Search

BackgroundObesity and rapid weight gain are established risk factors for noncommunicable diseases and have emerged as independent risk factors for severe disease following Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. Restrictions imposed to reduce COVID-19 transmission resulted in profound societal changes that impacted many health behaviours, including physical activity and nutrition, associated with rate of weight gain. We investigated which clinical and sociodemographic characteristics were associated with rapid weight gain and the greatest acceleration in rate of weight gain during the pandemic among adults registered with an English National Health Service (NHS) general practitioner (GP) during the COVID-19 pandemic.Methods and findingsWith the approval of NHS England, we used the OpenSAFELY platform inside TPP to conduct an observational cohort study of routinely collected electronic healthcare records. We investigated changes in body mass index (BMI) values recorded in English primary care between March 2015 and March 2022. We extracted data on 17,742,365 adults aged 18 to 90 years old (50.1% female, 76.1% white British) registered with an English primary care practice. We estimated individual rates of weight gain before (δ-prepandemic) and during (δ-pandemic) the pandemic and identified individuals with rapid weight gain (>0.5 kg/m2/year) in each period. We also estimated the change in rate of weight gain between the prepandemic and pandemic period (δ-change = δ-pandemic-δ-prepandemic) and defined extreme accelerators as the 10% of individuals with the greatest increase in their rate of weight gain (δ-change ≥1.84 kg/m2/year) between these periods. We estimated associations with these outcomes using multivariable logistic regression adjusted for age, sex, index of multiple deprivation (IMD), and ethnicity. P-values were generated in regression models. The median BMI of our study population was 27.8 kg/m2, interquartile range (IQR) [24.3, 32.1] in 2019 (March 2019 to February 2020) and 28.0 kg/m2, IQR [24.4, 32.6] in 2021. Rapid pandemic weight gain was associated with sex, age, and IMD. Male sex (male versus female: adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.76, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) [0.76, 0.76], p < 0.001), older age (e.g., 50 to 59 years versus 18 to 29 years: aOR 0.60, 95% CI [0.60, 0.61], p < 0.001]); and living in less deprived areas (least-deprived-IMD-quintile versus most-deprived: aOR 0.77, 95% CI [0.77, 0.78] p < 0.001) reduced the odds of rapid weight gain. Compared to white British individuals, all other ethnicities had lower odds of rapid pandemic weight gain (e.g., Indian versus white British: aOR 0.69, 95% CI [0.68, 0.70], p < 0.001). Long-term conditions (LTCs) increased the odds, with mental health conditions having the greatest effect (e.g., depression (aOR 1.18, 95% CI [1.17, 1.18], p < 0.001)). Similar characteristics increased odds of extreme acceleration in the rate of weight gain between the prepandemic and pandemic periods. However, changes in healthcare activity during the pandemic may have introduced new bias to the data.ConclusionsWe found female sex, younger age, deprivation, white British ethnicity, and mental health conditions were associated with rapid pandemic weight gain and extreme acceleration in rate of weight gain between the prepandemic and pandemic periods. Our findings highlight the need to incorporate sociodemographic, physical, and mental health characteristics when formulating research, policies, and interventions targeting BMI in the period of post pandemic service restoration and in future pandemic planning.

Introduction & Background Epochs of hyperglycaemia and hypoglycaemia may each increase risk of common chronic diseases and impair both cognitive and physical function even in people without diabetes. Older people may have greater frequency of adverse glycaemic excursions, partly due to disordered autonomic function and sleep quality. Data for older, non-diabetic people are however scant. Objectives & Approach 1) To describe blood glucose variability (completed) and 2) its socio-demographic and lifestyle correlates in a predominantly non-diabetic cohort of older adults (planned). Participants were recruited during 2021-2023 from an English birth cohort (the 1946 National Survey for Health and Development Study). They wore a continuous glucose monitor (Freestyle libre Abbott), which measured circulating glucose four times/hour, for seven days. Summary statistics and time outside range (4.4-7.8mmol/L) were calculated. Further information on glycaemic excursions and day-to-day variability will be gleaned using the R “iglu” package. For all CGM summary and excursion measures, future analyses will investigate: associations with HbA1c, socio-demographics, body composition, physical activity, diet and alcohol use. Results will be stratified by sleep/ wake time periods estimated from simultaneous actigraphy (Philips Actiwatch Spectrum Plus). Sensitivity analyses will exclude people taking hypo/ hyperglycaemic medications and those with diabetes. Relevance to Digital Footprints Derived summary measures can be used by future studies to give insights into glycaemic variability as a population-level risk factor. This work will bring together multiple data sources, i.e. from CGM, actigraphy and baseline cohort data. Results Participants were aged 75-76 years, 45% female and 10% had diagnosed diabetes; median (IQR) BMI was 26.8 (24.6-29.2) kg/m2. CGM data from 308 participants was collected, for a median (IQR) of 6.9 (6.7-7.6) days. Average glucose over the recording period was 5.7mmol/L (5.3-6.2mmol/L), standard deviation was 1.0mmol/L (0.8-1.3mmol/L), time outside range was 12.8% (6.2-24.7%) and 16% of participants spent ≥1 hour/day above and ≥1 hour/day below range. Conclusions & Implications CGM was feasible for this cohort of older adults, and demonstrated high levels of time outside range for a predominantly non-diabetic group. Future analysis will determine whether enhanced characterisation of glycaemic variability is a potentially more accurate tool for predicting future disease risk than isolated glucose measurements.

