Clinician Reviews

Infection with COVID-19 may increase a person’s risk of developing high blood pressure, according to a new study.

High blood pressure already impacts about half of U.S. adults, and the study researchers expressed concern about the sheer number of people who have newly developed the condition.

Among people in the study who had COVID but didn’t have a history of high blood pressure:

• One in five who had been hospitalized with COVID developed high blood pressure within 6 months.
• One in 10 who had COVID but were not hospitalized developed high blood pressure within 6 months.

The study appeared in Hypertension, a journal published by the American Heart Association. The researchers analyzed data for more than 45,000 people who had COVID from March 2020 to August 2022. The people did not have a history of high blood pressure. All of them were treated at the Montefiore Health System in New York, and had returned to the hospital system for any medical reason within an average of 6 months.

In an analysis to evaluate the impact of COVID, the researchers compared the likelihood of new high blood pressure in people who had the flu to the people who had COVID. The hospitalized COVID patients were more than twice as likely to get high blood pressure, compared with hospitalized flu patients. People who had COVID but weren’t hospitalized were 1.5 times more likely to get high blood pressure, compared with nonhospitalized flu patients. 

People at greatest risk were age 40 or older or men, or had conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), coronary artery disease, and chronic kidney disease. 

The authors noted that the people in the study mostly lived in a low socioeconomic area, which can be a risk factor for high blood pressure. Aspects of the pandemic other than the virus itself could have impacted high blood pressure risk, too, like isolation, low activity levels, poor diet, and psychological stress. The researchers said further study is needed to overcome limitations of their research, in particular that it only included people who interacted with the health care system, and that they didn’t know if some people already had high blood pressure that was just undiagnosed.

“Given the sheer number of people affected by COVID-19, compared to influenza, these statistics are alarming and suggest that many more patients will likely develop high blood pressure in the future, which may present a major public health burden,” researcher Tim Q. Duong, PhD, professor of radiology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine and Montefiore Health System, New York, said in a statement. “These findings should heighten awareness to screen at-risk patients for hypertension after COVID-19 illness to enable earlier identification and treatment for hypertension-related complications, such as cardiovascular and kidney disease.”

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Infection with COVID-19 may increase a person’s risk of developing high blood pressure, according to a new study.

High blood pressure already impacts about half of U.S. adults, and the study researchers expressed concern about the sheer number of people who have newly developed the condition.

Among people in the study who had COVID but didn’t have a history of high blood pressure:

• One in five who had been hospitalized with COVID developed high blood pressure within 6 months.
• One in 10 who had COVID but were not hospitalized developed high blood pressure within 6 months.

The study appeared in Hypertension, a journal published by the American Heart Association. The researchers analyzed data for more than 45,000 people who had COVID from March 2020 to August 2022. The people did not have a history of high blood pressure. All of them were treated at the Montefiore Health System in New York, and had returned to the hospital system for any medical reason within an average of 6 months.

In an analysis to evaluate the impact of COVID, the researchers compared the likelihood of new high blood pressure in people who had the flu to the people who had COVID. The hospitalized COVID patients were more than twice as likely to get high blood pressure, compared with hospitalized flu patients. People who had COVID but weren’t hospitalized were 1.5 times more likely to get high blood pressure, compared with nonhospitalized flu patients. 

People at greatest risk were age 40 or older or men, or had conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), coronary artery disease, and chronic kidney disease. 

The authors noted that the people in the study mostly lived in a low socioeconomic area, which can be a risk factor for high blood pressure. Aspects of the pandemic other than the virus itself could have impacted high blood pressure risk, too, like isolation, low activity levels, poor diet, and psychological stress. The researchers said further study is needed to overcome limitations of their research, in particular that it only included people who interacted with the health care system, and that they didn’t know if some people already had high blood pressure that was just undiagnosed.

“Given the sheer number of people affected by COVID-19, compared to influenza, these statistics are alarming and suggest that many more patients will likely develop high blood pressure in the future, which may present a major public health burden,” researcher Tim Q. Duong, PhD, professor of radiology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine and Montefiore Health System, New York, said in a statement. “These findings should heighten awareness to screen at-risk patients for hypertension after COVID-19 illness to enable earlier identification and treatment for hypertension-related complications, such as cardiovascular and kidney disease.”

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Infection with COVID-19 may increase a person’s risk of developing high blood pressure, according to a new study.

High blood pressure already impacts about half of U.S. adults, and the study researchers expressed concern about the sheer number of people who have newly developed the condition.

Among people in the study who had COVID but didn’t have a history of high blood pressure:

• One in five who had been hospitalized with COVID developed high blood pressure within 6 months.
• One in 10 who had COVID but were not hospitalized developed high blood pressure within 6 months.

The study appeared in Hypertension, a journal published by the American Heart Association. The researchers analyzed data for more than 45,000 people who had COVID from March 2020 to August 2022. The people did not have a history of high blood pressure. All of them were treated at the Montefiore Health System in New York, and had returned to the hospital system for any medical reason within an average of 6 months.

In an analysis to evaluate the impact of COVID, the researchers compared the likelihood of new high blood pressure in people who had the flu to the people who had COVID. The hospitalized COVID patients were more than twice as likely to get high blood pressure, compared with hospitalized flu patients. People who had COVID but weren’t hospitalized were 1.5 times more likely to get high blood pressure, compared with nonhospitalized flu patients. 

People at greatest risk were age 40 or older or men, or had conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), coronary artery disease, and chronic kidney disease. 

The authors noted that the people in the study mostly lived in a low socioeconomic area, which can be a risk factor for high blood pressure. Aspects of the pandemic other than the virus itself could have impacted high blood pressure risk, too, like isolation, low activity levels, poor diet, and psychological stress. The researchers said further study is needed to overcome limitations of their research, in particular that it only included people who interacted with the health care system, and that they didn’t know if some people already had high blood pressure that was just undiagnosed.

“Given the sheer number of people affected by COVID-19, compared to influenza, these statistics are alarming and suggest that many more patients will likely develop high blood pressure in the future, which may present a major public health burden,” researcher Tim Q. Duong, PhD, professor of radiology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine and Montefiore Health System, New York, said in a statement. “These findings should heighten awareness to screen at-risk patients for hypertension after COVID-19 illness to enable earlier identification and treatment for hypertension-related complications, such as cardiovascular and kidney disease.”

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

If you’re looking to grow hair, you might just have a solution in your kitchen cabinet – if TikTok and some dermatologists are correct.

A small study published in 2015 suggested that rosemary oil may help regrow hair in people with androgenetic alopecia. The herb might also protect hair from the sun, pollution, and other environmental elements, according to an article in Insider.

The study published in Skinmed found that rosemary oil was similar to the effectiveness of minoxidil for regrowing hair in men with androgenetic alopecia. The scalp was also less itchy after 3-6 months of use.

The study included only men.

Still, dermatologist Shilpi Khetarpal, MD, told the Cleveland Clinic that it seems to work.

“The study really prompted people to look at rosemary oil for hair growth,” she said. “It became much more common in over-the-counter products after that, too.”

The Cleveland Clinic also reports that rosemary oil might help against dandruff and premature graying.

Dr. Khetarpal suggested massaging rosemary oil into the scalp, letting it soak overnight, and then washing it out. This should be done two or three times a week. 

She also noted that only a few drops of rosemary oil are needed, and that the focus should be on the scalp rather than the hair, which rosemary oil makes look greasy.

It may take 6 months for “meaningful improvement,” Dr. Khetarpal said.

Meanwhile, TikTok users love hyping the oil’s hair care qualities. On the social media platform, videos with the hashtag #rosemaryoil have been viewed more than 2 billion times.
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

If you’re looking to grow hair, you might just have a solution in your kitchen cabinet – if TikTok and some dermatologists are correct.

A small study published in 2015 suggested that rosemary oil may help regrow hair in people with androgenetic alopecia. The herb might also protect hair from the sun, pollution, and other environmental elements, according to an article in Insider.

The study published in Skinmed found that rosemary oil was similar to the effectiveness of minoxidil for regrowing hair in men with androgenetic alopecia. The scalp was also less itchy after 3-6 months of use.

The study included only men.

Still, dermatologist Shilpi Khetarpal, MD, told the Cleveland Clinic that it seems to work.

“The study really prompted people to look at rosemary oil for hair growth,” she said. “It became much more common in over-the-counter products after that, too.”

The Cleveland Clinic also reports that rosemary oil might help against dandruff and premature graying.

Dr. Khetarpal suggested massaging rosemary oil into the scalp, letting it soak overnight, and then washing it out. This should be done two or three times a week. 

She also noted that only a few drops of rosemary oil are needed, and that the focus should be on the scalp rather than the hair, which rosemary oil makes look greasy.

It may take 6 months for “meaningful improvement,” Dr. Khetarpal said.

Meanwhile, TikTok users love hyping the oil’s hair care qualities. On the social media platform, videos with the hashtag #rosemaryoil have been viewed more than 2 billion times.
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

If you’re looking to grow hair, you might just have a solution in your kitchen cabinet – if TikTok and some dermatologists are correct.

A small study published in 2015 suggested that rosemary oil may help regrow hair in people with androgenetic alopecia. The herb might also protect hair from the sun, pollution, and other environmental elements, according to an article in Insider.

The study published in Skinmed found that rosemary oil was similar to the effectiveness of minoxidil for regrowing hair in men with androgenetic alopecia. The scalp was also less itchy after 3-6 months of use.

The study included only men.

Still, dermatologist Shilpi Khetarpal, MD, told the Cleveland Clinic that it seems to work.

“The study really prompted people to look at rosemary oil for hair growth,” she said. “It became much more common in over-the-counter products after that, too.”

The Cleveland Clinic also reports that rosemary oil might help against dandruff and premature graying.

Dr. Khetarpal suggested massaging rosemary oil into the scalp, letting it soak overnight, and then washing it out. This should be done two or three times a week. 

