NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - A nutritional supplement called myo-inositol may help protect women at risk for gestational diabetes, according to a small pilot study.
Previous studies have shown that inositol supplements may help restore fertility in polycystic ovary syndrome, but this is the first evidence that it may reduce the number of cases of gestational diabetes, lead author Dr. Rosario D'Anna told Reuters Health by email.
Women who are overweight or obese or have a family history of diabetes are at risk for gestational diabetes, which affects up to 10 percent of pregnancies in the U.S., according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Mothers with the condition have trouble dealing with carbohydrates leading to high blood sugar.
'Undiagnosed and untreated gestational diabetes can cause large for gestational age babies, which may lead to delivery complications,' said D'Anna, of the Department of Obstetrics at University Hospital in Messina, Italy.
The researchers selected 220 pregnant women with a family history of type 2 diabetes, in which people suffer from high blood sugar because they are unable to store that sugar in cells properly.
Half the women were given two grams of myo-inositol supplements twice a day along with the recommended amount of folic acid, a supplement recommended for all pregnant women. The other women were given only folic acid, from the end of the first trimester throughout pregnancy.
A bottle of 60 650-milligram myo-inositol supplements, available in the U.S. without a prescription, costs about $10. The compound is also found in fruits, nuts, grains, and meats, but not at very high levels.
Of the women who took myo-inositol, six percent developed gestational diabetes, compared to 15 percent of the women who only took folic acid, according to the study, published in the journal Diabetes Care.
None of the babies in the myo-inositol group met criteria for being overweight, but seven babies in the non-supplement group did, weighing more than eight pounds, 13 ounces.
Despite these positive findings, researchers don't know how the supplement works or if it is safe, Dr. Donald Coustan of the Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine at Women and Infants Hospital of Rhode Island in Providence told Reuters Health.
'The results are promising, but we would need a larger trial and a broader group of women before we could recommend this supplement,' Dr. Wanda Nicholson, who studies gestational diabetes at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, told Reuters Health.
Although their blood sugar levels usually return to normal after pregnancy, women need to continue a high quality diet and exercise, said Nicholson.
'Up to 50 percent of women in general who are diagnosed with gestational diabetes can develop type 2 diabetes in the next five to 10 years,' she said.
'There's really nothing currently recommended to prevent gestational diabetes' other than maintaining a healthy weight before getting pregnant, said Coustan, who was not involved in the study but wrote an accompanying commentary that the journal will not release until March 21.
The number of women with the condition has been increasing over the past ten years, he said.
'There's great concern that we're going be inundated with patients with gestational diabetes,' Coustan said.
SOURCE: http://bit.ly/VtWb71 Diabetes Care, online January 22, 2013.
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Parents Raising $250K for Boy's Hearing
Carson Rubin will begin kindergarten in the fall, but because of a medical condition he'll have difficulty hearing what his teachers and classmates are saying.
The condition, a hearing impairment called auditory neuropathy, can be cured with the surgery known as cochlear implants. But the surgery isn't covered by Carson's family insurance and at the price of $250,000, his parents aren't able to pay for it.
'The surgery would change his life,' said Brian Rubin, Carson's dad. 'He's never been able to interact with other children. When he goes to birthday parties and school functions, he's always left out.'
The Monroe, Ga., couple is asking their community to help raise money for the surgery. They've launched a Facebook page called Carson's story, displaying pictures of their son and explaining what a difference the surgery would mean to him.
The Rubin's say their son, who is 5, is very bright and can grasp concepts well, but his trouble hearing has put him behind other students his age.
Brian Rubin's wife Shay had to give up her job as a second grade teacher to take care of their son.
John Weigand, the chief audiologist at Downstate Medical Center in Brooklyn, says auditory neuropathy is an interruption of the way the auditory nerve functions.
'If you think of it as a wire, the wire is not transmitting the signal in a typical way,' said Weigand.
According to Weigand, the cochlear implant surgery would bypass the hearing system that isn't working and stimulate it electrically rather than acoustically.
'Most hearing parents want their child to hear and be as much like them as possible. Cochlear implants achieve that,' said Weigand.
The surgery forces people to learn how to read and write over again and since school is around the corner, time is of the essence.
Brian Rubin, who works in software development for a marketing firm, says his health insurance provider has a written exclusion for the cochlear implants surgery.
Christine Grow is a spokesperson for Coventry Health Insurance of Georgia, Rubin's provider. Grow told ABC affiliate WSB-TV that she could not comment about a specific case because of privacy concerns.
Grow added, 'We are not aware of any small group plan in the state of Georgia that covers this type of surgery.'
Brian Rubin says they family has raised a few thousand dollars so far.
Rubin tells ABCNews.com that they're trying to schedule the surgery for the near future, even though they probably won't have the necessary funds.
'We're going to have to take out a loan,' he said.
Also Read
The condition, a hearing impairment called auditory neuropathy, can be cured with the surgery known as cochlear implants. But the surgery isn't covered by Carson's family insurance and at the price of $250,000, his parents aren't able to pay for it.
'The surgery would change his life,' said Brian Rubin, Carson's dad. 'He's never been able to interact with other children. When he goes to birthday parties and school functions, he's always left out.'
The Monroe, Ga., couple is asking their community to help raise money for the surgery. They've launched a Facebook page called Carson's story, displaying pictures of their son and explaining what a difference the surgery would mean to him.
The Rubin's say their son, who is 5, is very bright and can grasp concepts well, but his trouble hearing has put him behind other students his age.
Brian Rubin's wife Shay had to give up her job as a second grade teacher to take care of their son.
John Weigand, the chief audiologist at Downstate Medical Center in Brooklyn, says auditory neuropathy is an interruption of the way the auditory nerve functions.
'If you think of it as a wire, the wire is not transmitting the signal in a typical way,' said Weigand.
According to Weigand, the cochlear implant surgery would bypass the hearing system that isn't working and stimulate it electrically rather than acoustically.
'Most hearing parents want their child to hear and be as much like them as possible. Cochlear implants achieve that,' said Weigand.
The surgery forces people to learn how to read and write over again and since school is around the corner, time is of the essence.
Brian Rubin, who works in software development for a marketing firm, says his health insurance provider has a written exclusion for the cochlear implants surgery.
Christine Grow is a spokesperson for Coventry Health Insurance of Georgia, Rubin's provider. Grow told ABC affiliate WSB-TV that she could not comment about a specific case because of privacy concerns.
Grow added, 'We are not aware of any small group plan in the state of Georgia that covers this type of surgery.'
Brian Rubin says they family has raised a few thousand dollars so far.
Rubin tells ABCNews.com that they're trying to schedule the surgery for the near future, even though they probably won't have the necessary funds.
'We're going to have to take out a loan,' he said.
Also Read
Boy's Family Needs $250K to Fix Hearing
Carson Rubin will begin kindergarten in the fall, but because of a medical condition he'll have difficulty hearing what his teachers and classmates are saying.
The condition, a hearing impairment called auditory neuropathy, can be cured with the surgery known as cochlear implants. But the surgery isn't covered by Carson's family insurance and at the price of $250,000, his parents aren't able to pay for it.
'The surgery would change his life,' said Brian Rubin, Carson's dad. 'He's never been able to interact with other children. When he goes to birthday parties and school functions, he's always left out.'
The Monroe, Ga., couple is asking their community to help raise money for the surgery. They've launched a Facebook page called Carson's story, displaying pictures of their son and explaining what a difference the surgery would mean to him.
The Rubin's say their son, who is 5, is very bright and can grasp concepts well, but his trouble hearing has put him behind other students his age.
Brian Rubin's wife Shay had to give up her job as a second grade teacher to take care of their son.
John Weigand, the chief audiologist at Downstate Medical Center in Brooklyn, says auditory neuropathy is an interruption of the way the auditory nerve functions.
'If you think of it as a wire, the wire is not transmitting the signal in a typical way,' said Weigand.
According to Weigand, the cochlear implant surgery would bypass the hearing system that isn't working and stimulate it electrically rather than acoustically.
'Most hearing parents want their child to hear and be as much like them as possible. Cochlear implants achieve that,' said Weigand.
The surgery forces people to learn how to read and write over again and since school is around the corner, time is of the essence.
Brian Rubin, who works in software development for a marketing firm, says his health insurance provider has a written exclusion for the cochlear implants surgery.
Christine Grow is a spokesperson for Coventry Health Insurance of Georgia, Rubin's provider. Grow told ABC affiliate WSB-TV that she could not comment about a specific case because of privacy concerns.
Grow added, 'We are not aware of any small group plan in the state of Georgia that covers this type of surgery.'
Brian Rubin says they family has raised a few thousand dollars so far.
Rubin tells ABCNews.com that they're trying to schedule the surgery for the near future, even though they probably won't have the necessary funds.
'We're going to have to take out a loan,' he said.
Also Read
The condition, a hearing impairment called auditory neuropathy, can be cured with the surgery known as cochlear implants. But the surgery isn't covered by Carson's family insurance and at the price of $250,000, his parents aren't able to pay for it.
'The surgery would change his life,' said Brian Rubin, Carson's dad. 'He's never been able to interact with other children. When he goes to birthday parties and school functions, he's always left out.'
The Monroe, Ga., couple is asking their community to help raise money for the surgery. They've launched a Facebook page called Carson's story, displaying pictures of their son and explaining what a difference the surgery would mean to him.
The Rubin's say their son, who is 5, is very bright and can grasp concepts well, but his trouble hearing has put him behind other students his age.
Brian Rubin's wife Shay had to give up her job as a second grade teacher to take care of their son.
John Weigand, the chief audiologist at Downstate Medical Center in Brooklyn, says auditory neuropathy is an interruption of the way the auditory nerve functions.
'If you think of it as a wire, the wire is not transmitting the signal in a typical way,' said Weigand.
According to Weigand, the cochlear implant surgery would bypass the hearing system that isn't working and stimulate it electrically rather than acoustically.
'Most hearing parents want their child to hear and be as much like them as possible. Cochlear implants achieve that,' said Weigand.
The surgery forces people to learn how to read and write over again and since school is around the corner, time is of the essence.
Brian Rubin, who works in software development for a marketing firm, says his health insurance provider has a written exclusion for the cochlear implants surgery.
Christine Grow is a spokesperson for Coventry Health Insurance of Georgia, Rubin's provider. Grow told ABC affiliate WSB-TV that she could not comment about a specific case because of privacy concerns.
Grow added, 'We are not aware of any small group plan in the state of Georgia that covers this type of surgery.'
Brian Rubin says they family has raised a few thousand dollars so far.
Rubin tells ABCNews.com that they're trying to schedule the surgery for the near future, even though they probably won't have the necessary funds.
'We're going to have to take out a loan,' he said.
Also Read
CDC Panel Recommends Whooping Cough Vaccine Every Pregnancy
The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which is an advisory panel of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), has issued its vaccination recommendations for 2013. The recommendations, formally known as the Adult Vaccination Schedule, were published online Monday morning in the Annals of Internal Medicine ahead of the journal's next full issue.
The recommendations were also simultaneously published as part of the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR). Among the expanded list of recommendations were several that specifically detailed vaccinations that should be given during pregnancy, including the vaccine that protects against pertussis, which is more commonly known as whooping cough.
Here is some of the key information that emerged on Monday regarding the ACIP's vaccination recommendations for 2013.
* The ACIP recognized in its recommendations that the general rate of vaccination among adults remains low. The goal of publishing the guidelines was to try and encourage vaccine providers to more strongly recommend vaccinations to their adult patients, because research has shown that 'a strong recommendation from a health-care provider is associated with increased uptake of vaccines.'
* The ACIP also created a 'Community Guide' within its recommendations that covers other aspects of increased vaccination awareness and administration, including standing orders and reminder/recall systems.
* There were two major sets of changes to the ACIP's recommendations from last year. Those changes revolved around the pneumonia vaccines and the Tdap vaccine.
* The Tdap vaccine protects against acellular pertussis, diptheria, and tetanus.
* As noted in the CDC's MMWR, the panel also released its updated immunization schedule for children up to 18 years of age.
* HealthDay News noted in its report regarding the updated Adult Immunization Schedule that the recommendation that women receive the Tdap vaccine not only during a current pregnancy, but during each successive pregnancy, is new for 2013.
* The recommendations state that the best time for a pregnant woman to receive the Tdap vaccine is between 27 and 36 weeks gestation, to allow time for the vaccination's protective effects to pass through to the baby as well.
* The recommendations come on the heels of one of the worst years for whooping cough in recent history. As noted by a report from the Wall Street Journal on Monday, some 41,000 cases of whooping cough were reported in the United States last year, the highest level in at least five decades. Most of the known deaths from that outbreak were infants that were under 3 months of age.
* Giving expectant mothers the Tdap vaccine is intended to help protect their babies from whooping cough until they are old enough to begin receiving their own immunizations.
Vanessa Evans is a musician and freelance writer based in Michigan, with a lifelong interest in health and nutrition issues.
The recommendations were also simultaneously published as part of the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR). Among the expanded list of recommendations were several that specifically detailed vaccinations that should be given during pregnancy, including the vaccine that protects against pertussis, which is more commonly known as whooping cough.
Here is some of the key information that emerged on Monday regarding the ACIP's vaccination recommendations for 2013.
* The ACIP recognized in its recommendations that the general rate of vaccination among adults remains low. The goal of publishing the guidelines was to try and encourage vaccine providers to more strongly recommend vaccinations to their adult patients, because research has shown that 'a strong recommendation from a health-care provider is associated with increased uptake of vaccines.'
