404 Error - page not found
We're sorry, but the page you are looking for doesn't exist.
You can go to the homepage

OUR LATEST POSTS

Colorectal cancer is the second most common cause of cancer-related death in the United States.

The incidence of EO-CRC, which refers to when people under 50 years of age develop the condition, has increased markedly in several wealthy countries.

One 2020 article in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians suggested that over the course of the year, about 150,000 U.S. individuals would receive a diagnosis of colorectal cancer and about 53,200 would die as a result.

The authors also predicted about 18,000 cases of individuals younger than 50 years of age receiving a diagnosis of colorectal cancer, with 3,640 forecasted deaths in this population.

Compared with adults born in the U.S. around 1950, those born around 1990 have twice the risk of developing colon cancer and four times the risk of developing rectal cancer.

A new study in the journal Gut links drinking two or more SSBs per day in adulthood with a doubling in the risk of bowel cancer before the age of 50 years.

Researchers found that each daily SSB serving among adult women may be associated with a 16% higher risk of developing EO-CRC.

Also, the study found that each additional SSB serving per day among individuals aged 13–18 years may be linked to a 32% increase in the risk of developing EO-CRC.

Examples of SSBs include soft drinks, pre-packaged fruit drinks, energy drinks, and sports drinks. Sugary drinks are the leading source of added sugars in the American diet.

In fact, from 1977 to 2001, energy intake from SSBs increased by a whopping 135%.

Unique epidemiologic evidence

For this study, the researchers used data from 95,464 participants in the Nurses’ Health Study II. This is an ongoing monitoring study of 116,430 U.S. registered nurses, all women, who were aged 25–42 years when they enrolled in 1989.

Every 4 years beginning in 1991, the women in the study reported on what they ate and drank using validated food frequency questionnaires.

In 1998, researchers asked the participants to recall their health status and lifestyle habits as teenagers.

Also, 41,272 of the women reported on what they typically ate and drank as well as on the quantities of these items between 1960 and 1982. They were aged 13–18 years at this point.

The participants also gave information on potentially influential factors, including their family history of bowel cancer, their lifestyle habits, and any regular use of aspirin, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, or vitamin supplements.

Over 24 years of monitoring, 109 women developed bowel cancer before the age of 50 years.

The study authors write that their findings “add unique epidemiologic evidence that SSB intake may partly contribute to the rapid increase of CRC in younger adults.”

Notes on the study

It is important for researchers to understand what is behind this increase, said study co-author Dr. Jeffrey Meyerhardt. He is the clinical director of the Gastrointestinal Cancer Center at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, MA.

“It is presumed that exposures early in life are contributing to this rise,” Dr. Meyerhardt told Medical News Today. “Studying exposures that can be prevented is [essential] to getting control of this rising health issue.”

Substituting SSBs with reduced-fat milk or whole milk appears to be beneficial, according to study co-author Dr. Yin Cao. She is an associate professor of surgery at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, MO.

“In this study,” she told us, “we showed [that] replacing one daily serving (8 oz) of SSBs with an equivalent amount of reduced-fat milk or total milk was associated with a 35–36% lower risk of EO-CRC.”

“During the second half of the 20th century, for which average U.S. per capita soft drink consumption has dramatically increased by ~500%, milk consumption has declined by half. Milk is a good source of calcium, a mineral found to be protective of colorectal cancer.”

“We postulate [that] low milk consumption could be plausibly linked with the increased risk of EO-CRC, and further research on this topic is in the pipeline.”

The researchers point to several limitations of their study. First, they caution that this was an observational study, which can only establish correlation, not cause. They also note that the majority of the participants were white women, so the findings may not apply to men or other ethnic groups.

Even so, the study provides insight into possible actions that public health leaders might take, Dr. Cao explained.

“Particularly in adolescence,” she wrote, “the immature and rapidly growing organs could be more susceptible to exposures that could lead to cancer development.”

“Campaigns, education programs, and interventions targeting the young population to reduce SSB intake and/or replace SSBs with other healthier beverages could help reduce the accrual of time at risk and convert this window of increased susceptibility into an opportunity for better health outcomes later in life.”

