Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Scientists Find Microplastics in Human Brain Tissue Above the Nose

News Feed
Wednesday, September 18, 2024

Microplastics are tiny pieces of plastic that have been found all over the world and in the human body. Oregon State University via Wikimedia Commons under CC BY-SA 2.0 Microplastics are inescapable. These miniscule plastic particles have been found at ancient archaeological sites, in freshly fallen snow on Antarctica, at the top of Mount Everest and deep in the Mariana Trench. In the human body, they’ve shown up in blood, baby poop, placentas and lungs. Now, scientists have also discovered the tiny pollutants in brain tissue, specifically the olfactory bulb that sits above the nose. They shared their findings Monday in the journal JAMA Network Open. Humans have two olfactory bulbs located in the forebrain, which are connected to each nasal cavity by the olfactory nerve. Olfactory bulbs help detect and process scents and odors, passing information from the nose to the brain. Microplastics have been found in human brains, according to recent research that has not yet been peer-reviewed. The new findings raise concerns among researchers that the olfactory pathway might allow microplastics to access the brain and potentially reach brain areas beyond the olfactory bulb. “Once present in [the olfactory bulb], there can be translocation to other regions of the brain,” says study co-author Luís Fernando Amato-Lourenço, an environmental scientist at the Free University of Berlin, to CNN’s Sandee LaMotte. “Translocation depends on several factors, including the shape of the particle, whether it is a fiber or a fragment, its size and the body’s defense mechanisms.” For the study, the team sampled olfactory bulb tissues from 15 human cadavers. The patients used in the study had died between the ages of 33 and 100. Eight of the samples contained microplastics, or bits of plastic less than less than five millimeters long. The researchers found 16 total plastic fibers and particles made of polypropylene, polyamide, nylon and polyethylene vinyl acetate. The most common was polypropylene, a type of plastic that’s used widely in clothes, furniture, rugs, packaging and more. The researchers did not analyze the samples for nanoplastics, which are even tinier particles about 1,000 times smaller than the width of a human hair. But the microplastics they did find were “much smaller than those of several other studies that have determined the presence of microplastics in human organs, such as the placenta, kidneys, liver, etc.,” Amato-Lourenço tells CNN. The findings don’t come as a surprise to the team, considering the ubiquity of microplastics. In addition, the nose’s job is to prevent dust, particles and other intruders from reaching the lungs, so it makes sense that nasal tissue would also capture plastic fragments. But it remains unclear whether microplastics can reach the brain via the olfactory pathway. Some microorganisms, such as the brain-eating amoeba Naegleria fowleri, can enter the brain this way, but those incidents are rare. “There is evidence that very small airborne particles can move to the brain via the olfactory bulb, but this is not known to be a major route of trafficking material to the brain,” says Matthew Campen, a toxicologist at the University of New Mexico who was not involved with the research, to NBC News’ Kaitlin Sullivan. Campen is the lead author of the preprint research that found microplastics in human brains. Researchers also weren’t able to determine why they found microplastics in some cadavers but not in others. One possible explanation is that inflammation of the nasal cavity lining, called the mucosa, made it easier for plastic particles to enter the nose tissue in only some individuals, per CNN. The potential consequences of having microplastics in the human body are also mostly unknown, though some studies suggest they could be harmful to human health. Earlier this year, researchers found a connection between microplastics in human arteries and a higher risk of heart disease. That study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine in March, marked the “first time we’ve seen a human health effect attributed to the particles themselves,” Philip Landrigan, a pediatrician and epidemiologist at Boston College who was not involved with either recent study, said to National Geographic’s Tara Haelle in April. “Until now, the mantra has always been, ‘Well, the particles are there, but we don’t know anything about what they’re doing,’” he added. “This paper changes that.” Get the latest stories in your inbox every weekday.

A new study identified the tiny pollutants in the olfactory bulbs of eight cadavers, suggesting microplastics can travel through the nose to the brain

Small pieces of sand and plastic on a table
Microplastics are tiny pieces of plastic that have been found all over the world and in the human body. Oregon State University via Wikimedia Commons under CC BY-SA 2.0

Microplastics are inescapable. These miniscule plastic particles have been found at ancient archaeological sites, in freshly fallen snow on Antarctica, at the top of Mount Everest and deep in the Mariana Trench. In the human body, they’ve shown up in blood, baby poop, placentas and lungs.

