Skip to content

Author: Sima

Published on Leave a comment on Vitamin D and Autism Spectrum Disorder?

This study found impressive results - improvement in autistic behaviors in children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) with four months of daily vitamin D supplementation. Children in the placebo group did not show improvement. A nice aspect of the study was that the children were randomly assigned  to a placebo or a vitamin D group (so that the groups were not self-selected) and it was double-blinded (so no one knew who was getting the vitamins - again to prevent bias). This was a preliminary study - meaning more studies are needed, but it would be amazing if these results hold up... From Science Daily:

Vitamin D supplements may benefit children with autism spectrum disorder

Studies have shown an association between the risk of autism spectrum disorder and vitamin D insufficiency. In this latest study, 109 children with autism spectrum disorder were randomized to receive four months of vitamin D3 supplementation or a placebo."Autism symptoms -- such as hyperactivity, social withdrawal, and others -- improved significantly following vitamin D3 supplementation but not after receiving placebo," said Dr. Khaled Saad, lead author of the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry study.

Excerpts from the original study from  The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry: Randomized controlled trial of vitamin D supplementation in children with autism spectrum disorder

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a frequent developmental disorder characterized by pervasive deficits in social interaction, impairment in verbal and nonverbal communication, and stereotyped patterns of interests and activities. It has been previously reported that there is vitamin D deficiency in autistic children; however, there is a lack of randomized controlled trials of vitamin D supplementation in ASD children.

This study is a double-blinded, randomized clinical trial (RCT) that was conducted on 109 children with ASD (85 boys and 24 girls; aged 3–10 years). The aim of this study was to assess the effects of vitamin D supplementation on the core symptoms of autism in children. ASD patients were randomized to receive vitamin D3 or placebo for 4 months. The serum levels of 25-hydroxycholecalciferol (25 (OH)D) were measured at the beginning and at the end of the study. The autism severity and social maturity of the children were assessed by the Childhood Autism Rating Scale (CARS), .... 
Supplementation of vitamin D was well tolerated by the ASD children. The daily doses used in the therapy group was 300 IU vitamin D3/kg/day, not to exceed 5,000 IU/day. The autism symptoms of the children improved significantly, following 4-month vitamin D3 supplementation, but not in the placebo group. This study demonstrates the efficacy and tolerability of high doses of vitamin D3 in children with ASD.   

Recently, Wang et al. (2016) performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all studies on serum concentration of 25 (OH)D in ASD (Wang et al., 2016). Eleven studies were included, accounting for a total of 870 ASD patients and 782 healthy controls. Serum levels of 25 (OH)D in participants with ASD were significantly lower than those in controls. They concluded that low vitamin D might serve as a risk factor for autism spectrum disorder (Wang et al., 2016). 

In a recent survey, our research group measured 25 (OH)D in 122 ASD children (3–9 years old) and 100 healthy children as controls (Saad, Abdel-Rahman, et al., 2015). The ASD group showed a significantly lower level of serum 25 (OH)D compared with the control group (p < .0001). The study found highly significant inverse correlations between serum 25 (OH)D levels and autism rating scales. In the second part of the previous study (Saad, AbdelRahman, et al., 2015), an open-label trial of 83 subjects who completed a 3-month therapy with high daily doses of vitamin D (300 IU/kg/day) was performed. Collectively, 80.7% of the children with ASD had significantly improved outcome, which was mainly in the sections of the CARS and ABC subscales that measure behavior, stereotypy, eye contact, and attention span (Saad, Abdel-Rahman, et al., 2015). 

Published on Leave a comment on Preventing Food Allergies In Children

Guidelines for how to prevent food allergies in children are changing. Until very recently, it was avoid, avoid, avoid exposing babies or young children to any potential allergens. Remember parents being advised that if an allergy to X (whether pets or food) runs in the family, then absolutely avoid exposing the child to the potential allergen? Well, recent research (here, here, and here) found that the opposite is true - that in the first year of life the baby should be exposed to potential allergens (whether animals or food) which stimulates the child's developing immune system in beneficial ways.

Physicians at a recent conference of allergists said that evidence shows that allergenic foods — including peanuts, eggs, and milk — should be introduced in the first year of life. The new 2017 medical guidelines will recommend introducing small amounts of peanuts (mixed in with other foods), when children are 4 to 6 months of age..