Branimir76/Getty Images

An estimated 1.5 million people living in the United States alone have RA, an autoimmune disease that causes joint pain, swelling, and eventually damage.

Researchers continue to look for new ways to diagnose RA, especially in its early stages. That is because the earlier a person receives a proper diagnosis of and treatment for RA, the better their chances of good outcomes, such as limiting joint damage and functional loss.

Researchers also remain uncertain as to what exactly causes RA to develop, although it seems to depend on a mix of genetic and environmental factors.

In more recent years, RA researchers have been exploring the link between ERA, people at risk of RA, and the changes in their oral and intestinal microbiota, or community of microbes.

It seems people with ERA and at risk of RA have abnormal levels of certain bacteria in the mucus that lines the mouth and intestines. They also seem to be more likely than other people to have periodontal disease, or gum disease.

What is more, some research indicates RA may begin in the oral cavity.

That is why a team of researchers from the Academic Centre for Dentistry of Amsterdam (ACTA) set out to analyze the microbial populations and periodontal condition of people with ERA, those at risk of RA, and a control group of people without these conditions for comparison.

Their study appears in the journal Arthritis & Rheumatology.

The oral microbiome and RA

Researchers have long speculated that autoimmune diseases, such as RA, are triggered or caused by microorganisms.

For quite some time, researchers have been aware there are links between periodontal disease, changes in the oral and intestinal microbiome, and RA.

Several studies seem to show that oral microbes — in particular anaerobic bacteria, which do not require oxygen — may play a role in the development of RA.

2009 study highlights three types of anaerobic bacteria occurring in the oral cavity that have been identified in joint fluid from people with RA. Several studies show that antibodies for certain types of anaerobic bacteria associated with periodontal disease may play a role in the development of RA.

Some researchers think these bacteria may cause an RA-associated immune response by producing proteins that trigger the formation of anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPAs).

These compounds appear to promote inflammatory responses in different types of cells, including bone cells. Some studies have shown that this response ACPAs promote may be involved in the mediation of bone damage in the joints of people with RA.

For these and other reasons, the detection of ACPAs is now considered the most specific biomarker for RA in serum, which is the fluid component of blood.

The detection of ACPAs in serum also seems to help predict RA development several years before a person has clinical RA or experiences symptoms and receives an RA diagnosis.

That is why several research teams, including the team involved in the current study, have been exploring how changes in the composition and other components of the oral microbiome may relate to the onset of RA.

Oral microbiome changes and RA risk

In the new study, researchers analyzed the oral microbiome and periodontal status of three groups of 50 people.

People in the first group had ERA, and the second group included people at risk of RA (people with serum ACPAs or arthralgia). People in the third group did not have RA and were not at risk, did not have autoimmune conditions, and were generally healthy.

Each participant was examined by a dentist to assess their periodontal condition. Dentists checked whether their gums bled with probing, the inflamed gum surface area, and how deep into the gum line dental tools could probe.

They also examined how many teeth each participant had, how many of their teeth were missing, decayed, or filled, and whether a person wore a removable denture. They also asked each participant about the last time they brushed their teeth and what their regular oral hygiene measures were.

In addition, the scientists collected from each participant samples of the tongue coating or film, saliva, and subgingival dental plaque, which is found below the gum.

After using devices to amplify the DNA present in the samples, they collected, analyzed, and quantified the microbial populations within the samples. They then compared microbial differences between the three groups.

The team identified no difference in periodontal conditions between the groups. There was also no difference in dental plaque samples.

Yet differences did exist between the oral saliva and tongue coating of people with ERA and at risk of RA compared with the control group.

Levels of bacteria belonging to the genera Prevotella and Veillonella were higher in saliva samples from people with ERA and at risk of RA compared with the control group. Veillonella bacterial levels were also higher in the tongue coatings of the RA groups than in those of people in the control group.

According to the authors, these findings suggest that a possible link between the oral microbe and RA may truly exist.

This also suggests that bacteria from these two genera, as well as some others already reported to be involved in RA onset, could help trigger immune responses that influence the development of RA.

