Motorcycle Deaths Continue to Climb: Report

WEDNESDAY, April 24 (HealthDay News) -- An estimated 5,000 motorcyclists were killed on U.S. roads in 2012, an increase of about 9 percent from the previous year, a new report shows.

Last year's number of motorcyclist deaths is near an all-time high, and motorcyclists remain one of the few roadway user groups where no progress has been seen over the past decade, the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA) report noted.

"In my state [Oregon], an improving economy and a longer window of nice weather meant there were more riders and riding days. The fatality increase is disheartening. Every motorcyclist deserves to arrive at their destination safely. These numbers represent real people -- they are family, friends and neighbors," Troy Costales, GHSA's immediate past chairman and head of Oregon's highway safety program, said in a GHSA news release.

The projected number of motorcyclist deaths for 2012 is based on state-by-state data for the first nine months of the year. Similar projections in previous years mirrored the final numbers.

Comparing the first nine months of 2011 and 2012, the report found that motorcyclist deaths increased in 34 states last year, decreased in 16 states and remained the same in the District of Columbia. Increases were seen in every region of the country and were quite high in many states. For example, motorcyclist deaths rose 32 percent in Oregon and 29 percent in Indiana.

With the economy improving, more people have disposable income for buying and riding motorcycles, the report noted. At the same time, high gas prices lead to more people buying fuel-efficient vehicles such as motorcycles.

The report also found a decrease in the number of states with laws that require all riders to wear helmets. That number is currently 19, down from 26 in 1997.

"All of the trends with motorcyclist deaths are really going in the wrong direction. This report is an urgent reminder that we must do more to address a problem that will only get worse with increased ridership. We are talking about 5,000 tragedies a year with no sign of progress," GHSA chairman Kendell Poole, director of Tennessee's highway safety program, said in the news release.

"The good news is that we know how to prevent crashes and the resulting injuries and fatalities involving motorcycle riders and their passengers. There are effective strategies that, when implemented, can make a difference," he added.

The report outlined a number of ways to reduce motorcyclist deaths. These include: increasing helmet use; reducing speeding and impaired riding; providing rider training to all who need or want it; ensuring proper licensing of riders; and encouraging all drivers to share the road with motorcyclists.

-- Robert Preidt
Copyright © 2013 HealthDay. All rights reserved. SOURCE: Governors Highway Safety Association, news release, April 24, 2013

View the original article here

Early, Severe Flu Season Caused Big Rise in Child Deaths: CDC

Senior hospitalizations also up during 2012-13 onslaught, U.S. health officials say

By Steven Reinberg

HealthDay Reporter

THURSDAY, June 13 (HealthDay News) -- This past flu season started earlier, peaked earlier and led to more adult hospitalizations and child deaths than most flu seasons, U.S. health officials reported Thursday.

At least 149 children died, compared to the usual range of 34 to 123, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The predominant strain of flu circulating in 2012-13 -- H3N2 -- made the illness deadlier for children, explained Lynnette Brammer, an epidemiologist with the CDC.

"With children H3 viruses can be severe, but there was also a lot of influenza B viruses circulating . . . and for kids they can be bad, too," she said.

Dr. Marc Siegel, an associate professor of medicine at NYU Langone Medical Center in New York City, added that H3N2 is easily transmitted from person to person and has a high rate of complications, which accounts for the increased hospitalizations.

"This is the kind of flu that enables other infections like pneumonia," he said. "Really what people need to know is that flu isn't the problem. The flu's effect on the immune system and fatigue is the problem."

The flu season started in September, which is unusually early, and peaked at the end of December, which is also unusual, Siegel said.

Flu season typically begins in December and peaks in late January or February.

