The iron and diabetes study

Discussion in 'Food and nutrition' started by markd, Feb 12, 2004.

  1. markd

    markd Guest

    First I must correct myself, the women didn't have the genetic disease
    which causes abnormal iron storage, it was mentioned and I mistook it as
    part of the study. Here is another story of the same story with
    additional commentary:

    High iron levels may signal diabetes risk, study finds By LINDSEY TANNER, AP Medical Writer
    (Published February 10' 2004) CHICAGO (AP) - Women with high levels of iron in their blood may
    run nearly triple the risk of developing diabetes, a study found.

    The research involved 32,826 healthy women who were followed for 10 years after giving blood
    samples. Type 2 diabetes was diagnosed in 698 of the women. On average, they who had
    significantly higher initial iron levels than the other women.

    If the results are confirmed in further studies, simple blood tests might some day help doctors
    determine which patients will develop diabetes.

    High levels might also indicate, for example, which women should avoid iron supplements, said co-
    author Dr. JoAnn Manson, chief of preventive medicine at Harvard's Brigham and Women's Hospital.

    The findings appear in Wednesday's Journal of the American Medical Association.

    It is known that people with hemochromatosis - an inherited disease that causes the body to
    absorb too much iron from food - are prone to diabetes.

    Elevated iron levels can damage cells and interfere with the functioning of the organs, which may
    affect the body's use of insulin, a hormone that helps convert sugar in the blood into energy,
    the researchers said. Diabetes develops when the body doesn't make enough insulin or cannot use
    it properly.

    Iron is necessary for red blood cell production. High levels may be hereditary or, some data have
    suggested, caused by consuming large amounts of iron-rich foods or high-dose iron pills.

    In the current study, dietary iron was not strongly associated with high blood levels of iron,
    and the results are too preliminary to recommend any lifestyle changes, Manson said.

    The researchers studied blood levels of ferritin, a protein that reflects the amount of iron in
    the body. Normal ferritin levels in women range from 12 to 150 nanograms per milliliter. Average
    levels were 109 in the women who developed diabetes, compared with 71.5 for the others.

    Women in the group with the highest levels - at least 102.2 - were nearly three times more likely
    to develop diabetes than women in the group with the lowest levels, or less than 21.1.

    Dr. David Baldwin, director of endocrinology at Rush University Medical Center, called the study
    inconclusive. He noted that many women with the highest iron levels were still within what is
    considered a normal range.

    Baldwin said routinely testing iron levels would be hard to justify since doctors do not know
    which "normal" levels might be risky.

    A previous study found high iron levels in people who had already developed diabetes, but they
    were thought to reflect inflammation that can occur with diabetes.

    Baldwin said he suspects that is the case with the current study, though the researchers said
    they took inflammation into consideration.
     
    Tags:


  2. Tcomeau

    Tcomeau Guest

    [email protected] wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > First I must correct myself, the women didn't have the genetic disease which causes abnormal iron
    > storage, it was mentioned and I mistook it as part of the study. Here is another story of the same
    > story with additional commentary:
    >
    >
    > High iron levels may signal diabetes risk, study finds By LINDSEY TANNER, AP Medical Writer
    > (Published February 10' 2004) CHICAGO (AP) - Women with high levels of iron in their blood may
    > run nearly triple the risk of developing diabetes, a study found.
    >
    > The research involved 32,826 healthy women who were followed for 10 years after giving blood
    > samples. Type 2 diabetes was diagnosed in 698 of the women. On average, they who had
    > significantly higher initial iron levels than the other women.
    >
    > If the results are confirmed in further studies, simple blood tests might some day help doctors
    > determine which patients will develop diabetes.
    >
    > High levels might also indicate, for example, which women should avoid iron supplements, said
    > co-author Dr. JoAnn Manson, chief of preventive medicine at Harvard's Brigham and Women's
    > Hospital.
    >

    Body Iron Stores in Relation to Risk of Type 2 Diabetes in Apparently Healthy Women Rui Jiang, MD,
    DrPH; JoAnn E. Manson, MD, DrPH; James B. Meigs, MD, MPH; Jing Ma, MD, PhD; Nader Rifai, PhD; Frank
    B. Hu, MD, PhD

