• ایمیل: info@yaghootsalamat.com

  • تلفن : 3902-21-0098

Subcategories

According to many media reports, a recent study in JAMA Oncology found that omega-3 fatty acids can reduce the effectiveness of cancer treatment.

"Cancer patients who eat herring and mackerel or take omega-3 supplements may end up resistant to chemotherapy, a study has warned," writes the Daily Mail.

The same stories have reported the researchers' recommendation that people undergoing chemotherapy refrain from eating oily fish or taking fish oil or omega-3 supplements on the day of their treatment.

But the study in question found no such thing, while other studies have actually suggested that omega-3s might reduce the side effects of cancer drugs while increasing their effectiveness.

Study didn't even look at cancer patients

The researchers in the JAMA Oncology study actually did two separate experiments. In one, they asked 118 cancer patients whether they regularly took any supplements, and found that 11 percent took omega-3s. In a separate study, the researchers measured omega-3 levels in people without cancer.

Unsurprisingly, blood levels of omega-3s increased after taking a 10 mL supplement, and increased more after taking 50 mL. These levels returned to normal within eight hours. The study also found that when participants ate 100 grams of herring or mackerel - oily fish known to be high in omega-3s - their omega-3 blood levels increased more than when they ate tuna, which is lower in omega-3s. Omega-3 levels also increased after a meal of salmon, but returned to normal more quickly. The implications of this are unclear, since omega-3s may need to disappear from the blood to be taken up by the cells that need them.

Why should these findings cause alarm? The researchers said that according to some mouse studies, omega-3s might make cancer cells resistant to chemo drugs. Therefore, said researcher Emile Voest, "Our findings ... raise concern about the simultaneous use of chemotherapy and fish oil. ... We advise patients to temporarily avoid fish oil from the day before chemotherapy until the day thereafter.'

Some media outlets misreported this recommendation as one to also avoid fish oil on the day before and the day after treatment - even though the study showed blood levels returning to normal within eight hours.

Evidence suggests the opposite

Cancer and nutrition experts expressed skepticism that new recommendations should be made based on a study that didn't even look at cancer drug effectiveness.

"This work shows that in healthy human volunteers, taking various fish oil supplements unsurprisingly raises the level of a particular unsaturated fatty acid in the blood," said Keith Jones of the Institute of Cancer Research.

"This is a very preliminary study that takes a measurement in healthy human subjects, and one in a mouse model of cancer, and extrapolates both to human cancer patients," he said. "Further studies are needed before clear advice should be given to patients - and these would need to include a correlation between blood levels of the fatty acid in mice treated and the effect on the anti-cancer drug to demonstrate a clear link.

"There is no evidence that mice metabolize this fatty acid in the same way as humans, and particularly cancer patients."

Other studies have had very different findings, said dietitian Catherine Collins of St. George's Hospital NHS Trust.

"Other studies on fish oil and cancer drugs have shown different effects, so it's possible that the type of cancer and the anti-cancer treatment may be affected differently by the amount and type of fish oil consumed," she said.

For example, a 2014 study in the Journal of Clinical Oncology found that an omega-3 supplement significantly reduced the incidence of nerve disorders caused by the chemo drug paclitaxel. Other studies have suggested that omega-3s reduce chemo side effects, increase chemo effectiveness and reduce the rate of cancer growth, potentially lengthening and improving life in cancer patients.

Feature

 

 

 

norexia nervosa is a serious eating disorder, affecting over 3 million Americans. New research published in Psychosomatic Medicine suggests that people with this debilitating disease may have very different gut microbial communities than those found in healthy individuals.

Moreover, researchers at the University of North Carolina (UNC) School of Medicine speculate that this bacterial imbalance could be linked to some of the psychological symptoms related to the disorder, which has the highest mortality rate of any mental health issue.

The research, led by Ian Carroll, PhD, senior author of the paper and assistant professor of medicine in the UNC Center for Gastrointestinal Biology and Disease, suggests that gut bacteria, the trillions of bacteria that affect digestive health and immunity, could play a prominent role in the symptoms of anorexia nervosa.

It is known that microbial diversity is a sign of better overall health. Previous studies have also suggested that the abundance and diversity of gut microbiota could also affect the so-called "gut-brain axis."

