4.6 Article

Light at night in older age is associated with obesity, diabetes, and hypertension

期刊

SLEEP
卷 46, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/sleep/zsac130

关键词

light at night; cardiovascular disease; obesity; diabetes; aging

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Light at night (LAN) is associated with a higher prevalence of obesity, diabetes, and hypertension, but not with hypercholesterolemia, in older adults in the United States. This association is independent of age, sex, race, season of recording, and sleep variables.
Light at night (LAN) has been associated with negative health consequences and metabolic risk factors. Little is known about the prevalence of LAN in older adults in the United States and its association with CVD risk factors. We tested the hypothesis that LAN in older age is associated with higher prevalence of individual CVD risk factors. Five hundred and fifty-two community-dwelling adults aged 63-84 years underwent an examination of CVD risk factor profiles and 7-day actigraphy recording for activity and light measures. Associations between actigraphy-measured LAN, defined as no light vs. light within the 5-hour nadir (L5), and CVD risk factors, including obesity, diabetes, hypertension, and hypercholesterolemia, were examined, after adjusting for age, sex, race, season of recording, and sleep variables. LAN exposure was associated with a higher prevalence of obesity (multivariable-adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.82 [95% CI 1.26-2.65]), diabetes (OR 2.00 [1.19-3.43]), and hypertension (OR 1.74 [1.21-2.52]) but not with hypercholesterolemia. LAN was also associated with (1) later timing of lowest light exposure (L5-light) and lowest activity (L5-activity), (2) lower inter-daily stability and amplitude of light exposure and activity, and (3) higher wake after sleep onset. Habitual LAN in older age is associated with concurrent obesity, diabetes, and hypertension. Further research is needed to understand long-term effects of LAN on cardiometabolic risks.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据