Risk of falls, adverse events higher for older adults prescribed sedatives

 

Older adults discharged from hospital with a new prescription for a sedative, especially a benzodiazepine or antipsychotic, are at increased risk of falls and other negative consequences, according to new research published in CMAJ (Canadian Medical Association Journal) https://www.cmaj.ca/lookup/doi/10.1503/cmaj.251965.

“Our results showed that discharging older adults after an acute care hospital stay with a new prescription for these medications was associated with an increased hazard of falls requiring medical attention, further need for acute hospital care, and death in the 30 days after hospital discharge, whereas individuals with prior exposure did not experience the same increased hazards,” writes Dr. Lisa Burry, clinician scientist at Mount Sinai Hospital, Sinai Health and University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, with coauthors.

Falls are a major public health burden and affect older adults in particular. Sedatives and antipsychotics are associated with adverse events, and clinical guidance discourages prescribing these potentially inappropriate medications for older adults.

The study of more than 1.86 million adults aged 66 years and older aimed to understand prescribing patterns to inform discharge prescribing in future. Based on ICES data, it looked at all patients discharged from hospital between April 2003 and August 2023. In total, 13% (246 440) filled at least 1 prescription for any sedative within 7 days of discharge, and about one-third (76 335) of them had not filled a prescription for a sedative within the 6-month period before hospitalization. The risk of falls was 20% higher in people with a new sedative prescription, and the risk of an emergency department visit, readmission, and death within 30 days was also increased. 

“Although the overall absolute magnitude of the risk of adverse events identified was modest from a population perspective, the effects on patients and their families are clinically and socially important,” write the authors. “Moreover, given the volume of hospital admissions among older adults and the aging population, a modest increase in risk translates into a large impact on the health care system.”

The authors suggest caution when prescribing these medications on hospital discharge, ensuring medical follow-up 1 to 2 weeks after discharge to monitor patients, continue risk assessment, and review the need for the prescription.

“Given the identified associations, clinicians must consider whether new sedative prescriptions are essential or can be deprescribed or de-escalated before or shortly after hospital discharge. When ongoing sedative use is required, community support, such as falls or mobility assessments, and ongoing medication reviews may help mitigate risks,” the authors conclude.

Almost 9 out of 10 adults don’t know risks of eating hot dogs

 As Fourth of July party planning gets underway, a new Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine/Morning Consult survey finds that while nearly half of Americans say they eat hot dogs two or three times each month, nearly 90% say they are unsure or unaware of the specific health risks associated with the consumption of processed meat.

The poll included 2,201 U.S. adults surveyed June 22-24, 2026. When asked, “In the past 12 months, approximately how frequently have you eaten at least one hot dog?” 59% answered daily to once per month. When asked “What, if any, health risks are there from eating hot dogs?” 49% said “I’ve heard there are health risks but I’m unsure of what they are specifically,” while another 40% said “I don’t know of any health risks from eating hot dogs.”

An estimated 150 million hot dogs are consumed on Independence Day alone, enough to stretch from Washington, D.C., to Los Angeles more than five times, according to the National Hot Dog and Sausage Council.

Stephanie McBurnett, a registered dietitian with the Physicians Committee, said she’s particularly concerned about kids’ consumption of hot dogs and other processed meats.

"Because children's bodies and eating habits are still developing, early and frequent exposure to red and processed meats — like hot dogs — can cause lasting harm,” she said. “Alarmingly, colorectal cancer rates among young people are rising, with diagnoses occurring at increasingly earlier ages."

An analysis of data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that between 1999 and 2020, the rate of colorectal cancer grew 500% among children ages 10 to 14, 333% among teens ages 15 to 19, and 185% among young adults ages 20 to 24.

The World Health Organization has determined that consuming processed meat, such as hot dogs, increases the risk of colorectal cancer and has classified it as “carcinogenic to humans.” Just 50 grams of processed meat — the amount in a single hot dog —consumed daily increases colorectal cancer risk by 18%. The World Cancer Research Fund and the American Institute for Cancer Research say that “there is strong evidence” that consumption of processed meat causes colorectal cancer.

The National Cancer Institute concurs, saying “There’s mounting evidence linking an unhealthy diet — in particular, one high in processed meat and fat, and low in fruits and vegetables — to early-onset colorectal cancer.”

According to “Cancer statistics 2024: All hands on deck,” a report from the American Cancer Society, colorectal cancer was the fourth leading cause of cancer death in the 1990s and has risen to the leading and second leading cause of cancer death in men and women, respectively, aged 40-49. Colorectal cancer has also moved up to the leading cause of cancer death in men aged 20-39 years and the third leading cause in women in the same age group.