Texas, New York and Florida had the most reported pediatric deaths. Except for the 2009-10 H1N1 flu pandemic, which killed at least 348 children, the past flu season was the deadliest since the CDC began collecting data on child flu deaths, according to the report, published in the June 14 issue of the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Older adults were targeted heavily by the 2012-13 flu. Those aged 65 and older accounted for more than half of all reported flu-associated hospitalizations in the 2012-13 flu season -- the most since the CDC started collecting data on flu hospitalizations in 2005-06, the agency reported.

In addition, more Americans saw a doctor for flu than in recent flu seasons, the CDC noted.

The flu vaccine was well matched to the circulating strains, but less effective than health officials had hoped. In January, the CDC reported that the vaccine was about 60 percent effective, which meant it offered "moderate" protection from the flu.

Siegel said even a moderately effective vaccine is better than not getting vaccinated at all because flu symptoms will be milder, with a lower chance of complications.

According to Brammer, decisions about the vaccine for this coming season were made in February so manufacturers could make a sufficient supply for fall. The makeup will be basically the same as the 2012-13 vaccine with some tweaks to some of the strains so they better match changes in the viruses, she said.

The CDC recommends that everyone 6 months and older get vaccinated. The agency urges people at higher risk for severe disease -- including young children, pregnant women, anyone with a chronic health problem and the elderly -- to get the vaccine.

Don't make any assumptions about the course of next season's flu based on the recent past, these experts added.

"I wouldn't assume next year's flu season is going to be milder or that it's going to be early," Siegel said. "The flu is unpredictable."

Because the 2012-13 flu season started several months earlier than usual, the CDC also advised doctors to consider influenza as the source of respiratory illnesses that occur beyond the typical flu window.

View the original article here

Sugary Drinks Tied to 25,000 U.S. Deaths a Year

Study estimated beverages' role in worldwide obesity and heart disease, diabetes, some cancers

By Amy Norton

HealthDay Reporter

TUESDAY, March 19 (HealthDay News) -- More than 180,000 deaths worldwide in 2010 were linked to a high intake of sugar-laden drinks, a new study estimates, including 25,000 deaths in the United States.

Most deaths occurred in middle- to low-income countries, the Harvard researchers noted.

The findings are surprising because "we often think of this as a problem only in high-income countries, like the U.S.," said lead researcher Gitanjali Singh, a research fellow at Harvard School of Public Health, in Boston.

She said her findings, presented Tuesday at an American Heart Association meeting in New Orleans, point to a need for policies that curb people's sugary drink intake.

One such effort, in New York City, is currently in the spotlight. Last week, a judge struck down Mayor Michael Bloomberg's controversial limit on large sweetened sodas and other sugary beverages, one day before the rule was to go into effect. Bloomberg said he would appeal the decision and defended his plan, which would have limited the size of sugary drinks sold at restaurants, food carts and theaters to 16 ounces.

Singh said that's not the only type of measure officials could take. Others could include taxing sugar-added drinks, or limiting advertising of the beverages to children.

But "anti-soda" moves are a tough sell -- not only because the beverage industry and many consumers resist. It's also hard to pin ill health effects on one component of people's diets, even if it's a nutritionally dubious one.

These latest findings do not prove that sugary drinks kill people. They only show a correlation between high consumption and deaths from heart disease, diabetes and certain cancers.

"This type of study cannot prove cause-and-effect," said Lona Sandon, an assistant professor of clinical nutrition at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas.

"Sugary beverage consumption is often paired with other unhealthy food choices or behaviors," said Sandon, who was not involved in the study. "Chronic diseases, such as heart disease and diabetes, are the result of many factors, not just excess sugar intake."

That said, everyone should be limiting added sugar -- from drinks and food -- Sandon stressed. "We just do not need added sugar that is empty calories," she said.

The beverage industry also weighed in on the findings.

"This [study], which is neither peer-reviewed nor published, is more about sensationalism than science," the American Beverage Association (ABA) said in a statement issued Tuesday.

