Fish Habit May Reduce Breast Cancer Risk, Study Suggests

Researchers found that higher fatty acid intake cut chances of disease by 14 percent

By Kathleen Doheny

HealthDay Reporter

THURSDAY, June 27 (HealthDay News) -- Regularly eating oily fish such as salmon, tuna or sardines may help reduce the risk of breast cancer, a new report suggests.

These fish contain a type of fatty acid known as n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs).

"Increased n-3 PUFA intake has a protective effect for breast cancer," said researcher Duo Li, a professor of nutrition at Zhejiang University in Hangzhou, China.

Li and his team reviewed 21 different studies that looked at the intake of fish and PUFAs. The previously published research included more than 800,000 women in the United States, Europe and Asia, and 20,000 cases of breast cancer. The follow-up time varied, from four years to 20.

The new report is published online June 27 in the journal BMJ..

Fish include several types of PUFAs that are involved in chemical messaging in the brain, helping to regulate both blood vessel activity and the immune system. The fatty acids also have been linked with other health benefits, such as lower risk of heart problems.

Earlier studies have shown conflicting results about the protective effects of PUFAs that are found in fish and breast cancer risk. So Li decided to pool the results of the 21 studies and reanalyze them.

In his analysis, consumption of most types of PUFAs -- but not fish itself -- was linked with a lower risk. Women with a high intake of PUFAs had a 14 percent reduction in breast cancer risk. For every 0.1-gram-per-day increase in the intake of the fatty acids, there was a 5 percent lower risk of breast cancer, the study found.

So how much fish should you eat? "One to two servings of oily fish per person per week is suggested," Li said.

Li said he can't explain with certainty the association between PUFAs and lowered breast cancer risk. Among other possibilities, he speculated that the fatty acids may help regulate the activities of molecules involved in cell growth and in the spread of cancer cells.

Two U.S. experts who reviewed the new findings saw pros and cons to the report.

Although the number of women studied was large, the link found between fatty acid intake and breast cancer risk reduction "is not necessarily cause-and-effect," said Dr. Stephanie Bernik, chief of surgical oncology at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City.

Dr. Joanne Mortimer, director of women's cancer programs at the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, Calif., agreed. "My take on this is it may be more than just what they eat" that helps reduce breast cancer risk, she said. "To make an assumption that the lower risk is due entirely to diet may be a false one."

The women with a high intake of PUFAs also may be more apt to exercise and follow other healthy habits, Mortimer said.

Both Mortimer and Bernik cautioned against focusing too much on fish for risk reduction or on eating too much of it. "It's no cure-all," Bernik said. And, if eaten in excess, the mercury content of some fish can be unhealthy, she added.

Besides eating oily fish, Bernik tells patients to exercise regularly, eat plenty of fruits and vegetables, and not smoke to reduce the risk of breast and other cancers.

View the original article here

Costlier Heart Device May Not Be Worth It, Study Suggests

Dual-chamber implanted defibrillators had more complications than single-chamber models

By Brenda Goodman

HealthDay Reporter

TUESDAY, May 14 (HealthDay News) -- Patients prone to dangerously fast heart rhythms may get just as much help and have fewer complications with less-expensive implanted defibrillators that run one wire to the heart instead of two, a new study shows.

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators, or ICDs, are like having an emergency "crash cart" in the chest. The devices can sense runaway heart rhythms and deliver powerful shocks to jolt the heart back to a normal, steady pace.

Studies have shown that the devices cut deaths in patients at risk for sudden cardiac arrest because their heart muscles are too weak to effectively pump blood throughout the body, a condition called cardiomyopathy.

But little evidence exists to help doctors decide when it's better to choose a single-chambered ICD for patients or the more complex dual-chambered model.

The study, published in the May 15 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, compared the fates of more than 32,000 Medicare patients who received ICDs, from 2006 through 2009. None of the patients also needed a pacemaker, a device that speeds up a slow heartbeat.

"There is evidence for greater risk of complications. Not clear evidence of benefit. That risk-benefit ratio really doesn't support the routine use of dual-chamber devices for primary prevention," said study co-author Dr. Pamela Peterson, an associate professor of medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver.

About one-third of patients received a single-chamber ICD, in which an electrical lead is attached to the heart's lower right pumping chamber. The other two-thirds got dual-chamber devices, in which wires are attached to the upper and lower chambers of the heart's right side.

After a year, patients who got single-chamber ICDs were no more likely to die or be hospitalized than patients who got the more expensive dual-chamber models. They were, however, slightly less likely to face serious complications, including fluid build-up around the heart or lungs and mechanical problems with the device that required a second surgery to fix.

That was true even after researchers adjusted their results to control for any differences between patients who got single- and dual-chamber devices.