* The ACIP also created a 'Community Guide' within its recommendations that covers other aspects of increased vaccination awareness and administration, including standing orders and reminder/recall systems.
* There were two major sets of changes to the ACIP's recommendations from last year. Those changes revolved around the pneumonia vaccines and the Tdap vaccine.
* The Tdap vaccine protects against acellular pertussis, diptheria, and tetanus.
* As noted in the CDC's MMWR, the panel also released its updated immunization schedule for children up to 18 years of age.
* HealthDay News noted in its report regarding the updated Adult Immunization Schedule that the recommendation that women receive the Tdap vaccine not only during a current pregnancy, but during each successive pregnancy, is new for 2013.
* The recommendations state that the best time for a pregnant woman to receive the Tdap vaccine is between 27 and 36 weeks gestation, to allow time for the vaccination's protective effects to pass through to the baby as well.
* The recommendations come on the heels of one of the worst years for whooping cough in recent history. As noted by a report from the Wall Street Journal on Monday, some 41,000 cases of whooping cough were reported in the United States last year, the highest level in at least five decades. Most of the known deaths from that outbreak were infants that were under 3 months of age.
* Giving expectant mothers the Tdap vaccine is intended to help protect their babies from whooping cough until they are old enough to begin receiving their own immunizations.
Vanessa Evans is a musician and freelance writer based in Michigan, with a lifelong interest in health and nutrition issues.
Monday, January 28, 2013
Placebo as good as most drugs for kids' migraines
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - A drug-free placebo pill prevents migraines in kids and teens just as well as most headache medicines, according to a new review of past evidence.
Researchers found only two drugs known to help migraine-plagued adults reduced the frequency of kids' headaches better than a placebo. And even in those cases, the effect was small - a difference of less than one headache per month compared to the dummy pills.
'Parents should be aware that our medication choices aren't as good as they should be,' said Dr. Jennifer Bickel, a neurologist and headache specialist at Children's Mercy Hospitals and Clinics in Kansas City, Missouri.
Bickel, who wasn't involved in the new research, said no drugs have been rigorously tested and approved for preventing migraines in kids, so doctors have to rely on headache drugs made for adults.
Those medicines, she added, are 'not a miracle cure.'
For cases when medication may not be enough, Bickel told Reuters Health, parents may want to look into relaxation techniques - such as meditation - for kids with chronic headaches.
According to data from the Cleveland Clinic, about 2 percent of young children and 7 to 10 percent of older kids and teenagers up to age 15 get migraines.
In their review, Dr. Jeffrey Jackson from the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee and his colleagues looked at 21 trials comparing headache drugs to each other or to placebos. They found only topiramate (marketed as Topamax) and trazodone (Oleptro and Desyrel) significantly reduced the frequency of headaches in kids and teens who got regular migraines.
Other adult headache prevention medicines, including flunarizine, propranolol and valproate, were of no help.
'All the drugs in our analysis have been found effective in adults with migraine headaches, but few were beneficial among children,' Jackson's team wrote.
'This suggests there may be something different about pediatric migraines or that the response to treatment differs between children and adults.'
Bickel said there is the least research on the one percent of kids who are most severely affected by migraines - those with chronic daily headaches. For those youth, 'we don't have any evidence to suggest that the medications are enough,' she added.
POWER OF PLACEBO?
In the new analysis, published Monday in JAMA Pediatrics, placebo pills alone led to a drop in kids' headache frequency from between five and six headaches per month to three per month.
That may have to do with the effect of seeing a doctor and being reassured the pain isn't due to anything serious, Bickel said.
According to a report from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration published in the same journal issue, two drugs - almotriptan malate (Axert) and rizatriptan benzoate (Maxalt) - are approved to treat (but not prevent) headaches in kids and teens.
In a review of evidence provided to the FDA, Dr. William Rodriguez and his colleagues also found kids tended to get better after treatment with a placebo more often than adults - possibly related to their headaches lasting less time anyway.
For kids who get headaches once a week or less, Bickel said the pain can be treated with over the counter painkillers, or even just waited out in a quiet place.
SOURCE: JAMA Pediatrics, online January 28, 2013.
Researchers found only two drugs known to help migraine-plagued adults reduced the frequency of kids' headaches better than a placebo. And even in those cases, the effect was small - a difference of less than one headache per month compared to the dummy pills.
'Parents should be aware that our medication choices aren't as good as they should be,' said Dr. Jennifer Bickel, a neurologist and headache specialist at Children's Mercy Hospitals and Clinics in Kansas City, Missouri.
Bickel, who wasn't involved in the new research, said no drugs have been rigorously tested and approved for preventing migraines in kids, so doctors have to rely on headache drugs made for adults.
Those medicines, she added, are 'not a miracle cure.'
For cases when medication may not be enough, Bickel told Reuters Health, parents may want to look into relaxation techniques - such as meditation - for kids with chronic headaches.
According to data from the Cleveland Clinic, about 2 percent of young children and 7 to 10 percent of older kids and teenagers up to age 15 get migraines.
In their review, Dr. Jeffrey Jackson from the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee and his colleagues looked at 21 trials comparing headache drugs to each other or to placebos. They found only topiramate (marketed as Topamax) and trazodone (Oleptro and Desyrel) significantly reduced the frequency of headaches in kids and teens who got regular migraines.
Other adult headache prevention medicines, including flunarizine, propranolol and valproate, were of no help.
'All the drugs in our analysis have been found effective in adults with migraine headaches, but few were beneficial among children,' Jackson's team wrote.
'This suggests there may be something different about pediatric migraines or that the response to treatment differs between children and adults.'
Bickel said there is the least research on the one percent of kids who are most severely affected by migraines - those with chronic daily headaches. For those youth, 'we don't have any evidence to suggest that the medications are enough,' she added.
POWER OF PLACEBO?
In the new analysis, published Monday in JAMA Pediatrics, placebo pills alone led to a drop in kids' headache frequency from between five and six headaches per month to three per month.
That may have to do with the effect of seeing a doctor and being reassured the pain isn't due to anything serious, Bickel said.
According to a report from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration published in the same journal issue, two drugs - almotriptan malate (Axert) and rizatriptan benzoate (Maxalt) - are approved to treat (but not prevent) headaches in kids and teens.
In a review of evidence provided to the FDA, Dr. William Rodriguez and his colleagues also found kids tended to get better after treatment with a placebo more often than adults - possibly related to their headaches lasting less time anyway.
For kids who get headaches once a week or less, Bickel said the pain can be treated with over the counter painkillers, or even just waited out in a quiet place.
SOURCE: JAMA Pediatrics, online January 28, 2013.
Pillows, stretches tied to less misshapen kids' heads
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Parents who used stretching exercises and special sleeping pillows saw improvements in head deformities often created when infants lay in the same spot for a long time, according to a new study.
Those two alternatives are less expensive than special helmets that cost $2,000 or more and that are only typically covered by insurance in some countries, according to a team of German researchers conducting the study.
'These are probably easier options for some parents,' study co-author Dr. Jan-Falco Wilbrand, of the University of Giessen, told Reuters Health. 'The helmet has to be worn 24 hours a day and is expensive. Physiotherapy is something you can do at home and easily ... and the pillow is about $25.'
Infant head deformities include severe flattening of the back of the head and one side of the face, and heads that are too short.
'And sometimes we see heads that are much, much wider than they are long,' said Wilbrand, whose team's work is published in the Journal of Pediatrics. 'Can you imagine how strange that looks and how hard that would be for a child?'
The number of deformities increased from 5 percent during the 1990s to between 20 percent and 30 percent in 2008, according to two recent studies. That increase, researchers believe, was partly triggered by efforts starting in the mid-1990s to curb Sudden Infant Death Syndrome by placing sleeping babies on their backs.
Apart from potentially damaging the self-esteem of children, uncorrected head deformities can also affect dental health and delay development of the brain, the study said. Most head deformities do not cause serious long-term physical harm or brain damage, though a small, extremely rare set of deformities can.
The German team followed 50 babies five months old and younger with moderate to severe head deformities that posed none of those serious physical or neurological risks. Among the 43 babies the researchers could examine after six weeks, about 18 percent of the stretched babies and 19 percent of the babies using pillows saw improvements in their deformities.
While 'laudable,' the study did not include a group of infants that had neither pillows nor the stretching exercises, so it's difficult to say exactly how effective the strategies are, said Dr. Michael Cunningham, who treats head deformities at Seattle Children's Hospital.
Between five and seven months old, 'you often begin to see spontaneous improvement' in the head shapes of babies, all of whom are born with soft, malleable skulls, Cunningham told Reuters Health.
After that, healthy babies become more mobile, raising and lowering their heads more frequently. They're less apt to be in the same position for the extended amounts of time, Cunningham said.
As soon as they awaken, babies should be taken off their backs, he said.
Curbing the risks of positional head deformities is pretty simple, Cunningham added: 'If you see my eyes, roll me over.'
SOURCE: http://bit.ly/TNddwp Journal of Pediatrics, January 14, 2013.
This article is sponsored by real estate news.
Those two alternatives are less expensive than special helmets that cost $2,000 or more and that are only typically covered by insurance in some countries, according to a team of German researchers conducting the study.
'These are probably easier options for some parents,' study co-author Dr. Jan-Falco Wilbrand, of the University of Giessen, told Reuters Health. 'The helmet has to be worn 24 hours a day and is expensive. Physiotherapy is something you can do at home and easily ... and the pillow is about $25.'
Infant head deformities include severe flattening of the back of the head and one side of the face, and heads that are too short.
'And sometimes we see heads that are much, much wider than they are long,' said Wilbrand, whose team's work is published in the Journal of Pediatrics. 'Can you imagine how strange that looks and how hard that would be for a child?'
The number of deformities increased from 5 percent during the 1990s to between 20 percent and 30 percent in 2008, according to two recent studies. That increase, researchers believe, was partly triggered by efforts starting in the mid-1990s to curb Sudden Infant Death Syndrome by placing sleeping babies on their backs.
Apart from potentially damaging the self-esteem of children, uncorrected head deformities can also affect dental health and delay development of the brain, the study said. Most head deformities do not cause serious long-term physical harm or brain damage, though a small, extremely rare set of deformities can.
The German team followed 50 babies five months old and younger with moderate to severe head deformities that posed none of those serious physical or neurological risks. Among the 43 babies the researchers could examine after six weeks, about 18 percent of the stretched babies and 19 percent of the babies using pillows saw improvements in their deformities.
While 'laudable,' the study did not include a group of infants that had neither pillows nor the stretching exercises, so it's difficult to say exactly how effective the strategies are, said Dr. Michael Cunningham, who treats head deformities at Seattle Children's Hospital.
Between five and seven months old, 'you often begin to see spontaneous improvement' in the head shapes of babies, all of whom are born with soft, malleable skulls, Cunningham told Reuters Health.
After that, healthy babies become more mobile, raising and lowering their heads more frequently. They're less apt to be in the same position for the extended amounts of time, Cunningham said.
As soon as they awaken, babies should be taken off their backs, he said.
Curbing the risks of positional head deformities is pretty simple, Cunningham added: 'If you see my eyes, roll me over.'
SOURCE: http://bit.ly/TNddwp Journal of Pediatrics, January 14, 2013.
This article is sponsored by real estate news.
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Nearly half of U.S. children late receiving vaccines
(Reuters) - Nearly half of babies and toddlers in the United States aren't getting recommended vaccines on time, according to a study - and if enough skip vaccines, whole schools or communities could be vulnerable to diseases such as whooping cough and measles.
'What we're worried about is if (undervaccination) becomes more and more common, is it possible this places children at an increased risk of vaccine-preventable diseases?' said study leader Jason Glanz, with Kaiser Permanente Colorado in Denver.
'It's possible that some of these diseases that we worked so hard to eliminate (could) come back.'
Glanz and his colleagues analyzed data from eight managed care organizations, including immunization records for about 323,000 children.
During the study period, the number of children who were late on at least one vaccine - including their measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) and diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis (DTaP) shots - rose from 42 percent to more than 54 percent.
Babies born towards the end of the study were late on their vaccines for more days, on average, than those born earlier.
'When that happens, it can create this critical mass of susceptible individuals,' said Saad Omer, from the Emory Vaccine Center in Atlanta, who wasn't involved in the new study.
Just over one in eight children went undervaccinated due to parents' choices. For the rest, it wasn't clear why they were late getting their shots. Some could have bounced in and out of insurance coverage, Glanz suggested, or were sick during their well-child visits, so doctors postponed vaccines.
Undervaccinated kids also tended to have fewer doctors' appointments and emergency room visits than those who got their shots on time, according to findings published in the journal JAMA Pediatrics.
That could be because their parents more often turn to alternative or complementary medicine when it's an option, Omer said.
Recent studies have shown many parents asking to delay or skip certain vaccines, often citing safety concerns such as a link between vaccines and autism - a theory which scientists now agree holds no water.
'We don't really know if these 'alternative schedules' as they're called are as safe, less safe or more safe than the current schedule, Glanz told Reuters Health, adding that parents who are considering an alternative vaccination schedule should talk with their child's doctor first - and be especially careful about what they read online.