The authors explain that these findings correspond to those of previous studies showing that people with new-onset RA and established RA had increased levels of oral Prevotella bacteria. The results also support research that found increased levels of Prevotella bacteria in the gut microbiome of people at risk of RA or with ERA.

The authors write that some strains of Prevotella can cause chronic inflammation, which can trigger immune cells to be released throughout the body. They add that in some cases, microbial dysbiosis, or microbial imbalances, partially resolves with RA treatment.

The wider picture

Medical News Today spoke with Dr. Vanessa L. Kronzer, who cowrote a recent review on the etiology of RA. She said:

“This is an interesting study that, in my mind, achieves two goals. First, it provides further support for the mucosal origin hypothesis for RA. And second, it suggests that dysbiosis occurs even before disease onset and thus may play a role in RA disease pathogenesis.”

Dr. Kronzer believes this research is “an important step in a long path to understanding the etiology of this important disease.”

MNT also contacted Johanna Kroese from ACTA, the corresponding author of the study. She explained:

“Our results indicate a possible role for oral bacteria in triggering the onset of RA. Targeting these bacteria might lower the risk of developing RA. Future research can focus on strategies to target these bacteria and improving oral health, and might eventually lead to the development of measures for RA disease prevention.”

Some limitations

While the study had many strengths, it also had some notable flaws.

People within the ERA group were receiving treatment for RA, while people at risk of RA and those in the control group were not. The researchers also did not collect information on some factors that may influence dental plaque, such as diet.

To confirm their findings, the authors say future studies must collect multiple datasets over longer periods of time, ideally using large groups of people and consistent collection methods.

Nevertheless, these findings may have uncovered yet another stepping stone in the complex, elusive development process of RA. This could be good news for the millions of people living with RA, and the healthcare professionals trying to diagnose and treat them.

As Johanna Kroese explained to MNT, although further research is needed, “improving oral health is relevant for the entire population, and it wouldn’t hurt to already pay attention to oral health in persons at risk of developing RA.”

People who wish to look after their heart health are aware that regularly eating vegetables is key.

A new study from Edith Cowan University (ECU) in Joondalup, WA, in Australia finds that leafy greens and other vegetables high in nitrates in particular confer significant cardiovascular benefits.

Researchers found that daily consumption of a cup of vegetables rich in nitrates is associated with better heart health.

“Our results have shown that, by simply eating 1 cup of raw (or half a cup of cooked) nitrate-rich vegetables each day, people may be able to significantly reduce their risk of cardiovascular disease.”

– lead author Dr. Catherine Bondonno from ECU’s Institute for Nutrition Research

Green leafy vegetables high in nitrates include spinach, lettuce, arugula (also known as rocket), Chinese cabbage, and parsley. Non-leafy vegetables with strong nitrate content include radishes, fennel, and beet.

The researchers estimate that cooking reduces a vegetable’s nitrate content by about 50%, but that is still enough to promote heart health.

Dr. Bondonno said, “The greatest reduction in risk was for peripheral artery disease — 26% — a type of heart disease characterized by the narrowing of blood vessels of the legs. However,” she added, “we also found people had a lower risk of heart attacks, strokes, and heart failure.”

The authors note that their findings are consistent with four earlier studies.

Worldwide, roughly 17.9 million people die of heart disease each year. In the United States, it is the leading cause of death for “men, women, and people of most racial and ethnic groups,” according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

About 655,000 people in the U.S. die of heart disease every year — one out of every four deaths in the country.

The study appears in the European Journal of Epidemiology.

A long-term study

The researchers analyzed 23 years of data for 56,468 residents of Denmark who participated in the Danish Diet, Cancer, and Health Study. All individuals filled out a food frequency questionnaire, and the resulting data was cross-referenced against public health records.

Analysis revealed that people in the highest fifth of intake of vegetable nitrates exhibited a 2.58 mm Hg, or millimeters of mercury, lower systolic blood pressure — which is the first value in a blood pressure reading — compared with those in the lowest intake group (after adjustments for possible confounding differences between the groups).

The higher the nitrate intake, the greater the fall in blood pressure. The top intake group ate an average of 141 milligrams (mg) of nitrate per day. This is equivalent to 2–2.5 cups of leafy vegetables daily.