Overall, close to 4 percent of patients with single-chamber ICDs had complications with their devices compared to about 5 percent of patients with dual-chamber models, the investigators found.

The study was observational, which means researchers couldn't prove that the type of ICD was the only reason patients fared the way they did. Though they tried to carefully control their data for important differences between the two groups, other factors they couldn't measure, such as medications people were taking, may have influenced the results.

The study was funded by a grant from the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

View the original article here

Vaccine May Stop Immune Attack in Type 1 Diabetes, Study Suggests

Early trial found it boosts insulin production, appears safe

By Serena Gordon

HealthDay Reporter

WEDNESDAY, June 26 (HealthDay News) -- A new type of vaccine may stop the autoimmune attack that occurs in people with type 1 diabetes, researchers report.

Although an initial trial of the vaccine wasn't able to free anyone from their daily insulin injections, it did boost insulin production, which could help prevent some of type 1 diabetes' most devastating complications.

Instead of increasing the immune system's activity like the polio or influenza vaccine does, the new vaccine turns off a portion of the immune response, acting as a reverse vaccine. The researchers were able to isolate a part of the immune response that only seems to be involved with type 1 diabetes, according to the study. That means the vaccine likely wouldn't have the risks that medications that suppress the immune system do.

"We were able to destroy the rogue cells that are attacking the insulin-producing cells without destroying any other part of the immune system, and that's truly exciting," said senior study author Dr. Lawrence Steinman, a professor of pediatrics and neurology and neurological sciences at Stanford University School of Medicine.

"Once the immune attack is stopped, I believe there's great potential for recovery in the beta cells," Steinman added.

Beta cells in the pancreas produce the hormone insulin. In people with type 1 diabetes, it's believed that the immune system mistakenly destroys the healthy beta cells, leaving the person with no or too little insulin.

Insulin is a crucial hormone because it's involved in the metabolism of the carbohydrates. It allows the glucose (sugar) from those carbohydrates to fuel the cells in the body and brain. Without enough insulin, a person will die. That's why people with type 1 diabetes must take multiple daily injections of insulin, or deliver insulin through a catheter inserted under the skin that's attached to an insulin pump.

The vaccine was designed by changing a piece of immune-system DNA so that it would shut down the immune system's response to signals in the body that have previously triggered the mistaken destruction of beta cells. These signals come from fragments of a protein (peptides) called proinsulin, which is found on the surface of beta cells. Proinsulin is a precursor to insulin.

"We just wanted to throw the off switch for the one cell being attacked," Steinman explained.

The researchers recruited 80 volunteers diagnosed with type 1 diabetes during the past five years. They were randomly placed in one of five groups. Four groups received various doses of the vaccine, and the fifth group received placebo injections. Shots were given weekly for 12 weeks.

No one in the study was able to stop using insulin. "That's a possible goal, but it's too early to start saying cure," Steinman noted.

View the original article here

Girls May Need Fewer Gardasil Shots, Study Suggests

Preteens appear to get same protection with two doses of HPV vaccine as young women who get three

By Brenda Goodman

HealthDay Reporter

TUESDAY, April 30 (HealthDay News) -- Preteen girls may get the same immune response against human papillomavirus (HPV) with two doses of vaccine as young women get with the full three-shot series, a new study suggests.

HPV is a sexually transmitted infection that causes cervical cancer, the second biggest cancer killer in women around the world.

The HPV vaccine, approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2006, is given in a three-shot series. The first and second doses are given one to two months apart, followed by a third dose six months later.

Current government guidelines advise parents to vaccinate boys and girls against HPV starting at age 11. That's partly to ensure they're protected against HPV before their first sexual encounter, but it's also to take advantage of biology.

"The immune response wanes with age. So the younger you are, the better immune response you have," said Dr. Jessica Kahn, a pediatrician at Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center in Ohio. Kahn wrote an editorial on the study, but she was not involved in the research.

Although HPV vaccines are considered highly effective, fewer than one-third of U.S. teens receive all three doses, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Immunization Survey of Teens.

Doctors have wondered if a different dosing schedule might save money and time while still providing the protection of the three-dose regimen.

To find out, researchers in Canada, where vaccines are delivered through school-based programs, randomly assigned 520 girls aged 9 to 13 to receive either two or three doses of the Gardasil vaccine, which protects against four HPV strains. The girls who got two doses got their shots six months apart. The girls who got three doses got the vaccines on the regular schedule.

The younger girls were compared to 310 young women aged 16 to 26 who got three doses of the vaccine on the regular schedule.

Researchers took blood samples to measure the number of antibodies made against each viral strain. They continued to take blood samples over time to see how long the antibody response might last.

The younger girls who got two doses of vaccine appeared to make at least as many antibodies against the HPV strains as the teens and young women did on the three-dose regimen. And their protection appeared to last just as long, up to three years after they started their shots, according to the study, published April 30 in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

The researchers cautioned that while the antibody response to two doses of the vaccine looks promising, it doesn't prove that the shorter course actually protected against viral infections or cancers. A much longer study is under way to test that.

