More Dangers From Fructose

By That kiwi guy - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=32395910

Whatever we want to say about glucose consumption, it is still better than consuming fructose, as yet another animal study makes clear; abstract:

Overconsumption of high-fat diet (HFD) and sugar-sweetened beverages are risk factors for developing obesity, insulin resistance, and fatty liver disease. Here we have dissected mechanisms underlying this association using mice fed either chow or HFD with or without fructose- or glucose-supplemented water. In chow-fed mice, there was no major physiological difference between fructose and glucose supplementation. On the other hand, mice on HFD supplemented with fructose developed more pronounced obesity, glucose intolerance, and hepatomegaly as compared to glucose-supplemented HFD mice, despite similar caloric intake. Fructose and glucose supplementation also had distinct effects on expression of the lipogenic transcription factors ChREBP and SREBP1c. While both sugars increased ChREBP-β, fructose supplementation uniquely increased SREBP1c and downstream fatty acid synthesis genes, resulting in reduced liver insulin signaling. In contrast, glucose enhanced total ChREBP expression and triglyceride synthesis but was associated with improved hepatic insulin signaling. Metabolomic and RNA sequence analysis confirmed dichotomous effects of fructose and glucose supplementation on liver metabolism in spite of inducing similar hepatic lipid accumulation. Ketohexokinase, the first enzyme of fructose metabolism, was increased in fructose-fed mice and in obese humans with steatohepatitis. Knockdown of ketohexokinase in liver improved hepatic steatosis and glucose tolerance in fructose-supplemented mice. Thus, fructose is a component of dietary sugar that is distinctively associated with poor metabolic outcomes, whereas increased glucose intake may be protective.

While glucose increased triglycerides, it at least seemed somewhat protective with respect to certain metabolic syndrome phenotypes, while fructose consumption was simply devastating.

Insulin For Gestational Diabetes

This paper may be of interest for those who have gestational diabetes.  Abstract:

BACKGROUND:

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is associated with short- and long-term complications for the mother and her infant. Women who are unable to maintain their blood glucose concentration within pre-specified treatment targets with diet and lifestyle interventions will require anti-diabetic pharmacological therapies. This review explores the safety and effectiveness of insulin compared with oral anti-diabetic pharmacological therapies, non-pharmacological interventions and insulin regimens.

OBJECTIVES:

To evaluate the effects of insulin in treating women with gestational diabetes.

SEARCH METHODS:

We searched Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (1 May 2017), ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (1 May 2017) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA:

We included randomised controlled trials (including those published in abstract form) comparing:a) insulin with an oral anti-diabetic pharmacological therapy;b) with a non-pharmacological intervention;c) different insulin analogues;d) different insulin regimens for treating women with diagnosed with GDM.We excluded quasi-randomised and trials including women with pre-existing type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Cross-over trials were not eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:

Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, risk of bias, and extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy.

MAIN RESULTS:

We included 53 relevant studies (103 publications), reporting data for 7381 women. Forty-six of these studies reported data for 6435 infants but our analyses were based on fewer number of studies/participants.Overall, the risk of bias was unclear; 40 of the 53 included trials were not blinded. Overall, the quality of the evidence ranged from moderate to very low quality. The primary reasons for downgrading evidence were imprecision, risk of bias and inconsistency. We report the results for our maternal and infant GRADE outcomes for the main comparison. Insulin versus oral anti-diabetic pharmacological therapyFor the mother, insulin was associated with an increased risk for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (not defined) compared to oral anti-diabetic pharmacological therapy (risk ratio (RR) 1.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14 to 3.12; four studies, 1214 women; moderate-quality evidence). There was no clear evidence of a difference between those who had been treated with insulin and those who had been treated with an oral anti-diabetic pharmacological therapy for the risk of pre-eclampsia (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.52; 10 studies, 2060 women; moderate-quality evidence); the risk of birth by caesarean section (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.14; 17 studies, 1988 women; moderate-quality evidence); or the risk of developing type 2 diabetes (metformin only) (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.44; two studies, 754 women; moderate-quality evidence). The risk of undergoing induction of labour for those treated with insulin compared with oral anti-diabetic pharmacological therapy may possibly be increased, although the evidence was not clear (average RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.75; three studies, 348 women; I² = 32%; moderate-quality of evidence). There was no clear evidence of difference in postnatal weight retention between women treated with insulin and those treated with oral anti-diabetic pharmacological therapy (metformin) at six to eight weeks postpartum (MD -1.60 kg, 95% CI -6.34 to 3.14; one study, 167 women; low-quality evidence) or one year postpartum (MD -3.70, 95% CI -8.50 to 1.10; one study, 176 women; low-quality evidence). The outcomes of perineal trauma/tearing or postnatal depression were not reported in the included studies.For the infant, there was no evidence of a clear difference between those whose mothers had been treated with insulin and those treated with oral anti-diabetic pharmacological therapies for the risk of being born large-for-gestational age (average RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.35; 13 studies, 2352 infants; moderate-quality evidence); the risk of perinatal (fetal and neonatal death) mortality (RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.29 to 2.49; 10 studies, 1463 infants; low-quality evidence);, for the risk of death or serious morbidity composite (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.26; two studies, 760 infants; moderate-quality evidence); the risk of neonatal hypoglycaemia (average RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.52; 24 studies, 3892 infants; low-quality evidence); neonatal adiposity at birth (% fat mass) (mean difference (MD) 1.6%, 95% CI -3.77 to 0.57; one study, 82 infants; moderate-quality evidence); neonatal adiposity at birth (skinfold sum/mm) (MD 0.8 mm, 95% CI -2.33 to 0.73; random-effects; one study, 82 infants; very low-quality evidence); or childhood adiposity (total percentage fat mass) (MD 0.5%; 95% CI -0.49 to 1.49; one study, 318 children; low-quality evidence). Low-quality evidence also found no clear differences between groups for rates of neurosensory disabilities in later childhood: hearing impairment (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.49; one study, 93 children), visual impairment (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.90; one study, 93 children), or any mild developmental delay (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.33 to 3.44; one study, 93 children). Later infant mortality, and childhood diabetes were not reported as outcomes in the included studies.We also looked at comparisons for regular human insulin versus other insulin analogues, insulin versus diet/standard care, insulin versus exercise and comparisons of insulin regimens, however there was insufficient evidence to determine any differences for many of the key health outcomes. Please refer to the main results for more information about these comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:

