Prospective Association of Daily Steps with Cardiovascular Disease: A Harmonized Meta-Analysis

Background: Taking fewer than the widely promoted “10 000 steps per day” has recently been associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality. The relationship of steps and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk remains poorly described. A meta-analysis examining the dose–response relationship between steps per day and CVD can help inform clinical and public health guidelines. Methods: Eight prospective studies (20 152 adults [ie, ≥18 years of age]) were included with device-measured steps and participants followed for CVD events. Studies quantified steps per day and CVD events were defined as fatal and nonfatal coronary heart disease, stroke, and heart failure. Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were completed using study-specific quartiles and hazard ratios (HR) and 95% CI were meta-analyzed with inverse-variance–weighted random effects models. Results: The mean age of participants was 63.2±12.4 years and 52% were women. The mean follow-up was 6.2 years (123 209 person-years), with a total of 1523 CVD events (12.4 per 1000 participant-years) reported. There was a significant difference in the association of steps per day and CVD between older (ie, ≥60 years of age) and younger adults (ie, <60 years of age). For older adults, the HR for quartile 2 was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.69 to 0.93), 0.62 for quartile 3 (95% CI, 0.52 to 0.74), and 0.51 for quartile 4 (95% CI, 0.41 to 0.63) compared with the lowest quartile. For younger adults, the HR for quartile 2 was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.46 to 1.35), 0.90 for quartile 3 (95% CI, 0.64 to 1.25), and 0.95 for quartile 4 (95% CI, 0.61 to 1.48) compared with the lowest quartile. Restricted cubic splines demonstrated a nonlinear association whereby more steps were associated with decreased risk of CVD among older adults. Conclusions: For older adults, taking more daily steps was associated with a progressively decreased risk of CVD. Monitoring and promoting steps per day is a simple metric for clinician–patient communication and population health to reduce the risk of CVD

Daily steps and all-cause mortality: a meta-analysis of 15 international cohorts

Background Although 10000 steps per day is widely promoted to have health benefits, there is little evidence to support this recommendation. We aimed to determine the association between number of steps per day and stepping rate with all-cause mortality. Methods In this meta-analysis, we identified studies investigating the effect of daily step count on all-cause mortality in adults (aged ≥18 years), via a previously published systematic review and expert knowledge of the field. We asked participating study investigators to process their participant-level data following a standardised protocol. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality collected from death certificates and country registries. We analysed the dose– response association of steps per day and stepping rate with all-cause mortality. We did Cox proportional hazards regression analyses using study-specific quartiles of steps per day and calculated hazard ratios (HRs) with inversevariance weighted random effects models. Findings We identified 15 studies, of which seven were published and eight were unpublished, with study start dates between 1999 and 2018. The total sample included 47 471 adults, among whom there were 3013 deaths (10·1 per 1000 participant-years) over a median follow-up of 7·1 years ([IQR 4·3–9·9]; total sum of follow-up across studies was 297 837 person-years). Quartile median steps per day were 3553 for quartile 1, 5801 for quartile 2, 7842 for quartile 3, and 10 901 for quartile 4. Compared with the lowest quartile, the adjusted HR for all-cause mortality was 0·60 (95% CI 0·51–0·71) for quartile 2, 0·55 (0·49–0·62) for quartile 3, and 0·47 (0·39–0·57) for quartile 4. Restricted cubic splines showed progressively decreasing risk of mortality among adults aged 60 years and older with increasing number of steps per day until 6000–8000 steps per day and among adults younger than 60 years until 8000–10000 steps per day. Adjusting for number of steps per day, comparing quartile 1 with quartile 4, the association between higher stepping rates and mortality was attenuated but remained significant for a peak of 30 min (HR 0·67 [95% CI 0·56–0·83]) and a peak of 60 min (0·67 [0·50–0·90]), but not significant for time (min per day) spent walking at 40 steps per min or faster (1·12 [0·96–1·32]) and 100 steps per min or faster (0·86 [0·58–1·28]). Interpretation Taking more steps per day was associated with a progressively lower risk of all-cause mortality, up to a level that varied by age. The findings from this meta-analysis can be used to inform step guidelines for public health promotion of physical activity

