From poached to panfried, when it comes to eggs, it’s all sunny side up, as new research from the University of South Australia confirms that this breakfast favourite won’t crack your cholesterol.
Long blamed for high cholesterol, eggs have been beaten up for their assumed role in cardiovascular disease (CVD). Now, UniSA researchers have shown definitively that it’s not dietary cholesterol in eggs but the saturated fat in our diets that’s the real heart health concern.
In a world-first study, researchers examined the independent effects of dietary cholesterol and saturated fat on LDL cholesterol (the ‘bad’ kind), finding that eating two eggs a day – as part of a high cholesterol but low saturated fat diet – can actually reduce LDL levels and lower the risk of heart disease.
Lead researcher, UniSA’s Professor Jon Buckley, says it’s time to rethink the reputation of eggs.
“Eggs have long been unfairly cracked by outdated dietary advice,” Prof Buckley says.
“They’re unique – high in cholesterol, yes, but low in saturated fat. Yet it’s their cholesterol level that has often caused people to question their place in a healthy diet,” Prof Buckley says.
“In this study, we separated the effects of cholesterol and saturated fat, finding that high dietary cholesterol from eggs, when eaten as part of a low saturated fat diet, does not raise bad cholesterol levels.
“Instead, it was the saturated fat that was the real driver of cholesterol elevation.
“You could say we’ve delivered hard-boiled evidence in defence of the humble egg.”
“So, when it comes to a cooked breakfast, it’s not the eggs you need to worry about – it’s the extra serve of bacon or the side of sausage that’s more likely to impact your heart health.”
Excessive astrocytic GABA impairs fear extinction in PTSD, new drug target offers hope for treatment
Figure 1. Astrocyte-Derived GABA and Therapeutic Effects of KDS2010 in PTSD. Brain imaging of PTSD patients revealed unusually high levels of GABA and reduced cerebral blood flow in the prefrontal cortex, showing that changes strongly correlated with symptom severity. In animal models, this excess GABA was traced to reactive astrocytes producing it abnormally due to increased MAOB and reduced levels of the GABA-degrading enzyme ABAT. This disrupted normal brain function and impaired the ability to extinguish fear. Treatment with KDS2010, a selective MAOB inhibitor, successfully lowered astrocytic GABA, restored brain activity, and rescued fear extinction, highlighting its potential as a therapeutic option. Credit: Institute for Basic Science
Why do patients with post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) often struggle to forget traumatic memories, even long after the danger has passed? This failure to extinguish fear memories has long puzzled scientists and posed a major hurdle for treatment, especially since current medications targeting serotonin receptors offer limited relief for only a subset of patients.
In a new discovery, scientists at the Institute for Basic Science (IBS) and Ewha Womans University have uncovered a new brain mechanism driving PTSD – and a promising drug that may counteract its effects. The research is reported in Signal Transduction and Target Therapy.
Led by Dr C. Justin Lee at the IBS Center for Cognition and Sociality and Professor Lyoo In Kyoon at Ewha Womans University, the team has shown that excessive GABA (gamma-aminobutyric acid) produced by astrocytes, which are star-shaped support cells in the brain, impairs the brain’s ability to extinguish fear memories. This deficit is a core feature of PTSD and helps explain why traumatic memories can persist long after the threat has passed.
Crucially, the researchers found that a brain-permeable drug called KDS2010, which selectively blocks the monoamine oxidase B enzyme responsible for this abnormal GABA production, can reverse PTSD-like symptoms in mice. The drug has already passed Phase 1 safety trials in humans, making it a strong candidate for future PTSD treatments.
PTSD remains difficult to treat, with current medications targeting serotonin pathways providing limited relief for many patients. The new study focused on the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC), a region of the brain critical for regulating fear, and found that PTSD patients had unusually high levels of GABA and reduced cerebral blood flow in this area. These findings emerged from brain imaging studies of more than 380 participants. Importantly, GABA levels decreased in patients who showed clinical improvement, pointing to the chemical’s central role in recovery.
To uncover the origin of this excess GABA, the researchers examined postmortem human brain tissue and used PTSD-like mouse models. They discovered that astrocytes, not neurons, were producing abnormal amounts of GABA via the enzyme monoamine oxidase B (MAOB). This astrocyte-derived GABA impaired neural activity, blocking the brain’s ability to forget traumatic memories.
