Latest news with #RegionalHealthEurope
Time of India
4 days ago
- Health
- Time of India
This disease might be silently killing millions quietly, says research. Are you at risk?
A recent international study has revealed that millions of people in the US and Europe may be unknowingly living with a dangerous form of fatty liver disease. Published in The Lancet Regional Health Europe, the research indicates that a vast number of individuals are affected by metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), with the majority still undiagnosed. Widespread but Largely Undetected The study examined populations in the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, and France, and found that approximately 20 million people across these countries have the more severe variant of MASLD known as metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH). Alarmingly, only about 2.5 million have received a formal diagnosis. This means roughly three-quarters of those with the disease—an estimated 16.7 million individuals—remain unaware of their condition. MASLD is the updated term for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), and it affects people whose liver contains over 5% fat despite little or no alcohol intake. While many patients only develop the earliest and less severe stage known as simple fatty liver, the disease can progress without symptoms and cause serious damage over time. Progressive and Potentially Fatal MASH, the aggressive form of the disease, is associated with inflammation and can lead to fibrosis, or scarring of the liver. If not managed, it may progress to cirrhosis, a stage marked by irreversible liver damage and potential liver failure. The condition is also linked to higher risks of cardiovascular issues, chronic kidney disease, and liver cancer. The study's findings emphasize the urgency of early diagnosis, especially as MASH is particularly common among people with type 2 diabetes and those who are overweight or obese. Researchers noted that around two-thirds of individuals with type 2 diabetes are thought to have MASLD. Urgent Need for Diagnosis and Treatment Dr. Jeffrey Lazarus, the lead author of the study, stressed the economic and health burden posed by undiagnosed MASH. He pointed out that without a significant increase in diagnosis and treatment, the financial costs to healthcare systems could triple over the next two decades. Prof. Emmanouil Tsochatzis of University College London echoed this warning, stating that over 15 million people in the US and Europe are living with the most severe form of fatty liver disease without knowing it. He warned that both human suffering and economic consequences could worsen significantly if diagnosis rates do not improve. Traditionally, MASH has been diagnosed through liver biopsy, but newer, non-invasive tools such as blood tests, ultrasound, and MRI scans have made screening easier. Experts now recommend that individuals with type 2 diabetes, obesity combined with other risk factors, or persistently elevated liver enzymes undergo regular screening. Potential Role of Weight Loss Medications The study has also brought renewed attention to the potential of weight loss medications to help manage MASH. Dr. Paul Brennan, a hepatologist and co-author of the study, highlighted the promise of GLP-1 agonists like Wegovy and Mounjaro. These drugs work by reducing appetite and slowing digestion, leading to weight loss, which in turn may help reduce fat accumulation and scar tissue in the liver. Michael Betel, president of the Fatty Liver Alliance, stressed that individuals with type 2 diabetes or obesity are often not screened for MASH until significant liver damage has occurred. He called for broader liver health assessments and, when appropriate, the use of weight loss drugs as part of a comprehensive treatment strategy. A separate study released around the same time found that the diabetes drug dapagliflozin not only helps reduce blood sugar but also lowers fat and scarring in the liver, suggesting another potential treatment pathway. Risk Factors and Screening According to health authorities like the NHS, those at greater risk of MASLD include people who are overweight, have type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, metabolic syndrome, or are over the age of 50. Smoking and thyroid disorders may also increase the risk. Doctors typically begin diagnosis with blood tests that show elevated liver enzymes. If abnormalities are detected, further assessments such as imaging scans or liver elastography (FibroScan) are used to evaluate liver fat and fibrosis levels. With the growing prevalence of MASLD and MASH, the study underscores the critical importance of early screening, timely intervention, and broader public health awareness to address this hidden but escalating health threat.
