User login
For MD-IQ use only
Lights on during sleep can play havoc with metabolism
“The most important finding” is that, compared with one night in a dim light environment, “one night of exposure to a moderate level of room light while sleeping with eyes closed increased heart rate and sympathetic [nervous system] activity during the entire sleep period,” said senior author Phyllis C. Zee, MD, PhD.
And on the morning following the moderate room light condition, a higher amount of insulin secretion was required to normalize glucose levels following ingestion of a bolus of glucose in an oral glucose tolerance test, consistent with higher insulin resistance, Dr. Zee, director of the center for circadian and sleep medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, told this news organization in an email.
The study by Ivy C. Mason, PhD, also of Northwestern University, and colleagues was published March 14 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Melatonin levels were similar under the two light conditions, Dr. Zee added, which “suggests that the effect of light during sleep on these cardiometabolic measures were more likely due to activation of the sympathetic [nervous] system and less likely due to changes in sleep or suppression of melatonin by light.”
“Attention to avoiding exposure to light at night during sleep may be beneficial for cardiometabolic health,” the researchers conclude.
That means “turn lights off before sleeping,” Dr. Zee elaborated. If a light is needed for safety reasons, keep it as dim as possible, she advises, and avoid exposure to blue or green light, but instead try red-amber colors.
How light during sleep may affect insulin, melatonin, heart rate
Several studies have investigated the effect of light on sleep and metabolic outcomes, the researchers explain.
In one study, light in the bedroom was associated with obesity in women, and in another study, it was associated with risk of type 2 diabetes in an elderly population.
Research has suggested that nighttime light exposure may alter glucose metabolism by increasing insulin resistance; lowering melatonin levels, which alters insulin secretion; and having an arousing effect on the sympathetic autonomic nervous system (increasing the stress hormone cortisol or heart rate, and decreasing heart rate variability).
However, the effect of a single night of moderate room light exposure across the entire nighttime sleep period has not been fully investigated.
The researchers enrolled and randomized 20 healthy young adults who were 18-40 years old and regularly went to sleep between 9 p.m. and 1 a.m. and slept 6.5-8.5 hours, to sleep 2 nights in the sleep laboratory under two conditions.
Ten participants (eight women, two men) slept in a dim light condition on night 1 and in a moderate light condition on night 2. The other 10 participants (six women, four men) slept 2 nights in the dim light condition.
The moderate light condition consisted of four 60-watt incandescent overhead ceiling light bulbs (a total of 100 lux), which “is bright enough to see, but not to read comfortably,” Dr. Zee explained. “It’s like hallway light in an apartment. But the people were sleeping, so about 90% of the light would be blocked by the eyelids.”
The dim light condition was less than 3 lux, which is dimmer than a night light.
When participants were awake, the room lighting was 240 lux.
Participants in each group were a mean age of 27 years and had a mean body mass index of 23 and 24 kg/m2.
The week before the study, participants went to bed at 11 p.m. and slept for 7 hours (based on actigraphy measures). During the laboratory stay, the participants were allowed to sleep 8 hours, during which polysomnography was performed.
They received standard meals at 2.5, 5, and 11 hours after waking and had 30 minutes to eat them. Snacking and caffeine were not permitted.
Participants were instructed to remain seated or standing in their room, but not exercise, when they were not sleeping. Blood samples to determine melatonin levels were collected hourly during wake and sleep via an intravenous line.
Participants slept for a similar time, around 7 hours, in both conditions.
Although melatonin levels were similar in both conditions, this was a relatively small sample, the researchers caution.
In the room light condition, participants spent proportionately more time in stage N2 sleep and less in slow-wave and rapid eye movement sleep. There was no increase in sleep fragmentation or arousals.
The research was partly supported by the Center for Circadian and Sleep Medicine at Northwestern University, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, the National Institutes of Health, and the American Heart Association. The researchers have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“The most important finding” is that, compared with one night in a dim light environment, “one night of exposure to a moderate level of room light while sleeping with eyes closed increased heart rate and sympathetic [nervous system] activity during the entire sleep period,” said senior author Phyllis C. Zee, MD, PhD.
And on the morning following the moderate room light condition, a higher amount of insulin secretion was required to normalize glucose levels following ingestion of a bolus of glucose in an oral glucose tolerance test, consistent with higher insulin resistance, Dr. Zee, director of the center for circadian and sleep medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, told this news organization in an email.
The study by Ivy C. Mason, PhD, also of Northwestern University, and colleagues was published March 14 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Melatonin levels were similar under the two light conditions, Dr. Zee added, which “suggests that the effect of light during sleep on these cardiometabolic measures were more likely due to activation of the sympathetic [nervous] system and less likely due to changes in sleep or suppression of melatonin by light.”
“Attention to avoiding exposure to light at night during sleep may be beneficial for cardiometabolic health,” the researchers conclude.
That means “turn lights off before sleeping,” Dr. Zee elaborated. If a light is needed for safety reasons, keep it as dim as possible, she advises, and avoid exposure to blue or green light, but instead try red-amber colors.
How light during sleep may affect insulin, melatonin, heart rate
Several studies have investigated the effect of light on sleep and metabolic outcomes, the researchers explain.
In one study, light in the bedroom was associated with obesity in women, and in another study, it was associated with risk of type 2 diabetes in an elderly population.
Research has suggested that nighttime light exposure may alter glucose metabolism by increasing insulin resistance; lowering melatonin levels, which alters insulin secretion; and having an arousing effect on the sympathetic autonomic nervous system (increasing the stress hormone cortisol or heart rate, and decreasing heart rate variability).
However, the effect of a single night of moderate room light exposure across the entire nighttime sleep period has not been fully investigated.
The researchers enrolled and randomized 20 healthy young adults who were 18-40 years old and regularly went to sleep between 9 p.m. and 1 a.m. and slept 6.5-8.5 hours, to sleep 2 nights in the sleep laboratory under two conditions.
Ten participants (eight women, two men) slept in a dim light condition on night 1 and in a moderate light condition on night 2. The other 10 participants (six women, four men) slept 2 nights in the dim light condition.
The moderate light condition consisted of four 60-watt incandescent overhead ceiling light bulbs (a total of 100 lux), which “is bright enough to see, but not to read comfortably,” Dr. Zee explained. “It’s like hallway light in an apartment. But the people were sleeping, so about 90% of the light would be blocked by the eyelids.”
The dim light condition was less than 3 lux, which is dimmer than a night light.
When participants were awake, the room lighting was 240 lux.
Participants in each group were a mean age of 27 years and had a mean body mass index of 23 and 24 kg/m2.
The week before the study, participants went to bed at 11 p.m. and slept for 7 hours (based on actigraphy measures). During the laboratory stay, the participants were allowed to sleep 8 hours, during which polysomnography was performed.
They received standard meals at 2.5, 5, and 11 hours after waking and had 30 minutes to eat them. Snacking and caffeine were not permitted.
Participants were instructed to remain seated or standing in their room, but not exercise, when they were not sleeping. Blood samples to determine melatonin levels were collected hourly during wake and sleep via an intravenous line.
Participants slept for a similar time, around 7 hours, in both conditions.
Although melatonin levels were similar in both conditions, this was a relatively small sample, the researchers caution.
In the room light condition, participants spent proportionately more time in stage N2 sleep and less in slow-wave and rapid eye movement sleep. There was no increase in sleep fragmentation or arousals.
The research was partly supported by the Center for Circadian and Sleep Medicine at Northwestern University, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, the National Institutes of Health, and the American Heart Association. The researchers have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“The most important finding” is that, compared with one night in a dim light environment, “one night of exposure to a moderate level of room light while sleeping with eyes closed increased heart rate and sympathetic [nervous system] activity during the entire sleep period,” said senior author Phyllis C. Zee, MD, PhD.
And on the morning following the moderate room light condition, a higher amount of insulin secretion was required to normalize glucose levels following ingestion of a bolus of glucose in an oral glucose tolerance test, consistent with higher insulin resistance, Dr. Zee, director of the center for circadian and sleep medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, told this news organization in an email.
The study by Ivy C. Mason, PhD, also of Northwestern University, and colleagues was published March 14 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Melatonin levels were similar under the two light conditions, Dr. Zee added, which “suggests that the effect of light during sleep on these cardiometabolic measures were more likely due to activation of the sympathetic [nervous] system and less likely due to changes in sleep or suppression of melatonin by light.”
“Attention to avoiding exposure to light at night during sleep may be beneficial for cardiometabolic health,” the researchers conclude.
That means “turn lights off before sleeping,” Dr. Zee elaborated. If a light is needed for safety reasons, keep it as dim as possible, she advises, and avoid exposure to blue or green light, but instead try red-amber colors.
How light during sleep may affect insulin, melatonin, heart rate
Several studies have investigated the effect of light on sleep and metabolic outcomes, the researchers explain.
In one study, light in the bedroom was associated with obesity in women, and in another study, it was associated with risk of type 2 diabetes in an elderly population.
Research has suggested that nighttime light exposure may alter glucose metabolism by increasing insulin resistance; lowering melatonin levels, which alters insulin secretion; and having an arousing effect on the sympathetic autonomic nervous system (increasing the stress hormone cortisol or heart rate, and decreasing heart rate variability).
However, the effect of a single night of moderate room light exposure across the entire nighttime sleep period has not been fully investigated.
The researchers enrolled and randomized 20 healthy young adults who were 18-40 years old and regularly went to sleep between 9 p.m. and 1 a.m. and slept 6.5-8.5 hours, to sleep 2 nights in the sleep laboratory under two conditions.
Ten participants (eight women, two men) slept in a dim light condition on night 1 and in a moderate light condition on night 2. The other 10 participants (six women, four men) slept 2 nights in the dim light condition.
The moderate light condition consisted of four 60-watt incandescent overhead ceiling light bulbs (a total of 100 lux), which “is bright enough to see, but not to read comfortably,” Dr. Zee explained. “It’s like hallway light in an apartment. But the people were sleeping, so about 90% of the light would be blocked by the eyelids.”
The dim light condition was less than 3 lux, which is dimmer than a night light.
When participants were awake, the room lighting was 240 lux.
Participants in each group were a mean age of 27 years and had a mean body mass index of 23 and 24 kg/m2.
The week before the study, participants went to bed at 11 p.m. and slept for 7 hours (based on actigraphy measures). During the laboratory stay, the participants were allowed to sleep 8 hours, during which polysomnography was performed.
They received standard meals at 2.5, 5, and 11 hours after waking and had 30 minutes to eat them. Snacking and caffeine were not permitted.
Participants were instructed to remain seated or standing in their room, but not exercise, when they were not sleeping. Blood samples to determine melatonin levels were collected hourly during wake and sleep via an intravenous line.
Participants slept for a similar time, around 7 hours, in both conditions.
Although melatonin levels were similar in both conditions, this was a relatively small sample, the researchers caution.
In the room light condition, participants spent proportionately more time in stage N2 sleep and less in slow-wave and rapid eye movement sleep. There was no increase in sleep fragmentation or arousals.
The research was partly supported by the Center for Circadian and Sleep Medicine at Northwestern University, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, the National Institutes of Health, and the American Heart Association. The researchers have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
Cardiologist pleads guilty to abusive sexual contact
John Giacomini, MD, has pleaded guilty to one count of abusive sexual contact of a female physician he was supervising, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has announced.
Dr. Giacomini, 73, of Atherton, California, had practiced medicine and cardiology for more than 30 years and served as chief of the cardiology section at the VA Hospital in Palo Alto from 1985 to 2018.
According to the statement from DOJ, starting in the fall of 2017, Dr. Giacomini repeatedly subjected a subordinate doctor to unwanted and unwelcome sexual contact, which included hugging, kissing, and intimate touching while on VA premises.