She also noted that only a few drops of rosemary oil are needed, and that the focus should be on the scalp rather than the hair, which rosemary oil makes look greasy.

It may take 6 months for “meaningful improvement,” Dr. Khetarpal said.

Meanwhile, TikTok users love hyping the oil’s hair care qualities. On the social media platform, videos with the hashtag #rosemaryoil have been viewed more than 2 billion times.
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is tracking a newly discovered strain of COVID-19 called BA.2.86.

On Aug. 17, the agency posted on X, formerly known as Twitter, that the lineage has been detected in the United States, Denmark, and Israel. 

“As we learn more about BA.2.86, CDC’s advice on protecting yourself from COVID-19 remains the same,” the CDC said on X. 

A case of BA.2.86 was detected at a laboratory at the University of Michigan, CBS News reported. It’s not clear how the university obtained the sample that was sequenced. A case was also detected in the United Kingdom, the news outlet said. 

The World Health Organization is also tracking BA.2.86 and has classified it as a “variant under monitoring.” 

“More data are needed to understand this COVID-19 variant and the extent of its spread, but the number of mutations warrants attention. WHO will update countries and the public as we learn more,” the WHO said on X.

The strain is so new that scientists don’t know if BA.2.86 is more easily spread, causes more severe symptoms than existing strains, or will be more resistant to vaccines and natural immunity developed over the last few years. 

Early research indicates BA.2.86 “will have equal or greater escape than XBB.1.5 from antibodies elicited by pre-Omicron and first-generation Omicron variants,” Jesse Bloom, PhD, a virologist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, said in a slide deck published Aug. 17. (XBB.1.5 is the Omicron subvariant that is targeted in the updated COVID booster shot to be released soon.)

Still, Dr. Bloom noted that “even if a highly mutated new variant like BA.2.86 starts to spread, we will be in a far better place than we were in 2020 and 2021, since most people have some immunity to SARS-CoV-2 now.”

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is tracking a newly discovered strain of COVID-19 called BA.2.86.

On Aug. 17, the agency posted on X, formerly known as Twitter, that the lineage has been detected in the United States, Denmark, and Israel. 

“As we learn more about BA.2.86, CDC’s advice on protecting yourself from COVID-19 remains the same,” the CDC said on X. 

A case of BA.2.86 was detected at a laboratory at the University of Michigan, CBS News reported. It’s not clear how the university obtained the sample that was sequenced. A case was also detected in the United Kingdom, the news outlet said. 

The World Health Organization is also tracking BA.2.86 and has classified it as a “variant under monitoring.” 

“More data are needed to understand this COVID-19 variant and the extent of its spread, but the number of mutations warrants attention. WHO will update countries and the public as we learn more,” the WHO said on X.

The strain is so new that scientists don’t know if BA.2.86 is more easily spread, causes more severe symptoms than existing strains, or will be more resistant to vaccines and natural immunity developed over the last few years. 

Early research indicates BA.2.86 “will have equal or greater escape than XBB.1.5 from antibodies elicited by pre-Omicron and first-generation Omicron variants,” Jesse Bloom, PhD, a virologist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, said in a slide deck published Aug. 17. (XBB.1.5 is the Omicron subvariant that is targeted in the updated COVID booster shot to be released soon.)

Still, Dr. Bloom noted that “even if a highly mutated new variant like BA.2.86 starts to spread, we will be in a far better place than we were in 2020 and 2021, since most people have some immunity to SARS-CoV-2 now.”

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is tracking a newly discovered strain of COVID-19 called BA.2.86.

On Aug. 17, the agency posted on X, formerly known as Twitter, that the lineage has been detected in the United States, Denmark, and Israel. 

“As we learn more about BA.2.86, CDC’s advice on protecting yourself from COVID-19 remains the same,” the CDC said on X. 

A case of BA.2.86 was detected at a laboratory at the University of Michigan, CBS News reported. It’s not clear how the university obtained the sample that was sequenced. A case was also detected in the United Kingdom, the news outlet said. 

The World Health Organization is also tracking BA.2.86 and has classified it as a “variant under monitoring.” 

“More data are needed to understand this COVID-19 variant and the extent of its spread, but the number of mutations warrants attention. WHO will update countries and the public as we learn more,” the WHO said on X.

The strain is so new that scientists don’t know if BA.2.86 is more easily spread, causes more severe symptoms than existing strains, or will be more resistant to vaccines and natural immunity developed over the last few years. 

Early research indicates BA.2.86 “will have equal or greater escape than XBB.1.5 from antibodies elicited by pre-Omicron and first-generation Omicron variants,” Jesse Bloom, PhD, a virologist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, said in a slide deck published Aug. 17. (XBB.1.5 is the Omicron subvariant that is targeted in the updated COVID booster shot to be released soon.)

Still, Dr. Bloom noted that “even if a highly mutated new variant like BA.2.86 starts to spread, we will be in a far better place than we were in 2020 and 2021, since most people have some immunity to SARS-CoV-2 now.”

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

Men and women with prediabetes, undiagnosed diabetes, and, notably, diagnosed diabetes were at higher risk of incident cardiovascular disease (CVD), whereas those with low-normal A1c were at lower risk of this in a large, 12-year observational study of UK Biobank data.

The results highlight “the need for strategies to reduce risk of CVD across the [glycemic] spectrum,” Christopher T. Rentsch, MPH, PhD, and colleagues wrote in their study, which was published in the The Lancet Regional Health – Europe.

The findings suggest “that excess [CVD] risks in both men and women were largely explained by modifiable factors and could be ameliorated by attention to weight reduction strategies and greater use of antihypertensive and statin medications.

“Addressing these risk factors could reduce sex disparities in [glycemia]-related risks of CVD,” according to the researchers.

After the researchers accounted for age, the absolute rate of CVD events was higher among men than women (16.9 vs. 9.1 events per 1,000 person-years); however, the relative risk was higher among women than men.

Compared with men, women were more likely to have obesity (63% vs. 53%) and were less likely to be using antihypertensive medications (64% vs. 69%) or a statin (71% vs. 75%).

“This is the largest study to date to investigate sex differences in the risk of CVD across the glycemic spectrum,” the researchers noted.
 

“The lower the better”

“We uncovered compelling evidence that for blood sugar levels within the ‘normal’ range, it was a case of ‘the lower the better’ in protecting against heart disease,” Dr. Rentsch, assistant professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, told this news organization.

Compared with people with normal blood glucose levels, those with lower than normal levels were at 10% lower risk of developing any form of heart disease, he noted.

The study findings “support women being proactive in asking about medications like statins and antihypertensives as an option to help lower their [CVD] risk, if clinically appropriate,” Dr. Rentsch added.

“We found that men and women with diagnosed diabetes remained at elevated risk for three types of heart disease – coronary artery disease, stroke, and heart failure – even after accounting for a large number of sociodemographic, lifestyle, and clinical characteristics,” he pointed out.

However, “total cholesterol, family history of CVD, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and C-reactive protein had relatively little impact on explaining the risk of heart disease associated with blood sugar.”

“It is well established that being overweight can lead to higher blood sugar levels as well as higher blood pressure, these being factors that contribute to higher risk of heart attack and stroke,” Robert Storey, DM, professor of cardiology, University of Sheffield (England), told the UK Science Media Centre.

“This very large UK Biobank study,” he said, “shows that the higher heart risk associated with blood sugar can be detected at a very early stage along the path towards the abnormally high blood sugar levels associated with diabetes.

“The study provides support for a strategy of assessing cardiovascular risk in people who are overweight, including assessment of blood sugar, cholesterol, and blood pressure levels, all of which can be effectively managed to markedly reduce the risk of future heart attack and stroke,” according to Dr. Storey.
 

More than 400,000 men, women

The researchers enrolled men and women aged 40-69 between 2006 to 2010 who were living in England, Scotland, and Wales. After excluding people with type 1 diabetes or those whose A1c data were missing, the current study included 427,435 people (46% of whom were men).

The participants were classified as having low-normal A1c (< 35 mmol/mol or < 5.5%), normal A1c (35-41 mmol/mol or 5.5%-5.9%), prediabetes (42-47 mmol/mol or 6.0%-6.4%), undiagnosed diabetes (≥ 48 mmol/mol or ≥ 6.5%), or diagnosed type 2 diabetes (medical history and in receipt of glucose-lowering medication).

The researchers determined the incidence of six CVD outcomes during a median 11.8-year follow-up: coronary artery disease, atrial fibrillation, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, stroke, and heart failure.

Few participants (5%) had any of these outcomes prior to study enrollment.

During the follow-up, there were 51,288 incident CVD events.

After adjustment for age, compared to having normal A1c, having prediabetes or undiagnosed diabetes was associated with an increased risk of CVD for women and men (hazard ratio [HR], 1.30-1.47).

Among individuals with diagnosed type 2 diabetes, the age-adjusted risk of CVD was greater for women (HR, 2.00) than for men (HR, 1.55).

After further adjustment for clinical and lifestyle factors, especially obesity and antihypertensive or statin use, the risk of CVD decreased and became similar among men and women. The fully adjusted HR for CVD was 1.17 for women and 1.06 for men with diagnosed diabetes.

Compared with having normal A1c, women and men with low-normal A1c were at decreased risk of CVD (HR, 0.86 for both).

The study was funded by Diabetes UK and the British Heart Foundation. Dr. Rentsch and Dr. Storey have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The disclosures of the other study authors are listed in the original article.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Men and women with prediabetes, undiagnosed diabetes, and, notably, diagnosed diabetes were at higher risk of incident cardiovascular disease (CVD), whereas those with low-normal A1c were at lower risk of this in a large, 12-year observational study of UK Biobank data.

The results highlight “the need for strategies to reduce risk of CVD across the [glycemic] spectrum,” Christopher T. Rentsch, MPH, PhD, and colleagues wrote in their study, which was published in the The Lancet Regional Health – Europe.