Now, scientists have also discovered the tiny pollutants in brain tissue, specifically the olfactory bulb that sits above the nose. They shared their findings Monday in the journal JAMA Network Open.

Humans have two olfactory bulbs located in the forebrain, which are connected to each nasal cavity by the olfactory nerve. Olfactory bulbs help detect and process scents and odors, passing information from the nose to the brain.

Microplastics have been found in human brains, according to recent research that has not yet been peer-reviewed. The new findings raise concerns among researchers that the olfactory pathway might allow microplastics to access the brain and potentially reach brain areas beyond the olfactory bulb.

“Once present in [the olfactory bulb], there can be translocation to other regions of the brain,” says study co-author Luís Fernando Amato-Lourenço, an environmental scientist at the Free University of Berlin, to CNN’s Sandee LaMotte. “Translocation depends on several factors, including the shape of the particle, whether it is a fiber or a fragment, its size and the body’s defense mechanisms.”

For the study, the team sampled olfactory bulb tissues from 15 human cadavers. The patients used in the study had died between the ages of 33 and 100.

Eight of the samples contained microplastics, or bits of plastic less than less than five millimeters long. The researchers found 16 total plastic fibers and particles made of polypropylene, polyamide, nylon and polyethylene vinyl acetate. The most common was polypropylene, a type of plastic that’s used widely in clothes, furniture, rugs, packaging and more.

The researchers did not analyze the samples for nanoplastics, which are even tinier particles about 1,000 times smaller than the width of a human hair. But the microplastics they did find were “much smaller than those of several other studies that have determined the presence of microplastics in human organs, such as the placenta, kidneys, liver, etc.,” Amato-Lourenço tells CNN.

The findings don’t come as a surprise to the team, considering the ubiquity of microplastics. In addition, the nose’s job is to prevent dust, particles and other intruders from reaching the lungs, so it makes sense that nasal tissue would also capture plastic fragments.

But it remains unclear whether microplastics can reach the brain via the olfactory pathway. Some microorganisms, such as the brain-eating amoeba Naegleria fowleri, can enter the brain this way, but those incidents are rare.

“There is evidence that very small airborne particles can move to the brain via the olfactory bulb, but this is not known to be a major route of trafficking material to the brain,” says Matthew Campen, a toxicologist at the University of New Mexico who was not involved with the research, to NBC News’ Kaitlin Sullivan. Campen is the lead author of the preprint research that found microplastics in human brains.

Researchers also weren’t able to determine why they found microplastics in some cadavers but not in others. One possible explanation is that inflammation of the nasal cavity lining, called the mucosa, made it easier for plastic particles to enter the nose tissue in only some individuals, per CNN.

The potential consequences of having microplastics in the human body are also mostly unknown, though some studies suggest they could be harmful to human health.

Earlier this year, researchers found a connection between microplastics in human arteries and a higher risk of heart disease. That study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine in March, marked the “first time we’ve seen a human health effect attributed to the particles themselves,” Philip Landrigan, a pediatrician and epidemiologist at Boston College who was not involved with either recent study, said to National Geographic’s Tara Haelle in April.

“Until now, the mantra has always been, ‘Well, the particles are there, but we don’t know anything about what they’re doing,’” he added. “This paper changes that.”

Get the latest stories in your inbox every weekday.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Nutrition and healthy aging: The role of protein quality in combatting muscle loss

"Protein . . . provides the building blocks (amino acids) to make important bodily tissues"