View the original article here

Some Infertile Men Show Higher Cancer Risk, Study Suggests

Factors that contribute to lack of sperm may also raise odds for tumors, researchers say

By Amy Norton

HealthDay Reporter

FRIDAY, June 21 (HealthDay News) -- Men who are infertile because they produce no sperm may have a higher-than-average risk of developing cancer, a new study finds.

Researchers found that of more than 2,000 men with fertility problems, those with no sperm production had an increased risk of developing cancer over the next six years.

The men were young going into the study (about age 36, on average), so few did develop cancer. Among men with no sperm -- what doctors call azoospermia -- just over 2 percent were diagnosed with cancer.

Still, their risk was three times higher than that of the average man their age.

"They have the cancer risk of a man about 10 years older," said lead researcher Dr. Michael Eisenberg, an assistant professor of urology at Stanford University School of Medicine.

About 15 percent of infertile men are azoospermic, according to the study, which was published June 20 in the journal Fertility and Sterility.

This isn't the first work to connect male infertility to cancer risk, but it suggests the link may be concentrated among men with the most severe type of infertility.

"This suggests that it's not male infertility in general, but azoospermia in particular," Eisenberg said.

That's an important piece of information, said a male-infertility expert not involved in the study. If the link between male infertility and cancer is real, you would expect that more severe infertility would be tied to a greater cancer risk, said Dr. Thomas Walsh, of the University of Washington in Seattle.

"This reinforces the idea that this is a real relationship," Walsh said.

He said he doubts anyone would say that infertility is causing cancer. But he and Eisenberg said it's possible that some common genetic factors contribute to both azoospermia and a greater vulnerability to cancer.

"When we see a man with azoospermia, we usually assume there's a genetic cause," Eisenberg said. There are certain gene mutations already tied to the condition, but a minority of azoospermic men turn out to have one of them when they are tested. That means there are likely other, as yet unknown, gene defects involved in azoospermia, Eisenberg said.

And some of those genetic flaws might be involved in cancer susceptibility, he said.

Another infertility expert was cautious about interpreting the findings because of the small numbers: only 10 cases of cancer among the 451 men with azoospermia, and 19 cases among nearly 1,800 men with other types of infertility.

The idea that genetic abnormalities might underlie both azoospermia and cancer risk has merit, said Dr. Frederick Licciardi of NYU Langone Medical Center in New York City. But, he said, "while this is important reasoning and is based in basic science studies, I do not feel they have enough evidence in this paper to bolster this theory."

View the original article here

Newborn's Placenta May Predict Autism Risk, Study Suggests

Identifying infants with higher odds could improve treatment, researchers say

By Kathleen Doheny

HealthDay Reporter

THURSDAY, April 25 (HealthDay News) -- Autism risk may be spotted at birth by examining placentas for abnormalities, new research suggests.

"We can look at the placenta at birth and determine the chance of being at risk for autism with extremely high reliability," said Dr. Harvey Kliman, a research scientist at Yale University.

One of 88 U.S. children has an autism spectrum disorder, the umbrella name for complex brain development disorders marked by problems with social interaction and communication, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The earlier autism is treated, the better the outcome. But children typically aren't diagnosed until behavioral symptoms begin, perhaps at age 2 or 3 years, or even later. Kliman said the children identified as at risk at birth might benefit from early treatment.

For the new study, published online April 25 in the journal Biological Psychiatry, Kliman and his team examined 117 placentas from newborns whose mothers already had one or more children with some form of autism, which put the infant at higher risk for the disorder. The researchers compared those samples with placenta samples from 100 women who already had one or more typically developing children.

During pregnancy, the placenta keeps the unborn baby's blood supply separate from the mother's while providing the baby with oxygen and nutrients. At delivery, the placenta, also called the afterbirth, follows the baby out of the womb.

The placentas from women whose older children had autism were markedly different from the others, Kliman's team found. They zeroed in on abnormal folds and abnormal cell growth in the placenta, known as trophoblast inclusions.

The placentas from the at-risk pregnancies were eight times more likely to have two or more of these abnormal folds than samples from not-at-risk deliveries. Placentas with four or more of the inclusions predicted an infant with at least a 74 percent probability of being at risk for autism, the researchers said.

"There were no [placentas from pregnancies not at risk] that had more than two of the folds," Kliman said.

The study only predicted risk of autism, however, not actual autism. The researchers will continue to follow the children.

The testing can't be done before delivery, Kliman said. "You need enough placenta [to examine]."

But the test could help spot at-risk children much earlier than is now possible, Kliman suggested. "There is no way [currently] to know at birth that your child might have autism," he said. "If you know you have a child who is at risk for autism at birth, you are ahead of the game." Interventions can begin early, when the brain is more open to change.