'We don't have any evidence that there are any safety concerns with the current recommended schedule, and right now the best way to protect your child from infection is to get your child vaccinated on time,' he said. SOURCE: http://bit.ly/P7ryPx
(Reporting from New York by Genevra Pittman at Reuters Health; editing by Elaine Lies)
'What we're worried about is if (undervaccination) becomes more and more common, is it possible this places children at an increased risk of vaccine-preventable diseases?' said study leader Jason Glanz, with Kaiser Permanente Colorado in Denver.
'It's possible that some of these diseases that we worked so hard to eliminate (could) come back.'
Glanz and his colleagues analyzed data from eight managed care organizations, including immunization records for about 323,000 children.
During the study period, the number of children who were late on at least one vaccine - including their measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) and diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis (DTaP) shots - rose from 42 percent to more than 54 percent.
Babies born towards the end of the study were late on their vaccines for more days, on average, than those born earlier.
'When that happens, it can create this critical mass of susceptible individuals,' said Saad Omer, from the Emory Vaccine Center in Atlanta, who wasn't involved in the new study.
Just over one in eight children went undervaccinated due to parents' choices. For the rest, it wasn't clear why they were late getting their shots. Some could have bounced in and out of insurance coverage, Glanz suggested, or were sick during their well-child visits, so doctors postponed vaccines.
Undervaccinated kids also tended to have fewer doctors' appointments and emergency room visits than those who got their shots on time, according to findings published in the journal JAMA Pediatrics.
That could be because their parents more often turn to alternative or complementary medicine when it's an option, Omer said.
Recent studies have shown many parents asking to delay or skip certain vaccines, often citing safety concerns such as a link between vaccines and autism - a theory which scientists now agree holds no water.
'We don't really know if these 'alternative schedules' as they're called are as safe, less safe or more safe than the current schedule, Glanz told Reuters Health, adding that parents who are considering an alternative vaccination schedule should talk with their child's doctor first - and be especially careful about what they read online.
'We don't have any evidence that there are any safety concerns with the current recommended schedule, and right now the best way to protect your child from infection is to get your child vaccinated on time,' he said. SOURCE: http://bit.ly/P7ryPx
(Reporting from New York by Genevra Pittman at Reuters Health; editing by Elaine Lies)
Monday, January 21, 2013
Close to half of kids late receiving vaccines: study
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - More and more babies and toddlers aren't getting their recommended vaccines on time, a new study suggests.
Of more than 300,000 U.S. kids born between 2004 and 2008, almost half were 'undervaccinated' at some point before their second birthday - in some cases because parents chose to forgo shots recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Researchers said that trend is cause for concern because if enough kids skip their vaccines, whole schools or communities may be at higher risk for preventable infections such as whooping cough and measles.
'When that happens, it can create this critical mass of susceptible individuals,' said Saad Omer, from the Emory Vaccine Center in Atlanta.
'For some vaccinated kids, their risk of getting the disease also goes up,' Omer, who wasn't involved in the new study, told Reuters Health.
That's because no vaccine protects recipients perfectly from infection. So public health officials rely, in addition, on so-called 'herd immunity' to keep vaccine-preventable diseases from spreading.
For their report, Jason Glanz from Kaiser Permanente Colorado in Denver and his colleagues analyzed data from eight managed care organizations, including immunization records for about 323,000 kids.
During the study period, the number of kids who were late on at least one vaccine - including their measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) and diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis (DTaP) shots - rose from 42 percent to more than 54 percent. Babies born toward the end of the study were late on their vaccines for more days, on average, than those born earlier.
Just over one in eight kids went undervaccinated due to parents' choices. For the rest, it wasn't clear why they were late with their shots. Some could have bounced in and out of insurance coverage, Glanz suggested, or were sick during their well-child visits, so doctors postponed vaccines.
Undervaccinated kids also tended to have fewer doctors' appointments and emergency room visits than those who got their shots on time, according to findings published Monday in JAMA Pediatrics.
That could be because their parents more often turn to alternative or complementary medicine when it's an option, Omer said.
Recent studies have shown many parents are asking to delay or skip certain vaccines, often citing safety concerns such as a link between vaccines and autism - a theory which scientists now agree holds no water (see Reuters Health story of Nov 28, 2011 here: http://reut.rs/tvpjVf).
'We don't really know if these 'alternative schedules' as they're called are as safe, less safe or more safe than the current schedule,' Glanz told Reuters Health.
'What we're worried about is if (undervaccination) becomes more and more common, is it possible this places children at an increased risk of vaccine-preventable diseases? It's possible that some of these diseases that we worked so hard to eliminate come back,' he said.
Glanz said any parents who are considering an alternative vaccination schedule should talk with their child's doctor first - and be especially careful about what they read online.
'We don't have any evidence that there are any safety concerns with the current recommended schedule, and right now the best way to protect your child from infection is to get your child vaccinated on time,' he said.
SOURCE: http://bit.ly/P7ryPx JAMA Pediatrics, online January 21, 2013.
Of more than 300,000 U.S. kids born between 2004 and 2008, almost half were 'undervaccinated' at some point before their second birthday - in some cases because parents chose to forgo shots recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Researchers said that trend is cause for concern because if enough kids skip their vaccines, whole schools or communities may be at higher risk for preventable infections such as whooping cough and measles.
'When that happens, it can create this critical mass of susceptible individuals,' said Saad Omer, from the Emory Vaccine Center in Atlanta.
'For some vaccinated kids, their risk of getting the disease also goes up,' Omer, who wasn't involved in the new study, told Reuters Health.
That's because no vaccine protects recipients perfectly from infection. So public health officials rely, in addition, on so-called 'herd immunity' to keep vaccine-preventable diseases from spreading.
For their report, Jason Glanz from Kaiser Permanente Colorado in Denver and his colleagues analyzed data from eight managed care organizations, including immunization records for about 323,000 kids.
During the study period, the number of kids who were late on at least one vaccine - including their measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) and diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis (DTaP) shots - rose from 42 percent to more than 54 percent. Babies born toward the end of the study were late on their vaccines for more days, on average, than those born earlier.
Just over one in eight kids went undervaccinated due to parents' choices. For the rest, it wasn't clear why they were late with their shots. Some could have bounced in and out of insurance coverage, Glanz suggested, or were sick during their well-child visits, so doctors postponed vaccines.
Undervaccinated kids also tended to have fewer doctors' appointments and emergency room visits than those who got their shots on time, according to findings published Monday in JAMA Pediatrics.
That could be because their parents more often turn to alternative or complementary medicine when it's an option, Omer said.
Recent studies have shown many parents are asking to delay or skip certain vaccines, often citing safety concerns such as a link between vaccines and autism - a theory which scientists now agree holds no water (see Reuters Health story of Nov 28, 2011 here: http://reut.rs/tvpjVf).
'We don't really know if these 'alternative schedules' as they're called are as safe, less safe or more safe than the current schedule,' Glanz told Reuters Health.
'What we're worried about is if (undervaccination) becomes more and more common, is it possible this places children at an increased risk of vaccine-preventable diseases? It's possible that some of these diseases that we worked so hard to eliminate come back,' he said.
Glanz said any parents who are considering an alternative vaccination schedule should talk with their child's doctor first - and be especially careful about what they read online.
'We don't have any evidence that there are any safety concerns with the current recommended schedule, and right now the best way to protect your child from infection is to get your child vaccinated on time,' he said.
SOURCE: http://bit.ly/P7ryPx JAMA Pediatrics, online January 21, 2013.
Breathing program may help save newborns' lives
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Training midwives and other birth attendants to help babies start breathing immediately after birth may prevent stillbirths and newborn deaths in the developing world, two new studies suggest.
So-called birth asphyxia - when babies are born not breathing - is one of the major causes of newborn death in regions with limited resources, researchers said.
The Helping Babies Breathe program, launched by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), trains birth attendants to immediately dry and warm babies - and to start breathing for babies with a bag and mask if they don't breathe on their own within one minute.
Reducing infant mortality in the developing world is one of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals - but progress has been slow, according to Dr. Jeffrey Perlman from Weill Cornell Medical College in New York, who helped implement Helping Babies Breathe in Tanzania.
'The majority of deliveries in resource-limited areas are done by the midwife, and the midwife wasn't really taught how to deal with a baby once they were born,' Perlman told Reuters Health. Instead, he said, midwives tend to focus on the mother immediately after the birth.
'If you can just teach them, when the baby's born, to immediately dry the baby off... that drying and a little bit of stimulating will probably get 90 to 93 percent of babies breathing that weren't breathing before,' said Perlman, one of the authors of a study published Monday in Pediatrics.
'That's the most exciting part, that something very simple can save many, many lives.'
Perlman and his colleagues compared about 8,000 babies born at eight hospitals before birth assistants were trained in the breathing program to almost ten times as many babies born afterward.
Program leaders initially taught the breathing techniques to 40 'master trainers' from the eight hospitals over two days. Some master trainers then went to other hospitals and health centers in the area to teach midwives and other health care providers, in what the research team called 'a cascade model approach.'
The researchers found newborn deaths dropped from 13 per 1,000 babies to seven per 1,000 once Helping Babies Breathe was implemented. The rate of stillbirth fell from 19 per 1,000 babies before to just over 14 per 1,000 after.
In a second study from Southern India, another set of researchers saw no change in newborn deaths after the same program was taught to almost 600 birth attendants in rural health centers.
However, stillbirth rates fell from 30 per 1,000 babies to 23 per 1,000 after the training, Dr. Shivaprasad Goudar from Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College in Belgaum, Karnataka and colleagues found.
'We really need to focus on the early steps of resuscitation for the developing world, because that's where most of the mortality is occurring - in other words, just getting babies to breathe,' said Dr. John Kattwinkel from the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, who wrote a commentary published with the new studies.
'In many countries, well over half of the deliveries occur out in the clinics and in the homes. That's what this program is designed for,' he told Reuters Health. 'It would be a terrific strategy to implement widely.'
Perlman estimated that expanding the program to all of Tanzania over the next couple of years will cost about $5 million.
According to United Nations data, 32 babies die in India for every 1,000 live births and 26 per 1,000 die in Tanzania. In the United States overall, four babies die for every 1,000 live births - but the figures are much higher in certain poorer parts of the country.
The Helping Babies Breathe program is supported in part by the Laerdal Foundation for Acute Medicine. Laerdal Medical manufactures breathing simulators and other products related to the program's work.
According to Kattwinkel, the evidence provided by these two studies should help conjure up support for Helping Babies Breathe and allow it to spread to other limited-resource areas.
Perlman agreed, saying the program is now being pursued in about 70 countries worldwide. The most important component, he added, is that it must have government support locally, as has been the case in Tanzania.
'There are very few things that you can do simply that you can save, even in the worst case, three-quarters of a million (babies),' Perlman said.
SOURCE: http://bit.ly/cxXOG Pediatrics, online January 21, 2013.
So-called birth asphyxia - when babies are born not breathing - is one of the major causes of newborn death in regions with limited resources, researchers said.
The Helping Babies Breathe program, launched by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), trains birth attendants to immediately dry and warm babies - and to start breathing for babies with a bag and mask if they don't breathe on their own within one minute.
Reducing infant mortality in the developing world is one of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals - but progress has been slow, according to Dr. Jeffrey Perlman from Weill Cornell Medical College in New York, who helped implement Helping Babies Breathe in Tanzania.
'The majority of deliveries in resource-limited areas are done by the midwife, and the midwife wasn't really taught how to deal with a baby once they were born,' Perlman told Reuters Health. Instead, he said, midwives tend to focus on the mother immediately after the birth.
'If you can just teach them, when the baby's born, to immediately dry the baby off... that drying and a little bit of stimulating will probably get 90 to 93 percent of babies breathing that weren't breathing before,' said Perlman, one of the authors of a study published Monday in Pediatrics.
'That's the most exciting part, that something very simple can save many, many lives.'
Perlman and his colleagues compared about 8,000 babies born at eight hospitals before birth assistants were trained in the breathing program to almost ten times as many babies born afterward.
Program leaders initially taught the breathing techniques to 40 'master trainers' from the eight hospitals over two days. Some master trainers then went to other hospitals and health centers in the area to teach midwives and other health care providers, in what the research team called 'a cascade model approach.'
The researchers found newborn deaths dropped from 13 per 1,000 babies to seven per 1,000 once Helping Babies Breathe was implemented. The rate of stillbirth fell from 19 per 1,000 babies before to just over 14 per 1,000 after.
In a second study from Southern India, another set of researchers saw no change in newborn deaths after the same program was taught to almost 600 birth attendants in rural health centers.
However, stillbirth rates fell from 30 per 1,000 babies to 23 per 1,000 after the training, Dr. Shivaprasad Goudar from Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College in Belgaum, Karnataka and colleagues found.
'We really need to focus on the early steps of resuscitation for the developing world, because that's where most of the mortality is occurring - in other words, just getting babies to breathe,' said Dr. John Kattwinkel from the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, who wrote a commentary published with the new studies.
'In many countries, well over half of the deliveries occur out in the clinics and in the homes. That's what this program is designed for,' he told Reuters Health. 'It would be a terrific strategy to implement widely.'
Perlman estimated that expanding the program to all of Tanzania over the next couple of years will cost about $5 million.
According to United Nations data, 32 babies die in India for every 1,000 live births and 26 per 1,000 die in Tanzania. In the United States overall, four babies die for every 1,000 live births - but the figures are much higher in certain poorer parts of the country.
The Helping Babies Breathe program is supported in part by the Laerdal Foundation for Acute Medicine. Laerdal Medical manufactures breathing simulators and other products related to the program's work.
