Moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) is strongly associated with risk reductions of noncommunicable diseases and mortality. Cardiovascular health status may influence the benefits of MVPA. ...We compare the association between MVPA and incident major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and mortality between healthy individuals, individuals with elevated levels of cardiovascular risk factors (CVRF), and cardiovascular disease (CVD).
A cohort study was performed in the 3 northern provinces of the Netherlands, in which data were collected between 2006 and 2018, with a median follow-up of 6.8 years (Q25 5.7; Q75 7.9). A total of 142,493 participants of the Lifelines Cohort Study were stratified at baseline as (1) healthy; (2) CVRF; or (3) CVD. Individuals were categorized into "inactive" and 4 quartiles of least (Q1) to most (Q4) active based on self-reported MVPA volumes. Primary outcome was a composite of incident MACE and all-cause mortality during follow-up. Cox regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs), 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and P values. The main analyses were stratified on baseline health status and adjusted for age, sex, income, education, alcohol consumption, smoking, protein, fat and carbohydrate intake, kidney function, arrhythmias, hypothyroid, lung disease, osteoarthritis, and rheumatoid arthritis. The event rates were 2.2% in healthy individuals (n = 2,485 of n = 112,018), 7.9% in those with CVRF (n = 2,214 of n = 27,982) and 40.9% in those with CVD (n = 1,019 of n = 2,493). No linear association between MVPA and all-cause mortality or MACE was found for healthy individuals (P = 0.36) and individuals with CVRF (P = 0.86), but a linear association was demonstrated for individuals with CVD (P = 0.04). Adjusted HRs in healthy individuals were 0.81 (95% CI 0.64 to 1.02, P = 0.07), 0.71 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.89, P = 0.004), 0.72 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.91, P = 0.006), and 0.76 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.96, P = 0.02) for MVPA Q1 to Q4, respectively, compared to inactive individuals. In individuals with CVRF, HRs were 0.69 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.82, P < 0.001), 0.66 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.80, P < 0.001), 0.64 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.77, P < 0.001), and 0.69 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.84, P < 0.001) for MVPA Q1 to Q4, respectively, compared to inactive individuals. Finally, HRs for MVPA Q1 to Q4 compared to inactive individuals were 0.80 (95% CI 0.62 to 1.03, P = 0.09), 0.82 (95% CI 0.63 to 1.06, P = 0.13), 0.74 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.95, P = 0.02), and 0.70 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.93, P = 0.01) in CVD patients. Leisure MVPA was associated with the most health benefits, nonleisure MVPA with little health benefits, and occupational MVPA with no health benefits. Study limitations include its observational nature, self-report data about MVPA, and potentially residual confounding despite extensive adjustment for lifestyle risk factors and health-related factors.
MVPA is beneficial for reducing adverse outcomes, but the shape of the association depends on cardiovascular health status. A curvilinear association was found in healthy and CVRF individuals with a steep risk reduction at low to moderate MVPA volumes and benefits plateauing at high(er) MVPA volumes. CVD patients demonstrated a linear association, suggesting a constant reduction of risk with higher volumes of MVPA. Therefore, individuals with CVDs should be encouraged that "more is better" regarding MVPA. These findings may help to optimize exercise prescription to gain maximal benefits of a physically active lifestyle.
To study the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and consequent lockdown on the number of diagnoses of gynaecological malignancies in the Netherlands.
We performed a retrospective cohort study using data ...from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR) on women of 18 years and older diagnosed with invasive endometrial, ovarian, cervical or vulvar cancer in the period 2017–2021. Analyses were stratified for age, socioeconomical status (SES) and region.
The incidence rate of gynaecological cancer was 67/100.000 (n = 4832) before (2017–2019) and 68/100.000 (n = 4833) during (2020) the COVID-19 pandemic. Comparing the number of diagnoses of the two periods for the four types of cancer separately showed no significant difference. During the first wave of COVID-19 (March-June 2020), a clear decrease in number of gynaecological cancer diagnoses was visible (20–34 %). Subsequently, large increases in number of diagnoses were visible (11–29 %). No significant differences in incidence were found between different age groups, SES and regions. In 2021 an increase of 5.9 % in number of diagnoses was seen.
In the Netherlands, a clear drop in number of diagnoses was visible for all four types of gynaecological cancers during the first wave, with a subsequent increase in number of diagnoses in the second part of 2020 and in 2021. No differences between SES groups were found. This illustrates good organisation of and access to health care in the Netherlands.
•The decrease in incidence was mainly visible during the first wave of COVID-19.•Differences in COVID-19 burden across the country did not impact the incidence.•No differences in incidence were found for SES and age before and during COVID-19.
PDF
