR-negative breast cancer has actually been falling across all races in the United States since 1992.

However, the declines have been slower among Black women, and reductions in its incidence have been smaller among White women living in less affluent regions of the United States compared with White women from more affluent regions.

These patterns suggest that social determinants of health influence not only access to and quality of health care but also the development of HR-negative breast cancers, as the authors observe.

“If all people with breast cancer benefited equally from effective medical interventions, racial differences in mortality for individual tumor subtypes would largely reflect differences in incidence,” Dr. Jatoi and colleagues continue.

Yet the statistics show that the substantial racial disparities in mortality for both HR-positive and HR-negative cancers between Black and White women cannot be explained by differences in the incidence of either tumor alone, they write.

For example, mortality for HR-positive breast cancer is 19% higher among Black women than among White women, yet the incidence of HR-positive breast cancer is 22% lower among Black women.

Similarly, mortality from HR-negative breast cancer is over twice as high among Black women as it is among White women – a substantially larger disparity, compared with the 65% relative difference in the incidence of HR-negative breast cancer between the two races.

“Universal health care coverage could reduce disparities in treatment for cancers of all subtypes, including triple-negative breast cancer,” Dr. Jatoi and colleagues emphasize.

“Ensuring universal access to high-quality medical care can substantially narrow the racial disparity in U.S. breast-cancer mortality,” they conclude. 

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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