Latest news with #JAMA
Health Line
a day ago
- Health
- Health Line
Chronic Cannabis Use, Including Edibles, Linked to Endothelial Dysfunction
Chronic cannabis use is bad for your heart, whether you smoke it or consume edibles, according to a new study. Researchers found evidence of endothelial dysfunction, an upstream risk factor for cardiovascular disease, in cannabis users regardless of how they used the substance. The research adds to a growing body of research suggesting that cannabis is not benign. New research has linked tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the psychoactive compound in many cannabis products, to impaired vascular function, a known risk factor for cardiovascular disease. A growing body of evidence suggests that smoking THC-containing cannabis likely harms heart health. But far less is known about other forms of cannabis use, such as vaping and edibles. The use of THC-containing cannabis edibles has surged in popularity as legalization has spread across the United States. But a new study published on May 28 in JAMA Cardiology suggests that both modes of cannabis consumption — smoking and ingesting — are associated with endothelial dysfunction, comparable to tobacco smoke in healthy adults. Endothelial dysfunction is a form of heart disease that impairs blood vessels from dilating. Endothelial cells are a thin membrane that lines the inner surface of blood vessels and helps regulate blood flow. 'The bottom line is that smoking marijuana does not appear to avoid the harmful vascular effects of smoking tobacco, and neither does frequent use of THC edibles,' Matthew L. Springer, PhD, professor of medicine at UCSF, and senior author of the research, told Healthline. Other experts agreed, but with some caveats. 'While this study does have limitations, including an inability to prove a direct causal role, it adds to the growing sense that marijuana is not benign, and may be associated with risk for heart disease,' said Nicholas Leeper, MD, professor of vascular surgery and cardiovascular medicine at Stanford Medicine. Leeper was not involved in the study. 'Most prior research has focused on smoking rather than ingesting THC, so this study adds new evidence that edibles may also negatively impact vascular health,' he told Healthline. Effects of cannabis use on vascular function The study, led by researchers at UC San Francisco, examined several measures of vascular health in three distinct groups: chronic cannabis smokers, chronic users of THC edibles, and non-users. The study included 55 participants — males and females with an average age of 31 — who were healthy and had no regular exposure to tobacco through smoking, vaping, or secondhand smoke. Chronic cannabis use was defined as: smoking three or more times per week for at least one year consuming three or more edibles per week for at least one year Cannabis smokers in the study had an average of 10 years of chronic use, while those who took edibles averaged five years. Researchers then studied three distinct measures of vascular function in these groups: Flow-mediated dilation (FMD): How well the blood vessels can relax and widen in response to blood flow — a key function of healthy arteries. Pulse wave velocity (PWV): a widely used measure of arterial stiffness. Nitric oxide (NO) production: NO is essential to heart health and vasodilation. Both cannabis-using groups showed similar declines in FMD — about half as much as non-users — indicating reduced vascular function. Additionally, FMD levels in cannabis users were similar to those reported in tobacco smokers in previous studies. 'Endothelial dysfunction is one of the hallmarks of potential cardiovascular disease later in life,' said Keith C. Ferdinand, MD, FACC, the Gerald S. Berenson Chair in Preventative Cardiology at Tulane University School of Medicine. Ferdinand wasn't involved in the study. 'Although this is not the same as having a heart attack, stroke, hypertension, or other cardiovascular disease, it suggests that in the future, in otherwise healthy persons who use cannabis, there may be an increased risk of vascular disease later,' he continued. Endothelial dysfunction, as measured by FMD, also worsened with heavier use — a pattern known as a dose response: the more participants smoked or consumed, the worse their vascular function became. Researchers also found that when endothelial cells were exposed in vitro to blood serum from cannabis users, NO production dropped significantly, but only in the smoking group, suggesting molecular evidence of dysfunction. This, the authors write, suggests there may be different mechanisms of action depending on the method of cannabis use. 'This discrepancy suggests combustion byproducts (versus THC alone) may drive part of the endothelial injury in smokers,' said Leeper. In contrast to some previous studies, the final measure, PWV, didn't indicate any meaningful difference between cannabis users and non-users. Cannabis and heart health: What are the risks? The study adds to growing evidence that cannabis may harm heart health — regardless of how it's consumed. 'Neither is superior, but there may be an additional harm with smoking beyond that seen with the THC edibles,' said Ferdinand. The study does have limitations. It cannot prove that cannabis use causes endothelial dysfunction — only that the two are linked. Still, it raises the possibility that something inherent in THC may harm heart health, apart from the usual risks of smoking — whether tobacco or cannabis. Especially in a small study like this, firm conclusions about harm can't be drawn, Ferdinand notes. The study focused only on chronic cannabis use, rather than on occasional use. Still, Springer said that based on the dose-response observed, 'if they use relatively little, there's less chance of this adverse effect on the blood vessels.' The clear message to patients and consumers: cannabis is not a benign alternative to tobacco; and though edibles do not share all the same risks as smoking, they aren't harmless either. 'I would caution patients that phrases like 'natural' or 'safer than tobacco' do not mean 'harmless.' Chronic cannabis use — particularly smoking — shows measurable vascular harms. Emphasizing moderation, or ideally cessation, may help reduce their cardiovascular risk,' said Leeper.