Prospective Association of Daily Steps With Cardiovascular Disease: A Harmonized Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Taking fewer than the widely promoted "10 000 steps per day" has recently been associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality. The relationship of steps and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk remains poorly described. A meta-analysis examining the dose-response relationship between steps per day and CVD can help inform clinical and public health guidelines. METHODS: Eight prospective studies (20 152 adults [ie, ≥18 years of age]) were included with device-measured steps and participants followed for CVD events. Studies quantified steps per day and CVD events were defined as fatal and nonfatal coronary heart disease, stroke, and heart failure. Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were completed using study-specific quartiles and hazard ratios (HR) and 95% CI were meta-analyzed with inverse-variance-weighted random effects models. RESULTS: The mean age of participants was 63.2±12.4 years and 52% were women. The mean follow-up was 6.2 years (123 209 person-years), with a total of 1523 CVD events (12.4 per 1000 participant-years) reported. There was a significant difference in the association of steps per day and CVD between older (ie, ≥60 years of age) and younger adults (ie, <60 years of age). For older adults, the HR for quartile 2 was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.69 to 0.93), 0.62 for quartile 3 (95% CI, 0.52 to 0.74), and 0.51 for quartile 4 (95% CI, 0.41 to 0.63) compared with the lowest quartile. For younger adults, the HR for quartile 2 was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.46 to 1.35), 0.90 for quartile 3 (95% CI, 0.64 to 1.25), and 0.95 for quartile 4 (95% CI, 0.61 to 1.48) compared with the lowest quartile. Restricted cubic splines demonstrated a nonlinear association whereby more steps were associated with decreased risk of CVD among older adults. CONCLUSIONS: For older adults, taking more daily steps was associated with a progressively decreased risk of CVD. Monitoring and promoting steps per day is a simple metric for clinician-patient communication and population health to reduce the risk of CVD

Validity and reliability of subjective methods to assess sedentary behaviour in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Subjective measures of sedentary behaviour (SB) (i.e. questionnaires and diaries/logs) are widely implemented, and can be useful for capturing type and context of SBs. However, little is known about comparative validity and reliability. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to: 1) identify subjective methods to assess overall, domain- and behaviour-specific SB, and 2) examine the validity and reliability of these methods. METHODS: The databases MEDLINE, EMBASE and SPORTDiscus were searched up to March 2020. Inclusion criteria were: 1) assessment of SB, 2) evaluation of subjective measurement tools, 3) being performed in healthy adults, 4) manuscript written in English, and 5) paper was peer-reviewed. Data of validity and/or reliability measurements was extracted from included studies and a meta-analysis using random effects was performed to assess the pooled correlation coefficients of the validity. RESULTS: The systematic search resulted in 2423 hits. After excluding duplicates and screening on title and abstract, 82 studies were included with 75 self-reported measurement tools. There was wide variability in the measurement properties and quality of the studies. The criterion validity varied between poor-to-excellent (correlation coefficient [R] range - 0.01- 0.90) with logs/diaries (R = 0.63 [95%CI 0.48-0.78]) showing higher criterion validity compared to questionnaires (R = 0.35 [95%CI 0.32-0.39]). Furthermore, correlation coefficients of single- and multiple-item questionnaires were comparable (1-item R = 0.34; 2-to-9-items R = 0.35; ≥10-items R = 0.37). The reliability of SB measures was moderate-to-good, with the quality of these studies being mostly fair-to-good. CONCLUSION: Logs and diaries are recommended to validly and reliably assess self-reported SB. However, due to time and resources constraints, 1-item questionnaires may be preferred to subjectively assess SB in large-scale observations when showing similar validity and reliability compared to longer questionnaires. REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018105994

Daily steps and all-cause mortality: a meta-analysis of 15 international cohorts.