Getting out of bed and sitting on the toilet may be relatively simple tasks for many people, but they become more difficult with age. This is because of one of the many bodily changes associated with aging: our muscles shrink and become weaker, a condition known as sarcopenia. Most people are aware of the recommendations for regular physical activity, and the associated health benefits. They also know that good nutritional habits complement a healthy active lifestyle. Unfortunately, few people know what to put on their plates to ensure they hold on to their muscles as they age. Food comprises three key energy-yielding macronutrients: carbohydrates, fats and protein. Protein — most commonly found in meat, fish, dairy, eggs, and to varying degrees in plants and grains — provides the building blocks (amino acids) to make important bodily tissues, such as skeletal muscle. Aging may reduce our ability to digest, absorb and utilize the nutrients in food. To ensure older adults can continue to do the things they love well into their later years, we must emphasize the importance of increasing the amount and improving the quality of protein they consume.   Why more protein matters for older adults Unlike carbohydrates, which are stored in muscle and liver as glycogen, and fats, which are stored in adipose tissue, we have nowhere to store excess protein/amino acids. So, we must consume enough protein daily to provide our cells with the materials needed to function correctly. Current recommendations for protein intake are the same for all adults, regardless of age: 0.8 grams of protein per kilogram of body mass daily (g/kg/d). But estimates suggest that up to 30-76% of older adults aren't consuming enough protein. Because older people's muscles can't use dietary protein as effectively as younger people to maintain muscle, experts suggest that older adults looking to keep their muscles should consume approximately 50% more protein (1.2 g/kg/d).   Quality, not (just) quantity Eating more protein is certainly one way to overcome age-related impairments in muscle building, but this might not always be feasible for older individuals — particularly those with a smaller appetite or those with dental issues. Another strategy is to improve the protein quality and evenly distribute intake throughout the day. Two key factors determine the quality of a protein: its essential amino acid content and how well it is digested and absorbed. Leucine, one of the nine essential amino acids, switches on the body's muscle-building processes. So, proteins with a greater leucine content are generally considered better for muscle growth. With concerns surrounding ethical food production and environmental sustainability, there is a growing interest in plant-based protein sources. Pea protein is one example of a promising plant-based protein source that contains sufficient leucine. But we know very little about its effect on muscle building in older adults.   Plant-based protein for older muscles While part of Stuart Phillips's research group at the McMaster Institute for Research on Aging, I led a human randomized control trial to explore the impact of protein quality on the rate at which older adults build muscle. We put 31 adults between 60 and 80 years old through a strict dietary intervention with two phases: a control phase of seven days in which participants were fed protein in line with current recommendations (0.8 g/kg), followed by a seven-day supplemental phase where participants were randomly assigned to consume an additional 25 grams of a protein supplement — whey, pea or collagen — at breakfast and lunch, totalling an extra 50 grams daily. The supplements were consumed during breakfast and lunch because those are typically the meals with the lowest protein content for older adults. We then performed muscle biopsies, which showed that consuming higher-quality (whey and pea) protein supplements at breakfast and lunch increased muscle-building in older adults by almost 10%. However, collagen protein — a supplement heavily marketed towards older adults — did nothing to bolster muscle-building in our older adults, as a previous study also found. Adding more protein to the diet can improve muscle building, but the protein must contain sufficient essential amino acids, in particular leucine. We also demonstrated that plant-based protein sources can be as effective as animal-based protein sources to build muscle in older adults.   Debunking common myths about protein If you are worried about increasing protein intake because it may impact other aspects of your health, there is some excellent news to share. Increasing protein intake will NOT give you cancer, cause kidney failure or dissolve your bones. Older adults who increase their intake of high-quality protein (and engage in regular physical activity) may help slow the loss of muscle and extend the years spent in good health.   Pack your diet with enough high-quality protein The benefits of more protein in the diet extend beyond muscle. Protein-containing foods also provide other essential nutrients such as vitamins, minerals and fibre from grain sources, and can help you feel fuller for longer, reducing the likelihood of excessive weight gain. Make protein the focus of each meal and aim to consume roughly 25-40 grams — or about one to two palm-sized portions — of protein for breakfast, lunch and dinner. Preparing meals ahead of time and incorporating protein-filled snacks can help you stick to your daily protein goals. Some good options include Greek yogurt, cottage cheese, jerky, canned fish, eggs, and nuts. Without a plan, sarcopenia can sneak up on you. So, whatever your dietary preferences, animal-based (meat, fish, eggs, dairy) or plant-based (tofu, nuts, seeds, lentils) protein can provide you with the nutrients needed to maintain muscle as you age. James McKendry, Assistant Professor in Nutrition and Healthy Aging, University of British Columbia This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Buildup of Metals in Body Can Worsen Heart Disease

By Ernie Mundell HealthDay ReporterWEDNESDAY, Sept. 18, 2024 (HealthDay News) -- Cadmium, uranium, cobalt: These and other metals found in the...