According to Kattwinkel, the evidence provided by these two studies should help conjure up support for Helping Babies Breathe and allow it to spread to other limited-resource areas.
Perlman agreed, saying the program is now being pursued in about 70 countries worldwide. The most important component, he added, is that it must have government support locally, as has been the case in Tanzania.
'There are very few things that you can do simply that you can save, even in the worst case, three-quarters of a million (babies),' Perlman said.
SOURCE: http://bit.ly/cxXOG Pediatrics, online January 21, 2013.
Friday, January 18, 2013
Newborn screening misses some deaf kids: study
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - New research provides further evidence that some babies who pass their newborn hearing tests are found to be deaf or hard of hearing as young kids.
Some of those newborns may receive passing grades incorrectly, researchers said, but others can be born with good hearing but develop progressive hearing loss as babies and toddlers.
'A parent or a physician may think, 'Oh, this child had passed the screen, so they must not have hearing loss,'' said Dr. David Chi, the study's lead author from the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center in Pennsylvania.
'Don't depend on just the fact that (your child) passed the screen, especially if there are any concerns about hearing loss or speech concerns,' he told Reuters Health.
Chi and his colleagues analyzed the medical records of 923 kids who came to their medical center with hearing loss between 2001 and 2011, and were between four and five years old, on average. The children included 78 who had passed their initial newborn screening.
Of those kids, 28 were brought in because of parents' concerns about their hearing and 25 had failed school hearing tests, according to the findings published Thursday in JAMA Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.
There was no identifiable cause of hearing problems in more than half of the kids' medical records. The rest had deafness related to genetics, structural problems with their ears or complications from childhood such as infection.
It wasn't clear how long those kids had been hard of hearing before they were brought in and diagnosed.
'We don't know, 'what is the false negative rate (of newborn screening) versus the delayed onset rate?'' said Dr. Nancy Young, a pediatric otolaryngologist from Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago and the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine.
Either way, she told Reuters Health, parents shouldn't be 'falsely reassured' by their child having passed the newborn screening if they notice problems with the child's hearing or language.
Having deafness spotted and treated early, such as with cochlear implants, is important for children's future language development, she noted.
'We need to stay on the lookout and be vigilant and refer these children in,' said Young, who wasn't involved in the new research.
Two or three out of every 1,000 U.S. children are born deaf or with hearing problems, according to the National Institutes of Health, and more go on to become hard of hearing.
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, a government-backed panel, recommends screening all newborns for hearing loss, based on 'at least fair evidence' that the benefits of screening outweigh any possible harms.
Universal newborn hearing screening was instituted in Pennsylvania in 2001. Before that, hearing loss was typically diagnosed at around 26 months and hearing aids implemented at 30 months, Chi's team notes in its report. Since universal screening, interventions happen much earlier, by about six months of age.
Chi told Reuters Health that he and his colleagues are looking into strategies for screening young kids after the initial newborn test, such as with a second round of screening at three months of age.
But Young cautioned against going forward with such a plan until researchers have a better idea of when hearing loss is actually occurring for kids who pass their newborn tests but end up having problems.
'If a lot of this is driven by poorly done testing (and) equipment issues, then the focus should be on improving our current program, not on finding another time to screen,' she explained.
'This paper is wonderful in raising awareness of the shortcomings of newborn hearing screening, but I really think we need to take it to another level to sort out, who are these children, and why did they pass?'
SOURCE: http://bit.ly/10CrVJj JAMA Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, online January 17, 2013.
Some of those newborns may receive passing grades incorrectly, researchers said, but others can be born with good hearing but develop progressive hearing loss as babies and toddlers.
'A parent or a physician may think, 'Oh, this child had passed the screen, so they must not have hearing loss,'' said Dr. David Chi, the study's lead author from the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center in Pennsylvania.
'Don't depend on just the fact that (your child) passed the screen, especially if there are any concerns about hearing loss or speech concerns,' he told Reuters Health.
Chi and his colleagues analyzed the medical records of 923 kids who came to their medical center with hearing loss between 2001 and 2011, and were between four and five years old, on average. The children included 78 who had passed their initial newborn screening.
Of those kids, 28 were brought in because of parents' concerns about their hearing and 25 had failed school hearing tests, according to the findings published Thursday in JAMA Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.
There was no identifiable cause of hearing problems in more than half of the kids' medical records. The rest had deafness related to genetics, structural problems with their ears or complications from childhood such as infection.
It wasn't clear how long those kids had been hard of hearing before they were brought in and diagnosed.
'We don't know, 'what is the false negative rate (of newborn screening) versus the delayed onset rate?'' said Dr. Nancy Young, a pediatric otolaryngologist from Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago and the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine.
Either way, she told Reuters Health, parents shouldn't be 'falsely reassured' by their child having passed the newborn screening if they notice problems with the child's hearing or language.
Having deafness spotted and treated early, such as with cochlear implants, is important for children's future language development, she noted.
'We need to stay on the lookout and be vigilant and refer these children in,' said Young, who wasn't involved in the new research.
Two or three out of every 1,000 U.S. children are born deaf or with hearing problems, according to the National Institutes of Health, and more go on to become hard of hearing.
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, a government-backed panel, recommends screening all newborns for hearing loss, based on 'at least fair evidence' that the benefits of screening outweigh any possible harms.
Universal newborn hearing screening was instituted in Pennsylvania in 2001. Before that, hearing loss was typically diagnosed at around 26 months and hearing aids implemented at 30 months, Chi's team notes in its report. Since universal screening, interventions happen much earlier, by about six months of age.
Chi told Reuters Health that he and his colleagues are looking into strategies for screening young kids after the initial newborn test, such as with a second round of screening at three months of age.
But Young cautioned against going forward with such a plan until researchers have a better idea of when hearing loss is actually occurring for kids who pass their newborn tests but end up having problems.
'If a lot of this is driven by poorly done testing (and) equipment issues, then the focus should be on improving our current program, not on finding another time to screen,' she explained.
'This paper is wonderful in raising awareness of the shortcomings of newborn hearing screening, but I really think we need to take it to another level to sort out, who are these children, and why did they pass?'
SOURCE: http://bit.ly/10CrVJj JAMA Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, online January 17, 2013.
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Black, poor kids are heavy sugary drink consumers
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Black children and teens in the U.S. are almost twice as likely as their white peers to consume more than 500 calories a day of low-nutrient fruit drinks, according to a new study.
The results, which found a three-fold surge in the overall number of teens drinking sugar-spiked sports energy drinks, should inform policy, the authors said.
'Some groups may be more at risk for soda, others may be more at risk for fruit drinks, all of which ... have the same sugar base that contributes to obesity and disease,' said study co-author Lisa Powell, of the University of Illinois at Chicago Health Policy Center.
Black children, the study in the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics also found, are more than twice as likely as whites on any given day to consume fruit drinks containing little actual fruit. Fruit juices, for example, range from 100 percent actual fruit juice to those with as little as 10 percent fruit juice and plenty of added sugars, Powell told Reuters Health.
Using surveys from 1999 to 2008 of what roughly 40,000 children, teens and adults drank during a single 24-hour period, the researchers also found an increase from 4 percent to 12 percent in the number of teens imbibing sports drinks.
The study also found that while drinking of at least 500 calories per day of sugar-sweetened beverages - considered 'heavy consumption' - fell from 22 percent to 16 percent among teens, and from 29 percent to 20 percent among young adults, the rate rose from 4 percent to 5 percent among 2- to 11-year-olds.
Except for children, who are more likely to consume fruit drinks, soda is the most widely consumed sugared beverage across the age span. Black children, however, are 60 percent less likely as their white peers to choose soda.
And low-income children of all races drank almost twice as many sugary beverages as wealthier kids, the study found.
The study did not investigate the reasons why. Powell said that 'cultural norms, what a particular household grew up doing,' may be a factor, as well as cost.
TAILORED POLICIES?
Her research builds on prior studies showing that people are drinking fewer sugar-sweetened beverages overall. For example, the number of teens consuming sugary drinks dropped from 87 percent to 77 percent, Powell said.
And it comes on the heels of last year's passage of a landmark New York City ban on restaurant, concession and other venue sales of sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces.
The controversial law, designed to drive sugary drink consumption down further, might miss some nuances, Powell said.
'If you develop a policy that only looks at soda in schools or a possible tax on sodas, you're going to miss out,' Powell continued. 'If health promotion is our objective, it's important to understand the different patterns and how some people are substituting one drink for another across those patterns, and to target advertising and related efforts to those people.'
The other concern is a 'troubling replacement effect,' said David Dausey, public health department chair of the Mercyhurst College Institute of Public Health in Erie, Pennsylvania.
'We're cutting back on canned sodas in schools but the (beverage) industry says, 'Fine, we'll put in a fruit drink machine,' which, in many ways, is exchanging one evil for another,' Dausey, who was not involved in the new study, told Reuters Health.
The American Beverage Association said the new study does not 'paint the full picture.'
'Sugar-sweetened beverages are playing a small and declining role in the American diet' and are not the primary drivers of obesity, a spokesperson said by email.
SOURCE: http://bit.ly/SysYXu Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, January 2013.
[This story corrects headline from "Black, poor youth consume more sugar-laden drinks" to "Black, poor kids are heavy sugary drink consumers;" "sugary drinks" with "low-nutrient fruit drinks" in first paragraph; and "half as likely" with "60 percent less likely" in paragraph 7 of story posted Jan 17, 2013.]
The results, which found a three-fold surge in the overall number of teens drinking sugar-spiked sports energy drinks, should inform policy, the authors said.
'Some groups may be more at risk for soda, others may be more at risk for fruit drinks, all of which ... have the same sugar base that contributes to obesity and disease,' said study co-author Lisa Powell, of the University of Illinois at Chicago Health Policy Center.
Black children, the study in the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics also found, are more than twice as likely as whites on any given day to consume fruit drinks containing little actual fruit. Fruit juices, for example, range from 100 percent actual fruit juice to those with as little as 10 percent fruit juice and plenty of added sugars, Powell told Reuters Health.
Using surveys from 1999 to 2008 of what roughly 40,000 children, teens and adults drank during a single 24-hour period, the researchers also found an increase from 4 percent to 12 percent in the number of teens imbibing sports drinks.
The study also found that while drinking of at least 500 calories per day of sugar-sweetened beverages - considered 'heavy consumption' - fell from 22 percent to 16 percent among teens, and from 29 percent to 20 percent among young adults, the rate rose from 4 percent to 5 percent among 2- to 11-year-olds.
Except for children, who are more likely to consume fruit drinks, soda is the most widely consumed sugared beverage across the age span. Black children, however, are 60 percent less likely as their white peers to choose soda.
And low-income children of all races drank almost twice as many sugary beverages as wealthier kids, the study found.
The study did not investigate the reasons why. Powell said that 'cultural norms, what a particular household grew up doing,' may be a factor, as well as cost.
TAILORED POLICIES?
Her research builds on prior studies showing that people are drinking fewer sugar-sweetened beverages overall. For example, the number of teens consuming sugary drinks dropped from 87 percent to 77 percent, Powell said.
And it comes on the heels of last year's passage of a landmark New York City ban on restaurant, concession and other venue sales of sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces.
The controversial law, designed to drive sugary drink consumption down further, might miss some nuances, Powell said.
'If you develop a policy that only looks at soda in schools or a possible tax on sodas, you're going to miss out,' Powell continued. 'If health promotion is our objective, it's important to understand the different patterns and how some people are substituting one drink for another across those patterns, and to target advertising and related efforts to those people.'
The other concern is a 'troubling replacement effect,' said David Dausey, public health department chair of the Mercyhurst College Institute of Public Health in Erie, Pennsylvania.
'We're cutting back on canned sodas in schools but the (beverage) industry says, 'Fine, we'll put in a fruit drink machine,' which, in many ways, is exchanging one evil for another,' Dausey, who was not involved in the new study, told Reuters Health.
The American Beverage Association said the new study does not 'paint the full picture.'
'Sugar-sweetened beverages are playing a small and declining role in the American diet' and are not the primary drivers of obesity, a spokesperson said by email.
SOURCE: http://bit.ly/SysYXu Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, January 2013.
[This story corrects headline from "Black, poor youth consume more sugar-laden drinks" to "Black, poor kids are heavy sugary drink consumers;" "sugary drinks" with "low-nutrient fruit drinks" in first paragraph; and "half as likely" with "60 percent less likely" in paragraph 7 of story posted Jan 17, 2013.]
Obesity in young kids dropped in NYC, grew in LA
NEW YORK (AP) - In the battle against childhood obesity, New York City appears to be doing better than Los Angeles, at least for low-income preschoolers.
A study released Thursday compared obesity rates for young poor children in the nation's two largest cities over nine years. Rates dipped in New York from about 19 percent to 16 percent. But in Los Angeles they rose from 17 percent to more than 21 percent before dropping to about 20 percent.
One reason for the difference: Los Angeles kids included many more Mexican-Americans, and obesity is more common in Mexican-American boys than in white or black kids.
The study joins other recent reports of declines in childhood obesity rates in places like Philadelphia, Anchorage and Kearney, Neb.
New York City's health commissioner said he was glad to hear the study's results, calling them 'a big success.' But with high rates of overweight and obesity in older children and adults, 'there is much more work to be done,' Dr. Thomas Farley said in a statement.
The director of Los Angeles County's health department said it's not clear why the rate rose there, but he was heartened to see it peak around 2009 and decline after.