In contrast, the impact of nitrate intake on hospitalizations across all types of cardiovascular disease (CVD) plateaued at 59 mg per day. It did not increase with further nitrate intake.

Overall, there was a 15% reduction in CVD admissions over the 23 years of follow-up, compared with those with the lowest nitrate intake, which was 23 gm per day. The greatest reduction in risk — at 26% — was seen in hospitalizations for peripheral artery disease.

Speaking to Medical News TodayDr. Edo Paz of K Health, who was not involved in the research, said he considers the study significant due to its large sample size and lengthy follow-up period.

“However,” he noted, “this is an observational study, and there are some key limitations as a result.” He explained:

“In particular, it is highly likely that people who eat vegetables have other healthy behaviors that are different than those people who do not eat vegetables. For instance, these participants may be more likely to maintain a healthy weight, exercise more, smoke less, etc. Even though the authors try to account for these variables, this is still a key limitation inherent to observational studies in general.” – Dr. Edo Paz

Just a cup

The study suggests that the equivalent of a cup of raw or half a cup of cooked green leafy vegetables of this kind a day is just about the right amount for long-term heart health. “We did not see further benefits in people who ate higher levels of nitrate-rich vegetables,” said Dr. Bondonno.

“People don’t need to be taking supplements to boost their nitrate levels,” Dr. Bondonno said, “because the study showed that one cup of leafy green vegetables each day is enough to reap the benefits for heart disease.

Dr. Paz told MNT: “It’s important to remember that everything should be eaten or consumed in moderation. If extreme amounts of nitrate are ingested, it could lead to methemoglobinemia, which is a condition in which red blood cells have reduced ability to carry oxygen.”

“Fortunately, methemoglobinemia is relatively rare and is more commonly caused by nitrate contamination of drinking water.”

Dr. Bondonno does not recommend juicing vegetables if you want to enjoy the optimal nitrate benefit, since juicing removes pulp and fiber.

On the other hand, blending vegetables is fine. She recommends including a cup of spinach in a berry smoothie as an easy, enjoyable way for people to consume their vegetables.

Kidney cancer is the eighth most common cancer in adults, with just over 10,100 people diagnosed each year.

Signs and symptoms of kidney cancer can include: blood in your urine; a constant pain in your side, just below the ribs; and a lump or swelling in the kidney area (on either side of the body).

See your General Practitioner (GP) as soon as possible if you experience any of these symptoms. They will examine you and may refer you to a specialist clinic for further tests.

In around half of all cases of kidney cancer, there are no symptoms, and the condition is detected during tests for other unrelated conditions.

The kidneys and cancer
The kidneys are two bean-shaped organs located on either side of the body, just underneath the ribcage. Their main role is to filter out waste products from the blood, in addition to producing urine. Only one of the kidneys is usually affected by cancer.

The human body is made up of billions of cells, which normally grow and multiply in an orderly way, with new cells being created only when and where they’re needed. In cancer, this orderly process goes wrong and cells begin to grow and multiply uncontrollably.

Exactly what triggers this growth is unknown; however, there are certain risk factors that can increase the chances of the condition developing, such as smoking and obesity.

Kidney cancer most frequently affects people over 50 years of age and is more common among men.
Treating kidney cancer

The earlier kidney cancer is diagnosed, the easier it is to treat. How it is treated will depend on the size and spread of the cancer. Surgery to remove the cancerous cells is usually the first course of action.

Unlike most other cancers, chemotherapy isn’t very effective at treating kidney cancer. However, non-surgical treatments are available, such as radiotherapy or targeted therapies. These are most commonly used in the more advanced stages of kidney cancer, when the cancer has spread beyond the kidney.

Preventing kidney cancer
As the causes of kidney cancer aren’t fully understood, it is not possible to fully prevent it.

However, leading a healthy lifestyle may reduce the chances of developing the condition. A combination of a healthy diet and regular exercise will help to avoid becoming overweight or obese, which is a significant risk factor for kidney cancer.

If you are overweight or obese, you can lose weight and maintain a healthy weight by combining regular exercise with a calorie-controlled diet.

