Vitamin D supplements may help improve blood pressure, cholesterol, and insulin

Vitamin D supplements may help improve blood pressure, cholesterol, and insulin

A recent meta-analysis found that a daily average of 3,320 IU of supplemental vitamin D is linked to lower levels of hemoglobin A1C, total cholesterol, blood pressure, fasting blood glucose, and insulin. The conclusion is based on a recent meta-analysis of 99 international randomized controlled trials that looked into the advantages of vitamin D for cardiometabolic health. The meta-analysis makes an effort to clarify and summarize the results of occasionally contradictory studies on vitamin D.

A fresh perspective on the importance of vitamin D supplementation in preserving cardiometabolic health is extracted from a recent, thorough review of the body of existing, frequently contradictory, research on the subject. A median daily intake of 3,320 International Units (IU) of vitamin D, or about 83 micrograms, was linked to some noteworthy cardiometabolic advantages, according to the meta-study’s authors. Among these advantages were decreases in insulin, fasting blood glucose, hemoglobin A1C, a sign of type 2 diabetes, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and total cholesterol.

Researchers from the United States and China analyzed data from 99 RCTs (randomized, controlled trials) that were released up until March 26, 2024. 17,656 people took part in the trials, which were conducted in a variety of global locations with widely disparate populations. A crucial element of the meta-analysis involved enumerating the variations among the RCTs that could potentially account for the disparities in their findings. The authors of the meta-study were able to reassess and compare the RTCs’ data more fairly and comparably after those differences were recognized.

Conflicts had less of an impact on the final conclusions, and a few unique cases about particular populations surfaced. The groups that benefited most from vitamin D supplementation, according to the researchers, were non-Westerners, those with lower blood levels of the nutrient, those with a BMI under 30, and those 50 years of age and above.

Why previous findings on vitamin D have been inconsistent
Professor of epidemiology, surgery, and medicine at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, Simin Liu, MD, ScD, the corresponding author of the meta-study, outlined some of the ways that the RCTs varied from one another and led to differing conclusions. According to him, some primary causes of heterogeneity in past research that produced contradictory results about supplementation and cardiometabolic risk factors included age, body weight, ethnic background, and the circulating 25[OH]D levels of study participants at enrollment.

The amount of vitamin D, specifically in the form of 25[OH]D, present in one’s bloodstream serves as the most dependable measure of the body’s entire vitamin D reserve, encompassing both naturally produced vitamin D from the skin and vitamin D obtained through dietary supplements. (Citing Trusted Source) Dr. Jayne Morgan, a cardiologist and the Executive Director of Health and Community Education at the Piedmont Healthcare Corporation in Atlanta, GA, who was not associated with the meta-study, pointed out another factor contributing to the medical community’s less than complete confidence in vitamin D.

Although numerous studies show a connection between vitamin D supplementation and a decreased risk of heart disease, a clear cause-and-effect relationship is still missing. Furthermore, it is still unknown if low serum vitamin D levels are a cause or contributing factor to heart disease, or if they are a result of heart disease itself. Low serum vitamin D levels are linked to an increased risk of cardiovascular disease.

However, the data is leaning in this direction, and as of right now, there is no conclusive information on cardiovascular endpoints. According to Morgan, although the data does not meet the criteria for evidence-based information, it does meet the criteria for evidence-informed information. Benefits include improved muscle function, decreased inflammation, and bone health. She went on to say that it may have beneficial effects on lipids, diabetes, and hypertension.

Some benefit more, some need more vitamin D
According to Liu, non-Westerners are more likely to benefit from vitamin D supplementation because they have comparatively lower circulating vitamin D levels. Similarly, serum vitamin D levels tend to decline with age, which could account for the greater cardiometabolic improving effect of vitamin D supplementation seen in individuals 50 years of age and older, he continued. This also applies to those with BMIs under 30 kg. According to Morgan, all of this suggests that the catch-up might be a crucial component of the puzzle.

Individuals with initial vitamin D levels that were not low, and who only managed to increase these levels, had a lesser impact and moved the scale less than those who significantly elevated their vitamin D levels due to their initially low levels. They demonstrated a more substantial shift, as she put it.

A personalized approach to vitamin D
According to Liu, there is undoubtedly validity to the adage One size does not fit all, even in light of the positive associations found for 3,320 IU of vitamin D per day for many individuals and the ethnographic differences noted in the meta-study. Careful assessment of each person’s ethnocultural background and biological features would be necessary to implement personalized intervention strategies to achieve optimal levels of vitamin D for cardiometabolic health, according to Liu.

He pointed out that those with obesity and low 25 OHD levels would probably require higher doses of vitamin D and longer durations of treatment, based on the findings of the meta-study. According to Liu, we might have to investigate the effects of longer intervention periods and higher vitamin D doses on cardiometabolic health outcomes in different populations. These variables include age, body weight, ethnic background, and the circulating 25 OHD levels of study participants at the time of enrollment.

References:
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/vitamin-d-supplements-may-help-improve-blood-pressure-cholesterol-insulin#A-personalized-approach-to-vitamin-D

Medications that have been suggested by doctors worldwide are available here
https://mygenericpharmacy.com/index.php?generic=587

Nourishing your health: Diet and nutrition factors for cancer prevention

Nourishing your health: Diet and nutrition factors for cancer prevention

A balanced diet that includes a lot of fruits and vegetables may reduce the risk of chronic illnesses like diabetes, heart disease, and some types of cancer, according to compelling research. Maintaining a healthy diet and implementing positive lifestyle choices can help lower the risk of cancer.

Drinking alcohol is the third most modifiable lifestyle factor associated with an increased risk of cancer. Less than one drink of any kind of alcohol per day raises the risk of common cancers such as esophageal, head neck, and breast cancers, according to research. Drinking less alcohol reduces your risk of cancer.

Processed and red meat
Studies reveal that eating more than eighteen ounces of red meat per week can raise your risk of developing cancer. Limiting or completely avoiding processed meats such as deli meat and hot dogs is advised. Red meat is a good source of protein, iron, zinc, and vitamin B12 when consumed in moderation. A weekly maximum of 12–18 ounces of red meat, split into three or more portions, is the recommended intake. Additionally, charring or cooking meats at high temperatures can produce toxic chemicals that increase the risk of cancer.

Sugars and sweeteners
Eating too much sugar over time can result in obesity, which is a known risk factor for cancer, even though research hasn’t found a direct correlation between eating sugar and cancer risk. Furthermore, studies indicate that increased intake of added sugars may cause elevated levels of insulin and insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I), as well as insulin resistance. The risk of cancer may be raised by all of these factors.

Diet and nutrition
Make an effort to eat a diet high in whole grains, low-fat dairy products, lean meats, legumes, nuts, and seeds. Functional ingredients found in most foods include polyphenols, omega-3 fatty acids, and antioxidants. Superfoods, or functional foods, are foods that reduce oxidative and inflammatory damage. Oxidation is a normal process that damages cells and tissues and may be a factor in certain illnesses.

Research has shown over time how effective a plant-based diet can be in lowering the risk of developing certain cancers. No one food can prevent cancer, as research keeps showing. It’s a combination of general dietary decisions, physical activity, and other lifestyle elements. To get the most out of a diet that prevents cancer, try to eat a range of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, nuts, and seeds. Your general health improves as you increase the variety and color of your meals.

Strong evidence has been found in numerous studies that fruits, vegetables, whole grains, dietary fiber, specific micronutrients, some fatty acids, and physical activity can prevent certain types of cancer. On the other hand, certain fatty acids, alcohol, obesity, and food preparation techniques can raise the risk. Nutrition research will probably need to go beyond traditional epidemiological and metabolic studies to unravel the myriad of plausible mechanisms for how dietary factors affect cancer risk. The field of nutritional sciences needs to capitalize on recent developments in genetics and molecular biology to shift from being primarily “observational” to “cause and effect.”. Strategies for cancer prevention that include successful dietary interventions for target populations are based on such basic research.

A major factor in the etiology and prevention of cancer is diet. The fundamental claim that dietary factors affect cancer risk is not really up for debate, despite discrepancies in the studies that have looked into the connection between diet and cancer. However, there are still a lot of unanswered questions. These include precisely which dietary factors are most strongly associated with the prevention of cancer, the mechanisms by which food ingredients purport to work, the potential interactions between dietary factors and cancer risk, and the preventive measures that can be implemented to lessen the negative effects of factors that seem to increase disease risk. These are complex questions with no easy answers because of the nature of cancer. For instance, 56 distinct regions of the genome with loss of heterozygosity (LOH) were found during a genome-wide search for deleted regions in 75 human primary breast tumors [1]. The intriguing discovery was that each tumor had a unique set of deletions. No matter how carefully studies are planned and carried out, such heterogeneity, reflecting different genetic alterations and pathways to disease, has a significant impact on efforts to establish links between diet and cancer [2]. Similarly, interindividual differences in susceptibility resulting from shared polymorphisms in genes controlling the metabolism of exogenous substances can alter food ingredients’ carcinogenic or noncarcinogenic properties, making the interpretation of st more challenging.