In previous research, scientists took gut microbial communities from an obese person and put them into germ-free mice, which are maintained in sterile conditions and lack intestinal microbiota. The result was a greater weight gain in mice with these bacteria than in germ-free mice that had been colonized with gut microbiota from a lean person. This suggests that gut microbes could mediate weight gain or loss.

In other experiments where gut bacteria were added to germ-free mice, altered behavior resulted, especially in relation to anxiety and stress.
Less diverse microbial communities in those with very low weight

The UNC team wanted to study this relationship further to find out if altering gut microbiota could help patients with anorexia nervosa to maintain weight and stabilize mood over time.

They collected fecal samples from 16 women with anorexia nervosa after they were first admitted into the UNC Center of Excellence for Eating Disorders, and then again on discharge from the center after their weight was restored. The samples were analyzed for composition and diversity of gut microbiota.

They also collected gut microbiota from 12 healthy individuals for comparison.

Susan Kleiman, a graduate student in Carroll's lab and first author of the paper, found significant changes in the gut bacteria populations between admission and discharge.

The samples taken at admission had fewer different types of bacteria, making the intestinal communities much less diverse. On discharge, the microbial diversity had increased but was still significantly less diverse than that of the healthy individuals.

As the microbial communities in patients with anorexia improved during clinical care and weight gain, the moods of patients also improved, suggesting a link between the two.


Learn more about anorexia nervosa

The next question is whether improving microbial abundance and diversity could help relieve symptoms related to the eating disorder.

To help them find out, Carroll and a team of researchers have received a 5-year, $2.5-million grant from the National Institutes of Mental Health (NIMH) to further study the relationship between gut microbiota and anorexia nervosa.

The team will characterize the microbiotas of a large number of people with anorexia nervosa as they enter UNC's clinic and when they are discharged, normally when they reach about 85% of their ideal body weight.

Then they will put those gut bacteria in germ-free mice, to investigate how the microbiota from anorexia nervosa patients affects the biology and behavior of the mice.

If the bacteria have a detrimental effect on the mice, it is possible that cultivating a healthy microbiota could be used in therapy for people with anorexia nervosa.

Carroll says:

    "We're not able to say a gut bacterial imbalance causes the symptoms of anorexia nervosa, including associated symptoms, such as anxiety and depression. But the severe limitation of nutritional intake at the center of anorexia nervosa could change the composition of the gut microbial community.

    These changes could contribute to the anxiety, depression, and further weight loss of people with the disorder. It's a vicious cycle, and we want to see if we can help patients avoid or reverse that phenomenon."

Treatments for anorexia nervosa need improvement. The process of weight gain and renourishment can be extremely uncomfortable, so that after leaving the hospital, patients often begin to lose weight again and face readmission.

If specific alterations in the microbiota can help decrease the discomfort of renourishment, enable better weight regulation and positively affect behavior, this could lead to better outcomes for patients.

Carroll points out that this will not be "the magic bullet for people with anorexia nervosa," because other important factors are involved. But he believes that if the gut microbiota is associated with a variety of health and brain-related issues, it could make a difference for people with anorexia nervosa.

While anorexia nervosa mostly starts during adolescence, a Spotlight from Medical News Today has previously investigated how eating disorders can affect people of any age.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Taking a class of drugs commonly used to reduce acid in the stomach is linked to a higher risk of developing chronic kidney disease, compared with not taking them.
Stomach and esophagus
Over 15 million Americans used prescription PPIs - drugs that reduce stomach acid - in 2013, at a cost of over $10 billion.

This was the finding of a new study led by the Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, MD, and published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

However, the authors also point out that finding a link between use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and chronic kidney disease does not prove the drugs actually cause the disease - that is for further studies to establish.

It could be, they suggest, that the participants who were prescribed PPIs may have been at higher risk of chronic kidney disease for reasons unrelated to their PPI use.

However, the researchers also note that previous studies have linked use of PPIs to a form of kidney inflammation called acute interstitial nephritis.

PPIs are among the most commonly used drugs worldwide. They are used to relieve symptoms of acid reflux and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). They are also prescribed for treating peptic or stomach ulcers and damage to the lower esophagus caused by acid reflux.