How the folds in the placenta relate to autism risk isn't clear, Kliman said. He and others speculated that the abnormalities in the placentas and the brains of the children affected with autism are marked by increased cellular growth, which then leads to the unusual folding. "The heads of children with autism are bigger," he said. Their brains grow rapidly early in life.

View the original article here

How can I suppress my appetite ? Would you suggests app outré suppressant pills, and if so which ones ?

Im always hungry and wanting to munch on something. I heard about the green tea pill for weight loss, I just can't find the gamcimia ones anywhere other then online. Any suggestions on appetite suppressants ?

View the original article here

Gulp! Study Suggests Super-Size Soda Ban Could Fizzle

But the research didn't involve actual consumers or beverages

By Randy Dotinga

HealthDay Reporter

WEDNESDAY, April 10 (HealthDay News) -- A new study may take the fizz out of New York City's bid to improve health by banning super-sized sugary drinks: It suggests restaurants could bypass the rules, and make more money to boot, by offering pairs of drinks that add up to forbidden sizes.

For now, the Big Apple's ban on drink sizes bigger than 16 ounces is moot -- a judge's ruling put it on hold last month. But if it's upheld, the study findings point to a major loophole, said lead author Brent Wilson, a psychology graduate student at the University of California, San Diego. "The risk is that regulations intended to reduce consumption could unintentionally increase consumption," he said.

However, the research has limitations. The study didn't involve actual drinks or an actual restaurant, and it didn't tackle the logistical issue of whether customers are willing to carry two smaller cups or bottles to get the punch of one big drink. Also, it didn't consider whether restaurants would think of the "drink-bundling" idea, although they may do so now that the study has brought it up.

At issue are giant cups and bottles of sugary soft drinks, which pack a punch of calories. While some restaurant owners and residents cried foul, New York City officials outlawed super-size drinks to combat the obesity epidemic.

"I'm trying to do what's right. I've got to defend my children . . . and everybody else and do what's right to save lives," said Mayor Michael Bloomberg, according to CBS News.

Inspired by the ban, Wilson and his colleagues created an experiment to gauge whether it might be possible for restaurants to get around the purpose of the law, which is to get people to drink less sugary soda.

The researchers asked 100 college students, aged 18 to 39, to consider choices on menus. One "unregulated" menu had these prices for sodas: $1.59 (16 ounces), $1.79 (24 ounces) and $1.99 (32 ounces). Those prices were all taken from a McDonald's menu at the time of the study.

Another menu, with "bundled" options, offered a 16-ounce soda for $1.59, a pair of 12-ounce drinks for $1.79, and a pair of 16-ounce drinks for $1.99. And a third "no bundle" menu only offered a 16-ounce drink for $1.59.

The researchers found that the participants wanted to buy more drinks when they had the choice of "bundling" them. When the participants only had a choice of just one size, only 62 percent chose to buy a soda, compared to 84 percent of those who had a choice of "bundled" options and 79 percent of those who faced the "unregulated" options.

Wilson said the study suggests that restaurants could make 70 percent more money from drinks if they offered the bundled options instead of just 16-ounce drinks. "The bundled options just felt like a better deal" to study participants, Wilson suggested.

View the original article here

Too Much TV May Make Kids Antisocial, Study Suggests

Title: Too Much TV May Make Kids Antisocial, Study Suggests
Category: Health News
Created: 3/26/2013 10:35:00 AM
Last Editorial Review: 3/26/2013 12:00:00 AM

View the original article here

Too Much TV May Make Kids Antisocial, Study Suggests

Spending hours in front of the tube at age 5 linked to bad behavior at age 7, researchers say

By Robert Preidt

HealthDay Reporter

TUESDAY, March 26 (HealthDay News) -- Five-year-olds who watch television for three or more hours a day are a bit more likely to fight, steal and have other antisocial behaviors by the age of 7, a new study suggests.

The researchers also found that time spent playing computer or electronic games had no effect on children's behavior, according to the report published online March 25 in the Archives of Disease in Childhood.

For the study, the investigators analyzed data gathered from about 11,000 children in the United Kingdom who were born between 2000 and 2002. When the children were ages 5 and 7, their mothers filled out a questionnaire designed to assess how well-adjusted the children were, and also provided information about the amount of time their children spent at age 5 watching TV and playing computer or electronic games.

At age 5, nearly two-thirds of the children watched TV for between one and three hours a day, 15 percent watched TV for more than three hours a day, and less than 2 percent watched no TV. Only 3 percent of the kids spent three or more hours a day playing computer or electronic games when they were 5 years old, the study authors reported.