In the new Physicians Committee poll, when told “Hot dogs are processed meats, and frequent consumption is linked to serious health risks, including colorectal cancer, type 2 diabetes, and heart disease” and then asked, “If a veggie dog (plant-based hot dog) were available, how likely would you be to choose it instead of a hot dog?” 22% answered “very likely” while 24% said “somewhat likely.”

Replacing meat with plant-based meat alternatives may benefit heart health, while processed meats such as hot dogs are linked to heart disease risk.

Numerous studies show the benefits of consuming whole grains, fruits, vegetables, and beans and legumes. Although they are processed, recent research suggests that many plant-based meat alternatives may also have positive health impacts.

“On the bright side,” McBurnett said, “there are a multitude of healthier hot dog alternatives available these days, from commercially prepared veggie dogs that can be found in most supermarkets, to tasty whole food homemade versions made from marinating carrots in soy sauce, liquid smoke, and spices.

“At the end of the day,” McBurnett said, “the toppings are what make a hot dog taste great, from your favorite condiments to pickles, peppers, onions, protein-packed chili beans, and gut-friendly sauerkraut — all things that load on both flavor and nutrition.” 

Same day administration of COVID-19 & flu vaccines: no increase in adverse events

PDF/EPUB

• Information & Authors
• Metrics & Citations
• View More
• Share

What is the problem and what is known about it so far?

Safety studies of the original COVID-19 vaccine found infrequent but widely reported adverse events. In recent years, the COVID-19 vaccine has been updated several times, which may change the risk for adverse events in the United States, where most of the population has acquired some immunity to COVID-19.

Why did the researchers do this particular study?

The authors wanted to examine risks for adverse events within 90 days after receipt of 3 newer types of COVID-19 vaccines, along with the influenza vaccine, in comparison with receipt of only the influenza vaccine.

Who was studied?

The study used data from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs electronic medical records to identify persons who received COVID-19 and seasonal influenza vaccines at the same visit or received only the influenza vaccine between September 1, 2022, and August 26, 2025.

How was the study done?

This study simulated (or emulated) a randomized trial using real-world data and analytic methods to compare adverse events after COVID-19 plus influenza vaccines versus only the influenza vaccine. During the study time frame, 12,344,082 veterans had a primary care visit; after exclusions such as a recent COVID-19 infection or documented refusal, 2,518,329 veterans who received the influenza vaccine were studied, of whom 705,124 received both vaccines and 1,813,205 received only the influenza vaccine. Analytic methods were used to balance these 2 study groups. Each veteran could be studied up to 3 times when different updated COVID-19 vaccines were offered: 2022 to 2023, 2023 to 2024, and 2024 to 2025. The authors examined 46 adverse events occurring within 90 days and grouped them by severity.

What did the researchers find?

For the 2 more severe categories of adverse events, the risks were similar for the 3 updated types of COVID-19 vaccines when given with the influenza vaccine compared with only influenza vaccination. For the less severe group of adverse events, there was a small increase in syncope (fainting) and a small decrease in tinnitus (ringing in the ears), but these risks were not statistically significant.

What were the limitations of the study?

This was not an actual randomized trial, so there may be unmeasured factors that could have affected outcomes. Most study participants were men.

What are the implications of the study?

The study found that the short-term risks for adverse events were similar for persons receiving both COVID-19 and influenza vaccines compared with the influenza vaccine alone. This study offers reassurance about the safety of receiving the newer COVID-19 vaccines with the influenza vaccine at the same time.

 

Healthy but sedentary individuals: higher risk for cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer’s

 Researchers at the University of Colorado Anschutz have found that healthy yet sedentary individuals show a significant, coordinated drop in muscle mitochondrial function that may precede the development of major diseases like cancer, diabetes, and Alzheimer’s.

“Mitochondrial function is the center of metabolic health,” said the study’s senior author Iñigo San Millan, adjoint assistant professor in the Division of Endocrinology, Metabolism and Diabetes at CU Anschutz. “If you are 40, healthy, and sedentary, it is likely that you already have something going on inside your cells that will likely come back to haunt you in 10 or 15 years.”

The study specifically noted that mitochondria, which process energy within cells, showed a significantly decreased capacity to burn both sugar and fat in healthy individuals who get less than the recommended 150 minutes of exercise a week. Researchers also found that sedentary muscle contained about half as much of a key protein needed to convert sugar into usable energy.