'This is the first clear evidence - in the largest municipalities in the country - of this kind of decline' in pre-school age children,' said Dr. Jonathan Fielding in a phone interview.
The research focused on children ages 3 and 4 enrolled in a government program for women, infants and young children known as WIC that provides food vouchers and other services. The children in the New York and California programs are measured and weighed every six months.
The study covered 2003-2011 and the number of children enrolled varied each year, with as many as 67,000 in New York City and 150,000 in Los Angeles County.
New York's WIC program started very early - in the 1990s - in trying to promote exercise, healthy eating and breastfeeding. That's probably one reason New York City's obesity rate started dropping earlier, said the study's lead author, Jackson Sekhobo of the New York State Department of Health.
It probably also helped that walking and mass transit is much more common in New York City than in car-centric places like Los Angeles, he added.
But another primary explanation is the breakdown of the kids in the two cities. In 2011, about 85 percent of the Los Angeles children in the study were Hispanic, and most were Mexican-American - a group with the highest reported childhood obesity rates, at least among boys.
In New York, 46 percent were Hispanic, with far fewer Mexican-Americans, Sekhobo noted.
Nationally, about 12 percent of preschool-age children are obese, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. About 18 percent of children ages 6 to 11 are obese, and about the same proportion of adolescents are that fat.
About 36 percent of adults are obese, according to the agency's figures.
After decades of alarming reports of Americans gaining weight, 'we're seeing perhaps the beginning of the end of the obesity epidemic,' CDC Director Dr. Thomas Frieden said in a statement.
The CDC released the study Thursday.
___
Online:
Obesity report: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr
A study released Thursday compared obesity rates for young poor children in the nation's two largest cities over nine years. Rates dipped in New York from about 19 percent to 16 percent. But in Los Angeles they rose from 17 percent to more than 21 percent before dropping to about 20 percent.
One reason for the difference: Los Angeles kids included many more Mexican-Americans, and obesity is more common in Mexican-American boys than in white or black kids.
The study joins other recent reports of declines in childhood obesity rates in places like Philadelphia, Anchorage and Kearney, Neb.
New York City's health commissioner said he was glad to hear the study's results, calling them 'a big success.' But with high rates of overweight and obesity in older children and adults, 'there is much more work to be done,' Dr. Thomas Farley said in a statement.
The director of Los Angeles County's health department said it's not clear why the rate rose there, but he was heartened to see it peak around 2009 and decline after.
'This is the first clear evidence - in the largest municipalities in the country - of this kind of decline' in pre-school age children,' said Dr. Jonathan Fielding in a phone interview.
The research focused on children ages 3 and 4 enrolled in a government program for women, infants and young children known as WIC that provides food vouchers and other services. The children in the New York and California programs are measured and weighed every six months.
The study covered 2003-2011 and the number of children enrolled varied each year, with as many as 67,000 in New York City and 150,000 in Los Angeles County.
New York's WIC program started very early - in the 1990s - in trying to promote exercise, healthy eating and breastfeeding. That's probably one reason New York City's obesity rate started dropping earlier, said the study's lead author, Jackson Sekhobo of the New York State Department of Health.
It probably also helped that walking and mass transit is much more common in New York City than in car-centric places like Los Angeles, he added.
But another primary explanation is the breakdown of the kids in the two cities. In 2011, about 85 percent of the Los Angeles children in the study were Hispanic, and most were Mexican-American - a group with the highest reported childhood obesity rates, at least among boys.
In New York, 46 percent were Hispanic, with far fewer Mexican-Americans, Sekhobo noted.
Nationally, about 12 percent of preschool-age children are obese, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. About 18 percent of children ages 6 to 11 are obese, and about the same proportion of adolescents are that fat.
About 36 percent of adults are obese, according to the agency's figures.
After decades of alarming reports of Americans gaining weight, 'we're seeing perhaps the beginning of the end of the obesity epidemic,' CDC Director Dr. Thomas Frieden said in a statement.
The CDC released the study Thursday.
___
Online:
Obesity report: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr
Study: NYC better than LA at cutting kids' obesity
NEW YORK (AP) - A new study shows New York City is doing better than Los Angeles in the battle against childhood obesity, at least for low-income children.
From 2003 to 2011, obesity rates for poor children dropped in New York to around 16 percent. But they rose in Los Angeles and ended at about 20 percent.
The researchers focused on children ages 3 and 4 enrolled in a government program that provides food and other services to women and their young children.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released the study Thursday.
The authors noted that the Los Angeles program has many more Mexican-American kids. Obesity is more common in Mexican-American boys than in white or black kids.
From 2003 to 2011, obesity rates for poor children dropped in New York to around 16 percent. But they rose in Los Angeles and ended at about 20 percent.
The researchers focused on children ages 3 and 4 enrolled in a government program that provides food and other services to women and their young children.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released the study Thursday.
The authors noted that the Los Angeles program has many more Mexican-American kids. Obesity is more common in Mexican-American boys than in white or black kids.
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Large study confirms flu vaccine safe in pregnancy
NEW YORK (AP) - A large study offers reassuring news for pregnant women: It's safe to get a flu shot.
The research found no evidence that the vaccine increases the risk of losing a fetus, and may prevent some deaths. Getting the flu while pregnant makes fetal death more likely, the Norwegian research showed.
The flu vaccine has long been considered safe for pregnant women and their fetus. U.S. health officials began recommending flu shots for them more than five decades ago, following a higher death rate in pregnant women during a flu pandemic in the late 1950s.
But the study is perhaps the largest look at the safety and value of flu vaccination during pregnancy, experts say.
'This is the kind of information we need to provide our patients when discussing that flu vaccine is important for everyone, particularly for pregnant women,' said Dr. Geeta Swamy, a researcher who studies vaccines and pregnant women at Duke University Medical Center.
The study was released by the New England Journal of Medicine on Wednesday as the United States and Europe suffer through an early and intense flu season. A U.S. obstetricians group this week reminded members that it's not too late for their pregnant patients to get vaccinated.
The new study was led by the Norwegian Institute of Public Health. It tracked pregnancies in Norway in 2009 and 2010 during an international epidemic of a new swine flu strain.
Before 2009, pregnant women in Norway were not routinely advised to get flu shots. But during the pandemic, vaccinations against the new strain were recommended for those in their second or third trimester.
The study focused on more than 113,000 pregnancies. Of those, 492 ended in the death of the fetus. The researchers calculated that the risk of fetal death was nearly twice as high for women who weren't vaccinated as it was in vaccinated mothers.
U.S. flu vaccination rates for pregnant women grew in the wake of the 2009 swine flu pandemic, from less than 15 percent to about 50 percent. But health officials say those rates need to be higher to protect newborns as well. Infants can't be vaccinated until 6 months, but studies have shown they pick up some protection if their mothers got the annual shot, experts say.
Because some drugs and vaccines can be harmful to a fetus, there is a long-standing concern about giving any medicine to a pregnant woman, experts acknowledged. But this study should ease any worries about the flu shot, said Dr. Denise Jamieson of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
'The vaccine is safe,' she said.
___
Online:
Medical journal: http://www.nejm.org
This news article is brought to you by RELATIONSHIPS ADVICE - where latest news are our top priority.
The research found no evidence that the vaccine increases the risk of losing a fetus, and may prevent some deaths. Getting the flu while pregnant makes fetal death more likely, the Norwegian research showed.
The flu vaccine has long been considered safe for pregnant women and their fetus. U.S. health officials began recommending flu shots for them more than five decades ago, following a higher death rate in pregnant women during a flu pandemic in the late 1950s.
But the study is perhaps the largest look at the safety and value of flu vaccination during pregnancy, experts say.
'This is the kind of information we need to provide our patients when discussing that flu vaccine is important for everyone, particularly for pregnant women,' said Dr. Geeta Swamy, a researcher who studies vaccines and pregnant women at Duke University Medical Center.
The study was released by the New England Journal of Medicine on Wednesday as the United States and Europe suffer through an early and intense flu season. A U.S. obstetricians group this week reminded members that it's not too late for their pregnant patients to get vaccinated.
The new study was led by the Norwegian Institute of Public Health. It tracked pregnancies in Norway in 2009 and 2010 during an international epidemic of a new swine flu strain.
Before 2009, pregnant women in Norway were not routinely advised to get flu shots. But during the pandemic, vaccinations against the new strain were recommended for those in their second or third trimester.
The study focused on more than 113,000 pregnancies. Of those, 492 ended in the death of the fetus. The researchers calculated that the risk of fetal death was nearly twice as high for women who weren't vaccinated as it was in vaccinated mothers.
U.S. flu vaccination rates for pregnant women grew in the wake of the 2009 swine flu pandemic, from less than 15 percent to about 50 percent. But health officials say those rates need to be higher to protect newborns as well. Infants can't be vaccinated until 6 months, but studies have shown they pick up some protection if their mothers got the annual shot, experts say.
Because some drugs and vaccines can be harmful to a fetus, there is a long-standing concern about giving any medicine to a pregnant woman, experts acknowledged. But this study should ease any worries about the flu shot, said Dr. Denise Jamieson of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
'The vaccine is safe,' she said.
___
Online:
Medical journal: http://www.nejm.org
This news article is brought to you by RELATIONSHIPS ADVICE - where latest news are our top priority.
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
No exercise, more than lying around, tied to fat in kids
(Reuters) - For children, time spent actually inactive - such as lying on the couch - appears to have less of an impact on how much body fat they have than a lack of exercise does, according to a U.S. study.
Researchers, whose study appeared in the Journal of Pediatrics, found that the more minutes children spent exercising at the pace of a fast walk each day, the lower their percentage of body fat. But the time they spent lying around made no difference.
'Our study supports the current physical activity guideline, that's what I want people to know,' lead author Soyang Kwon, a pediatric researcher at Northwestern University in Chicago, told Reuters Health.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services recommends that children and teens exercise at least at the intensity of a fast walk, about 5.6 kilometers per hour (3.5 miles per hour), for 60 minutes every day.
Last year, a study in adults found a different result: regular exercise doesn't protect against the dangers of sitting for many hours at desk jobs. This is likely because children are more active than adults overall.
'In adults, where the activity levels are generally less, the time spent sedentary may have more of an effect,' said Russell Pate, who studies physical activity in children at the University of South Carolina in Columbia.
Kwon and her coauthors from the University of Iowa used data from a study in that state that followed children of various ages from 2000 to 2009.
A group of 277 boys and 277 girls were measured at eight, 11, 13 and 15 years old for body composition and fat content using a precise X-ray technique originally developed to assess bone density.
The same children wore an accelerometer, which measures body movement, for several days in a row sometime in the same year.
Even among children who exercised the least, the amount of time sitting didn't make much of a difference.
For the 13-year-olds, those who sat less than, more than or equal to the average six and a half hours per day all had about the same body fat mass.
But boys who spend the least amount of time in moderate to vigorous activity had about 5 kilograms (11 pounds) more body fat on average than those who exercised the most. For 13-year-old girls, the low level exercisers had about 3.2 kg (7 lbs) more body fat than the exercisers.
Results were similar in every age group, but the researchers did not record if each child was overweight or not.
In a previous study, the same team of researchers found that even light intensity activity, like walking, every day, was linked to lower levels of fat in teens, but not young children.
'Parents should encourage their children to be physically active, the more the better,' said Ulf Ekelund, who studies obesity risk factors in children at the Norwegian School of Sport Science in Oslo. 'That might sound simple, but the execution isn't so simple sometimes.' SOURCE: http://bit.ly/RKmMd9
(Reporting from New York by Kathryn Doyle at Reuters Health; editing by Elaine Lies)
This article is sponsored by Travel to France.
Researchers, whose study appeared in the Journal of Pediatrics, found that the more minutes children spent exercising at the pace of a fast walk each day, the lower their percentage of body fat. But the time they spent lying around made no difference.
'Our study supports the current physical activity guideline, that's what I want people to know,' lead author Soyang Kwon, a pediatric researcher at Northwestern University in Chicago, told Reuters Health.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services recommends that children and teens exercise at least at the intensity of a fast walk, about 5.6 kilometers per hour (3.5 miles per hour), for 60 minutes every day.
Last year, a study in adults found a different result: regular exercise doesn't protect against the dangers of sitting for many hours at desk jobs. This is likely because children are more active than adults overall.
'In adults, where the activity levels are generally less, the time spent sedentary may have more of an effect,' said Russell Pate, who studies physical activity in children at the University of South Carolina in Columbia.
Kwon and her coauthors from the University of Iowa used data from a study in that state that followed children of various ages from 2000 to 2009.
A group of 277 boys and 277 girls were measured at eight, 11, 13 and 15 years old for body composition and fat content using a precise X-ray technique originally developed to assess bone density.
The same children wore an accelerometer, which measures body movement, for several days in a row sometime in the same year.
Even among children who exercised the least, the amount of time sitting didn't make much of a difference.
For the 13-year-olds, those who sat less than, more than or equal to the average six and a half hours per day all had about the same body fat mass.
But boys who spend the least amount of time in moderate to vigorous activity had about 5 kilograms (11 pounds) more body fat on average than those who exercised the most. For 13-year-old girls, the low level exercisers had about 3.2 kg (7 lbs) more body fat than the exercisers.
Results were similar in every age group, but the researchers did not record if each child was overweight or not.
In a previous study, the same team of researchers found that even light intensity activity, like walking, every day, was linked to lower levels of fat in teens, but not young children.