Fast Company
a day ago
- Health
- Fast Company
Maternal mental health needs more peer-reviewed research—not RFK's journal ban
This week, JAMA Internal Medicine published the results of a large new study that tracked mothers' health from 2016 to 2023. It found that maternal mental health declined significantly over the past seven years. The crisis we regularly write about in Two Truths, my best-selling Substack on women's and maternal health, is now being reported in one of the world's most respected medical journals. Which journals matter I read the story with interest—not just because I write about women's health for a living, but because I still pay a little bit more attention when I see 'JAMA' in a headline. When I started my career as a health journalist at Men's Health magazine in 2011, we were quickly taught which medical journals mattered most. The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). The Lancet. JAMA. These were the powerhouses. When research appeared in one of them, it carried weight. It still does. The maternal mental health study published this week found, among other things, that in 2016, 1 in 20 mothers rated their mental health as 'poor' or 'fair.' In 2023, that figure rose to 1 in 12. The research underscored the need for immediate and robust interventions in mothers' mental health. Not a niche issue The study wasn't perfect; it was cross-sectional (meaning it examined women at different points versus following them over time) and it relied on self-reported health—a far from flawless strategy. Still, its presence in JAMA Internal Medicine signals what I know and what you know to be true: Maternal mental health is not a niche issue. It's national. Urgent. Undeniable. As my friend and trusted source Dr. Catherine Birndorf, cofounder of the Motherhood Center, told The New York Times, 'We all got much more isolated during COVID. I think coming out of it, people are still trying to figure out, Where are my supports?' The sad truth is that they're still missing; we're actively fighting for them over at Chamber of Mothers. 'Corrupt vessels' But here's the thing that really caught my attention in all of this: Earlier this week, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. suggested potentially banning federal scientists from publishing in leading medical journals, calling The NEJM, The Lancet, and JAMA 'corrupt vessels' of Big Pharma. He proposed creating government-run journals—ones that would 'anoint' scientists with funding from the National Institutes of Health. It's true: Leading medical journals do accept advertising and publish industry-funded studies. There is also a long history of criticism surrounding the influence of pharmaceutical companies in academic publishing. Kennedy's concerns are not new. What's also true is that these journals disclose their funding, have rigorous peer-review processes (where independent experts, usually leaders in a field, assess the research and flag concerns), and have low acceptance rates. They publish research that changes the way medicine is practiced globally, informs policy decisions, and protects patients, particularly women and mothers. (The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations on breast cancer screening, which many clinicians follow, have been published and updated in JAMA; The Lancet regularly highlights maternal mortality disparities; The NEJM has published large-scale trials on critical women's health issues, from cardiovascular disease to hormone replacement therapy.) Program terminated And here's something else you need to know: Last week, I interviewed a leading physician and expert on gestational diabetes at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. She shared a statistic that surprised me (sometimes hard to do when I've been reporting on health for 15 years): Up to one-half of women who have gestational diabetes in pregnancy go on to develop type 2 diabetes within 5 to 10 years of giving birth. The landmark study that laid the groundwork for understanding diabetes prevention in high-risk groups, including women with a history of gestational diabetes? It was called the Diabetes Prevention Program, and it was first published in The NEJM in 2002. Recently, under Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s leadership—an administration that claims to be committed to 'ending chronic illness'—that program was terminated. Holding institutions accountable I'm not a doctor, scientist, or researcher. I'm trained as a health reporter. And I trust that training—just as I trust the countless physicians and researchers I've interviewed over the years, many of whom have spent their careers trying to get their work published in the most rigorous medical journals out there. As a journalist, I believe in holding institutions, including medical journals, accountable—especially when it comes to conflicts of interest. That's part of the job. But this administration has attempted to infuse a tremendous amount of chaos and confusion into a whole host of topics, health included. Health is nuanced. So is science. But let's be clear: Suggesting that medical research be limited, controlled, or replaced by 'in-house' publications is dangerous. Defunding evidence-based programs that serve high-risk groups, including mothers, is backward. Supporting high-quality, peer-reviewed research should be the bare minimum for anyone who cares about women's health. Canary in a coal mine In their report, the authors of the new JAMA Internal Medicine study wrote, 'Our findings are supportive of the claim made by some scholars that maternal mortality may be a canary in the coal mine for women's health more broadly.' It's a statement that places maternal health where it belongs: at the center of women's health. As Dr. Tamar Gur, director of the Soter Women's Health Research Program at Ohio State, told The New York Times, 'Now I have something I can point to when I'm seeing a patient and say, 'You're not alone in this.' This is happening nationally, and it's a real problem.' That's the power of credible, peer-reviewed research. That's where real change starts.