Evidence for a diet and cancer relationship
The development of diet and cancer hypotheses for testing in clinical trials and the provision of insights into the relationships between diet and cancer prevention has been greatly aided by epidemiological studies, which are backed by preclinical data from in vitro and animal experiments as well as by clinical findings. The value of epidemiology in determining associations between diet and cancer is not without limitations, despite being a potent research method; one such limitation is measurement errors in dietary assessment.

Diet and Cancer Prevention Clinical Trials
To address questions regarding the ability of dietary patterns and constituents to prevent cancer (primary prevention) or its recurrence (secondary prevention), randomized, controlled dietary intervention and chemoprevention trials are designed to test hypotheses generated from epidemiological and laboratory investigations on diet and cancer prevention. These trials are relatively new tools in the arsenal of cancer research and offer two ways to prevent the disease.

Emerging evidence: gene–nutrient interaction
Human carcinogenesis is likely to involve many different types of genes, such as those that affect immune function, receptor or neurotransmitter action, DNA repair, chromosome stability, oncogene or tumor suppressor gene activity, cell cycle control, signal transduction, hormones, vitamin metabolism pathways, metabolic activation/detoxification, and cell cycle control [4]. being aware of how certain nutrients and other dietary components can either prevent or accelerate the development of cancer.

Future research directions: a new paradigm
The large body of research on diet and cancer prevention has greatly benefited from data from epidemiological, preclinical, and clinical intervention studies. We have only just started to scratch the surface, though. Very little is currently known about the fundamental causes of diet-cancer relationships. The state of science and technology has advanced to the point where basic research studies should be able to take precedence over those that only quantify the relationship between diet and cancer.

References:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022316623019740
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022316623019752
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959804901000703
https://cancerblog.mayoclinic.org/2024/09/18/nourishing-your-health-diet-and-nutrition-factors-for-cancer-prevention/

Gynecologic cancers: 4 affirmations to help you advocate for yourself

Gynecologic cancers: 4 affirmations to help you advocate for yourself

Gynecologic exams may not be the most exciting things on your schedule, but they are essential for identifying gynecologic cancers early on, when they are most treatable, whether they are performed as part of a wellness visit or in response to a new concern. Endometrial, ovarian, cervical, vulvar, and vaginal cancers are among the gynecologic cancers.

Gynecology appointments ought to offer you a priceless chance to voice concerns, ask questions, and learn about your body from a professional who puts your health and well-being first. However, these visits may cause some anxiety if you’ve had trouble getting the care you need, finding answers, or if your experiences haven’t been great. According to Kristina Butler, M.D., becoming an advocate for your gynecologic health could make you feel more ready for your upcoming visit. a gynecologic oncologist at the Mayo Clinic. She wants you to be aware of the following:

A vital component of the patient-clinician relationship is trust. It enables you to communicate openly and honestly with your gynecologist and to let them know about important information that could influence your care. According to Dr. Butler, gynecologic cancers are challenging to discuss because they affect body parts that we don’t frequently talk about with others. For example, it can be challenging for a patient to mention that they are experiencing pain in their vulva.

Serious conditions like gynecologic cancers may go unnoticed if you don’t feel confident or at ease discussing these concerns with your gynecologist. Dr. Butler says it’s acceptable to look for someone who better suits your needs if you don’t feel heard. Friends and family recommendations are frequently a great place to start. You may be the first, and frequently the only, to notice changes in your body. By keeping your gynecologist informed of these changes, you enable them to assess your health more accurately and notify them of any changes that may call for further testing.

Dr. Butler emphasizes the significance of being in tune with your body, noting that it can be simple to ignore or write off certain changes as life gets busy. This entails realizing what constitutes your normal. Everyone’s normal is a little bit different, so that can be challenging, she says. Talking about something is crucial if it feels off and is happening repeatedly.

There are symptoms specific to each gynecologic cancer, but some of them are similar. If you’re experiencing any symptoms associated with gynecologic cancer, Dr. Butler says it’s important to talk to a clinician who specializes in gynecologic health, especially if you don’t feel your questions have been answered by your primary care physician. A lot of gynecologic cancers have ill-defined signs. Patients frequently discuss their symptoms with medical professionals who aren’t gynecologists, but she advises them to express their worries to several professionals until they receive the information they require to feel safe.


Any bleeding that happens after menopause or in between periods is considered abnormal vaginal bleeding. Pelvic pain or discomfort is defined as pressure or pain in the region of the body between the hip bones, which are located below the abdomen. Early satiety: Having a small meal and still feeling full. Pain, discomfort, or itching in the vulva: The vulva is made up of all the structures that make up the external genitalia. According to Dr. Butler, numerous healthcare professionals treat the pelvic region. These specialists might include your primary care physician, gynecologist, urologist, or gastroenterologist.

It is your right to have access to health-related information. You can better prepare for appointments and communicate health-related information to your healthcare provider by keeping yourself informed. Dr. Butler says you can do this in various ways. Patients always benefit from having a schedule. I strongly believe in the importance of lists, including those of prescription drugs, surgeries, diagnoses, and family medical history. Keeping a timeline and a list of these items can help keep the visit focused because all of this information is lengthy and easily forgotten or confused, according to Dr. Butler.

To share your medical records with your healthcare team, Dr. Dot Butler advises you to take responsibility for them. You own your medical records, pathology reports, surgical records, radiology imaging, and discs with viewable images. Medical record departments are permitted to give you access to that data. You have the right to do so, and I give patients the freedom to keep those for themselves and bring them with you when you visit.

In your pursuit of expanding your health knowledge, Dr. Butler emphasizes the significance of sourcing trustworthy health details. The internet emerges as an incredibly beneficial tool in this regard, serving as a means of self-education. Nevertheless, it’s crucial to exercise caution when selecting the sources of our health-related data. Misleading or entirely fabricated information on some websites and blogs can potentially induce anxiety and, in certain circumstances, pose a threat to our well-being.

It’s permissible for you to request a further examination from another expert. You hold the power to request a second professional perspective, and according to Dr. Butler, your gynecologist should not discourage you from doing so. I find it disconcerting when a practitioner shows disapproval towards a second opinion as patients have the autonomy to make the most informed decision for themselves, she asserts.

You might wish to seek a second opinion for many reasons, including:
You feel your symptoms have been dismissed.
You are unclear on your diagnosis.
You are unsure of your treatment options.
You don’t feel comfortable with the treatments recommended.
You have unanswered questions.
You don’t feel you can trust your physician.
It’s your decision and part of your right to stand up for yourself, whatever your motivation. Dr. Butler advises patients to seek second opinions as this is the best way to ensure they are making the best choice for themselves.

References:
https://cancerblog.mayoclinic.org/2024/09/25/gynecologic-cancers-4-affirmations-to-help-you-advocate-for-yourself/

Medications that have been suggested by doctors worldwide are available here
https://mygenericpharmacy.com/category/disease/cancer

Beyond weight loss: Bariatric surgery may reduce cancer risk…

Beyond weight loss: Bariatric surgery may reduce cancer risk…

You might not associate obesity with cancer when you think about it. Still, scientists have long surmised a connection between weight and some types of cancer. Among them are postmenopausal breast cancer, ovarian, colon, liver, pancreatic, and endometrial cancer, which combined account for 15 to 20 percent of cancer-related deaths in the U.S.

Cancer risk increases with obesity
Over one-third of American adults. S. are deemed obese if their body mass index (BMI) is thirty or greater. The body mass index (BMI) calculates body fat based on height and weight. The number of people with severe obesity, which is a BMI of 40 or higher, has increased significantly. A person’s chance of developing cancer rises by 10% if their BMI rises by even five points, per a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Obesity increases a person’s risk of cancer by two times compared to optimal weight. For instance, a BMI of greater than 40 is associated with a seven-fold increased risk of endometrial cancer. It seems that an elevated risk of cancer is largely attributed to excess weight, primarily in the form of body fat. Obesity triggers an increase in fat cells within the body. With the rise in the number of these fat cells, the body’s hormone release pattern alters. This shift typically boosts the production of pro-inflammatory hormones and estrogen. Over an extended period, this persistent inflammatory condition can induce harm to cells and their DNA, thereby enhancing the likelihood of specific types of cancers.

