How Quitting Smoking Can Quickly Lower Risk Of A-Fib
Smokers who make the decision to quit will experience immediate health benefits, including a rapid reduction in their risk of atrial fibrillation (A-Fib), according to new research published in JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology. The study, conducted by Dr. Gregory Marcus, a cardiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, offers compelling evidence for smokers to quit, showing that it’s never too late to avoid the damaging effects of smoking on heart health.
Dr. Marcus, the senior author of the study, emphasized that A-Fib can be prevented even in individuals who have smoked for years. "The findings provide a compelling new reason to show current smokers that it’s not too late to quit, and that having smoked in the past doesn’t mean you’re ‘destined’ to develop A-Fib," Marcus explained. "Even for the current and longtime smoker, A-Fib can still be avoided."
"There’s strong evidence that smoking increases the risk of A-Fib," Marcus said. "But the benefits of quitting smoking have been less certain." With this in mind, his team sought to determine whether quitting could significantly lower a person’s risk of developing A-Fib, or if the risk would remain the same.
The research team analyzed data from over 146,700 current and former smokers, tracking their smoking habits and health over a 12-year period using data from the UK Biobank database. The results were promising: former smokers had a 13% lower risk of developing A-Fib compared to current smokers, while those who quit during the study saw an 18% reduction in their risk.
"This is likely a testament to the potency of reducing atrial fibrillation risk pretty shortly after quitting," Marcus said in a statement from the American College of Cardiology.
The findings highlight the importance of quitting smoking, not only for general health but specifically for reducing the risk of serious heart conditions like A-Fib.
Quitting smoking is one of the most effective ways to lower the risk of A-Fib and improve overall heart health. While it can be challenging, the benefits of quitting are clear and immediate. Here are some tips to help you quit smoking successfully:
1. Choose a specific date to quit smoking and stick to it. Prepare yourself mentally and physically for this change.
2. Reach out to family, friends, or a support group to help keep you accountable. Sharing your goals with others can provide encouragement.
3. Options like nicotine patches, gum, or lozenges can help ease withdrawal symptoms and reduce cravings.
4. Identify situations that make you want to smoke, such as stress or social gatherings, and find healthy ways to cope with them.
5. Regular exercise can help distract you from cravings and improve your mood during the quitting process.
6. Drinking water can help flush nicotine out of your system faster, reducing cravings.
7. Activities like yoga, meditation, or deep breathing exercises can help manage stress, a common trigger for smoking.
Quitting smoking offers immediate and significant benefits, particularly in reducing the risk of atrial fibrillation. The latest research provides smokers with more motivation to quit, showing that it's never too late to take control of their heart health.
Credit: AI
Russia has told the World Health Organization (WHO) that no cases of plague have been recorded in Irkutsk, the Siberian city that has sparked international headlines after a laboratory worker from an anti-plague research institute died after suspected exposure to pneumonic plague infection.
The WHO said Russian authorities responded on October 6 to its request for information under the International Health Regulations (IHR), saying the woman’s illness had initially appeared to be a typical acute respiratory viral infection.
Russia also reported that no plague case had been recorded in Irkutsk, either in the woman or among her contacts.
However, the exact cause of the woman’s death still remains unclear.
The WHO recently said, “WHO is aware of media reports that a laboratory worker in Irkutsk oblast, in the Russian Federation, died of suspected pneumonic plague, and that nearly 200 of her contacts were under medical observation and being tested."
“On 3 October, WHO asked the Russian authorities under the International Health Regulations (IHR) for any further information they had, so we could assess the risk.”
The WHO said Russia reported that “no case of plague has been recorded in Irkutsk, either in her or in anyone else.”
Adding further, the health body said, "They informed WHO that an epidemiological investigation had been conducted, preventive and control measures implemented, and identified contacts placed under medical observation and tested. They reported that no high-threat pathogens had been detected among the contacts and that medical observation of all identified contacts had been completed."
But the agency is still seeking an answer on what caused the fatal pneumonia as the lab worker's death still remains a mystery.
It said, “WHO has remained in contact with the Russian health authorities and has offered technical support. WHO has requested further information to clarify the cause of the severe pneumonia, the pathogen that prompted the public health measures, and media reports of a second employee with pneumonia of undetermined cause.”
Also read: Russia Plague Scare: What Black Death and Anthrax Outbreaks Teach Us About Lab Safety
The 28-year-old woman, identified by Russian media as Darya Shipilova, worked at the Irkutsk Anti-Plague Research Institute of Siberia and the Far East. She died on October 2 after developing severe pneumonia of "unknown origin", according to Russian authorities.
