Pages

Monday, 3 September 2018

Any Amount of Drinking Is Bad for You. Here's What Experts Say

A new study concludes there’s no amount of alcohol consumption that’s safe for overall health — a finding that’s likely to surprise moderate drinkers, and that has left some experts unconvinced.

By JAMIE DUCHARME 
August 24, 2018

HEALTHWISE


For years, public health officials have said that, while no one should pick up drinking in search of better health, moderate drinking (defined as up to a drink per day for women and up to two per day for men) probably won’t hurt anyone who already imbibes, and may even confer some benefits. This standard is written into the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and is supported by organizations including the American Heart Association and the American Cancer Society.
But the new paper, published Thursday in The Lancet, calls that long-held conclusion into question.
“The evidence is adding up that no amount of drinking is safe,” says study co-author Emmanuela Gakidou, a professor of global health and health metrics sciences at the University of Washington. “I don’t think we’re going out on a limb to say anything that the data do not support.”
The new research was based on a review of nearly 700 existing studies on global drinking prevalence and nearly 600 studies on alcohol and health, and found that alcohol was the seventh leading risk factor for premature death in 2016, contributing to 2.8 million deaths worldwide. That number is equivalent to 2.2% of all female deaths and 6.8% of all male deaths that year, according to the study.
The health risks likely only increase the more you drink, the study found. Compared to non-drinkers, people who had one alcoholic beverage per day had a 0.5% higher risk of developing one of 23 alcohol-related health problems, including cancer, road injuries and tuberculosis, in a given year, the study says. At that level, the absolute increase is small, equaling only four additional deaths per 100,000 people per year, according to the study. But those who had two drinks per day had a risk 7% higher than non-drinkers. At five drinks per day, the risk was 37% higher, the study says.
Gakidou’s paper did show some modest cardiovascular benefits associated with moderate drinking, particularly among women, but she says that effect is overshadowed by the numerous ways alcohol can threaten health. When you consider risks like breast cancer and road traffic injuries, she says, “the protective effect goes away, even at low doses.”
Other experts have recently come to similar conclusions. In May, for example, the World Cancer Research Fund released a report saying that, at least in terms of cancer prevention, “it’s best not to drink alcohol.” The U.K. government made a similar recommendation in 2016.
Meanwhile, some studies have questioned the long-standing idea that moderate drinking is good for heart health. That’s in part because some older studies didn’t account for the fact that many people who don’t drink abstain either because they had addiction issues in the past, or have other health problems that force them to stay away from alcohol. Including these individuals in the general non-drinking population may have skewed research results to make teetotalers as a whole group look unhealthier than they actually are, some studies have suggested.
Walter Willett, a professor of nutrition and epidemiology at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, questions the conclusion that the cons of drinking always outweigh the pros. While there’s “no question” that heavy drinking is harmful, he says that plenty of data supports links between moderate drinking and lower total mortality and a decreased risk of heart disease — which, he says, are far more relevant concerns for most Americans than something like tuberculosis, which the Lancet paper identifies as a leading alcohol-related disease worldwide. Tuberculosis is very rare in the U.S.
“Our decisions about drinking in the United States shouldn’t be influenced by what alcohol does to tuberculosis,” Willett says. “When you throw together everything in one big pot and draw conclusions for the whole world, it’s just misleading.”
Willett does acknowledge that even moderate drinking comes with tradeoffs. A drink a day may decrease a woman’s risk of heart disease but increase her risk of breast cancer. For a young, healthy woman who is unlikely to die of heart disease, those risks might outweigh the benefits. But that’s a decision that woman would have to make with her doctor, Willett says — and it’s unlikely the entire population would or should come to the same conclusion.
“I think they went too far in this paper,” Willett says. “There are risks and benefits, and I think it’s important to have the best information about all of those and come to some personal decisions, and engage one’s health care provider in that process as well.”
Gakidou, on the other hand, says her paper’s recommendation is valid precisely because individual health decisions are so variable.
“We don’t have the information for specific individuals…we’re making overall recommendations at the population level,” she says. “If you’re running a health system in a country, it’s better overall for the population of your country to not drink at all than to drink a little bit.”
Dariush Mozaffarian, dean of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University, agrees with that assessment. It’s clear, he says, that drinking comes with health risks, and far less clear that it comes with any benefits. So while some moderate drinkers might never experience health problems from drinking, “if you look at all the risks and all the benefits of alcohol, it’s probably net harmful, on average, for the whole population,” he says.
While that conclusion may seem stark to people who have come to feel virtuous about their nightly glass of wine, Mozaffarian says it’s actually not so different from current medical advice.
“I think this is actually consistent with every organization’s recommendation that, overall, no one should start drinking to prevent heart disease or diabetes,” Mozaffarian says. “No organization has ever recommended to drink alcohol. The recommendation has been that if you drink — and that’s the key caveat — don’t drink more than moderately.”

