Why women develop heart disease later than men decoded

Agencies
October 6, 2017

Toronto, Oct 6: Women have a heart health advantage over men as the interplay between female ovarian hormones and a circadian "clock" molecule protects their cardiac health as they age, a study has found.

The findings, published in the journal Cardiovascular Research, could help prevent heart disease as we grow older.

In earlier studies, researchers from University of Guelph in Canada found that heart attacks were worse for males than for females of similar age.

The study also uncovered a time-of-day effect: heart attacks in males were more severe during sleep.

This led to the idea that the circadian mechanism - tiny clocks in all of our body's cells which regulate our 24-hour day and night processes - might work differently in male and female hearts.

To test that possibility, the researchers studied old mice with a genetic "clock" mutation that desynchronises the circadian mechanism.

"We think of these CLOCK mice as a genetic model of shift work," said Tami Martino, from University of Guelph.

"Surprisingly, ageing male CLOCK mice developed heart disease, but female CLOCK mice did not," said Martino.

Researchers discovered that female heart cells are actually different from those of males.

Cardiolipins in CLOCK male hearts look like those in humans with heart disease, Martino said.

The CLOCK males also had worse cardiac glucose and energy profiles. By contrast, CLOCK female hearts had a healthy cardiolipin profile and better energy, researchers said.

However, the advantage for CLOCK females was lost when the ovaries were removed, a clear sign that hormones such as oestrogen protect the heart even when the circadian mechanism is disturbed, Martino said.

The findings may lead to clinical benefits for women and men, researchers added.

"Maintaining good circadian rhythms is important for achieving healthier and longer lives," Martino said.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
February 23,2020

Los Angeles, Feb 23: According to researchers, if administered quickly, a common medication that reduces bleeding could be a treatment for bleeding stroke.

The Spot Sign and Tranexamic Acid on Preventing ICH Growth - Australasia Trial (STOP-AUST) was a multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 clinical trial using the antifibrinolytic agent tranexamic acid in people with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH).

ICH is a severe form of acute stroke with few treatment options.

Tranexamic acid is currently used to treat or prevent excessive blood loss from trauma, surgery, tooth removal, nosebleeds and heavy menstruation. For this study, one hundred patients with active brain bleeding were given either intravenous tranexamic acid or placebo within 4.5 hours of symptom onset.

Researchers analyzed brain CT scans taken during the 24-hour period after treatment with tranexamic acid or placebo.

Researchers found a trend towards reduced hemorrhage expansion in the group treated with tranexamic acid, especially in those treated within 3 hours of the brain bleed. However, this trend was not statistically significant. The finding was consistent with previous research using the medication.

"Further trials using tranexamic acid are ongoing and focusing on ultra-early treatment - within 2 hours. 

This is where the greatest opportunity for intervention appears to be. Tranexamic acid is inexpensive, safe and widely available. Our results and others provide great impetus for further, focused research using this treatment," Nawaf Yassi said.

Larger trials focused on patient outcomes are required for this therapy to enter routine clinical practice.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
July 15,2020

The first COVID-19 vaccine tested in the US revved up people's immune systems just the way scientists had hoped, researchers reported Tuesday -- as the shots are poised to begin key final testing.

No matter how you slice this, this is good news, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the U.S. government's top infectious disease expert, told The Associated Press.

The experimental vaccine, developed by Fauci's colleagues at the National Institutes of Health and Moderna Inc., will start its most important step around July 27: A 30,000-person study to prove if the shots really are strong enough to protect against the coronavirus.

But Tuesday, researchers reported anxiously awaited findings from the first 45 volunteers who rolled up their sleeves back in March. Sure enough, the vaccine provided a hoped-for immune boost.

Those early volunteers developed what are called neutralizing antibodies in their bloodstream -- molecules key to blocking infection -- at levels comparable to those found in people who survived COVID-19, the research team reported in the New England Journal of Medicine.

This is an essential building block that is needed to move forward with the trials that could actually determine whether the vaccine does protect against infection, said Dr. Lisa Jackson of the Kaiser Permanente Washington Research Institute in Seattle, who led the study.