The protein, MPC1, transports a key byproduct of sugar breakdown into the mitochondria.

The study, published Friday in Clinical Bioenergetics, examined nine sedentary and ten regularly active men, approximately 42-years-old. A companion study on women is currently being planned. Researchers analyzed muscle biopsies to observe how efficiently the mitochondria burned fuel and performed exercise tests to measure fitness, fat-burning capacity and blood lactate levels—a key marker of how hard the body has to work for energy.

When compared to the active group, sedentary men showed significant cellular deficits:

• Mitochondrial Efficiency: Dropped by 28% to 36% across several categories.
• Fuel Transport: The MPC1 protein was 49% lower, reducing the muscle's ability to burn sugar. Similarly, the CPT1 enzyme, which transports fats into the mitochondria, was roughly half as active.
• Cardiovascular & Blood Markers: Sedentary men had a 38% lower maximal oxygen use (VO2​max) and accumulated 60% higher levels of lactate in their blood during exertion.

San Millan said this represents a fundamental shift in cellular identity. Sedentary people aren't just "out of shape"—their cells are losing the ability to process fuel efficiently. For example, the massive drop in MPC1 could be one of the earliest signs of the cellular traffic jams that eventually cause insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes.

San Millan, a renowned physiologist known for his work in elite sports performance, including with Tour de France champion Tadej Pogačar, noted that the study highlights how regular exercise acts as a literal shield for cellular health, helping mitochondria seamlessly switch between burning fat and carbohydrates, a term that is called metabolic flexibility.

“Being sedentary will progressively erode metabolic health. When you stop moving, you lose that cellular identity of being healthy, and your body begins moving toward disease,” San Millan said.

The research team hopes to conduct larger, more diverse trials in the future and run training or drug trials to see if MPC1 and CPT1 can recover with intervention.

“This cellular decline is something we can actually test for in a non-invasive way, through cardiopulmonary exercise testing and lactate testing,” San Millan said. “And if we catch it early, we can prescribe targeted exercise programs designed to restore mitochondrial health and potentially prevent future disease.”

GLP-1–Induced Weight Loss and the Female Obesity Penalty

 GLP-1 medications generate large weight loss and may also alter social and economic outcomes. Using the Understanding America Study, this study compares women starting GLP-1s for weight loss with matched women who would like to start a GLP-1 but have not. 

Single women’s marriage/cohabitation rates rise by 29 percentage points and employment among baseline non-employed women rises 27 percentage points after six or more quarters. 

Existing partnerships do not dissolve, and already-employed women show no upward job mobility. 

The pattern suggests that part of the female obesity penalty operates at new-match formation rather than only through health or incumbent productivity.

Breastfeeding may protect against ADHD symptoms

 

FacebookXLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

A new study from the University of Bergen shows an association between breastfeeding up to six months of age and a reduced risk of ADHD symptoms from ages three to eight.

Breast milk is the primary source of nutrition for infants. It is uniquely tailored for the child and contains numerous components beneficial for growth and brain development, including long-chain fatty acids, amino acids, antibodies, and beneficial bacteria.

“It is well established that psychiatric symptoms and disorders can be influenced by both genetic and environmental factors,” says Berit Skretting Solberg, psychiatrist and researcher at the Department of Biomedicine, University of Bergen, and senior consultant at Betanien Hospital.

There has been considerable scientific interest in understanding how breast milk and breastfeeding affect brain development and the infant immune system.

Together with her co-authors, Solberg therefore examined the relationship between the number of months an infant is exclusively breastfed (up to six months of age) and the child’s risk of developing ADHD symptoms.

Less ADHD symptoms at ages three, five, and eight years

The study used data from 37,600 families participating in the Norwegian Mother, Father and Child Cohort Study (MoBa).

Mothers reported, through a questionnaire six months after birth, the duration of exclusive breastfeeding, partial breastfeeding, and the introduction of other liquids or solid foods. These data were used to calculate the number of months each child was exclusively breastfed.

“We found that the longer a child was exclusively breastfed (up to six months), the lower the level of ADHD symptoms at ages three, five, and eight years,” says Solberg.

The association was observed in both boys and girls and was strongest at ages three and five, and somewhat weaker at age eight. All breastfeeding showed an effect, but the effect increased with the duration and intensity of breastfeeding and was strongest with exclusive breastfeeding up to six months.