PPIs work by reducing the amount of stomach acid made by cells in the lining of the stomach. They are not the same as antacids, which work by neutralizing excess acid after it has entered the stomach.

There are many types and brands of PPI; examples include omeprazole (brand name Prilosec, also available without a prescription), esomeprazole (Nexium) and lansoprazole (Prevacid). The side effects vary from drug to drug.

In an accompanying editorial article - where they summarize recent evidence on the adverse effects of taking PPIs - Drs. Adam Jacob Schoenfeld and Deborah Grad, of the University of California-San Francisco, note that:

"A large number of patients are taking PPIs for no clear reason - often remote symptoms of dyspepsia or 'heartburn' that have since resolved."
10-year risk of kidney disease higher for PPI users

For their study, the Johns Hopkins researchers and their colleagues first analyzed data on 10,482 participants followed up for a median of nearly 14 years in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study.

Fast facts about acid reflux

    Acid reflux, or gastroesophageal reflux (GER), happens when stomach contents come back up into the esophagus
    It is felt as heartburn when stomach acid touches the lining of the esophagus
    A more serious, persistent form - gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) - affects about 20% of the US population.



They then replicated the results in a bigger cohort of 248,751 participants followed up for a median of 6 years - these participants were members of the Geisinger Health System in Pennsylvania.

They found that at the beginning of the monitoring period, PPI users in both groups were more likely to have a higher body mass index (BMI) and to be taking aspirin, statins or drugs to control high blood pressure.

In the ARIC group, 56 of 332 participants using PPIs developed chronic kidney disease, compared with 1,382 of 10,160 non-users. These figures translate to 14.2 and 10.7 per 1,000-person years, respectively. Participants were classed as a PPI user if they were taking the drugs at the start of the follow-up.

Further analysis of these ARIC figures revealed that the 10-year absolute risk of developing chronic kidney disease in the PPI users was 11.8%, compared with 8.5% if they had not used PPIs.

When they repeated this same analysis in the Geisinger cohort, the researchers found 1,921 of 16,900 PPI users and 28,226 of 231,851 of non-users developed chronic kidney disease, which translates to 20.1 and 18.3 per 1,000 person-years, respectively.

Again, further analysis of the larger cohort showed PPI use was associated with higher risk of disease. The 10-year absolute risk of developing chronic kidney disease among the PPI users was 15.6%, compared with 13.9% had they not used the drugs.

Commenting on their own findings, the authors emphasize the point that their study "is observational and does not provide evidence of causality," but should the link between PPI use and chronic kidney disease prove to be causal, then it could have important implications for public health, given the widespread use of the drugs.

Over 15 million Americans used prescription PPIs in 2013 at a cost of over $10 billion, they note, and conclude:

    "Study findings suggest that up to 70% of these prescriptions are without indication and that 25% of long-term PPI users could discontinue therapy without developing symptoms. Indeed, there are already calls for the reduction of unnecessary use of PPIs."

In 2010, Medical News Today reported how a study by researchers from Seoul National University Hospital in South Korea, published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, also found that use of PPIs and another class of acid reflux drug called histamine2 receptor antagonists may be linked to higher risk of pneumonia.

 

 

 

 

 

 

offee and diabetes are two of the most commonly covered topics in current medical news. The latest research looks in detail at some of coffee's ingredients and their potential effects on diabetes.

The prevalence of coffee and diabetes in modern media makes a great deal of sense: almost 1 in 10 Americans are diabetic, and more than half of American adults drink coffee daily.

The US spends roughly $40 billion on coffee per year, and in 2012, the total estimated cost of diagnosed diabetes in America was $245 billion.

Any links between these two unlikely bedfellows are likely to be chased down with vigor.

Recent research published in the American Chemical Society's Journal of Natural Products gives us a glimpse into the potential benefits of some of coffee's natural compounds in the management of type 2 diabetes.
Type 2 diabetes

Individuals with type 2 diabetes have a resistance to insulin. Insulin normally helps control the amount of glucose in the blood. If levels are high, it instructs the liver and muscles to absorb more.

Diabetes causes the body to stop reacting to insulin as it should. Insulin is released, but the liver and muscle cells no longer absorb the excess glucose. In the early phases of the disease, an increased amount of insulin is produced in an effort to convince the body to take on more glucose.