After taking into account other factors, such as parenting and family dynamics, the researchers concluded that there was a significant association between watching TV for three or more hours a day at age 5 and a "very small" increased risk of antisocial behavior by age 7.

But watching a lot of TV was not associated with emotional or attention problems, the authors noted in a journal news release.

These findings -- and previous studies showing that too much screen time can have a harmful effect on youngsters' physical health and schooling -- suggest that parents are right in limiting TV time for their children, concluded study author Alison Parkes, of the University of Glasgow in Scotland, and colleagues.

The study found an association between increased TV watching at age 5 and a small increased risk of antisocial behavior at age 7, but it didn't find a cause-and-effect relationship.

View the original article here

Tots' Sleep Differences Due to Genes, Environment, Study Suggests

But parents should still try to correct bad sleep habits, expert says

By Amy Norton

HealthDay Reporter

MONDAY, May 27 (HealthDay News) -- A new study of twins suggests that genes may play a big role in how long babies and toddlers sleep at night, while environment is key during nap time.

Researchers found that among nearly 1,000 twins they followed to age 4, genes seemed to explain much of the difference among youngsters' nighttime sleep habits. In contrast, napping seemed mainly dependent on the environmental setting -- especially for toddlers and preschoolers.

So does this mean the amount of sleep your little one gets at night is out of your control?

No, said the lead researcher on the study, which was published online May 27 in the journal Pediatrics.

"[Parents] should not give up on trying to correct inadequate sleep duration or bad sleep habits early in childhood," said Evelyne Touchette, of Laval University in Quebec, Canada.

For one, the study found that environment did matter in babies' and toddlers' nighttime sleep -- and even seemed to overshadow genes by the age of 18 months.

The reasons for the findings are unclear, Touchette said. But she said it makes sense that environment would matter more at the age of 18 months versus 6 months, when the maturation of the brain may be key in infants' ability to sleep for longer stretches at night.

There's no clear explanation, though, for why genetic influences became stronger again after the age of 18 months, Touchette said.

A sleep researcher not involved in the study said it's not really possible to break down children's sleep into "nature or nurture" questions.

"Everything is a complex interaction between genes and environment," said Hawley Montgomery-Downs, an associate professor of psychology at West Virginia University in Morgantown.

It's not possible, she said, to parse out what proportion of young children's sleep duration is due to genes, and what proportion is environment.

For the study, Touchette's team followed nearly 1,000 Canadian twins whose mothers reported on their sleep habits from the ages of 6 months through 4 years. About 400 children were identical twins, which means both twins share all of the same genes; the rest were fraternal twins, who are no more genetically similar than non-twin siblings.

In general, such studies can help researchers sort out the influences of genes versus "shared environment," which could include anything from a mom's diet during pregnancy to family income.

When it came to hours slept at night, genes seemed to explain more than half of the variance among children at the ages of 30 months and 4 years. Genes were nearly as important at the age of 6 months.

The exception was the age of 18 months, when environment seemed to account for about half of the variance among the children.

View the original article here

Pesticide Exposure May Raise Parkinson's Risk, Study Suggests

Farming, country living could play a role, researchers say

By Alan Mozes

HealthDay Reporter

TUESDAY, May 28 (HealthDay News) -- Prolonged exposure to pesticides, bug and weed killers, and solvents appears to raise the risk for developing Parkinson's disease, a new study says.

Italian investigators who reviewed more than 100 prior studies found exposure to such agents boosted Parkinson's disease risk by anywhere from 33 percent to 80 percent, they reported in the May 28 issue of the journal Neurology.

"Due to this association, there was also a link between farming or country living and developing Parkinson's in some of the studies," study leader Dr. Emanuele Cereda, of the IRCCS University Hospital San Matteo Foundation in Pavia, said in a journal news release.

Some studies specifically explored how home or work environment affected disease risk. Where individuals got their water also was the subject of some investigations.

Exposure either to the weed killer paraquat or the fungicides maneb and mancozeb appeared to double the risk for Parkinson's, a progressive movement disorder, the researchers found.

"We didn't study whether the type of exposure, such as whether the compound was inhaled or absorbed through the skin, and the method of application, such as spraying or mixing, affected Parkinson's risk," Cereda said. "However, our study suggests that the risk increases in a dose response manner as the length of exposure to these chemicals increases."

Although the research found a link between certain chemicals and Parkinson's, it didn't prove they actually cause the disorder.

View the original article here

Costlier Heart Device May Not Be Worth It, Study Suggests

Dual-chamber implanted defibrillators had more complications than single-chamber models

By Brenda Goodman

HealthDay Reporter

TUESDAY, May 14 (HealthDay News) -- Patients prone to dangerously fast heart rhythms may get just as much help and have fewer complications with less-expensive implanted defibrillators that run one wire to the heart instead of two, a new study shows.