The findings suggest “that excess [CVD] risks in both men and women were largely explained by modifiable factors and could be ameliorated by attention to weight reduction strategies and greater use of antihypertensive and statin medications.

“Addressing these risk factors could reduce sex disparities in [glycemia]-related risks of CVD,” according to the researchers.

After the researchers accounted for age, the absolute rate of CVD events was higher among men than women (16.9 vs. 9.1 events per 1,000 person-years); however, the relative risk was higher among women than men.

Compared with men, women were more likely to have obesity (63% vs. 53%) and were less likely to be using antihypertensive medications (64% vs. 69%) or a statin (71% vs. 75%).

“This is the largest study to date to investigate sex differences in the risk of CVD across the glycemic spectrum,” the researchers noted.
 

“The lower the better”

“We uncovered compelling evidence that for blood sugar levels within the ‘normal’ range, it was a case of ‘the lower the better’ in protecting against heart disease,” Dr. Rentsch, assistant professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, told this news organization.

Compared with people with normal blood glucose levels, those with lower than normal levels were at 10% lower risk of developing any form of heart disease, he noted.

The study findings “support women being proactive in asking about medications like statins and antihypertensives as an option to help lower their [CVD] risk, if clinically appropriate,” Dr. Rentsch added.

“We found that men and women with diagnosed diabetes remained at elevated risk for three types of heart disease – coronary artery disease, stroke, and heart failure – even after accounting for a large number of sociodemographic, lifestyle, and clinical characteristics,” he pointed out.

However, “total cholesterol, family history of CVD, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and C-reactive protein had relatively little impact on explaining the risk of heart disease associated with blood sugar.”

“It is well established that being overweight can lead to higher blood sugar levels as well as higher blood pressure, these being factors that contribute to higher risk of heart attack and stroke,” Robert Storey, DM, professor of cardiology, University of Sheffield (England), told the UK Science Media Centre.

“This very large UK Biobank study,” he said, “shows that the higher heart risk associated with blood sugar can be detected at a very early stage along the path towards the abnormally high blood sugar levels associated with diabetes.

“The study provides support for a strategy of assessing cardiovascular risk in people who are overweight, including assessment of blood sugar, cholesterol, and blood pressure levels, all of which can be effectively managed to markedly reduce the risk of future heart attack and stroke,” according to Dr. Storey.
 

More than 400,000 men, women

The researchers enrolled men and women aged 40-69 between 2006 to 2010 who were living in England, Scotland, and Wales. After excluding people with type 1 diabetes or those whose A1c data were missing, the current study included 427,435 people (46% of whom were men).

The participants were classified as having low-normal A1c (< 35 mmol/mol or < 5.5%), normal A1c (35-41 mmol/mol or 5.5%-5.9%), prediabetes (42-47 mmol/mol or 6.0%-6.4%), undiagnosed diabetes (≥ 48 mmol/mol or ≥ 6.5%), or diagnosed type 2 diabetes (medical history and in receipt of glucose-lowering medication).

The researchers determined the incidence of six CVD outcomes during a median 11.8-year follow-up: coronary artery disease, atrial fibrillation, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, stroke, and heart failure.

Few participants (5%) had any of these outcomes prior to study enrollment.

During the follow-up, there were 51,288 incident CVD events.

After adjustment for age, compared to having normal A1c, having prediabetes or undiagnosed diabetes was associated with an increased risk of CVD for women and men (hazard ratio [HR], 1.30-1.47).

Among individuals with diagnosed type 2 diabetes, the age-adjusted risk of CVD was greater for women (HR, 2.00) than for men (HR, 1.55).

After further adjustment for clinical and lifestyle factors, especially obesity and antihypertensive or statin use, the risk of CVD decreased and became similar among men and women. The fully adjusted HR for CVD was 1.17 for women and 1.06 for men with diagnosed diabetes.

Compared with having normal A1c, women and men with low-normal A1c were at decreased risk of CVD (HR, 0.86 for both).

The study was funded by Diabetes UK and the British Heart Foundation. Dr. Rentsch and Dr. Storey have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The disclosures of the other study authors are listed in the original article.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Men and women with prediabetes, undiagnosed diabetes, and, notably, diagnosed diabetes were at higher risk of incident cardiovascular disease (CVD), whereas those with low-normal A1c were at lower risk of this in a large, 12-year observational study of UK Biobank data.

The results highlight “the need for strategies to reduce risk of CVD across the [glycemic] spectrum,” Christopher T. Rentsch, MPH, PhD, and colleagues wrote in their study, which was published in the The Lancet Regional Health – Europe.

The findings suggest “that excess [CVD] risks in both men and women were largely explained by modifiable factors and could be ameliorated by attention to weight reduction strategies and greater use of antihypertensive and statin medications.

“Addressing these risk factors could reduce sex disparities in [glycemia]-related risks of CVD,” according to the researchers.

After the researchers accounted for age, the absolute rate of CVD events was higher among men than women (16.9 vs. 9.1 events per 1,000 person-years); however, the relative risk was higher among women than men.

Compared with men, women were more likely to have obesity (63% vs. 53%) and were less likely to be using antihypertensive medications (64% vs. 69%) or a statin (71% vs. 75%).

“This is the largest study to date to investigate sex differences in the risk of CVD across the glycemic spectrum,” the researchers noted.
 

“The lower the better”

“We uncovered compelling evidence that for blood sugar levels within the ‘normal’ range, it was a case of ‘the lower the better’ in protecting against heart disease,” Dr. Rentsch, assistant professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, told this news organization.

Compared with people with normal blood glucose levels, those with lower than normal levels were at 10% lower risk of developing any form of heart disease, he noted.

The study findings “support women being proactive in asking about medications like statins and antihypertensives as an option to help lower their [CVD] risk, if clinically appropriate,” Dr. Rentsch added.

“We found that men and women with diagnosed diabetes remained at elevated risk for three types of heart disease – coronary artery disease, stroke, and heart failure – even after accounting for a large number of sociodemographic, lifestyle, and clinical characteristics,” he pointed out.

However, “total cholesterol, family history of CVD, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and C-reactive protein had relatively little impact on explaining the risk of heart disease associated with blood sugar.”

“It is well established that being overweight can lead to higher blood sugar levels as well as higher blood pressure, these being factors that contribute to higher risk of heart attack and stroke,” Robert Storey, DM, professor of cardiology, University of Sheffield (England), told the UK Science Media Centre.

“This very large UK Biobank study,” he said, “shows that the higher heart risk associated with blood sugar can be detected at a very early stage along the path towards the abnormally high blood sugar levels associated with diabetes.

“The study provides support for a strategy of assessing cardiovascular risk in people who are overweight, including assessment of blood sugar, cholesterol, and blood pressure levels, all of which can be effectively managed to markedly reduce the risk of future heart attack and stroke,” according to Dr. Storey.
 

More than 400,000 men, women

The researchers enrolled men and women aged 40-69 between 2006 to 2010 who were living in England, Scotland, and Wales. After excluding people with type 1 diabetes or those whose A1c data were missing, the current study included 427,435 people (46% of whom were men).

The participants were classified as having low-normal A1c (< 35 mmol/mol or < 5.5%), normal A1c (35-41 mmol/mol or 5.5%-5.9%), prediabetes (42-47 mmol/mol or 6.0%-6.4%), undiagnosed diabetes (≥ 48 mmol/mol or ≥ 6.5%), or diagnosed type 2 diabetes (medical history and in receipt of glucose-lowering medication).

The researchers determined the incidence of six CVD outcomes during a median 11.8-year follow-up: coronary artery disease, atrial fibrillation, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, stroke, and heart failure.

Few participants (5%) had any of these outcomes prior to study enrollment.

During the follow-up, there were 51,288 incident CVD events.

After adjustment for age, compared to having normal A1c, having prediabetes or undiagnosed diabetes was associated with an increased risk of CVD for women and men (hazard ratio [HR], 1.30-1.47).

Among individuals with diagnosed type 2 diabetes, the age-adjusted risk of CVD was greater for women (HR, 2.00) than for men (HR, 1.55).

After further adjustment for clinical and lifestyle factors, especially obesity and antihypertensive or statin use, the risk of CVD decreased and became similar among men and women. The fully adjusted HR for CVD was 1.17 for women and 1.06 for men with diagnosed diabetes.

Compared with having normal A1c, women and men with low-normal A1c were at decreased risk of CVD (HR, 0.86 for both).

The study was funded by Diabetes UK and the British Heart Foundation. Dr. Rentsch and Dr. Storey have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The disclosures of the other study authors are listed in the original article.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Every 4 years, an interprofessional panel of experts from the American Geriatrics Society provides updated guidelines on safe prescribing of medications in older adults, known as the Beers Criteria. A 2023 update was released in May 2023 after panel review of more 1,500 clinical trials and research studies published since the last update.

Anticoagulants

Notable changes to the 2023 guidelines include updated recommendations for anticoagulation. Warfarin should be avoided as initial therapy for venous thromboembolism or nonvalvular atrial fibrillation unless there are contraindications to direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) or other substantial barriers to use.

Rivaroxaban should also be avoided, and dabigatran used with caution in favor of apixaban, which is felt to have a better safety profile in older adults. Rivaroxaban may be considered if once daily dosing is deemed to be more clinically appropriate. Financial barriers regarding drug coverage and formulary options were acknowledged as a significant barrier to equitable access to preferred direct oral anticoagulants in older adults.
 

Diabetes medication

Regarding diabetes management, short-acting sulfonylureas should be avoided in addition to long-acting sulfonylureas, because of the increased risk of hypoglycemia, and cardiovascular and all-cause mortality in older adults. Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors as an entire class are recommended to be used with caution, as older adults are at higher risk of euglycemic ketoacidosis and urogenital infections, particularly in women in the first month of initiating treatment.

Like DOACs, the panel acknowledged that financial considerations may lead to limited options for oral diabetic treatment. In circumstances where a sulfonylurea is used, short-acting forms are preferred over long acting to reduce the risk of prolonged hypoglycemia.
 