    About the authors:

    JoAnne E. Manson, Harvard Medical School. Paid consultant to Interneuron, maker of obesity drug
    Redux (fenfluramine) for several months in 1995. (New York Times, 8/29/96; Lingua Franca, June/July,
    1997; p. 54)

    Nader Rifai, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Research on the effect of statin therapy on protein
    levels supported in part by Bristol-Myers Squibb. (JAMA 2001;286:64-70)

    This is what they reported for affiliations:
    --------
    Author Affiliations: Departments of Nutrition (Drs Jiang and Hu) and Epidemiology (Drs Jiang,
    Manson, and Hu), Harvard School of Public Health; Division of Preventive Medicine (Dr Manson),
    Departments of Medicine (Drs Meigs and Rifai) and Pathology (Dr Rifai), Harvard Medical School;
    General Medicine Division, Brigham and Women's Hospital (Dr Meigs); Channing Laboratory (Drs Manson,
    Ma, and Hu); and Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital and Children's Hospital
    Medical Center (Dr Rifai), Boston.
    --------

    Not very complete reporting of their affiliations. Yet again.

    TC
     
  3. markd

    markd Guest

    Just curious, after they report all the hospital connections what else should we want? Most
    inportant, is not having other connections a sign of not reporting them? If they said they
    consult with xyz group are their research wrong or suspect? Are there any examples of research at
    any institution of any size that doesn't have connection with or recieve research grants from
    many groups, including the government for whom such possible connections are a dime a dozen. I
    think innocent until guilty a good rule of thumb in the bio-med area, as in most others. Let us
    leave the quality and soundness of the research to the peer review commicommittee, there are any
    number of other research folk ready and waiting to pounce on sloppy work, that is how brownie
    points are earned .

    "Not very complete reporting of their affiliations. Yet again."
     
  4. Tcomeau

    Tcomeau Guest

    [email protected] wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > Just curious, after they report all the hospital connections what else should we want? Most
    > inportant, is not having other connections a sign of not reporting them? If they said they consult
    > with xyz group are their research wrong or suspect? Are there any examples of research at any
    > institution of any size that doesn't have connection with or recieve research grants from many
    > groups, including the government for whom such possible connections are a dime a dozen. I think
    > innocent until guilty a good rule of thumb in the bio-med area, as in most others. Let us leave
    > the quality and soundness of the research to the peer review commicommittee, there are any number
    > of other research folk ready and waiting to pounce on sloppy work, that is how brownie points are
    > earned .
    >
    > "Not very complete reporting of their affiliations. Yet again."

    It is of the utmost importance that all financial interests be disclosed, up front.

    Especially if the research pertains in any way to anything related to the financial interests.
    Financial interests may or may not indicate innocence or guilt but not disclosing the interests,
    IMO, implies guilt in terms of collusion for financial gain, or at least looks suspicious.

    And with regards to peer review, the names of the peer reviewers should be listed along with
    their financial interests. A lot of very poor, underhanded and some downright misleading science
    seems to get thru and get published. How is this possible without some peer reviewers being
    tainted by industry?

    There is no excuse for any scientific publication to allow this nonsense to continue. Fingers must
    be pointed, ethics must be questioned, professional conduct must be demanded of these publications
    and researchers. Science must be held to very high ethical standard and the accompanying scrutiny.

    They are all adult professionals, I think they can take it, and if they can't then they don't
    deserve any standing whatsoever in the scientific community. When the science impacts the health of
    millions of humans, there is no room for sloppiness or unsound science. Shape up or ship out.

    TC
     
  5. markd

    markd Guest

    While not agreeing with some "implied" wrong doing in the blow, I have no problem with the principle
    involved. The question is how to avoid making this a strawman/red herring argument with specific
    regard to the abstract in question. Their hospital connections were noted, in the absence of any
    other info your reaction is just preaching to the choir. If you have info they are connected to
    other groups that are relevant to the research, show us. One possible problem is that an abstract
    might easily not have the info you desire. I have often seen such info as a clear part of journal
    articles. In fact it is a strict guideline for some in order the article be considered for
    publication. Even so, in the absence of any other info, even connection with a third group does not
    shade the quality of the research in the least. If you have specific info in this regard, show us. I
    have no doubt it happens but in the specific instance it has not been demonstrated and the "innocent
    until demonstrated" rule seems approiate. Better still, show us any large institution for which we
    couldn't dig up "possible" third party influence.