As the disease progresses, insulin-producing cells in the pancreas slowly die off through overuse.

The health implications of diabetes can be dire: damage to large blood vessels in the heart, brain and legs. Also, damage to smaller blood vessels can cause problems in the kidneys, eyes, feet and nerves.
The chemistry of coffee

All in all, there are more than 1,000 distinct chemical compounds in coffee. This impressive recipe includes quinic acid, 3,5-dicaffeoylquinic acid, acetylmethylcarbinol, dimethyl disulfide, putrescine, niacin, trigonelline, theophylline and our old friend and foe, caffeine.

Each of coffee's ingredients has the potential to affect human biology. More than likely, the majority of compounds, in the tiny amounts they are present in coffee, will not have a great effect on the body.

Having said that, there is no reason not to study each of these molecules in an effort to get to grips with the myriad of effects that coffee appears to exert on us.
Coffee and diabetes

Research into coffee and its ability to prevent or slow the onset of type 2 diabetes has garnered a fair amount of attention. A recent review of the literature concluded that habitual coffee drinking does seem to lower the risk of type 2 diabetes.

The next challenge is to tease apart the many components of coffee to pinpoint the active ingredients. As the bewildering list of chemicals above infers, this may be a gargantuan task.

Recent research conducted by Søren Gregersen and colleagues at the Department of Endocrinology and Internal Medicine at Aarhus University Hospital in Denmark may have narrowed the search.

Gregersen and his team looked at the effect of a number of coffee's constituents on rat cells in vitro. Most of the compounds did not have significant effects, but cafestol and caffeic acid threw out some intriguing results.

 

 

 

 

 

 

itamin D supplementation could be a safe and cost-effective treatment strategy for individuals with multiple sclerosis, according to new research published in the journal Neurology.

Researchers found a high daily dose of vitamin D for 6 months reduced MS-related T cell activity in patients with the disease.

Numerous studies have associated low levels of vitamin D with increased risk of multiple sclerosis (MS). Additionally, among people who have MS, low vitamin D levels have been linked to greater disability and more severe symptoms.

Whether vitamin D supplementation may benefit patients with MS, however, has been a subject of debate.

With the aim of finding out, study coauthor Dr. Peter A. Calabresi, of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, MD, and colleagues analyzed the effects of vitamin D supplementation among 40 adults aged 18-55 with relapsing-remitting MS.

Each individual took either 10,400 IU (high dose) or 800 IU (low dose) of vitamin D3 supplements daily for 6 months. For comparison, the standard recommended daily vitamin D intake for adults aged 18-70 is 600 IU.

At study baseline and at 3 and 6 months, the vitamin D levels of each participant were measured through blood tests, and the researchers also assessed subjects' MS-related T cell responses - an indicator of disease activity.
High-dose vitamin D reduced MS-related T cell activity

The study results revealed that individuals who took the high dose of vitamin D3 demonstrated a reduction in the percentage of T cells associated with MS activity.

Specifically, the researchers found that when vitamin D levels in the blood reached greater than 18 nanograms per milliliter (ng/ml), each further 5 ng/ml rise in vitamin D levels was linked to a 1% fall in the percentage of interleukin-17 T cells in the blood; these cells are believed to play a role in MS pathogenesis.

No reduction in the percentage of interleukin-17 T cells in the blood was identified among individuals who took the low dose of vitamin D3.

There were no differences in side effects from vitamin D supplementation between the high-dose and low-dose groups, according to the researchers, and one person from each group experienced a disease relapse.

Though MS incidence and prevalence is not currently tracked in the US, it is estimated that around 400,000 Americans are living with the condition and around 200 new cases are diagnosed each week.

At present, there is no cure for MS; symptoms and the course of disease are normally managed through medications. But according to Dr. Calabresi, these latest findings indicate there may be a promising new treatment option for MS:

    "These results are exciting, as vitamin D has the potential to be an inexpensive, safe and convenient treatment for people with MS.

    More research is needed to confirm these findings with larger groups of people and to help us understand the mechanisms for these effects, but the results are promising."

 

 

 

 

 

 

When surgeon Alan Bauman started his hair restoration practice in Boca Raton, Fla., in the late 1990s, about 10% of his patients were women. Now, he says, half are. Joseph Greco, a hair loss specialist in Sarasota, Fla., says his share of female patients has gone from 25% to 60% in the last decade alone.

