Diabetic
patients with ovarian cancer who took the drug metformin for their diabetes had
a better survival rate than patients who did not take it, a study headed by Mayo
Clinic shows. The findings, published early online in the journal Cancer, may
play an important role for researchers as they study the use of existing
medications to treat different or new diseases.
Metformin is a widely
prescribed drug to treat diabetes, and previous research by others has shown its
promise for other cancers. The Mayo-led study adds ovarian cancer to the
list.
Researchers compared the survival of 61 patients with ovarian
cancer taking metformin and 178 patients who were not taking metformin.
Sixty-seven percent of the patients who took metformin were surviving after five
years, compared with 47 percent of those who did not take the medication. When
the researchers analyzed factors such as the patients’ body mass index, the
severity of the cancer, type of chemotherapy and quality of surgery, they found
that patients taking metformin were nearly four times likelier to survive,
compared with those not taking the medication.
“Our study demonstrated
improved survival in women with ovarian cancer that were taking metformin,” says
co-author Sanjeev Kumar, M.B.B.S., a Mayo Clinic gynecologic oncology fellow.
“The results are encouraging, but as with any retrospective study, many factors
cannot be controlled for us to say if there is a direct cause and effect.
Rather, this is further human evidence for a potential beneficial effect of a
commonly used drug which is relatively safe in humans. These findings should
provide impetus for prospective clinical trials in ovarian cancer.”
The
results may pave the way for using metformin in large-scale randomized trials in
ovarian cancer, researchers say. Given the high mortality rate of ovarian
cancer, researchers say there is a great need to develop new therapies for
ovarian cancer. Metformin may potentially be one of these options.
Milk
Drinkers May Yet Get Heart-Healthy Omega-3s by the Glass Source: Virginia Tech
(Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University) Not everyone has a taste
for fish, even though it is a natural source of heart-healthy omega-3 fatty
acids.
And while a growing number of omega-3 enriched foods may net
health benefits for people who resist the lure of salmon or sashimi, milk
remains the product that has gotten away in what has become a billion-dollar
health industry.
But now, food science researchers at Virginia Tech may
have reeled milk into the omega-3 delivery system, showing it is possible to
incorporate fish oil into milk and dairy-based beverages in amounts sufficient
to promote heart health, without destroying the product’s taste or limiting its
lifespan.
Even better, the milk passes the sniff test. Twenty-five
volunteers evaluated one-ounce cups of standard 2 percent milk alongside samples
of skim milk containing 78 parts butter oil to 22 parts fish oil in
institutionally approved study conditions.
“We couldn't find any aroma
differences,” said Susan E. Duncan, a professor of food science and technology
in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. “We were concerned the fish oil
would undergo a chemical process called oxidation, which would shorten the
milk’s shelf life, or the milk would acquire a cardboard or paint flavor by
reacting with the fish oil. It appears we have a product that is stable, with no
chemical taste or smell issues.”
The study, featured in the November
issue of the Journal of Dairy Science, tested four different ratios of butter
oil to fish oil in the production of pasteurized, fatty acid-fortified
beverages.
The aroma-free formulation delivered 432 milligrams of
heart-healthy fatty acids per cup, close to the 500 milligram daily target for
healthy people suggested by a broad range of health studies. The U.S. Department
of Agriculture suggests daily consumption of 250 milligrams per day in healthy
adults.
Research has shown omega-3 fatty acids are helpful for preventing
coronary disease, reducing inflammation, assisting infant brain development, and
maintaining brain function.
Meanwhile, the American Heart Association
recommends eating two servings of fatty fish per week, citing research that has
shown omega-3 fatty acids decrease the risk of potentially fatal heart
arrhythmias, decrease triglyceride levels, slow growth of atherosclerotic
plaque, and slightly lower blood pressure.
But fish hasn’t caught on with
everyone, making room for new foods and beverages fortified with omega-3s in an
expanding marketplace. Sales are expected to reach more than $3 billion in 2016,
according to marketing analysts.
“I think the dairy industry can look at
our study and determine whether it is plausible to modify its products,” Duncan
said. “I would like to help people who love milk, yogurt, and dairy, which have
intrinsic nutritional value, address an additional need in their diets,
especially if they don’t like to eat fish or can’t afford it. One of these dairy
servings a day apparently is enough to sustain enough continuous omega-3 to
benefit heart health.”
If such a product catches on with consumers,
Duncan said the next step for researchers is to follow groups of volunteers in
an epidemiological study of whether the food improves health
outcomes.
“Milk was first fortified with Vitamin D as a way to fight
rickets — a disease that leads to soft or weak bones,” said Kerry E. Kaylegian,
a dairy foods research and extension associate with Penn State’s College of
Agricultural Sciences, who was not involved in the research. “It was a good
approach to address a dietary deficiency disease, because so many people drink
milk, which is already loaded with nutrients. This study describes fortification
of milk with omega-3 fatty acids EPA and DHA. We can’t say lack of those
compounds definitively causes cardiac disease, but there is evidence that they
protect us and contribute to heart and brain health. Milk would be a good
delivery vehicle for those nutrients.”
Sleep Duration Affects Hunger
Differently In Men and Women Source: American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM)
Extending sleep duration may help to reduce overeating DARIEN, IL – A new study
suggests that increasing the amount of sleep that adults get could lead to
reduced food intake, but the hormonal process differs between men and
women.
“Restricting sleep in healthy, normal weight participants has
limited effects on metabolic risk factors and may affect food intake regulating
hormones differently in men and women,” said Marie-Pierre St-Onge, PhD, FAHA,
the study’s principal investigator. “We were surprised by the lack of a
significant effect of sleep on glucose and insulin, leptin, and sex differences
in the hunger-stimulating hormone ghrelin and the satiety hormone
GLP-1.”
The study, appearing in the November issue of the journal
SLEEP,
tracked the sleep duration, glucose dysregulation, and hormonal regulation of
appetite in 27 normal weight, 30- to 45-year-old men and women. Participants
provided fasting blood draws, and they were studied under two sleep conditions:
Short (4 hours) or habitual (9 hours). Short sleep increased total ghrelin
levels in men but not women and reduced GLP-1 levels in women but not in men, a
sex difference that has not been reported before. The results suggest that the
common susceptibility to overeat during short sleep is related to increased
appetite in men and reduced feelings of fullness in women.
“Our results
point to the complexity of the relationship between sleep duration and energy
balance regulation,” St-Onge said. “The state of energy balance, whether someone
is in a period of weight loss or weight gain, may be critical in the metabolic
and hormonal responses to sleep restriction.”
According to the authors,
this is the largest controlled clinical investigation of the effects of sleep
reduction on hormonal regulation of food intake. The results support a causal
role of sleep duration on energy intake and weight control.
This article was first published at www.newswise.com