Skip to main content

Sitting at Work Raises All-Cause and CV Mortality Risk


May 21, 2012 (Lyon, France) — Sitting at work raises the risk of dying from cardiovascular (CV) and metabolic diseases, as well as the risk of dying from all causes, regardless of any exercise in which the individual may engage. That was the finding of a study reported here at the 19th European Congress on Obesity (ECO) by Anne Grunseit, PhD, from the Prevention Research Collaboration in the School of Public Health at the University of Sydney, Australia, and Norwegian colleagues.
Research is increasingly focusing on sedentary behavior with low energy expenditure, including sitting and lying down, as behavioral risk factors for obesity and chronic disease. Sitting occurs during travel, while watching television, using computers, and reading. But with people often spending at least 9 hours a day at work, with fewer than 20% of jobs requiring physical exertion, and with many people spending at least 4 hours a day sitting at work, the sedentary time at work is high, and many people are affected.
The investigators therefore aimed to evaluate the relationship between occupational sitting, body mass index (BMI), and mortality in a general population sample. They used a longitudinal cohort from Norway, the Nord-Trøndelag Health Survey, and stratified the independent variable as mostly sitting, much walking at work, much walking or lifting, and heavy physical labor. Between 1995 and 1997, 20-year-old Norwegians self-reported their level of sitting at work. They were stratified by BMI (healthy, 18.5 to <25 kg/m2; overweight, 25 to <30 kg/m2; and obese, 30 kg/m2 or greater). Individuals who died within 3 years of the survey were excluded to control for the emergence of preexisting disease. About 30% of participants reported having an occupation in which they were mostly sitting.
Of 45,259 participants completing the study (evenly divided between men and women), just over 40% each were either of normal weight or were overweight, and about 15% were obese. During a follow-up period of 12 to 14 years, 4421 died. The crude all-cause mortality results increased as BMI increased from normal weight to overweight to obese (5.0, 6.8, and 9.4 deaths/1000 person-years, respectively). The trend was similar for CV/metabolic disease mortality (1.8, 2.8, and 4.4 deaths/1000 person-years, respectively).
After adjusting for BMI and other variables (sex, education, light and hard exercise, general health, smoking status, and cardiometabolic disease), sedentary work was associated with higher all-cause mortality and CV/metabolic disease mortality compared with occupations with much walking, much walking or lifting, or heavy physical labor (allP < .01).
All-cause mortality risk increased along with BMI for all levels of occupational activity. The mortality curves over time were the same for all levels of activity for people with a healthy BMI but diverged according to activity level as BMI increased, with the greatest risk for sedentary workers in the obese range.
"For example, holding all else equal, someone with an occupation that involved walking and lifting had a 27% lower chance of dying than someone who mostly sat in their occupation among those in the obese category," Dr. Grunseit said.
The curves for CV mortality showed a similar pattern. "That is, the hazards for the more active occupations were not significantly different from those with the sedentary occupation among those with a healthy BMI but were lower for both overweight and obese categories," she reported. CV mortality risk was 33% lower among overweight respondents and 45% lower among obese respondents who had walking and lifting occupations compared with sitting. For the obese group, there was some attenuation of the beneficial effect for those individuals doing physical labor at work.
Dr. Grunseit said in summary that the data suggest that compared with mostly sitting, "those in occupations involving some activity have lower rates for all-cause and cardiovascular or metabolic disease mortality, even when adjusted for demographic, health, and physical activity characteristics [outside of work]." The protective effect of occupational activity appeared to be significant for the groups whose BMIs were in the overweight or obese categories.
Dr. Grunseit noted that a limitation of the study is that it did not include a category for standing, nor did it adjust for quality of diet. Strengths of the study included its prospective and large general population sample, long follow-up, and adjustment for a range of covariates.
The authors suggested that reduced sitting for work would benefit overweight or obese people the most because they already have a higher baseline risk for mortality.
Session moderator Berit Heitmann, PhD, professor of nutritional epidemiology at the Institute of Preventive Medicine of the Greater Copenhagen Hospitals in Copenhagen, Denmark, commented to Medscape Medical Newsthat sitting may be detrimental not only because of its lack of activity but also because it may confer a negative effect in itself.
"It seems to be 2 separate mechanisms...[and] we spend so much time sitting on our behinds, so it's probably 23 hours of our time we're either sitting or lying...and it seems there are 2 separate mechanisms going on that of course need to be disentangled," she said. She pointed out that a number of other studies have shown bad effects of sitting.
Dr. Heitmann wondered "if there was a synergy between being inactive and sitting." She suggested that Dr. Grunseit "could have examined that just by separately looking at those who were inactive in their leisure time and those who were active in their leisure time" and looking for associations. "It would be quite likely that there would have been a synergy between the 2."
In essence, the question would be whether more activity minimizes the effect of the sitting. As it stood, the researchers adjusted for exercise but did not do subgroup analyses, Dr. Heitmann noted.
Although more studies showing consistent results would be needed before making any definite recommendations, Dr. Heitmann said an easy recommendation now would be for people to spend more time standing.