Clear but moderate effect after adjustments

ADHD is partly explained by genetic factors. For example, it is known that mothers with ADHD symptoms tend to breastfeed less than others and are more likely to have children with ADHD symptoms. At the same time, children with ADHD symptoms may be more difficult to breastfeed.

“This may partly explain the relationship between lower breastfeeding and increased ADHD symptoms in children,” says Solberg.

To better understand possible causal relationships, the study adjusted for known genetic risk of ADHD and sociodemographic factors. Sibling analyses were also conducted, comparing different breastfeeding patterns within the same family.

“Even after these adjustments, there was a clear but moderate protective effect of the duration of exclusive breastfeeding on later ADHD symptoms,” Solberg explains.

More research needed to clarify causality

Solberg notes that the MoBa study is not fully representative of the Norwegian population. Participants tend to have higher education levels and are more likely to breastfeed, and to do so for longer than the general population.

She therefore does not rule out the possibility that the effect could be even greater in groups where breastfeeding is less common.

“As with other observational studies, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions about causality,” says Solberg, emphasizing the need for further research.

At the same time, she notes that the findings suggest that factors beyond genetics may influence ADHD risk:

“In our society, heredity is likely the strongest risk factor for ADHD. However, since ADHD—like other neurodevelopmental disorders—is influenced by multiple factors, our study suggests that the extent of breastfeeding may also help protect against the development of ADHD symptoms in young children.”

Read the full article:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000632232601348X?via%3Dihub

Why ‘yo-yo dieting’ may not be as harmful as often believed

 

Many people experience fluctuations in body weight throughout their lives, and so‑called yo‑yo dieting has long been considered a health risk – in some cases even more harmful than remaining overweight.

It has, for example, been associated with negative health effects such as increased fat mass, loss of muscle mass, reduced metabolic rate and a higher risk of diseases including type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

However, careful evaluation of the research does not provide strong evidence that these negative effects can be attributed to yo‑yo dieting in itself – or that it is more harmful than persistent overweight, says Professor Faidon Magkos from the Department of Nutrition, Exercise and Sports at the University of Copenhagen, who together with a German colleague has reviewed the available research in a comprehensive analysis.

“Many people refrain from trying to lose weight because they fear that subsequent weight regain may harm the body or their metabolism. Our review indicates that these concerns are largely unfounded. In most cases, the benefits of weight loss outweigh the potential risks of later weight regain,” says Faidon Magkos.

What the analysis shows

In their analysis, the researchers reviewed a wide range of selected studies, including observational studies, clinical trials and animal studies, which examine the effects of repeated weight loss and weight regain on, among other things, body weight, body composition and metabolism.

A key finding is that associations between yo‑yo dieting and poor health are often not supported as causal relationships. Many studies are based on self‑reported weight, which makes it difficult to determine cause and effect. In addition, it is often unclear whether weight loss is due to deliberate attempts or underlying illness.

“When you take into account existing disease, ageing and overall exposure to obesity, the supposed harmful effects of yo‑yo dieting largely disappear,” explains Professor Norbert Stefan from the German Center for Diabetes Research (DZD), University Hospital Tübingen and Helmholtz Munich.

Weight regain is not the same as harm

For individuals whose weight fluctuates, the researchers emphasise that many of the health benefits of weight loss are lost when weight is regained.

However, this does not mean that individuals are worse off than before the weight loss, says Faidon Magkos:

“When the weight returns, you move back towards a level of risk similar to before — not beyond it. There is a crucial difference between losing benefits and causing harm.”

According to the researchers, several large studies show that the degree of obesity itself — rather than weight fluctuations — appears to be the primary driver of the risk of metabolic disease.

Implications for weight loss and treatment

In recent years, weight‑loss medication has become increasingly widespread, and such treatments can lead to substantial weight loss that is often followed by significant weight regain if the medication is discontinued.

According to the authors, this pattern should not necessarily be interpreted as harmful. On the contrary, intermittent weight loss — even if not maintained permanently — can provide meaningful periods of improved metabolic health and quality of life.

The researchers also highlight that most individuals who ultimately achieve long‑term weight loss have experienced multiple unsuccessful attempts along the way. Weight loss followed by weight regain is therefore often a necessary step on the path to success — rather than a sign of failure or a health risk.

For that reason, the two researchers emphasize an important message for patients and clinicians:

“People with overweight should not be discouraged from attempting to lose weight, even if they find it difficult to maintain in the long term. Unsuccessful weight‑loss attempts are not harmful, but giving up altogether may be,” they say.