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators, or ICDs, are like having an emergency "crash cart" in the chest. The devices can sense runaway heart rhythms and deliver powerful shocks to jolt the heart back to a normal, steady pace.

Studies have shown that the devices cut deaths in patients at risk for sudden cardiac arrest because their heart muscles are too weak to effectively pump blood throughout the body, a condition called cardiomyopathy.

But little evidence exists to help doctors decide when it's better to choose a single-chambered ICD for patients or the more complex dual-chambered model.

The study, published in the May 15 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, compared the fates of more than 32,000 Medicare patients who received ICDs, from 2006 through 2009. None of the patients also needed a pacemaker, a device that speeds up a slow heartbeat.

"There is evidence for greater risk of complications. Not clear evidence of benefit. That risk-benefit ratio really doesn't support the routine use of dual-chamber devices for primary prevention," said study co-author Dr. Pamela Peterson, an associate professor of medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver.

About one-third of patients received a single-chamber ICD, in which an electrical lead is attached to the heart's lower right pumping chamber. The other two-thirds got dual-chamber devices, in which wires are attached to the upper and lower chambers of the heart's right side.

After a year, patients who got single-chamber ICDs were no more likely to die or be hospitalized than patients who got the more expensive dual-chamber models. They were, however, slightly less likely to face serious complications, including fluid build-up around the heart or lungs and mechanical problems with the device that required a second surgery to fix.

That was true even after researchers adjusted their results to control for any differences between patients who got single- and dual-chamber devices.

Overall, close to 4 percent of patients with single-chamber ICDs had complications with their devices compared to about 5 percent of patients with dual-chamber models, the investigators found.

The study was observational, which means researchers couldn't prove that the type of ICD was the only reason patients fared the way they did. Though they tried to carefully control their data for important differences between the two groups, other factors they couldn't measure, such as medications people were taking, may have influenced the results.

The study was funded by a grant from the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

View the original article here

Outdoor Fast-Food Ads Linked to Obesity, Study Suggests

Title: Outdoor Fast-Food Ads Linked to Obesity, Study Suggests
Category: Health News
Created: 2/13/2013 2:36:00 PM
Last Editorial Review: 2/14/2013 12:00:00 AM

View the original article here

Autism Recovery Possible for Some, Study Suggests

Jan. 15, 2013 -- The idea that some children recover from autism remains controversial, but new research lends credibility to the notion.

The National Institutes of Health-funded study included children, teens, and young adults who received a diagnosis of autism early in life but moved off the autism spectrum as they grew older.

In earlier work, longtime autism researcher Deborah Fein, PhD, and colleagues at the University of Connecticut concluded that as many as 1 in 5 kids on the autism spectrum can recover to the point where they are no longer considered autistic.

But skeptics have claimed that the children the researchers identified as "optimal outcome" -- a phrase Fein prefers to "recovered" -- were simply misdiagnosed or had a very mild form of autism early in life.

To address this criticism, Fein and colleagues had an expert in the diagnosis of autism review the early diagnostic reports of 34 people with a prior diagnosis of autism, along with those of 44 people with high-functioning autism, and 34 people who had never received a diagnosis of autism.

But the autism diagnosis was deleted from the reports along with any information that would give the diagnosis away, Fein says. And the reviewer had no knowledge of the current status of the children and young adults in the study.

She says the reviewer identified all 34 of the optimal-outcome participants as originally autistic, based on their early diagnostic records, and all 34 of the typically developing participants as non-autistic.

Compared to those in the high-functioning autism group, those in the optimal-outcome group did show fewer social deficits in early childhood, but they were just as likely to have problems communicating and just as likely to engage in repetitive behaviors -- two characteristic early signs of autism.

When the researchers examined the current status of the optimal-outcome participants, who ranged from 8 to 21 years old, they exhibited none of the typical signs of autism, including problems with language, face recognition, communication, and social interaction.

The study appears today in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry.

Lisa Gilotty, PhD, of the National Institute of Mental Health, says it is increasingly clear that some autistic children do eventually move off the autism spectrum.

“We don’t yet know what percentage of children are capable of doing this, what interventions play a role, or if there is a biological reason for this,” she says.

Fein is a big proponent of very early intensive behavioral therapy, and she says kids who recover are more likely than those who don’t to have had a behavioral therapy known as applied behavioral analysis.

Karen Siff Exkorn began the therapy with her son Jake immediately after he was diagnosed with autism at the age of 2.

View the original article here

UV Nail Lamps Safe, Study Suggests

ByDaniel J. DeNoon
WebMD Health News Reviewed byLouise Chang, MD

Dec. 6, 2012 -- Widely used UV nail lamps are highly unlikely to cause skin cancer, even if used weekly for 250 years, a new study suggests.

The finding contradicts the feeling of many dermatologists that the devices are as harmful as tanning beds. That feeling is largely based on a 2009 report of skin cancer on the hands of two women with no other obvious skin-cancer risks.