Researchers are examining the connection between chronic inflammation and body fat. Furthermore, diabetes and other chronic metabolic diseases can be brought on by hormones like estrogen and insulin resistance. According to the Centers for Disease Control, one in three adults will have diabetes and related health issues by 2050.

Bariatric surgery and reduction of cancer risk link
More research is needed, but researchers think a decrease in inflammatory fat cells may lower the risk of cancer. Additionally, the amount that nonsurgical, or purposeful, weight loss reduces the risk of cancer is still unknown.
However, maintaining the weight loss for those who have done so through lifestyle modifications can be difficult. The body’s intricate neurohormonal systems prevent starvation, which makes it challenging to keep off weight loss.

Even when weighed against medications and intensive lifestyle therapy, bariatric or metabolic surgery is currently the most effective obesity treatment. Following surgery, patients usually lose 25 to 35 percent of their total body weight or 50 to 70 percent of their excess weight, and these weight losses are frequently maintained for years.

Continuing research
Numerous extensive investigations have been carried out to examine the connection between weight loss achieved through bariatric surgery and the decreased risk of cancer. A 2019 study published in the Annals of Surgery compared 66,000 individuals without bariatric surgery to over 22,000 who underwent the procedure. The study site, BMI, age, and sex of the participants were taken into consideration when matching them. In comparison to individuals who did not undergo bariatric surgery, statistical models were utilized to examine the cancer incidence up to ten years following the procedure.

Individuals who underwent bariatric surgery experienced a reduced risk of developing any form of cancer by 33% over the observation period, contrasting those who did not undergo such surgery. The findings were more substantial when the focus was on cancers linked to obesity.

A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2022 tracked 30,000 individuals, all of whom had a BMI higher than 35. The subjects were split up into two groups and matched according to age and gender. Approximately 5,000 patients in one group had bariatric surgery, while slightly over 25,000 patients in the other group had no surgery. A follow-up period of roughly six years was the median.

The follow-up data demonstrated a significant reduction in the risk of cancers related to obesity and other malignancies following bariatric surgery. Additionally, it showed that patients who had bariatric surgery had a lower rate of cancer-related mortality when compared to those who had not had the procedure.

More research is required to validate these findings as researchers continue to explore the reasons and mechanisms underlying the reduced risk of diabetes and cancer following bariatric surgery. Bariatric surgery, however, holds promise for patients battling obesity as it may lower the risk of cancer and metabolic diseases like diabetes.

This new data regarding the advantages and efficacy of bariatric surgery may help you decide if you’re thinking about having it done. Talk about it further with your bariatric surgery team or primary care physician. M.D Maria Linnaus. is a bariatric surgeon at the Mayo Clinic in Eau Claire, Wisconsin.

It seems that having excess body weight in the form of fat is what increases the risk of cancer. The body produces more fat cells when an individual is obese. Hormone release by the body varies with the number of these fat cells. Estrogen and pro-inflammatory hormones are generally elevated by these modifications. This persistent inflammatory condition raises the possibility of developing some cancers by damaging cells and their DNA.

More research is required to validate these findings as researchers continue to explore the reasons and mechanisms underlying the reduced risk of diabetes and cancer following bariatric surgery. Bariatric surgery, however, holds promise for patients battling obesity as it may lower the risk of cancer and metabolic diseases like diabetes. This new data regarding the advantages and efficacy of bariatric surgery may help you decide if you’re thinking about having it done. Talk about it further with your bariatric surgery team or primary care physician.

References:
https://cancerblog.mayoclinic.org/2024/04/23/beyond-weight-loss-bariatric-surgery-may-reduce-cancer-risk/
https://www.mayoclinichealthsystem.org/hometown-health/speaking-of-health/bariatric-surgery-and-cancer-risk

Medications that have been suggested by doctors worldwide are available here
https://mygenericpharmacy.com/category/disease/cancer

Three cancers are often referred to as ovarian cancer…

Three cancers are often referred to as ovarian cancer…

primary peritoneal cancer, fallopian tube cancer, and ovarian epithelial cancer. They share a common ancestor and undergo analogous care. Because of their close anatomical proximity, the ovaries and fallopian tubes can sometimes be confused as the source of cancer, according to S. John Weroha, MdotD. Ph. D, a Mayo Clinic oncologist and head of the Gynecologic Cancer Disease Group at the Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center. When we diagnose patients with primary peritoneal cancer, I explain that although the ovaries are not affected, the cancer appears to be ovarian cancer under a microscope and in the pattern of spread throughout the body.

The tissue lining the abdominal cavity and its organs is called the peritoneum, and this is where primary peritoneal cancer originates. The tissue lining the tubes that carry eggs from the ovaries to the uterus is where fallopian tube cancer develops. Ovarian epithelial carcinomas, also referred to as epithelial ovarian cancers, account for 85-90% of ovarian cancer cases. These cancers originate in the tissue that lines the outside of the ovaries. Dr. According to Weroha, more patients are surviving ovarian cancer of all kinds thanks to new treatments, and clinical trials are being conducted by researchers to examine these therapies and screening techniques. He would like you to know that there is hope if you have been diagnosed with ovarian cancer. This is the reason why.

Advanced targeted treatments are enhancing lifespans. 2. Surgical and chemotherapeutic interventions are no longer the sole methods for managing ovarian cancer; targeted therapies have emerged as alternatives. These innovative treatments employ drugs to pinpoint and eliminate cancerous cells. Among these are monoclonal antibodies and poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase, or PARP, inhibitors.

Monoclonal antibodies
Lab-engineered molecules known as monoclonal antibodies are designed to recognize and bind to particular proteins linked to cancerous cells. A monoclonal antibody called bevacizumab is used in conjunction with chemotherapy to treat ovarian cancer recurrence by inhibiting the development of new blood vessels, which is necessary for tumor growth.

To get better results, researchers are mixing bevacizumab with novel medications. One such is mirvetuximab soravtansine, a monoclonal antibody that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently approved for use in patients experiencing a recurrence of ovarian cancer. This medication targets a protein known as folate receptor alpha and is used when a patient’s cancer has been previously treated with at least one systemic therapy.

Folate receptors are abundant in ovarian cancers. Dr. Weroha says that the majority of normal cells don’t. Chemotherapy is applied to an antibody to create this medication. Imagine it like a guided missile that flies through the body, attaching itself to cells that have folate receptors. Mirvetuximab soravtansine is far more effective than any other treatment at shrinking tumors in patients whose ovarian cancer has returned and whose tumors contain a high number of folate receptors. The response rate is roughly twice as high as with any other form of treatment.

PARP inhibitors
PARP inhibitors are medications that prevent DNA repair, potentially leading to the death of cancer cells. When someone has ovarian cancer and their tumors have mutations in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene, one PARP inhibitor that is used to stop the disease from coming back is olaparib. Olaparib has been found to dramatically increase a patient’s chances of survival without recurrence in those with this diagnosis. According to Dr. Weroha, this is a front-line treatment, which means it is a part of the initial course of care that patients receive after receiving a new diagnosis.

One day, ovarian cancer may be combated with a vaccine. Theodore Block, M.D. Ph. D. , a medical oncologist at the Mayo Clinic, and Keith Knutson, Ph. D. , a researcher at the Mayo Clinic, is creating a vaccine to stop the recurrence of ovarian cancer tumors in patients with advanced disease whose tumors have returned despite chemotherapy and surgery. After being drawn from the blood, white blood cells are processed to create dendritic cells, which are immune cells that strengthen the body’s defenses. In order to stimulate the immune system to identify and combat the cancer, these cells are given back to the patient in the form of a vaccine.

Pembrolizumab, an immunotherapy medication, will be administered in addition to the vaccine to detect and eradicate any tumors that do not react to the dendritic cells. According to Dr. Weroha, pembrolizumab belongs to a class of medications known as immune checkpoint inhibitors. The purpose of this medication is to unblock the immune system and enable it to carry out its innate function of eliminating unwanted substances. It is hoped that the vaccine and immunotherapy medication will significantly reduce the incidence of ovarian cancer. The research is fascinating.

A screening test may be on the horizon.
Ovarian cancer does not currently have a screening test, however Jamie Bakkum-Gamez, MdotD. , a gynecologic oncologist at the Mayo Clinic, wants to alter that. She and her research team found that vaginal fluid collected with a tampon could be used to identify endometrial cancer using methylated DNA markers. This same science may eventually apply to ovarian cancer.