About two years ago a landmark study (LEAP study) found that when infants at a high risk of developing peanut allergy consumed peanuts on a regular basis, their risk of peanut allergy was dramatically reduced. And the opposite was also true: peanut avoidance in the first year of life was associated with a greater frequency of peanut allergy. Which made doctors start to rethink their strategies of how to avoid food allergies. From Medscape:

Allergenic Foods Should Be Introduced to Infants Early

Although the evidence shows that allergenic foods — including peanuts, eggs, and milk — should be introduced in the first year of life, guidelines are lagging behind, said an allergist speaking here at the American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (ACAAI) 2016 Annual Scientific Meeting. Official guidelines to be issued early in 2017 will address only peanuts, recommending introduction when children are 4 to 6 months of age.

"There is now a large body of observation and trial data for other foods, including egg, that show that delaying the introduction of allergenic solids increases the risk of those particular food allergies," said Katrina Allen, MBBS, PhD, from the Murdoch Childrens Research Institute in Melbourne, Australia. Policy changes are needed to help guide parents' decisions, she said. In fact, there is evidence showing that changes to policy — namely, infant-feeding guidelines — mirror the rise in the incidence of food allergies.

Not everyone agrees on exposure amount and timing in the case of egg allergy. In a recent trial, researchers looked at the early introduction of allergenic foods in breast-fed children (N Engl J Med. 2016;374:1733-1743). The prevalence of any food allergy was significantly lower in the early-introduction group than in the standard-introduction group, as was the prevalence of peanut allergy and egg allergy. And a study Dr Allen was involved in, which introduced cooked egg in small amounts, showed that early introduction reduced allergy (J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2010;126:807-813).

However, in a German study, where greater amounts of egg were introduced at 4 to 6 months, early exposure increased the risk for life-threatening allergic reactions (J Allergy Clin Immunol. Published online August 12, 2016). And in the STEP study, there was no change in the number of food allergies in 1-year-old children when egg was introduced early (J Allergy Clin Immunol. Published online August 20, 2016). However, that did not take into account high-risk infants, particularly those with eczema, who are known to have a higher incidence of egg allergy and are likely to see a much greater benefit from the early introduction of egg.

The new peanut guidelines — coauthored by Amal Assa'ad, MD, from the Cincinnati Children's Hospital, who is chair of the ACAAI food allergy committee — will recommend that children with no eczema or egg allergy can be introduced to peanut-containing foods at home, according to the family's preference. And for children with mild to moderate eczema who have already started solid foods, the guidelines say that peanut-containing foods can be introduced at home at around 6 months of age, without the need for an evaluation. However, the guidelines caution, peanut-containing foods should not be the first solid food an infant tries, and an introduction should be made only when the child is healthy. The first feeding should not happen when the child has a cold, is vomiting, or has diarrhea or another illness.

For eggs, there is no official recommendation as of yet....The early introduction of allergenic foods is not the only policy that needs to be changed to lower the incidence of food allergies, Dr Allen told Medscape Medical News. Other factors, particularly environmental factors — mostly written up in observational studies — are contributing to an increasing intolerance to allergenic foods. Policies advocating that kids "get down and dirty," have more exposure to dogs, and bathe less are also warranted....Dr Allen and Dr Assa'ad agree that delaying the introduction of foods such cow's milk and egg until after 12 months is harmful. Guidelines should encourage families to introduce these foods in the first year of life, once solids have commenced at around 6 months, but not before 4 months.

Published on Leave a comment on Air Pollution Linked To Strokes

Study after study finds negative health effects from air pollution, such as heart disease (here, here, and here). Now two more studies found that living in areas with high air pollution is linked to a higher stroke risk. One study (done in Japan) found an increase of ischemic stroke on the same day as exposure to high levels of air pollution, while the other (done in London, UK) found a higher risk of death after stroke (especially ischemic strokes) in patients who live in areas of high air pollution. This was especially pronounced with exposure to smaller or fine particulate matter (PM2.5)- which is found in high quantities in vehicle exhaust fumes.