Aspirin for primary prevention

Alongside the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guideline update in 2022 regarding aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and stroke, the Beer’s Criteria recommend against initiation of aspirin for primary prevention in older adults. Ticagrelor and prasugrel should be used with caution because of the increased risk of major bleeding in older adults over the age of 75, compared with clopidogrel. If prasugrel is used, a lower dose of 5 mg is recommended, in line with guidelines by the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association.

Pain medication

For pain management, the Beer’s Criteria updated recommendations to avoid NSAIDs, particularly when used in combination with steroids or anticoagulants. The panel highlights that even short-term use of NSAIDs is high risk when used in combination with steroids or anticoagulants. If no other alternatives are possible, patients should be placed on a proton pump inhibitor or misoprostol while taking NSAIDs.

Baclofen should be avoided in older adults with renal insufficiency (estimated glomerular filtration rate < 60 mL/min per 1.73 m²) because of the increased risk of encephalopathy, and when used, should be given at the lowest effective dose with close monitoring for mental status changes.
 

Androgen and estrogen replacement therapy

For androgen replacement therapy, the panel notes that testosterone supplementation should be avoided because of cardiovascular risks unless there is confirmed hypogonadism. The panel revised their recommendation on the basis of emerging data that a history of prostate cancer is not an absolute contraindication for exogenous testosterone. A risk versus benefit discussion about exogenous testosterone should be had with a medical oncologist or urologist in those with a history of prostate cancer.

Regarding estrogen, systemic formulations should not be initiated in women over the age of 60 because of increased risk of cardiovascular events, venous thromboembolism, and dementia. In women with a history of breast cancer, vaginal estrogens are generally felt to be safe to use at low doses, such as less than 25 mcg twice weekly.

Dr. Wang is a geriatrician and general internist at Harborview Medical Center, Seattle.

Every 4 years, an interprofessional panel of experts from the American Geriatrics Society provides updated guidelines on safe prescribing of medications in older adults, known as the Beers Criteria. A 2023 update was released in May 2023 after panel review of more 1,500 clinical trials and research studies published since the last update.

Anticoagulants

Notable changes to the 2023 guidelines include updated recommendations for anticoagulation. Warfarin should be avoided as initial therapy for venous thromboembolism or nonvalvular atrial fibrillation unless there are contraindications to direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) or other substantial barriers to use.

Rivaroxaban should also be avoided, and dabigatran used with caution in favor of apixaban, which is felt to have a better safety profile in older adults. Rivaroxaban may be considered if once daily dosing is deemed to be more clinically appropriate. Financial barriers regarding drug coverage and formulary options were acknowledged as a significant barrier to equitable access to preferred direct oral anticoagulants in older adults.
 

Diabetes medication

Regarding diabetes management, short-acting sulfonylureas should be avoided in addition to long-acting sulfonylureas, because of the increased risk of hypoglycemia, and cardiovascular and all-cause mortality in older adults. Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors as an entire class are recommended to be used with caution, as older adults are at higher risk of euglycemic ketoacidosis and urogenital infections, particularly in women in the first month of initiating treatment.

Like DOACs, the panel acknowledged that financial considerations may lead to limited options for oral diabetic treatment. In circumstances where a sulfonylurea is used, short-acting forms are preferred over long acting to reduce the risk of prolonged hypoglycemia.
 

Aspirin for primary prevention

Alongside the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guideline update in 2022 regarding aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and stroke, the Beer’s Criteria recommend against initiation of aspirin for primary prevention in older adults. Ticagrelor and prasugrel should be used with caution because of the increased risk of major bleeding in older adults over the age of 75, compared with clopidogrel. If prasugrel is used, a lower dose of 5 mg is recommended, in line with guidelines by the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association.

Pain medication

For pain management, the Beer’s Criteria updated recommendations to avoid NSAIDs, particularly when used in combination with steroids or anticoagulants. The panel highlights that even short-term use of NSAIDs is high risk when used in combination with steroids or anticoagulants. If no other alternatives are possible, patients should be placed on a proton pump inhibitor or misoprostol while taking NSAIDs.

Baclofen should be avoided in older adults with renal insufficiency (estimated glomerular filtration rate < 60 mL/min per 1.73 m²) because of the increased risk of encephalopathy, and when used, should be given at the lowest effective dose with close monitoring for mental status changes.
 

Androgen and estrogen replacement therapy

For androgen replacement therapy, the panel notes that testosterone supplementation should be avoided because of cardiovascular risks unless there is confirmed hypogonadism. The panel revised their recommendation on the basis of emerging data that a history of prostate cancer is not an absolute contraindication for exogenous testosterone. A risk versus benefit discussion about exogenous testosterone should be had with a medical oncologist or urologist in those with a history of prostate cancer.

Regarding estrogen, systemic formulations should not be initiated in women over the age of 60 because of increased risk of cardiovascular events, venous thromboembolism, and dementia. In women with a history of breast cancer, vaginal estrogens are generally felt to be safe to use at low doses, such as less than 25 mcg twice weekly.

Dr. Wang is a geriatrician and general internist at Harborview Medical Center, Seattle.

Every 4 years, an interprofessional panel of experts from the American Geriatrics Society provides updated guidelines on safe prescribing of medications in older adults, known as the Beers Criteria. A 2023 update was released in May 2023 after panel review of more 1,500 clinical trials and research studies published since the last update.

Anticoagulants

Notable changes to the 2023 guidelines include updated recommendations for anticoagulation. Warfarin should be avoided as initial therapy for venous thromboembolism or nonvalvular atrial fibrillation unless there are contraindications to direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) or other substantial barriers to use.

Rivaroxaban should also be avoided, and dabigatran used with caution in favor of apixaban, which is felt to have a better safety profile in older adults. Rivaroxaban may be considered if once daily dosing is deemed to be more clinically appropriate. Financial barriers regarding drug coverage and formulary options were acknowledged as a significant barrier to equitable access to preferred direct oral anticoagulants in older adults.
 

Diabetes medication

Regarding diabetes management, short-acting sulfonylureas should be avoided in addition to long-acting sulfonylureas, because of the increased risk of hypoglycemia, and cardiovascular and all-cause mortality in older adults. Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors as an entire class are recommended to be used with caution, as older adults are at higher risk of euglycemic ketoacidosis and urogenital infections, particularly in women in the first month of initiating treatment.

Like DOACs, the panel acknowledged that financial considerations may lead to limited options for oral diabetic treatment. In circumstances where a sulfonylurea is used, short-acting forms are preferred over long acting to reduce the risk of prolonged hypoglycemia.
 

Aspirin for primary prevention

Alongside the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guideline update in 2022 regarding aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and stroke, the Beer’s Criteria recommend against initiation of aspirin for primary prevention in older adults. Ticagrelor and prasugrel should be used with caution because of the increased risk of major bleeding in older adults over the age of 75, compared with clopidogrel. If prasugrel is used, a lower dose of 5 mg is recommended, in line with guidelines by the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association.

Pain medication

For pain management, the Beer’s Criteria updated recommendations to avoid NSAIDs, particularly when used in combination with steroids or anticoagulants. The panel highlights that even short-term use of NSAIDs is high risk when used in combination with steroids or anticoagulants. If no other alternatives are possible, patients should be placed on a proton pump inhibitor or misoprostol while taking NSAIDs.

Baclofen should be avoided in older adults with renal insufficiency (estimated glomerular filtration rate < 60 mL/min per 1.73 m²) because of the increased risk of encephalopathy, and when used, should be given at the lowest effective dose with close monitoring for mental status changes.
 

Androgen and estrogen replacement therapy

For androgen replacement therapy, the panel notes that testosterone supplementation should be avoided because of cardiovascular risks unless there is confirmed hypogonadism. The panel revised their recommendation on the basis of emerging data that a history of prostate cancer is not an absolute contraindication for exogenous testosterone. A risk versus benefit discussion about exogenous testosterone should be had with a medical oncologist or urologist in those with a history of prostate cancer.

Regarding estrogen, systemic formulations should not be initiated in women over the age of 60 because of increased risk of cardiovascular events, venous thromboembolism, and dementia. In women with a history of breast cancer, vaginal estrogens are generally felt to be safe to use at low doses, such as less than 25 mcg twice weekly.

Dr. Wang is a geriatrician and general internist at Harborview Medical Center, Seattle.

French researchers have been working on an innovative vaccine that targets tick microbiota to indirectly reduce the bacterial load within the vector. The results of their study were published in the journal Microbiome.

Ticks are vectors of many harmful pathogens that can cause life-threatening illnesses. Ixodes ricinus (in Europe) and Ixodes scapularis (in Canada and the United States) carry Borrelia, the bacteria that cause Lyme disease. At the moment, there is no vaccine for this disease. But that could all change, thanks to the findings of scientists at the National Research Institute for Agriculture, Food, and Environment (INRAE), in collaboration with the Agency for Food, Environmental, and Occupational Health and Safety and the National Veterinary School of Alfort, France.

“Ticks can transmit a broad variety of pathogens of medical importance, including Borrelia afzelii, the causative agent of Lyme borreliosis in Europe. Tick microbiota is an important factor modulating not only vector physiology, but also the vector competence,” the team reported. They focused their efforts on developing a vaccine that would disturb the tick microbiota and thus reduce Borrelia colonization.

To explore this indirect approach, they injected a harmless strain of Escherichia coli bacteria into mice, which then produced antibodies. Their reasoning was that when a tick bites one of these mice, the antibodies would pass into the arachnid’s microbiota and disturb it, thereby making the tick less harmful. And indeed, the researchers’ work showed that in the ticks that fed on vaccinated mice, levels of Borrelia levels were much lower than in than ticks that fed on unvaccinated mice (see video for an explanation). So, when given to a mouse, this vaccine “protects” the tick against colonization by Borrelia but does not protect the mouse against the disease.