"In no way does it show that consuming sugar-sweetened beverages causes chronic diseases such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease or cancer -- the real causes of death among the studied subjects," the ABA added. "The researchers make a huge leap when they illogically and wrongly take beverage intake calculations from around the globe and allege that those beverages are the cause of deaths which the authors themselves acknowledge are due to chronic disease."

View the original article here

CT Scans Reduce Lung Cancer Deaths, Study Confirms

But questions remain about widespread screening

By Randy Dotinga

HealthDay Reporter

WEDNESDAY, May 22 (HealthDay News) -- Physicians weighing the benefits and risks of CT scans for detecting lung cancer now have more information to help with the decision. A new analysis of a 2010 U.S. study finds that low-dose CT scans pick up significantly more lung tumors than chest X-rays do.

People with a long history of smoking are at high risk for lung cancer, the deadliest form of cancer in the United States. But doctors have to consider the potential harm of radiation exposure when ordering screening. The initial 2010 trial suggested that the low-dose CT scans can save lives, but they're not yet routine and insurers typically don't pay for them.

"There's a whole bunch of stuff that has to be worked out," said Dr. Norman Edelman, chief medical officer of the American Lung Association. This includes the prospect of expanding screening to a wider group and relying on radiologists less experienced than those who reviewed the lung scans in the initial study.

Already, some medical centers are offering CT lung scans below cost, at $200 or $300, apparently in the hope that they'll recoup their loss by detecting suspicious nodules in the lungs of patients, he said.

About 158,000 people die from lung cancer in the United States each year, often because it's detected too late for effective treatment. The new analysis of the 2010 study indicated that by identifying malignancies sooner, low-dose CT scans will reduce the death tally.

Who should get screened is a question that must be addressed, said Dr. Otis Brawley, chief medical officer and executive vice president of the American Cancer Society. "Everyone wants to jump toward screening as an answer," Brawley said.

The initial study involved 53,000 current and former heavy smokers, aged 55 to 74, who underwent a CT scan or chest X-ray every year for three years, starting in 2002.

By 2010, the death rate among those who got the CT scans was 20 percent lower than for those who got X-rays.

CT scans revealed potential signs of cancer in 27 percent of those scanned, compared to 9 percent of people who got X-rays, the researchers found. In both groups, about 91 percent had at least one more test.

Most of those suspicious spots and nodules weren't actually cancerous.

After follow-up, lung cancer was diagnosed in 1.1 percent of the patients in the CT group and 0.7 percent of the X-ray group, the researchers reported in the May 23 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.

The CT scans were much more likely to pick up lung cancer in its early, more treatable stages: stage 1 cancer was found in 158 CT scan patients versus 70 X-ray patients, according to the study.

View the original article here

Alcohol Blamed for 1 in Every 30 Cancer Deaths: Study

Title: Alcohol Blamed for 1 in Every 30 Cancer Deaths: Study
Category: Health News
Created: 2/14/2013 4:36:00 PM
Last Editorial Review: 2/15/2013 12:00:00 AM

View the original article here

Alcohol Blamed for 1 in Every 30 Cancer Deaths: Study

By Steven Reinberg

HealthDay Reporter

THURSDAY, Feb. 14 (HealthDay News) -- For anyone who still thinks that drinking does not contribute to cancer, a new report finds that alcohol is to blame for one in every 30 cancer deaths each year in the United States.

The connection is even more pronounced with breast cancer, with 15 percent of those deaths related to alcohol consumption, the researchers added.

And don't think that drinking in moderation will help, because 30 percent of all alcohol-related cancer deaths are linked to drinking 1.5 drinks or less a day, the report found.

Alcohol is a cancer-causing agent that's in "plain sight," but people just don't see it, said study author Dr. David Nelson, director of the Cancer Prevention Fellowship Program at the U.S. National Cancer Institute.

"As expected, people who are higher alcohol users were at higher risk, but there was really no safe level of alcohol use," he stressed.

Moderate drinking has been associated with heart benefits, Nelson noted. "But, in the broader context of all the issues and all the problems that alcohol is related to, alcohol causes 10 times as many deaths as it prevents," he said.

