Obesity is associated with a shorter lifespan and with an increased risk of many chronic diseases

POPPING the Pill first thing in the morning is a daily ritual for millions of women.

Since it was introduced to the UK in the early Sixties, the tiny tablet has helped millions of Brits take control of their reproductive cycle.

But a major new study from the University of Oxford sparked concern last week after scientists warned progestogen-only forms could raise risk of breast cancer by 26 per cent.

So what is the risk and should you really be worried?

Here, I answer some of the main questions.

Q) What did the Oxford study find?

READ MORE ON BREAST CANCER

MY HEARTACHE

I battled sepsis then lost a boob to breast cancer – weeks after giving birth

PILL ALERT

Taking the Pill increases risk of breast cancer by 25%, Oxford study finds

A) SCIENTISTS looked at the medical records of 27,699 women for the study, published in the journal PLOS Medicine.

They found that 44 per cent of women with breast cancer had been taking a hormonal contraceptive three years on average before diagnosis.

This compares with 39 per cent of women who did not get breast cancer.

There was a 23 per cent increased risk of breast cancer for the combined Pill, a 26 per cent increased risk for the progestogen-only Pill — which accounts for half of Pill prescriptions — a 22 per cent increased risk for the progestogen implant and a 32 per cent increased risk for the IUS or hormonal coil.

Most read in Health

FAST FAIL

Inside new diet hailed by Chris Martin & Liz Hurley – & why it’s not a good idea

BREAST BE AWARE

From killer symptoms to best bras – top GP’s ultimate breast health guide

KICK IN THE TEETH

NHS dentist charges to RISE next month – see how you’re affected

HEART DIET

I’m a cardiologist – here’s the 6 foods I would never eat to protect my heart

Once women stop taking the progestogen-only Pill, their cancer risk starts to drop.

Between one and four years after stopping, the risk drops to 17 per cent, and after five years it is 15 per cent.

Ultimately, a woman’s increased risk was found to disappear completely.

Q) So how big is the risk in reality?

A) IT sounds like a sizable percentage and there is a risk that women may start to worry about their contraceptive choices as a result.

But let’s look at the actual statistics, because 20 per cent of a very small number is an even smaller number and therefore, in absolute terms, the risk is very small.

In younger women, aged 16 to 20, the average risk of developing breast cancer is very low — around 0.8 per cent over 15 years in women who do not use hormonal contraception.

The study found that taking the oral combined or progestogen-only contraceptive for five years would raise that risk to around 0.9 per cent — the equivalent to eight additional breast cancer cases for every 100,000 women over 15 years.

In women aged 35 to 39, hormonal contraception was found to cause an additional 265 cases per 100,000 over 15 years.

That’s still a very small increase in risk when considering the protective benefits of taking it, mainly unwanted pregnancies.

Q) Is this new?

A) WE have known for many years that the combined oral contraceptive Pill, which contains synthetic versions of both oestrogen and progesterone, is linked to a 20 per cent increased risk of breast cancer.

But this study is the first to help us understand the risk associated with progestogen-only methods.

Q) What are the benefits of taking the Pill?

A) ASIDE from helping to prevent unwanted pregnancies, it is worth remem-bering that both types of contraceptive Pill protect against other female cancers, namely ovarian and endometrial or womb cancer.

The combined Pill also protects against colorectal or bowel cancer.

It has been well documented that there is no overall increased cancer risk associated with taking the combined Pill.

There are also lots of other potential benefits to taking various forms of hormonal contraception.

I prescribe it to patients for a range of conditions, including polycystic ovaries and to help with heavy and painful periods.

Q) Why is the new study important?

A) STUDIES like the one reported last week are important because they give women information to help them make the right choice for them.

For most people this new research will not give any reason to change their contraception, because the benefits still outweigh any risk.

There may be a minority of women who have a particular cause for concern when it comes to breast cancer, and some may decide to stop using hormonal contraception because of these new findings.

That’s entirely their right to do so, and as doctors we want our patients to be informed and take an active role in their health care.

Q) What else should women know?

A) WHILE the study offers useful information, what isn’t mentioned much when it comes to the report is the fact that lifestyle factors have a more significant impact when it comes to our risk of getting cancer.

The risks associated with smoking, alcohol use, excess body fat and being physically inactive are far more important for health and cancer risk than hormonal contraception.

The Cancer Research UK website states that if everyone in the UK had been living a healthy lifestyle for the past ten years, then a typical GP would see only six new cases of cancer in a year, instead of ten.

We know tobacco can cause up to 15 different types of cancer: Lung, larynx, oesophagus, oral cavity, nasopharynx, pharynx, bladder, pancreas , kidney, liver , stomach, bowel , cervix, leukaemia and ovarian.

Q) What have other experts said?

A) WHEN asked for comment on the report, Kirstin Pirie, statistical programmer at Oxford Population Health and one of the lead authors, said: “The findings suggest that current or recent use of all types of progestogen-only contraceptives is associated with a slight increase in breast cancer risk, similar to that associated with use of combined oral contraceptives.