By Ernie Mundell HealthDay ReporterWEDNESDAY, Sept. 18, 2024 (HealthDay News) -- Cadmium, uranium, cobalt: These and other metals found in the environment can collect in the body and exacerbate heart disease, new research suggests."Our findings highlight the importance of considering metal exposure as a significant risk factor for atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease," said study lead author Katlyn McGraw, a postdoctoral research scientist at Columbia University in New York City."This could lead to new prevention and treatment strategies that target metal exposure," she added in a Columbia news release.McGraw's team found that as levels of various metals rose in people's urine samples, so did evidence of stiffer, calcified arteries -- a key component of heart disease.The research was published Sept. 18 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.The Columbia team looked specifically at a process called atherosclerosis, the gradual hardening of blood vessels caused by a buildup of fatty plaques. Atherosclerosis can also lead to the buildup of unhealthy calcium deposits in arteries.Are exposures to environmental toxic metals a contributor to all of this?To find out, McGraw's team combed through a major database of more than 6,400 American middle-aged and older adults who were all free of heart disease when they joined the study between 2000 and 2002.Urine samples tracked each participants' levels of six environmental metal already known to have links with heart disease: Cadmium, cobalt, copper, tungsten, uranium and zinc.People are typically exposed to cadmium through tobacco smoke, while the other five metals are linked to agricultural fertilizers, batteries, oil production, welding, mining and nuclear energy production.The researchers divided participants into four groups, ranging from lowest to highest urine concentrations of the various metals.For cadmium, people placing in the highest one-quarter had levels of artery calcification that was 75% higher over the 10-year study period compared to those in the lowest quartile.For urinary tungsten, uranium and cobalt, those numbers were 45%, 39%, and 47% higher, respectively.People with the highest urinary levels of copper and zinc had calcification levels that were 33% and 57% higher, respectively, than those with the lowest levels.There were also geographic hotspots for especially high levels of metals in urine. For example, people living in Los Angeles had markedly higher urinary tungsten and uranium levels, and somewhat higher cadmium, cobalt, and copper levels, the research showed.McGraw believes the findings should serve as a wake-up call to policymakers concerned about the environment.“Pollution is the greatest environmental risk to cardiovascular health,” she said. “Given the widespread occurrence of these metals due to industrial and agricultural activities, this study calls for heightened awareness and regulatory measures to limit exposure and protect cardiovascular health.”SOURCE: Columbia University, news release, Sept. 18, 2024Copyright © 2024 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Rising diabetes rates are a concern, says deputy health minister

Deputy Health Minister Dr. Joe Phaahla voiced concern over the growing number of diabetes cases in South Africa, particularly among women. The post Rising diabetes rates are a concern, says deputy health minister appeared first on SA People.

Deputy Health Minister Dr. Joe Phaahla expressed concern over the rapid rise in diabetes cases in South Africa, particularly among women. Alarming rise in diabetes-related deaths According to Dr Phaahla, diabetes mellitus is the leading underlying cause of female deaths at 8.2%. In 2018, the figure stood at 7.7%. “The rate at which diabetes is growing in our country is concerning.”Deputy Health Minister Dr Joe Phaahla Phaahla addressed the concern around the increase in non-communicable diseases (NCDs) during a roundtable discussion on the Healthy Life Trajectories Initiative (HeLTI). What are NCDs? NCDs, also called lifestyle diseases, refer to diseases that are the result of a combination of genetic, physiological, environmental, and behavioural factors. According to The World Health Organization, the main types of NCDs are cardiovascular diseases, cancers, chronic respiratory diseases, and diabetes. Changeable behaviours, such as smoking, physical inactivity, unhealthy diet and harmful use of alcohol, all increase the risk of NCDs. Steps taken by government ‘We must recognise the gravity of this burden which is deeply interconnected with factors such as unhealthy diets, physical inactivity, alcohol abuse, smoking and social and commercial determinants of health,’ Phaahla told delegates. According to Phaahla, the Department of Health’s focus is two-fold – prevention and early detection. In preventing diseases such as diabetes, the Department has implemented campaigns aimed at promoting healthier lifestyles. It has rolled out screening campaigns through community health workers and traditional health practitioners to target the early detection of hypertension and diabetes. The Department also aims at addressing the major issues of affordability and accessibility to fight the increase in diabetes. How bad is the situation in South Africa? The University of Witwatersrand published a report at the end of last year that stated that diabetes is the second leading cause of death in South Africa after tuberculosis. NCDs cause approximately 70% of deaths globally. Of these deaths, around 85% occur in low and middle-income countries. In South Africa, there was an increase of 58% in deaths from NCDs from 1997 to 2018. Most South Africans with diabetes are either diagnosed very late or are not diagnosed at all. Untreated or badly controlled diabetes can result in amputations, kidney failure and blindness. Many of these individuals also have high blood pressure. This often results in a stroke as a result of brain haemorrhage. The post Rising diabetes rates are a concern, says deputy health minister appeared first on SA People.