A mechanism that cells use to regulate gene expression is methylation, which turns on a gene in a cell so that it can produce RNA and proteins. A gene is said to be a tumor suppressor when a specific region of its DNA is methylated, which turns the gene off or silences it. Tumor suppressor gene silencing can indicate cancer and is frequently an early stage in the development of cancer.

A panel of methylated DNA markers was created by Dr. Bakkum-Gamez and her associates in order to differentiate vaginal fluid from noncancerous tissue and endometrial cancer. Her goal is to create a low-cost, tampon-based, at-home screening test for high-risk HPV, ovarian, cervical, and endometrial cancers based on her research. According to Dr. Weroha, this is exciting because people living in rural areas can use this kind of screening test. If it is successful, it may make it easier for medical professionals to detect ovarian and other gynecologic cancers in residents of all the communities we serve at an earlier stage, when they are more treatable.

Clinical trials and a gynecologic oncologist can assist you in receiving the best care available. Dr. Weroha advises scheduling a consultation with a gynecologic oncologist if you have been diagnosed with ovarian cancer. A gynecologic oncologist will be knowledgeable about the most recent guidelines for managing side effects and treatment recommendations. He says, That’s important. But once the strategy is established, any medical oncologist could carry it out.

Additionally, Dr. Weroha advises recently diagnosed patients to enquire with their care teams about their eligibility for clinical trials, mirvetuximab, or PARP inhibitors. Newer medications like mirvetuximab and PARP inhibitors may have an impact on how well your entire course of treatment goes. Always inquire about clinical trials, he says, since there is no treatment so effective that we can give up on finding a better cure when ovarian cancer returns. If your cancer returned, there’s a very real chance we would have something better than what we have now.

Refrences:
https://cancerblog.mayoclinic.org/2024/05/01/ovarian-cancer-new-treatments-and-research/
https://www.onclive.com/clinical/ovarian-cancer
https://www.nature.com/subjects/ovarian-cancer

Medications that have been suggested by doctors worldwide are available here
https://mygenericpharmacy.com/category/disease/cancer

Ovarian cancer: New treatments and research

Ovarian cancer: New treatments and research

The OvarianVax vaccine primes the immune system to identify and combat ovarian cancer in its early stages. Scientists at the University of Oxford are developing it. To eradicate the illness, it is hoped that women could get the vaccination on the NHS as a preventative measure. Experts speculate that it might function similarly to the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, which is poised to eradicate cervical cancer.

Finding cellular targets for the vaccine is what Professor Ahmed and his group at the university’s MRC Weatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine’s ovarian cancer cell laboratory are attempting to accomplish. They will determine how well the vaccine destroys disease models in a lab setting and which proteins on the surface of early-stage ovarian cancer cells are most recognized by the immune system. Subsequently, it can be tested in human clinical trials on both healthy women and individuals with BRCA gene mutations, which significantly raise the risk of ovarian cancer.

When asked if the new vaccine could eradicate ovarian cancer, Professor Ahmed replied, That would be the aim, absolutely. Though much must be done, this is an incredibly exciting time. I have a lot of optimism myself. As of right now, there is no screening test for ovarian cancer, which is typically detected too late due to hazy symptoms like bloating and appetite loss.

Actress Angelina Jolie is among the high-risk women who are known to have BRCA mutations. By the age of 80, about 45 percent of individuals with a mutated BRCA1 gene and about 20 percent of those with a mutated BRCA2 gene will have ovarian cancer, compared to just 2 percent of the general population.

Women who have BRCA1/2 mutations are currently advised to have their ovaries removed by the time they are 35 years old. This means that these women experience early menopause and are unable to conceive in the future. In the UK, there are approximately 7,500 new cases of ovarian cancer each year, and between 5 and 15 percent of these cases are caused by BRCA mutations.

According to Professor Ahmed, carriers of the BRCA mutation would benefit immensely from the new vaccine since they wouldn’t need to have their ovaries removed. We are talking about preventing the very first few cancer cells that develop, he continued, and not trying to cure, treat, or prevent the tumor from coming back. This gives me hope. Since we will only be focusing on a relatively small number of cells, I’m hoping that we will be successful.

The HPV vaccine has proven to be successful; it is incredibly effective. Even though the vaccine’s official approval process could take many years, its effects might become apparent sooner. In four or five years, Professor Ahmed said, he would like to begin observing the vaccine’s effects on the healthy population through clinical trials.

A tumor or aberrant cell growth that develops in the ovary is known as ovarian cancer. Most ovarian cancers occur in women over 50 and are epithelial in nature. It is strongly advised that women who have a family history of ovarian cancer undergo screening. Oxford University researchers are developing a vaccine called OvarianVax, which they believe will train the immune system to identify and combat ovarian cancer in its early stages.

The university’s ovarian cancer cell laboratory’s director, Prof. Although there is still much work to be done, Ahmed Ahmed expressed optimism. Initially, the vaccine will be developed in a lab to educate the immune system to identify tumor-associated antigens, which are proteins found on the surface of ovarian cancer.

Patients who already have the illness will then be used to test the vaccine. Prof. According to Ahmed, the theory is that if the vaccination is administered, these microscopic tumors should either decrease, drastically shrink, or go away. To determine whether the vaccine is effective in preventing ovarian cancer, the next stage will involve women who have genetic mutations that increase their risk of developing the disease as well as women who do not yet have it.

It’s a difficult task to train the immune system to detect the very early indicators of cancer, according to Ahmed. However, we now possess extremely advanced instruments that provide us with a genuine understanding of how the immune system identifies ovarian cancer. Oxford University reports that there are 7,500 new cases of ovarian cancer in the United Kingdom each year. According to Oxford, it is the sixth most common cancer in females.

According to estimates from the American Cancer Society, 19,680 women in the U.S. in 2024 be given a fresh diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Ovarian cancer has no known screening test, and because symptoms like bloating and appetite loss can be ambiguous, the disease is frequently discovered after it is too late. Some women are more susceptible to the disease due to genetic mutations, and it is recommended that women with specific genetic mutations have their ovaries removed by the age of 35.

Scientists are still optimistic about the vaccine, stating that if it proves effective, women may never need to have their ovaries removed. It will take many years before any potential vaccine is suitable for widespread use, according to Dr. David Crosby, head of prevention and early detection research at Cancer Research UK. He stated, “At this point, researchers are using samples from patients with ovarian cancer to test the optimal ingredients to include in the vaccine in the lab.

Reference:

https://cancerblog.mayoclinic.org/2024/05/01/ovarian-cancer-new-treatments-and-research/
https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2024-10-04-oxford-researchers-secure-funding-worlds-first-ovarian-cancer-prevention-vaccine
https://www.onclive.com/clinical/ovarian-cancer
https://news.sky.com/story/worlds-first-ovarian-cancer-vaccine-being-developed-in-uk-could-wipe-out-the-disease-13227127
https://www.nature.com/subjects/ovarian-cancer

Medications that have been suggested by doctors worldwide are available here
https://mygenericpharmacy.com/category/disease/cancer

A study reveals that certain newer migraine medications are less effective than older ones.

A study reveals that certain newer migraine medications are less effective than older ones.

Although migraine attacks can be excruciating, numerous medications can be used to treat them. Certain triptans may be a better migraine treatment than more recently developed drugs, according to a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Recommendations for treating migraines may benefit from the review’s conclusions. Choosing the appropriate medication to treat migraine attacks can significantly improve symptom relief. Experts are looking for and comparing the best options for medications.

The options for treating migraine attacks with oral monotherapy were compared in a systematic review and network meta-analysis published in. The study examined data from 137 randomized controlled trials, involving nearly 90,000 individuals. All things considered, eletriptan was the best at curing pain after two hours and among the best at bringing about long-lasting pain relief. Additionally, the data suggested that some triptan treatments were superior to more modern migraine medications like ubrogepant and lasmiditan.

Most triptans are better for pain relief than newer migraine drugs
Among the many symptoms of a migraine attack are excruciating headaches that can linger for days. One common option for symptom relief is medication. Triptans are one class of drugs used to treat acute migraines; in the end, these medications help to improve migraine symptoms by constricting blood vessels and blocking pain signals.

In this review, researchers aimed to compare migraine treatments that could be administered orally. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were two of the sources they searched for studies. Among them were double-blind, randomized controlled trials that contrasted oral drugs with a placebo or alternative therapy.

Those with a migraine diagnosis and a minimum age of 18 were eligible to participate in the trials. Two hours after taking medication and two to twenty-four hours after taking medication were the focus of the research. They examined the effects of 17 different drugs and included 137 randomized controlled trials. Of the participants, 26,763 were given a placebo and 62,682 received drug-based treatments.