“These excess risks must, however, be viewed in the context of the well-established benefits of contraceptive use in women’s reproductive years.”

Claire Knight, senior health information manager at Cancer Research UK, added: “Combined and progestogen-only hormonal contraception can increase the risk of breast cancer, but the risk is small.

“For anyone looking to lower their cancer risk, not smoking, eating a healthy balanced diet, drinking less alcohol and keeping a healthy weight will have the most impact.”

Q) So should you stop taking it?

Read More on The Sun

BEACHY KEEN

UK’s best hidden gem beach that Brits say is ‘on another level’

FACE IT

I was sick of forking out on pricey beauty products so headed to Savers

A) INFORMED patients make informed choices so any education around medicines can only be a good thing.

But for the vast majority of women, the increased risk of cancer if they’re taking any type of contraceptive pill is small and the benefits very much outweigh the risks.

(CTN News) – A study published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine recently found that smokeless tobacco is associated with an increased incidence of peripheral artery disease, similarly to cigarette smoking.

In a study conducted by Dr. Jeremy R. Van’t Hof of the University of Minnesota Medical School in Minneapolis, and his colleagues, they investigated the association between the use of smokeless tobacco and the risk of developing peripheral artery disease.

In order to assess smokeless tobacco use over the period 1987 to 1995, three measures were taken; peripheral artery disease events were analyzed from 1987 to 2018.

It was determined that 14,344 participants had data that could be analyzed.

In their study, the researchers were able to identify 635 incident peripheral artery disease events in the course of a median follow-up period of 27.6 years.

The incidence rate of peripheral artery disease in people who used tobacco and those who did not, was 4.44 per thousand person-years in people who used smokeless tobacco and 1.74 per 1,000 person-years in people who did not use smokeless tobacco.

A hazard ratio of 1.94 was found for current users of smokeless in comparison with those who had never used smokeless tobacco, after adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics and cigarette smoking.

In comparison to tobacco smokers, those currently using smokeless tobacco had a similar incidence rate of peripheral arterial disease (3.39 per 1,000 person-years) to those who smoke cigarettes now (3.39 per 1,000 person-years) as those who smoke cigarettes now.

Although smokeless tobacco products do not expose users to the noxious effects that come with combustion, our study has shown that even though they do not expose users to the noxious effects of combustion, they still negatively impact their vascular health,” Van’t Hof said in a statement.

There is a great deal of importance for clinicians to recognize these health implications, screen patients for all types of tobacco and nicotine use, and counsel them accordingly.”

There was one author who disclosed that he had financial ties to Fukuda Denshi.

SEE ALSO:

Study Finds Childhood Trauma Affects Women Differently Than Men

Covid jabs might raise the risk of sudden cardiac deaths in young women, official UK data revealed today.

Government analysts trawled through data from England’s historic roll-out in order to re-check the safety profile of vaccines in under-30s.

No significant increase in deaths among the vaccinated was uncovered, debunking one of the biggest current conspiracy theories surrounding the lockdown-banishing scheme.

Although when the results were broken down further, experts found an elevated risk of cardiac-related deaths in women for one type of jab.

Data collected by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) showed women who got a non-mRNA jab were 3.5 times more likely to die of such ailments within 12 weeks of being vaccinated.

This was compared to after that time-frame, as opposed to the unvaccinated.

Looking at the figures this way allowed the ONS team to spot any noticeable link to vaccination.

Some deaths linked to vaccines might have been missed in official figures, hence the need to look at the data another way.

Non-mRNA jabs include ones made by AstraZeneca and Novavax, which were the only two available during the period the study covered.

Although, no data on specific vaccine brand was included in the analysis. In the US, the Johnson and Johnson was one of the non-mRNA jabs used.

Writing in the journal Nature , the ONS team concluded that 11 cardiac deaths in young women may be attributable to non-mRNA jabs.

However, the study doesn’t directly prove that any deaths were caused by any vaccine.

Fatalities could, for example, have been from an unrelated health condition or even a Covid infection itself given the virus is known to cause similar cardiac effects.

Researchers said young women given non-mRNA jabs in the period studied tended to be classified as clinically vulnerable, hence why they were prioritized for jabs.

This factor may have explained their increased risk of death, the team suggested.

No similar heightened risk was found in men. Academics did not offer a reason as to why, however, as that was beyond the scope of the analysis.

Nor did they uncover any proof that mRNA jabs, such as ones made by Pfizer and Moderna, carried such risk.

That disproves a conspiracy theory beloved by anti-vaxxers that the mRNA shots are responsible for a wave of ‘sudden’ deaths.

In fact, the study, which also examined the general risk of death after testing positive for Covid , found unvaccinated young people had significantly higher chance of dying than the jabbed from ‘all causes’.