BACKGROUND: Although 10 000 steps per day is widely promoted to have health benefits, there is little evidence to support this recommendation. We aimed to determine the association between number of steps per day and stepping rate with all-cause mortality. METHODS: In this meta-analysis, we identified studies investigating the effect of daily step count on all-cause mortality in adults (aged ≥18 years), via a previously published systematic review and expert knowledge of the field. We asked participating study investigators to process their participant-level data following a standardised protocol. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality collected from death certificates and country registries. We analysed the dose-response association of steps per day and stepping rate with all-cause mortality. We did Cox proportional hazards regression analyses using study-specific quartiles of steps per day and calculated hazard ratios (HRs) with inverse-variance weighted random effects models. FINDINGS: We identified 15 studies, of which seven were published and eight were unpublished, with study start dates between 1999 and 2018. The total sample included 47 471 adults, among whom there were 3013 deaths (10·1 per 1000 participant-years) over a median follow-up of 7·1 years ([IQR 4·3-9·9]; total sum of follow-up across studies was 297 837 person-years). Quartile median steps per day were 3553 for quartile 1, 5801 for quartile 2, 7842 for quartile 3, and 10 901 for quartile 4. Compared with the lowest quartile, the adjusted HR for all-cause mortality was 0·60 (95% CI 0·51-0·71) for quartile 2, 0·55 (0·49-0·62) for quartile 3, and 0·47 (0·39-0·57) for quartile 4. Restricted cubic splines showed progressively decreasing risk of mortality among adults aged 60 years and older with increasing number of steps per day until 6000-8000 steps per day and among adults younger than 60 years until 8000-10 000 steps per day. Adjusting for number of steps per day, comparing quartile 1 with quartile 4, the association between higher stepping rates and mortality was attenuated but remained significant for a peak of 30 min (HR 0·67 [95% CI 0·56-0·83]) and a peak of 60 min (0·67 [0·50-0·90]), but not significant for time (min per day) spent walking at 40 steps per min or faster (1·12 [0·96-1·32]) and 100 steps per min or faster (0·86 [0·58-1·28]). INTERPRETATION: Taking more steps per day was associated with a progressively lower risk of all-cause mortality, up to a level that varied by age. The findings from this meta-analysis can be used to inform step guidelines for public health promotion of physical activity. FUNDING: US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

A genome-wide gene-environment interaction study of breast cancer risk for women of European ancestry

Background Genome-wide studies of gene–environment interactions (G×E) may identify variants associated with disease risk in conjunction with lifestyle/environmental exposures. We conducted a genome-wide G×E analysis of ~ 7.6 million common variants and seven lifestyle/environmental risk factors for breast cancer risk overall and for estrogen receptor positive (ER +) breast cancer. Methods Analyses were conducted using 72,285 breast cancer cases and 80,354 controls of European ancestry from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium. Gene–environment interactions were evaluated using standard unconditional logistic regression models and likelihood ratio tests for breast cancer risk overall and for ER + breast cancer. Bayesian False Discovery Probability was employed to assess the noteworthiness of each SNP-risk factor pairs. Results Assuming a 1 × 10–5 prior probability of a true association for each SNP-risk factor pairs and a Bayesian False Discovery Probability < 15%, we identified two independent SNP-risk factor pairs: rs80018847(9p13)-LINGO2 and adult height in association with overall breast cancer risk (ORint = 0.94, 95% CI 0.92–0.96), and rs4770552(13q12)-SPATA13 and age at menarche for ER + breast cancer risk (ORint = 0.91, 95% CI 0.88–0.94). Conclusions Overall, the contribution of G×E interactions to the heritability of breast cancer is very small. At the population level, multiplicative G×E interactions do not make an important contribution to risk prediction in breast cancer

Physical activity, sedentary time and breast cancer risk: a Mendelian randomisation study

Objectives: Physical inactivity and sedentary behaviour are associated with higher breast cancer risk in observational studies, but ascribing causality is difficult. Mendelian randomisation (MR) assesses causality by simulating randomised trial groups using genotype. We assessed whether lifelong physical activity or sedentary time, assessed using genotype, may be causally associated with breast cancer risk overall, pre/post-menopause, and by case-groups defined by tumour characteristics. Methods: We performed two-sample inverse-variance-weighted MR using individual-level Breast Cancer Association Consortium case-control data from 130 957 European-ancestry women (69 838 invasive cases), and published UK Biobank data (n=91 105–377 234). Genetic instruments were single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated in UK Biobank with wrist-worn accelerometer-measured overall physical activity (nsnps=5) or sedentary time (nsnps=6), or accelerometer-measured (nsnps=1) or self-reported (nsnps=5) vigorous physical activity. Results: Greater genetically-predicted overall activity was associated with lower breast cancer overall risk (OR=0.59; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42 to 0.83 per-standard deviation (SD;~8 milligravities acceleration)) and for most case-groups. Genetically-predicted vigorous activity was associated with lower risk of pre/perimenopausal breast cancer (OR=0.62; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.87,≥3 vs. 0 self-reported days/week), with consistent estimates for most case-groups. Greater genetically-predicted sedentary time was associated with higher hormone-receptor-negative tumour risk (OR=1.77; 95% CI 1.07 to 2.92 per-SD (~7% time spent sedentary)), with elevated estimates for most case-groups. Results were robust to sensitivity analyses examining pleiotropy (including weighted-median-MR, MR-Egger). Conclusion: Our study provides strong evidence that greater overall physical activity, greater vigorous activity, and lower sedentary time are likely to reduce breast cancer risk. More widespread adoption of active lifestyles may reduce the burden from the most common cancer in women