New Developments in Ovarian Cancer Treatment Are Showing Promise

Cancer is never an easy foe, but some types are more stubborn than others. Ovarian cancer is one of the hardest to treat.
By ALICE PARK August 28, 2018
But there are signs of progress. Several recent studies have used new combination treatment strategies, including a drug that may make chemotherapy more effective and a drug originally designed to treat breast cancer. More research is needed, but the new studies provide hope for improving outcomes for women with advanced ovarian cancer, when there was little before.
On its face, ovarian cancer isn’t actually more difficult to treat than other cancers like breast, prostate or lung. It is, technically, curable — as long as it is diagnosed early enough that surgery can remove all of the growths before they spread. But because the ovaries are located deep in the reproductive tract, most people are not even aware they have cancer until the malignant cells have spread beyond the ovaries and infiltrated other tissues.
Even then, surgery to remove the bulk of the tumors and chemotherapy and radiation to shrivel the remainder can be effective. Yet ovarian cancers tend to retain the upper hand, since they can easily develop resistance to these powerful anti-cancer regimens.
Recent revolutions in cancer treatments — from the targeted therapies that zero in on specific cancer cells and eliminate them, to immunotherapies that train the immune system to attack tumors — have provided hope in treating other stubborn cancers. But women with ovarian cancers have not benefited from these advancements.
For targeted drugs to work, there must be one or more specific pathways that become mutated in normal cells to turn them cancerous. Drugs can then home in on these pathways and block them to slow or even halt cancer cells from growing. But ovarian cancers don’t rely on such easy targets; researchers have looked, and they have come up empty. “We now have the technology to find them, and we have done exercises to find them, but we haven’t found any,” says Udai Banerji, professor of molecular cancer pharmacology at the Institute of Cancer Research and the Royal Marsden Hospital of those easy drug targets for ovarian cancer. “To be honest, I don’t think we will find the classic mutations such as we’ve found in lung cancer, for example.”