    >It is of the utmost importance that all financial interests be disclosed, up front.
    >
    >Especially if the research pertains in any way to anything related to the financial interests.
    >Financial interests may or may not indicate innocence or guilt but not disclosing the interests,
    >IMO, implies guilt in terms of collusion for financial gain, or at least looks suspicious.
    >
    >And with regards to peer review, the names of the peer reviewers should be listed along with their
    >financial interests. A lot of very poor, underhanded and some downright misleading science seems to
    >get thru and get published. How is this possible without some peer reviewers being tainted by
    >industry?
    >
    >There is no excuse for any scientific publication to allow this nonsense to continue. Fingers must
    >be pointed, ethics must be questioned, professional conduct must be demanded of these publications
    >and researchers. Science must be held to very high ethical standard and the accompanying scrutiny.
    >
    >They are all adult professionals, I think they can take it, and if they can't then they don't
    >deserve any standing whatsoever in the scientific community. When the science impacts the health of
    >millions of humans, there is no room for sloppiness or unsound science. Shape up or ship out.
    >
    >TC
     
  6. Tcomeau

    Tcomeau Guest

    I haven't really accused anyone or implied that there is wrondoing afoot. All I did was put forward
    some facts regarding the authors past affiliations that they neglected to disclose. From there we
    can form opinions about any wrong doing. That is informed decision making as opposed to un-informed
    decision making.

    Also, by adding this information for people to read, I am reminding people that just because the
    research made it into a scientific publication , it doesn't mean that it no longer needs to be
    questioned or that it is to be accepted as gospel. We should be cynical. That is the nature of
    science. Science without cynicism is not good science.

    TC

    [email protected] wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > While not agreeing with some "implied" wrong doing in the blow, I have no problem with the
    > principle involved. The question is how to avoid making this a strawman/red herring argument with
    > specific regard to the abstract in question. Their hospital connections were noted, in the absence
    > of any other info your reaction is just preaching to the choir. If you have info they are
    > connected to other groups that are relevant to the research, show us. One possible problem is that
    > an abstract might easily not have the info you desire. I have often seen such info as a clear part
    > of journal articles. In fact it is a strict guideline for some in order the article be considered
    > for publication. Even so, in the absence of any other info, even connection with a third group
    > does not shade the quality of the research in the least. If you have specific info in this regard,
    > show us. I have no doubt it happens but in the specific instance it has not been demonstrated and
    > the "innocent until demonstrated" rule seems approiate. Better still, show us any large
    > institution for which we couldn't dig up "possible" third party influence.
    >
    >
    > >It is of the utmost importance that all financial interests be disclosed, up front.
    > >
    > >Especially if the research pertains in any way to anything related to the financial interests.
    > >Financial interests may or may not indicate innocence or guilt but not disclosing the interests,
    > >IMO, implies guilt in terms of collusion for financial gain, or at least looks suspicious.
    > >
    > >And with regards to peer review, the names of the peer reviewers should be listed along with
    > >their financial interests. A lot of very poor, underhanded and some downright misleading science
    > >seems to get thru and get published. How is this possible without some peer reviewers being
    > >tainted by industry?
    > >
    > >There is no excuse for any scientific publication to allow this nonsense to continue. Fingers
    > >must be pointed, ethics must be questioned, professional conduct must be demanded of these
    > >publications and researchers. Science must be held to very high ethical standard and the
    > >accompanying scrutiny.
    > >
    > >They are all adult professionals, I think they can take it, and if they can't then they don't
    > >deserve any standing whatsoever in the scientific community. When the science impacts the health
    > >of millions of humans, there is no room for sloppiness or unsound science. Shape up or ship out.
    > >
    > >TC
     
Loading...