"You can do a lot of desk work actually standing. You can do meetings standing, or you could vary so that you're not sitting all the time but actually taking a break to stand, and that would be the immediate recommendation taken out of this," she said. "The tone from the muscles from standing is expending energy and may actually be contributing to the healthy factors about not sitting."
Neither Dr. Heitmann, who had no involvement in the study, nor Dr. Grunseit disclosed any relevant financial relationships.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Missing Data Lead FDA Panel to Vote Against Rivaroxaban for ACS May 23, 2012 (Updated May 24, 2012) (Silver Spring, Maryland) — The missing data issues plaguing the ATLAS ACS 2 TIMI 51 trial of the factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban (Xarelto, Bayer Healthcare/Janssen Pharmaceuticals) have prevented the drug from earning the endorsement of the FDA Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee. At its May 23 meeting, the panel voted six to four (with one abstention) against recommending that the FDA approve rivaroxaban for reducing the risk of thrombotic cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome or unstable angina in combination with aspirin, aspirin plus clopidogrel, or ticlopidine. Janssen's application is based on the results of the ATLAS ACS 2 phase 3 and the ATLAS ACS TIMI 46 phase 2 trial. The placebo-controlled ATLAS ACS 2 showed rivaroxaban reduced the risk of both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality while increasing the risk of bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage, but the studies were hindered by early patient withdrawals and missing data. We Don't Know What We're Missing Based on the ATLAS ACS 2 results, FDA reviewer Dr Karen Hicks recommended approval of rivaroxaban for the requested indications except all-cause mortality. However, another FDA reviewer, Dr Thomas Marciniak, was adamant that the trial results are not interpretable because about 12% of the patients had incomplete follow-up, far higher than the 1% to 1.5% differences in the end-point rates between rivaroxaban and placebo. A total of 1294 subjects discontinued the trial prematurely, and the company was only able to contact 183, of which 177 were confirmed to be alive. Because of the patient dropouts, the company adopted a "modified intention-to-treat analysis," whereby patients were observed for 30 days after randomization or the global end date for the trial, instead of observing all the patients until the end of the trial as the FDA originally suggested. Marciniak criticized the sponsor's efforts to follow the patients and said that three patient deaths not counted in the modified intention-to-treat analysis may just be the "tip of the iceberg." Because the percentage of patients whose ultimate vital status remains unknown is much greater than the reported differences in mortality rates, the claimed mortality benefits are not reliable. The majority of the panel sided with Marciniak. For example, Dr Sanjay Kaul (University of California, Los Angeles) voted "no" because "there was enough uncertainty in the quality and robustness of the data that dissuaded me from voting yes. . . . The 'missingness' of the data doesn't invalidate it, but it certainly makes it hard to infer [the conclusion]." Dr Steven Nissen (Cleveland Clinic, OH) said that the decision to use the modified intention-to-treat analysis had a "profound impact" on the interpretability of the data. "It's saying we don't care what happens after 30 days, [and] that colored the trial in ways we couldn't recover from." Given the risk of major bleeding, "I want to see better evidence that this strategy of adding an Xa inhibitor or a direct thrombin inhibitor or something else to a good antiplatelet agent is robustly better for the patient," Nissen said. He recommends that the companies run a new trial of the 2.5 twice-daily dose of rivaroxaban using a strict intention-to-treat approach, but, he said, "I don't expect the death benefit to be too robust." Several panelists said they were concerned that the patients who dropped out of the trial were disproportionately likely to have a bleeding event, which led them to quit the trial, or a "protopathic" event, as statistician Dr Scott Emerson (University of Washington, Seattle) put it. "We're worried that an impending event is what is changing their behavior. We see that all the time in clinical trials--that regularly measured end points do not pick up [all of] the events," he said. He said that since the company was only able to contact 183 of the over 1200 patients who dropped out, it is possible that the dropouts skew the outcomes comparison of the trial. "Differential event rates after dropout are the number-one thing we're afraid of, so you have to explore it" in a statistical sensitivity analysis of the potential impact of these unknown outcomes. "It would not surprise me if, at the end of the day, these data did not hold up under a proper sensitivity analysis," he said. "What I want to know is, among the people who had events, how differential was the follow-up, but I can tell you by just looking at it, there was a very slightly different amount of follow-up of the people in the treatment arm. But I don't know whether everyone in the treatment arm was cured and they were trekking in the Himalayas and everyone in the placebo arm went home to die. I don't know that that's not the case." Dr Maury Krantz (University of Colorado, Denver) voted in favor of approval but said he does not know how rivaroxaban would perform in general clinical practice, especially when used with aspirin and clopidogrel. "I felt very much torn by this. This isn't a simple paradigm shift. It means going to triple therapy, which is really a three-headed monster in many ways. I think that what you're going to see in practice, if this is not done carefully with the proper labeling and secondary studies, is really dramatic magnification of bleeding and perhaps minimization of the efficacy benefit."