The main comparison in this review is insulin versus oral anti-diabetic pharmacological therapies. Insulin and oral anti-diabetic pharmacological therapies have similar effects on key health outcomes. The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate, with downgrading decisions due to imprecision, risk of bias and inconsistency.For the other comparisons of this review (insulin compared with non-pharmacological interventions, different insulin analogies or different insulin regimens), there is insufficient volume of high-quality evidence to determine differences for key health outcomes.Long-term maternal and neonatal outcomes were poorly reported for all comparisons.The evidence suggests that there are minimal harms associated with the effects of treatment with either insulin or oral anti-diabetic pharmacological therapies. The choice to use one or the other may be down to physician or maternal preference, availability or severity of GDM. Further research is needed to explore optimal insulin regimens. Further research could aim to report data for standardised GDM outcomes.

BMI, Metabolic Syndrome, And Pancreatic Cancer

Here is study linking higher BMI, and higher fasting insulin levels (metabolic syndrome, insulin resistance), with an increased risk for pancreatic cancer.  The burden of morbidity and mortality caused by overweight/obesity is staggering, something to keep in mind when reading all the popular stories on the Internet that attempt to normalize obesity and rant about “fat shaming” and “body shaming.”  Being overweight is literally killing people, why normalize it?  Abstract:

BACKGROUND:

Risk factors for pancreatic cancer include a cluster of metabolic conditions such as obesity, hypertension, dyslipidemia, insulin resistance, and type 2 diabetes. Given that these risk factors are correlated, separating out causal from confounded effects is challenging. Mendelian randomization (MR), or the use of genetic instrumental variables, may facilitate the identification of the metabolic drivers of pancreatic cancer.

METHODS:

We identified genetic instruments for obesity, body shape, dyslipidemia, insulin resistance, and type 2 diabetes in order to evaluate their causal role in pancreatic cancer etiology. These instruments were analyzed in relation to risk using a likelihood-based MR approach within a series of 7110 pancreatic cancer patients and 7264 control subjects using genome-wide data from the Pancreatic Cancer Cohort Consortium (PanScan) and the Pancreatic Cancer Case-Control Consortium (PanC4). Potential unknown pleiotropic effects were assessed using a weighted median approach and MR-Egger sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS:

Results indicated a robust causal association of increasing body mass index (BMI) with pancreatic cancer risk (odds ratio [OR] = 1.34, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.09 to 1.65, for each standard deviation increase in BMI [4.6 kg/m2]). There was also evidence that genetically increased fasting insulin levels were causally associated with an increased risk of pancreatic cancer (OR = 1.66, 95% CI = 1.05 to 2.63, per SD [44.4 pmol/L]). Notably, no evidence of a causal relationship was observed for type 2 diabetes, nor for dyslipidemia. Sensitivity analyses did not indicate that pleiotropy was an important source of bias.

CONCLUSIONS:

Our results suggest a causal role of BMI and fasting insulin in pancreatic cancer etiology.

Insulin Analogs And Breast Cancer Risk

By Bakerstmd - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=39243250

Long-acting insulin analogs are used in the treatment of type 2 diabetes.  Given the possible effects of such drugs on cell signaling pathways, the cancer risk needs to be ascertained.  It has been shown that the drug glargine leads to increased risk of breast cancer for women with type 2 diabetes. Assuming various confounding variables were accounted for, this is a serious issue, and drug side effects always need to be considered when planning treatment.  Abstract:

Purpose The association between long-acting insulin analogs and increased breast cancer risk is uncertain, particularly with the short follow-up in previous studies. We assessed this risk long term in women with type 2 diabetes. Methods A population-based cohort of women 40 years or older, all of whom were treated with long-acting (glargine, detemir) or neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin between 2002 and 2012, was formed using the United Kingdom's Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Women were followed until February 2015 or breast cancer diagnosis. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs of incident breast cancer, comparing long-acting insulin analogs with NPH overall, as well as by duration and cumulative dose. Results The cohort included 22,395 women who received insulin treatment, with 321 incident breast cancer events occurring during up to 12 years of follow-up (incidence rate 3.3 per 1,000 person-years). Compared with NPH insulin, insulin glargine was associated with an increased risk of breast cancer (HR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.11 to 1.85), mainly increasing 5 years after glargine initiation (HR, 2.23; 95% CI, 1.32 to 3.77) and after > 30 prescriptions (HR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.26 to 4.16). The risk was particularly elevated among prior insulin users (HR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.10 to 2.12) but not for new users, which included fewer patients and for which one cannot rule out an HR of 1.81. The risk associated with insulin detemir was not significantly elevated (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.77). Conclusion Long-term use of insulin glargine is associated with an increased risk of breast cancer in women with type 2 diabetes. The risk associated with insulin detemir remains uncertain because there are fewer users of this insulin.