But the new study actually measured radiation from typical nail lamps. The measurements then were used to calculate nail lamps' "carcinogenic effectiveness" by the same method used to establish the safety of medical devices.

"Nail lamps are safe for over 250 years of weekly manicures, and even then there would be a low risk of skin cancer," says study researcher Alina Markova, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital. "Not 'no risk,' but 'low risk.'"

Emory University dermatologist Jamie MacKelfresh, MD, praises the Markova study for its scientific approach.

"This makes me rethink the issue of nail lamp safety," MacKelfresh says. "I'm not ready to say these devices are safe -- we dermatologists want people to avoid UV radiation as much as possible -- but this seems to be low risk, especially if used infrequently."

What Your Nails Say About Your Health

Nail Lamps' UV Radiation

The study looked at three models of UV nail lamps similar to about 90% of the hundreds of such products available for salon and home use:

Device A, with four 9-watt UV fluorescent bulbs. Device B, with one 9-watt UV fluorescent bulb. Device C, with six 1-watt LED lights.

Markova and colleague Martin A. Weinstock, MD, professor of dermatology at Brown University, measured the radiation from a 10-minute session under the lamps, which is more than people typically get in a nail salon.

They compared the cancer-causing potential of each device to a course of treatment with the FDA-approved UV phototherapy devices commonly used by dermatologists. These treatments carry a low cancer risk.

"Over 13,000 Device A or B and more than 40,000 Device C sessions lasting for 10 minutes would be required to be received at the nail salon to equal the UV dose received during one [phototherapy] course," Markova and Weinstock calculate.

Gel nails, which usually must be set under a UV nail lamp, require three 3-minute exposures per salon visit. That's much longer than the typical time normal nail polish takes to dry under the lamps.

In the 2009 report linking two women's skin cancers to nail lamps, researchers calculated that nail lamps expose people to as much radiation as tanning beds. But Markova says that study used the wrong method to calculate actual radiation exposure from the lamps.

She also notes that a 2010 industry study defending nail lamps used "incorrect" methods.

MacKelfresh says she's "impressed by the science" behind the Markova study.

"This at least opens the door to talking about the level of risk these units give to a person," she says. "It seems to put some science behind the claim that the dose of UV radiation you are receiving is quite low. But I'd like to see more research down the line."

The Markova study appears in an advance online publication by the Journal of Investigative Dermatology.

View Article Sources

SOURCES:

Markova, A. and Weinstock, M.A. Journal of Investigative Dermatology, published online Dec. 6, 2012.

Jamie MacKelfresh, MD, assistant professor of dermatology, Winship Cancer Center, Emory University, Atlanta.

Alina Markova, MD, resident, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

MacFarlane, D.F. and Alonso, C.A. Archives of Dermatology, April 2009.

© 2012 WebMD, LLC. All rights reserved. #url_reference {display: none};#url_reference { display: block; line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 10px; }#logo_rdr img { visibility: visible; }.titleBar_rdr .titleBarMiddle_fmt { padding-top: 1.5em !important;} Top Picks 15 Cancer Symptoms Women Ignore Sleep Problems and Cancer Cancer: Should You See a Specialist? 8 Ways to Lower Your Cancer Risk Chemotherapy Side Effects See What Skin Cancer Looks Like Cancer Health Center Cancer Health Center Bladder Cancer Brain Cancer Breast Cancer Cervical Cancer Colorectal Cancer Lung Cancer Melanoma Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma Ovarian Cancer Pancreatic Cancer Prostate Cancer See what others are asking about

Visit WebMD Answers

Related To Cancer Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia Cancer Clinical Trials Cancer Reference Childhood Leukemia Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia Kidney Cancer Leukemia Living Healthy Malignant Glioma Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer Palliative Care Questions and Answers Uterine (Endometrial) Cancer Today in Cancer Blog How to Build a Support Team SLIDESHOW Eating These Cancer- Fighting Foods?   SLIDESHOW See What Skin Cancer Looks Like SLIDESHOW 13 Best Quit-Smoking Tips Ever   Blog 'I'll Be Bald Or Fat But Not Both' HEALTH CHECK What Is Your Cancer Risk?   Video Colorectal Cancer Treatment Advances SLIDESHOW Breast Cancer: Symptoms, Treatment   SLIDESHOW All About Prostate Cancer SLIDESHOW A Visual Guide to Lung Cancer   SLIDESHOW Ovarian Cancer Explained VIDEO Life After a Brain Tumor   Subscribe to WebMD Newsletters