It is thought that the fine particles in the air (PM2.5) contribute to the development of potentially fatal diseases various ways - by causing chronic inflammation, and also because they slip past the body's defenses and can be absorbed deep into the lungs and bloodstream. They are not sneezed or coughed out the way larger natural particles, like airborne soil and sand, are removed from the body's airways. What can be done? Other studies have found that when air pollution is reduced, than the risk of death is reduced. So yes, pollution controls on vehicles such as trucks and buses are good. And just think how much air pollution will be reduced when electric vehicles replace current gas powered cars and trucks. From Medscape:

Air Pollution Linked to Higher Stroke Mortality

More evidence showing that living in areas with high levels of air pollution is linked to a higher stroke risk has come from two new studies. Both studies are published online in the journal Stroke. The first, from the United Kingdom, shows a higher risk for death after a stroke in patients who live in areas of high air pollution, and the other, a Japanese study, suggests a higher risk for a new stroke the same day as exposure to high levels of air pollution.

"We have shown a significantly increased risk of death after stroke in patients who had long-term exposure to high levels air pollution before their stroke occurred," senior author of the UK study, Charles Wolfe, MD.... "This was particularly pronounced for high exposure to smaller particulate matter — particles below 2.5 μm in diameter (PM2.5) — which are found in high quantities in exhaust fumes." For the study, Professor Wolfe and colleagues analyzed data from the South London Stroke Register, a population-based register covering an urban, multiethnic population.....Results showed an increased risk for death up to 5 years after stroke in patients living in areas of high air pollution.

"While this study adds to the evidence linking air pollution to cardiovascular disease, it cannot prove causality as it has an observational design," Professor Wolfe commented...."So it is difficult to say for certain that it is the air pollution that is responsible but there are many studies now that have shown similar associations," he said. He noted that the smaller particles (PM2.5) were associated with a worse effect on mortality and this correlated with biological studies that have shown a greater inflammatory effect of small particulate matter vs larger particulate matter on the vessel wall. "Our study suggests that people who have previously had an ischemic stroke, but not a hemorrhagic stroke, may be more vulnerable and at a higher risk of death to chronic, long-term exposure of PM," they conclude.

The Japanese study, by lead author Ryu Matsuo, MD, PhD, Department of Health Care Administration and Management Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan, and colleagues, looked at acute exposure to air pollution and shows a small increase in the risk of having a stroke within a day of high exposure to pollution. For the study, the researchers analyzed data on 6885 ischemic stroke patients from a multicenter hospital-based stroke registry in Japan who were previously independent and hospitalized within 24 hours of stroke onset.

Professor Wolfe said his group have conducted a similar study looking at exposure of air pollution in the year before stroke, which showed a 23% increase in stroke risk in those exposed to higher levels of PM2.5. 

Published on Leave a comment on Popular Heartburn Drugs May Increase Stroke Risk

Uh oh - once again a drug taken for a common problem (heartburn) is linked to an unexpected negative health effect (higher risk of strokes). Millions of Americans take proton pump inhibitors  (PPIs) to treat acid reflux and heartburn. They are among the most prescribed drugs in the United States, are frequently taken for long periods of time, and are available over the counter. But according to preliminary research presented at a 2016 American Heart Association conference, these medications may also increase the risk of ischemic stroke. Ischemic strokes, which are the most common type of stroke, occur when a blood clot cuts off blood flow to the brain.

Earlier research has linked proton pump inhibitors to increased risk of dementia in older patients, disruption of gut microbes, increased risk of C. difficile infections, and kidney disease. Stomach acid seems to play a role in the normal balance of microbes in the digestive system. When someone takes PPIs it lowers their amount of stomach acid, and so disrupts the gut microbial community (and these changes last for at least a month after discontinuing the drug).

The research was conducted in Denmark among a quarter-million patients who suffered from stomach pain and indigestion, and were taking one of four PPIs: Prilosec, Protonix, Prevacid or Nexium. Overall, they found that ischemic stroke risk increased by 21% among patients who were taking a PPI. The researchers found either no increased risk or minimal increased risk of stroke when taking low doses of PPIs. But at the highest doses of PPIs, they found that stroke risk increased from 30% (Prevaacid) to a high of 94% (Protonix). Another group of medications used to treat heartburn - called H2 blockers - were not linked to increased stroke risk.

Hey, what this research suggests is that not everything should be treated with pills. Medical professionals agree: the safest and best way to reduce heartburn is by making some lifestyle changes. Eat smaller meals (and not right before bedtime), lose weight if needed, don't eat very fatty meals, drink less alcohol, and don't smoke. From EurekAlert:

Popular heartburn medication may increase ischemic stroke risk

A popular group of antacids known as proton pump inhibitors, or PPIs, used to reduce stomach acid and treat heartburn may increase the risk of ischemic stroke, according to preliminary research presented at the American Heart Association's Scientific Sessions 2016.