The victim explicitly told Dr. Giacomini she was not interested in a romantic or sexual relationship with him and forcibly resisted his repeated attempts to kiss her, the statement notes.
The abuse continued, culminating in December 2017 with the incident of abusive sexual contact, the DOJ says.
Afterward, the victim resigned from her position at the VA, citing Dr. Giacomini’s behavior as her principal reason for leaving.
“As a federal employee for well over 30 years, [Dr.] Giacomini was trained throughout his career on the prevention of workplace sexual assault and sexual harassment,” the DOJ says.
“As a supervisor and manager, [Dr.] Giacomini had an obligation to the VA and to his subordinates to prevent workplace sexual harassment and disclose any harassing behavior of which he became aware. He failed to do this,” the DOJ says.
A federal grand jury indicted Dr. Giacomini in March 2020, charging him with one count of abusive sexual contact. Dr. Giacomini has now pleaded guilty to the charge, a felony.
Sentencing is scheduled for July 12. Dr. Giacomini faces a maximum sentence of 2 years in prison, a fine of $250,000, restitution, and supervised release.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
John Giacomini, MD, has pleaded guilty to one count of abusive sexual contact of a female physician he was supervising, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has announced.
Dr. Giacomini, 73, of Atherton, California, had practiced medicine and cardiology for more than 30 years and served as chief of the cardiology section at the VA Hospital in Palo Alto from 1985 to 2018.
According to the statement from DOJ, starting in the fall of 2017, Dr. Giacomini repeatedly subjected a subordinate doctor to unwanted and unwelcome sexual contact, which included hugging, kissing, and intimate touching while on VA premises.
The victim explicitly told Dr. Giacomini she was not interested in a romantic or sexual relationship with him and forcibly resisted his repeated attempts to kiss her, the statement notes.
The abuse continued, culminating in December 2017 with the incident of abusive sexual contact, the DOJ says.
Afterward, the victim resigned from her position at the VA, citing Dr. Giacomini’s behavior as her principal reason for leaving.
“As a federal employee for well over 30 years, [Dr.] Giacomini was trained throughout his career on the prevention of workplace sexual assault and sexual harassment,” the DOJ says.
“As a supervisor and manager, [Dr.] Giacomini had an obligation to the VA and to his subordinates to prevent workplace sexual harassment and disclose any harassing behavior of which he became aware. He failed to do this,” the DOJ says.
A federal grand jury indicted Dr. Giacomini in March 2020, charging him with one count of abusive sexual contact. Dr. Giacomini has now pleaded guilty to the charge, a felony.
Sentencing is scheduled for July 12. Dr. Giacomini faces a maximum sentence of 2 years in prison, a fine of $250,000, restitution, and supervised release.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
John Giacomini, MD, has pleaded guilty to one count of abusive sexual contact of a female physician he was supervising, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has announced.
Dr. Giacomini, 73, of Atherton, California, had practiced medicine and cardiology for more than 30 years and served as chief of the cardiology section at the VA Hospital in Palo Alto from 1985 to 2018.
According to the statement from DOJ, starting in the fall of 2017, Dr. Giacomini repeatedly subjected a subordinate doctor to unwanted and unwelcome sexual contact, which included hugging, kissing, and intimate touching while on VA premises.
The victim explicitly told Dr. Giacomini she was not interested in a romantic or sexual relationship with him and forcibly resisted his repeated attempts to kiss her, the statement notes.
The abuse continued, culminating in December 2017 with the incident of abusive sexual contact, the DOJ says.
Afterward, the victim resigned from her position at the VA, citing Dr. Giacomini’s behavior as her principal reason for leaving.
“As a federal employee for well over 30 years, [Dr.] Giacomini was trained throughout his career on the prevention of workplace sexual assault and sexual harassment,” the DOJ says.
“As a supervisor and manager, [Dr.] Giacomini had an obligation to the VA and to his subordinates to prevent workplace sexual harassment and disclose any harassing behavior of which he became aware. He failed to do this,” the DOJ says.
A federal grand jury indicted Dr. Giacomini in March 2020, charging him with one count of abusive sexual contact. Dr. Giacomini has now pleaded guilty to the charge, a felony.
Sentencing is scheduled for July 12. Dr. Giacomini faces a maximum sentence of 2 years in prison, a fine of $250,000, restitution, and supervised release.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Q&A With JAAD Editor Dirk M. Elston, MD
who has authored more than 600 peer-reviewed publications and 92 textbook chapters.
After earning his undergraduate degree from Pennsylvania State University and his medical degree from Jefferson Medical College in Philadelphia, Dr. Elston completed an internship and a dermatology residency at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, as well as a dermatopathology fellowship at the Cleveland Clinic. He currently is professor and chair of the department of dermatology and dermatologic surgery at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston.
Dr. Elston is one of five authors of “Andrews’ Diseases of the Skin),” coauthor with Tammie Ferringer, MD, of the “Dermatopathology” textbook, and editor in chief of the Requisites in Dermatology series of textbooks. In 2018, he succeeded Bruce H. Thiers, MD, as editor of the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology and in 2021, received the AAD’s Gold Medal Award, which is the academy’s highest honor.
In an interview, Dr. Elston reflected on his mentors, shared how he manages his many responsibilities as a clinician, teacher, and editor, and talked about the promising future of dermatology.
Who inspired you most to pursue a career in medicine? My grandmother, Annie Elston, was a physician and dedicated her life to helping others. She was a front-line medic during World War I, helped to run a neonatal syphilis ward after the war, and practiced pediatrics in New York City until her death. She was a great role model.
Did you enter medical school knowing that you wanted to become a dermatologist? If not, what was the turning point for you? I didn’t really know much about dermatology when I entered medical school. I fell in love with the specialty during a rotation.
What was the most memorable experience from your dermatology residency at Walter Reed Army Medical Center? There were so many interesting patients, including many tropical diseases.
Why did you choose to pursue a fellowship in dermatopathology? What was it about this subspeciality that piqued your interest? Great teachers, including Tim Berger, MD, George Lupton, MD, and Dean Pearson, MD. They inspired me to seek a dermpath fellowship and I was lucky enough to train with Wilma Bergfeld, MD.
In your opinion, what’s been the most important advance in dermatopathology to date?
Immunohistochemistry changed the specialty. Now molecular diagnostics is a second wave of major advancement.
How do you stay passionate about both dermatology and dermatopathology? The patients, residents, and fellows keep it interesting. It’s a two-way street. I learn as much as I teach.
You’ve had a remarkable run at the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, starting as deputy editor in 2008 before becoming editor in 2018. What’s been most rewarding about this role for you? It is a labor of love and such a privilege to see everyone’s best work.
During the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, what were your most significant challenges from both a clinical and a personal standpoint? Fear of the unknown is always a challenge with a new epidemic and worse with a pandemic. The patients still needed to be seen but it was a challenge with some buildings closed and some personnel afraid to come to work.
Is there anything you would tell your younger self in terms of career advice? Enjoy every step of the journey.
Considering your various work responsibilities as a clinician, teacher, and editor, what’s your strategy for achieving a work-life balance? A good friend of mine is fond of saying that balance is an illusion. There is only resilience. I believe the truth lies somewhere in between. Make time for family, and decide what has to get done today and what can wait until tomorrow.
What development in dermatology are you most excited about in the next 5 years? We are in a golden age of therapeutic innovations that are life changing and lifesaving for our patients. I never would have believed I would see complete cures of patients with widely metastatic melanoma. From psoriasis to eczema to malignancy, our therapeutic armamentarium is dramatically better each year. It makes the practice of medicine exciting.
who has authored more than 600 peer-reviewed publications and 92 textbook chapters.
After earning his undergraduate degree from Pennsylvania State University and his medical degree from Jefferson Medical College in Philadelphia, Dr. Elston completed an internship and a dermatology residency at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, as well as a dermatopathology fellowship at the Cleveland Clinic. He currently is professor and chair of the department of dermatology and dermatologic surgery at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston.
Dr. Elston is one of five authors of “Andrews’ Diseases of the Skin),” coauthor with Tammie Ferringer, MD, of the “Dermatopathology” textbook, and editor in chief of the Requisites in Dermatology series of textbooks. In 2018, he succeeded Bruce H. Thiers, MD, as editor of the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology and in 2021, received the AAD’s Gold Medal Award, which is the academy’s highest honor.
In an interview, Dr. Elston reflected on his mentors, shared how he manages his many responsibilities as a clinician, teacher, and editor, and talked about the promising future of dermatology.
Who inspired you most to pursue a career in medicine? My grandmother, Annie Elston, was a physician and dedicated her life to helping others. She was a front-line medic during World War I, helped to run a neonatal syphilis ward after the war, and practiced pediatrics in New York City until her death. She was a great role model.
Did you enter medical school knowing that you wanted to become a dermatologist? If not, what was the turning point for you? I didn’t really know much about dermatology when I entered medical school. I fell in love with the specialty during a rotation.
What was the most memorable experience from your dermatology residency at Walter Reed Army Medical Center? There were so many interesting patients, including many tropical diseases.
Why did you choose to pursue a fellowship in dermatopathology? What was it about this subspeciality that piqued your interest? Great teachers, including Tim Berger, MD, George Lupton, MD, and Dean Pearson, MD. They inspired me to seek a dermpath fellowship and I was lucky enough to train with Wilma Bergfeld, MD.
In your opinion, what’s been the most important advance in dermatopathology to date?
Immunohistochemistry changed the specialty. Now molecular diagnostics is a second wave of major advancement.
How do you stay passionate about both dermatology and dermatopathology? The patients, residents, and fellows keep it interesting. It’s a two-way street. I learn as much as I teach.
You’ve had a remarkable run at the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, starting as deputy editor in 2008 before becoming editor in 2018. What’s been most rewarding about this role for you? It is a labor of love and such a privilege to see everyone’s best work.
During the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, what were your most significant challenges from both a clinical and a personal standpoint? Fear of the unknown is always a challenge with a new epidemic and worse with a pandemic. The patients still needed to be seen but it was a challenge with some buildings closed and some personnel afraid to come to work.
Is there anything you would tell your younger self in terms of career advice? Enjoy every step of the journey.
Considering your various work responsibilities as a clinician, teacher, and editor, what’s your strategy for achieving a work-life balance? A good friend of mine is fond of saying that balance is an illusion. There is only resilience. I believe the truth lies somewhere in between. Make time for family, and decide what has to get done today and what can wait until tomorrow.
What development in dermatology are you most excited about in the next 5 years? We are in a golden age of therapeutic innovations that are life changing and lifesaving for our patients. I never would have believed I would see complete cures of patients with widely metastatic melanoma. From psoriasis to eczema to malignancy, our therapeutic armamentarium is dramatically better each year. It makes the practice of medicine exciting.
who has authored more than 600 peer-reviewed publications and 92 textbook chapters.
After earning his undergraduate degree from Pennsylvania State University and his medical degree from Jefferson Medical College in Philadelphia, Dr. Elston completed an internship and a dermatology residency at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, as well as a dermatopathology fellowship at the Cleveland Clinic. He currently is professor and chair of the department of dermatology and dermatologic surgery at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston.
Dr. Elston is one of five authors of “Andrews’ Diseases of the Skin),” coauthor with Tammie Ferringer, MD, of the “Dermatopathology” textbook, and editor in chief of the Requisites in Dermatology series of textbooks. In 2018, he succeeded Bruce H. Thiers, MD, as editor of the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology and in 2021, received the AAD’s Gold Medal Award, which is the academy’s highest honor.
In an interview, Dr. Elston reflected on his mentors, shared how he manages his many responsibilities as a clinician, teacher, and editor, and talked about the promising future of dermatology.