Herald Sun
2 days ago
- Health
- Herald Sun
'Make America Healthy Again' report cites nonexistent studies: authors
At least four of the studies cited in a flagship White House report on children's health do not exist, authors listed in the document told AFP Thursday, casting doubt on the paper outlining US Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s agenda. The highly anticipated "Make America Healthy Again" (MAHA) report was released on May 22 by the presidential commission tasked with assessing drivers of childhood chronic disease. But it includes broken citation links and credits authors with papers they say they did not write. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt described the mishaps as "formatting issues" during a press briefing Thursday and said the report will be updated to address them. "It does not negate the substance of the report," said Leavitt, who expressed confidence in Kennedy and his team, and insisted that their work was "backed on good science." The errors were first reported Thursday by NOTUS, a US digital news website affiliated with the nonprofit Allbritton Journalism Institute. Noah Kreski, a Columbia University researcher listed as an author of a paper on adolescent anxiety and depression during the Covid-19 pandemic, told AFP the citation is "not one of our studies" and "doesn't appear to be a study that exists at all." The citation includes a link that purports to send users to an article in the peer-reviewed medical journal JAMA, but which is broken. Jim Michalski, a spokesman for JAMA Network, said it "was not published in JAMA Pediatrics or in any JAMA Network journal." Columbia University epidemiologist Katherine Keyes, who was also listed as an author of the supposed JAMA study, told AFP she does research on the topic but does not know where the statistics credited to her came from, and that she "did not write that paper." "I would be happy to send this information to the MAHA committee to correct the report, although I have not yet received information on where to reach them." - 'Totally fabricated' - Guohua Li, another Columbia University professor apparently named in the citation, said the reference is "totally fabricated" and that he does not even know Kreski. AFP also spoke with Harold Farber, pediatrics professor at Baylor College of Medicine, who said the paper attributed to him "does not exist" nor had he ever collaborated with the co-authors credited in the MAHA report. Similarly, Brian McNeill, spokesperson for Virginia Commonwealth University, confirmed that professor Robert Findling did not author a paper the report says he wrote about advertising of psychotropic medications for youth. A fourth paper on ADHD medication was also not published in the journal Pediatrics in 2008 as claimed in the MAHA report, according to Alex Hulvalchick, media relations specialist for the journal's publisher, the American Academy of Pediatrics. - 'Rife with misinformation' - The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) declined to comment, referring AFP's questions to the White House. At her briefing, Leavitt declined to answer how the report was produced and whether artificial intelligence tools may have been used to craft it, directing those questions back to HHS. The Democratic National Committee blasted the report as "rife with misinformation" in a Thursday press release, saying Kennedy's agency "is justifying its policy priorities with studies and sources that do not exist." Kennedy was approved as health secretary earlier this year despite widespread alarm from the medical community over his history of promoting vaccine misinformation and denying scientific facts. Since taking office, he has ordered the National Institutes of Health to probe the causes of autism -- a condition he has long falsely tied to the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine. The report's chronic disease references appear to nod to that same disproven theory, discredited by numerous studies since the idea first aired in a late 1990s paper based on falsified data. It also criticizes the "over-medicalization" of children, citing surging prescriptions of psychiatric drugs and antibiotics, and blaming "corporate capture" for skewing scientific research. mgs-bmc/sst Originally published as 'Make America Healthy Again' report cites nonexistent studies: authors
National Post
2 days ago
- Health
- National Post
Yes, social media could be making your kids depressed, study finds
Article content Any potential link between social media use and kids' mental health often comes down to a what-came-first conundrum: does more time glued to TikTok, Snapchat or Instagram make youth more depressed, or are distressed kids just more likely to spend more time on social media? Article content Article content A new study suggests it's the former, not the latter, at play. Article content Researchers who followed nearly 12,000 children found the more time nine- and 10-year-olds spend engaged with social media, the more depressive symptoms they have a year or two years later. Article content Kids' social media use soared, on average, from seven to 73 minutes per day, over the three years of the study, and their depressive symptoms rose by 35 per cent, according to the paper, published in JAMA Network Open. Article content Article content 'These findings provide evidence that social media may be contributing to the development of depressive symptoms.' Article content It's not clear why. However, adolescence can make for a 'critical period of vulnerability during which social media exposure may have lasting implications for mental health,' the researchers wrote. Article content Article content 'As a father of two young kids, I know that simply telling children to 'get off your phone' doesn't really work,' Nagata said. Article content Article content 'Parents can lead by example with open, nonjudgmental questions about screen use,' he said. 'Setting screen-free times for the whole family, such as during meals or before bed, can help build healthier habits for everyone, including adults.' Article content The researchers used data from an ongoing study spanning 21 sites, the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study, the biggest longitudinal study — meaning it's following young people over multiple time points — of adolescent health, brain and cognitive development in the U.S. The study recruited children aged nine to 10 from October 2016 to October 2018, and followed them through 2022, when they were 12 to 13.