When the researchers administered KDS2010, a highly selective, reversible MAOB inhibitor developed at IBS, the mice showed normalized brain activity and were able to extinguish fear responses. The drug reduced GABA levels, restored blood flow in the mPFC, and re-enabled memory extinction mechanisms. The study thus confirms astrocytic MAOB as a central driver of PTSD symptoms, and MAOB inhibition as a viable therapeutic path.
A major challenge of the study was linking clinical findings in humans with cellular mechanisms in the lab. The researchers addressed this by applying a “reverse translational” strategy: they began with clinical brain scans and moved backward to identify the cellular source of dysfunction, then confirmed the mechanism and tested drug effects in animal models. This approach led to a new understanding of how glial cells – long thought to be passive – actively shape psychiatric symptoms.
“This study is the first to identify astrocyte-derived GABA as a key pathological driver of fear extinction deficit in PTSD,” said Dr Won Woojin, a postdoctoral researcher and co-first author of the study. “Our findings not only uncover a novel astrocyte-based mechanism underlying PTSD, but also provide preclinical evidence for a new therapeutic approach using an MAOB inhibitor.”
Director C. Justin LEE, who led the study, emphasized that “This work represents a successful example of reverse translational research, where clinical findings in human guided the discovery of underlying mechanisms in animal models. By identifying astrocytic GABA as a pathological driver in PTSD and targeting it via MAOB inhibition, the study opens a completely new therapeutic paradigm not only for PTSD but also for other neuropsychiatric disorders such as panic disorder, depression, and schizophrenia.”
The researchers plan to further investigate astrocyte-targeted therapies for various neuropsychiatric disorders. With KDS2010 currently undergoing Phase 2 clinical trials, this discovery may soon lead to new options for patients whose symptoms have not responded to conventional treatments.
A UK trial involving 16 500 mechanically ventilated intensive care unit (ICU) patients found no 90-day survival benefit for conservative supplemental oxygen over usual oxygen therapy. Nevertheless, the study, published in JAMA, did demonstrate the accuracy and cost-effectiveness of conducting a large trial with a simple intervention.
Oxygen is one of the most commonly administered treatments to patients in ICUs, but liberal oxygen therapy to avoid the risks of hypoxaemia may lead to harm, so finding the right level could optimise outcomes. Trials to date have shown mixed results.
For COVID patients admitted to the ICU with severe hypoxaemia, survival without life support was extended with conservative oxygen therapy. In a paediatric ICU study, conservative oxygen therapy resulted in a reduction in a composite of organ support at 30 days or death. A meta-analysis of 13 trials showed no differences between liberal and conservative oxygen therapy.
Even with just a small difference in survival benefit, with tens of millions of patients mechanically ventilated in the ICU would still mean significant numbers of lives saved. Other tests of new drugs and procedures in the ICU are hampered by high cost, as Seitz et al. noted in an accompanying editorial, so this sort of trial comparing two approaches to a common therapy is much more affordable.
The UK Intensive Care Unit Randomised Trial Comparing Two Approaches to Oxygen Therapy (UK-ROX) trial was initiated to determine if there was a difference between conservative and usual oxygen therapy.
The trial randomised 16 500 patients across 97 ICUs in the UK to either conservative oxygen therapy or usual oxygen therapy, in adults receiving mechanical ventilation and supplemental oxygen in the ICU. The primary outcome was mortality at 90 days. Conservative oxygen therapy targeted a peripheral oxygen saturation (Spo2) of 90% (range, 88%-92%), while usual oxygen therapy was at the discretion of the treating clinician.
Patients were early in mechanical ventilation (median, 5 hours), were severely ill (median predicted mortality risk, 35%), had a range of critical illnesses (eg, > 5000 patients with sepsis and > 1500 patients with hypoxic-ischaemic encephalopathy) and with significant hypoxaemia (eg, > 11 000 patients with a Pao2:Fio2 ratio, consistent with acute respiratory distress syndrome). Obtaining informed consent from the patients was, of course, largely not feasible, so this requirement was waived for the study.
Exposure to supplemental oxygen was 29% lower for those in the conservative oxygen therapy group compared with the usual oxygen therapy group. Of the patients randomised to conservative oxygen therapy, 35.4% died by 90 days compared with 34.9% of patients receiving usual oxygen therapy.