WebMD Daily Women's Health Men's Health Weight Loss Wisdom I have read and agree to WebMD's Privacy Policy. Submit Sign up for more topics! WebMD Special Sections Coping With Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia Stem Cell Transplants for Blood Cancers Understanding Cancer and Bone Metastasis Nutrition to Help You Fight Cancer Health Solutions From Our Sponsors Vaccine Questions? Low Testosterone? Bipolar Disorder Facts Birth Control for Moms Blood Sugar Control Bent Fingers? Diagnosed With Low T? Fibromyalgia & Exercise Depression & Adults Child with Diabetes? Vaccines for All Ages Knee Pain Relief Itchy, Scaly Skin? Hearing Aid Alternative Relapsing MS Help In-depth coverage: Psoriasis Treatment on Target?|Healthy Mouth Help|RA Assessment|Living Healthy Guide|Family & Pregnancy Toolbox|Check Your Heartburn Symptoms Find us on:URAC: Accredited Health Web SiteHonCode: Health on the Net FoundationAdChoicesAbout WebMD Advertise With Us Terms of Use Privacy Policy Sponsor Policy Site Map Careers Contact UsMedscape Reference eMedicineHealth RxList Medscape MedicineNet BootsWebMD WebMD CorporateMedical Dictionary-->First Aid WebMD Magazine WebMD Health Record WebMD Mobile Newsletters Dictionary Physician Directory

©2005-2012 WebMD, LLC. All rights reserved.

WebMD does not provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See additional information.

View the Original article

Exposure to light at night may cause depression, learning issues, mouse study suggests

Nov. 14, 2012 — For most of history, humans rose with the sun and slept when it set. Enter Thomas Edison and colleagues, and with a flick of a switch, night became day, enabling us to work, play and post cat and kid photos on Facebook into the wee hours.

Share This:See Also:Health & MedicineMental Health ResearchVitamin DMind & BrainDepressionEducational PsychologyPlants & AnimalsMiceRodentsLiving WellReferenceSeasonal affective disorderSleep deprivationPupillary reflexCircadian rhythm sleep disorder

According to a new study of mice led by a Johns Hopkins biologist, however, this typical 21st-century scenario may come at a serious cost: When people routinely burn the midnight oil, they risk suffering depression and learning issues, and not only because of lack of sleep. The culprit could also be exposure to bright light at night from lamps, computers and even iPads.

"Basically, what we found is that chronic exposure to bright light -- even the kind of light you experience in your own living room at home or in the workplace at night if you are a shift worker -- elevates levels of a certain stress hormone in the body, which results in depression and lowers cognitive function," said Samer Hattar, a biology professor in the Johns Hopkins University's Krieger School of Arts and Sciences.

Published in the Nov. 14 advance online publication of the journal Nature, the mice study demonstrates how special cells in the eye (called intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells, or ipRGCs) are activated by bright light, affecting the brain's center for mood, memory and learning.

But the study involved mice, so why are we talking about humans? Hattar offers some insight: "Mice and humans are actually very much alike in many ways, and one is that they have these ipRGCs in their eyes, which affect them the same way," he said. "In addition, in this study, we make reference to previous studies on humans, which show that light does, indeed, impact the human brain's limbic system. And the same pathways are in place in mice."

The scientists knew that shorter days in the winter cause some people to develop a form of depression known as "seasonal affective disorder" and that some patients with this mood disorder benefit from "light therapy," which is simple, regular exposure to bright light.

Hattar's team, led by graduate students Tara LeGates and Cara Altimus, posited that mice would react the same way, and tested their theory by exposing laboratory rodents to a cycle consisting of 3.5 hours of light and then 3.5 hours of darkness. Previous studies using this cycle showed that it did not disrupt the mice's sleep cycles, but Hattar's team found that it did cause the animals to develop depression-like behaviors.

"Of course, you can't ask mice how they feel, but we did see an increase in depression-like behaviors, including a lack of interest in sugar or pleasure seeking, and the study mice moved around far less during some of the tests we did," he said. "They also clearly did not learn as quickly or remember tasks as well. They were not as interested in novel objects as were mice on a regular light-darkness cycle schedule."

The animals also had increased levels of cortisol, a stress hormone that has been linked in numerous previous studies with learning issues. Treatment with Prozac, a commonly prescribed anti-depressant, mitigated the symptoms, restoring the mice to their previous healthy moods and levels of learning, and bolstering the evidence that their learning issues were caused by depression.

According to Hattar, the results indicate that humans should be wary of the kind of prolonged, regular exposure to bright light at night that is routine in our lives, because it may be having a negative effect on our mood and ability to learn.

"I'm not saying we have to sit in complete darkness at night, but I do recommend that we should switch on fewer lamps, and stick to less-intense light bulbs: Basically, only use what you need to see. That won't likely be enough to activate those ipRGCs that affect mood," he advises.

This study was supported by a grant from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation.

Share this story on Facebook, Twitter, and Google:

Other social bookmarking and sharing tools:

View the Original article