Smokers more likely to need spinal surgery, says study

Should you let your babies "cry it out" or rush to their side? Researchers have found that leaving an infant to 'cry it out' from birth up to 18 months does not adversely affect their behaviour development or attachment.

The study, published in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, found that an infant's development and attachment to their parents is not affected by being left to "cry it out" and can actually decrease the amount of crying and duration.

"Only two previous studies nearly 50 or 20 years ago had investigated whether letting babies 'cry it out' affects babies' development. Our study documents contemporary parenting in the UK and the different approaches to crying used," said the study's researcher Ayten Bilgin from the University of Warwick in the UK.

For the study, the researchers followed 178 infants and their mums over 18 months and repeatedly assessed whether parents intervened immediately when a baby cried or let the baby let it cry out a few times or often.

They found that it made little difference to the baby’s development by 18 months.

The use of parent’s leaving their baby to ‘cry it out’ was assessed via maternal report at term, 3, 6 and 18 months and cry duration at term, 3 and 18 months.

Duration and frequency of fussing and crying was assessed at the same ages with the Crying Pattern Questionnaire.

According to the researchers, how sensitive the mother is in interaction with their baby was video-recorded and rated at 3 and 18 months of age.

Attachment was assessed at 18 months using a gold standard experimental procedure, the strange situation test, which assesses how securely an infant is attached to the major caregiver during separation and reunion episodes.

Behavioural development was assessed by direct observation in play with the mother and during assessment by a psychologist and a parent-report questionnaire at 18 months.

Researchers found that whether contemporary parents respond immediately or leave their infant to cry it out a few times to often makes no difference on the short - or longer term relationship with the mother or the infants behaviour.

This study shows that 2/3 of mum's parent intuitively and learn from their infant, meaning they intervene when they were just born immediately, but as they get older the mother waits a bit to see whether the baby can calm themselves, so babies learn self-regulation.

Between 30-40 per cent of deaths from studies in intensive care units from different countries are people with diabetes, said Paul Zimmet, Professor of Diabetes, Monash University, Australia.

Zimmet, who is President International Diabetes Federation, added that the actual mechanism as to why COVID-19 may cause diabetes is as yet unknown, however, several possibilities exist. "COVID-19 is a very destructive and cunning virus and causes terrible damage to tissues including the lungs and pancreas," said Zimmet. Below are excerpts from an exclusive chat with IANS.

Why do you say Diabetes is dynamite if a person has been infected with COVID-19?

There have been many deaths in many countries, e.g. Italy, China, the UK and US among people with diabetes after infection with COVID-19 (SARS-Cov-2).

The mortality tends to be mainly in older Type 2 diabetics. Between 30-40 per cent of deaths from studies in intensive care units from different countries are people with diabetes. This outcome and other complications from the virus, particularly pneumonia, are more likely in people with diabetes which is poorly controlled with high blood sugars (poor metabolic control).

Diabetes is often associated with other chronic conditions, including obesity, hypertension and heart disease compounding the risk. These latter conditions all convey higher risk to COVID-19 infections.

ACE-2, which binds to SARS-Cov-2 and allows the virus to enter human cells is also located in organs and tissues involved in glucose metabolism. Is there solid evidence that virus after entering tissues may cause multiple and complex impairment of glucose metabolism?

The actual mechanism as to why COVID-19 may cause diabetes is as yet unknown.

However, several possibilities exist. Firstly, COVID-19 is a very destructive and cunning virus and causes terrible damage to tissues, including the lungs and pancreas.

A new study just published showed that in miniature lab-grown pancreas, and other cells such as liver, made using human stem cells, COVID-19 caused destruction of the pancreas beta cells that produce insulin.

It is possible that the virus causes disruption of the cells by disrupting cellular metabolism. This is possibly the way it brings about new-onset diabetes. ACE-2 exists in high concentration in the lung as this also explains the terrible lung side effects of COVID-19 infections.

Can COVID-19 lead to a new mechanism of diabetes? Probably a new form of diabetes or a new form of disease?

The COVID-19 virus has only been with us for about 5 months and there is a huge amount that we still must learn about its cunning and devastating ways. The purpose of the Global COVIDIAB Diabetes Registry, a joint initiative of Monash University in Australia, and King’s College London is to gain a much better understanding of how common is the appearance of COVID-19 related diabetes, what form does it take be it type 1 or type 2 or a new form, and how common are the complications that we already know e.g. diabetic keto-acidosis, hyperosmolar coma and high insulin requirements are causing high rates of ill health and mortality worldwide. The knowledge gained will aid our understanding for developing strategies to prevent and treat this terrible virus that has caused destruction globally.

Diabetes is one of the most prevalent chronic diseases in India. According to a recent study, sugar levels of diabetic persons increased by 20 per cent during nationwide lockdown in India to contain COVID-19 outbreak. Even after lockdown was lifted, many people are confined within their home. Do you think lack of physical activity will create more problems for diabetics?

My own major research has been on studying populations with high rates of diabetes, including ethnic Indian communities including India, Mauritius, and Fiji so I am very well aware of this. It is now well established that along with diabetes, that associated poor metabolic control of their diabetes places these people at the highest risk for COVID infection and its devastating complications and the associated morbidity and mortality. And these communities have high prevalence of heart disease as well.