Who inspired you most to pursue a career in medicine? My grandmother, Annie Elston, was a physician and dedicated her life to helping others. She was a front-line medic during World War I, helped to run a neonatal syphilis ward after the war, and practiced pediatrics in New York City until her death. She was a great role model.
Did you enter medical school knowing that you wanted to become a dermatologist? If not, what was the turning point for you? I didn’t really know much about dermatology when I entered medical school. I fell in love with the specialty during a rotation.
What was the most memorable experience from your dermatology residency at Walter Reed Army Medical Center? There were so many interesting patients, including many tropical diseases.
Why did you choose to pursue a fellowship in dermatopathology? What was it about this subspeciality that piqued your interest? Great teachers, including Tim Berger, MD, George Lupton, MD, and Dean Pearson, MD. They inspired me to seek a dermpath fellowship and I was lucky enough to train with Wilma Bergfeld, MD.
In your opinion, what’s been the most important advance in dermatopathology to date?
Immunohistochemistry changed the specialty. Now molecular diagnostics is a second wave of major advancement.
How do you stay passionate about both dermatology and dermatopathology? The patients, residents, and fellows keep it interesting. It’s a two-way street. I learn as much as I teach.
You’ve had a remarkable run at the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, starting as deputy editor in 2008 before becoming editor in 2018. What’s been most rewarding about this role for you? It is a labor of love and such a privilege to see everyone’s best work.
During the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, what were your most significant challenges from both a clinical and a personal standpoint? Fear of the unknown is always a challenge with a new epidemic and worse with a pandemic. The patients still needed to be seen but it was a challenge with some buildings closed and some personnel afraid to come to work.
Is there anything you would tell your younger self in terms of career advice? Enjoy every step of the journey.
Considering your various work responsibilities as a clinician, teacher, and editor, what’s your strategy for achieving a work-life balance? A good friend of mine is fond of saying that balance is an illusion. There is only resilience. I believe the truth lies somewhere in between. Make time for family, and decide what has to get done today and what can wait until tomorrow.
What development in dermatology are you most excited about in the next 5 years? We are in a golden age of therapeutic innovations that are life changing and lifesaving for our patients. I never would have believed I would see complete cures of patients with widely metastatic melanoma. From psoriasis to eczema to malignancy, our therapeutic armamentarium is dramatically better each year. It makes the practice of medicine exciting.
Pharma should stop doing business in Russia, says ethicist
Should pharmaceutical companies continue to do business in Russia, running ongoing clinical trials, starting new ones, or continuing to sell their products there?
Some argue that medicine and science must not get enmeshed in politics, staying above the fray to protect their independence and credibility. Other defenders of business-as-usual say the pharmaceutical industry deals in health and aids the vulnerable. Humanitarianism requires continued interaction with Russia.
I think both arguments fail.
We are fighting a war with Russia. It is a war of economic strangulation, social isolation, and pushing Russia as hard as we can to become a pariah state so that internal pressure on Putin will cause him to rethink his cruel, unjustified invasion or the Russian people to replace him. This pressure must be harsh and it must happen quickly. Why?
Having failed to rapidly defeat the Ukrainian army in the war’s first weeks, Russian commanders are now resorting to the horrible barbarism they used in previous wars in Chechnya and Syria: flattening cities, attacking civilians, killing children with massive and indiscriminate firepower.
To mention one recent horror among many, Russian shelling destroyed a maternity hospital in Mariupol. Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, in bemoaning the Russians for their continuing series of war crimes called on the world to act.
“Mariupol. Direct Strike of Russian troops at the maternity hospital,” he wrote in a Twitter post. “People, children are under the wreckage. Atrocity! How much longer will the world be an accomplice ignoring terror?”
The Russian government’s response: “It is not the first time we have seen pathetic outcries concerning the so-called atrocities,” said Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov, claiming the hospital was being used as a base by an “ultra-radical” Ukrainian battalion.
Health and its preservation are key parts of the aim of medicine and science. There is no way that medicine and science can ignore what war does to health, what attacks on hospitals do to the sick and those who serve them there, the psychological toll that intentional terrorism takes on civilians and their defenders, and what the destruction of infrastructure means for the long-term well-being of Ukrainians.
There can be no collusion with war criminals. There can be no denial of the inextricable link between medicine, science, and politics. Medicine and science are controlled by political forces; their use for good or evil is driven by political considerations, and each doctor, scientist, and scientific society must take a stand when politics corrodes the underlying aims of research and healing.
How far does noncooperation with Russia go? Very, very far. All research, both ongoing and new, must cease immediately. Whatever can be done to minimize harm to existing subjects in a short period of time ought to be done, but that is it.
Similarly, no sale of medicines or therapies ought to be occurring, be they life-saving or consumer products. Putin will see to it that such shipments go to the military or are sold on the black market for revenue, and there is nothing pharma companies can do to stop that.
The Russian people need to be pinched not only by the loss of cheeseburgers and boutique coffee but by products they use to maintain their well-being. War is cruel that way, but if you tolerate a government that is bombing and shelling a peaceful neighbor to oblivion, then pharma must ensure that efforts to make Putin and his kleptocratic goons feel the wrath of their fellow citizens.
Given the realities of nuclear Armageddon, the civilized world must fight obvious barbarity as best it can with sanctions, financial assaults, property seizures, and forgoing commerce, including important raw materials and health products. War, even in a fiscal form, is not without terrible costs; but achieving a rapid, just resolution against tyranny permits no exceptions for pharma or any other business if it is a war that must be fought.
Dr. Caplan is director of the division of medical ethics at New York University. He has consulted with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Should pharmaceutical companies continue to do business in Russia, running ongoing clinical trials, starting new ones, or continuing to sell their products there?
Some argue that medicine and science must not get enmeshed in politics, staying above the fray to protect their independence and credibility. Other defenders of business-as-usual say the pharmaceutical industry deals in health and aids the vulnerable. Humanitarianism requires continued interaction with Russia.
I think both arguments fail.
We are fighting a war with Russia. It is a war of economic strangulation, social isolation, and pushing Russia as hard as we can to become a pariah state so that internal pressure on Putin will cause him to rethink his cruel, unjustified invasion or the Russian people to replace him. This pressure must be harsh and it must happen quickly. Why?
Having failed to rapidly defeat the Ukrainian army in the war’s first weeks, Russian commanders are now resorting to the horrible barbarism they used in previous wars in Chechnya and Syria: flattening cities, attacking civilians, killing children with massive and indiscriminate firepower.
To mention one recent horror among many, Russian shelling destroyed a maternity hospital in Mariupol. Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, in bemoaning the Russians for their continuing series of war crimes called on the world to act.
“Mariupol. Direct Strike of Russian troops at the maternity hospital,” he wrote in a Twitter post. “People, children are under the wreckage. Atrocity! How much longer will the world be an accomplice ignoring terror?”
The Russian government’s response: “It is not the first time we have seen pathetic outcries concerning the so-called atrocities,” said Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov, claiming the hospital was being used as a base by an “ultra-radical” Ukrainian battalion.
Health and its preservation are key parts of the aim of medicine and science. There is no way that medicine and science can ignore what war does to health, what attacks on hospitals do to the sick and those who serve them there, the psychological toll that intentional terrorism takes on civilians and their defenders, and what the destruction of infrastructure means for the long-term well-being of Ukrainians.
There can be no collusion with war criminals. There can be no denial of the inextricable link between medicine, science, and politics. Medicine and science are controlled by political forces; their use for good or evil is driven by political considerations, and each doctor, scientist, and scientific society must take a stand when politics corrodes the underlying aims of research and healing.
How far does noncooperation with Russia go? Very, very far. All research, both ongoing and new, must cease immediately. Whatever can be done to minimize harm to existing subjects in a short period of time ought to be done, but that is it.
Similarly, no sale of medicines or therapies ought to be occurring, be they life-saving or consumer products. Putin will see to it that such shipments go to the military or are sold on the black market for revenue, and there is nothing pharma companies can do to stop that.
The Russian people need to be pinched not only by the loss of cheeseburgers and boutique coffee but by products they use to maintain their well-being. War is cruel that way, but if you tolerate a government that is bombing and shelling a peaceful neighbor to oblivion, then pharma must ensure that efforts to make Putin and his kleptocratic goons feel the wrath of their fellow citizens.
Given the realities of nuclear Armageddon, the civilized world must fight obvious barbarity as best it can with sanctions, financial assaults, property seizures, and forgoing commerce, including important raw materials and health products. War, even in a fiscal form, is not without terrible costs; but achieving a rapid, just resolution against tyranny permits no exceptions for pharma or any other business if it is a war that must be fought.
Dr. Caplan is director of the division of medical ethics at New York University. He has consulted with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Should pharmaceutical companies continue to do business in Russia, running ongoing clinical trials, starting new ones, or continuing to sell their products there?
Some argue that medicine and science must not get enmeshed in politics, staying above the fray to protect their independence and credibility. Other defenders of business-as-usual say the pharmaceutical industry deals in health and aids the vulnerable. Humanitarianism requires continued interaction with Russia.
I think both arguments fail.
We are fighting a war with Russia. It is a war of economic strangulation, social isolation, and pushing Russia as hard as we can to become a pariah state so that internal pressure on Putin will cause him to rethink his cruel, unjustified invasion or the Russian people to replace him. This pressure must be harsh and it must happen quickly. Why?
Having failed to rapidly defeat the Ukrainian army in the war’s first weeks, Russian commanders are now resorting to the horrible barbarism they used in previous wars in Chechnya and Syria: flattening cities, attacking civilians, killing children with massive and indiscriminate firepower.
To mention one recent horror among many, Russian shelling destroyed a maternity hospital in Mariupol. Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, in bemoaning the Russians for their continuing series of war crimes called on the world to act.
“Mariupol. Direct Strike of Russian troops at the maternity hospital,” he wrote in a Twitter post. “People, children are under the wreckage. Atrocity! How much longer will the world be an accomplice ignoring terror?”
The Russian government’s response: “It is not the first time we have seen pathetic outcries concerning the so-called atrocities,” said Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov, claiming the hospital was being used as a base by an “ultra-radical” Ukrainian battalion.
Health and its preservation are key parts of the aim of medicine and science. There is no way that medicine and science can ignore what war does to health, what attacks on hospitals do to the sick and those who serve them there, the psychological toll that intentional terrorism takes on civilians and their defenders, and what the destruction of infrastructure means for the long-term well-being of Ukrainians.
There can be no collusion with war criminals. There can be no denial of the inextricable link between medicine, science, and politics. Medicine and science are controlled by political forces; their use for good or evil is driven by political considerations, and each doctor, scientist, and scientific society must take a stand when politics corrodes the underlying aims of research and healing.
How far does noncooperation with Russia go? Very, very far. All research, both ongoing and new, must cease immediately. Whatever can be done to minimize harm to existing subjects in a short period of time ought to be done, but that is it.
Similarly, no sale of medicines or therapies ought to be occurring, be they life-saving or consumer products. Putin will see to it that such shipments go to the military or are sold on the black market for revenue, and there is nothing pharma companies can do to stop that.
The Russian people need to be pinched not only by the loss of cheeseburgers and boutique coffee but by products they use to maintain their well-being. War is cruel that way, but if you tolerate a government that is bombing and shelling a peaceful neighbor to oblivion, then pharma must ensure that efforts to make Putin and his kleptocratic goons feel the wrath of their fellow citizens.
Given the realities of nuclear Armageddon, the civilized world must fight obvious barbarity as best it can with sanctions, financial assaults, property seizures, and forgoing commerce, including important raw materials and health products. War, even in a fiscal form, is not without terrible costs; but achieving a rapid, just resolution against tyranny permits no exceptions for pharma or any other business if it is a war that must be fought.
