To nap or not? Evidence from a meta-analysis of cohort studies of habitual daytime napping and health outcomes.

Habitual daytime napping is a common behavioral and lifestyle practice in particular countries and is often considered part of a normal daily routine. However, recent evidence suggests that the health effects of habitual daytime napping are controversial. We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to March 9, 2024, to synthesize cohort studies of napping and health outcome risk. A total of 44 cohort studies with 1,864,274 subjects aged 20-86 years (mean age 56.4 years) were included. Overall, habitual napping increased the risk of several adverse health outcomes, including all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease, metabolic disease, and cancer, and decreased the risk of cognitive impairment and sarcopenia. Individuals with a napping duration of 30 min or longer exhibited a higher risk of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease, and metabolic disease, whereas those with napping durations less than 30 min had no significant risks. No significant differences in napping and health risks were observed for napping frequency, percentage of nappers, sample size, sex, age, body mass index, follow-up years, or comorbidity status. These findings indicate that individuals with a long napping duration should consider shortening their daily nap duration to 30 min or less.

Association of lifestyle with sleep health in general population in China: a cross-sectional study.

The concept of a healthy lifestyle is receiving increasing attention. This study sought to identify an optimal healthy lifestyle profile associated with sleep health in general population of China. An online cross-sectional survey was conducted from June to July 2022. Six healthy lifestyle factors were assessed: healthy diet, regular physical exercise, never smoking, never drinking alcohol, low sedentary behavior, and normal weight. Participants were categorized into the healthy lifestyle (5-6 factors), average (3-4 factors), and unhealthy lifestyle groups (0-2 factors). The study's primary outcome was sleep health, which included sleep quality, duration, pattern, and the presence of any sleep disorder or disturbance, including insomnia, excessive daytime sleepiness, obstructive apnea syndrome, and narcolepsy. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was applied to explore lifestyles associated with the selected sleep health outcomes. 41,061 individuals were included, forming 18.8% healthy, 63.8% average, and 17.4% unhealthy lifestyle groups. After adjusting for covariates, participants with healthy lifestyle were associated with a higher likelihood of good sleep quality (OR = 1.56, 95% CI = 1.46-1.68), normal sleep duration (OR = 1.60, 95% CI = 1.49-1.72), healthy sleep pattern (OR = 2.15, 95% CI = 2.00-2.31), and lower risks of insomnia (OR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.61-0.71), excessive daytime sleepiness (OR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.60-0.73), and obstructive apnea syndrome (OR = 0.40, 95% CI = 0.37-0.43), but not narcolepsy (OR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.83-1.03), compared to those with unhealthy lifestyle. This large cross-sectional study is the first to our knowledge to quantify the associations of a healthy lifestyle with specific aspects of sleep health. The findings offer support for efforts to improve sleep health by modulating lifestyle.

Causal relationship between gut microbiota and prostate cancer contributes to the gut-prostate axis: insights from a Mendelian randomization study.

BACKGROUND: Changes in gut microbiota abundance have been linked to prostate cancer development. However, the causality of the gut-prostate axis remains unclear. METHODS: The genome-wide association study (GWAS) data for gut microbiota sourced from MiBioGen (n = 14,306), alongside prostate cancer summary data from PRACTICAL (n = 140,254) and FinnGen Consortium (n = 133,164). Inverse-variance-weighted (IVW) was mainly used to compute odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (Cl), after diligently scrutinizing potential sources of heterogeneity and horizontal pleiotropy via the rigorous utilization of Cochran's Q test, the MR-PRESSO method, and MR-Egger. We used meta-analysis methods in random effects to combine the Mendelian randomization (MR) estimates from the two sources. RESULTS: The pooled analyses of MR results show that genus Eubacterium fissicatena (OR = 1.07, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.13, P = 0.011) and genus Odoribacter (OR = 1.14, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.27, P = 0.025) were positively associated with prostate cancer. However, genus Adlercreutzia (OR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.96, P = 0.002), Roseburia (OR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.99, P = 0.03), Holdemania (OR = 0.92, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.97, P = 0.005), Flavonifractor (OR = 0.85, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.98, P = 0.024) and Allisonella (OR = 0.93, 95% CI 0.89 to 0.98, P = 0.011) seems to be a protective factor for prostate cancer. Sensitivity analysis found no significant heterogeneity, horizontal pleiotropy, or reverse causal links in all causal associations. CONCLUSION: This MR study lends support to a causal relationship between genetically predicted gut microbiota and prostate cancer. Research on the gut-prostate axis, along with further multi-omics analyses, holds significant implications for the prevention and treatment of prostate cancer.