The unmistakable taste and smell of coffee — not to mention its ability to perk people up in the morning — have made it one of the world’s most popular beverages.

Better still, observational studies indicate that coffee may protect against cardiovascular disease, diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, and certain cancers.

Prospective studies, which follow people over time, have provided evidence that drinking this beverage is safe for most people and is associated with lower mortality rates.

However, a new study suggests that some of the supposed health benefits of coffee for cardiovascular health may have been overblown. The research was limited to white British participants.

As a result of the caffeine that coffee contains, excessive consumption can cause unpleasant symptoms such as tachycardia (a fast resting heart rate) and palpitations.

Drinking coffee can also lead to a moderate, temporary increase in blood pressure.

So it may come as a surprise that regular coffee drinkers either have normal or reduced blood pressure compared with people who do not drink coffee.

One explanation may be that coffee drinkers develop a physiological tolerance for the effects of caffeine.

But a new study suggests that people with a high genetic risk of cardiovascular disease unconsciously reduce how much they drink to avoid unpleasant cardiovascular symptoms.

The research found that individuals with high blood pressure, angina, or arrhythmia drank less caffeinated coffee and were more likely to drink decaffeinated coffee.

Crucially, there was strong evidence that their genetic vulnerability to cardiovascular disease led to their reduced consumption of coffee.

This rules out the alternative explanation that consuming less coffee made them more vulnerable to cardiovascular disease.

Researchers at the University of South Australia in Adelaide conducted the study, which appears in The American Journal of Clinical NutritionTrusted Source.

Guided by genetics

“Whether we drink a lot of coffee, a little, or avoid caffeine altogether, this study shows that genetics are guiding our decisions to protect our cardio health,” Professor Elina Hyppönen, who led the research and directs the Australian Centre for Precision Health at the university.

“If your body is telling you not to drink that extra cup of coffee, there’s likely a reason why,” she adds. “Listen to your body — it’s more in tune with your health than you may think.”

In observational studies, this effect could give the false impression that coffee prevents high blood pressure and protects the heart.

In reality, people vulnerable to high blood pressure may simply avoid drinking coffee because, for them, the caffeine is more likely to cause unpleasant symptoms.

The scientists drew on information about 390,435 white British participants aged 39–73 years who are part of a medical and genetic database called UK Biobank.

On recruitment, participants reported their regular coffee consumption. Researchers also measured their blood pressure and heart rate and noted any cardiovascular symptoms.

Participants with high blood pressure, angina, or arrhythmia consumed less caffeinated coffee compared with those without these symptoms.

To determine whether regular coffee consumption caused the symptoms, or whether the symptoms triggered a reduction in coffee consumption, the researchers used a statistical technique called Mendelian randomization.

This technique exploits the random inheritance of genetic variants that increase a person’s risk of a particular outcome later in life — in this case, the association between blood pressure and heart rate with habitual coffee consumption.

Because factors, such as lifestyle or diet, cannot change a person’s genetic sequence, any associations that the researchers discovered must be due to the gene variants rather than any other factors.

When they analyzed the data, it showed that having a particular genetic variant determined how much coffee a person drank.

“What this means is that someone who drinks a lot of coffee is likely more genetically tolerant of caffeine, as compared to someone who drinks very little,” says Prof. Hyppönen.

“Conversely, a noncoffee drinker, or someone who drinks decaffeinated coffee, is more likely prone to the adverse effects of caffeine and more susceptible to high blood pressure,” she adds.

Psychological effects

Medical News Today asked Prof. Hyppönen whether the psychological effects that some people experience when they drink a lot of coffee, such as anxiety and agitation, could also play a role.

“This is not something that we looked at in our study, but any unpleasant sensation that an individual feels in response to coffee consumption is likely to reduce their wish to drink coffee,” said Prof. Hyppönen.

MNT asked Dr. Edo Paz, a doctor atdigital primary care platform K Health, about the effects of drinking too much coffee.

He responded:

“[D]rinking too much coffee can result in headache, anxiety, tremors, and difficulty sleeping. With regards to the heart, in particular, excess coffee intake can result in palpitations and may trigger events in the heart, such as abnormal heart rhythms, in susceptible individuals.”