Dr. Caplan is director of the division of medical ethics at New York University. He has consulted with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Infectious disease pop quiz: Clinical challenge #18 for the ObGyn
What antenatal treatment is indicated in a pregnant woman at 28 weeks’ gestation who has a hepatitis B viral load of 2 million copies/mL?
Continue to the answer...
This patient has a markedly elevated viral load and is at significantly increased risk of transmitting hepatitis B infection to her neonate even if the infant receives hepatitis B immune globulin immediately after birth and quickly begins the hepatitis B vaccine series. Daily antenatal treatment with tenofovir (300 mg daily) from 28 weeks until delivery will significantly reduce the risk of perinatal transmission.
- Duff P. Maternal and perinatal infections: bacterial. In: Landon MB, Galan HL, Jauniaux ERM, et al. Gabbe’s Obstetrics: Normal and Problem Pregnancies. 8th ed. Elsevier; 2021:1124-1146.
- Duff P. Maternal and fetal infections. In: Resnik R, Lockwood CJ, Moore TJ, et al. Creasy & Resnik’s Maternal-Fetal Medicine: Principles and Practice. 8th ed. Elsevier; 2019:862-919.
Dr. Edwards is a Resident in the Department of Medicine, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville.
Dr. Duff is Professor of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville.
The authors report no financial relationships relevant to this article.
Dr. Edwards is a Resident in the Department of Medicine, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville.
Dr. Duff is Professor of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville.
The authors report no financial relationships relevant to this article.
Dr. Edwards is a Resident in the Department of Medicine, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville.
Dr. Duff is Professor of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville.
The authors report no financial relationships relevant to this article.
What antenatal treatment is indicated in a pregnant woman at 28 weeks’ gestation who has a hepatitis B viral load of 2 million copies/mL?
Continue to the answer...
This patient has a markedly elevated viral load and is at significantly increased risk of transmitting hepatitis B infection to her neonate even if the infant receives hepatitis B immune globulin immediately after birth and quickly begins the hepatitis B vaccine series. Daily antenatal treatment with tenofovir (300 mg daily) from 28 weeks until delivery will significantly reduce the risk of perinatal transmission.
What antenatal treatment is indicated in a pregnant woman at 28 weeks’ gestation who has a hepatitis B viral load of 2 million copies/mL?
Continue to the answer...
This patient has a markedly elevated viral load and is at significantly increased risk of transmitting hepatitis B infection to her neonate even if the infant receives hepatitis B immune globulin immediately after birth and quickly begins the hepatitis B vaccine series. Daily antenatal treatment with tenofovir (300 mg daily) from 28 weeks until delivery will significantly reduce the risk of perinatal transmission.
- Duff P. Maternal and perinatal infections: bacterial. In: Landon MB, Galan HL, Jauniaux ERM, et al. Gabbe’s Obstetrics: Normal and Problem Pregnancies. 8th ed. Elsevier; 2021:1124-1146.
- Duff P. Maternal and fetal infections. In: Resnik R, Lockwood CJ, Moore TJ, et al. Creasy & Resnik’s Maternal-Fetal Medicine: Principles and Practice. 8th ed. Elsevier; 2019:862-919.
- Duff P. Maternal and perinatal infections: bacterial. In: Landon MB, Galan HL, Jauniaux ERM, et al. Gabbe’s Obstetrics: Normal and Problem Pregnancies. 8th ed. Elsevier; 2021:1124-1146.
- Duff P. Maternal and fetal infections. In: Resnik R, Lockwood CJ, Moore TJ, et al. Creasy & Resnik’s Maternal-Fetal Medicine: Principles and Practice. 8th ed. Elsevier; 2019:862-919.
Heavy drinking in your 20s has lasting impact on cancer risk
according to a new study from Australia.
Although alcohol is a known risk factor for cancer, people generally do not expect their heavy drinking in early adulthood to affect their cancer risk many years later, lead author Harindra Jayasekara, MBBS, MD, PhD, with Cancer Council Victoria and University of Melbourne, said in an interview. But in this analysis, “we found evidence consistent with early initiation and chronic progression of carcinogenesis linked to alcohol and its toxic metabolites.”
The study, published online Feb. 19 in the International Journal of Cancer, assessed lifetime drinking trajectories and risk for alcohol-related cancer using data from 22,756 women and 15,701 men recruited to the prospective Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study from 1990-1994. Heavy drinking was considered an average alcohol intake of at least 60 g/day, which is equivalent to the alcohol content in 6 standard drinks.
During 485,525 person-years of follow-up among women, 2,303 incident alcohol-related cancers were diagnosed, most commonly breast (64%) and colorectal cancer (31%).
During 303,218 person-years of follow-up among men, 789 alcohol-related cancers were found, most commonly colorectal cancer (83%).
The researchers identified three distinct lifetime alcohol intake trajectories for women – lifetime abstainer (39%), stable light (54%), and increasing moderate (7%) – and six for men – lifetime abstainer (14.3%), stable light (51.5%), stable moderate (20.4%), increasing heavy (6.6%), early decreasing heavy (5.1%), and late decreasing heavy (2.2%).
Almost three times more, women were lifetime abstainers (39% vs. 14% of men). And approximately the same percentage of men and women increased their alcohol consumption over time. About 7% of men were classified as increasing heavy drinkers, consuming a moderate amount of alcohol (30-59 g/day) at age 20-39 and increasing their intake markedly from age 40-49 (over 60 g/day) before reducing it by age 60-69. Among women, 7% were classified as increasing moderate, tending to consume around 20 g/day at age 20-29 and gradually increasing their alcohol intake over time to consume close to 40 g/day at age 50-59.
Among men, the early decreasing heavy group started as heavy drinkers at age 20-39 (greater than or equal to 60 g/day) and continued to cut down their intake over time until developing stable light drinking habits by age 60-69, whereas late decreasing heavy drinks continued to drink a lot until age 60-69 before cutting their intake in their 70s.
Impact on cancer risk
For men, relative to lifetime abstention, heavy drinking trajectories were associated with an increased risk for alcohol-related cancer overall.
The strongest associations were for the early decreasing heavy trajectory (hazard ratio, 1.75) and the late decreasing heavy trajectory (HR, 1.94), with the increasing heavy trajectory not far behind (HR, 1.45).
The strength of these associations did not change appreciably in analyses excluding current smokers at baseline.
Among men, the early decreasing heavy and late decreasing heavy intake trajectories were similarly associated with an increased risk for colorectal cancer (HR, 1.56 for early, and HR, 1.74 for late). The corresponding HR for the increasing heavy trajectory was 1.36.
For women, compared with lifetime abstention, the alcohol intake trajectory classified as increasing moderate (30-59 g/day) was associated with a greater risk for alcohol-related cancer overall (HR, 1.25). The strength of this association weakened slightly when current smokers were excluded.
Compared with lifetime abstention, the increasing moderate trajectory in women was similarly associated with an increased risk for breast cancer (HR, 1.30) and colorectal cancer (HR, 1.23).
The 2018 World Cancer Research Fund and American Institute for Cancer Research global cancer prevention recommendation on alcohol is to “avoid any alcohol,” study investigator Julie Bassett, PhD, MSc, with Cancer Council Victoria, said in an interview. “As much as it is important to limit alcohol intake during middle age to prevent cancer, we have shown that limiting intake during early adulthood is also important.”
‘Striking’ findings
Reached for comment, Timothy Brennan, MD, MPH, chief of clinical services at the Addiction Institute of Mount Sinai in New York, said it is “striking” that heavy drinking in early adulthood led to an increased risk for alcohol-related cancers, even among people who drank much less in middle age.
“We’ve known for decades that alcohol is not harmless, but this data adds to the growing body of literature regarding the significant dangers of heavy drinking during early adulthood,” said Dr. Brennan, who wasn’t involved in the study.
Dr. Brennan cautioned, however, that the authors studied alcohol-related cancers, and “there are likely many other [cancer] risk factors that were not analyzed in this dataset.”
Nevertheless, this evidence helps counter the “troubling narrative” that “it is somehow normal and safe to drink excessively in young adulthood.”
“It is most certainly not safe,” Dr. Brennan told this news organization . “We see in this study that drinking excessively in young adulthood can raise the risk of cancer much later in life.”
The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Bassett, Dr. Jayasekara, and Dr. Brennan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
according to a new study from Australia.
Although alcohol is a known risk factor for cancer, people generally do not expect their heavy drinking in early adulthood to affect their cancer risk many years later, lead author Harindra Jayasekara, MBBS, MD, PhD, with Cancer Council Victoria and University of Melbourne, said in an interview. But in this analysis, “we found evidence consistent with early initiation and chronic progression of carcinogenesis linked to alcohol and its toxic metabolites.”
The study, published online Feb. 19 in the International Journal of Cancer, assessed lifetime drinking trajectories and risk for alcohol-related cancer using data from 22,756 women and 15,701 men recruited to the prospective Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study from 1990-1994. Heavy drinking was considered an average alcohol intake of at least 60 g/day, which is equivalent to the alcohol content in 6 standard drinks.
During 485,525 person-years of follow-up among women, 2,303 incident alcohol-related cancers were diagnosed, most commonly breast (64%) and colorectal cancer (31%).
During 303,218 person-years of follow-up among men, 789 alcohol-related cancers were found, most commonly colorectal cancer (83%).
The researchers identified three distinct lifetime alcohol intake trajectories for women – lifetime abstainer (39%), stable light (54%), and increasing moderate (7%) – and six for men – lifetime abstainer (14.3%), stable light (51.5%), stable moderate (20.4%), increasing heavy (6.6%), early decreasing heavy (5.1%), and late decreasing heavy (2.2%).
Almost three times more, women were lifetime abstainers (39% vs. 14% of men). And approximately the same percentage of men and women increased their alcohol consumption over time. About 7% of men were classified as increasing heavy drinkers, consuming a moderate amount of alcohol (30-59 g/day) at age 20-39 and increasing their intake markedly from age 40-49 (over 60 g/day) before reducing it by age 60-69. Among women, 7% were classified as increasing moderate, tending to consume around 20 g/day at age 20-29 and gradually increasing their alcohol intake over time to consume close to 40 g/day at age 50-59.
Among men, the early decreasing heavy group started as heavy drinkers at age 20-39 (greater than or equal to 60 g/day) and continued to cut down their intake over time until developing stable light drinking habits by age 60-69, whereas late decreasing heavy drinks continued to drink a lot until age 60-69 before cutting their intake in their 70s.
Impact on cancer risk
For men, relative to lifetime abstention, heavy drinking trajectories were associated with an increased risk for alcohol-related cancer overall.
The strongest associations were for the early decreasing heavy trajectory (hazard ratio, 1.75) and the late decreasing heavy trajectory (HR, 1.94), with the increasing heavy trajectory not far behind (HR, 1.45).
The strength of these associations did not change appreciably in analyses excluding current smokers at baseline.
Among men, the early decreasing heavy and late decreasing heavy intake trajectories were similarly associated with an increased risk for colorectal cancer (HR, 1.56 for early, and HR, 1.74 for late). The corresponding HR for the increasing heavy trajectory was 1.36.
For women, compared with lifetime abstention, the alcohol intake trajectory classified as increasing moderate (30-59 g/day) was associated with a greater risk for alcohol-related cancer overall (HR, 1.25). The strength of this association weakened slightly when current smokers were excluded.
Compared with lifetime abstention, the increasing moderate trajectory in women was similarly associated with an increased risk for breast cancer (HR, 1.30) and colorectal cancer (HR, 1.23).
The 2018 World Cancer Research Fund and American Institute for Cancer Research global cancer prevention recommendation on alcohol is to “avoid any alcohol,” study investigator Julie Bassett, PhD, MSc, with Cancer Council Victoria, said in an interview. “As much as it is important to limit alcohol intake during middle age to prevent cancer, we have shown that limiting intake during early adulthood is also important.”