The latest excitement over immunotherapy also excludes ovarian cancer. Cancers that respond best to immune attack are those with an abundance of different mutations, like skin cancers that develop multiple DNA aberrations from exposure to ultraviolet radiation from the sun. These genetic abnormalities make such cancers an easy target for immune cells that can be trained to recognize them as foreign and mark them for destruction. Ovarian cancers, it turns out, don’t have such a high mutational burden.
That leaves people diagnosed with the disease with only a few options, all of which are years, if not decades, old.
But that may change, if results from several recent studies using new treatment strategies are confirmed. In one, researchers led by Banerji decided to see if adding a targeted drug to traditional chemotherapy treatment might improve outcomes for women with advanced ovarian cancer. And in others, a drug used to treat breast cancer may prove effective in ovarian cancers as well.
Banerji and his colleagues treated 25 women who had become resistant to three cycles of chemotherapy with a combination of chemotherapy and a targeted drug designed to interfere with one of the molecular processes that ovarian cancer cells rely on to grow. In the small study, the advanced ovarian cancers shrunk in half of the women who received this combination treatment.
“With this combination, half of the patients responded,” says Banerji. “Which is quite good considering the women were at such a late stage in the disease.”
Banerji’s group knew to focus on this particular combination of treatments from earlier work they had done searching for any clues about what helped some women respond better to chemotherapy. Around five years ago, they decided to take advantage of fluid drained from women with advanced disease. Normally, around half a gallon of fluid typically builds up in the abdomens of advanced patients, pressing on other organs and causing pain and discomfort, so doctors extract and discard it to make patients feel more comfortable. Banerji and his colleagues analyzed the fluid and extracted cancer cells from it. They found that women who went on to respond to chemotherapy tended to have low levels of a certain enzyme, while those who did not tended to have high levels.
That was a clue that the enzyme could become a target for a drug that might suppress its activity and make the cancer cells more vulnerable to destruction by chemotherapy. As it turns out, AstraZeneca had just such a drug, and the company funded a study for Banerji to test it in combination with chemotherapy. The company was involved in the design of the study, but not in collecting the data or interpreting the results.
Banerji stresses that the trial involved only a small number of people, so he has begun a larger study in which people with advanced ovarian cancer will also be randomly assigned to receive the combination of chemotherapy and the targeted drug or chemotherapy alone, to test whether the strategy is effective. In that study, the women will only be given the targeted drug for about two to three days just before or during chemotherapy, since it’s only needed to make the cells vulnerable to chemotherapy.
Researchers are also encouraged by results from early studies of combinations with a different type of chemotherapy drug: so-called PARP inhibitors, which were originally used in treating breast cancer. PARP inhibitors are designed to stop tumor cells’ ability to repair any damage to their DNA that prevents them from dividing and growing; as the DNA damage accumulates, the cancer cells become unstable and die. So far, studies have suggested that between 25% to 50% of women with ovarian cancer might respond to PARP inhibitors, although those with the highest response rates tend to be at the earliest stages of the disease. “It’s a very crowded space,” says Dr. Shannon Westin, associate professor of gynecologic oncology and reproductive medicine at MD Anderson Cancer Center, of ovarian cancer trials involving combination treatments with PARP inhibitors. Some doctors are starting to test these combinations as first-line treatments, in an effort to hit the disease with as much cancer-killing power as possible. Those results could be available as early as next year.

“Hopefully what we’ll see are bigger benefits before tumors get more resistance,” says Westin. “That may truly impact survival to a greater degree.” Combinations of drugs and chemotherapy agents may be the key to achieving that, she says, but “it’s just too soon to tell. Still, it’s great to see all the amazing options and see the beginnings of success in treating ovarian cancer. That’s the exciting part.”

http://time.com/5380562/ovarian-cancer-treatments/

A High Blood Pressure Medication Is Being Recalled After a Potentially 'Life-Threatening' Labeling Mistake

A potentially “life-threatening” labeling mix-up spurred a nationwide recall of a high blood pressure medication, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced.
By JAMIE DUCHARME 
August 29, 2018
TIME Health
Accord Healthcare is voluntarily recalling a single lot of 12.5-milligram hydrochlorothiazide tablets, after a pharmacy reported finding a 100-count bottle that actually contained spironolactone tablets, according to the FDA. The rest of the lot (PW05264) has been recalled due to the “potential mix-up of labeling,” but Accord says the remainder of its drugs are unaffected.



Both hydrochlorothiazide and spironolactone can be used to treat high blood pressure, but because spironolactone causes the body to flush out excess water and sodium and store potassium, the FDA warns that patients who mistakenly take it instead of hydrochlorothiazide could experience hyperkalemia, or elevated potassium levels. The effects of hyperkalemia, according to the FDA, range from “limited health consequences to life-threatening situations in certain individuals.”
No patients have reported adverse effects in connection with the recall, the FDA says. Those who are prescribed Accord’s hydrochlorothiazide tablets should make sure that the pills are a light orange color with a letter H on one side, and a number 1 on the other. Consumers are urged to report any drugs that do not match that description, or check with their pharmacist.


http://time.com/5381366/hydrochlorothiazide-recall/