Her death sparked precautionary measures including quarantine. According to reports, around 200 people who had contact with her placed under medical observation. Russian health authorities said testing of those contacts found no dangerous infectious-disease pathogens. Some contacts reportedly tested positive for COVID-19 or rhinovirus.
Reports circulating on social media claimed she may have been infected after a laboratory accident involving Yersinia pestis, the bacterium that causes plague. Russian authorities have rejected the laboratory-accident theory, and there is currently no independent evidence confirming that such an incident occurred.
Also read: Russia Plague Scare: Is Pneumonic Plague Deadlier Than Bubonic & Septicemic Plague?
Javier Pizarro-Cerda, head of the Yersinia Research Unit at the Institut Pasteur in Paris, told CNBC that he was “very surprised” by the reported death because laboratories handling plague generally use strict protective measures.
“You work with a full body suit. You work with masks. You work with gloves. So even if you break a tube, normally you should be protected,” he said.
Pizarro-Cerda also said Russia has a plague vaccine, although he described its protection as low and transient compared with standards elsewhere.
Pizarro-Cerda said plague testing can be performed rapidly and that an autopsy should provide evidence if the woman had pulmonary plague.
The laboratory worker reportedly died on October 2, giving authorities several days to conduct diagnostic tests. Still, there is no confirmation that pneumonic plague caused her death or that a laboratory accident occurred.
Key questions remain whether Yersinia pestis was detected, whether there was evidence of laboratory exposure, and whether genetic testing can establish the source of any infection.
The suspected plague is still being investigated. The concern stems partly from the nature of the institute where Shipilova worked. The facility studies dangerous pathogens, including plague, in a region where the disease occurs naturally among wild animals.
Pneumonic plague is the most severe form of plague because it affects the lungs and can spread between people through respiratory droplets. Plague is treatable with antibiotics when diagnosed and treated promptly.
The WHO has assessed the public-health risk as moderate-to-low for Irkutsk, low for Russia overall and very low for the WHO European region.
Credit: AI
Aspirin has long been studied for its role in colorectal cancer prevention. But a new trial suggests that when aspirin is started may be of more importance compared to whether it is used at all.
In the latest study, researchers discovered that aspirin did not prevent cancer recurrence or improve survival in people whose colorectal cancer had already spread to the liver.
The study, published in The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology, is based on 428 patients who were treated for colorectal cancer liver metastases at 14 hospitals across Norway, Sweden and Denmark. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either 160 mg of aspirin or a placebo every day for up to three years.
After treatment for their liver metastases, patients taking aspirin did not have better results than others who took placebo.
In fact, after three years, 76% of people in the aspirin group were alive compared to 85% in the placebo group. Researchers say that the overall survival was a secondary outcome. They also said that the trial was not designed to provide a definitive answer about that measure.
Serious adverse events were also more common with aspirin, occurring in 8% of the aspirin group compared with 2% of the placebo group. Reported complications included heart attacks, nosebleeds, duodenal ulcers and cerebral haemorrhage.
“Although aspirin has been shown to reduce recurrence rates in patients who have undergone surgery for a primary tumour in the colon or rectum, its effects still need to be evaluated in the specific patient group for which it is intended, in this case patients with colorectal cancer that has spread to the liver. We found no clear benefit in this group, while serious adverse events were more common,” said Ernesto Sparrelid, adjunct professor at Karolinska Institutet.
The new findings contrast with results from the ALASCCA trial, which found that low-dose aspirin reduced colorectal cancer recurrence in patients whose tumours had alterations in genes related to PI3K.
In that trial, the three-year recurrence rate was 7.7% with aspirin versus 14.1% with placebo among patients with specific PIK3CA alterations.
This suggests that aspirin may not be a universal anti-cancer drug. Its benefit may largely depend on the biology of the tumour and how advanced the cancer stage is.
“The anticancer effects of aspirin may depend on the biological and clinical context,” said co-principal investigator Kjetil Taskén of the University of Oslo.
Another possible explanation is that aspirin's anti-inflammatory and anti-platelet effects may interfere with some of the biological processes involved in early tumour growth and recurrence. But once cancer has already spread, particularly to the liver, the biology becomes more complex.
“Aspirin is a well-established, inexpensive and widely available drug, and there is considerable interest in whether it can also reduce the risk of cancer recurrence,” said lead author Sheraz Yaqub of the University of Oslo. “Our findings demonstrate why such treatments must be tested in rigorous randomized trials before being adopted for new patient populations.”
