Early-life soy exposure and age at menarche.

This study examines the timing of menarche in relation to infant-feeding methods, specifically addressing the potential effects of soy isoflavone exposure through soy-based infant feeding. Subjects were participants in the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC). Mothers were enrolled during pregnancy and their children have been followed prospectively. Early-life feeding regimes, categorised as primarily breast, early formula, early soy and late soy, were defined using infant-feeding questionnaires administered during infancy. For this analysis, age at menarche was assessed using questionnaires administered approximately annually between ages 8 and 14.5. Eligible subjects were limited to term, singleton, White females. We used Kaplan-Meier survival curves and Cox proportional hazards models to assess age at menarche and risk of menarche over the study period. The present analysis included 2920 girls. Approximately 2% of mothers reported that soy products were introduced into the infant diet at or before 4 months of age (early soy). The median age at menarche [interquartile range (IQR)] in the study sample was 153 months [144-163], approximately 12.8 years. The median age at menarche among early soy-fed girls was 149 months (12.4 years) [IQR, 140-159]. Compared with girls fed non-soy-based infant formula or milk (early formula), early soy-fed girls were at 25% higher risk of menarche throughout the course of follow-up (hazard ratio 1.25 [95% confidence interval 0.92, 1.71]). Our results also suggest that girls fed soy products in early infancy may have an increased risk of menarche specifically in early adolescence. These findings may be the observable manifestation of mild endocrine-disrupting effects of soy isoflavone exposure. However, our study is limited by few soy-exposed subjects and is not designed to assess biological mechanisms. Because soy formula use is common in some populations, this subtle association with menarche warrants more in-depth evaluation in future studies.

Validation of ICDPIC software injury severity scores using a large regional trauma registry.

BACKGROUND: Administrative or quality improvement registries may or may not contain the elements needed for investigations by trauma researchers. International Classification of Diseases Program for Injury Categorisation (ICDPIC), a statistical program available through Stata, is a powerful tool that can extract injury severity scores from ICD-9-CM codes. We conducted a validation study for use of the ICDPIC in trauma research. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort validation study of 40,418 patients with injury using a large regional trauma registry. ICDPIC-generated AIS scores for each body region were compared with trauma registry AIS scores (gold standard) in adult and paediatric populations. A separate analysis was conducted among patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) comparing the ICDPIC tool with ICD-9-CM embedded severity codes. Performance in characterising overall injury severity, by the ISS, was also assessed. RESULTS: The ICDPIC tool generated substantial correlations in thoracic and abdominal trauma (weighted κ 0.87-0.92), and in head and neck trauma (weighted κ 0.76-0.83). The ICDPIC tool captured TBI severity better than ICD-9-CM code embedded severity and offered the advantage of generating a severity value for every patient (rather than having missing data). Its ability to produce an accurate severity score was consistent within each body region as well as overall. CONCLUSIONS: The ICDPIC tool performs well in classifying injury severity and is superior to ICD-9-CM embedded severity for TBI. Use of ICDPIC demonstrates substantial efficiency and may be a preferred tool in determining injury severity for large trauma datasets, provided researchers understand its limitations and take caution when examining smaller trauma datasets.

Practices and outcomes of self-treatment with helminths based on physicians' observations.

The successful use of helminths as therapeutic agents to resolve inflammatory disease was first recorded 40 years ago. Subsequent work in animal models and in humans has demonstrated that the organisms might effectively treat a wide range of inflammatory diseases, including allergies, autoimmune disorders and inflammation-associated neuropsychiatric disorders. However, available information regarding the therapeutic uses and effects of helminths in humans is limited. This study probes the practices and experiences of individuals 'self-treating' with helminths through the eyes of their physicians. Five physicians monitoring more than 700 self-treating patients were interviewed. The results strongly support previous indications that helminth therapy can effectively treat a wide range of allergies, autoimmune conditions and neuropsychiatric disorders, such as major depression and anxiety disorders. Approximately 57% of the self-treating patients observed by physicians in the study had autism. Physicians reported that the majority of patients with autism and inflammation-associated co-morbidities responded favourably to therapy with either of the two most popular organisms currently used by self-treaters, Hymenolepis diminuta and Trichuris suis. However, approximately 1% of paediatric patients experienced severe gastrointestinal pains with the use of H. diminuta, although the symptoms were resolved with an anti-helminthic drug. Further, exposure to helminths apparently did not affect the impaired comprehension of social situations that is the hallmark of autism. These observations point toward potential starting points for clinical trials, and provide further support for the importance of such trials and for concerted efforts aimed at probing the potential of helminths, and perhaps other biologicals, for therapeutic use.