News.com.au
2 days ago
- Health
- News.com.au
'Make America Healthy Again' report cites nonexistent studies: authors
At least four of the studies cited in a flagship White House report on children's health do not exist, authors listed in the document told AFP Thursday, casting doubt on the paper outlining US Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s agenda. The highly anticipated "Make America Healthy Again" (MAHA) report was released on May 22 by the presidential commission tasked with assessing drivers of childhood chronic disease. But it includes broken citation links and credits authors with papers they say they did not write. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt described the mishaps as "formatting issues" during a press briefing Thursday and said the report will be updated to address them. "It does not negate the substance of the report," said Leavitt, who expressed confidence in Kennedy and his team, and insisted that their work was "backed on good science." The errors were first reported Thursday by NOTUS, a US digital news website affiliated with the nonprofit Allbritton Journalism Institute. Noah Kreski, a Columbia University researcher listed as an author of a paper on adolescent anxiety and depression during the Covid-19 pandemic, told AFP the citation is "not one of our studies" and "doesn't appear to be a study that exists at all." The citation includes a link that purports to send users to an article in the peer-reviewed medical journal JAMA, but which is broken. Jim Michalski, a spokesman for JAMA Network, said it "was not published in JAMA Pediatrics or in any JAMA Network journal." Columbia University epidemiologist Katherine Keyes, who was also listed as an author of the supposed JAMA study, told AFP she does research on the topic but does not know where the statistics credited to her came from, and that she "did not write that paper." "I would be happy to send this information to the MAHA committee to correct the report, although I have not yet received information on where to reach them." - 'Totally fabricated' - Guohua Li, another Columbia University professor apparently named in the citation, said the reference is "totally fabricated" and that he does not even know Kreski. AFP also spoke with Harold Farber, pediatrics professor at Baylor College of Medicine, who said the paper attributed to him "does not exist" nor had he ever collaborated with the co-authors credited in the MAHA report. Similarly, Brian McNeill, spokesperson for Virginia Commonwealth University, confirmed that professor Robert Findling did not author a paper the report says he wrote about advertising of psychotropic medications for youth. A fourth paper on ADHD medication was also not published in the journal Pediatrics in 2008 as claimed in the MAHA report, according to Alex Hulvalchick, media relations specialist for the journal's publisher, the American Academy of Pediatrics. - 'Rife with misinformation' - The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) declined to comment, referring AFP's questions to the White House. At her briefing, Leavitt declined to answer how the report was produced and whether artificial intelligence tools may have been used to craft it, directing those questions back to HHS. The Democratic National Committee blasted the report as "rife with misinformation" in a Thursday press release, saying Kennedy's agency "is justifying its policy priorities with studies and sources that do not exist." Kennedy was approved as health secretary earlier this year despite widespread alarm from the medical community over his history of promoting vaccine misinformation and denying scientific facts. Since taking office, he has ordered the National Institutes of Health to probe the causes of autism -- a condition he has long falsely tied to the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine. The report's chronic disease references appear to nod to that same disproven theory, discredited by numerous studies since the idea first aired in a late 1990s paper based on falsified data. It also criticizes the "over-medicalization" of children, citing surging prescriptions of psychiatric drugs and antibiotics, and blaming "corporate capture" for skewing scientific research.