Also read: Trump Says He ‘Psychologically’ Needs To Pop Aspirin Every Day: But Is It Actually Safe?
The findings come just days after President Donald Trump disclosed that he takes aspirin every day, adding that prefers a full-strength tablet.
At an October 3 rally in Ohio, Trump said, “I take an aspirin a day. I don't know if it works, but psychologically I need it.” He also said doctors had wanted him to switch to a lower dose, but that he preferred the larger tablet.
Trump's comments have reignited discussion about daily aspirin use, but they should not be interpreted as medical advice.
Aspirin may reduce clot formation, but it can also increase the risk of serious bleeding. The American Heart Association says routine daily aspirin is generally not recommended for healthy adults without cardiovascular disease unless advised by a healthcare professional.
And the new cancer findings add another reason not to assume that taking aspirin routinely will prevent cancer or improve outcomes after a diagnosis.
Credit: iStock/X
The suspected pneumonic plague case in Russia has revived memories of the Black Death and the 1979 Sverdlovsk anthrax outbreak.
While Russia has denied any plague outbreak, the death of a young laboratory worker and reports of nearly 200 people being placed under medical observation have raised questions about laboratory safety and what may have happened.
Moscow told the World Health Organization (WHO) that no plague cases have been detected in Irkutsk and that the deceased woman’s contacts tested negative for dangerous pathogens. COVID-19 and rhinovirus were detected in some people under observation.
Russian authorities told the WHO that there was “no case of this dangerous disease” in Irkutsk, WHO spokesperson Christian Lindmeier said at a Geneva briefing.
Russia also said contacts of the deceased tested negative for dangerous infectious pathogens.
The circumstances of the death have nevertheless raised questions about laboratory safety and possible pathogen exposure.
Also read: Russia Plague Scare: Could It Trigger A New Pandemic? Experts Explain
The Black Death swept across Eurasia and North Africa between 1346 and 1353, killing an estimated 30% to 60% of Europe’s population.
It was caused by Yersinia pestis, the same bacterium responsible for plague today. The pandemic was primarily associated with bubonic plague, although pneumonic plague also occurred.
Bubonic plague is mainly spread through infected flea bites, while pneumonic plague affects the lungs and can spread between people through respiratory droplets during close contact. Modern antibiotics can treat plague, particularly when given early.
The circumstances surrounding the Russian lab worker’s death have also revived memories of the anthrax outbreak in Sverdlovsk, then part of the Soviet Union, in April and May 1979.
Soviet authorities initially blamed contaminated meat, while US officials attributed the outbreak to anthrax spores accidentally released from a military microbiology facility.
The distribution of human and animal cases along a path extending from the facility was consistent with an airborne release.
The incident remains an important example of the consequences of an accidental biological-agent release.
Read More: Russia Plague Scare: Is Pneumonic Plague Deadlier Than Bubonic & Septicemic Plague?
The cause of the laboratory worker’s death and the circumstances of any possible exposure remain unclear.
The reported quarantine of nearly 200 people has also raised questions about the scale of the response.
Dr. Ashish Jha, former dean of Brown University’s School of Public Health, said the case had raised several “red flags.”
He questioned whether a laboratory worker handling plague would have been vaccinated or received antibiotics promptly after a suspected exposure, and why so many people were placed under quarantine.
Jha also pointed to Russia’s history of biological weapons research and expressed concern about the lack of information from Russian authorities.
There is currently no evidence, however, that the death was linked to a biological weapons programme or that a laboratory leak occurred.
Javier Pizarro-Cerda, head of the Yersinia Research Unit at the Institut Pasteur in Paris, told CNBC that he was “very surprised” by the reported death because laboratories handling plague generally use strict protective measures.
“You work with a full body suit. You work with masks. You work with gloves. So even if you break a tube, normally you should be protected,” he said.
Pizarro-Cerda also said Russia has a plague vaccine, although he described its protection as low and transient compared with standards elsewhere.
Pizarro-Cerda said plague testing can be performed rapidly and that an autopsy should provide evidence if the woman had pulmonary plague.
The laboratory worker reportedly died on October 2, giving authorities several days to conduct diagnostic tests.
Still, there is no confirmation that pneumonic plague caused her death or that a laboratory accident occurred.
Key questions remain whether Yersinia pestis was detected, whether there was evidence of laboratory exposure, and whether genetic testing can establish the source of any infection.
© $2026 Times Horizon Private Limited