No differences were seen for secondary outcomes, including ICU stay, days free of life support and mortality at various time points. No interactions for confirmed or suspected COVID, ethnicity or other illnesses were observed.
Post hoc analysis showed weak evidence of increased harm from conservative oxygen therapy among the first 10 patients in each site but no difference for the random enhanced data collection sample compared with standard data collection.
Seitz et al. pointed out that the high level of adherence to the conservative target resulted in a mean oxygen saturation of 93.3%, versus 95.1% for usual care. The differences in oxygen saturation (1.9%) and Fio2 (0.04) between the trial groups in UK-ROX were about half the magnitude of some prior trials, due to not aiming for widely separated targets, and usual care varies considerably depending on location and clinical considerations.
Therefore, the researchers concluded that the findings do not support an approach of reducing oxygen exposure by targeting an Spo2 of 90% in mechanically ventilated adults receiving oxygen in the ICU. They suggest that future research may involve using AI to determine specific situations where conservative or liberal oxygen therapy may have beneficial outcomes.
References:
Martin DS, Gould DW, Shahid T, et al. Conservative Oxygen Therapy in Mechanically Ventilated Critically Ill Adult Patients: The UK-ROX Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2025;334(5):398–408. doi:10.1001/jama.2025.9663
Seitz KP, Casey JD, Semler MW. Patient, Treatment, Outcome—Large Simple Trials of Common Therapies. JAMA. 2025;334(5):395–397. doi:10.1001/jama.2025.9657
A recent study by researchers at the University of California San Diego School of Medicine has found that individuals with cannabis use disorder (CUD) are more than three times more likely to develop oral cancer within five years compared to those without CUD. The study, published in Preventive Medicine Reports, highlights the potential long-term health risks associated with problematic cannabis use.
In 2022, 17.7 million people in the US reported daily or near-daily cannabis use. Though CUD requires a formal diagnosis and not all cannabis users develop the disorder, recent research suggests that as many as 3 in 10 cannabis users will develop CUD.
“Cannabis smoke contains many of the same carcinogenic compounds found in tobacco smoke.”
As cannabis becomes more widely available and socially accepted, it is essential to understand its potential health risks. While many consider cannabis to be safer than other drugs, such as tobacco and alcohol, there are still many unknowns about the health impacts of cannabis, particularly how the drug influences cancer risk. The new study sought to determine the relationship between CUD and oral cancer, for which tobacco smoking is known to be a significant risk factor.
“Cannabis smoke contains many of the same carcinogenic compounds found in tobacco smoke, which have known damaging effects on the epithelial tissue that lines the mouth,” said Raphael Cuomo, PhD, associate professor in the Department of Anesthesiology at UC San Diego School of Medicine and member of UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center. “These findings add to a growing body of evidence suggesting that chronic or problematic cannabis use may contribute to cancer risk in tissues exposed to combustion products.”
By analysing the electronic health records from over 45 000 patients, of whom 949 developed CUD, Cuomo found:
After adjusting for age, sex, body mass index and smoking status, people had a 325% higher likelihood of contracting oral cancer within five years compared to those without CUD.
Tobacco smokers with CUD were 624% more likely to contract oral cancer within five years compared to tobacco smokers without CUD.
Because the association between CUD and oral cancer remained even after controlling for smoking status, and because CUD was associated with greater oral cancer risk even when the analysis was restricted to smokers, the researchers hypothesise that there may be other factors underlying this risk in addition to smoke inhalation. For example, THC, the active compound in cannabis, is known to have immune-suppressing effects, which may contribute to increased cancer risk.
While more research is needed to fully explain the association between cannabis and oral cancer, the study’s results have immediate implications for cancer screening practices and public health messaging. In particular, the findings emphasise the need for further research on the long-term effects of cannabis use and the importance of integrating oral health awareness into substance use disorder treatment and counselling.
The evidence supporting the health benefits of breastfeeding is overwhelming, yet many women taking medicines are advised to stop, often unnecessarily.
Photo by Lucy Wolski on Unsplash
The evidence supporting the health benefits of breastfeeding is overwhelming, yet many women taking medicines are being advised to stop, often unnecessarily, according to a new study from the University of Bath.
The research, led by scientists in the Department of Life Sciences at Bath, reveals that concerns about drug safety during breastfeeding are a significant factor in the decision to stop, yet many medications prompting women to stop breastfeeding have either been found to cause no harm in limited studies, or the potential risks to the infant are considered minimal and outweighed by the benefits to the mother.