‘Striking’ findings
Reached for comment, Timothy Brennan, MD, MPH, chief of clinical services at the Addiction Institute of Mount Sinai in New York, said it is “striking” that heavy drinking in early adulthood led to an increased risk for alcohol-related cancers, even among people who drank much less in middle age.
“We’ve known for decades that alcohol is not harmless, but this data adds to the growing body of literature regarding the significant dangers of heavy drinking during early adulthood,” said Dr. Brennan, who wasn’t involved in the study.
Dr. Brennan cautioned, however, that the authors studied alcohol-related cancers, and “there are likely many other [cancer] risk factors that were not analyzed in this dataset.”
Nevertheless, this evidence helps counter the “troubling narrative” that “it is somehow normal and safe to drink excessively in young adulthood.”
“It is most certainly not safe,” Dr. Brennan told this news organization . “We see in this study that drinking excessively in young adulthood can raise the risk of cancer much later in life.”
The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Bassett, Dr. Jayasekara, and Dr. Brennan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
according to a new study from Australia.
Although alcohol is a known risk factor for cancer, people generally do not expect their heavy drinking in early adulthood to affect their cancer risk many years later, lead author Harindra Jayasekara, MBBS, MD, PhD, with Cancer Council Victoria and University of Melbourne, said in an interview. But in this analysis, “we found evidence consistent with early initiation and chronic progression of carcinogenesis linked to alcohol and its toxic metabolites.”
The study, published online Feb. 19 in the International Journal of Cancer, assessed lifetime drinking trajectories and risk for alcohol-related cancer using data from 22,756 women and 15,701 men recruited to the prospective Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study from 1990-1994. Heavy drinking was considered an average alcohol intake of at least 60 g/day, which is equivalent to the alcohol content in 6 standard drinks.
During 485,525 person-years of follow-up among women, 2,303 incident alcohol-related cancers were diagnosed, most commonly breast (64%) and colorectal cancer (31%).
During 303,218 person-years of follow-up among men, 789 alcohol-related cancers were found, most commonly colorectal cancer (83%).
The researchers identified three distinct lifetime alcohol intake trajectories for women – lifetime abstainer (39%), stable light (54%), and increasing moderate (7%) – and six for men – lifetime abstainer (14.3%), stable light (51.5%), stable moderate (20.4%), increasing heavy (6.6%), early decreasing heavy (5.1%), and late decreasing heavy (2.2%).
Almost three times more, women were lifetime abstainers (39% vs. 14% of men). And approximately the same percentage of men and women increased their alcohol consumption over time. About 7% of men were classified as increasing heavy drinkers, consuming a moderate amount of alcohol (30-59 g/day) at age 20-39 and increasing their intake markedly from age 40-49 (over 60 g/day) before reducing it by age 60-69. Among women, 7% were classified as increasing moderate, tending to consume around 20 g/day at age 20-29 and gradually increasing their alcohol intake over time to consume close to 40 g/day at age 50-59.
Among men, the early decreasing heavy group started as heavy drinkers at age 20-39 (greater than or equal to 60 g/day) and continued to cut down their intake over time until developing stable light drinking habits by age 60-69, whereas late decreasing heavy drinks continued to drink a lot until age 60-69 before cutting their intake in their 70s.
Impact on cancer risk
For men, relative to lifetime abstention, heavy drinking trajectories were associated with an increased risk for alcohol-related cancer overall.
The strongest associations were for the early decreasing heavy trajectory (hazard ratio, 1.75) and the late decreasing heavy trajectory (HR, 1.94), with the increasing heavy trajectory not far behind (HR, 1.45).
The strength of these associations did not change appreciably in analyses excluding current smokers at baseline.
Among men, the early decreasing heavy and late decreasing heavy intake trajectories were similarly associated with an increased risk for colorectal cancer (HR, 1.56 for early, and HR, 1.74 for late). The corresponding HR for the increasing heavy trajectory was 1.36.
For women, compared with lifetime abstention, the alcohol intake trajectory classified as increasing moderate (30-59 g/day) was associated with a greater risk for alcohol-related cancer overall (HR, 1.25). The strength of this association weakened slightly when current smokers were excluded.
Compared with lifetime abstention, the increasing moderate trajectory in women was similarly associated with an increased risk for breast cancer (HR, 1.30) and colorectal cancer (HR, 1.23).
The 2018 World Cancer Research Fund and American Institute for Cancer Research global cancer prevention recommendation on alcohol is to “avoid any alcohol,” study investigator Julie Bassett, PhD, MSc, with Cancer Council Victoria, said in an interview. “As much as it is important to limit alcohol intake during middle age to prevent cancer, we have shown that limiting intake during early adulthood is also important.”
‘Striking’ findings
Reached for comment, Timothy Brennan, MD, MPH, chief of clinical services at the Addiction Institute of Mount Sinai in New York, said it is “striking” that heavy drinking in early adulthood led to an increased risk for alcohol-related cancers, even among people who drank much less in middle age.
“We’ve known for decades that alcohol is not harmless, but this data adds to the growing body of literature regarding the significant dangers of heavy drinking during early adulthood,” said Dr. Brennan, who wasn’t involved in the study.
Dr. Brennan cautioned, however, that the authors studied alcohol-related cancers, and “there are likely many other [cancer] risk factors that were not analyzed in this dataset.”
Nevertheless, this evidence helps counter the “troubling narrative” that “it is somehow normal and safe to drink excessively in young adulthood.”
“It is most certainly not safe,” Dr. Brennan told this news organization . “We see in this study that drinking excessively in young adulthood can raise the risk of cancer much later in life.”
The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Bassett, Dr. Jayasekara, and Dr. Brennan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER
Half of U.S. adults exposed to harmful lead levels as children: Study
published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
In addition, the researchers found, 90% of children born in the United States between 1951 and 1980 had blood-lead levels higher than the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention threshold. On average, early childhood exposure to lead resulted in a 2.6-point drop in IQ per person.
“Most of what we think of as the Lost Generation and the Greatest Generation and Baby Boomers had a moderate amount of lead exposure,” Matt Hauer, PhD, one of the coauthors and an assistant professor of sociology at Florida State University, Tallahassee, said in a statement.
“Generation X was exposed to very high amounts of lead, and now Millennials and the generation following them have been exposed to very low amounts of lead,” he said.
The findings were “infuriating” because scientists have long known that lead exposure is harmful, Michael McFarland, PhD, coauthor and an associate professor of sociology at Florida State University, Tallahassee, told The Associated Press.
The research team analyzed blood-lead levels, census data, and the use of leaded gasoline to understand how widespread early childhood lead exposure was in the United States between 1940 and 2015. They looked mostly at exposure caused by leaded gasoline, which was the dominant form of exposure between the 1940s and 1980s.
They estimated that half of the U.S. adult population in 2015 had been exposed to lead levels that surpassed 5 micrograms per deciliter, which was the CDC threshold at the time. More than 54 million had been exposed to levels above 15 micrograms per deciliter, and 4.5 million were exposed to 30 micrograms per deciliter – or six times the threshold.
They found that estimated lead-linked deficits were greatest for the 21 million people born between 1966 and 1970, who had an average 5.9-point drop in IQ per person.
The United States has put in place tougher regulations to protect Americans from lead poisoning in recent decades, particularly from gasoline. The study team found that blood-lead levels were considerably lower than 5 micrograms per deciliter among those born since 2001.
At the same time, the public health effects of childhood exposure for older generations will last for years to come.
“Childhood lead exposure is not just here and now. It’s going to impact your lifelong health,” Abheet Solomon, a senior program manager at the United Nations Children’s Fund, told the AP.
Childhood lead exposure is known to affect the development of mental skills, and it raises the risk of hypertension, kidney damage, and heart disease. It has been linked to harm in pregnant women and developing children.
“The more tragic part is that we keep making the same … mistakes again,” Bruce Lanphear, MD, a health sciences professor at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, B.C., told the AP.
Dr. Lanphear’s research on lead exposure has found loss of mental skills and IQ as well.
“First it was lead, then it was air pollution. Now it’s PFAS chemicals and phthalates (chemicals used to make plastics more durable),” he said. “And we can’t stop long enough to ask ourselves should we be regulating chemicals differently.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
In addition, the researchers found, 90% of children born in the United States between 1951 and 1980 had blood-lead levels higher than the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention threshold. On average, early childhood exposure to lead resulted in a 2.6-point drop in IQ per person.
“Most of what we think of as the Lost Generation and the Greatest Generation and Baby Boomers had a moderate amount of lead exposure,” Matt Hauer, PhD, one of the coauthors and an assistant professor of sociology at Florida State University, Tallahassee, said in a statement.
“Generation X was exposed to very high amounts of lead, and now Millennials and the generation following them have been exposed to very low amounts of lead,” he said.
The findings were “infuriating” because scientists have long known that lead exposure is harmful, Michael McFarland, PhD, coauthor and an associate professor of sociology at Florida State University, Tallahassee, told The Associated Press.
The research team analyzed blood-lead levels, census data, and the use of leaded gasoline to understand how widespread early childhood lead exposure was in the United States between 1940 and 2015. They looked mostly at exposure caused by leaded gasoline, which was the dominant form of exposure between the 1940s and 1980s.
They estimated that half of the U.S. adult population in 2015 had been exposed to lead levels that surpassed 5 micrograms per deciliter, which was the CDC threshold at the time. More than 54 million had been exposed to levels above 15 micrograms per deciliter, and 4.5 million were exposed to 30 micrograms per deciliter – or six times the threshold.
They found that estimated lead-linked deficits were greatest for the 21 million people born between 1966 and 1970, who had an average 5.9-point drop in IQ per person.
The United States has put in place tougher regulations to protect Americans from lead poisoning in recent decades, particularly from gasoline. The study team found that blood-lead levels were considerably lower than 5 micrograms per deciliter among those born since 2001.
At the same time, the public health effects of childhood exposure for older generations will last for years to come.
“Childhood lead exposure is not just here and now. It’s going to impact your lifelong health,” Abheet Solomon, a senior program manager at the United Nations Children’s Fund, told the AP.
Childhood lead exposure is known to affect the development of mental skills, and it raises the risk of hypertension, kidney damage, and heart disease. It has been linked to harm in pregnant women and developing children.
“The more tragic part is that we keep making the same … mistakes again,” Bruce Lanphear, MD, a health sciences professor at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, B.C., told the AP.
Dr. Lanphear’s research on lead exposure has found loss of mental skills and IQ as well.
“First it was lead, then it was air pollution. Now it’s PFAS chemicals and phthalates (chemicals used to make plastics more durable),” he said. “And we can’t stop long enough to ask ourselves should we be regulating chemicals differently.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
In addition, the researchers found, 90% of children born in the United States between 1951 and 1980 had blood-lead levels higher than the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention threshold. On average, early childhood exposure to lead resulted in a 2.6-point drop in IQ per person.
“Most of what we think of as the Lost Generation and the Greatest Generation and Baby Boomers had a moderate amount of lead exposure,” Matt Hauer, PhD, one of the coauthors and an assistant professor of sociology at Florida State University, Tallahassee, said in a statement.
“Generation X was exposed to very high amounts of lead, and now Millennials and the generation following them have been exposed to very low amounts of lead,” he said.
The findings were “infuriating” because scientists have long known that lead exposure is harmful, Michael McFarland, PhD, coauthor and an associate professor of sociology at Florida State University, Tallahassee, told The Associated Press.
The research team analyzed blood-lead levels, census data, and the use of leaded gasoline to understand how widespread early childhood lead exposure was in the United States between 1940 and 2015. They looked mostly at exposure caused by leaded gasoline, which was the dominant form of exposure between the 1940s and 1980s.