"PPIs have been associated with unhealthy vascular function, including heart attacks, kidney disease and dementia," said Thomas Sehested, M.D., study lead author and a researcher at the Danish Heart Foundation in Copenhagen, Denmark. "We wanted to see if PPIs also posed a risk for ischemic stroke, especially given their increasing use in the general population." Ischemic stroke, the most common type of stroke, is caused by clots blocking blood flow to or in the brain.

Researchers analyzed the records of 244,679 Danish patients, average age 57, who had an endoscopy -- a procedure used to identify the causes of stomach pain and indigestion. During nearly six years of follow up, 9,489 patients had an ischemic stroke for the first time in their lives. Researchers determined if the stroke occurred while patients were using 1 of 4 PPIs: omeprazole (Prilosec), pantoprazole (Protonix), lansoprazole (Prevacid) and esomeprazole (Nexium).

For ischemic stroke, researchers found:Overall stroke risk increased by 21 percent when patients were taking a PPI. At the lowest doses of the PPIs, there was slight or no increased stroke risk. At the highest dose for these 4 PPI's, stroke risk increased from 30 percent for lansoprazole (Prevacid) to 94 percent for pantoprazole (Protonix). There was no increased risk of stroke associated with another group of acid-reducing medications known as H2 blockers, which include famotidine (Pepcid) and ranitidine (Zantac).

Authors believe that their findings, along with previous studies, should encourage more cautious use of PPIs. Sehested noted that most PPIs in the United States are now available over the counter. Doctors prescribing PPIs, should carefully consider whether their use is warranted and for how long: "We know that from prior studies that a lot of individuals are using PPIs for a much longer time than indicated, which is especially true for elderly patients."

Published on Leave a comment on The FDA Has Already Stopped Testing For These Pesticides In Foods

An article points out what we should all be concerned with, but is being ignored - pesticide residues of glyphosate (found in Monsanto's Roundup) and 2,4-D in foods. Glyphosate is the most used pesticide in the world, and both glyphosate and 2,4-D pesticide residues in food are set to really increase with the introduction of genetically modified crops resistant to both pesticides (The farmers can spray the pesticides against weeds repeatedly and the crops won't die - they're resistant to the pesticides, so the crops and foods will contain pesticide residues.). Both pesticides are linked to a variety of health problems.

The FDA, under pressure, started analyzing some foods this year for glyphosate residues, but has already stopped due to "problems". When and if they resume is unknown. It is important to know that pesticide residues at varying levels have been found in many foods (here, here, and here). What this chronic low level exposure does to humans is unknown. The only way to avoid or minimize pesticide exposures is to eat organic foods (here, here, and here).

When reading the following excerpts, note that there are no standards for glyphosate residues in honey in the United States. Research by a FDA chemist and a chemist at the University of Iowa found residues of glyphosate at varying levels with a high of 653 parts per billion in one sample (in honey from Iowa) - which is more than 10 times the limit of 50 ppb allowed in the European Union. Other honey samples tested detected glyphosate residues from under 16 ppb to over 123 parts per billion ppb (in honey from Louisiana). I mention this because pesticide residues are an important issue - because we don't know what chronic exposure to mixtures of low levels of pesticides in foods does to us. To babies and children, to pregnant women, to the elderly, to all of us. The following article excerpts are by journalist Carey Gillam, from The Huffington Post:

FDA Suspends Testing for Glyphosate Residues in Food

Government testing for residues of an herbicide that has been linked to cancer has been put on hold, slowing the Food and Drug Administration’s first-ever endeavor to get a handle on just how much of the controversial chemical is making its way into U.S. foods. The FDA, the nation’s chief food safety regulator, launched what it calls a “special assignment” earlier this year to analyze certain foods for residues of the weed killer called glyphosate after the agency was criticized by the U.S. Government Accountability Office for failing to include glyphosate in annual testing programs that look for many less-used pesticides. Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide in the world, and is the key ingredient in Monsanto Co.’s branded Roundup herbicide line.