Every drug worked better than a placebo. Researchers compared the drug interventions and discovered that, in terms of participants using rescue medications and achieving pain relief at the 2-hour mark, eletriptan outperformed nearly all other active interventions. The next most effective drugs at two hours were zolmitriptan, sumatriptan, and rizatriptan. Researchers who looked at long-term pain relief discovered that ibuprofen and eletriptan worked best.

The more recently developed migraine treatment drugs, lasmiditan, rimegepant, and ubrogepant, were found to be less effective than eletriptan, rizatriptan, sumatriptan, and zolmitriptan. According to our analysis, the best drugs for treating acute migraine attacks are zolmitriptan, rizatriptan, sumatriptan, and eletriptan. This new understanding indicates that the current guidelines, which treat all oral triptans as equally viable, need to be revised. Our results unmistakably show a preference order for triptan use, a change that calls for revisions to our clinical practice guidelines. On the other hand, it is now demonstrated that almotriptan, frovatriptan, and naratriptan are less effective.

Should more people be using triptans for migraine?
Approximately 10% of the global population experiences migraines. It’s crucial to provide treatment alternatives, and information such as this review might assist in shaping treatment suggestions in the long run. Cipriani pointed out that despite their efficacy, triptans are underutilized, as per European population-based statistics, with only 3.4% to 22.4% of migraine sufferers utilizing triptans. Our findings indicate that certain triptans are the most potent oral medication for alleviating acute migraine attacks, emphasizing the necessity to enhance knowledge among healthcare providers and policymakers to promote improved patient care.

It is my hope that this study will contribute to the awareness of particular migraine treatments. One advantage is that this research may facilitate discussions about particular migraine treatments with primary care physicians. It is important to talk with medical professionals about using the recommended dosage of triptan and switching to a different medication when necessary. Another crucial point is that, given the expense of gepants for some migraine sufferers, particularly in underdeveloped nations, triptans may be more widely available than them.

Triptans are the preferred treatment option for the relief of moderate-to-severe migraine pain, according to the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, so it’s important to keep that in mind as well. Additionally, some triptan side effects that physicians should take into account in clinical practice were highlighted in this review. For instance, chest pain was linked to eletriptan. The review authors also mentioned that some people are not always safe to take triptans. They added that more investigation may be needed to reevaluate the vascular contraindications to triptans.

How surprising were these results?
In Fountain Valley, California, at the Spine Health Center at MemorialCare Orange Coast Medical Center, Medhat Mikhael, MD, a pain management specialist and medical director of the nonoperative program, who was not involved in the review, stated he did not find the results surprising. I anticipated these outcomes because, as he explained, the triptan family of medications acts by binding to serotonin receptors, which causes the trigeminal artery to vasoconstriction, effectively and swiftly ending an acute migraine attack.

Hormonal fluctuations, genetic predispositions, and various triggers are among the causes of migraine. He explained that a migraine is caused by inflammation and dilation of the trigeminal artery, which results in a throbbing headache and other related symptoms. Nevertheless, it is important to realize that triptans constrict other blood vessels, such as the coronary arteries, in the same way that they constrict the trigeminal artery. For this reason, patients with cardiac disorders or other cardiovascular diseases should not take them. Mikhael warned that they can also result in other unpleasant side effects, such as tightness in the chest.

How strong is the evidence supporting these findings?
One of the review’s limitations is that certain data may have been overlooked or excluded from the analysis due to the inclusion and exclusion criteria that were set. For instance, the researchers only included studies with outpatient participants and only drugs that complied with specific guidelines. The authors admitted that it’s possible they counted some studies twice or overlooked others when doing their analyses.

The results might have been impacted by the data that was used, such as the decision to include both published and unpublished studies. Additionally, participants with missing data were thought to have had unfavorable results and were limited to viewing data on pain relapse on three different medications for a maximum of two days. It is important to exercise caution when examining the results of this review and analysis because they make the assumption that it is possible to draw valid conclusions from this data in an indirect manner.

Furthermore, it’s critical to recognize that each included study has unique limitations that could have had an impact on the final results. For instance, a number of the studies were funded by the pharmaceutical industry, suggesting potential bias. More diverse study cohorts may be needed in the future because the majority of participants were female and the majority of trials originated in America and Europe. Additionally, the researchers did not have data on combination drugs or the administration of medications through alternative routes, nor did they have individual patient data.

Moreover, they did not concentrate on data regarding response consistency between migraine episodes, cost-effectiveness, or the kind of oral formulation. They did not examine certain clinical issues that could direct treatments in the clinical setting, nor were they able to quantify certain outcomes. It’s also important to remember that the researchers’ analysis of the evidence’s degree of certainty revealed that it ranged from high to extremely low. They admonished us that, for the majority of comparisons, our findings could be considered low or very low.

They discovered that a small number of studies had a high risk of bias for some outcomes, that most outcomes showed moderate heterogeneity, and that some outcomes showed inconsistent comparisons. Lastly, the researchers pointed out that one study with a low placebo response may have contributed to the observed efficacy of ibuprofen in achieving sustained pain freedom. Notwithstanding these drawbacks, the findings demonstrate how some triptans are still useful and effective treatments for migraines, even in the presence of more recent drugs.

References:
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/older-migraine-drugs-more-effective-than-some-newer-options-study-finds#How-strong-is-the-evidence-supporting-these-findings?

https://mygenericpharmacy.com/category/products/disease/migraine-headaches

Alzheimer’s study controversy: What does it mean for future research?

Alzheimer’s study controversy: What does it mean for future research?

Evidence linking the development of Alzheimer’s disease to the toxic build-up of beta-amyloid protein in the brain was presented in a seminal study published in 2006. An assistant professor at Vanderbilt University recently made the suggestion that the authors of this study may have altered some of the images. What does all of this mean?

A specific beta-amyloid protein assembly in the brain impairs memory is the title of a 2006 study on dementia that was published in the journal Nature by a team of researchers from the University of Minnesota. According to the study, Alzheimer’s disease may be caused by a particular protein clump in the brain called beta-amyloid. The study demonstrated how these protein clumps, also referred to as amyloid plaques, may contribute to dementia using a mouse model.

The results of this study had a significant impact on the field of Alzheimer’s disease research. It has received more than 34,000 accesses and has been referenced in more than 2,200 scientific publications to date. According to a recent Science article, a Vanderbilt University assistant professor of neurology questions the validity of the 2006 Nature study’s findings, claiming that some of the images were altered.

What is image manipulation in peer-reviewed articles?
A photograph can be altered through the process of image manipulation. Dr. Elisabeth Bik, a microbiome and science integrity consultant at Harbers-Bik LLC, claims that it is simple to digitally edit photographs, such as when we remove a mole or wrinkle from a subject’s face in a portrait. It is forbidden to make any image modifications in scientific photography other than modest, overall contrast adjustments.

These days, the majority of journals expressly prohibit making any digital changes. However, it can be tempting and simple to digitally erase a stain or scratch from the background, add or remove cells, or alter the thickness of a protein band if an experiment is conducted and the results are not as clear or entirely different from what the researcher had anticipated. Performing some photoshopping is a far faster process than repeating the experiment.

It is not an unprecedented occurrence that the integrity of the visuals in a research study is doubted. Research conducted in 2016, of which Dr. Bik was a co-author, indicated that around 3.8% of scientific articles published in 40 journals between 1995 and 2014 contained images that could raise concerns, with around half of them hinting at intentional alteration.

What might this mean for dementia research?
Contacted Dr. Sylvain Lesné, an associate professor in the University of Minnesota’s neuroscience department, and Dr. Matthew Schrag, an assistant professor of neurology and director of the Cerebral Amyloid Angiopathy Clinic at Vanderbilt University, who has made the accusations against the 2006 Nature study. They didn’t reply to any of our inquiries. A public relations representative for the University of Minnesota said that the school is aware that concerns have been raised about specific images used in peer-reviewed research publications written by faculty members, and that they were going through the proper procedures to investigate any allegations made.

Given the impact of the 2006 Nature study on the field of Alzheimer’s disease research, Dr. Bik stated that additional evidence demonstrating image manipulation would be devastating to some research avenues. Lesné et al.’s Nature paper from 2006. has had a significant impact and inspired numerous researchers to repeat the study and explore the same hypothesis, she noted. Additionally, no clinical trials have been directly prompted by the AB*56 beta-amyloid work to date. However, it has sparked some additional research projects that have undergone clinical trials and taken slightly different approaches. However, Dr. Bik continued, that no experimental medication is effective against Alzheimer’s.