The best thing people who believe they are at risk for cancer can do is reduce their alcohol consumption, Nelson said. "From a cancer prevention perspective, the less you drink, the lower your risk of an alcohol-related cancer and, obviously, if one doesn't drink at all then that's the lowest risk," he said.

The report was published online Feb. 14 in the American Journal of Public Health.

To determine the risks related to drinking and cancer, Nelson's team compiled data from a variety of sources, including the 2009 Alcohol Epidemiologic Data System, the 2009 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System and the 2009-2010 National Alcohol Survey.

Along with breast cancer in women, cancers of the mouth, throat and esophagus were also common causes of alcohol-related cancer deaths in men, accounting for about 6,000 deaths each year.

Each alcohol-related cancer death accounted for an average of 18 years of potential life lost, the researchers added.

Previous studies have shown drinking is a risk factor for cancers of the mouth, throat, esophagus, liver, colon, rectum and, in women, breast cancer, the researchers noted.

According to the American Cancer Society, it's not entirely clear how alcohol might raise cancer risk. Alcohol might act as a chemical irritant to sensitive cells, impeding their DNA repair, or damage cells in other ways. It might also act as a "solvent" for other carcinogens, such as those found in tobacco smoke, helping those chemicals enter into cells more easily. Or alcohol might affect levels of key hormones such as estrogen, upping odds for breast cancer.

One expert says the findings in this study are consistent with what has been shown before.

"Nobody is recommending that if you do not drink to start drinking for any reason," said Susan Gapstur, vice president of epidemiology at the cancer society. "If you do drink, limit your consumption."

Gapstur did point out that smoking is a much more powerful factor in cancer deaths than alcohol. Although some 20,000 cancer deaths can be attributed to alcohol each year, more than 100,000 cancer deaths are caused by smoking, she said.

To strike a balance between the cancer risk of drinking and its possible benefit in preventing heart disease, Gapstur suggested talking with your doctor about the risks and benefits of drinking.

More information

For more on alcohol and cancer, visit the American Cancer Society.

View the original article here

Flu Deaths 'Unpredictable'

CDC: Yearly Flu Death Toll Ranges from 3,000 to 50,000

Aug. 26, 2010 – U.S. deaths from flu range from about 3,000 to about 50,000 per year, the CDC now calculates.

The new numbers come from analysis of the last 31 flu seasons by CDC medical officer David Shay, MD, MPH and colleagues.

For years, the CDC has been estimating the annual flu toll at about 36,000 flu-related deaths per year. But that average came from the years 1990-1999.

The H3N2 type A flu bug dominated eight of those nine flu seasons -- and the Shay study finds that H3N2 seasons are nearly three times as deadly as H1N1 type A or type B seasons.

So how many people really die of flu in an average flu season?

"There are very few average seasons," Shay said at a news teleconference. "That is one reason why CDC is trying to move away from a single number and move to a range over a period of time to give a better prediction of what flu means to a community."

What this really means is that the CDC wants out of the flu prediction business. For example, there's no way to say whether the approaching 2010-2011 flu season will be mild or severe.

It could be like the 1986-1987 season, with only 3,349 deaths. It could be like the 2003-2004 season, with 48,614 deaths. Shay says there's no way to predict.

Even if the season starts out with a rash of H3N2 illness, he says, there's just no way to tell whether the milder flu bugs will come on strong later in the season.

And the type of flu bug isn't the only factor. Some flu seasons are shorter than others, so fewer people get sick and fewer die. During some flu seasons, a lot of elderly people get sick. Since about 90% of flu deaths are in the elderly, more people would die.

"Flu deaths are a moving target," Shay said. "Among vaccine-preventable diseases, there is not another one that has this kind of moving target."

Over the 31 seasons analyzed in the Shay study, the average annual number of deaths due to flu-related causes was 23,607. But Shay warns against using this as a benchmark.