There's no reason to think more women these days are losing hair. Almost all women lose some hair as they age and some women – just like some men – are genetically predisposed to lose a lot. Women rarely go bald, but what starts with a widening part, noticeable shedding or a shrinking pony tail can become significant, scalp-exposing hair thinning for about one third of women, studies show.

How women feel about that may be changing, says Melissa Piliang, a dermatologist specializing in hair loss at the Cleveland Clinic.

"I think there is an increased awareness and an increased interest in treatment," Piliang says. "For our grandmothers' generation, women over 50 were considered old. Now women that age are considered pretty young. Many also have jobs in which appearance is important."

And, it's fair to say, many also are seeing marketing for an increasing array of hair restoration products and procedures aimed at women – including a pricey but unproven treatment that both Bauman and Greco specialize in. It involves scalp injections with something called platelet-rich plasma (PRP).

Bauman, Greco and other practitioners – some of whom market PRP as a "vampire hair treatment," akin to the bloody "vampire facials" made famous by Kim Kardashian – say that substances in concentrated plasma, taken from a patient's own blood, can stimulate hair regrowth. They say the procedure is safe and produces noticeable results in most, but not all, male and female patients. A 20% to 25% increase in hair mass is typical, Bauman says.

But studies so far have been small and most have lacked the comparison groups that would show how PRP stacks up against other treatments or no treatment at all. "The early findings show promise, but more studies are needed to know whether this is a safe and effective treatment," the American Academy of Dermatology says.

Also, a lack of standardization – with each clinic using its own methods – "means it's buyer beware out there," Bauman says.

Those buyers are spending big bucks: Bauman charges $2,500 for a PRP treatment that he says needs to be repeated once a year on average. Greco says he repeats his version three times over the first 18 months for typical "female pattern hair loss" patients, charging $1,600 for the first treatment, $1,400 for the second and $1,000 for the third. Patients have an incentive to return because any new hair will fall out when treatment stops – just as it does with any treatment except for hair transplants.

But no one considers PRP the first-line treatment for women with hair loss.

That distinction goes to minoxidil, a liquid or foam applied to the scalp, available over the counter for years. The Food and Drug Administration approved a full-strength foam (a 5% solution) for women in 2014 and it is now sold as Women's Rogaine. The big advantage over older 2% versions is that it can be used once a day, instead of twice. It costs about $35 for a four-month supply.

Pililang says about 80% of women using minoxidil will stop losing hair and about half will regrow some. "It's not going to take someone who's 50 or 60 back to the hair they had at 20," she says.

"It doesn't work for everybody, but I tell my patients to use it diligently for six months and then look in the mirror and see how they feel," says Paradi Mirmirani, a dermatologist specializing in hair loss at Kaiser Permanente in Vallejo, Calif. Because hair loss caused by aging and genes gets worse over time, even maintaining hair "is a win," she says. "But patients have to decide whether it's worth the time and money."

The main side effects associated with minoxidil are scalp irritation and itching. And some women report unwanted facial hair growth – something that package instructions say might be prevented with careful application.

Another treatment that might work for some women: laser therapy with comb devices that sell for about $200 to $500 or caps that cost even more. These are FDA-approved for safety and recent studies suggest "a modest benefit," Mirmirani says.

Some women are candidates for hair transplant. But because women tend to lose hair all over their heads, not in the distinct bald spots common in men, finding lusher sections that can be moved to cover sparser areas is "more challenging," Piliang says.

Supplements such as biotin, marketed for hair health, are unproven, Piliang and Mirmirani say. But eating a healthy diet, protecting hair from the sun and not smoking can help, they say.

Also important to know: not all women's hair loss is the result of aging and genes. And some causes are treatable or temporary. Among them:

• Pregnancy. Many women see temporary hair loss after pregnancy.

• Stress. Hair also can shed after stressful or traumatic events.

• Iron deficiency, thyroid, hormone and immune disorders. Treating them can often stop any associated hair loss.

• Medications. Cancer drugs but also drugs used to treat acne, depression, blood clotting and other conditions can cause hair loss.

 

 

 


Page 3 of 19