Researchers opted to look at the 12 week period post vaccination as this was the original time period set between vaccination doses.

The analysis was based on data from between December 8 2020, when Covid jabs were first rolled out, until May 25 last year.

It included people in England between the ages of 12 and 29, with researchers looking at this group specifically in response to some studies pointing to a risk of cardiac diseases in young people post-Covid vaccination.

While credited with saving the nation from an endless lockdown and thousands of lives, Covid vaccines, like any medical treatment, aren’t risk free.

For example, mRNA vaccines can, in extremely rare cases, cause myocarditis. This inflammation of the heart is particularly a risk for young men and boys.

And the AstraZeneca jab was withdrawn for the under-40s in the UK in April 2021 after it was linked to a rare, but life-threatening, risk of developing blood clots.

Vahé Nafilyan, a senior statistician at the ONS, said overall the study showed mRNA vaccines, which have now been used for the majority of vaccinated young Brits, are generally safe.

‘We find no evidence the risk of cardiac or all cause death is increased in the weeks following vaccination with mRNA vaccines,’ he said.

However, he added they did find that young women given a non-mRNA Covid jab had a 3.52 times higher chance of cardiac death in the 12 weeks after.

While a 3.52 times increase in risk seems large, it should be noted that the actual number of deaths is estimated to be relatively small.

It equates to six cardiac deaths per 100,000 females vaccinated with at least a first dose of a non-mRNA vaccine.

But Mr Nafilyan said the context in which those jabs were given and to whom needed to be considered.

‘Vaccination with the main non-mRNA vaccine used in the UK was stopped for young people following safety concerns in April 2021,’ he said.

‘And most of the young people who received it would have been prioritised due to clinical vulnerability or being healthcare workers.

‘Therefore, these results cannot be generalised to the population as a whole.

‘Whilst vaccination carries some risks, these need to be assessed in light of its benefits.’

The ONS analysis did not speculate why women seemed to be at greater risk of cardiac death following their first non-mRNA Covid jab compared to men.

While the data did record men had an estimated 1.18 increased risk of cardiac death following their first non-mRNA Covid jab, the ONS said the evidence wasn’t strong enough to establish a link as these few deaths could just be down to chance.

It should also be noted that because young people’s general chance of a cardiac death is so small in the first place, any increase can seem dramatic.

The ONS analysis also included data on risk of death following a positive Covid test for both jabbed and unjabbed young people.

Those without a Covid vaccine had a 2.5 times higher risk of death from any cause, whilst, in comparison, those who were jabbed had only a 1.9 times higher risk of dying.

The ONS did not analyse cardiac deaths specifically among people vaccinated who tested positive due to ‘insufficient data’.

Other studies have shown that Covid vaccines greatly decrease the risk of hospitalisation and death among the general population, particularly for those most at risk, such as the elderly.

As a whole the study tears apart major claims peddled by anti-vaxxers who have wrongly said people who got the mRNA Covid vaccines are dying in droves.

However, a limitation of the study is that some deaths that have occurred in the period analysed might not be included due to ongoing investigations by a coroner.

Professor Adam Finn, an expert in paediatrics at University of Bristol, said the ONS study, ‘raised as many questions as answers’.

‘The findings are somewhat unexpected, as concerns about rare cardiac side-effects – specifically myocarditis and pericarditis – have hitherto been particularly associated with mRNA vaccine second doses in males especially when the dose interval was short, whereas the signal reported here is primarily in non-mRNA first doses in females,’ he said.

However, he said the data also showing the risk disappeared for the second dose was ‘reassuring’.

Professor Finn, a member of the UK’s vaccine advisory the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), said in the end more detail on the cardiac deaths reported was needed.

‘The next and most pressing issue that needs to be addressed is to gather more detailed information on what the nature of the reported cardiac events actually was, as this would help us begin to understand what is really being seen in these figures and might help guide future policy and vaccine design,’ he said.

While AstraZeneca’s jab was pulled specifically for young people in April in 2021 it has been effectively withdrawn in the UK with the Government not ordering any more doses.

This was based on advice from the JCVI which has not listed AstraZeneca in their recommended jab list for booster campaigns.

There are currently two non-mRNA Covid jabs approved for use in the UK.

These are the Novavax and Sanofi/GSK jab.

UK drug watchdog the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) hasn’t had any safety reports about the Sanofi/GSK jab with it only being approved for use in December last year.

Novavax was approved in February last year and was deployed 1,200 times during the autumn booster campaign, with 57 safety reports.

The ONS said they would continue to monitor data on Covid vaccines outcomes in the future.

S ome 75 deaths have been known to occurred from jab-related side effects in the UK .

On the occasion of World TB Day, Prime Minister Narendra Modi addressed the One World TB Summit in Varanasi where he announced initiatives like TB Mukt Panchayat and roll-out of a shorter three-month course on preventive treatment towards achieving the goal of TB elimination by 2025.