"A simple average fails to give the impact of flu," Shay says.

Only one thing about flu is predictable. If you get the annual flu shot -- now recommended for everyone who does not have a medical reason to avoid it -- your odds of getting the flu are dramatically lower.

Moreover, if you're vaccinated, you're far less likely to infect someone who might come down with severe disease, possibly adding to the year's flu death toll.

The Shay study appears in the Aug. 27 issue of the CDC's MMWR: Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

View the original article here

Most Cancer Deaths Continue to Drop

Fewer Americans are dying from cancer.

This is one main take-away from the latest report on cancer death rates and new diagnoses of cancer in the U.S. This decline is seen among men and women across all major racial and ethnic groups, and for 17 of the most common types of cancer including lung, colon, breast, and prostate cancers.

Still, not all of the news from the new report is positive.

Rates of death are on the rise from the potentially fatal form of skin cancer, melanoma, in men; uterine cancer in women; and liver and pancreatic cancer in both sexes. What’s more, the data show a rise in cancers related to human papillomavirus (HPV) infection, and that too few at-risk people are getting the vaccine that can help prevent these cancers.

“There is substantial good news in this report,” says researcher Edgar P. Simard, PhD, MPH. He is a senior epidemiologist in the Surveillance Research Program at the American Cancer Society (ACS) in Atlanta. 

The ACS, CDC, National Cancer Institute, and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries (NAACCR) all contributed to the new report.

Overall, cancer death rates decreased by 1.8% per year among men and by 1.4% per year among women from 2000 to 2009. Death rates among children up to 14 years of age decreased by 1.8% per year.

The reasons that fewer people are dying from cancer are likely earlier detection plus better treatments, Simard says. “With the exception of lung cancer, there are screening tests that can detect precancerous lesions or early cancer for the common types of cancer." And “in the past 10 years, targeted therapies that take into account the genes and molecular characteristics of individuals and tumors have shown promise.”

Some of this decline may also be related to healthier lifestyle choices such as not smoking.

But many outside experts say that we can’t rest on our laurels just yet.

“It is encouraging that the rates are going down, but we would like to see the curves dropping faster and death rates from all cancers declining,” says Leonard B. Saltz, MD. He is the chief of the gastrointestinal medical oncology service at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. “We would like to have as few people as possible get cancer in the first place and the highest number of people survive if they do develop cancer.”

The report does find that between 2000 and 2009, overall rates of new diagnoses of cancer decreased by 0.6% per year among men, remained stable among women, and increased by 0.6% per year in children up to 14 years of age.

Cy Aaron Stein, MD, PhD, is worried that budget cutbacks will erode some of the gains seen in the new report. He is the chair of the Department of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics Research at City of Hope Cancer Center in Duarte, Calf.

“I am delighted, but it is not enough,” he says. “The real question is: Will these decreases continue in today’s financial climate? We know that as go the finances, so goes the [death] rate. There is no question that we have to cut back, because we are going to break the bank if we don’t.”

View the original article here

Feds Sue Nap Nanny Maker Over Infant Deaths

Five Infant Deaths Linked to Portable Baby Recliners ByJennifer Warner
WebMD Health News Reviewed byLouise Chang, MD

Dec. 6, 2012 -- Federal authorities are taking the makers of the Nap Nanny to court for failing to voluntarily recall its product.

At least five infant deaths and more than 70 complaints of children falling out of the Nap Nanny baby recliner have been reported to the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).

In an administrative complaint filed yesterday, the agency says the manufacturer isn’t doing enough to warn customers about the risks associated with the product.

The Nap Nanny is a baby recliner designed for sleep, rest, and play. The recliner includes a shaped foam pad with a fabric cover and three-point harness.

The CPSC recalled the Nap Nanny Generation One recliner in July 2010 after the first infant death was reported. At that time, 22 reports of infants hanging or falling out over the side of the Nap Nanny had been reported, even though most of the infants had been placed in the harness.