Comparative Analysis of ActiGraph Step Counting Methods in Adults: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE: The primary aim of this study was to compare steps/day across ActiGraph models, wear locations, and filtering methods. A secondary aim was to compare ActiGraph steps/day to those estimated by the ankle-worn StepWatch. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review to identify studies of adults published before May 12, 2022, that compared free-living steps/day of ActiGraph step-counting methods and studies that compared ActiGraph to StepWatch. Random effects meta-analysis compared ActiGraph models, wear locations, filter mechanisms, and ActiGraph to StepWatch steps/day. A sensitivity analysis of wear location by younger and older age was included. RESULTS: Twelve studies, with 46 comparisons, were identified. When worn on the hip, the AM-7164 recorded 123% of the GT series steps (no low-frequency extension (no LFE) or default filter). However, the AM-7164 recorded 72% of the GT series steps when the LFE was enabled. Independent of the filter used (i.e., LFE, no LFE), ActiGraph GT series monitors captured more steps on the wrist than on the hip, especially among older adults. Enabling the LFE on the GT series monitors consistently recorded more steps, regardless of wear location. When using the default filter (no LFE), ActiGraph recorded fewer steps than StepWatch (ActiGraph on hip 73% and ActiGraph on wrist 97% of StepWatch steps). When LFE was enabled, ActiGraph recorded more steps than StepWatch (ActiGraph on the hip 132% and ActiGraph on the wrist 178% of StepWatch steps). CONCLUSIONS: The choice of ActiGraph model, wear location, and filter all impacted steps/day in adults. These can markedly alter the steps recorded compared to a criterion method (StepWatch). This review provides critical insights for comparing studies using different ActiGraph step-counting methods

Daily steps and all-cause mortality: A meta-analysis of 15 international cohorts

Background: Although 10 000 steps per day is widely promoted to have health benefits, there is little evidence to support this recommendation. We aimed to determine the association between number of steps per day and stepping rate with all-cause mortality. Methods: In this meta-analysis, we identified studies investigating the effect of daily step count on all-cause mortality in adults (aged ≥18 years), via a previously published systematic review and expert knowledge of the field. We asked participating study investigators to process their participant-level data following a standardised protocol. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality collected from death certificates and country registries. We analysed the dose–response association of steps per day and stepping rate with all-cause mortality. We did Cox proportional hazards regression analyses using study-specific quartiles of steps per day and calculated hazard ratios (HRs) with inverse-variance weighted random effects models. Findings: We identified 15 studies, of which seven were published and eight were unpublished, with study start dates between 1999 and 2018. The total sample included 47 471 adults, among whom there were 3013 deaths (10·1 per 1000 participant-years) over a median follow-up of 7·1 years ([IQR 4·3–9·9]; total sum of follow-up across studies was 297 837 person-years). Quartile median steps per day were 3553 for quartile 1, 5801 for quartile 2, 7842 for quartile 3, and 10 901 for quartile 4. Compared with the lowest quartile, the adjusted HR for all-cause mortality was 0·60 (95% CI 0·51–0·71) for quartile 2, 0·55 (0·49–0·62) for quartile 3, and 0·47 (0·39–0·57) for quartile 4. Restricted cubic splines showed progressively decreasing risk of mortality among adults aged 60 years and older with increasing number of steps per day until 6000–8000 steps per day and among adults younger than 60 years until 8000–10 000 steps per day. Adjusting for number of steps per day, comparing quartile 1 with quartile 4, the association between higher stepping rates and mortality was attenuated but remained significant for a peak of 30 min (HR 0·67 [95% CI 0·56–0·83]) and a peak of 60 min (0·67 [0·50–0·90]), but not significant for time (min per day) spent walking at 40 steps per min or faster (1·12 [0·96–1·32]) and 100 steps per min or faster (0·86 [0·58–1·28]). Interpretation: Taking more steps per day was associated with a progressively lower risk of all-cause mortality, up to a level that varied by age. The findings from this meta-analysis can be used to inform step guidelines for public health promotion of physical activity