Many individuals forced to fight an exceptionally aggressive form of the blood cancer acute myeloid leukemia (AML) don’t survive more than five years.

An MIT research team that has already conquered the problem of getting ketchup out of its bottle has now tackled a new category of consumer and manufacturing woe: how to get much thicker materials to slide without sticking or deforming.

Previously housebound patients are now able to walk more freely as a result of electrical stimulation to their spines. Researchers say the small trial of the treatment has gone ‘beyond their wildest dreams’.

Clinics are using “selective success rates” to target older women, the fertility watchdog warns.

Sperm DNA from the testicles of infertile men is often as good as that of ejaculated sperm from fertile men, according to European researchers – a finding that could lead to new treatments for male infertility.

The study shows that on its path from the testicles to ejaculation, sperm DNA can suffer major damage. Researchers said it may be possible to use sperm taken directly from the testicles to fertilise eggs so that infertile men can have children.

Consistency in results

The study was presented at the European Association of Urology Congress, in Barcelona, Spain. Research presented at meetings is typically considered preliminary until published in a peer-reviewed journal.

The investigators took sperm samples from the testicles of 63 infertile men and compared them with ejaculated sperm from the same men. They also analysed ejaculate from 76 fertile men.

“When we looked at ejaculated sperm, we found that the extent of sperm DNA damage was much higher in infertile men than in fertile men, with roughly 15% in fertile men, but 40% in infertile men,” said study author Dr Jonathan Ramsay, a consultant urologist at Imperial College London.

He said it wasn’t surprising to see more DNA damage in ejaculates of infertile men.

“What we didn’t expect was the consistency in these results when we looked at sperm taken directly from the testicles of infertile men, we found that it was of similar quality to that of ejaculated, fertile sperm,” Ramsay said in a meeting news release.

Ramsay said most DNA damage caused in transit from testicles to ejaculation is the result of oxidative stress.

Direct use of testicular sperm

“This occurs when the sperm are subjected to poor lifestyle habits such as poor diet, sitting at a laptop all day or smoking. Diseases such as Crohn’s disease and type 2 diabetes also cause oxidative stress,” he said.

Researcher Sheena Lewis said the findings pave the way for using sperm taken directly from the testicles of infertile men to try to achieve a pregnancy. Lewis is a retired professor at Queens University Belfast in Northern Ireland.

But it’s important to “be aware of what this study does and doesn’t show,” she added in the news release.

“We can’t yet prove that this sperm DNA damage is the main cause of male infertility or [assisted reproductive technology] failure in these men, or that using testicular sperm directly would help improve their chance of getting pregnant, but the work certainly points in that direction,” Lewis said.

According to the US National Institutes of Health, about 15% of American couples are infertile after trying to get pregnant for a year without success.

^{Image credit: iStock}

When couples experience recurrent pregnancy loss, it’s natural for them to want to know why. Now, a new study suggests that sperm DNA damage could be a factor.

Recurrent pregnancy loss is defined as the consecutive loss of three or more pregnancies before 20 weeks’ gestation. It affects up to 2% of couples and, in many cases, it is difficult to identify the cause.

Critical for survival

While women in these couples typically undergo tests to pinpoint a cause, the same is not true of men, according to the study authors.

“However, we know that sperm play an important role in the formation of the placenta, which is critical for survival of an unborn baby,” said lead researcher Dr Channa Jayasena. He is a clinical senior lecturer in endocrinology at Imperial College London, in the United Kingdom.

In the new study, Jayasena’s team compared 50 men in couples that had not suffered miscarriages with 63 men in couples that had recurrent pregnancy loss.

The men were checked for their levels of sex hormones, such as testosterone, and the number and behaviour of their sperm. Their level of sperm DNA damage was also assessed, along with levels of a chemical called reactive oxygen species, which can damage sperm.

Compared with the men in the miscarriage-free couples, men in couples with recurrent pregnancy loss had twice as much sperm DNA damage and four times the amount reactive oxygen species. Damaged sperm DNA is known to reduce fertility, the researchers noted.

Potential for new drug therapies

The new report is scheduled for presentation at the Endocrine Society’s annual meeting, in New Orleans.

“Our study suggests that it may be useful to investigate if male partners of women with recurrent pregnancy loss have abnormalities in their reproductive function,” Jayasena said in a meeting news release.