The study has advanced this area of research in two significant ways: It provides new information on the importance of the microbiota when it comes to ticks that are infected with Borrelia, and it suggests an innovative vaccination strategy. Indeed, the results confirm that tick microbiota is essential for the development of Borrelia in the arachnid. As noted in an INRAE press release, “This is a key piece of data that opens the door to one day having an innovative vaccination strategy aimed at perturbing the microbiota of the vector of the Lyme disease agent.”

Dengue, Zika virus, and malaria are also transmitted by a vector – the mosquito. Innovative antimicrobiota vaccines may be able to control these diseases as well.

This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

French researchers have been working on an innovative vaccine that targets tick microbiota to indirectly reduce the bacterial load within the vector. The results of their study were published in the journal Microbiome.

Ticks are vectors of many harmful pathogens that can cause life-threatening illnesses. Ixodes ricinus (in Europe) and Ixodes scapularis (in Canada and the United States) carry Borrelia, the bacteria that cause Lyme disease. At the moment, there is no vaccine for this disease. But that could all change, thanks to the findings of scientists at the National Research Institute for Agriculture, Food, and Environment (INRAE), in collaboration with the Agency for Food, Environmental, and Occupational Health and Safety and the National Veterinary School of Alfort, France.

“Ticks can transmit a broad variety of pathogens of medical importance, including Borrelia afzelii, the causative agent of Lyme borreliosis in Europe. Tick microbiota is an important factor modulating not only vector physiology, but also the vector competence,” the team reported. They focused their efforts on developing a vaccine that would disturb the tick microbiota and thus reduce Borrelia colonization.

To explore this indirect approach, they injected a harmless strain of Escherichia coli bacteria into mice, which then produced antibodies. Their reasoning was that when a tick bites one of these mice, the antibodies would pass into the arachnid’s microbiota and disturb it, thereby making the tick less harmful. And indeed, the researchers’ work showed that in the ticks that fed on vaccinated mice, levels of Borrelia levels were much lower than in than ticks that fed on unvaccinated mice (see video for an explanation). So, when given to a mouse, this vaccine “protects” the tick against colonization by Borrelia but does not protect the mouse against the disease.

The study has advanced this area of research in two significant ways: It provides new information on the importance of the microbiota when it comes to ticks that are infected with Borrelia, and it suggests an innovative vaccination strategy. Indeed, the results confirm that tick microbiota is essential for the development of Borrelia in the arachnid. As noted in an INRAE press release, “This is a key piece of data that opens the door to one day having an innovative vaccination strategy aimed at perturbing the microbiota of the vector of the Lyme disease agent.”

Dengue, Zika virus, and malaria are also transmitted by a vector – the mosquito. Innovative antimicrobiota vaccines may be able to control these diseases as well.

This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

French researchers have been working on an innovative vaccine that targets tick microbiota to indirectly reduce the bacterial load within the vector. The results of their study were published in the journal Microbiome.

Ticks are vectors of many harmful pathogens that can cause life-threatening illnesses. Ixodes ricinus (in Europe) and Ixodes scapularis (in Canada and the United States) carry Borrelia, the bacteria that cause Lyme disease. At the moment, there is no vaccine for this disease. But that could all change, thanks to the findings of scientists at the National Research Institute for Agriculture, Food, and Environment (INRAE), in collaboration with the Agency for Food, Environmental, and Occupational Health and Safety and the National Veterinary School of Alfort, France.

“Ticks can transmit a broad variety of pathogens of medical importance, including Borrelia afzelii, the causative agent of Lyme borreliosis in Europe. Tick microbiota is an important factor modulating not only vector physiology, but also the vector competence,” the team reported. They focused their efforts on developing a vaccine that would disturb the tick microbiota and thus reduce Borrelia colonization.

To explore this indirect approach, they injected a harmless strain of Escherichia coli bacteria into mice, which then produced antibodies. Their reasoning was that when a tick bites one of these mice, the antibodies would pass into the arachnid’s microbiota and disturb it, thereby making the tick less harmful. And indeed, the researchers’ work showed that in the ticks that fed on vaccinated mice, levels of Borrelia levels were much lower than in than ticks that fed on unvaccinated mice (see video for an explanation). So, when given to a mouse, this vaccine “protects” the tick against colonization by Borrelia but does not protect the mouse against the disease.

The study has advanced this area of research in two significant ways: It provides new information on the importance of the microbiota when it comes to ticks that are infected with Borrelia, and it suggests an innovative vaccination strategy. Indeed, the results confirm that tick microbiota is essential for the development of Borrelia in the arachnid. As noted in an INRAE press release, “This is a key piece of data that opens the door to one day having an innovative vaccination strategy aimed at perturbing the microbiota of the vector of the Lyme disease agent.”

Dengue, Zika virus, and malaria are also transmitted by a vector – the mosquito. Innovative antimicrobiota vaccines may be able to control these diseases as well.

This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Weekly new hospitalizations for COVID-19 have climbed for the fourth straight week. 

Nationwide, 10,320 people were hospitalized during the week ending Aug. 5, up from 9,026 the week prior, which is about a 14% week-over-week increase, according to newly updated Centers for Disease Control and Prevention figures. Hospitalizations reached an all-time low of about 6,300 per week in July.

The CDC stopped tracking the number of people infected by the virus earlier in 2023, and now relies on hospitalization data to gauge the current impact of COVID-19. 

“We have to remember that we’re still dealing with numbers that are far less than what we’ve seen for the pandemic,” John Brownstein, PhD, a professor of biomedical informatics at Harvard Medical School, Boston, told ABC News. “We have to zoom out to look at our experience for the entire pandemic, to understand that what we’re dealing with now is far from any crisis that we’ve experienced with previous waves.”

The current predominant strain remains EG.5, and experts believe it is not more severe or more contagious than other recent variants.  

Dr. Brownstein told ABC News that one reason for the concern about rising COVID metrics, despite their overall low levels, is that a surge occurred in the summer of 2021 with the dangerous Delta variant.

“But each new variant so far that has come through has subsequently had less of a population impact,” he said. “Now, is it possible we may see one in the future that is worthy, a real concern? Absolutely. But overall, we’ve seen a dampening of effect over the last several variants that have come through.”

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Weekly new hospitalizations for COVID-19 have climbed for the fourth straight week. 

Nationwide, 10,320 people were hospitalized during the week ending Aug. 5, up from 9,026 the week prior, which is about a 14% week-over-week increase, according to newly updated Centers for Disease Control and Prevention figures. Hospitalizations reached an all-time low of about 6,300 per week in July.

The CDC stopped tracking the number of people infected by the virus earlier in 2023, and now relies on hospitalization data to gauge the current impact of COVID-19. 

“We have to remember that we’re still dealing with numbers that are far less than what we’ve seen for the pandemic,” John Brownstein, PhD, a professor of biomedical informatics at Harvard Medical School, Boston, told ABC News. “We have to zoom out to look at our experience for the entire pandemic, to understand that what we’re dealing with now is far from any crisis that we’ve experienced with previous waves.”

The current predominant strain remains EG.5, and experts believe it is not more severe or more contagious than other recent variants.  

Dr. Brownstein told ABC News that one reason for the concern about rising COVID metrics, despite their overall low levels, is that a surge occurred in the summer of 2021 with the dangerous Delta variant.

“But each new variant so far that has come through has subsequently had less of a population impact,” he said. “Now, is it possible we may see one in the future that is worthy, a real concern? Absolutely. But overall, we’ve seen a dampening of effect over the last several variants that have come through.”

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Weekly new hospitalizations for COVID-19 have climbed for the fourth straight week. 

Nationwide, 10,320 people were hospitalized during the week ending Aug. 5, up from 9,026 the week prior, which is about a 14% week-over-week increase, according to newly updated Centers for Disease Control and Prevention figures. Hospitalizations reached an all-time low of about 6,300 per week in July.

The CDC stopped tracking the number of people infected by the virus earlier in 2023, and now relies on hospitalization data to gauge the current impact of COVID-19. 

“We have to remember that we’re still dealing with numbers that are far less than what we’ve seen for the pandemic,” John Brownstein, PhD, a professor of biomedical informatics at Harvard Medical School, Boston, told ABC News. “We have to zoom out to look at our experience for the entire pandemic, to understand that what we’re dealing with now is far from any crisis that we’ve experienced with previous waves.”

The current predominant strain remains EG.5, and experts believe it is not more severe or more contagious than other recent variants.  

Dr. Brownstein told ABC News that one reason for the concern about rising COVID metrics, despite their overall low levels, is that a surge occurred in the summer of 2021 with the dangerous Delta variant.

“But each new variant so far that has come through has subsequently had less of a population impact,” he said. “Now, is it possible we may see one in the future that is worthy, a real concern? Absolutely. But overall, we’ve seen a dampening of effect over the last several variants that have come through.”

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

People under the age of 50 are becoming more likely to be diagnosed with cancer, according to comprehensive new data.

From 2010 to 2019, the rate of cancer diagnoses rose from 100 to 103 cases per 100,000 people, according to the study, published in JAMA Network Open. The increases were driven by jumps in certain types of cancer and within specific age, racial, and ethnic groups. Researchers analyzed data for more than 560,000 people under age 50 who were diagnosed with cancer during the 9-year period.

Breast cancer remained the most common type of cancer to affect younger people, while the most striking increase was seen in gastrointestinal cancers. The rate of people with GI cancers rose 15%.

Women were more likely to be diagnosed with cancer, whereas the rate of cancer among men under age 50 declined by 5%. When the researchers analyzed the data based on a person’s race or ethnicity, they found that cancer rates were increasing among people who are Asian, Pacific Islander, Hispanic, American Indian, or Alaska Native. The rate of cancer among Black people declined and was steady among White people.

The only age group that saw cancer rates increase was 30- to 39-year-olds. One of the top concerns for younger people with cancer is that there is a greater risk for the cancer to spread.