Why Early Prostate Cancer Screening Matters for Black Men

According to the American Cancer Society, Black men are about 70 percent more likely than white men to develop prostate cancer in their lifetime and twice as likely to die from the disease.

This episode is part of “Health Equity Heroes,” an editorially independent special project that was produced with financial support from Takeda Pharmaceuticals.Rachel Feltman: September is Prostate Cancer Awareness Month, so here’s something you should be aware of: earlier this year the Prostate Cancer Foundation issued new screening guidelines encouraging Black men to start getting baseline blood tests for prostate cancer as early as age 40. That’s because, according to the American Cancer Society, Black men are [about] 70 percent more likely than white men to develop prostate cancer in their lifetime and twice as likely to die from the disease.For Scientific American’s Science Quickly, I’m Rachel Feltman. Today I’m joined by Dr. Alfred Winkler, chief of urology at NewYork-Presbyterian Lower Manhattan Hospital. He’s here to tell us more about how folks can protect themselves from prostate cancer.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.Dr. Winkler, thanks so much for joining us. It’s great to have you on the show.Dr. Alfred Winkler: I welcome the opportunity. Thank you.Feltman: So why don’t we start by just talking a little bit about the prostate? You know, where is it, and what does it do?Winkler: Sure, happy to. So very, very important starting point because people really don’t know what—where the prostate is or what it does.So the prostate sits deep in the male pelvis—only men [meaning people assigned male at birth] have prostates—and it sits below the bladder. The urethra, the urine tube that drains the bladder, runs through the middle of the prostate.The prostate’s main job is to produce the fluid in which sperm are transported. It’s also thought to perhaps produce some antibacterial factors, but its main job is to produce transport fluid.Feltman: So earlier this year the Prostate Cancer Foundation updated its screening guidelines. Could you walk us through what changed and why?Winkler: I think there are two points of emphasis, and, and I’ll start with the one that really has made the biggest difference, and that is the fact that rectal exams, or physical exams, are no longer part of primary screening for prostate cancer. Frankly, that is really what deterred a lot of men from getting screened or even talking about it. So that’s a huge, huge victory in terms of getting more men to come in and be evaluated.Also, there’s a lot more emphasis on shared decision-making. We don’t want this to be a test that your primary care provider orders blindly. There needs to be at least some discussion of why it’s a possible test for you to be ordered. And really, is it a test that’s right for you? And that’s multifactorial.Feltman: Yeah, and so what’s replaced the rectal exam that deterred so many people?Winkler: So over many, many years we’ve just seen that the positive predictive value of doing a rectal exam just isn’t there. It really does not help us diagnose prostate cancer. And what’s more, as I mentioned just now, it’s actually a deterrent for men seeking evaluation.Feltman: And so I assume there are blood tests or other diagnostics that can help detect prostate cancer?Winkler: So primary screening really is only going to consist of the blood test: PSA, or prostatic-specific antigen.Feltman: Got it. And so I believe that the new guidelines also change some of the, the recommendations for the age of first screening. Is that correct?Winkler: Sure, they did, and again, there’s more emphasis on shared decision-making and really fitting whether or not a patient should be screened or even have a test to their particular medical circumstance. So that includes ethnicity or race, it includes family history, and it includes age.And some of those factors even affect the interval of screening. We’ve said, “Well, maybe in certain age groups, we don’t have to screen every year, maybe every two or four years within a certain age band, depending on the patient’s family history.”Feltman: So tell me more about groups that are higher risk. What do we know about those disparities?Winkler: So we look, really, at two primary groups: those folks who have a family history of prostate cancer in a primary male relative, so that’s a father, brother; and also people who have a family history of hereditary breast or ovarian cancer. So it’s very important not only to know the—your own medical history, but it’s important to know your family’s medical history. Not always a favorite topic at family reunions, but it’s an opportunity to just learn more about your family and thereby more about yourself.The other group that continues to be at very high risk are African Americans. African Americans have among the highest rates of prostate cancer in the world. And that’s thought to be multifactorial, so a lot of effort is made towards reaching out to those groups and talking to them about whether or not they should be screened.Feltman: Well, and, you know, you said that that’s thought to be multifactorial, but do we have any idea what those factors might be?Winkler: We do. So some of these factors we can control, and some of these factors are really beyond our control.So the one that’s really—is beyond our control, most obviously, is genetics. Your family history is your family history; your genetics are your genetics. That’s why it’s important to really understand your family history and are there certain diseases that it’s important for you to be screened for, prostate cancer among them.But for most cancers, or at least many cancers, there’s thought to be an environmental factor, and that you can control. So that is the