They estimated that half of the U.S. adult population in 2015 had been exposed to lead levels that surpassed 5 micrograms per deciliter, which was the CDC threshold at the time. More than 54 million had been exposed to levels above 15 micrograms per deciliter, and 4.5 million were exposed to 30 micrograms per deciliter – or six times the threshold.
They found that estimated lead-linked deficits were greatest for the 21 million people born between 1966 and 1970, who had an average 5.9-point drop in IQ per person.
The United States has put in place tougher regulations to protect Americans from lead poisoning in recent decades, particularly from gasoline. The study team found that blood-lead levels were considerably lower than 5 micrograms per deciliter among those born since 2001.
At the same time, the public health effects of childhood exposure for older generations will last for years to come.
“Childhood lead exposure is not just here and now. It’s going to impact your lifelong health,” Abheet Solomon, a senior program manager at the United Nations Children’s Fund, told the AP.
Childhood lead exposure is known to affect the development of mental skills, and it raises the risk of hypertension, kidney damage, and heart disease. It has been linked to harm in pregnant women and developing children.
“The more tragic part is that we keep making the same … mistakes again,” Bruce Lanphear, MD, a health sciences professor at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, B.C., told the AP.
Dr. Lanphear’s research on lead exposure has found loss of mental skills and IQ as well.
“First it was lead, then it was air pollution. Now it’s PFAS chemicals and phthalates (chemicals used to make plastics more durable),” he said. “And we can’t stop long enough to ask ourselves should we be regulating chemicals differently.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Raise a glass to speed up the brain’s aging process
Drink a day could age your brain
There are many things we can do daily to improve our health: Exercise, read a book, eat an apple (supposedly). Not drink a glass of red wine. Wait, not drink? That’s right. We were told that a glass of red wine each night was doing something good for our hearts, but it’s doing something bad to our brains: Aging them prematurely.
According to a recent study in Nature Communications, drinking half a pint of beer a day could age the brain of a 50-year-old by 6 months. A pint of beer equaled 2 years of aging and a pint and a half aged participants’ brains by 3.5 years.
Compared with people who didn’t drink, those who averaged about two pints of beer or two glasses of wine daily had brains aged 10 years older!
The researchers’ analysis included MRI scans of about 37,000 middle-aged men in the United Kingdom, along with their medical information and drinking habits, Everyday Health reported. They determined volume reductions in two parts of the brain potentially impacted by daily consumption of alcohol: White matter, which controls the senses and communication, and gray matter, which controls cognitive functions such as movement, emotions, and memories.
Normal brain aging is bad enough: Stuff like forgetting why we walked into the kitchen or having a word we want to use on the tips of our tongues. Who knew that happy hour could be speeding up the process?
Bartender, make that mimosa a virgin.
A big dose of meta-cine
The metaverse is big news in the tech world. For those who are less technologically inclined or haven’t thrown a few hundred dollars at a clunky virtual reality headset, the metaverse is a vaguely defined artificial reality world, brought to you by Facebo-, excuse us, Meta, where you hang out with people using a virtual avatar and do various activities, all from the comfort of your own home.
That’s not the most helpful definition, if we’re being honest, and that’s partially because the metaverse, as it’s being pushed by companies such as Meta, is very new and kind of a Wild West. No one really knows what it’ll be used for, but that’s not going to stop big business from pushing to secure their own corners of a new and exciting market, and that brings us to CVS, which is looking to become the first pharmacy in the metaverse.
Specifically, the company is looking to provide the entirety of its health care services – nonemergency medical care, wellness programs, nutrition advice, and counseling – to the metaverse. That makes sense. Telemedicine has become big during the pandemic, and bringing that care to the metaverse could work. Probably overcomplicated, since the sort of person who couldn’t figure out a video call to a doctor probably won’t be spending much time in the metaverse, but hey, if they can make it work, more power to them.
Where things get a bit silly is the online store. CVS looking to sell not only NFTs (because of course it is), but also downloadable virtual goods, including “prescription drugs, health, wellness, beauty, and personal care products,” according to the company’s claim to the U.S. Patent Trade Office. What exactly is a downloadable virtual prescription drug? Excellent question. We’re picturing holographic meatloaf, but the true answer is bound to be sillier than anything SpongeBob and friends could conjure.
Please don’t eat the winner
Hello friends. LOTME Sports welcomes you to the University of Toledo’s Glass Bowl for the wackiest virtual sporting event since Usain Bolt raced against a cheetah.
Hi, I’m Jim Nantz, and we’re here to witness the brainchild of Toledo physics professor Scott Lee, PhD, who posed an unusual question to his students: Is Usain Bolt faster than a 900-pound dinosaur?
Before we get started, though, I’ve got a quick question for my partner in today’s broadcast, Hall of Fame quarterback Peyton Manning: Why is someone who practices physics called a physicist when someone who practices medicine is known as a physician?
Jim, I’m prepared to talk about how Dr. Lee’s students used the concepts of 1D kinematics – displacement, speed, velocity, and acceleration – to determine if a Jamaican sprinter could beat Dilophosaurus wetherilli in a hypothetical race. Heck, it took me 2 days to be able to pronounce Dilophosaurus wetherilli. Don’t get me started on etymology.
Fair enough, my friend. What else can you tell us?
In his article in The Physics Teacher, Dr. Lee noted that recent musculoskeletal models of vertebrate animals have shown that a dinosaur like Dilophosaurus could run about as fast as Usain Bolt when he set the world record of 9.58 seconds for 100 meters in 2009. You might remember Dilophosaurus from “Jurassic Park.” It was the one that attacked the guy who played Newman on “Seinfeld.”
Fascinating stuff, Peyton, but it looks like the race is about to start. And they’re off! Newton’s second law, which says that acceleration is determined by a combination of mass and force, gives the smaller Bolt an early advantage. The dinosaur takes longer to reach maximum running velocity and crosses the line 2 seconds behind the world’s fastest human. Amazing!
Be sure to tune in again next week, when tennis legend Serena Williams takes the court against a hungry velociraptor.
Turning back the egg timer
The idea of getting older can be scary. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could reverse the aging process? Nice, sure, but not possible. Well, it may just be possible for women undergoing assisted reproductive treatment.
It’s generally known that oocytes accumulate DNA damage over time as well, hindering fertility, but a lab in Jerusalem has found a way to reverse the age of eggs.
If you’re wondering how on Earth that was possible, here’s how. Scientists from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem said that they found a previously unknown aging mechanism, which they were able to reverse using antiviral medications, they reported in Aging Cell.
The experiment started on mice eggs, but soon real human eggs were donated. After the procedure, the treated eggs appeared younger, with less of the DNA damage that comes from age. Sperm has not yet been used to test fertility so it is unclear if this will result in something game changing, but the investigators have high hopes.
“Many women are trying to get pregnant aged 40 or over, and we think this could actually increase their level of fertility,” senior investigator Michael Klutstein, PhD, told the Times of Israel. “Within 10 years, we hope to use antiviral drugs to increase fertility among older women.”
We’re counting on you, science! Do your thing!
Drink a day could age your brain
There are many things we can do daily to improve our health: Exercise, read a book, eat an apple (supposedly). Not drink a glass of red wine. Wait, not drink? That’s right. We were told that a glass of red wine each night was doing something good for our hearts, but it’s doing something bad to our brains: Aging them prematurely.
According to a recent study in Nature Communications, drinking half a pint of beer a day could age the brain of a 50-year-old by 6 months. A pint of beer equaled 2 years of aging and a pint and a half aged participants’ brains by 3.5 years.
Compared with people who didn’t drink, those who averaged about two pints of beer or two glasses of wine daily had brains aged 10 years older!
The researchers’ analysis included MRI scans of about 37,000 middle-aged men in the United Kingdom, along with their medical information and drinking habits, Everyday Health reported. They determined volume reductions in two parts of the brain potentially impacted by daily consumption of alcohol: White matter, which controls the senses and communication, and gray matter, which controls cognitive functions such as movement, emotions, and memories.
Normal brain aging is bad enough: Stuff like forgetting why we walked into the kitchen or having a word we want to use on the tips of our tongues. Who knew that happy hour could be speeding up the process?
Bartender, make that mimosa a virgin.
A big dose of meta-cine
The metaverse is big news in the tech world. For those who are less technologically inclined or haven’t thrown a few hundred dollars at a clunky virtual reality headset, the metaverse is a vaguely defined artificial reality world, brought to you by Facebo-, excuse us, Meta, where you hang out with people using a virtual avatar and do various activities, all from the comfort of your own home.
That’s not the most helpful definition, if we’re being honest, and that’s partially because the metaverse, as it’s being pushed by companies such as Meta, is very new and kind of a Wild West. No one really knows what it’ll be used for, but that’s not going to stop big business from pushing to secure their own corners of a new and exciting market, and that brings us to CVS, which is looking to become the first pharmacy in the metaverse.
Specifically, the company is looking to provide the entirety of its health care services – nonemergency medical care, wellness programs, nutrition advice, and counseling – to the metaverse. That makes sense. Telemedicine has become big during the pandemic, and bringing that care to the metaverse could work. Probably overcomplicated, since the sort of person who couldn’t figure out a video call to a doctor probably won’t be spending much time in the metaverse, but hey, if they can make it work, more power to them.
Where things get a bit silly is the online store. CVS looking to sell not only NFTs (because of course it is), but also downloadable virtual goods, including “prescription drugs, health, wellness, beauty, and personal care products,” according to the company’s claim to the U.S. Patent Trade Office. What exactly is a downloadable virtual prescription drug? Excellent question. We’re picturing holographic meatloaf, but the true answer is bound to be sillier than anything SpongeBob and friends could conjure.
Please don’t eat the winner
Hello friends. LOTME Sports welcomes you to the University of Toledo’s Glass Bowl for the wackiest virtual sporting event since Usain Bolt raced against a cheetah.
Hi, I’m Jim Nantz, and we’re here to witness the brainchild of Toledo physics professor Scott Lee, PhD, who posed an unusual question to his students: Is Usain Bolt faster than a 900-pound dinosaur?
Before we get started, though, I’ve got a quick question for my partner in today’s broadcast, Hall of Fame quarterback Peyton Manning: Why is someone who practices physics called a physicist when someone who practices medicine is known as a physician?
Jim, I’m prepared to talk about how Dr. Lee’s students used the concepts of 1D kinematics – displacement, speed, velocity, and acceleration – to determine if a Jamaican sprinter could beat Dilophosaurus wetherilli in a hypothetical race. Heck, it took me 2 days to be able to pronounce Dilophosaurus wetherilli. Don’t get me started on etymology.
Fair enough, my friend. What else can you tell us?
In his article in The Physics Teacher, Dr. Lee noted that recent musculoskeletal models of vertebrate animals have shown that a dinosaur like Dilophosaurus could run about as fast as Usain Bolt when he set the world record of 9.58 seconds for 100 meters in 2009. You might remember Dilophosaurus from “Jurassic Park.” It was the one that attacked the guy who played Newman on “Seinfeld.”
Fascinating stuff, Peyton, but it looks like the race is about to start. And they’re off! Newton’s second law, which says that acceleration is determined by a combination of mass and force, gives the smaller Bolt an early advantage. The dinosaur takes longer to reach maximum running velocity and crosses the line 2 seconds behind the world’s fastest human. Amazing!
Be sure to tune in again next week, when tennis legend Serena Williams takes the court against a hungry velociraptor.
Turning back the egg timer
The idea of getting older can be scary. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could reverse the aging process? Nice, sure, but not possible. Well, it may just be possible for women undergoing assisted reproductive treatment.