The cancer rate has been declining among older people, the researchers noted. One doctor told The Washington Post that it’s urgent that the reasons for the increases among young people be understood.

“If we don’t understand what’s causing this risk and we can’t do something to change it, we’re afraid that as time goes on, it’s going to become a bigger and bigger challenge,” said Paul Oberstein, MD, director of the gastrointestinal medical oncology program at NYU Langone’s Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York. He was not involved in the study.

It’s unclear why cancer rates are rising among young people, but some possible reasons are obesity, alcohol use, smoking, poor sleep, sedentary lifestyle, and things in the environment like pollution and carcinogens, the Post reported.

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

People under the age of 50 are becoming more likely to be diagnosed with cancer, according to comprehensive new data.

From 2010 to 2019, the rate of cancer diagnoses rose from 100 to 103 cases per 100,000 people, according to the study, published in JAMA Network Open. The increases were driven by jumps in certain types of cancer and within specific age, racial, and ethnic groups. Researchers analyzed data for more than 560,000 people under age 50 who were diagnosed with cancer during the 9-year period.

Breast cancer remained the most common type of cancer to affect younger people, while the most striking increase was seen in gastrointestinal cancers. The rate of people with GI cancers rose 15%.

Women were more likely to be diagnosed with cancer, whereas the rate of cancer among men under age 50 declined by 5%. When the researchers analyzed the data based on a person’s race or ethnicity, they found that cancer rates were increasing among people who are Asian, Pacific Islander, Hispanic, American Indian, or Alaska Native. The rate of cancer among Black people declined and was steady among White people.

The only age group that saw cancer rates increase was 30- to 39-year-olds. One of the top concerns for younger people with cancer is that there is a greater risk for the cancer to spread.

The cancer rate has been declining among older people, the researchers noted. One doctor told The Washington Post that it’s urgent that the reasons for the increases among young people be understood.

“If we don’t understand what’s causing this risk and we can’t do something to change it, we’re afraid that as time goes on, it’s going to become a bigger and bigger challenge,” said Paul Oberstein, MD, director of the gastrointestinal medical oncology program at NYU Langone’s Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York. He was not involved in the study.

It’s unclear why cancer rates are rising among young people, but some possible reasons are obesity, alcohol use, smoking, poor sleep, sedentary lifestyle, and things in the environment like pollution and carcinogens, the Post reported.

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

People under the age of 50 are becoming more likely to be diagnosed with cancer, according to comprehensive new data.

From 2010 to 2019, the rate of cancer diagnoses rose from 100 to 103 cases per 100,000 people, according to the study, published in JAMA Network Open. The increases were driven by jumps in certain types of cancer and within specific age, racial, and ethnic groups. Researchers analyzed data for more than 560,000 people under age 50 who were diagnosed with cancer during the 9-year period.

Breast cancer remained the most common type of cancer to affect younger people, while the most striking increase was seen in gastrointestinal cancers. The rate of people with GI cancers rose 15%.

Women were more likely to be diagnosed with cancer, whereas the rate of cancer among men under age 50 declined by 5%. When the researchers analyzed the data based on a person’s race or ethnicity, they found that cancer rates were increasing among people who are Asian, Pacific Islander, Hispanic, American Indian, or Alaska Native. The rate of cancer among Black people declined and was steady among White people.

The only age group that saw cancer rates increase was 30- to 39-year-olds. One of the top concerns for younger people with cancer is that there is a greater risk for the cancer to spread.

The cancer rate has been declining among older people, the researchers noted. One doctor told The Washington Post that it’s urgent that the reasons for the increases among young people be understood.

“If we don’t understand what’s causing this risk and we can’t do something to change it, we’re afraid that as time goes on, it’s going to become a bigger and bigger challenge,” said Paul Oberstein, MD, director of the gastrointestinal medical oncology program at NYU Langone’s Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York. He was not involved in the study.

It’s unclear why cancer rates are rising among young people, but some possible reasons are obesity, alcohol use, smoking, poor sleep, sedentary lifestyle, and things in the environment like pollution and carcinogens, the Post reported.

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

While oral antibiotics remained the most prescribed systemic treatment for women with acne, spironolactone use continued to grow and became nearly as common as oral antibiotics, results from an analysis of prescribing trends from 2017 through 2020 showed.

Notably, isotretinoin prescribing among men and women decreased slightly during the study period, “which may reflect ongoing administrative burdens associated with iPLEDGE,” study author John S. Barbieri, MD, MBA, of the department of dermatology, at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, told this news organization.

For the cross-sectional study, which was published online as a research letter in JAMA Dermatology, Dr. Barbieri drew from the Truven Health MarketScan Commercial Claims Database from Jan. 1, 2017, to Dec. 31, 2020, to identify individuals with an encounter for acne, prescriptions for oral tetracycline antibiotics (doxycycline, minocycline), other commonly prescribed oral antibiotics (trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, amoxicillin, cephalexin), spironolactone, and isotretinoin. Only drug courses greater than 28 days were included in the analysis, and Dr. Barbieri stratified them according to clinician type (dermatologist, nondermatology physician, and nurse-practitioner or physician assistant). To normalize prescribing rates (to address possible changes in the number of patients treated for acne over time), the number of treatment courses prescribed each year was standardized to the number of encounters for acne with that clinician type during the same calendar year.

The study period included a mean of 1.9 million acne encounters per year.

Dr. Barbieri found that dermatologists prescribed more oral antibiotics per clinician for acne than any other major medical specialty and that oral antibiotics remained frequently prescribed for treating acne by both dermatologists and nondermatologists. “Among oral antibiotics, minocycline and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole remain relatively commonly prescribed, despite potential safety concerns and a lack of evidence that they are any more effective than doxycycline,” he said in an interview.

“Patient outcomes could likely be improved by reducing use of minocycline and particularly trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole given its high risk of serious side effects such as SJS/TEN [Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis] and acute respiratory failure,” he added.

Dr. Barbieri noted that there are likely opportunities to consider nonantibiotic alternatives such as hormonal therapy (spironolactone, combined oral contraceptives) and isotretinoin. “There is also a need for continued research to identify nonantibiotic treatment options for patients with acne,” he said.

The analysis revealed that for women with acne prescriptions for spironolactone increased about three- to fourfold during the study period among all clinician types. In 2017, oral antibiotics were prescribed about two- to threefold more often than spironolactone, but by 2020 they were being prescribed at about the same frequency. “Given spironolactone may have similar effectiveness to oral antibiotics in the treatment of acne, this shift in practice has the potential to improve outcomes for patients by reducing the risk of antibiotic-associated complications,” Dr. Barbieri wrote. Still, in 2020, oral antibiotics were still slightly more commonly prescribed than spironolactone by nondermatology physicians and NP or PAs.

In other findings, isotretinoin prescribing decreased slightly among male and female patients during the study period. Among antibiotic prescriptions, prescribing for doxycycline increased at a higher rate than prescribing for minocycline, especially among dermatologists and NPs or PAs.

In the interview, Dr. Barbieri acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that the dataset “does not allow for evaluation of severity of acne and it is not possible to directly link prescriptions to diagnoses, so some prescriptions might not be for acne and others that are for acne might not have been included.”

Lawrence J. Green, MD, of the department of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the results, said that, while a course of antibiotic therapy was tied to an office visit in the analysis, the duration of each course of therapy was unclear. It would be interesting to see if antibiotic courses became shorter during the time period analyzed, such as 1-3 months versus 4 or more months, he added, “as this should reduce risks associated with long-term use of oral antibiotics.”

Dr. Barbieri reported personal fees from Dexcel Pharma for consulting outside the submitted work. Dr. Green disclosed that he is a speaker, consultant, or investigator for numerous pharmaceutical companies.

While oral antibiotics remained the most prescribed systemic treatment for women with acne, spironolactone use continued to grow and became nearly as common as oral antibiotics, results from an analysis of prescribing trends from 2017 through 2020 showed.

Notably, isotretinoin prescribing among men and women decreased slightly during the study period, “which may reflect ongoing administrative burdens associated with iPLEDGE,” study author John S. Barbieri, MD, MBA, of the department of dermatology, at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, told this news organization.

For the cross-sectional study, which was published online as a research letter in JAMA Dermatology, Dr. Barbieri drew from the Truven Health MarketScan Commercial Claims Database from Jan. 1, 2017, to Dec. 31, 2020, to identify individuals with an encounter for acne, prescriptions for oral tetracycline antibiotics (doxycycline, minocycline), other commonly prescribed oral antibiotics (trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, amoxicillin, cephalexin), spironolactone, and isotretinoin. Only drug courses greater than 28 days were included in the analysis, and Dr. Barbieri stratified them according to clinician type (dermatologist, nondermatology physician, and nurse-practitioner or physician assistant). To normalize prescribing rates (to address possible changes in the number of patients treated for acne over time), the number of treatment courses prescribed each year was standardized to the number of encounters for acne with that clinician type during the same calendar year.

The study period included a mean of 1.9 million acne encounters per year.

Dr. Barbieri found that dermatologists prescribed more oral antibiotics per clinician for acne than any other major medical specialty and that oral antibiotics remained frequently prescribed for treating acne by both dermatologists and nondermatologists. “Among oral antibiotics, minocycline and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole remain relatively commonly prescribed, despite potential safety concerns and a lack of evidence that they are any more effective than doxycycline,” he said in an interview.

“Patient outcomes could likely be improved by reducing use of minocycline and particularly trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole given its high risk of serious side effects such as SJS/TEN [Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis] and acute respiratory failure,” he added.

Dr. Barbieri noted that there are likely opportunities to consider nonantibiotic alternatives such as hormonal therapy (spironolactone, combined oral contraceptives) and isotretinoin. “There is also a need for continued research to identify nonantibiotic treatment options for patients with acne,” he said.

