Daytime napping and the risk of gastric cancer: the JACC Study.

BACKGROUND: Gastric cancer is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in Japan and worldwide. Emerging literature has suggested unfavorable health outcomes associated with daytime napping. Herein, we aimed to investigate the association between daytime napping and the risk of gastric cancer among Japanese people. METHODS: This prospective cohort study included 49,037 participants, aged 40-79 years, from the Japan Collaborative Cohort Study (JACC Study). Participants with positive cancer history and those who reported night or rotational shift work were excluded. Cox proportional hazard models were used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of incident gastric cancer among daytime nappers. RESULTS: Within 650,040 person-years (median = 13.7 years) of follow-up, 1,164 participants developed gastric cancer. Daytime napping was associated with the increased risk of gastric cancer in the multivariable-adjusted model: HR (95% CI) = 1.14 (1.01, 1.29). The excess risk did not significantly differ across sexes, age groups (<65 and ≥65 years), and employment status (employed and unemployed) (p-interactions > 0.40). However, sleep duration modified this effect: HRs (95% CIs) = 1.66 (1.23, 2.23) in sleep duration ≤6 h/night versus 1.06 (0.93, 1.21) in sleep duration >6 h/night (p-interaction = 0.006). CONCLUSION: Daytime napping was associated with increased gastric cancer risk, especially among those who reported short sleep duration.

Protective effect of previous infection and vaccination against reinfection with BA.5 Omicron subvariant: a nationwide population-based study in Japan.

Background: The Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 was reported to evade immunity derived from vaccination and previous infection. A better understanding of hybrid immunity informs effective infection control strategies. Since the reinfection risk was not well-assessed in East Asia, this study aims to evaluate the risk of infection with Omicron subvariant BA.5 among previously infected individuals in Japan. Methods: All notified cases were extracted from the Japanese national COVID-19 surveillance database including 20,297,335 records up to 25 September 2022. Reinfection with BA.5 was defined as the infection notified during the BA.5 dominated period with any prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. The protective effect of prior infections against reinfections with BA.5 was estimated by applying a case-population design and the protective effect of vaccination was estimated by a multivariable Cox regression adjusting for age, sex, variants of prior infection, and the time since the last vaccination. Findings: Among 19,830,548 SARS-CoV-2 first infections, 233,424 (1.2%) were reinfected with BA.5. The protective effect against BA.5 reinfection of prior infection with Wuhan strain was 46%, Alpha variant was 35%, Delta variant was 41%, and BA.1/BA.2 subvariant was 74%. The reduced risk of BA.5 reinfection by 7%, 33%, and 66% was associated with two, three, and four doses of vaccination, respectively, compared with one-dose vaccination. Interpretation: The prior infections with Omicron subvariant BA.1/BA.2 protected BA.5 reinfection more than pre-Omicron variants. Increased frequency of vaccination led to more protection from reinfection with BA.5. Up-to-date vaccination may be encouraged to prevent future reinfection among the previously infected population. Funding: None.

Protection of the third-dose and fourth-dose mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron subvariant: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The rapid spread of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant has raised concerns regarding waning vaccine-induced immunity and durability. We evaluated protection of the third-dose and fourth-dose mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron subvariant and its sublineages. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases and other resources (PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, CINAHL PLUS, APA PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus, ScienceDirect, MedRxiv and bioRxiv) were searched until December 2022. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included studies that assessed the effectiveness of mRNA vaccine booster doses against SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe COVID-19 outcomes caused by the subvariant. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Estimates of vaccine effectiveness (VE) at different time points after the third-dose and fourth-dose vaccination were extracted. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to compare VE of the third dose versus the primary series, no vaccination and the fourth dose at different time points. The certainty of the evidence was assessed by Grading of Recommendations, Assessments, Development and Evaluation approach. RESULTS: This review included 50 studies. The third-dose VE, compared with the primary series, against SARS-CoV-2 infection was 48.86% (95% CI 44.90% to 52.82%, low certainty) at ≥14 days, and gradually decreased to 38.01% (95% CI 13.90% to 62.13%, very low certainty) at ≥90 days after the third-dose vaccination. The fourth-dose VE peaked at 14-30 days (56.70% (95% CI 50.36% to 63.04%), moderate certainty), then quickly declined at 61-90 days (22% (95% CI 6.40% to 37.60%), low certainty). Compared with no vaccination, the third-dose VE was 75.84% (95% CI 40.56% to 111.12%, low certainty) against BA.1 infection, and 70.41% (95% CI 49.94% to 90.88%, low certainty) against BA.2 infection at ≥7 days after the third-dose vaccination. The third-dose VE against hospitalisation remained stable over time and maintained 79.30% (95% CI 58.65% to 99.94%, moderate certainty) at 91-120 days. The fourth-dose VE up to 60 days was 67.54% (95% CI 59.76% to 75.33%, moderate certainty) for hospitalisation and 77.88% (95% CI 72.55% to 83.21%, moderate certainty) for death. CONCLUSION: The boosters provided substantial protection against severe COVID-19 outcomes for at least 6 months, although the duration of protection remains uncertain, suggesting the need for a booster dose within 6 months of the third-dose or fourth-dose vaccination. However, the certainty of evidence in our VE estimates varied from very low to moderate, indicating significant heterogeneity among studies that should be considered when interpreting the findings for public health policies. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023376698.