The findings also open up the potential for new drug therapies. “It may be possible to design future drugs to stop sperm DNA damage to treat couples with recurrent pregnancy loss and reduce the risk of miscarriage,” Jayasena said.

Research presented at medical meetings should be considered preliminary until published in a peer-reviewed journal.

^{Image credit: iStock}

Learning you have a cancer that looks imminently terminal is tough news to swallow.

And new research indicates that when given just one month to live, a significant number of patients still opt for aggressive and often costly interventions, despite little evidence to suggest they’ll help.

A unique population

A study of just over 100 000 patients in the United States found that the urge to undergo ultimately fruitless cancer treatment “is not a rare phenomenon”, said study author Dr Helmneh Sineshaw, of the American Cancer Society.

More than one-quarter underwent active treatment, such as surgery or chemotherapy, in the final weeks of life, said Sineshaw, director of treatment patterns and outcomes research for the cancer society.

“Patients newly diagnosed with metastatic cancer who die soon after diagnosis are a unique population,” he said. The findings suggest a need to better identify people who would fare better with palliative care – aimed at symptom and stress relief – rather than aggressive and expensive treatments.

Dr Richard Schilsky, chief medical officer for the American Society of Clinical Oncology, agreed that this group is “pretty rare”, accounting for just 5% of cancer cases.

“This is a challenging scenario for doctors and patients,” Schilsky added. “But oncologists have an obligation to inform their patients as best as they can about the prognosis, the goals of treatment, and the expectations for benefit and side effects from any treatment plan.”

Decisions vary widely

For those affected, care planning can be very “complex”, said Sineshaw. Decisions involve a tricky interplay of doctors, patients and loved ones, he explained.

“Although there are some guidelines to streamline the decision-making process, a more concerted effort is needed to improve quality of care for these patients,” he said.

For the study, Sineshaw’s team reviewed data from the US National Cancer Data Base on adult patients newly diagnosed with advanced (metastatic) lung, breast, pancreatic and/or colon cancer between 2004 and 2014.

The analysis confirmed that most – about 73% – do not undergo active treatment during their last month of life.

But many do, although decisions vary widely, depending on the type of cancer involved.

For example, less than 1% of advanced pancreatic cancer patients underwent surgery versus more than 28% of colon cancer patients.

How to avoid unnecessary therapies

And while less than 6% of the terminal colon cancer patients opted for chemotherapy, 11% of lung and breast cancer patients did so.

Similarly, just over 1% of the pancreatic cancer patients chose radiation in their final weeks compared to nearly 19% of lung cancer patients (who accounted for about two-thirds of the study patients).

Aggressive treatment was more common among younger patients, those with no other chronic illness apart from cancer, and those with private insurance, said Sineshaw.

Investigators observed that where someone is treated also matters. For example, lung cancer patients who received care at National Cancer Institute-designated centres were 48% more likely to undergo radiation their last month of life compared with patients treated at a community cancer centre.

Ultimately, the research team concluded that more research is needed to determine why so many patients receive ineffective treatment and to learn how to “avoid unnecessary aggressive and expensive therapies” going forward.

No evidence to suggest a benefit

Schilsky emphasised that “sometimes cancer directed-treatment, particularly radiation therapy, is a necessary and important part of palliative care as it can effectively relieve pain, obstruction or minimise severe bleeding.”

But he acknowledged that some patients may not be able to take in expert guidance recommending against treatment when there is no evidence to suggest a benefit.

“It is understandable that some patients will have trouble accepting such recommendations and counselling by hospice, clergy or mental health professionals,” Schilsky said.

The findings were published online in the journal JNCI Cancer Spectrum.

^{Image credit: iStock}

Sleep disorders expert

Dr Alison Bentley is a general practitioner who has consulted in sleep medicine and sleep disorders, in both adults and children of all ages, for almost 30 years. She also researches and publishes on a number of sleep-related topics both in formal research journals and lay publications including as editor of Sleep Matters, an educational newsletter on sleep disorders for doctors.

A small daily dose of nature may be the perfect prescription for stress.

An eight-week study found that people who spent at least 20 minutes a day in places that made them feel connected to nature had significantly lower levels of the stress hormone cortisol.

How often to do it

This so-called “nature pill” could be a low-cost antidote to the negative health impacts of urbanisation and an indoor lifestyle dominated by screen viewing, researchers said.