Glyphosate is under particular scrutiny now after the World Health Organization’s cancer experts last year declared the chemical a probable human carcinogen. Several private groups and nonprofits have been doing their own testing, and have been finding glyphosate residues in varying levels in a range of foods, raising consumer concerns about the pesticide’s presence in the American diet.

The FDA’s residue testing for glyphosate was combined with a broader herbicides analysis program the FDA set in motion in February of this year. But the glyphosate testing has been particularly challenging for the FDA. The agency was finally forced to put the glyphosate residue testing part of the work plan on hold amid confusion, disagreement and difficulties ....FDA spokeswoman Megan McSeveney confirmed the testing suspension and said the agency is not sure when it will resume.....Alongside the testing for glyphosate, the FDA laboratories have also been analyzing foods for 2,4-D and other “acid herbicides,” documents obtained from the FDA show. The category of acid herbicides includes five of the top 10 active ingredients used in homes and gardens. Usage of 2,4-D is expected to triple in the coming year, according to the FDA.

McSeveney said glyphosate residues were only being analyzed in soy, corn, milk and eggs and the popcorn samples, while the other foods are being tested for residues of other herbicides. Earlier this year, one of the agency’s senior chemists also analyzed glyphosate residues in honey and oatmeal and reported his results to the agency. Some honey samples contained residue levels well over the limit allowed in the European Union. The United States has no legal tolerance for glyphosate in honey, though the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said recently it may set one because of the FDA findings. 

With the testing on hold, it is not clear when the agency might have final results on the glyphosate residue analysis. McSeveney said preliminary results showed no violations of legal tolerance levels allowed for glyphosate in the foods tested. She did not provide details on what, if any, levels of residue were found. Tolerance levels are set by the EPA for a variety of pesticides expected to be found in foods. When residue levels are detected above the tolerance levels, enforcement action can be taken against the food producers.

Though FDA annually tests domestic and imported foods for residues of other pesticides, it never tested for glyphosate before. It has not routinely tested for 2,4-D either, a fact also criticized by the GAO. The FDA testing for 2,4-D residues comes as the use of 2,4-D with food crops is expected to start rising due to the commercialization of new formulated herbicide products that combine glyphosate and 2,4-D. Safety questions have been raised about the combination. But the EPA gave a green light on Nov. 1 to a Dow AgroSciences’ herbicide combination of glyphosate and 2,4-D. The new products are intended to counter widespread weed resistance to glyphosate, and be used with new types of genetically engineered herbicide-tolerant crops.

Published on Leave a comment on Probiotics Beneficial In Alzheimer’s Disease?

Interesting preliminary research that suggests that daily intake for 12 weeks of several beneficial bacteria species (Lactobacillus acidophilus, L. casei, L. fermentum, and Bifidobacterium bifidum) resulted in improved mental (cognitive) functioning in 52 people with Alzheimer's Disease. Could this be true - daily probiotics to improve mental functioning in those with Alzheimer's?

Many more studies need to be done, but this is definitely interesting. The nice thing in this study was that the patients were randomly assigned to the groups, and it was "double-blind" so no one knew who got just plain milk and who drank probiotic milk in the study (so no biases to distort results). There were also metabolic and inflammation improvements in those taking the probiotics. From Medical Xpress:

Probiotics improve cognition in Alzheimer's patients

For the first time, scientists have shown that probiotics—beneficial live bacteria and yeasts taken as dietary supplements—can improve cognitive function in humans. In a new clinical trial, scientists show that a daily dose of probiotic Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium bacteria taken over a period of just 12 weeks is enough to yield a moderate but significant improvement in the score of elderly Alzheimer's patients on the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) scale, a standard measure of cognitive impairment.

Probiotics are known to give partial protection against certain infectious diarrheas, irritable bowel syndrome, inflammatory bowel disease, eczema, allergies, colds, tooth decay, and periodontal disease. But scientists have long hypothesized that probiotics might also boost cognition, as there is continuous two-way communication between the intestinal microflora, the gastrointestinal tract, and the brain through the nervous system, the immune system, and hormones (along the so-called "microbiota-gut-brain axis"). In mice, probiotics have indeed been shown to improve learning and memory, and reduce anxiety and depression- and OCD-like symptoms. But prior to the present study there was very limited evidence of any cognitive benefits in humans.

