How red wine drinking reduces risk factors for breast cancer and Why Nicotine Patches are no Help

Why Nicotine Patches are no Help

A new study, conducted in the "real world" as opposed to under clinical conditions, finds that nicotine patches and gum and other nicotine replacement products designed to help people quit smoking, are no more effective in the long term than quitting without their help, even when combined with counseling. The researchers, from Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) and the University of Massachusetts Boston, said their findings show the importance of conducting studies in the general population and not just relying on clinical studies, which tend to support the idea that nicotine replacement therapies are effective.A report on their findings is due to appear online this week in the BMJ journal Tobacco Control. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved nicotine replacement products in the 1990s, since when they have been available over the counter. The approval came after randomized clinical trials showed that participants who quit with the aid of such products were up to three times more likely to be successful.Gregory Connolly is director of the Center for Global Tobacco Control at HSPH and co-authored this latest study. He told the press their findings show the US regulating authorities should only approve products that have been proven to work in the long term:

 

"What this study shows is the need for the Food and Drug Administration, which oversees regulation of both medications to help smokers quit and tobacco products, to approve only medications that have been proven to be effective in helping smokers quit in the long-term and to lower nicotine in order to reduce the addictiveness of cigarettes."For their study, Connolly, lead author Hillel Alpert, a research scientist at HSPH, and co-author Lois Biener of the University of Massachusetts Boston's Center for Survey Research, followed 787 adult smokers living in Massachusetts and asked them to complete surveys. The recruits joined the study after they had recently quit smoking.

The researchers surveyed the participants at three time periods after quitting: in 2001-2002, in 2003-2004, and in 2005-2006. They asked them whether they had used any nicotine replacement therapies such skin patches, gum, inhalers or nasal sprays to help them give up, and if they had, then what was the longest time they had used them for without a break. They also asked them if they had received any support or professional help, such as from a doctor or counselor, or if they had attended a smoking cessation program.When the researchers analyzed the data they found for each time period, that nearly one third of recent quitters said they had taken up smoking again, and those who had used nicotine replacement products were just as likely to relapse as the ones who had given up without the use of those aids.The researchers also found no difference in relapse rate between heavy and light smokers who used nicotine replacement products.

Alpert said their study showed that using nicotine replacement therapy is "no more effective in helping people stop smoking cigarettes in the long-term than trying to quit on one's own".

He said even though clinical trials had shown nicotine replacement therapies to be effective, their findings highlight the importance of doing empirical studies that look at how effective these aids are in the general population (in the "real world" as opposed to under controlled conditions).

Biener said perhaps we should reconsider putting so much public money behind nicotine replacement therapies, especially if it means less money is available for efforts that research shows to be effective, such as increasing the price of tobacco products, promoting no smoking policies and media campaigns.According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the previous decline in adult smoking rates has levelled out in the last five years.

(BMJ journal Tobacco Control.)

How red wine drinking reduce risk factors for breast cancer

Drinking red wine in moderation may reduce one of the risk factors for breast cancer, providing a natural weapon to combat a major cause of death among U.S. women, new research from Cedars-Sinai Medical Center shows.The study, published online in the Journal of Women’s Health, challenges the widely-held belief that all types of alcohol consumption heighten the risk of developing breast cancer. Doctors long have determined that alcohol increases the body’s estrogen levels, fostering the growth of cancer cells.But the Cedars-Sinai study found that chemicals in the skins and seeds of red grapes slightly lowered estrogen levels while elevating testosterone among premenopausal women who drank eight ounces of red wine nightly for about a month.

White wine lacked the same effect.Researchers called their findings encouraging, saying women who occasionally drink alcohol might want to reassess their choices.