'Parents should encourage their children to be physically active, the more the better,' said Ulf Ekelund, who studies obesity risk factors in children at the Norwegian School of Sport Science in Oslo. 'That might sound simple, but the execution isn't so simple sometimes.' SOURCE: http://bit.ly/RKmMd9
(Reporting from New York by Kathryn Doyle at Reuters Health; editing by Elaine Lies)
This article is sponsored by Travel to France.
Risk to all ages: 100 kids die of flu each year
NEW YORK (AP) - Twenty flu-related deaths have been reported in children so far this winter - one of the worst tolls this early in the year since health officials began keeping track.
Still, experts say that doesn't mean this year will turn out to be unusually deadly. Roughly 100 children die in an average flu season, and it's not clear that will happen this year.
The deaths have included a 6-year-old girl in Maine, a 15-year-old Michigan boy who loved robotics and a tall high school senior from Texas who got sick in Wisconsin while visiting his grandparents for the holidays.
On average, an estimated 24,000 Americans die each flu season. Elderly people with chronic health conditions are at greatest risk.
This article is brought to you by RELATIONSHIPS ADVICE.
Still, experts say that doesn't mean this year will turn out to be unusually deadly. Roughly 100 children die in an average flu season, and it's not clear that will happen this year.
The deaths have included a 6-year-old girl in Maine, a 15-year-old Michigan boy who loved robotics and a tall high school senior from Texas who got sick in Wisconsin while visiting his grandparents for the holidays.
On average, an estimated 24,000 Americans die each flu season. Elderly people with chronic health conditions are at greatest risk.
This article is brought to you by RELATIONSHIPS ADVICE.
No exercise, more than couch, tied to fat in kids
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - For kids, time spent inactive seems less of a factor in higher body fat than does a lack of exercise, according to a new study.
Researchers found that the more minutes kids spent exercising at the pace of a fast walk each day, the lower their body fat percentage was. But the time they spent as couch potatoes made no difference, according to results published in the Journal of Pediatrics.
'Our study supports the current physical activity guideline, that's what I want people to know,' lead author Soyang Kwon, a pediatric researcher at Northwestern University in Chicago, told Reuters Health.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services recommends that children and teens exercise at least at the intensity of a fast walk, about 3.5 miles per hour, for 60 minutes every day.
Last spring a study in adults found a different result: regular exercise doesn't protect against the dangers of sitting for many hours at desk jobs (see Reuters story: http://reut.rs/HiZ3Mw). This is likely because kids are more active than adults overall.
'In adults, where the activity levels are generally less, the time spent sedentary may have more of an effect,' Russell Pate, who studies physical activity in kids at the University of South Carolina in Columbia, told Reuters Health.
Kwon and her coauthors from the University of Iowa used data from a study in that state that followed kids of various ages from 2000 to 2009.
A group of 277 boys and 277 girls were measured at eight, 11, 13 and 15 years old for body composition and fat content using a precise X-ray technique originally developed to assess bone density. At each age, the exposure to radiation from the test was about equal to one transatlantic flight.
The same children wore an accelerometer, which measures body movement, for several days in a row sometime in the same year.
Even among kids who exercised the least, sitting didn't make much of a difference.
For the 13 year olds, those who sat less than, more than or equal to the average six and a half hours per day all had about the same body fat mass. But boys who spent the least amount of time in moderate to vigorous activity had about 11 pounds more body fat, on average, than those who exercised the most.
For 13 year old girls, the low level exercisers had about seven pounds more body fat than the exercisers. Results were similar in every age group, but the researchers did not record if each child was overweight or not.
In an earlier study, the same team of researchers found that even light intensity activity, like walking, every day, was linked to lower levels of fat in teens, but not young children.
But experts caution this doesn't mean kids should camp out in front of a screen for hours at a time. Previous research has shown a link between sedentary screen time and weight gain, probably because watching TV often goes hand in hand with snacking, Ulf Ekelund told Reuters Health.
'Parents should encourage their children to be physically active, the more the better,' said Ekelund, who studies obesity risk factors in children at the Norwegian School of Sport Science in Oslo. 'That might sound simple, but the execution isn't so simple sometimes.'
'I support parents establishing rules that limit TV and videogames,' but more is needed, said Pate, who was not involved in the new study. 'If we get kids away from the screen that doesn't mean that they start to jump up and do vigorous activity.'
SOURCE: http://bit.ly/RKmMd9 Journal of Pediatrics online January 10, 2013.
This article is brought to you by DATING ADVICE.
Researchers found that the more minutes kids spent exercising at the pace of a fast walk each day, the lower their body fat percentage was. But the time they spent as couch potatoes made no difference, according to results published in the Journal of Pediatrics.
'Our study supports the current physical activity guideline, that's what I want people to know,' lead author Soyang Kwon, a pediatric researcher at Northwestern University in Chicago, told Reuters Health.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services recommends that children and teens exercise at least at the intensity of a fast walk, about 3.5 miles per hour, for 60 minutes every day.
Last spring a study in adults found a different result: regular exercise doesn't protect against the dangers of sitting for many hours at desk jobs (see Reuters story: http://reut.rs/HiZ3Mw). This is likely because kids are more active than adults overall.
'In adults, where the activity levels are generally less, the time spent sedentary may have more of an effect,' Russell Pate, who studies physical activity in kids at the University of South Carolina in Columbia, told Reuters Health.
Kwon and her coauthors from the University of Iowa used data from a study in that state that followed kids of various ages from 2000 to 2009.
A group of 277 boys and 277 girls were measured at eight, 11, 13 and 15 years old for body composition and fat content using a precise X-ray technique originally developed to assess bone density. At each age, the exposure to radiation from the test was about equal to one transatlantic flight.
The same children wore an accelerometer, which measures body movement, for several days in a row sometime in the same year.
Even among kids who exercised the least, sitting didn't make much of a difference.
For the 13 year olds, those who sat less than, more than or equal to the average six and a half hours per day all had about the same body fat mass. But boys who spent the least amount of time in moderate to vigorous activity had about 11 pounds more body fat, on average, than those who exercised the most.
For 13 year old girls, the low level exercisers had about seven pounds more body fat than the exercisers. Results were similar in every age group, but the researchers did not record if each child was overweight or not.
In an earlier study, the same team of researchers found that even light intensity activity, like walking, every day, was linked to lower levels of fat in teens, but not young children.
But experts caution this doesn't mean kids should camp out in front of a screen for hours at a time. Previous research has shown a link between sedentary screen time and weight gain, probably because watching TV often goes hand in hand with snacking, Ulf Ekelund told Reuters Health.
'Parents should encourage their children to be physically active, the more the better,' said Ekelund, who studies obesity risk factors in children at the Norwegian School of Sport Science in Oslo. 'That might sound simple, but the execution isn't so simple sometimes.'
'I support parents establishing rules that limit TV and videogames,' but more is needed, said Pate, who was not involved in the new study. 'If we get kids away from the screen that doesn't mean that they start to jump up and do vigorous activity.'
SOURCE: http://bit.ly/RKmMd9 Journal of Pediatrics online January 10, 2013.
This article is brought to you by DATING ADVICE.
Thursday, January 10, 2013
Screen time not linked to kids' physical activity
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Cutting back kids' time watching TV and playing video games may not encourage them to spend more of the day running around outside, a new study suggests.
Just four in 10 U.S. kids met dual national guidelines for getting enough physical activity and for limiting 'screen time,' researchers found - but the likelihood of kids exercising regularly didn't depend on whether they kept away from screens.
'I don't think it's as simple as, if a child is not watching television, then by default that child will be physically active,' said the study's lead author, Tala Fakhouri, from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Guidelines from the National Institutes of Health and the American Academy of Pediatrics call for elementary school-aged kids to get at least one hour of exercise and spend less than two hours in front of screens every day.
The new findings are based on just over 1,200 U.S. children, aged six to 11, whose parents answered questions about their health and behavior. The survey group was designed to be representative of all kids nationwide in 2009-2010.
Fakhouri and her colleagues found that 70 percent of kids met the recommendations for daily physical activity and 54 percent met the screen-time recommendations, according to their parents' reports. Thirty-eight percent met both sets of guidelines.
Hispanic and older children and girls were less likely to get at least an hour of exercise each day than their white, younger and male peers.
Older kids were also less apt to meet screen-time recommendations, as were black youth. However, Hispanic children were more likely than white kids to keep their screen time under two hours daily.
Obesity was tied both to not getting enough exercise and to spending too much time in front of TV and computer screens, according to the findings published this week in JAMA Pediatrics. But otherwise, there was no link between the odds of meeting one recommendation and meeting the other, the researchers said.
According to the CDC, 17 percent of U.S. kids and teens are obese. Getting kids off the couch and outdoors - as well as improving the nutritional content of meals at home and at school - is considered key to keeping that number from rising further.
But researchers said the new study backs up earlier findings showing too much screen time and not enough exercise may be separate issues that parents and schools need to address independently.
'These results show that we would be wrong in assuming that if school-based and/or community-based programs to increase children's physical activity are implemented, we would automatically see a reduction in sedentary behaviors (like watching TV),' Tami Benham Deal, who studies kids' physical activity at the University of Wyoming in Laramie, told Reuters Health in an email.
'Similarly, just turning off the TV or computer will not cause children to be more active,' added Benham Deal, who wasn't involved in the new research.
Fakhouri told Reuters Health that parents in the study may have overestimated how active their kids are - so the real number of elementary school students getting an hour of exercise daily may be less than 70 percent. A similar 2003-2004 U.S. study, which used small devices called accelerometers to measure kids' activity, found just 42 percent met the recommendations, she said.
For parents, Benham Deal recommended making family time more physically active and giving kids toys that promote physical activity, rather than inactivity.
'As a parent, I always tried to use screen time as a reward for being physically active and when we watched TV, we would use the commercial breaks as fitness breaks,' she added.
SOURCE: http://bit.ly/UYDdSR JAMA Pediatrics, online January 7, 2013.
This news article is brought to you by STOCK MARKET BLOG - where latest news are our top priority.
Just four in 10 U.S. kids met dual national guidelines for getting enough physical activity and for limiting 'screen time,' researchers found - but the likelihood of kids exercising regularly didn't depend on whether they kept away from screens.
'I don't think it's as simple as, if a child is not watching television, then by default that child will be physically active,' said the study's lead author, Tala Fakhouri, from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Guidelines from the National Institutes of Health and the American Academy of Pediatrics call for elementary school-aged kids to get at least one hour of exercise and spend less than two hours in front of screens every day.
The new findings are based on just over 1,200 U.S. children, aged six to 11, whose parents answered questions about their health and behavior. The survey group was designed to be representative of all kids nationwide in 2009-2010.
Fakhouri and her colleagues found that 70 percent of kids met the recommendations for daily physical activity and 54 percent met the screen-time recommendations, according to their parents' reports. Thirty-eight percent met both sets of guidelines.
Hispanic and older children and girls were less likely to get at least an hour of exercise each day than their white, younger and male peers.
Older kids were also less apt to meet screen-time recommendations, as were black youth. However, Hispanic children were more likely than white kids to keep their screen time under two hours daily.
Obesity was tied both to not getting enough exercise and to spending too much time in front of TV and computer screens, according to the findings published this week in JAMA Pediatrics. But otherwise, there was no link between the odds of meeting one recommendation and meeting the other, the researchers said.
According to the CDC, 17 percent of U.S. kids and teens are obese. Getting kids off the couch and outdoors - as well as improving the nutritional content of meals at home and at school - is considered key to keeping that number from rising further.
But researchers said the new study backs up earlier findings showing too much screen time and not enough exercise may be separate issues that parents and schools need to address independently.
'These results show that we would be wrong in assuming that if school-based and/or community-based programs to increase children's physical activity are implemented, we would automatically see a reduction in sedentary behaviors (like watching TV),' Tami Benham Deal, who studies kids' physical activity at the University of Wyoming in Laramie, told Reuters Health in an email.
'Similarly, just turning off the TV or computer will not cause children to be more active,' added Benham Deal, who wasn't involved in the new research.
Fakhouri told Reuters Health that parents in the study may have overestimated how active their kids are - so the real number of elementary school students getting an hour of exercise daily may be less than 70 percent. A similar 2003-2004 U.S. study, which used small devices called accelerometers to measure kids' activity, found just 42 percent met the recommendations, she said.
For parents, Benham Deal recommended making family time more physically active and giving kids toys that promote physical activity, rather than inactivity.
'As a parent, I always tried to use screen time as a reward for being physically active and when we watched TV, we would use the commercial breaks as fitness breaks,' she added.
SOURCE: http://bit.ly/UYDdSR JAMA Pediatrics, online January 7, 2013.
This news article is brought to you by STOCK MARKET BLOG - where latest news are our top priority.
Eli Lilly settles Mass. pregnancy drug-cancer case
BOSTON (AP) - Eli Lilly and Co. has settled a lawsuit brought by four sisters who contended their breast cancer was caused by a drug their mother took during pregnancy in the 1950s, a move some believe could trigger financial settlements in scores of other claims brought by women around the country.
A total of 51 women, including the Melnick sisters, filed lawsuits in Boston against more than a dozen companies that made or marketed a synthetic estrogen known as DES.
The Melnick sisters' case was the first to go to trial. The settlement was announced Wednesday on the second day of testimony.