Here, the researchers, from Kashan University of Medical Sciences, Kashan, and Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran, present results from a randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trial on a total of 52 women and men with Alzheimer's between 60 and 95 years of age. Half of the patients daily received 200 ml milk enriched with four probiotic bacteria Lactobacillus acidophilus, L. casei, L. fermentum, and Bifidobacterium bifidum (approximately 400 billion bacteria per species), while the other half received untreated milk.

At the beginning and the end of the 12-week experimental period, the scientists took blood samples for biochemical analyses and tested the cognitive function of the subjects with the MMSE questionnaire, which includes tasks like giving the current date, counting backwards from 100 by sevens, naming objects, repeating a phrase, and copying a picture.

Over the course of the study, the average score on the MMSE questionnaire significantly increased (from 8.7 to 10.6, out of a maximum of 30) in the group receiving probiotics, but not in the control group (from 8.5 to 8.0). Even though this increase is moderate, and all patients remained severely cognitively impaired, these results are important because they are the first to show that probiotics can improve human cognition. Future research, on more patients and over longer time-scales, is necessary to test if the beneficial effects of probiotics become stronger after longer treatment.

Treatment with probiotics also resulted in lower levels of triglycerides, Very Low Density Lipoprotein (VLDL), high-sensitivity C-Reactive Protein (hs-CRP) in the blood of the Alzheimer patients, and likewise a reduction in two common measures (called "Homeostatic Model Assessment", HOMA-IR and HOMA-B) of insulin resistance and the activity of the insulin-producing cells in the pancreas. "These findings indicate that change in the metabolic adjustments might be a mechanism by which probiotics affect Alzheimer's and possibly other neurological disorders," says Salami. "We plan to look at these mechanisms in greater detail in our next study." [The original study.]

Published on Leave a comment on Tobacco Use Is Most Preventable Cause of Cancer

The CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) released a report this week stating that tobacco use is the most preventable cause of cancer, and that 40% of US cancer cases are linked to its use. It is estimated that currently there are more than 36 million smokers in the US. For in depth information, go to the CDC Cancer and Tobacco Use page. They also point out that tobacco smoke has at least 70 chemicals that cause cancer (carcinogens), and that exposure to secondhand smoke also causes cancer and thousands of deaths each year. From Medical Xpress;

Tobacco linked to 40 percent of US cancers

Tobacco use remains the most preventable cause of cancer, and 40 percent of diagnosed US cancer cases may have a link to its use, health authorities said Thursday. Lung cancer, acute myeloid leukemia, and tumors of the mouth and throat, voice box, esophagus, stomach, kidney, pancreas, liver, bladder, cervix, colon and rectum are all caused by tobacco use, according the report by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The CDC Vital Signs report found that every year from 2009 to 2013, about 660,000 people in the United States were diagnosed with a cancer related to tobacco use. About 343,000 people died each year from these cancers. "Three in ten cancer deaths were due to cigarette smoking," said the report. Lung cancer is the top cause of tobacco related smoking, followed by colon cancer and pancreatic cancer.

Published on Leave a comment on Vitamin D and Breast Cancer

Vitamin D deficiency has been implicated in a variety of cancers (here, here, and here). Now a study found that vitamin D levels are linked to the long-term outcome in women with breast cancer. Researchers found that after 7 years, women with the highest levels of vitamin D had about a 30 percent better likelihood of survival from breast cancer than women with the lowest levels of vitamin D, The study put women into one of three groups based on their levels of vitamin D (as measured in the blood 2 months after the initial breast cancer diagnosis): deficient - levels below 20.0 ng/mL; insufficient - 20.0 to 29.9 ng/mL; and sufficient - greater than or equal to 30.0 ng/mL. They found that almost half of the women were vitamin D deficient, and another third were insufficient.

The researchers said the findings "provide compelling observational evidence for inverse associations between vitamin D levels and risk of breast cancer progression and death". In other words, the higher the vitamin D levels, the better the outcome. NOTE: Good vitamin D levels can usually be obtained with one 1000 IU supplement of vitamin D3 per day. Or expose bare skin to sunlight - after all, it is called the "sunshine vitamin". From Medical Xpress:

Higher vitamin D levels associated with better outcomes in breast cancer survivors

Women with higher vitamin D levels in their blood following a breast cancer diagnosis had significantly better long-term outcomes, according to new research from Kaiser Permanente and Roswell Park Cancer Institute....Vitamin D is a nutrient best known for its role in maintaining healthy bones; conversely, vitamin D deficiency has been associated with the risk for several cancers.