The problem of reverse causation

The findings of the new research suggest that observational studies that found an association between coffee consumption and better health may have fallen prey to “reverse causation.”

In other words, heart health issues led people to drink less coffee, rather than the other way round.

Prof. Hyppönen said Mendelian randomization studies had cast doubt on other apparent protective effects.

For example, epidemiological studies have led people to infer that moderate alcohol consumption protects against cardiovascular disease, and that having excess weight reduces mortality compared with moderate weight.

“According to [Mendelian randomization] studies, there does not appear to be any benefit for having [excess weight] versus [slim or moderate] weight, with the possible exception for smokers,” she said.

Smoking reduces appetite and hence weight, but it also has links with a wide range of negative effects on health.

“Also for alcohol, [the] evidence suggests linear increases in blood pressure and stroke risk, with no benefit for light alcohol consumption,” she added.

While further studies are necessary using a more diverse population, this study suggests using a considered, personalized approach when promoting high coffee intakes.

There have been numerous investigations into a possible role for vitamin D in preventing both SARS-CoV-2 infections and COVID-19 complications.

These studies have drawn conflicting conclusions. Now, a study from researchers in Brazil provides a more robust answer to at least one key question: can vitamin D help prevent COVID-19 complications in particularly ill hospitalized patients? According to the results, the answer appears to be no.

The study found that high doses of vitamin D administered to hospital patients with moderate or severe COVID-19 did not affect the course of the disease.

“In vitro studies or trials with animals had previously shown that in certain situations, vitamin D and its metabolites could have anti-inflammatory and antimicrobial effects, as well as modulating the immune response,” explains Rosa Pereira, principal investigator for the study.

“We decided to investigate whether a high dose of the substance could have a protective effect in the context of an acute viral infection, reducing either the inflammation or the viral load.”

Based on the study’s results, says Pereira, “So far, we can say there’s no indication to administer vitamin D to patients who come to the hospital with severe COVID-19.”

The research appears in JAMA.

COVID-19 and vitamin D

Scientists at the University of São Paulo’s Medical School (FM-USP) in São Paulo, Brazil, conducted the randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled clinical trial. The researchers say this study is the first of its kind.

The team tracked the experiences of 240 volunteers receiving treatment for COVID-19 symptoms at FM-USP’s Hospital das Clínicas and the Ibirapuera Park field hospital in São Paulo City, from June to August 2020. All participants had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 using a polymerase chain reaction test or via antibody testing.

All of them received treatment with standard COVID-19 protocols that include antibiotic and anti-inflammatory medications. The researchers then divided them into two equal groups at random.

The scientists gave participants in the first group a single 200,000-unit dose of vitamin D3 dissolved in peanut oil. They gave those in the second group unaltered peanut-oil placebos.

The design of the study was to discover whether a high dose of vitamin D was associated with a shorter hospitalization — the researchers found that it was not.

The investigation also found no evidence that vitamin D made a person less likely to be admitted to the intensive care unit or less likely to need intubation.

Vitamin D also seemed to have no effect on mortality, although Pereira cautions that a larger study with more participants is required before researchers can draw final conclusions.

More vitamin D studies needed

The study conclusively rules out vitamin D as a “magic bullet” for treating COVID-19.

Co-author Bruno Gualano, a researcher at FM-USP, says, “But that does not mean continuous use of vitamin D cannot have beneficial effects of some kind.”

Having suggested that a single high dose of vitamin D is not a solution to severe COVID-19, Pereira is now leading a new study to determine whether a vitamin D deficiency has any effect on a person’s ability to overcome SARS-CoV-2.

Pereira is also looking to establish the amount of vitamin D a person should have in their bloodstream to promote good health. This threshold will vary depending on an individual’s characteristics. Younger, generally healthy people should have at least 20 nanograms per milliliter of blood (ng/ml). Whereas for older people, for example, and those with osteoporosis, the minimum is 30 ng/ml.

Pereira says, “The ideal approach is case-by-case analysis, if necessary dosing the substance periodically by means of blood work, with supplementation if a deficiency is detected.”