“If you were to have a glass of wine with dinner, you may want to consider a glass of red,” said Chrisandra Shufelt, MD, assistant director of the Women’s Heart Center at the Cedars-Sinai Heart Institute and one of the study’s co-authors. “Switching may shift your risk.”Shufelt noted that breast cancer is the leading type of women’s cancer in the U.S., accounting for more than 230,000 new cases last year, or 30 percent of all female cancer diagnoses. An estimated 39,000 women died from the disease in 2011, according to the American Cancer Society.In the Cedars-Sinai study, 36 women were randomized to drink either Cabernet Sauvignon or Chardonnay daily for almost a month, then switched to the other type of wine. Blood was collected twice each month to measure hormone levels.

Researchers sought to determine whether red wine mimics the effects of aromatase inhibitors, which play a key role in managing estrogen levels. Aromatase inhibitors are currently used to treat breast cancer.Investigators said the change in hormone patterns suggested that red wine may stem the growth of cancer cells, as has been shown in test tube studies.Co-author Glenn D. Braunstein, MD, said the results do not mean that white wine increases the risk of breast cancer but that grapes used in those varieties may lack the same protective elements found in reds.

“There are chemicals in red grape skin and red grape seeds that are not found in white grapes that may decrease breast cancer risk,” said Braunstein, vice president for Clinical Innovation and the James R. Klinenberg, MD, Chair in Medicine. (Journal of Women’s Health)

Warning- A few drinks a week linked to Danger of breast cancer

Womens please watch your Wine or Beer Intake…

Women who drink just a few glasses of wine or beer a week may have a slightly increased breast cancer risk, researchers said Tuesday.Their findings are based on more than 100,000 nurses followed over three decades and add weight to earlier studies linking alcohol to breast cancer and other tumours. "Even at low levels of alcohol consumption, three to six drinks per week, we found a modest increase in risk," said Dr. Wendy Chen of Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, whose findings appear in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

And, she added, "There wasn't a particular period in which it was safe to drink alcohol."But before you put away the Pinot, there are some important caveats to consider.First; it wasn't a huge effect -- about 15 per cent higher risk among drinkers compared with teetotalers. For example, even among women who sipped three to six glasses of wine per week, only 3.3 per cent would develop breast cancer over 10 years. That compares to 2.8 per cent of abstainers and 3.5 per cent of women having up to 13 drinks a week.

Second, there is still no ironclad proof that alcohol itself is to blame, even though the researchers did their best to rule out competing explanations such as smoking or older age. They also adjusted for other influences on breast cancer risk, like whether or not a woman has had children and breastfed."This is an observational study, so we really can't say anything definite about cause and effect," Chen, also of Harvard Medical School, told Reuters Health.Still, she believes the link between drinking and increased breast cancer risk is likely to be causal. Alcohol raises estrogen levels, which play a role in the development of many breast tumours.Overall, the researchers estimate that if drinking really does promote breast cancer, it might be responsible for 10 per cent of all cases in the U.S."The recommendation would not be to stop drinking altogether, but to keep it below the range of three to six glasses a week," Chen said, adding that going over that limit occasionally -- say, during vacation -- would be alright.

But that's not the end of the story because some research suggests a drink a day may be beneficial for the heart.

Just recently, one study of women showed that both light and heavy drinkers lived longer after a heart attack than abstainers.

"One drink a day is a really good target, assuming that a person can be disciplined about that," Dr. James O'Keefe, a cardiologist at St. Luke's Health System in Kansas City, Missouri, told Reuters Health last week.In an editorial published along with the latest findings, Dr. Steven Narod of the Women's College Research Institute in Toronto said the results probably aren't relevant for women with breast cancer. And even for women without the disease, the picture is murky."There are no data to provide assurance that giving up alcohol will reduce breast cancer risk," writes Narod. "Furthermore, women who abstain from all alcohol may find that a potential benefit of lower breast cancer risk is more than offset by the relinquished benefit of reduced cardiovascular mortality associated with an occasional glass of red wine."Chen acknowledged those shortcomings and said her group is currently studying the link between drinking and death from any cause, as well as whether people who stop drinking have a lower risk than those who don't.

(SOURCE: Journal of the American Medical Association)