Common sources of vitamin D include sun exposure, fatty fish oils, vitamin supplements, and fortified milks and cereals. While the mechanisms for how vitamin D influences breast cancer outcomes are not well understood, researchers believe it may be related to its role in promoting normal mammary-cell development, and inhibiting the reproduction of and promoting the death of cancer cells.

"We found that women with the highest levels of vitamin D levels had about a 30 percent better likelihood of survival than women with the lowest levels of vitamin D," said Lawrence H. Kushi, ScD....principal investigator of Kaiser Permanente's Pathways study of breast cancer survivorship. The current study included 1,666 Pathways study members who provided samples between 2006 and 2013....had a diagnosis of invasive breast cancer in 2006. Participants provided blood samples within two months of diagnosis and answered questions about diet, lifestyle and other risk factors, with follow-ups at six months and at two, four, six and eight years.

"With the extremely rich data sources from a large sample size, we were able to prospectively analyze three major breast cancer outcomes—recurrence, second primary cancer and death," said Song Yao, PhD, associate professor of oncology at Roswell Park Cancer Institute and the study's lead author....In addition to lower overall mortality among all breast cancer survivors studied, the researchers found even stronger associations among premenopausal women in the highest third of vitamin D levels for breast-cancer-specific (63 percent better), recurrence-free (48 percent better) and invasive-disease-free survival (42 percent better), during a median follow up of seven years. [Original study]

Published on Leave a comment on Emulsifiers in Processed Food Linked to Cancer?

An earlier post discussed how emulsifiers (which are added to most processed foods to aid texture and extend shelf life) can alter the the community of microbes that live in our gut (gut microbiota) in such a way as to cause intestinal inflammation. Now the same researchers found that regular consumption of emulsifiers alter intestinal bacteria in a manner that promotes low-grade intestinal inflammation and possibly colorectal cancer.

The emulsifiers used in the study were the commonly used carboxymethylcellulose and polysorbate-80, but some others are soy lecithin, carrageenan, and polyglycerol ester. Processed foods often contain several emulsifiers, and while food regulations limit the amount of each emulsifier present in a particular food product to 1% to 2%, they don’t restrict the number of emulsifiers allowed. The study was done in mice, but the researchers tried to model the level of exposure of humans who eat a lot of processed food. From Science Daily:

Common food additive promotes colon cancer in mice

Emulsifiers, which are added to most processed foods to aid texture and extend shelf life, can alter intestinal bacteria in a manner that promotes intestinal inflammation and colorectal cancer, according to a new study. The findings, published in the journal Cancer Research, show regular consumption of dietary emulsifiers in mice exacerbated tumor development....There is increasing awareness that the intestinal microbiota, the vast, diverse population of microorganisms that inhabits the human intestines, play a role in driving colorectal cancer.

The microbiota is also a key factor in driving Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis, the two most common forms of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). IBD is known to promote colon tumorigenesis and gave rise to the term "colitis-associated cancer." Low-grade inflammation, a condition more prevalent than IBD, was shown to be associated with altered gut microbiota composition and metabolic disease and is observed in many cases of colorectal cancer. These recent findings suggest dietary emulsifiers might be partially responsible for this association.

Previous reports by the Georgia State research team suggested that low-grade inflammation in the intestine is promoted by consumption of dietary emulsifiers, which are detergent-like molecules incorporated into most processed foods that alter the composition of gut microbiota. The addition of emulsifiers to food seems to fit the time frame and had been shown to promote bacterial translocation across epithelial cells. Viennois and Chassaing hypothesized that emulsifiers might affect the gut microbiota in a way that promotes colorectal cancer. They designed experiments in mice to test this possibility.

In this study, the team fed mice with two very commonly used emulsifiers, polysorbate 80 and carboxymethylcellulose, at doses seeking to model the broad consumption of the numerous emulsifiers that are incorporated into the majority of processed foods. Researchers observed that consuming emulsifiers drastically changed the species composition of the gut microbiota in a manner that made it more pro-inflammatory, creating a niche favoring cancer induction and development. Alterations in bacterial species resulted in bacteria expressing more flagellin and lipopolysaccharide, which activate pro-inflammatory gene expression by the immune system.