DES, or diethylstilbestrol, was prescribed to millions of pregnant women over three decades to prevent miscarriages, premature births and other problems. It was taken off the market in the early 1970s after it was linked to a rare vaginal cancer in women whose mothers used it. Studies later showed the drug didn't prevent miscarriages.
Attorney Aaron Levine, representing the Melnick sisters, told the jury during opening statements that Eli Lilly failed to test the drug's effect on fetuses before promoting it as a way to prevent miscarriages.
Lawyer James Dillon, for Indianapolis-based Eli Lilly, told the jury that there was no evidence the drug causes breast cancer in the daughters of women who took it.
Dillon also said that no medical records show that the mother of the Melnick sisters took DES or that, if she did take it, it was made by Eli Lilly. Leading researchers at the time recommended that DES be used for pregnant women who had consecutive miscarriages, he said.
DES was not patented and was made by many companies.
Boston attorney Andrew Meyer, who's handled numerous medical malpractice cases, said the settlement in this case could signal settlements in other cases.
'When one settles a case, they recognize they can lose it,' he said. 'The reason they can lose it is because there's enough evidence for the plaintiffs to be able to win it. So it's not just optics, it isn't.'
Columbus, Ohio, resident Irene Sawyer also is suing Eli Lilly, alleging that her prenatal exposure to DES caused her breast cancer. She called the settlement 'a huge victory' for DES daughters.
'The bottom line is that this company put out a drug without testing, without knowing the consequences of this drug,' she said.
It's wonderful, she said, that drug companies 'are starting to realize this is not right, that there are consequences.'
The Melnick sisters, who grew up in Tresckow, Pa., said they all developed breast cancer in their 40s.
Levine told the jury that their mother did not take DES while pregnant with a fifth sister and that sister has not developed breast cancer.
The four Melnick sisters also had miscarriages, fertility problems or other reproductive tract problems long suspected of being caused by prenatal exposure to DES. They were diagnosed with breast cancer between 1997 and 2003 and had treatments ranging from lump-removal surgery to a full mastectomy, radiation and chemotherapy.
Thousands of lawsuits have been filed alleging links between DES and vaginal cancer, cervical cancer and fertility problems. Many of those cases were settled.
___
Associated Press writer Jay Lindsay contributed to this report.
This news article is brought to you by GLOBAL WEATHER NEWS - where latest news are our top priority.
A total of 51 women, including the Melnick sisters, filed lawsuits in Boston against more than a dozen companies that made or marketed a synthetic estrogen known as DES.
The Melnick sisters' case was the first to go to trial. The settlement was announced Wednesday on the second day of testimony.
DES, or diethylstilbestrol, was prescribed to millions of pregnant women over three decades to prevent miscarriages, premature births and other problems. It was taken off the market in the early 1970s after it was linked to a rare vaginal cancer in women whose mothers used it. Studies later showed the drug didn't prevent miscarriages.
Attorney Aaron Levine, representing the Melnick sisters, told the jury during opening statements that Eli Lilly failed to test the drug's effect on fetuses before promoting it as a way to prevent miscarriages.
Lawyer James Dillon, for Indianapolis-based Eli Lilly, told the jury that there was no evidence the drug causes breast cancer in the daughters of women who took it.
Dillon also said that no medical records show that the mother of the Melnick sisters took DES or that, if she did take it, it was made by Eli Lilly. Leading researchers at the time recommended that DES be used for pregnant women who had consecutive miscarriages, he said.
DES was not patented and was made by many companies.
Boston attorney Andrew Meyer, who's handled numerous medical malpractice cases, said the settlement in this case could signal settlements in other cases.
'When one settles a case, they recognize they can lose it,' he said. 'The reason they can lose it is because there's enough evidence for the plaintiffs to be able to win it. So it's not just optics, it isn't.'
Columbus, Ohio, resident Irene Sawyer also is suing Eli Lilly, alleging that her prenatal exposure to DES caused her breast cancer. She called the settlement 'a huge victory' for DES daughters.
'The bottom line is that this company put out a drug without testing, without knowing the consequences of this drug,' she said.
It's wonderful, she said, that drug companies 'are starting to realize this is not right, that there are consequences.'
The Melnick sisters, who grew up in Tresckow, Pa., said they all developed breast cancer in their 40s.
Levine told the jury that their mother did not take DES while pregnant with a fifth sister and that sister has not developed breast cancer.
The four Melnick sisters also had miscarriages, fertility problems or other reproductive tract problems long suspected of being caused by prenatal exposure to DES. They were diagnosed with breast cancer between 1997 and 2003 and had treatments ranging from lump-removal surgery to a full mastectomy, radiation and chemotherapy.
Thousands of lawsuits have been filed alleging links between DES and vaginal cancer, cervical cancer and fertility problems. Many of those cases were settled.
___
Associated Press writer Jay Lindsay contributed to this report.
This news article is brought to you by GLOBAL WEATHER NEWS - where latest news are our top priority.
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
APNewsBreak: Deal in Mass. suit on pregnancy drug
BOSTON (AP) - Four sisters who claimed in a lawsuit their breast cancer was caused by synthetic estrogen their mother took during pregnancy in the 1950s have reached a settlement with the drug company Eli Lilly and Co.
Attorney Julie Oliver-Zhang said the settlement, for an undisclosed amount, was reached on Wednesday, the second day of a trial in U.S. District Court in Boston. The sisters had not specified damages sought in the lawsuit.
Indianapolis-based Eli Lilly said it still believes its medication didn't cause the sisters' conditions but a settlement is in its best interest.
The sisters' case was the first to go to trial out of scores of similar claims filed in Boston and around the country. A total of 51 women have lawsuits pending in U.S. District Court in Boston against more than a dozen companies that made or marketed the drug.
DES, or diethylstilbestrol, was prescribed to millions of pregnant women over three decades to prevent miscarriages, premature births and other problems. It was taken off the market in the early 1970s after it was linked to a rare vaginal cancer in women whose mothers used DES.
Studies later showed the drug did not prevent miscarriages.
In an opening trial statement Tuesday, Aaron Levine, another lawyer for the sisters, said Eli Lilly failed to test the drug's effect on fetuses before promoting it as a way to prevent miscarriages.
James Dillon, a lawyer for Eli Lilly, told the jury there is no evidence the drug causes breast cancer in the daughters of women who took it. He also said that no medical records show the mother of the four women in the Boston case took DES or that if she did take it that it was made by Eli Lilly.
DES was not patented and was made by many companies.
The Melnick sisters, who grew up in Tresckow, Pa., say they all developed breast cancer in their 40s after their mother took DES while pregnant.
Levine told the jury that their mother did not take DES while pregnant with a fifth sister and that sister has not developed breast cancer.
The four Melnick sisters also had miscarriages, fertility problems or other reproductive tract problems long suspected of being caused by prenatal exposure to DES. They were diagnosed with breast cancer between 1997 and 2003 and had treatments ranging from lump-removal surgery to a full mastectomy, radiation and chemotherapy.
Dillon said that the doctor who treated the Melnick sisters' mother is now dead, and that there are no records of him prescribing DES. Dillon said Eli Lilly at the time recommended DES for women who had had three or more consecutive miscarriages.
The sisters' mother, he said, did not have consecutive miscarriages, so prescribing it to her would have gone against the company's recommendations. Dillon said leading researchers at the time recommended that DES be used for pregnant women.
Dillon told the jury that while it is 'terribly unfair' that the four sisters got breast cancer, it is a common disease and doctors still don't understand what causes it.
Thousands of lawsuits have been filed alleging links between DES and vaginal and cervical cancer, as well as fertility problems. Many of those cases were settled.
This article is brought to you by DATING ADVICE.
Attorney Julie Oliver-Zhang said the settlement, for an undisclosed amount, was reached on Wednesday, the second day of a trial in U.S. District Court in Boston. The sisters had not specified damages sought in the lawsuit.
Indianapolis-based Eli Lilly said it still believes its medication didn't cause the sisters' conditions but a settlement is in its best interest.
The sisters' case was the first to go to trial out of scores of similar claims filed in Boston and around the country. A total of 51 women have lawsuits pending in U.S. District Court in Boston against more than a dozen companies that made or marketed the drug.
DES, or diethylstilbestrol, was prescribed to millions of pregnant women over three decades to prevent miscarriages, premature births and other problems. It was taken off the market in the early 1970s after it was linked to a rare vaginal cancer in women whose mothers used DES.
Studies later showed the drug did not prevent miscarriages.
In an opening trial statement Tuesday, Aaron Levine, another lawyer for the sisters, said Eli Lilly failed to test the drug's effect on fetuses before promoting it as a way to prevent miscarriages.
James Dillon, a lawyer for Eli Lilly, told the jury there is no evidence the drug causes breast cancer in the daughters of women who took it. He also said that no medical records show the mother of the four women in the Boston case took DES or that if she did take it that it was made by Eli Lilly.
DES was not patented and was made by many companies.
The Melnick sisters, who grew up in Tresckow, Pa., say they all developed breast cancer in their 40s after their mother took DES while pregnant.
Levine told the jury that their mother did not take DES while pregnant with a fifth sister and that sister has not developed breast cancer.
The four Melnick sisters also had miscarriages, fertility problems or other reproductive tract problems long suspected of being caused by prenatal exposure to DES. They were diagnosed with breast cancer between 1997 and 2003 and had treatments ranging from lump-removal surgery to a full mastectomy, radiation and chemotherapy.
Dillon said that the doctor who treated the Melnick sisters' mother is now dead, and that there are no records of him prescribing DES. Dillon said Eli Lilly at the time recommended DES for women who had had three or more consecutive miscarriages.
The sisters' mother, he said, did not have consecutive miscarriages, so prescribing it to her would have gone against the company's recommendations. Dillon said leading researchers at the time recommended that DES be used for pregnant women.
Dillon told the jury that while it is 'terribly unfair' that the four sisters got breast cancer, it is a common disease and doctors still don't understand what causes it.
Thousands of lawsuits have been filed alleging links between DES and vaginal and cervical cancer, as well as fertility problems. Many of those cases were settled.
This article is brought to you by DATING ADVICE.
APNewsBreak: Settlement in suit on pregnancy drug
BOSTON (AP) - Four sisters who claimed in a lawsuit their breast cancer was caused by synthetic estrogen their mother took during pregnancy in the 1950s have reached a settlement with the drug company Eli Lilly and Co., a lawyer for the sisters said Wednesday.
Attorney Julie Oliver-Zhang said the settlement, for an undisclosed amount, was reached on the second day of a trial in U.S. District Court in Boston. They had not specified damages sought in the lawsuit.
Indianapolis-based Eli Lilly did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment.
The sisters' case was the first to go to trial out of scores of similar claims filed in Boston and around the country. A total of 51 women have lawsuits pending in U.S. District Court in Boston against more than a dozen companies that made or marketed the drug.
DES, or diethylstilbestrol, was prescribed to millions of pregnant women over three decades to prevent miscarriages, premature births and other problems. It was taken off the market in the early 1970s after it was linked to a rare vaginal cancer in women whose mothers used DES.
Studies later showed the drug did not prevent miscarriages.
In his opening trial statement Tuesday, Aaron Levine, another lawyer for the sisters, said Eli Lilly failed to test the drug's effect on fetuses before promoting it as a way to prevent miscarriages.
James Dillon, a lawyer for Eli Lilly, told the jury there is no evidence the drug causes breast cancer in the daughters of women who took it. He also said no medical records show the mother of the four women in the Boston case took DES, or that if she did take it, that it was made by Eli Lilly.
DES was not patented and was made by many companies.
The Melnick sisters, who grew up in Tresckow, Pa., say they all developed breast cancer in their 40s after their mother took DES while pregnant.
Levine told the jury that their mother did not take DES while pregnant with a fifth sister, and that sister has not developed breast cancer.
The four Melnick sisters also had miscarriages, fertility problems or other reproductive tract problems long suspected of being caused by prenatal exposure to DES. They were diagnosed with breast cancer between 1997 and 2003 and had treatments ranging from lump-removal surgery to a full mastectomy, radiation and chemotherapy.
Dillon said that the doctor who treated the Melnick sisters' mother is now dead, and that there are no records of him prescribing DES. Dillon said Eli Lilly at the time recommended DES for women who had had three or more consecutive miscarriages.
The sisters' mother, he said, did not have consecutive miscarriages, so prescribing it to her would have gone against the company's recommendations. Dillon said leading researchers at the time recommended that DES be used for pregnant women.
Dillon told the jury that while it is 'terribly unfair' that the four sisters got breast cancer, it is a common disease and doctors still don't understand what causes it.
Thousands of lawsuits have been filed alleging links between DES and vaginal and cervical cancer, as well as fertility problems. Many of those cases were settled.
This news article is brought to you by PARENTING KIDS - where latest news are our top priority.
Attorney Julie Oliver-Zhang said the settlement, for an undisclosed amount, was reached on the second day of a trial in U.S. District Court in Boston. They had not specified damages sought in the lawsuit.
Indianapolis-based Eli Lilly did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment.
The sisters' case was the first to go to trial out of scores of similar claims filed in Boston and around the country. A total of 51 women have lawsuits pending in U.S. District Court in Boston against more than a dozen companies that made or marketed the drug.
DES, or diethylstilbestrol, was prescribed to millions of pregnant women over three decades to prevent miscarriages, premature births and other problems. It was taken off the market in the early 1970s after it was linked to a rare vaginal cancer in women whose mothers used DES.
Studies later showed the drug did not prevent miscarriages.