Dr. Bik commented It is fair to say that the 2006 Nature study has raised a lot of false hope in patients and led to a lot of wasted money and effort in research. There exist alternative theories to the beta-amyloid narrative, and it is possible that increased funding will be available to investigate them. Dr. But Grace Stutzmann, director of the Center for Neurodegenerative Disease and Therapeutics and professor and discipline chair of neuroscience at Rosaline Franklin University of Medicine and Science, told MNT that even if the purported intentional image manipulations in the 2006 Nature study were true, she did not believe this would call into question all of the previous research in the field.

She clarified that although many other amyloid variants have been investigated and replicated across multiple labs, this case only concerns a specific single arrangement of beta-amyloid from a single lab. In actuality, it’s akin to finding a needle in a haystack because the field of Alzheimer’s disease is very broad and encompasses more than just amyloid.

The head of research at Alzheimer’s Research UK, Dr. Sara Imarisio, claims that if these claims of image manipulation are accurate, research groups may have planned experiments after the study based on a false hypothesis, wasting valuable researcher time that could have been better used elsewhere. However, she noted that the paper’s results were highly specific and that, in contrast to some reports, they haven’t had a major impact on the advancement or course of Alzheimer’s research. Genuine findings will eventually come to dominate and direct the course of future studies, while findings that are impossible to replicate will be labeled as controversial and lose credibility even for research groups operating in this specific field.

Dr. Maria C. As we move forward, Carrillo, chief science officer at the Alzheimer’s Association, says it’s critical to remember that this investigation is limited to a small portion of Alzheimer’s and dementia research and does not represent the entirety of the body of science in the field. She continues, “Therefore, this should not impede the field’s swift pursuit of the underlying causes and other contributors to Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias.”. In an official statement, the Alzheimer Society of Canada expressed serious concerns about the allegations and called for further investigation. Scientific integrity is very important, and any possibility of wasting funds or time should be taken seriously.

What can journals do to prevent future misconduct?
Science, according to Dr. Charles Glabe, a professor of molecular biology and biochemistry at the University of California, Davis, depends on confidence and the knowledge that those who fabricate will eventually be exposed. Software tools that compare bands on a gel pixel by pixel were able to detect image duplication and copying, he said. This is all good, but fabricators will simply run a different gel and use that one instead of publishing the same band twice, knowing that it is easy to catch them copying bands. Furthermore, Dr. John Hardy, a professor at the UCL Queen sq. Institute of Neurology’s Department of Neurodegenerative Diseases and Reta Lila Weston Laboratories, informed MNT that preventing fraud is extremely challenging.

Image recognition software, which can now detect things that people had previously gotten away with, is one thing that has changed and was significant in this case, he said. This has meant quite a lot of ‘old fraud’ has now been caught like DNA testing of crime scenes. Going forward, Dr. Bik stated that scientific publishers should be more vigilant in ensuring that journals publishing research are checked for possible image manipulation. She recommended that scientific publishers invest time and resources in quality control of submitted articles. Despite their large profits, they aren’t screening manuscripts for fraud or other red flags.

They shouldn’t rely on unpaid peer reviewers who might not know how to look for misconduct; instead, they should hire specialists in statistics, ethics, and image forensics to screen such papers. Dr. Bik continued, “Journals and institutions should also penalize researchers who have been proven to have committed misconduct and retract papers much faster.”. A number of these worries regarding the Lesné papers were voiced years prior. There needs to be a change in how journals and institutions approach these issues; they are moving too slowly and warily.

References
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/alzheimers-study-controversy-what-does-it-mean-for-future-research?utm_source=ReadNext#What-can-journals-do-to-prevent-future-misconduct?

Alzheimer’s: Are newly approved drugs making a real-life difference?

Alzheimer’s: Are newly approved drugs making a real-life difference?

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has authorized a few new medications for treating Alzheimer’s disease since 2021, breaking a nearly two-decade hiatus. Targeting harmful protein aggregates in the brain, most of these medications are antibody therapies. Their endorsement has generated equal parts excitement and controversy. In this Special Feature, we look into the fundamental question of whether these medications are actually having an impact.

Alzheimer’s is a neurodegenerative illness that causes thinking, memory, and eventually the capacity to carry out daily tasks to gradually and irreversibly deteriorate. Since an aging population is the primary risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease, it has become a public health emergency. Globally, there were 57 million cases of Alzheimer’s disease in 2019, and by 2050, there are predicted to be 153 million cases. This emphasizes the necessity of developing disease-modifying therapies that alter the course of the illness permanently and slow its advancement.

However, attempts to create Alzheimer’s disease-modifying treatments have not been effective up until recently. The majority of clinical research aimed at creating Alzheimer’s disease-modifying treatments has concentrated on the beta-amyloid protein, whose aberrant build-up is widely thought to be the initial cause of this neurodegenerative condition. When the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved aducanumab, an antibody that targets amyloid-beta protein deposits, for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease in 2021, it was regarded as the first disease-modifying medication for the illness.

However, aducanumab’s manufacturer, Biogen, announced that it would eventually stop selling the drug after the clinical trials did not yield consistent improvements in cognitive function. Since then, phase 3 clinical trials have shown that two additional anti-amyloid antibodies Biogen’s lecanemab and Eli Lily’s donanemab can slow the cognitive decline of people with early Alzheimer’s disease, and they have been approved by the FDA. Clinicians and researchers alike have greeted the approval of lecanemab and donanemab with enthusiasm, seeing it as a breakthrough after decades of clinical research having failed to yield effective disease-modifying therapies.

However, pointing to safety concerns and a lack of cost-effectiveness, some researchers have expressed concerns about the modest clinical benefits conferred by these anti-amyloid therapies. Dag Aarsland, even though there are obstacles in the fields of medicine, society, and clinical research, we must also acknowledge the advancements that have been made possible by the fact that, following years of expensive and fruitless research, we now possess clear proof of the possibility of slowing the advancement of the disease. The introduction of these medications may hasten the development of treatments and revolutionize clinical services for Alzheimer’s disease, the most common cause of dementia globally, according to Paresh Malhotra, PhD, who also noted that despite the anti-amyloid therapies’ modest efficacy, it is important to acknowledge that these drugs are the first to have clinical effects that appear to relate to a key mechanism of disease progression.

Based on the amyloid cascade theory, anti-amyloid antibody treatments like lecanemab and donanemab were developed. This theory states that the buildup of beta-amyloid protein causes additional alterations in the brain, ultimately resulting in the onset of Alzheimer’s disease. In particular, it is thought that the production of beta-amyloid aggregates causes oxidative stress, inflammation, neuronal damage, loss of synapses the “links between neurons that allow them to communicate” and, eventually, cognitive decline. This is supported by the fact that beta-amyloid protein buildup occurs several years before cognitive function, such as memory and decision-making, declines.

After secretase enzymes cleave a larger amyloid precursor protein, the beta-amyloid protein is produced. The units of the beta-amyloid protein are called monomers, and these monomers can combine to form oligomers, which are soluble short chains made up of two to more than fifty monomers. In addition to forming larger, soluble protofibrils and insoluble fibrils, beta-amyloid monomers can also aggregate. The extracellular space between the neurons is then populated by the assembled insoluble fibrils, which form plaques. It was previously believed that amyloid plaques were poisonous and caused Alzheimer’s disease to develop. Over the last twenty years, research has indicated that beta-amyloid oligomers may be more harmful than amyloid plaques and may have a greater role in the onset of Alzheimer’s disease.

It is believed that decreased beta-amyloid protein synthesis or clearance is the cause of the buildup of beta-amyloid aggregates. Over the last twenty years, some medications have been created that either target the enzymes responsible for producing beta-amyloid or help to clear beta-amyloid aggregates. However, because of their serious side effects or inability to have the intended clinical effects, these medications have not been approved by the FDA. The only FDA-approved treatments that target beta-amyloid aggregates are the anti-amyloid antibodies aducanumab, lecanemab, and donanemab. The affinity of these antibodies varies for different kinds of beta-amyloid protein aggregates. While aducanumab and lecanemab bind to plaques, protofibrils, and beta-amyloid oligomers, donanemab binds to a particular form of beta-amyloid that is exclusively present in plaques. Whereas aducanumab has a higher affinity for insoluble fibrils, lecanemab exhibits the highest affinity for beta-amyloid protofibrils.