The new study, published today in the International Breastfeeding Journal, found that up to 18% of women who need a medication stopped breastfeeding due to that medication, rising to up to 58% among those with chronic illnesses.
These findings were supported by a Public Health England survey of 500 UK mothers, where 71% of respondents agreed with the statement, “It (breastfeeding) could prevent me from taking medication.”
The Bath study reviewed research from seven countries across Europe and the USA spanning the past two decades. It was inspired by the researcher’s personal experience as a breastfeeding mother and pharmacist, which led her to undertake a PhD at the University of Bath.
“I suspected the advice I was getting wasn’t right,” said Rachel Pilgrim. “I felt quite nervous challenging the doctor – even though, as a pharmacist, it’s usually part of my job to do that, it felt very different as a patient. But the experience made me think – what it is like for women who don’t feel able to speak up?”
Breastfeeding is widely recommended by health authorities the world over. In the UK, exclusive breastfeeding is advised for the first six months of life, with continued breastfeeding alongside solid foods until at least one year.
Yet, despite widespread promotion of breastfeeding, the UK continues to report some of the lowest breastfeeding rates in Europe. While nearly half of mothers (49%) are breastfeeding at 6-8 weeks after giving birth, only 1% breastfeed exclusively to six months, according to a 2010 UK survey.
International surveys have found that exclusive breastfeeding at six months is reported in 27.2% of infants in the USA, 38% in Canada, and 37.5% in Australia.
The evidence gap
The maternal use of medication during breastfeeding does require caution, as some drugs can pass into breastmilk and affect the baby. However, for many medications, the amount transferred is minimal and unlikely to cause harm.
One problem lies in the lack of clinical trial data, as breastfeeding women are typically excluded from pharmaceutical trials due to the ethical implications of exposing a baby to an untested drug. Information on the effects of a medicine during breastfeeding builds slowly once a new drug starts to be used.
However, key medicines information resources for clinicians, such as the British National Formulary (BNF), often advise against drug use during breastfeeding, not because the medicine is definitely unsafe, but because its effects are not known with certainty. This conservative stance can lead to overly cautious or even incorrect advice. The study found that even for common medications such as antidepressants and painkillers – where safety data is well-established – women are stopping breastfeeding.
“The BNF is the first place most professionals look, but it doesn’t always reflect the full picture,” said Ms Pilgrim.
“As a result, the advice given to women is often incorrect. And even when the safety data is more limited, women need to be given accurate, balanced information that considers both the risks of the medication and the benefits of continued breastfeeding.”
Real-world impact
An evaluation of the Drugs in Breastmilk Service, run by the UK-based Breastfeeding Network, has found that 21% of mothers who contacted the service had been advised to stop breastfeeding by a healthcare professional. In 98% of these cases, this advice was found to be incorrect, and the women could have safely continued breastfeeding.
Alarmingly, fewer than 6% of these women were referred to the service by a healthcare provider – most found it through social media or peer support groups.
This disconnect between available evidence and clinical practice is contributing to unnecessary breastfeeding cessation, says Ms Pilgrim.
Both Ms Pilgrim and Dr Matthew Jones – who co-authored and supervised the study – are sympathetic towards clinicians who err on the side of caution when prescribing to breastfeeding mothers.
Dr Jones, an academic and pharmacist in the Department of Life Sciences at Bath, said: “Double checking the ‘conservative’ advice found in the BNF is highly time consuming.
“In my previous job as an NHS medicines information specialist, I might spend two hours verifying the safety of a drug using more specialist resources. Most people don’t have that kind of time.”
Study co-supervisor Dr Sarah Chapman from King’s College London, added: “We know breastfeeding women frequently choose not to take safe, beneficial medications because of misinformation and worries about effects on their baby; this study shows women also stop breastfeeding unnecessarily.”
Plans to improve safety awareness
Ms Pilgrim will build on her study through a three-phase PhD research project due to start in September and funded by Pharmacy Research UK.
As part of this work, she will develop a resource to make it easier for people to access specialist advice on breastfeeding. This will either be aimed at healthcare professionals or at women themselves.
Her goal is to improve communication between healthcare professionals and women, raise awareness that most drugs are safe to take when breastfeeding and ultimately support more women to continue feeding their babies while taking essential medications.