It’s generally known that oocytes accumulate DNA damage over time as well, hindering fertility, but a lab in Jerusalem has found a way to reverse the age of eggs.
If you’re wondering how on Earth that was possible, here’s how. Scientists from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem said that they found a previously unknown aging mechanism, which they were able to reverse using antiviral medications, they reported in Aging Cell.
The experiment started on mice eggs, but soon real human eggs were donated. After the procedure, the treated eggs appeared younger, with less of the DNA damage that comes from age. Sperm has not yet been used to test fertility so it is unclear if this will result in something game changing, but the investigators have high hopes.
“Many women are trying to get pregnant aged 40 or over, and we think this could actually increase their level of fertility,” senior investigator Michael Klutstein, PhD, told the Times of Israel. “Within 10 years, we hope to use antiviral drugs to increase fertility among older women.”
We’re counting on you, science! Do your thing!
Drink a day could age your brain
There are many things we can do daily to improve our health: Exercise, read a book, eat an apple (supposedly). Not drink a glass of red wine. Wait, not drink? That’s right. We were told that a glass of red wine each night was doing something good for our hearts, but it’s doing something bad to our brains: Aging them prematurely.
According to a recent study in Nature Communications, drinking half a pint of beer a day could age the brain of a 50-year-old by 6 months. A pint of beer equaled 2 years of aging and a pint and a half aged participants’ brains by 3.5 years.
Compared with people who didn’t drink, those who averaged about two pints of beer or two glasses of wine daily had brains aged 10 years older!
The researchers’ analysis included MRI scans of about 37,000 middle-aged men in the United Kingdom, along with their medical information and drinking habits, Everyday Health reported. They determined volume reductions in two parts of the brain potentially impacted by daily consumption of alcohol: White matter, which controls the senses and communication, and gray matter, which controls cognitive functions such as movement, emotions, and memories.
Normal brain aging is bad enough: Stuff like forgetting why we walked into the kitchen or having a word we want to use on the tips of our tongues. Who knew that happy hour could be speeding up the process?
Bartender, make that mimosa a virgin.
A big dose of meta-cine
The metaverse is big news in the tech world. For those who are less technologically inclined or haven’t thrown a few hundred dollars at a clunky virtual reality headset, the metaverse is a vaguely defined artificial reality world, brought to you by Facebo-, excuse us, Meta, where you hang out with people using a virtual avatar and do various activities, all from the comfort of your own home.
That’s not the most helpful definition, if we’re being honest, and that’s partially because the metaverse, as it’s being pushed by companies such as Meta, is very new and kind of a Wild West. No one really knows what it’ll be used for, but that’s not going to stop big business from pushing to secure their own corners of a new and exciting market, and that brings us to CVS, which is looking to become the first pharmacy in the metaverse.
Specifically, the company is looking to provide the entirety of its health care services – nonemergency medical care, wellness programs, nutrition advice, and counseling – to the metaverse. That makes sense. Telemedicine has become big during the pandemic, and bringing that care to the metaverse could work. Probably overcomplicated, since the sort of person who couldn’t figure out a video call to a doctor probably won’t be spending much time in the metaverse, but hey, if they can make it work, more power to them.
Where things get a bit silly is the online store. CVS looking to sell not only NFTs (because of course it is), but also downloadable virtual goods, including “prescription drugs, health, wellness, beauty, and personal care products,” according to the company’s claim to the U.S. Patent Trade Office. What exactly is a downloadable virtual prescription drug? Excellent question. We’re picturing holographic meatloaf, but the true answer is bound to be sillier than anything SpongeBob and friends could conjure.
Please don’t eat the winner
Hello friends. LOTME Sports welcomes you to the University of Toledo’s Glass Bowl for the wackiest virtual sporting event since Usain Bolt raced against a cheetah.
Hi, I’m Jim Nantz, and we’re here to witness the brainchild of Toledo physics professor Scott Lee, PhD, who posed an unusual question to his students: Is Usain Bolt faster than a 900-pound dinosaur?
Before we get started, though, I’ve got a quick question for my partner in today’s broadcast, Hall of Fame quarterback Peyton Manning: Why is someone who practices physics called a physicist when someone who practices medicine is known as a physician?
Jim, I’m prepared to talk about how Dr. Lee’s students used the concepts of 1D kinematics – displacement, speed, velocity, and acceleration – to determine if a Jamaican sprinter could beat Dilophosaurus wetherilli in a hypothetical race. Heck, it took me 2 days to be able to pronounce Dilophosaurus wetherilli. Don’t get me started on etymology.
Fair enough, my friend. What else can you tell us?
In his article in The Physics Teacher, Dr. Lee noted that recent musculoskeletal models of vertebrate animals have shown that a dinosaur like Dilophosaurus could run about as fast as Usain Bolt when he set the world record of 9.58 seconds for 100 meters in 2009. You might remember Dilophosaurus from “Jurassic Park.” It was the one that attacked the guy who played Newman on “Seinfeld.”
Fascinating stuff, Peyton, but it looks like the race is about to start. And they’re off! Newton’s second law, which says that acceleration is determined by a combination of mass and force, gives the smaller Bolt an early advantage. The dinosaur takes longer to reach maximum running velocity and crosses the line 2 seconds behind the world’s fastest human. Amazing!
Be sure to tune in again next week, when tennis legend Serena Williams takes the court against a hungry velociraptor.
Turning back the egg timer
The idea of getting older can be scary. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could reverse the aging process? Nice, sure, but not possible. Well, it may just be possible for women undergoing assisted reproductive treatment.
It’s generally known that oocytes accumulate DNA damage over time as well, hindering fertility, but a lab in Jerusalem has found a way to reverse the age of eggs.
If you’re wondering how on Earth that was possible, here’s how. Scientists from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem said that they found a previously unknown aging mechanism, which they were able to reverse using antiviral medications, they reported in Aging Cell.
The experiment started on mice eggs, but soon real human eggs were donated. After the procedure, the treated eggs appeared younger, with less of the DNA damage that comes from age. Sperm has not yet been used to test fertility so it is unclear if this will result in something game changing, but the investigators have high hopes.
“Many women are trying to get pregnant aged 40 or over, and we think this could actually increase their level of fertility,” senior investigator Michael Klutstein, PhD, told the Times of Israel. “Within 10 years, we hope to use antiviral drugs to increase fertility among older women.”
We’re counting on you, science! Do your thing!
New carcinogens added to toxicology list
From environmental tobacco smoke to ultraviolet (UV) radiation, diesel exhaust particulates, lead, and now, chronic infection with Helicobacter pylori (H pylori) —the Report on Carcinogens has regularly updated the list of substances known or “reasonably anticipated” to cause cancer.
The 15th report, which is prepared by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) for the Department of Health and Human Services, has 8 new entries, bringing the number of human carcinogens (eg, metals, pesticides, and drugs) on the list to 256. (The first report, released in 1980, listed 26.)
In 1971, then-President Nixon declared “war on cancer” (the second leading cause of death in the United States) and signed the National Cancer Act. In 1978, Congress ordered the Report on Carcinogens, to educate the public and health professionals on potential environmental carcinogenic hazards.
Perhaps disheartening to know that even with 256 entries, the list probably understates the number of carcinogens humans and other creatures are exposed to. But things can change with time. Each list goes through a rigorous round of reviews. Sometimes substances are “delisted” after, for instance, litigation or new research. Saccharin, for example, was removed from the ninth edition. It was listed as “reasonably anticipated” in 1981, based on “sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.” It was removed, however, after extensive review of decades of saccharin use determined that the data were not sufficient to meet current criteria. Further research had revealed, also, that the observed bladder tumors in rats arose from a mechanism not relevant to humans.
Other entries, such as the controversial listing of the cancer drug tamoxifen, walk a fine line between risk and benefit. Tamoxifen, first listed in the ninth report (and still in the 15th report), was included because studies revealed that it could increase the risk of uterine cancer in women. But there also was conclusive evidence that it may prevent or delay breast cancer in women who are at high risk.
Ultimately, the report’s authors make it clear that it is for informative value and guidance, not necessarily a dictate. As one report put it: “Personal decisions concerning voluntary exposures to carcinogenic agents need to be based on additional information that is beyond the scope” of the report.
“As the identification of carcinogens is a key step in cancer prevention,” said Rick Woychik, PhD, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and NTP, “publication of the report represents an important government activity towards improving public health.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
From environmental tobacco smoke to ultraviolet (UV) radiation, diesel exhaust particulates, lead, and now, chronic infection with Helicobacter pylori (H pylori) —the Report on Carcinogens has regularly updated the list of substances known or “reasonably anticipated” to cause cancer.
The 15th report, which is prepared by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) for the Department of Health and Human Services, has 8 new entries, bringing the number of human carcinogens (eg, metals, pesticides, and drugs) on the list to 256. (The first report, released in 1980, listed 26.)
In 1971, then-President Nixon declared “war on cancer” (the second leading cause of death in the United States) and signed the National Cancer Act. In 1978, Congress ordered the Report on Carcinogens, to educate the public and health professionals on potential environmental carcinogenic hazards.
Perhaps disheartening to know that even with 256 entries, the list probably understates the number of carcinogens humans and other creatures are exposed to. But things can change with time. Each list goes through a rigorous round of reviews. Sometimes substances are “delisted” after, for instance, litigation or new research. Saccharin, for example, was removed from the ninth edition. It was listed as “reasonably anticipated” in 1981, based on “sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.” It was removed, however, after extensive review of decades of saccharin use determined that the data were not sufficient to meet current criteria. Further research had revealed, also, that the observed bladder tumors in rats arose from a mechanism not relevant to humans.
Other entries, such as the controversial listing of the cancer drug tamoxifen, walk a fine line between risk and benefit. Tamoxifen, first listed in the ninth report (and still in the 15th report), was included because studies revealed that it could increase the risk of uterine cancer in women. But there also was conclusive evidence that it may prevent or delay breast cancer in women who are at high risk.
Ultimately, the report’s authors make it clear that it is for informative value and guidance, not necessarily a dictate. As one report put it: “Personal decisions concerning voluntary exposures to carcinogenic agents need to be based on additional information that is beyond the scope” of the report.
“As the identification of carcinogens is a key step in cancer prevention,” said Rick Woychik, PhD, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and NTP, “publication of the report represents an important government activity towards improving public health.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
From environmental tobacco smoke to ultraviolet (UV) radiation, diesel exhaust particulates, lead, and now, chronic infection with Helicobacter pylori (H pylori) —the Report on Carcinogens has regularly updated the list of substances known or “reasonably anticipated” to cause cancer.
The 15th report, which is prepared by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) for the Department of Health and Human Services, has 8 new entries, bringing the number of human carcinogens (eg, metals, pesticides, and drugs) on the list to 256. (The first report, released in 1980, listed 26.)
In 1971, then-President Nixon declared “war on cancer” (the second leading cause of death in the United States) and signed the National Cancer Act. In 1978, Congress ordered the Report on Carcinogens, to educate the public and health professionals on potential environmental carcinogenic hazards.
Perhaps disheartening to know that even with 256 entries, the list probably understates the number of carcinogens humans and other creatures are exposed to. But things can change with time. Each list goes through a rigorous round of reviews. Sometimes substances are “delisted” after, for instance, litigation or new research. Saccharin, for example, was removed from the ninth edition. It was listed as “reasonably anticipated” in 1981, based on “sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.” It was removed, however, after extensive review of decades of saccharin use determined that the data were not sufficient to meet current criteria. Further research had revealed, also, that the observed bladder tumors in rats arose from a mechanism not relevant to humans.
Other entries, such as the controversial listing of the cancer drug tamoxifen, walk a fine line between risk and benefit. Tamoxifen, first listed in the ninth report (and still in the 15th report), was included because studies revealed that it could increase the risk of uterine cancer in women. But there also was conclusive evidence that it may prevent or delay breast cancer in women who are at high risk.