Activating an immune response against beta-amyloid aggregates and subsequently removing them is one of the proposed mechanisms by which anti-amyloid antibodies produce their therapeutic effects. Additionally, anti-amyloid antibodies may bind to oligomers and neutralize them, or they may destabilize the plaques. Aducanumab was given accelerated approval by the FDA in 2021 to treat Alzheimer’s disease because of its capacity to remove amyloid plaques. Aducanumab’s effects on cognitive function varied throughout clinical trials, despite its success in removing amyloid plaques from the brain.

A lack of evidence to support aducanumab’s therapeutic effects led to controversy surrounding the FDA’s approval process and a reluctance among prescribers to administer the medication. Furthermore, as was already mentioned, Biogen has halted aducanumab’s development and sales as of 2024. On the other hand, lecanemab and donanemab have demonstrated the capacity to remove amyloid plaques while delaying the course of the illness. Patients with early-stage Alzheimer’s disease and lower baseline beta-amyloid levels respond better to these treatments.

Lecanemab and donanemab may now be administered intravenously to patients with early Alzheimer’s disease, including those with mild cognitive impairment or mild Alzheimer’s disease, according to FDA approval. Whereas donanemab must be given every four weeks, lecanemab is recommended to be given every two weeks. The ability for patients to stop taking donanemab treatment once total plaque clearance has been achieved is one of its special features. Amyloid plaques accumulate over some years, and it is thought that people may need only limited additional care. Lecanemab and donanemab phase 3 trial participants demonstrated a 27% and 36% slower decline in cognitive function when compared to placebo, respectively. On the other hand, some researchers contend that these results are negligible and similar to the effects of symptomatic treatments, like acetylcholinesterase inhibitors, which treat symptoms but do not alter the course of the illness.

Moreover, the Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) was used to quantify the cognitive alterations mentioned above. Additionally, when evaluating the effectiveness of these anti-amyloid therapies based on the absolute difference in decline in cognitive function between the placebo and anti-amyloid antibody treatment groups measured directly in terms of difference in scores on the CDR-SB scale researchers found that the impact was not clinically meaningful. The Mini-Mental State Examination [MMSE], one of the more objective measures of cognition, only showed a 14.8 percent slower decline in cognitive function in those receiving donanemab treatment. Put another way, it has been suggested that the data that is currently available indicates that these anti-amyloid medications may only offer a slight clinical benefit.

Dr. Espay went on to say that the case for exorbitant costs is made by the safety concerns combined with negligible clinical benefits. What is considered a clinically meaningful effect, however, is still up for debate. According to some researchers, the amyloid cascade theory is supported by the therapeutic advantages of anti-amyloid antibodies. Some, on the other hand, contend that there are still a lot of unanswered questions and that this conclusion is premature. The amyloid-beta hypothesis states that Alzheimer’s disease should have progressed more slowly as a result of aducanumab’s capacity to remove plaques. Opponents counter that while aducanumab effectively removed amyloid plaques in trials, there were inconsistent positive clinical outcomes. Comparably, in patients enrolled in the phase III trial, donanemab eliminated approximately 85% of plaques but only caused a 14.8 percent slower decline in cognitive function, as determined by MMSE scores.

Crucially, the amyloid cascade theory served as the foundation for the FDA’s decision to approve aducanumab. The buildup of the tau protein within neurons is another aspect of Alzheimer’s disease, and the degree of tau accumulation—rather than beta-amyloid accumulation is linked to the severity of cognitive decline. Pharmaceutical interventions that aim to lower beta-amyloid levels or its production are capitalizing on the notion that beta-amyloid is a key factor in the development and advancement of Alzheimer’s disease. This theory has received a lot of criticism. Additionally, these drugs’ clinical trial results show a low level of efficacy and a high level of risk.

Because of this, some researchers contend that the modest efficacy of anti-amyloid antibodies suggests that the beta-amyloid pathway contributes to the development of Alzheimer’s disease along with other pathways, rather than showing that the beta-amyloid pathway plays a focal role in the disease’s development. This theory contends that Alzheimer’s disease is also influenced by a complex web of variables, such as those connected to the environment, oxidative stress, inflammation, metabolic variables, and genes unrelated to the amyloid pathway. This perspective also suggests that anti-amyloid medications may be used in conjunction with other treatments to treat Alzheimer’s disease.

On the other hand, beta-amyloid aggregation might be a byproduct of other malfunctioning biological pathways or a downstream phenomenon. It is now evident that metabolic dysfunction upstream of amyloid plaque formation is crucial for the activation of the brain’s microglial cells, and this phenotypic shift reduces beta-amyloid degradation while simultaneously enhancing its formation, according to Perlmutter. Furthermore, two key characteristics of Alzheimer’s disease are synaptic degradation and neuronal viability being threatened by microglial activation. As a result, treatments that target brain metabolism will probably be very beneficial for Alzheimer’s disease, as early research employing GLP-1 agonists has now shown, continued Perlmutter.

Anti-amyloid antibody therapies have modest clinical benefits, but their risks, costs, and accessibility must be considered before pursuing them. A considerable percentage of participants in the phase 3 clinical trials for lecanemab (45%) and donanemab (89%), experienced adverse effects. For example, individuals receiving anti-amyloid antibody therapy frequently exhibit brain alterations referred to as amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA). These alterations, which are detected on routine follow-up magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans, involve either small areas of bleeding from blood vessel rupture (microhemorrhage) or brain swelling (edema).

For example, in phase 3 trials, ARIA was observed in 21% and 38%, respectively, of patients treated with lecanemab and donanemab. The majority of ARIA cases have no symptoms and go away in ten weeks. Although the majority of ARIA cases have mild to moderate symptoms, there have also been reports of severe side effects, including seizures and even death. For example, in the phase III donanemab clinical trial, approximately 16% of participants had severe adverse effects associated with ARIA, while the donanemab group had a 0 point35% death rate.

The long-term consequences of amyloid-related imaging abnormalities, even when they are mild to moderate in severity, are unknown, which raises concerns beyond these serious side effects. Adverse reactions like nausea, fever, rash, and dizziness are also linked to the infusion of these anti-amyloid antibodies. Reactions related to infusion were noted in 24.7% and 8.7%, respectively, of patients receiving lecanemab and donanemab treatment. Frequent magnetic resonance imaging scans and clinical follow-ups are necessary due to amyloid-related imaging abnormalities and other side effects. In the phase III trials for lecanemab and donanemab, people with at least one copy of the APOE4 gene—a gene associated with an elevated risk of Alzheimer’s disease were more likely to experience brain swelling.

Additionally, these medications were less effective in people who carried one or more copies of APOE4. Thus, before starting anti-amyloid therapy, people must undergo genetic screening. Anti-amyloid immunotherapies are also linked to a decrease in the volume of the entire brain combined with an increase in the volume of the brain’s ventricles, which are spaces filled with fluid. Reduced cognition is linked to an increase in ventricle volume and a decrease in whole brain volume.

It’s unclear, though, if these modifications in brain volume and cognitive function are causally related. Therefore, it is necessary to investigate the effects of these modifications in brain volume following anti-amyloid therapies. It’s interesting to note that the hippocampus, a part of the brain important for memory and learning, saw a lesser decrease in volume following donanemab therapy. The likelihood of a few Alzheimer’s patients in the general population meeting the requirements to be enrolled in lecanemab or donanemab clinical trials is low. These studies involved younger patients with fewer co-occurring medical conditions. Treatment for a real-world population of people with co-occurring conditions and Alzheimer’s disease is therefore likely to result in a higher rate of adverse events or lower efficacy.

The identification and diagnosis of patients who qualify for anti-amyloid therapies presents another difficulty for the healthcare system, in addition to managing side effects. The majority of Alzheimer’s patients do not receive a diagnosis until later in the illness, and to identify the disease early, many people would need to be screened using imaging scans or biomarkers of the cerebrospinal fluid. Therefore, widespread availability would require a significant financial outlay for the detection and diagnosis of early-stage Alzheimer’s disease, APOE4 genetic testing, and the tracking and treatment of ARIAs and infusion-related reactions, regardless of their severity.

Certain diagnostic tests are needed to confirm eligibility for new treatment, and in the UK, one-third of dementia patients do not receive a diagnosis at all. To make sure that those who qualify for new treatments can receive them when they’re most effective which seems to be in the early stages of Alzheimer’s disease investments in diagnostic infrastructure and workforce are required. Lecanemab infusions cost about $26,000, while donanemab infusions cost about $32,000 per year. The price of genetic testing, screening and diagnosis, and tracking and controlling side effects are not included in this, though. However, there is a chance that new biomarkers for tracking treatment outcomes and improvements in diagnostic techniques will lower costs and increase accessibility to anti-amyloid medications.