The Guardian
07-02-2025
- Health
- The Guardian
I haven't banned screen time for my kids – I've introduced binge-watching instead
I'm not particularly into banning things in my house, partly out of laziness – enforcement creates conflict, or at least a need for me to get up and do something – and partly out of a dim conviction that the more rule-bound the child, the greater the meltdowns. The kid not allowed snacks between meals goes mad at houses with an open-fridge policy. Inflexible bedtimes create inflexible children. News blackouts designed to preserve the innocence of a child can make the world seem more not less frightening, and so on. The obvious exception to all this is tech, which takes away all of our abilities to self-regulate. Until recently, I imagined there was no amount of slack-jawed screen time that would exhaust my children's appetite for it. This has turned out to be wrong: one child, off sick a few weeks ago, actually looked up bleary-eyed from her iPad after two days of constant usage and expressed a desire to go back to school. More generally, however, they will want more time on it than I think healthy, even as I use the time bought by their screen addiction to feed my own. Until recently, it has seemed as if the messaging around kids and screen use has been broad stroke and premised on assumptions that all forms of engagement are equal. Social media can be harmful to teens because of online bullying, toxicity and skewing their values towards instabullshit but, in general, children need to be on phones and iPads less and that, we are led to believe, is the bottom line. This may well be true; I'm sure it would be better if they were all playing volleyball. But the Eiger-scale task of getting them off screens altogether can seem so overwhelming that it discourages any action at all. This week, there is some consolation to be had, therefore, in research undertaken by Birmingham University and published in the Lancet's Regional Health Europe journal, that suggests the ultimate – and ultimately impossible, or so it feels – goal of banning children from screens can support some shades of nuance. While the research confirmed what we already know, that increased screen time in young people affects mental health, behaviour and sleep patterns, the university research team also discovered that banning phones from schools doesn't actually achieve anything. The study concluded: 'There is no evidence to support that restrictive school phone policies, in their current forms, have a beneficial effect on adolescents' mental health and wellbeing or related outcomes.' These findings seem like a foregone conclusion when you stop and give them some thought; apart from break and lunchtime, school days simply don't afford an opportunity for what happens after school and at the weekend, which is the spectacle of kids engaged in unbroken, multihour screen usage that results in the average child spending between four and six hours on screens a day. Even within that horror statistic there are differentials, however. If I'm bingeing a TV show, I can easily pull down a four-hour shift of back-to-back episodes. There may be better ways to spend time – I'm sure there are – but apart from a vague risk of deep vein thrombosis, I don't think of the activity itself as particularly damaging. Children are more malleable, need to move around more than adults, and should ideally have a life before they turn into couch potatoes. But it is worth making a distinction between different types of screen engagement so that rule-making around it can become more realistic. To this end, it's worth isolating the single most damaging aspect of online culture for kids, which is the dopamine-spiking, attention-nuking, wholly ruinous and entirely nutrition-free feeds on YouTube Shorts, TikTok and Instagram Reels, that have apparently led to gen Z college kids being unable to read a whole novel. Going screen-zero is great if you have the resources to occupy your kids in other ways, but assuming, like most parents, you have neither the time, energy or fine temper to police what happens when you cancel all screen time and tell them to play with each other for four hours after school, there is another way. This seems so obvious but for some reason struck me only recently: they can be on screens, even for hours at a time, but it has to be nutritional content, which is to say either to involve an element of active play – Roblox or Minecraft, where they message and hang out with friends – or actual programming. This revelation has led to a rare enforcement of rules in our house: I won't ban screens, but I will ban short videos. (I make an exception for Bluey webisodes, because they're well made and I am a snob, plus I find the Heeler family soothing.) It's early days, but so far the new rule seems to be working, not least because it makes everyone feel as if they've won. Now I have one child who just ploughed through three seasons of A Series of Unfortunate Events and another embarking on Young Sheldon, which with any luck will keep her going all year. OK it's not volleyball or sticking bits of felt to a toilet roll, or, you know, interacting with each other; but considering the alternative, I'll take it. Emma Brockes is a Guardian columnist
The Guardian
05-02-2025
- Health
- The Guardian
School ban on phones does not improve grades or health, says UK study
Banning smartphones at school does not improve academic grades and children's wellbeing, a study suggests. Researchers from the University of Birmingham did find that spending longer on phones and social media in general was linked to lower grades, poor sleep, disruptive behaviour and a lack of exercise. But these outcomes did not differ between schools that banned phones and those that did not. The study, published in the Lancet's Regional Health Europe journal, also found that attempts to restrict phone use at school did not lower the overall time children spent on their devices throughout the day. The peer-review study compared 1,227 students and 30 secondary schools. It concluded: 'There is no evidence to support that restrictive school phone policies, in their current forms, have a beneficial effect on adolescents' mental health and wellbeing or related outcomes.' But the research found increased screen time affected the mental health, classroom behaviour, physical activity and sleep cycles of students overall. It said: 'This study therefore provides further evidence of the adverse consequences from increased smartphone and social media use, and that lowering phone and social media use is important.' It added: 'Our data suggest that interventions to reduce phone/social media time to positively influence adolescent mental wellbeing are plausible, but that both in-school and outside of school use should be considered in tandem.' Dr Victoria Goodyear, the study's lead author, told the BBC that school phone bans were not an effective way to tackle the negative impacts of overusing phones. She said: 'What we're suggesting is that those bans in isolation are not enough to tackle the negative impact. We need to do more than just ban phones in schools. The study called for a more 'holistic' approach to lowering phone use among students. It said: 'This approach does not necessarily preclude restrictive school mobile phone policies. But these policies would be linked with a wider holistic approach to adolescent mobile phone and social media use.' Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion Joe Ryrie, director of the campaign group Smartphone Free Childhood, described the results of the study as 'somewhat surprising'. He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: 'It's now becoming widely accepted among the educational establishment that kids having access to smartphones during the school day is detrimental for their ability to focus, for safeguarding, for behaviour, and for students mental health.' He added: 'The report concludes that this issue is much bigger than removing smartphones from schools. This is a critical societal issue that requires urgent attention from parents, from schools and from government.' Ryrie urged parents to delay giving smartphones to their children. But he added: 'Far tougher regulation is going to be needed to make social media platforms safer and non-addictive for kids, because the really stark statistic in this report is that the average daily time students spend on their smartphone was four to six hours. That's a terrifying amount of time for children to spend scrolling and swiping.' Last week the education secretary, Bridget Phillipson, rejected calls to bring in a new law to ban phone in classrooms, as she called the Conservative party's proposal a 'headline-grabbing gimmick'. But she also said phones have no place in the classroom and that it was right for schools to take firm action against their use.