Ultimately, the report’s authors make it clear that it is for informative value and guidance, not necessarily a dictate. As one report put it: “Personal decisions concerning voluntary exposures to carcinogenic agents need to be based on additional information that is beyond the scope” of the report.
“As the identification of carcinogens is a key step in cancer prevention,” said Rick Woychik, PhD, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and NTP, “publication of the report represents an important government activity towards improving public health.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
ESC suspension of Russia, Belarus societies sparks controversy
, provoking a heated discussion on whether medical organizations should become involved in politics.
“In the light of the continued aggression against Ukraine by the leaderships of the Russian Federation and Belarus, the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) has temporarily suspended the memberships of the Russian Society of Cardiology and the Belarussian Society of Cardiologists in the ESC,” the ESC statement reads.
“Individuals based in the Russian Federation or in Belarus are excluded from active participation in any ESC event or activity,” it states.
“The ESC very much regrets the effect this may have on individual Russian and Belarussian cardiologists and scientists, but the message to Russian and Belarussian leadership must be distinct and unequivocal,” it adds.
This action from the ESC has provoked a storm of heated discussions on the issue.
In a Twitter thread on the subject, Italian cardiologist Giuseppe Galati, MD, writes: “An astonishing decision by ESC that’s excluding all the Russian and Belarussian scientists from ESC congresses and activities. Treating doctors and scientists as [if] they are Putin and are responsible for the war.”
Dr. Galati adds: “A strong message that brings us to 70 years ago. ESC is promoting exclusion and not inclusion and diversity.”
Another commentator on the thread says: “It is a very unfortunate decision. Science, medicine should not be involved in politics. We are colleagues gathering together during congresses to exchange information for the sake of our patients. Politics should not overshadow this.”
And another added: “I think most cardiologists from Russia will not be able to participate in the events anyway, since international payments will soon be impossible from Russia. But it is wrong to limit the rights of doctors because of their nationality.”
But others support the ESC’s stance. Polish cardiologist Blazej Michalski, MD, says: “I think it is [a] good decision. Russians if they do not actively support dictatorship of Putin, the silence is also an agreement.” He adds: “I am proud of ESC. They did what they were supposed to do.”
A Twitter poll started by Ali Elzieny, MD, a cardiologist from Boston, titled “Do you agree that ESC suspend membership of Russian Society of Cardiology?” as of March 8 had 1,300 votes, with 61% of respondents disagreeing with the ESC decision and 39% in favor.
Medical societies respond
Several other medical societies have issued communications appearing to disagree with the action by the ESC.
The American College of Cardiology issued a statement saying medicine should be above politics.
“The American College of Cardiology believes that patients come first, and now, more than ever, there is a need to rally around our members across the globe to ensure that they have the support and resources they need to care for their patients,” said ACC President Dipti Itchhaporia, MD.
“Medicine is above politics and ACC will not exclude any of our colleagues who are working toward a shared mission of improving heart health. The College has a long history of working across borders to improve heart health and remains committed to that now and in the future. The ACC continues to express its support and concern for our members in the Ukraine and the patients they are working to treat on the frontlines,” the ACC statement added.
The Tele-Cardiology Working Group of the International Society for Telemedicine & eHealth (ISFTEH) also issued a statement disagreeing with the action from the ESC.
“In light of recent events, the cardiology working group of the ISFTEH will not restrict access to its events to cardiologists with regards to their nationality, religious beliefs or other characteristics that may seem discriminatory. We believe medical information should be widely available for all, especially for those doctors that find themselves in difficulty,” it said.
The European Academy of Neurology (EAN) said: “EAN is looking at ways to give practical support to Ukrainian neurologists and healthcare professionals there. EAN is not considering suspension of any individual member based on country of residence or nationality or any National Society member.”
But one oncology professional group has also cut ties with Russia.
The international cancer specialist network, OncoAlert, issued a statement saying it has severed all cooperation with doctors in Russia as part of the Western sanctions.
“The OncoAlert Network is non-political, but we cannot stand idle and not take a stand against this aggression towards our Ukrainian friends & colleagues,” OncoAlert said, adding that it will be pulling out of all collaborations and congresses in Russia. That statement was also greeted with a barrage of criticism on Twitter, mainly from Russian users.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, provoking a heated discussion on whether medical organizations should become involved in politics.
“In the light of the continued aggression against Ukraine by the leaderships of the Russian Federation and Belarus, the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) has temporarily suspended the memberships of the Russian Society of Cardiology and the Belarussian Society of Cardiologists in the ESC,” the ESC statement reads.
“Individuals based in the Russian Federation or in Belarus are excluded from active participation in any ESC event or activity,” it states.
“The ESC very much regrets the effect this may have on individual Russian and Belarussian cardiologists and scientists, but the message to Russian and Belarussian leadership must be distinct and unequivocal,” it adds.
This action from the ESC has provoked a storm of heated discussions on the issue.
In a Twitter thread on the subject, Italian cardiologist Giuseppe Galati, MD, writes: “An astonishing decision by ESC that’s excluding all the Russian and Belarussian scientists from ESC congresses and activities. Treating doctors and scientists as [if] they are Putin and are responsible for the war.”
Dr. Galati adds: “A strong message that brings us to 70 years ago. ESC is promoting exclusion and not inclusion and diversity.”
Another commentator on the thread says: “It is a very unfortunate decision. Science, medicine should not be involved in politics. We are colleagues gathering together during congresses to exchange information for the sake of our patients. Politics should not overshadow this.”
And another added: “I think most cardiologists from Russia will not be able to participate in the events anyway, since international payments will soon be impossible from Russia. But it is wrong to limit the rights of doctors because of their nationality.”
But others support the ESC’s stance. Polish cardiologist Blazej Michalski, MD, says: “I think it is [a] good decision. Russians if they do not actively support dictatorship of Putin, the silence is also an agreement.” He adds: “I am proud of ESC. They did what they were supposed to do.”
A Twitter poll started by Ali Elzieny, MD, a cardiologist from Boston, titled “Do you agree that ESC suspend membership of Russian Society of Cardiology?” as of March 8 had 1,300 votes, with 61% of respondents disagreeing with the ESC decision and 39% in favor.
Medical societies respond
Several other medical societies have issued communications appearing to disagree with the action by the ESC.
The American College of Cardiology issued a statement saying medicine should be above politics.
“The American College of Cardiology believes that patients come first, and now, more than ever, there is a need to rally around our members across the globe to ensure that they have the support and resources they need to care for their patients,” said ACC President Dipti Itchhaporia, MD.
“Medicine is above politics and ACC will not exclude any of our colleagues who are working toward a shared mission of improving heart health. The College has a long history of working across borders to improve heart health and remains committed to that now and in the future. The ACC continues to express its support and concern for our members in the Ukraine and the patients they are working to treat on the frontlines,” the ACC statement added.
The Tele-Cardiology Working Group of the International Society for Telemedicine & eHealth (ISFTEH) also issued a statement disagreeing with the action from the ESC.
“In light of recent events, the cardiology working group of the ISFTEH will not restrict access to its events to cardiologists with regards to their nationality, religious beliefs or other characteristics that may seem discriminatory. We believe medical information should be widely available for all, especially for those doctors that find themselves in difficulty,” it said.
The European Academy of Neurology (EAN) said: “EAN is looking at ways to give practical support to Ukrainian neurologists and healthcare professionals there. EAN is not considering suspension of any individual member based on country of residence or nationality or any National Society member.”
But one oncology professional group has also cut ties with Russia.
The international cancer specialist network, OncoAlert, issued a statement saying it has severed all cooperation with doctors in Russia as part of the Western sanctions.
“The OncoAlert Network is non-political, but we cannot stand idle and not take a stand against this aggression towards our Ukrainian friends & colleagues,” OncoAlert said, adding that it will be pulling out of all collaborations and congresses in Russia. That statement was also greeted with a barrage of criticism on Twitter, mainly from Russian users.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, provoking a heated discussion on whether medical organizations should become involved in politics.
“In the light of the continued aggression against Ukraine by the leaderships of the Russian Federation and Belarus, the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) has temporarily suspended the memberships of the Russian Society of Cardiology and the Belarussian Society of Cardiologists in the ESC,” the ESC statement reads.
“Individuals based in the Russian Federation or in Belarus are excluded from active participation in any ESC event or activity,” it states.
“The ESC very much regrets the effect this may have on individual Russian and Belarussian cardiologists and scientists, but the message to Russian and Belarussian leadership must be distinct and unequivocal,” it adds.
This action from the ESC has provoked a storm of heated discussions on the issue.
In a Twitter thread on the subject, Italian cardiologist Giuseppe Galati, MD, writes: “An astonishing decision by ESC that’s excluding all the Russian and Belarussian scientists from ESC congresses and activities. Treating doctors and scientists as [if] they are Putin and are responsible for the war.”
Dr. Galati adds: “A strong message that brings us to 70 years ago. ESC is promoting exclusion and not inclusion and diversity.”
Another commentator on the thread says: “It is a very unfortunate decision. Science, medicine should not be involved in politics. We are colleagues gathering together during congresses to exchange information for the sake of our patients. Politics should not overshadow this.”
And another added: “I think most cardiologists from Russia will not be able to participate in the events anyway, since international payments will soon be impossible from Russia. But it is wrong to limit the rights of doctors because of their nationality.”
But others support the ESC’s stance. Polish cardiologist Blazej Michalski, MD, says: “I think it is [a] good decision. Russians if they do not actively support dictatorship of Putin, the silence is also an agreement.” He adds: “I am proud of ESC. They did what they were supposed to do.”
A Twitter poll started by Ali Elzieny, MD, a cardiologist from Boston, titled “Do you agree that ESC suspend membership of Russian Society of Cardiology?” as of March 8 had 1,300 votes, with 61% of respondents disagreeing with the ESC decision and 39% in favor.
Medical societies respond
Several other medical societies have issued communications appearing to disagree with the action by the ESC.
The American College of Cardiology issued a statement saying medicine should be above politics.
“The American College of Cardiology believes that patients come first, and now, more than ever, there is a need to rally around our members across the globe to ensure that they have the support and resources they need to care for their patients,” said ACC President Dipti Itchhaporia, MD.
“Medicine is above politics and ACC will not exclude any of our colleagues who are working toward a shared mission of improving heart health. The College has a long history of working across borders to improve heart health and remains committed to that now and in the future. The ACC continues to express its support and concern for our members in the Ukraine and the patients they are working to treat on the frontlines,” the ACC statement added.
The Tele-Cardiology Working Group of the International Society for Telemedicine & eHealth (ISFTEH) also issued a statement disagreeing with the action from the ESC.
“In light of recent events, the cardiology working group of the ISFTEH will not restrict access to its events to cardiologists with regards to their nationality, religious beliefs or other characteristics that may seem discriminatory. We believe medical information should be widely available for all, especially for those doctors that find themselves in difficulty,” it said.
The European Academy of Neurology (EAN) said: “EAN is looking at ways to give practical support to Ukrainian neurologists and healthcare professionals there. EAN is not considering suspension of any individual member based on country of residence or nationality or any National Society member.”
But one oncology professional group has also cut ties with Russia.
The international cancer specialist network, OncoAlert, issued a statement saying it has severed all cooperation with doctors in Russia as part of the Western sanctions.
“The OncoAlert Network is non-political, but we cannot stand idle and not take a stand against this aggression towards our Ukrainian friends & colleagues,” OncoAlert said, adding that it will be pulling out of all collaborations and congresses in Russia. That statement was also greeted with a barrage of criticism on Twitter, mainly from Russian users.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.