Lockdown not only has deleterious effects on metabolic control of the diabetes through reduced opportunities for exercise to be protective serious consequences of SARS-CoV-2 infection, lockdown usually results in disruption of the regular medical care and the regular monitoring of metabolic control. This may also be partly due to the stress and poor compliance, or inability to afford their medications such as insulin. It may also be compounded by inability to access the care during the pandemic. Nevertheless, we now know that poor metabolic control heightens their risk as described above.

You have said diabetes is itself a pandemic just like Covid-19, and the two pandemics could be clashing. How could governments address this problem?

These are “The Times of COVID-19”. Most nations of the world were totally unprepared for a pandemic of this magnitude. They underestimated its potential impact and the destructive nature of the viral infection. This should prompt all countries to upgrade their guidelines to take into account the lessons learnt on infection control including training of staff specialising in infectious diseases and improved public education and taking their communities into their confidence about the terrible nature of COVID-19. The risks of COVID-19 infection need a much higher priority in the general community, particularly for people with chronic conditions such as diabetes, obesity, and cardiac conditions.

Governments are faced with chronic diseases (NCDs) like diabetes and communicable diseases (CDs) like viral and enteric diseases and TB. In general WHO gives the highest priority to communicable diseases and much less attention and funding to chronic diseases like diabetes (I was an adviser to WHO for many years (about 30) on diabetes and obesity and it was very frustrating to deal with this situation).

This attitude to diabetes, for example, has a flow down effect so that diabetes funding in countries by governments, rich and poor, suffered and was insufficient.

So now we have a COVID-19 pandemic and who are those at highest risk, yes people with diabetes and other NCDs, it is very important that now the two, Diabetes and COVID-19 are clashing face-to-face. This is a major issue that WHO and national governments have to face with equal priority’

Stressed people suffering from diabetes run a greater risk of poor blood glucose levels, what do you suggest to these people?

As mentioned in the answer above, stress is an important factor in upsetting the blood sugar (metabolic) control of diabetes. Additive to this is poor compliance with medications and diet. These and potential associated comorbidities due to other chronic conditions are part of the dynamic dynamite mixture.

Europe, Jan 11: Researchers have revealed the people who drink tea at least three times a week have healthy years of life and longer life expectancy.

The research was published in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology, a journal of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC).

Dr Xinyan Wang, who is the author of the study, said: "Habitual tea consumption is associated with lower risks of cardiovascular disease and all-cause death. The favourable health effects are the most robust for green tea and for long-term habitual tea drinkers."
The analysis that was conducted included about 100,902 participants of the China-PAR project2 with no history of heart attack, stroke, or cancer.

Participants were classified into two groups: Habitual tea drinkers and never or non-habitual tea drinkers and followed-up for a median of 7.3 years.

The analyses estimated that 50-year-old habitual tea drinkers would develop coronary heart disease and stroke 1.41 years later and live 1.26 years longer than those who never or seldom drank tea. Compared with never or non-habitual tea drinkers, the habitual tea consumers had a 20 per cent lower risk of incident heart disease and stroke, 22 per cent lower risk of fatal heart disease and stroke, and 15 per cent decreased risk of all-cause death.

The potential influence of changes in tea drinking behaviour was suspected in a subset of 14,081 participants with assessments at two-time points. The average duration between the two surveys was 8.2 years, and the median follow-up after the second survey was 5.3 years.

Habitual tea drinkers who maintained their habit in both surveys had a 39 per cent lower risk of incident heart disease and stroke, 56 per cent lower risk of fatal heart disease and stroke, and 29 per cent decreased risk of all-cause death compared to consistent never or non-habitual tea drinkers.

Senior author Dr Dongfeng Gu said: "The protective effects of tea were most pronounced among the consistent habitual tea drinking group. Mechanism studies have suggested that the main bioactive compounds in tea, namely polyphenols, are not stored in the body long-term. Thus, frequent tea intake over an extended period may be necessary for the cardioprotective effect."

In a subanalysis by type of tea, drinking green tea was linked with approximately 25 per cent lower risks for incident heart disease and stroke, fatal heart disease and stroke, and all-cause death. However, no significant associations were observed for black tea.
Dr Gu noted that a preference for green tea is unique to East Asia.

Two factors may be at play. First, green tea is a rich source of polyphenols which protect against cardiovascular disease and its risk factors including high blood pressure and dyslipidaemia. Black tea is fully fermented and during this process, polyphenols are oxidised into pigments and may lose their antioxidant effects. Second, black tea is often served with milk, which previous research has shown may counteract the favourable health effects of tea on vascular function.

Gender-specific analyses showed that the protective effects of habitual tea consumption were pronounced and robust across different outcomes for men, but only modest for women. Dr Wang said: "One reason might be that 48 per cent of men were habitual tea consumers compared to just 20 per cent of women. Secondly, women had a much lower incidence of, and mortality from, heart disease and stroke. These differences made it more likely to find statistically significant results among men."

She said: "The China-PAR project is ongoing, and with more person-years of follow-up among women the associations may become more pronounced."

In conclusion, the authors have found that randomised trials are required to validate the results and to illustrate nutritional guidelines and advice for lifestyle.