References:
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/alzheimers-are-newly-approved-drugs-making-a-real-life-difference#Amyloid-cascade-hypothesis-and-Alzheimers-research

Medical Myths: All about cholesterol

Medical Myths: All about cholesterol

Among all the substances found in our bodies, cholesterol is arguably the most well-known. Even though everyone is familiar with this fatty substance, there is a lot of misinformation about it. We shed some light on cholesterol in this article.

Since cholesterol is a necessary part of animal cell membranes, all animal cells synthesize it. Despite its unfavorable reputation, cholesterol is necessary for life. On the other hand, high blood levels of it raise the risk of cardiovascular disease. Plaques containing cholesterol and other materials, like fat and calcium, accumulate on the artery walls. This causes the blood vessels to narrow over time, which can result in complications like heart attacks and strokes.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimate that 13% of Americans who were 20 years of age or older had high cholesterol in 2015–2016. According to estimates from the World Health Organization (WHO), elevated cholesterol levels cause 26 million deaths annually. It is not surprising that there is a lot of false information regarding cholesterol given its prevalence. So, to help us separate fact from fiction.

All cholesterol is bad
As indicated in the introduction, cholesterol is an essential part of membranes found in cells. In addition to playing a structural role in membranes, it is essential for the synthesis of bile acid, vitamin D, and steroid hormones. Therefore, even though high cholesterol raises the risk of disease, without cholesterol, life would not be possible.

Cholesterol is not harmful. In today’s modern world, an innocent bystander is being mistreated. Because our bodies were not made to survive in an environment where food was abundant, excess cholesterol will be stored in our bodies. And our blood vessels are frequently that deposit center, which is when it becomes harmful to us. In addition to its physiological roles, cholesterol’s mode of transportation influences whether or not it is harmful to health.

Lipoproteins are molecules made of protein and fat that transport cholesterol throughout the body. There are two primary methods of this transport. From the liver, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) transports cholesterol to cells, where it is utilized in a variety of functions. Because elevated blood levels of LDL cholesterol raise the risk of cardiovascular disease, people sometimes refer to LDL cholesterol as bad cholesterol. Since high-density lipoprotein (HDL) returns cholesterol to the liver, it is frequently referred to as good cholesterol. Once there, the body expels cholesterol, lowering the risk of cardiovascular disease.

I am a healthy weight, so I can’t have high cholesterol
Yes, you can, as Dr. Greenfield says. In actuality, our genetic makeup and the food we eat determine our cholesterol balance. For instance, a person may have a genetic predisposition to process cholesterol inefficiently from birth. He clarified that it has been dubbed familial hypercholesterolemia and that its frequency may be as high as 1 in 200 due to its genetic nature. Your genetic metabolism and the ratio of calories burned to calories consumed play a bigger role in weight. Dr. Paz agreed: Your cholesterol can be abnormal even if you have a healthy weight. The foods you eat, how much alcohol you drink, how much you smoke, and how often you exercise all have an effect on your cholesterol.

Furthermore, as Dr. Lajoie informed us, some overweight individuals may not have high cholesterol, while others who maintain a healthy weight may. She clarified that a person’s diet, exercise, sleep patterns, thyroid function, medications, and genetics all influence their cholesterol levels. She went on, Your age and your genetics are two more factors that can contribute to high cholesterol but that you cannot modify.

I would have symptoms if I had high cholesterol
This is an additional myth. According to Dr. Paz, high cholesterol typically doesn’t cause any symptoms. For this reason, it is advised to have blood tests regularly to check for high cholesterol. Your unique risk factors dictate when you should begin screening and how often.

When excessive cholesterol accumulation causes heart and blood vessel damage and blockage, the only symptoms that cholesterol can be linked to are the late symptoms. Angina (chest pain), a heart attack, or even abrupt death result from this. Dr. Lajoie reaffirmed that elevated cholesterol causes silent plaque accumulation in arteries, which worsens over time and can result in heart attacks or strokes.

If I eat lots of cholesterol, I will have high cholesterol levels
This subject is a little trickier to understand than one might think. According to Dr. Lajoie, cholesterol levels are not always directly correlated with the amount of cholesterol one consumes. Even if a person doesn’t consume much cholesterol, eating sugars or simple carbs can raise their blood pressure. She added, Compared to sedentary people, those who exercise are less likely to see elevations in cholesterol from eating cholesterol.

Our cholesterol levels will almost certainly rise if we eat more cholesterol. He gave the following explanation for this: You buy red meat, cheeses, and eggs at the grocery store, but you don’t go buy a package of cholesterol. Red meat has cholesterol and saturated fat. Since cholesterol is derived from animals, eating foods high in saturated fat will raise cholesterol overall as well as the bad, or LDL, cholesterol, which is then deposited in the arterial walls of our blood vessels.

Everyone should aim for the same cholesterol targets
Dismissed! According to Dr. Paz, your target cholesterol level depends on your risk of heart attack and stroke, which is determined by factors like age and high blood pressure, as well as whether you have a history of these conditions. That is untrue, according to cholesterol guidelines released by the National Lipid Association, the American College of Cardiology, and the American Heart Association (AHA). He went on to say that the LDL cholesterol, or bad cholesterol, should be less than 100 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dl) for those of us who have not experienced any cardiovascular issues. However, the LDL cholesterol target should be less than 70 mg/dl, if not lower, if you have a history of heart attacks, strokes, or other arterial vascular diseases, and especially if you have diabetes.

Only men need to worry about cholesterol levels
Despite being a persistent myth, this is untrue. Dr. Paz clarified: The CDC reports that between 2015 and 2018, the incidence of elevated total cholesterol in the U.S. adult population was 11.4 percent. In comparison to women, men were more likely than women to have high total cholesterol (10.5% versus 12.1%). Dr. Greenfield concurred that heart disease is an equal opportunity employer. He clarified that women start to accelerate their risk of heart disease and develop the same risk as men after losing the protective effects of estrogens. In actuality, more female heart attacks than male heart attacks are reported each year because women typically develop heart disease later in life and live longer. He also informed us that women are far more likely to die from heart disease than from breast cancer and that when they do suffer a heart attack, their prognosis is typically worse.

There’s nothing I can do about my cholesterol level
Fortunately, this is not accurate. Dr. Paz states that in addition to taking cholesterol-lowering drugs, you can lower your cholesterol by eating a healthy weight, exercising, quitting smoking, and consuming moderate amounts of alcohol. Dr. Greenfield concurred that there is a lot that can be done with an abnormally high cholesterol level. The first steps are always diet and exercise, and they are still very important. Statins are safe and highly effective at lowering cholesterol. The more recent statins have been around since 1987 and are thought to be safer, more effective, and have fewer side effects. And science is still coming up with new ideas. According to Dr. Greenfield, more recent injectable PCSK-9 inhibitors have also been demonstrated to significantly reduce cholesterol to previously unheard-of levels.

I take statins, so I can eat what I want
Dr. Greenfield started, Wouldn’t that be nice if it were true, but it’s not. You will put on weight if you overindulge in food and calories. Excessive weight gain, particularly around the abdomen, can lead to the development of metabolic syndrome, a prediabetic state. He went on: Statins do not help people lose weight. It is your responsibility to treat your body with respect, which includes what you eat, and your job to lower the bad LDL cholesterol.

I’m under 40, so I don’t need to have my cholesterol checked
Dr. Paz clarified that many, advise screening for elevated cholesterol as early as age 20, despite some disagreement regarding the optimal age to begin. Dr. Greenfield agreed the longer blood in your blood vessels has an excessively high cholesterol content, the higher your chance of developing cardiovascular disease in later life. According to the recommendations, a person’s first cholesterol test should be taken when they are a teenager, and if there is a strong family history, it should be taken earlier. He informed us that people with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia should have their cholesterol checked starting at age 2.

Dr. Greenfield summarized her remarks as follows: I encourage my patients to ask questions and to do research on their medical conditions. But please be advised that a good portion of the polluted content is inaccurate and deceptive. He went on to visit reliable websites and trust the research presented by individuals who have devoted their lives to the treatment of heart disease.. Furthermore, anything that seems too good to be true or nonsensical is most likely not. Handle your body with reverence, not as if it were a theme park!

Reference:
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/medical-myths-all-about-cholesterol?utm_source=ReadNext#The-take-home-message

Medications that have been suggested by doctors worldwide are available here
https://mygenericpharmacy.com/index.php?therapy=11
https://mygenericpharmacy.com/category/disease/heart-disease