The analysis revealed that for women with acne prescriptions for spironolactone increased about three- to fourfold during the study period among all clinician types. In 2017, oral antibiotics were prescribed about two- to threefold more often than spironolactone, but by 2020 they were being prescribed at about the same frequency. “Given spironolactone may have similar effectiveness to oral antibiotics in the treatment of acne, this shift in practice has the potential to improve outcomes for patients by reducing the risk of antibiotic-associated complications,” Dr. Barbieri wrote. Still, in 2020, oral antibiotics were still slightly more commonly prescribed than spironolactone by nondermatology physicians and NP or PAs.

In other findings, isotretinoin prescribing decreased slightly among male and female patients during the study period. Among antibiotic prescriptions, prescribing for doxycycline increased at a higher rate than prescribing for minocycline, especially among dermatologists and NPs or PAs.

In the interview, Dr. Barbieri acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that the dataset “does not allow for evaluation of severity of acne and it is not possible to directly link prescriptions to diagnoses, so some prescriptions might not be for acne and others that are for acne might not have been included.”

Lawrence J. Green, MD, of the department of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the results, said that, while a course of antibiotic therapy was tied to an office visit in the analysis, the duration of each course of therapy was unclear. It would be interesting to see if antibiotic courses became shorter during the time period analyzed, such as 1-3 months versus 4 or more months, he added, “as this should reduce risks associated with long-term use of oral antibiotics.”

Dr. Barbieri reported personal fees from Dexcel Pharma for consulting outside the submitted work. Dr. Green disclosed that he is a speaker, consultant, or investigator for numerous pharmaceutical companies.

While oral antibiotics remained the most prescribed systemic treatment for women with acne, spironolactone use continued to grow and became nearly as common as oral antibiotics, results from an analysis of prescribing trends from 2017 through 2020 showed.

Notably, isotretinoin prescribing among men and women decreased slightly during the study period, “which may reflect ongoing administrative burdens associated with iPLEDGE,” study author John S. Barbieri, MD, MBA, of the department of dermatology, at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, told this news organization.

For the cross-sectional study, which was published online as a research letter in JAMA Dermatology, Dr. Barbieri drew from the Truven Health MarketScan Commercial Claims Database from Jan. 1, 2017, to Dec. 31, 2020, to identify individuals with an encounter for acne, prescriptions for oral tetracycline antibiotics (doxycycline, minocycline), other commonly prescribed oral antibiotics (trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, amoxicillin, cephalexin), spironolactone, and isotretinoin. Only drug courses greater than 28 days were included in the analysis, and Dr. Barbieri stratified them according to clinician type (dermatologist, nondermatology physician, and nurse-practitioner or physician assistant). To normalize prescribing rates (to address possible changes in the number of patients treated for acne over time), the number of treatment courses prescribed each year was standardized to the number of encounters for acne with that clinician type during the same calendar year.

The study period included a mean of 1.9 million acne encounters per year.

Dr. Barbieri found that dermatologists prescribed more oral antibiotics per clinician for acne than any other major medical specialty and that oral antibiotics remained frequently prescribed for treating acne by both dermatologists and nondermatologists. “Among oral antibiotics, minocycline and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole remain relatively commonly prescribed, despite potential safety concerns and a lack of evidence that they are any more effective than doxycycline,” he said in an interview.

“Patient outcomes could likely be improved by reducing use of minocycline and particularly trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole given its high risk of serious side effects such as SJS/TEN [Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis] and acute respiratory failure,” he added.

Dr. Barbieri noted that there are likely opportunities to consider nonantibiotic alternatives such as hormonal therapy (spironolactone, combined oral contraceptives) and isotretinoin. “There is also a need for continued research to identify nonantibiotic treatment options for patients with acne,” he said.

The analysis revealed that for women with acne prescriptions for spironolactone increased about three- to fourfold during the study period among all clinician types. In 2017, oral antibiotics were prescribed about two- to threefold more often than spironolactone, but by 2020 they were being prescribed at about the same frequency. “Given spironolactone may have similar effectiveness to oral antibiotics in the treatment of acne, this shift in practice has the potential to improve outcomes for patients by reducing the risk of antibiotic-associated complications,” Dr. Barbieri wrote. Still, in 2020, oral antibiotics were still slightly more commonly prescribed than spironolactone by nondermatology physicians and NP or PAs.

In other findings, isotretinoin prescribing decreased slightly among male and female patients during the study period. Among antibiotic prescriptions, prescribing for doxycycline increased at a higher rate than prescribing for minocycline, especially among dermatologists and NPs or PAs.

In the interview, Dr. Barbieri acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that the dataset “does not allow for evaluation of severity of acne and it is not possible to directly link prescriptions to diagnoses, so some prescriptions might not be for acne and others that are for acne might not have been included.”

Lawrence J. Green, MD, of the department of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the results, said that, while a course of antibiotic therapy was tied to an office visit in the analysis, the duration of each course of therapy was unclear. It would be interesting to see if antibiotic courses became shorter during the time period analyzed, such as 1-3 months versus 4 or more months, he added, “as this should reduce risks associated with long-term use of oral antibiotics.”

Dr. Barbieri reported personal fees from Dexcel Pharma for consulting outside the submitted work. Dr. Green disclosed that he is a speaker, consultant, or investigator for numerous pharmaceutical companies.

Should we be exercising in the morning or afternoon? Before a meal or after a meal?

Popular media outlets, researchers, and clinicians seem to love these debates. I hate them. For me, it’s a false dichotomy. A false dichotomy is when people argue two sides as if only one option exists. A winner must be crowned, and a loser exists. But in reality, a gray zone exists, and/or a number of options are available. For me, exercise at any point of the day is a win.

Some but not all research suggests that morning fasted exercise may be the best time of day and condition to work out for weight control and training adaptations. Morning exercise may be a bit better for logistical reasons if you like to get up early. Some of us are indeed early chronotypes who rise early, get as much done as we can, including all our fitness and work-related activities, and then head to bed early (for me that is about 10 PM). Getting an early morning workout seems to fit with our schedules as morning larks.

But if you are a late-day chronotype, early exercise may not be in sync with your low morning energy levels or your preference for leisure-time activities later in the day. And lots of people with diabetes prefer to eat and then exercise. Late chronotypes are less physically active in general, compared with early chronotypes, and those who train in the morning tend to have better training adherence and expend more energy overall throughout the day. According to Dr. Normand Boulé from the University of Alberta, Edmonton, who presented on the topic of exercise time of day at the recent scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association in San Diego, morning exercise in the fasted state tends to be associated with higher rates of fat oxidation, better weight control, and better skeletal muscle adaptations over time, compared with exercise performed later in the day. Dr Boulé also proposed that fasted exercise might be superior for training adaptations and long-term glycemia if you have type 2 diabetes.

But the argument for morning-only exercise falls short when we look specifically at postmeal glycemia, according to Dr. Jenna Gillen from the University of Toronto, who faced off against Dr. Boulé at a debate at the meeting and also publishes on the topic. She pointed out that mild to moderate intensity exercising done soon after meals typically results in fewer glucose spikes after meals in people with diabetes, and her argument is supported by at least one recent meta-analysis where postmeal walking was best for improving glycemia in those with prediabetes and type 2 diabetes.

The notion that postmeal or afternoon exercise is best for people with type 2 diabetes is also supported by a recent reexamination of the original Look AHEAD Trial of over 2,400 adults with type 2 diabetes, wherein the role of lifestyle intervention on cardiovascular outcomes was the original goal. In this recent secondary analysis of the Look AHEAD Trial, those most active in the afternoon (between 1:43 p.m. and 5:00 p.m.) had the greatest improvements in their overall glucose control after 1 year of the intensive lifestyle intervention, compared with exercise at other times of day. Afternoon exercisers were also more likely to have complete “remission” of their diabetes, as defined by no longer needing any glucose-lowering agents to control their glucose levels. But this was not a study that was designed for determining whether exercise time of day matters for glycemia because the participants were not randomly assigned to a set time of day for their activity, and glycemic control was not the primary endpoint (cardiovascular events were).

But hold on a minute. I said this was a false-dichotomy argument. It is. Just because it may or may not be “better” for your glucose to exercise in the morning vs. afternoon, if you have diabetes, it doesn’t mean you have to choose one or the other. You could choose neither (okay, that’s bad), both, or you could alternate between the two. For me this argument is like saying; “There only one time of day to save money”; “to tell a joke”; “to eat a meal” (okay, that’s another useless debate); or “do my laundry” (my mother once told me it’s technically cheaper after 6 p.m.!).

I live with diabetes, and I take insulin. I like how morning exercise in the form of a run with my dog wakes me up, sets me up for the day with positive thoughts, helps generate lots of creative ideas, and perhaps more importantly for me, it tends not to result in hypoglycemia because my insulin on board is lowest then.

Exercise later in the day is tricky when taking insulin because it tends to result in a higher insulin “potency effect” with prandial insulins. However, I still like midday activity and late-day exercise. For example, taking an activity break after lunch blunts the rise in my glucose and breaks up my prolonged sitting time in the office. After-dinner exercise allows me to spend a little more time with my wife, dog, or friends outdoors as the hot summer day begins to cool off. On Monday nights, I play basketball because that’s the only time we can book the gymnasium and that may not end until 9:45 p.m. (15 minutes before I want to go to bed; if you remember, I am a lark). That can result in two frustrating things related to my diabetes: It can cause an immediate rise in my glucose because of a competitive stress response and then a drop in my glucose overnight when I’m sleeping. But I still do it. I know that the training I’m doing at any point of the day will benefit me in lots of little ways, and I think we all need to take as many opportunities to be physically active as we possibly can. My kids and I coin this our daily “fitness opportunities,” and it does not matter to me if its morning, noon, or night!

It’s time to make the headlines and arguments stop. There is no wrong time of day to exercise. At least not in my opinion.
 