environment in which you live and how you participate in that environment, and the biggest example of that is diet.Feltman: Yeah, that makes sense.So what are the age ranges where people should start thinking about screening, and, you know, how is that different if you are in one of these higher-risk categories?Winkler: Sure, so higher-risk patients should consider getting screened at age 45—and actually, in fact, some people we start screening at age 40. And that screening really consists of the PSA blood test. We essentially have never found value in screening people younger than age 40, regardless of their family history.We really, really try to screen people with the model of shared decision-making, in terms of speaking to your primary care provider and deciding the interval in the context with your family history.We typically do not screen people above the age of 75. The thought process of that is when we discover or diagnose prostate cancer beyond age 75, it tends to be a slower-growing cancer. But again, I think we still need to apply the rule that everyone’s an individual, and if you’re 76, and you’re in great health, and you have a family history, be an advocate for yourself and ask the question, “Is this a good test for me?”The key is early diagnosis. A really wonderful thing that we’re seeing in prostate cancer is that we’re diagnosing more and more people at an earlier stage, where, in fact, they undergo what we call active surveillance, which means that they require no treatment and they require a close follow-up. And that close follow-up is essentially periodic blood tests over the course of two years; some imaging with an MRI of the prostate, which has been a huge difference maker in terms of determining who does and doesn’t need a prostate biopsy. Even folks who are diagnosed with cancer that’s a little bit more aggressive, there are tons of options that include surgery, focal therapy, radiation therapy, and the cure rate of those are easily in the mid-90s.But again, the earlier you diagnose, the more choices you have and the higher your survival rate is. So again, all the more reason to ask about this test so that you can have more information about your risk.Feltman: So if someone is listening to this episode, and they’ve been avoiding getting screened for prostate cancer or talking to their doctor about it, what steps would you recommend that they take?Winkler: Well, I want them to realize that, really, the evaluation is first a discussion ...Feltman: Mm-hmm.Winkler: And then a blood test, and that’s it.Really everyone, to the best of, of their ability, should be seen by a primary care provider on a yearly basis. And for most of us that’s going to involve some questions and a questionnaire and some blood work. So this is just another disease that you are just trying to gauge your risk for.So I think it starts with asking about the test in the first place. I’m very sympathetic to my primary care colleagues. They’re overwhelmed. There’re not enough of them. They’re trying to squeeze a tremendous amount of information and detective work into a short visit, and we sort of have to be our own advocates in that realm.So I think it starts with simply asking your primary care provider, “Do I need this test?” And the conversation may surprise you. You may not actually need that test. Or maybe it’s been a test that you’ve gotten in recently enough that you can skip this year.I think the other thing that’s important for people to realize is when a problem is discovered early there tends to be many, many more choices you have to deal with that problem. And chances are, the more choices there are, the more likely you are to find one that you like. And I think prostate cancer is a great, great example of that.By asking the question you’re only being an advocate for yourself—you really, really have to be an advocate for yourself in all things that have to do with your health. I think there are many things in our lives that we do a better job of taking care of or keeping appointments for way over our health. And it really, really shouldn’t be that way.And to just remember your health is just not you; it’s the people who are around you, who love you, who depend on you and want you here. And they would want you to be an advocate.One idea I, I have that I wish people would do is almost have in your life a “bring a loved one to the doctors” day. When you make your appointment for yourself, maybe make an appointment for your significant other and bring them along. I think that way you’re taking care of two people instead of one, and maybe you’re breaking down some barriers for someone who is not seeking out care just because they’re afraid.Feltman: Yeah, that’s great advice. Thank you so much for joining us, Dr. Winkler. I think this is gonna be really helpful for a lot of our listeners.Winkler: Thank you for the opportunity.Feltman: That’s all for today’s episode. We’ll be back on Friday with part one of our latest Friday Fascination miniseries. This one is all about the beauty and mystery of math, and I promise it’s a surprisingly wild ride.In the meantime, do us a favor and leave a quick rating or a review wherever you listen to this podcast. You can also send us any questions or comments at ScienceQuickly@sciam.com.Science Quickly is produced by me, Rachel Feltman, along with Fonda Mwangi, Kelso Harper, Madison Goldberg and Jeff DelViscio. Shayna Posses and Aaron Shattuck fact-check our show. Our theme music was composed by Dominic Smith. Subscribe to Scientific American for more up-to-date and in-depth science news.For Scientific American, this is Rachel Feltman. See you next time!This episode is part of “Health Equity Heroes,” an editorially independent special project that was produced with financial support from Takeda Pharmaceuticals.