In his opening trial statement Tuesday, Aaron Levine, another lawyer for the sisters, said Eli Lilly failed to test the drug's effect on fetuses before promoting it as a way to prevent miscarriages.
James Dillon, a lawyer for Eli Lilly, told the jury there is no evidence the drug causes breast cancer in the daughters of women who took it. He also said no medical records show the mother of the four women in the Boston case took DES, or that if she did take it, that it was made by Eli Lilly.
DES was not patented and was made by many companies.
The Melnick sisters, who grew up in Tresckow, Pa., say they all developed breast cancer in their 40s after their mother took DES while pregnant.
Levine told the jury that their mother did not take DES while pregnant with a fifth sister, and that sister has not developed breast cancer.
The four Melnick sisters also had miscarriages, fertility problems or other reproductive tract problems long suspected of being caused by prenatal exposure to DES. They were diagnosed with breast cancer between 1997 and 2003 and had treatments ranging from lump-removal surgery to a full mastectomy, radiation and chemotherapy.
Dillon said that the doctor who treated the Melnick sisters' mother is now dead, and that there are no records of him prescribing DES. Dillon said Eli Lilly at the time recommended DES for women who had had three or more consecutive miscarriages.
The sisters' mother, he said, did not have consecutive miscarriages, so prescribing it to her would have gone against the company's recommendations. Dillon said leading researchers at the time recommended that DES be used for pregnant women.
Dillon told the jury that while it is 'terribly unfair' that the four sisters got breast cancer, it is a common disease and doctors still don't understand what causes it.
Thousands of lawsuits have been filed alleging links between DES and vaginal and cervical cancer, as well as fertility problems. Many of those cases were settled.
This news article is brought to you by PARENTING KIDS - where latest news are our top priority.
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Mass. women at trial: Pregnancy drug caused cancer
BOSTON (AP) - A lawyer for four sisters who believe their breast cancer was caused by a drug their mother took during pregnancy says the drug maker failed to test its effect on fetuses before promoting it as a way to prevent miscarriages.
The sisters are suing Eli Lilly and Co. They allege the company urged doctors to prescribe the synthetic estrogen known as DES without proof that it prevented miscarriages and other reproductive problems.
A lawyer for Eli Lilly told the jury Tuesday that there is no evidence that DES causes breast cancer in the daughters of women who took it. He also says no medical records show the mother of the women took DES, or that if she did take it, that it was made by Eli Lilly. Many companies made the drug.
This news article is brought to you by GOING GREEN NEWS - where latest news are our top priority.
The sisters are suing Eli Lilly and Co. They allege the company urged doctors to prescribe the synthetic estrogen known as DES without proof that it prevented miscarriages and other reproductive problems.
A lawyer for Eli Lilly told the jury Tuesday that there is no evidence that DES causes breast cancer in the daughters of women who took it. He also says no medical records show the mother of the women took DES, or that if she did take it, that it was made by Eli Lilly. Many companies made the drug.
This news article is brought to you by GOING GREEN NEWS - where latest news are our top priority.
Testimony set to begin in pregnancy drug case
BOSTON (AP) - Testimony is set to begin in a federal lawsuit brought by four sisters who believe their breast cancer was caused by a drug their mother took during pregnancy in the 1950s.
The case involves a synthetic estrogen known as DES, diethylstilbestrol, which was prescribed to millions of pregnant women between the late 1930s and early 1970s to prevent miscarriages, premature births and other problems. Studies later showed the drug did not prevent miscarriages.
The Melnick sisters, who grew up in Tresckow, Penn., say they all developed breast cancer in their 40s after their mother took DES while pregnant. They say their mother did not take DES while pregnant with a fifth sister, and that sister has not developed breast cancer. They are suing Eli Lilly and Co., seeking unspecified damages.
Opening statements and testimony are expected Tuesday in U.S. District Court.
The sisters' case is the first to go to trial out of scores of similar claims filed in Boston and around the country. A total of 51 women have DES lawsuits pending in Boston against more than a dozen drug companies that made or marketed DES.
The drug companies argue that no firm link has been established between breast cancer and DES. It was eventually taken off the market after it was linked to a rare vaginal cancer in women whose mothers used DES.
Eli Lilly argues in court documents that there is no evidence that the Melnick sisters' mother even took DES. She and her doctor are dead, and the drug company says there are no medical records documenting her treatment. A company spokesman said Eli Lilly believes the claims are without merit and is prepared to defend against them vigorously.
The Melnick sisters were diagnosed with breast cancer between 1997 and 2003 and had treatments ranging from lump-removal surgery to a full mastectomy, radiation and chemotherapy.
The trial is expected to last several weeks.
This article is brought to you by RELATIONSHIP ADVICE.
The case involves a synthetic estrogen known as DES, diethylstilbestrol, which was prescribed to millions of pregnant women between the late 1930s and early 1970s to prevent miscarriages, premature births and other problems. Studies later showed the drug did not prevent miscarriages.
The Melnick sisters, who grew up in Tresckow, Penn., say they all developed breast cancer in their 40s after their mother took DES while pregnant. They say their mother did not take DES while pregnant with a fifth sister, and that sister has not developed breast cancer. They are suing Eli Lilly and Co., seeking unspecified damages.
Opening statements and testimony are expected Tuesday in U.S. District Court.
The sisters' case is the first to go to trial out of scores of similar claims filed in Boston and around the country. A total of 51 women have DES lawsuits pending in Boston against more than a dozen drug companies that made or marketed DES.
The drug companies argue that no firm link has been established between breast cancer and DES. It was eventually taken off the market after it was linked to a rare vaginal cancer in women whose mothers used DES.
Eli Lilly argues in court documents that there is no evidence that the Melnick sisters' mother even took DES. She and her doctor are dead, and the drug company says there are no medical records documenting her treatment. A company spokesman said Eli Lilly believes the claims are without merit and is prepared to defend against them vigorously.
The Melnick sisters were diagnosed with breast cancer between 1997 and 2003 and had treatments ranging from lump-removal surgery to a full mastectomy, radiation and chemotherapy.
The trial is expected to last several weeks.
This article is brought to you by RELATIONSHIP ADVICE.
Thursday, January 3, 2013
Trial set to begin in Boston over pregnancy drug
BOSTON (AP) - Trial is set to begin Friday in a lawsuit brought by four sisters who say their breast cancer was caused by a drug their mother took during the 1950s when she was pregnant.
Jury selection is scheduled in federal court in Boston in case involving DES, or diethylstilbestrol (dahy-eth-uhl-stil-BEST-trawl). Millions of pregnant women were prescribed the drug between the 1930s and the early 1970s to prevent miscarriages, premature births and other problems.
Drug companies argue that no firm link between DES and breast cancer has been established.
The Melnick sisters say they all developed breast cancer after their mother took DES during pregnancy. They say their mother was not on DES while pregnant with a fifth sister. And that sister has not gotten breast cancer.
This article is brought to you by RELATIONSHIP ADVICE.
Jury selection is scheduled in federal court in Boston in case involving DES, or diethylstilbestrol (dahy-eth-uhl-stil-BEST-trawl). Millions of pregnant women were prescribed the drug between the 1930s and the early 1970s to prevent miscarriages, premature births and other problems.
Drug companies argue that no firm link between DES and breast cancer has been established.
The Melnick sisters say they all developed breast cancer after their mother took DES during pregnancy. They say their mother was not on DES while pregnant with a fifth sister. And that sister has not gotten breast cancer.
This article is brought to you by RELATIONSHIP ADVICE.
Video games fail to stoke kids' appetite for fruit
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Healthy food advertising in the form of online games doesn't make kids crave more wholesome snacks, according to a new study from the Netherlands.
Researchers expected children to choose to eat fruit after playing games promoting fruit, given that previous research has shown so-called 'advergames' to be effective marketing tools. In fact, kids in the experiment did eat more snacks after playing, but no more fruit than their peers.
'I think that the game elicits hunger, and children like (high calorie) snacks more than fruit snacks, so they chose the (high calorie) snacks,' said the study's lead author Frans Folkvord.
Based on his group's results, Folkvord added, parents should be cautious about the effect of such online games, even if they think they are there to promote healthy eating.
'Children are not aware of the intentions of the marketers,' said Folkvord, a graduate student at the University of Amsterdam. 'Parents have to teach their children to be skeptical about those games.'
'The association between having fun and seeing the product is designed to get you to influence your view of the product,' said Sandra Calvert, a professor at Georgetown University who was not involved in the Dutch study.
Popular fast food chains and cereal and juice drink brands, to name a few, have online games tailored for kids on their websites, including McDonald's, Cap'n Crunch cereal and Juicy Juice.
To see if such marketing could work in favor of healthy foods, Folkvord and his colleagues presented video memory games to 201 elementary school students.
The kids were split into three groups: one that played a game promoting candy, another that played a game promoting fruit and a third whose game promoted a non-food toy.
Another 69 children did not play any games.
After five minutes of gaming, the kids were allowed to have a snack, which could be chosen from two bowls of candy and two bowls of fruit.
The researchers found that the kids who played either of the games marketing food ended up eating more calories than the kids who played the game that promoted a toy or who didn't play a game at all.
For instance, the kids who played the candy game ate 202 calories afterward and those who played the fruit game ate 183 calories.
In comparison, kids who played the toy-promoting game ate 130 calories of the snacks and kids who didn't play at all ate 106 calories, the team reports in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
'I think these advergames promote hunger,' Folkvord told Reuters Health.
Contrary to his expectations, however, they didn't always promote the food that was presented in the game.
The kids who played the food games ate the same amount of fruit afterward - 32 or 33 calories - regardless of whether the game was marketing candy or fruit. So most of the snack calories both groups consumed came from candy.
Calvert said that although the current study didn't result in a preference for fruit, advergames could still work to promote healthier eating in the right context.
Her own study on the topic, published in 2009, involved a Pac-Man game promoting fruit and found that after playing, kids selected fruit over chips.
'It might have to do with the game,' she said. 'He's a very famous and familiar icon and he gets rewarded for eating healthy food and punished for eating unhealthy food.'
Her game also lasted 10 minutes, compared to Folkvord's five minutes.
'The same mechanisms work to get you to want an unhealthy food as a healthy food, but we have to be a little bit more convincing to get kids to want the healthy food,' she told Reuters Health.
Calvert said it's important that parents monitor which websites kids are using to play games, because they can influence kids' food choices.
SOURCE: http://bit.ly/131b5m3 American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, online December 26, 2012.
This news article is brought to you by DATING ADVICE 201 - where latest news are our top priority.
Researchers expected children to choose to eat fruit after playing games promoting fruit, given that previous research has shown so-called 'advergames' to be effective marketing tools. In fact, kids in the experiment did eat more snacks after playing, but no more fruit than their peers.
'I think that the game elicits hunger, and children like (high calorie) snacks more than fruit snacks, so they chose the (high calorie) snacks,' said the study's lead author Frans Folkvord.
Based on his group's results, Folkvord added, parents should be cautious about the effect of such online games, even if they think they are there to promote healthy eating.
'Children are not aware of the intentions of the marketers,' said Folkvord, a graduate student at the University of Amsterdam. 'Parents have to teach their children to be skeptical about those games.'
'The association between having fun and seeing the product is designed to get you to influence your view of the product,' said Sandra Calvert, a professor at Georgetown University who was not involved in the Dutch study.
Popular fast food chains and cereal and juice drink brands, to name a few, have online games tailored for kids on their websites, including McDonald's, Cap'n Crunch cereal and Juicy Juice.
To see if such marketing could work in favor of healthy foods, Folkvord and his colleagues presented video memory games to 201 elementary school students.
The kids were split into three groups: one that played a game promoting candy, another that played a game promoting fruit and a third whose game promoted a non-food toy.
Another 69 children did not play any games.
After five minutes of gaming, the kids were allowed to have a snack, which could be chosen from two bowls of candy and two bowls of fruit.
The researchers found that the kids who played either of the games marketing food ended up eating more calories than the kids who played the game that promoted a toy or who didn't play a game at all.
For instance, the kids who played the candy game ate 202 calories afterward and those who played the fruit game ate 183 calories.
In comparison, kids who played the toy-promoting game ate 130 calories of the snacks and kids who didn't play at all ate 106 calories, the team reports in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
'I think these advergames promote hunger,' Folkvord told Reuters Health.
Contrary to his expectations, however, they didn't always promote the food that was presented in the game.
The kids who played the food games ate the same amount of fruit afterward - 32 or 33 calories - regardless of whether the game was marketing candy or fruit. So most of the snack calories both groups consumed came from candy.
Calvert said that although the current study didn't result in a preference for fruit, advergames could still work to promote healthier eating in the right context.
Her own study on the topic, published in 2009, involved a Pac-Man game promoting fruit and found that after playing, kids selected fruit over chips.
'It might have to do with the game,' she said. 'He's a very famous and familiar icon and he gets rewarded for eating healthy food and punished for eating unhealthy food.'
Her game also lasted 10 minutes, compared to Folkvord's five minutes.
'The same mechanisms work to get you to want an unhealthy food as a healthy food, but we have to be a little bit more convincing to get kids to want the healthy food,' she told Reuters Health.
Calvert said it's important that parents monitor which websites kids are using to play games, because they can influence kids' food choices.
SOURCE: http://bit.ly/131b5m3 American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, online December 26, 2012.
This news article is brought to you by DATING ADVICE 201 - where latest news are our top priority.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)