May 23, 2012   (Updated May 24, 2012)  (Silver Spring, Maryland)  —  The missing data issues plaguing the  ATLAS ACS 2 TIMI 51   trial of the factor Xa inhibitor  rivaroxaban  (Xarelto, Bayer Healthcare/Janssen Pharmaceuticals) have prevented the drug from earning the endorsement of the  FDA  Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee. At its May 23 meeting , the panel voted six to four (with one abstention) against recommending that the FDA approve rivaroxaban for reducing the risk of thrombotic cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome or unstable angina in combination with aspirin, aspirin plus  clopidogrel , or  ticlopidine . Janssen's application is based on the results of the ATLAS ACS 2 phase 3 and the  ATLAS ACS TIMI 46   phase 2 trial. The placebo-controlled ATLAS ACS 2 showed rivaroxaban reduced the risk of both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality while increasing the ri...

Antidepressants Linked to Higher Diabetes Risk in Kids

Pediatric patients who use antidepressants may have an elevated risk for type 2 diabetes, the authors of a new study report. In a retrospective cohort study of more than 119,000 youths 5 to 20 years of age, the risk for incident type 2 diabetes was nearly twice as high among current users of certain types of antidepressants as among former users, Mehmet Burcu, PhD, and colleagues report in an article  published online October 16 in  JAMA Pediatrics . The risk intensified with increasing duration of use, greater cumulative doses, and higher daily doses of these antidepressants. The findings point to a growing need for closer monitoring of these products, including greater balancing of risks and benefits, in the pediatric population, the authors caution. They undertook the study because, despite growing evidence of an association between antidepressant use and an increased risk for type 2 diabetes in adults, similar research in pediatric patients was scarce. "To our know...