Deaths From Antibiotic-Resistant Infections Could Reach 39 Million by 2050, Study Suggests

A new paper analyzes three decades of fatalities around the world and predicts how "superbugs" will affect human health in the future

Deaths attributable to antimicrobial resistance could reach 39 million between 2025 and 2050. Carlos Duarte via Getty Images More than 39 million people around the globe could die because of antibiotic-resistant infections between 2025 and 2050—a statistic that equates to about three deaths every minute, according to a new study. The results, published Monday in the journal The Lancet, add to the growing body of evidence that drug-resistant “superbugs” are a major threat to public health. “It’s a big problem, and it is here to stay,” says study co-author Christopher J. L. Murray, director of the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, to the Washington Post’s Lizette Ortega. Doctors, scientists and public health experts have long warned of the potential consequences of worsening antimicrobial resistance, or AMR. It occurs when bacteria, fungi and pathogens evolve to withstand existing medications, including antibiotics, making them harder to kill. Experts say the overuse of antibiotics—among both humans and livestock—has contributed to the problem, along with environmental factors that have allowed superbugs to thrive. In the new study, an international team of scientists with the Global Research on Antimicrobial Resistance Project offer a detailed look at antimicrobial resistance around the world. They analyzed 520 million records from 204 countries and territories, including death certificates, hospital discharge documents and insurance claims. Then, they used statistical modeling to calculate deaths related to antimicrobial resistance from 1990 to 2021. They also made projections about how antimicrobial resistance would affect fatalities in the future. In 1990, 1.06 million deaths were attributable to antimicrobial resistance, the team finds. That number rose to 1.27 million in 2019, then dipped to 1.14 million in 2021. (The researchers say the decrease was likely caused by health protocols put in place during the Covid-19 pandemic.) Beyond these broad metrics, the researchers also zoomed in and looked at how antimicrobial resistance affected people of different ages. For kids ages 5 and younger, deaths attributable to antibiotic resistance declined by more than 50 percent between 1990 and 2021, “mostly due to vaccination, water and sanitation programs, some treatment programs, and the success of those,” Murray tells CNN’s Jacqueline Howard. But for patients ages 70 and older, the number of deaths increased by more than 80 percent during the same period. Over the last three decades, those opposite trends have largely balanced each other out. But as the world’s population ages, deaths among elderly people will likely outpace the decrease in deaths among younger people. The team estimates that deaths among children will be cut in half by 2050, but deaths among seniors will double. Developing new antibiotics will help tackle the problem, potentially averting millions of deaths, per the paper. But improving access to those drugs is also necessary. Deaths from antimicrobial resistance will also affect regions of the world differently, with South Asia, Latin America, the Caribbean and sub-Saharan Africa likely to be hit the hardest, according to the study. Those low-resource regions also face a lack of access to quality health care, including antibiotics. “Drug resistance is not their primary issue [in low-access regions]—their primary issue is bacterial infections itself,” says Ramanan Laxminarayan, an epidemiologist at One Health Trust who was not involved in the research, to Euronews Health’s Gabriela Galvin. The new paper is comprehensive and serves as another wake-up call about the need to combat superbugs. But “predicting antimicrobial resistance trends is very unreliable,” says Marlieke de Kraker, an epidemiologist at Geneva University Hospitals in Switzerland who was not involved with the research, to New Scientist’s Michael Le Page. New superbugs can emerge or disappear at a moment’s notice, and scientists still don’t have a good understanding of what causes these unpredictable swings, she adds. Still, the findings suggest “more must be done to protect people from this growing global health threat,” says study co-author Stein Emil Vollset, an epidemiologist at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health and the University of Washington’s Institute of Health Metrics, in a statement. “We urgently need new strategies to decrease the risk of severe infections through vaccines, new drugs, improved health care, better access to existing antibiotics and guidance on how to use them most effectively,” he adds. Get the latest stories in your inbox every weekday.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.