There's no guarantee but the government hopes to have results around the end of the year -- record-setting speed for developing a vaccine.

The vaccine requires two doses, a month apart.

There were no serious side effects. But more than half the study participants reported flu-like reactions to the shots that aren't uncommon with other vaccines -- fatigue, headache, chills, fever and pain at the injection site. For three participants given the highest dose, those reactions were more severe; that dose isn't being pursued.

Some of those reactions are similar to coronavirus symptoms but they're temporary, lasting about a day and occur right after vaccination, researchers noted.

Small price to pay for protection against COVID, said Dr. William Schaffner of Vanderbilt University Medical Center, a vaccine expert who wasn't involved with the study.

He called the early results a good first step, and is optimistic that final testing could deliver answers about whether it's really safe and effective by the beginning of next year.

It would be wonderful. But that assumes everything's working right on schedule, Schaffner cautioned.

Moderna's share price jumped nearly 15 percent in trading after US markets closed. Shares of the company, based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, have nearly quadrupled this year.

Tuesday's results only included younger adults. The first-step testing later was expanded to include dozens of older adults, the age group most at risk from COVID-19.

Those results aren't public yet but regulators are evaluating them. Fauci said final testing will include older adults, as well as people with chronic health conditions that make them more vulnerable to the virus and Black and Latino populations likewise affected.

Nearly two dozen possible COVID-19 vaccines are in various stages of testing around the world. Candidates from China and Britain's Oxford University also are entering final testing stages.

The 30,000-person study will mark the world's largest study of a potential COVID-19 vaccine so far. And the NIH-developed shot isn't the only one set for such massive U.S. testing, crucial to spot rare side effects. The government plans similar large studies of the Oxford candidate and another by Johnson & Johnson; separately, Pfizer Inc. is planning its own huge study.

Already, people can start signing up to volunteer for the different studies.

People think this is a race for one winner. Me, I'm cheering every one of them on, said Fauci, who directs NIH's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

We need multiple vaccines. We need vaccines for the world, not only for our own country. Around the world, governments are investing in stockpiles of hundreds of millions of doses of the different candidates, in hopes of speedily starting inoculations if any are proven to work.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
March 3,2020

Taking multiple courses of antibiotics within a short span of time may do people more harm than good, suggests new research which discovered an association between the number of prescriptions for antibiotics and a higher risk of hospital admissions.

Patients who have had 9 or more antibiotic prescriptions for common infections in the previous three years are 2.26 times more likely to go to hospital with another infection in three or more months, said the researchers.

Patients who had two antibiotic prescriptions were 1.23 times more likely, patients who had three to four prescriptions 1.33 times more likely and patients who had five to eight 1.77 times more likely to go to hospital with another infection.

"We don't know why this is, but overuse of antibiotics might kill the good bacteria in the gut (microbiota) and make us more susceptible to infections, for example," said Professor Tjeerd van Staa from the University of Manchester in Britain.

The study, published in the journal BMC Medicine, is based on the data of two million patients in England and Wales.

The patient records, from 2000 to 2016, covered common infections such as upper respiratory tract, urinary tract, ear and chest infections and excluded long term conditions such as cystic fibrosis and chronic lung disease.

The risks of going to hospital with another infection were related to the number of the antibiotic prescriptions in the previous three years.

A course is defined by the team as being given over a period of one or two weeks.

"GPs (general physicians) care about their patients, and over recent years have worked hard to reduce the prescribing of antibiotics,""Staa said.

"But it is clear GPs do not have the tools to prescribe antibiotics effectively for common infections, especially when patients already have previously used antibiotics.

"They may prescribe numerous courses of antibiotics over several years, which according to our study increases the risk of a more serious infection. That in turn, we show, is linked to hospital admissions," Staa added.

It not clear why hospital admissions are linked to higher prescriptions and research is needed to show what or if any biological factors exist, said the research team.

"Our hope is that, however, a tool we are working for GPs, based on patient history, will be able to calculate the risks associated with taking multiple courses of antibiotics," said Francine Jury from the University of Manchester.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.