Published on Leave a comment on Exposure To Harmful Chemicals During Pregnancy Shows Up In the Newborn

An important study was recently published that documents that when pregnant women are exposed to potentially harmful chemicals in the environment around them (environmental pollutants), many of these chemicals also get transferred to the fetus. Many of the 59 chemicals looked for were detected in the newborn babies' umbilical cords (thus the chemicals had crossed the placenta to the fetus during the pregnancy). Some chemicals were measured in higher levels in the umbilical cord than in the mother (as measured in her blood), while only cadmium appeared in mothers, but not in the umbilical cord (thus there was some protection for the fetus from that particular chemical).

This study did not look at the effects on the fetus and newborn from exposure to all these toxic chemicals - it just found that out of 59 chemicals tested for, the median number was 25 in maternal blood and 17 in umbilical cord blood. Eight of the 59 chemicals analyzed were detected in more than 90 percent of both the maternal and cord blood samples - and these included lead and mercury.

The researchers pointed out that no human studies have examined the developmental and reproductive health effects on the fetus and baby from being exposed to multiple chemicals simultaneously during pregnancy - which of course can have bigger risks and negative effects than being exposed to only one chemical at a time. Other studies have already shown that there are negative health effects (adverse neurodevelopmental effects) from a number of these chemicals, such as PCBs, PBDEs, Pb (lead) and Hg (mercury). Bottom line: No one really knows what these mixtures of chemicals do to the developing baby, but it is known that these chemicals have potential health risks. From Futurity:

Mom’s exposure to toxic chemicals shows up in newborn

Low-income and Latina pregnant women in a recent study had widespread exposure to environmental pollutants. In addition, many of the toxins showed up at even higher levels in their newborns. The study is the first in the United States to measure exposure to 59 toxic chemicals in pregnant women and their newborns.

“Pregnant women in the US are exposed to many harmful industrial chemicals that have been linked to premature birth, low birth weight, and birth defects, but estimates of how efficiently pollutants are transferred from mother to fetus have varied widely,” says Tracey Woodruff, professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences and the Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies at the University of California, San Francisco. “Our findings have found that many chemicals do indeed accumulate in the fetal environment and are absorbed at greater levels by fetuses than by the pregnant women themselves. This may have significant consequences for the growing fetus, since many of these chemicals are known to affect development.”

Researchers measured polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), organochlorine pesticides (OCPs), polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), perfluorinated compounds (PFCs), mercury, and lead, among other chemicals. These industrial pollutants are common in the environment, and in previous studies many have been detected in greater than 99 percent of US pregnant women, according to National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data.

“Contrary to previous research, we found evidence that several PCBs and OCPs were often higher in umbilical cord samples than in maternal blood samples,” says Rachel Morello-Frosch,  professor of environmental science, policy and management at the University of California, Berkeley. The study also found that concentrations of mercury and certain PBDEs were often higher in umbilical cord samples than in maternal samples, and for most PFCs and lead, cord blood concentrations were generally equal to or lower than maternal concentrations, which is consistent with previous research.

Almost 80 percent of the chemicals detected in maternal blood samples were also detected in the umbilical cord blood samples, indicating that they passed through the placenta and entered the fetal environment, where they can pose a health risk to the developing baby. For those chemicals detected in at least 20 paired maternal and umbilical cord samples, 77 percent had significant correlations between maternal and umbilical cord concentrations.

The women in the study were participating in the Chemicals in Our Bodies Study, also referred to as the Maternal and Infant Environmental Exposure Project. Of the women participating in the current study, 95 percent had a combined annual household income of less than $40,000, two-thirds were Latina, and a third were born in Mexico, where they may have had less exposure to environmental toxics like the PBDEs found in flame retardants that have been widely used in the US. This demographic is often not well-represented in larger biomonitoring studies, such as NHANES, that form the basis of most of what is known about pregnant women’s exposure to environmental toxics nationally.

The study also provides a first indication of how several different classes of environmental chemicals found in a pregnant woman’s blood are also present in the newborn....From 2010 to 2011, researchers collected maternal blood samples from 77 pregnant women at Zuckerberg San Francisco General. Once they delivered their babies, researchers collected umbilical cord blood samples from 65 of these women. Of those samples tested for all 59 chemicals, the median number was 25 in maternal blood and 17 in umbilical cord blood. Eight of the 59 chemicals analyzed were detected in more than 90 percent of both the maternal and cord blood samples.