Since then, the agency says the product’s manufacturer, Baby Matters LLC of Berwyn, Pa., has failed to adequately warn customers of the product’s risks.

 

Nap Nanny Safety Risk at Issue

In the lawsuit, the CPSC says the Nap Nanny Generation One and Two, and Chill model baby recliners, contain defects in the design, warnings, and instructions that pose a substantial risk of death and injury to infants.

The complaint requests that the manufacturer stop selling the products, notify the public of the defect, and offer consumers a full refund.

The CPSC says it took the matter to court after discussions with Baby Matters LLC failed to result in an adequate voluntary recall plan that would address the hazards posed by use of the product in a crib or without the harness straps being securely fastened.

In a statement posted on Nap Nanny’s web site, company founder and owner Leslie Gudel says they stand behind the safety of the product when used as instructed.

“The loss of an infant is an unthinkable tragedy, and I am truly heartbroken for the families who have lost a child,” Gudel says. “But the fact that infants have died ‘while using’ the Nap Nanny improperly, such as when used in a crib where the child could suffocate on a crib bumper or a blanket, does not mean our product caused the child’s death or is hazardous.”

The CPSC says 5,000 Nap Nanny Generation One and 50,000 Generation Two models were sold between 2009 and early 2012 and have been discontinued. An additional 100,000 Chill models have been sold since January 2011. All were priced around $130.

View Article Sources

SOURCES:

News release, CPSC. 

News release, Nap Nanny.

© 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 Tips for Dealing With Colic 25 Ways to Handle the Stress of a New Baby How to Tell When Your Baby Is Sick 9 Easy Steps to Trim Your Baby's Nails Common Baby Feeding Problems When Should Baby Transition to Bottle-Feeding? Baby's First Year NewsletterBecause every week matters, get expert advice and facts on what to expect in your baby's first year.

Related to Baby & Parenting Protecting Baby from Infection Baby's Vision: What Your Baby Sees Help for Your Baby’s Eczema Early Signs of Hearing Loss Protect Your Kids: Get Your Shots Germs at Daycare: Questions to Ask Health & Baby Home News Reference Videos Parenting Community Questions and Answers Health & Baby Guide Baby Development Baby Nutrition Bottle Feeding Breastfeeding Crying & Colic Diapering & Digestion Essential Baby Gear Sleeping & Napping TLC for New Moms Your Baby's Skin More Related Topics See what others are asking about

Visit WebMD Answers

Top 12 Topics 1. Fever 2. Teething 3. Tummy Time 4. Eczema 5. Colic 6. Breast Pumps 7. Diapering 8. Jaundice 9. Preemies 10. Baby Diarrhea 11. Ear Infections 12. Baby Constipation Living Healthy Centers Balance Children's Health Fitness Food & Recipes Healthy Beauty Weight Loss & Diet Plans Pregnancy Raising Fit Kids Sex & Relationships Women's Health More Family & Pregnancy Today in Baby Health Slideshow Baby-Proofing Your Home Article The Truth About Poop   Tool Is My Baby Normal? Slideshow Feeding Your Baby: Starting Solids   SLIDESHOW Feeding Your Baby: Starting Solids QUIZ How to Soothe Your Child’s Cold or Flu   VIDEO Protecting Baby from Germs TOOL Track Your Baby's Vaccines   Slideshow Baby Napping Dos and Don'ts Article 6 Post-Pregnancy Body Changes   Article New Dads: Tips to Bond With Baby Slideshow 4 Baby Gear Essentials   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! Enter your email address Enter your first name Enter your child's due date or date of birth Enter your child's gender (if applicable) Choose Male Female Enter your child's name (if applicable) I have read and agree to WebMD's Privacy Policy. Submit WebMD Special Sections Day2Night: How Mom Can Stop Germs A Guide to Your Baby's Sleep and Naps 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