Objectives We aimed to use a large dataset to compare self-reported and primary care measures of insomnia symptom prevalence in England and establish whether they identify participants with similar characteristics.Design Cross-sectional study with linked electronic health records (EHRs).Setting Primary care in England.Participants 163 748 UK Biobank participants in England (aged 38–71 at baseline) with linked primary care EHRs.Outcome measures We compared the percentage of those self-reporting ‘usually’ having insomnia symptoms at UK Biobank baseline assessment (2006–2010) to those with a Read code for insomnia symptoms in their primary care records prior to baseline. We stratified prevalence in both groups by sociodemographic, lifestyle, sleep and health characteristics.Results We found that 29% of the sample self-reported having insomnia symptoms, while only 6% had a Read code for insomnia symptoms in their primary care records. Only 10% of self-reported cases had an insomnia symptom Read code, while 49% of primary care cases self-reported having insomnia symptoms. In both primary care and self-reported data, prevalence of insomnia symptom cases was highest in females, older participants and those with the lowest household incomes. However, while snorers and risk takers were more likely to be a primary care case, they were less likely to self-report insomnia symptoms than non-snorers and non-risk takers.Conclusions Only a small proportion of individuals experiencing insomnia symptoms have an insomnia symptom Read code in their primary care record. However, primary care data do provide a clinically meaningful measure of insomnia prevalence. In addition, the sociodemographic characteristics of people attending primary care with insomnia were consistent with those with self-reported insomnia, thus primary care records are a valuable data source for studying risk factors for insomnia. Further studies should replicate our findings in other populations and examine ways to increase discussions about sleep health in primary care.

Introduction 4.2 million individuals in the UK have type 2 diabetes, a known risk factor for dementia and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Diabetes treatment may modify this association, but existing evidence is conflicting. We therefore aimed to assess the association between metformin therapy and risk of incident all-cause dementia or MCI compared with other oral glucose-lowering therapies (GLTs).Research design and methods We conducted an observational cohort study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink among UK adults diagnosed with diabetes at ≥40 years between 1990 and 2019. We used an active comparator new user design to compare risks of dementia and MCI among individuals initially prescribed metformin versus an alternative oral GLT using Cox proportional hazards regression controlling for sociodemographic, lifestyle and clinical confounders. We assessed for interaction by age and sex. Sensitivity analyses included an as-treated analysis to mitigate potential exposure misclassification.Results We included 211 396 individuals (median age 63 years; 42.8% female), of whom 179 333 (84.8%) initiated on metformin therapy. Over median follow-up of 5.4 years, metformin use was associated with a lower risk of dementia (adjusted HR (aHR) 0.86 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.94)) and MCI (aHR 0.92 (95% CI 0.86 to 0.99)). Metformin users aged under 80 years had a lower dementia risk (aHR 0.77 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.85)), which was not observed for those aged ≥80 years (aHR 0.95 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.05)). There was no interaction with sex. The as-treated analysis showed a reduced effect size compared with the main analysis (aHR 0.90 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.98)).Conclusions Metformin use was associated with lower risks of incident dementia and MCI compared with alternative GLT among UK adults with diabetes. While our findings are consistent with a neuroprotective effect of metformin against dementia, further research is needed to reduce risks of confounding by indication and assess causality.