Dr. Riddle is a full professor in the school of kinesiology and health science at York University and senior scientist at LMC Diabetes & Endocrinology, both in Toronto. He has disclosed financial relationships with Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Indigo Diabetes, Insulet, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Supersapiens, and Zucara Therapeutics.

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

Should we be exercising in the morning or afternoon? Before a meal or after a meal?

Popular media outlets, researchers, and clinicians seem to love these debates. I hate them. For me, it’s a false dichotomy. A false dichotomy is when people argue two sides as if only one option exists. A winner must be crowned, and a loser exists. But in reality, a gray zone exists, and/or a number of options are available. For me, exercise at any point of the day is a win.

Some but not all research suggests that morning fasted exercise may be the best time of day and condition to work out for weight control and training adaptations. Morning exercise may be a bit better for logistical reasons if you like to get up early. Some of us are indeed early chronotypes who rise early, get as much done as we can, including all our fitness and work-related activities, and then head to bed early (for me that is about 10 PM). Getting an early morning workout seems to fit with our schedules as morning larks.

But if you are a late-day chronotype, early exercise may not be in sync with your low morning energy levels or your preference for leisure-time activities later in the day. And lots of people with diabetes prefer to eat and then exercise. Late chronotypes are less physically active in general, compared with early chronotypes, and those who train in the morning tend to have better training adherence and expend more energy overall throughout the day. According to Dr. Normand Boulé from the University of Alberta, Edmonton, who presented on the topic of exercise time of day at the recent scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association in San Diego, morning exercise in the fasted state tends to be associated with higher rates of fat oxidation, better weight control, and better skeletal muscle adaptations over time, compared with exercise performed later in the day. Dr Boulé also proposed that fasted exercise might be superior for training adaptations and long-term glycemia if you have type 2 diabetes.

But the argument for morning-only exercise falls short when we look specifically at postmeal glycemia, according to Dr. Jenna Gillen from the University of Toronto, who faced off against Dr. Boulé at a debate at the meeting and also publishes on the topic. She pointed out that mild to moderate intensity exercising done soon after meals typically results in fewer glucose spikes after meals in people with diabetes, and her argument is supported by at least one recent meta-analysis where postmeal walking was best for improving glycemia in those with prediabetes and type 2 diabetes.

The notion that postmeal or afternoon exercise is best for people with type 2 diabetes is also supported by a recent reexamination of the original Look AHEAD Trial of over 2,400 adults with type 2 diabetes, wherein the role of lifestyle intervention on cardiovascular outcomes was the original goal. In this recent secondary analysis of the Look AHEAD Trial, those most active in the afternoon (between 1:43 p.m. and 5:00 p.m.) had the greatest improvements in their overall glucose control after 1 year of the intensive lifestyle intervention, compared with exercise at other times of day. Afternoon exercisers were also more likely to have complete “remission” of their diabetes, as defined by no longer needing any glucose-lowering agents to control their glucose levels. But this was not a study that was designed for determining whether exercise time of day matters for glycemia because the participants were not randomly assigned to a set time of day for their activity, and glycemic control was not the primary endpoint (cardiovascular events were).

But hold on a minute. I said this was a false-dichotomy argument. It is. Just because it may or may not be “better” for your glucose to exercise in the morning vs. afternoon, if you have diabetes, it doesn’t mean you have to choose one or the other. You could choose neither (okay, that’s bad), both, or you could alternate between the two. For me this argument is like saying; “There only one time of day to save money”; “to tell a joke”; “to eat a meal” (okay, that’s another useless debate); or “do my laundry” (my mother once told me it’s technically cheaper after 6 p.m.!).

I live with diabetes, and I take insulin. I like how morning exercise in the form of a run with my dog wakes me up, sets me up for the day with positive thoughts, helps generate lots of creative ideas, and perhaps more importantly for me, it tends not to result in hypoglycemia because my insulin on board is lowest then.

Exercise later in the day is tricky when taking insulin because it tends to result in a higher insulin “potency effect” with prandial insulins. However, I still like midday activity and late-day exercise. For example, taking an activity break after lunch blunts the rise in my glucose and breaks up my prolonged sitting time in the office. After-dinner exercise allows me to spend a little more time with my wife, dog, or friends outdoors as the hot summer day begins to cool off. On Monday nights, I play basketball because that’s the only time we can book the gymnasium and that may not end until 9:45 p.m. (15 minutes before I want to go to bed; if you remember, I am a lark). That can result in two frustrating things related to my diabetes: It can cause an immediate rise in my glucose because of a competitive stress response and then a drop in my glucose overnight when I’m sleeping. But I still do it. I know that the training I’m doing at any point of the day will benefit me in lots of little ways, and I think we all need to take as many opportunities to be physically active as we possibly can. My kids and I coin this our daily “fitness opportunities,” and it does not matter to me if its morning, noon, or night!

It’s time to make the headlines and arguments stop. There is no wrong time of day to exercise. At least not in my opinion.
 

Dr. Riddle is a full professor in the school of kinesiology and health science at York University and senior scientist at LMC Diabetes & Endocrinology, both in Toronto. He has disclosed financial relationships with Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Indigo Diabetes, Insulet, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Supersapiens, and Zucara Therapeutics.

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

Should we be exercising in the morning or afternoon? Before a meal or after a meal?

Popular media outlets, researchers, and clinicians seem to love these debates. I hate them. For me, it’s a false dichotomy. A false dichotomy is when people argue two sides as if only one option exists. A winner must be crowned, and a loser exists. But in reality, a gray zone exists, and/or a number of options are available. For me, exercise at any point of the day is a win.

Some but not all research suggests that morning fasted exercise may be the best time of day and condition to work out for weight control and training adaptations. Morning exercise may be a bit better for logistical reasons if you like to get up early. Some of us are indeed early chronotypes who rise early, get as much done as we can, including all our fitness and work-related activities, and then head to bed early (for me that is about 10 PM). Getting an early morning workout seems to fit with our schedules as morning larks.

But if you are a late-day chronotype, early exercise may not be in sync with your low morning energy levels or your preference for leisure-time activities later in the day. And lots of people with diabetes prefer to eat and then exercise. Late chronotypes are less physically active in general, compared with early chronotypes, and those who train in the morning tend to have better training adherence and expend more energy overall throughout the day. According to Dr. Normand Boulé from the University of Alberta, Edmonton, who presented on the topic of exercise time of day at the recent scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association in San Diego, morning exercise in the fasted state tends to be associated with higher rates of fat oxidation, better weight control, and better skeletal muscle adaptations over time, compared with exercise performed later in the day. Dr Boulé also proposed that fasted exercise might be superior for training adaptations and long-term glycemia if you have type 2 diabetes.

But the argument for morning-only exercise falls short when we look specifically at postmeal glycemia, according to Dr. Jenna Gillen from the University of Toronto, who faced off against Dr. Boulé at a debate at the meeting and also publishes on the topic. She pointed out that mild to moderate intensity exercising done soon after meals typically results in fewer glucose spikes after meals in people with diabetes, and her argument is supported by at least one recent meta-analysis where postmeal walking was best for improving glycemia in those with prediabetes and type 2 diabetes.

The notion that postmeal or afternoon exercise is best for people with type 2 diabetes is also supported by a recent reexamination of the original Look AHEAD Trial of over 2,400 adults with type 2 diabetes, wherein the role of lifestyle intervention on cardiovascular outcomes was the original goal. In this recent secondary analysis of the Look AHEAD Trial, those most active in the afternoon (between 1:43 p.m. and 5:00 p.m.) had the greatest improvements in their overall glucose control after 1 year of the intensive lifestyle intervention, compared with exercise at other times of day. Afternoon exercisers were also more likely to have complete “remission” of their diabetes, as defined by no longer needing any glucose-lowering agents to control their glucose levels. But this was not a study that was designed for determining whether exercise time of day matters for glycemia because the participants were not randomly assigned to a set time of day for their activity, and glycemic control was not the primary endpoint (cardiovascular events were).

But hold on a minute. I said this was a false-dichotomy argument. It is. Just because it may or may not be “better” for your glucose to exercise in the morning vs. afternoon, if you have diabetes, it doesn’t mean you have to choose one or the other. You could choose neither (okay, that’s bad), both, or you could alternate between the two. For me this argument is like saying; “There only one time of day to save money”; “to tell a joke”; “to eat a meal” (okay, that’s another useless debate); or “do my laundry” (my mother once told me it’s technically cheaper after 6 p.m.!).

I live with diabetes, and I take insulin. I like how morning exercise in the form of a run with my dog wakes me up, sets me up for the day with positive thoughts, helps generate lots of creative ideas, and perhaps more importantly for me, it tends not to result in hypoglycemia because my insulin on board is lowest then.

Exercise later in the day is tricky when taking insulin because it tends to result in a higher insulin “potency effect” with prandial insulins. However, I still like midday activity and late-day exercise. For example, taking an activity break after lunch blunts the rise in my glucose and breaks up my prolonged sitting time in the office. After-dinner exercise allows me to spend a little more time with my wife, dog, or friends outdoors as the hot summer day begins to cool off. On Monday nights, I play basketball because that’s the only time we can book the gymnasium and that may not end until 9:45 p.m. (15 minutes before I want to go to bed; if you remember, I am a lark). That can result in two frustrating things related to my diabetes: It can cause an immediate rise in my glucose because of a competitive stress response and then a drop in my glucose overnight when I’m sleeping. But I still do it. I know that the training I’m doing at any point of the day will benefit me in lots of little ways, and I think we all need to take as many opportunities to be physically active as we possibly can. My kids and I coin this our daily “fitness opportunities,” and it does not matter to me if its morning, noon, or night!

It’s time to make the headlines and arguments stop. There is no wrong time of day to exercise. At least not in my opinion.
 

Dr. Riddle is a full professor in the school of kinesiology and health science at York University and senior scientist at LMC Diabetes & Endocrinology, both in Toronto. He has disclosed financial relationships with Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Indigo Diabetes, Insulet, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Supersapiens, and Zucara Therapeutics.

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