“We know that spending time in nature reduces stress, but until now it was unclear how much is enough, how often to do it, or even what kind of nature experience will benefit us,” said lead author and associate professor MaryCarol Hunter. She studies social, psychological and ecological aspects of sustainable urban design at the University of Michigan.

The findings were recently published in the journal Frontiers in Psychology.

The study involved 36 city dwellers. “Participants were free to choose the time of day, duration, and the place of their nature experience, which was defined as anywhere outside that in the opinion of the participant, made them feel like they’ve interacted with nature,” Hunter said in a journal news release.

The greatest payoff

“There were a few constraints to minimise factors known to influence stress: take the nature pill in daylight, no aerobic exercise, and avoid the use of social media, internet, phone calls, conversations and reading,” she explained.

For the greatest payoff, you should spend 20 to 30 minutes at least three times a week sitting or walking in a place that provides you with a sense of nature, Hunter said.

This approach could offer a free and natural stress-relieving remedy for some people.

“Health care practitioners can use our results as an evidence-based rule of thumb on what to put in a nature-pill prescription,” Hunter said. “It provides the first estimates of how nature experiences impact stress levels in the context of normal daily life. It breaks new ground by addressing some of the complexities of measuring an effective nature dose.”

^{Image credit: iStock}

So, your diet can do a lot: From weight loss to clearing up your skin, what you put in your body can do wonders. But what about saving the planet? Is what you’re eating putting a strain on the earth’s resources.

According to research, by the year 2050, the ocean water will be mainly acidic. And what about the fact that global temperatures are on the rise. Yes, global warming is not “fake news” but a harsh reality that is not so slowly creeping up on us.

The planetary diet

But what if what we ate could make a difference to where we find ourselves? Well, according to the EAT-Lancet Commission it could. This year the Commission, made up of 30 world-leading experts, figured out a way to feed the world’s population within sustainable planetary boundaries. They introduced a healthy eating plan to not only help with the obesity epidemic but also lessen our negative impacts on the environment.

The EAT-Lancet researchers looked at how to feed more people while reducing greenhouse gas emissions, preventing further species extinction, curbing the expansion of farmland and conserving water.

Read more: 8 brilliant egg substitutes that make your favourite vegan treats even better

Going (mainly) plant-based

Lecturer at North-West University and spokesperson for ADSA (Association for Dietetics in South Africa) Dr Mariaan Wicks describes the planetary health diet as: “…rich in plant-based foods, with fewer animal source foods and limited amounts of added sugars. The planetary health plate consists of approximately half a plate of non-starchy vegetables and fruits, preferably locally produced, fresh and in season.  The other half of the plate should primarily consist of whole grains, plant protein sources such as legumes and nuts, with only modest amounts of unsaturated plant oils and animal sources of proteins.”

The researchers recommend that we reduce our consumption of animal products because its production has the highest detrimental impact on the environment. It also recommends that we limit eating highly processed foods as a means of reducing the harmful effects of food manufacturing and distribution.

According to Dr Wicks, our will to create a more sustainable world for our future generations makes changing our diets inevitable. “The composition of our diets determines the impact of food on the environment, and the food system is where the domains of our health and the health of the environment meet,” she says. “Earth is our home, and it is the only one we have.  The responsibility to take care of the planet falls on each one of us, and therefore, dietary adaptions are essential.”

Making the change

Applying this planetary diet would mean that in South Africa we would need to reduce our intake of animal proteins, added sugars and starchy vegetables. Dr Wicks advises that South Africans can take small steps towards eating more sustainably rather than making sweeping changes.

She provides these simple changes we can all make to help our waistlines and planet.

• Reduce the amount of meat you eat in your daily meal, especially red meat, can contribute greatly to reducing your carbon footprint. Or try to have one day where all your meals are meat-free.
• To reduce dependence on refined starches, experiment with other starchy foods such as brown rice, couscous and whole-wheat pasta.
• Buy fresh, seasonal, locally-produced fruit and vegetables, and limit pre-cut and packaged fruits and vegetables. By doing this you will not only save money but will also dramatically reduce your plastic use.
• Choose water instead of sugar-sweetened beverages. Use reusable bottles to limit your single-use plastic items.

^{This article was originally published onwww.womenshealthsa.co.za}

^{Image credit: iStock}

Chandré Davids