LITTLE ROCK, Arkansas (Reuters) - Arkansas joined seven other U.S. states on Thursday in banning most abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy as the Republican-controlled state Senate voted to override a veto of the legislation by Democratic Governor Mike Beebe.
Arkansas senators also gave final approval to a proposal that would ban most abortions once a fetal heartbeat could be detected by a standard ultrasound, or about 12 weeks into pregnancy, and forwarded that bill to Beebe.
Senators voted 19 to 14 along party lines to override Beebe's veto of the 20-week ban, which followed a 53 to 28 vote by the Republican-controlled state House. In Arkansas, lawmakers can override a veto by a simple majority vote.
The law to ban most abortions after 20 weeks provides exceptions only in cases of rape, incest or to save a mother's life. It does not include an exemption for any lethal fetal disorders.
The heartbeat bill includes similar exceptions and calls for the state medical board to revoke the licenses of doctors who violate it.
The ACLU of Arkansas believes the new 20-week ban law and the proposed fetal heartbeat bill are unconstitutional, said Bettina Brownstein, cooperating attorney for the organization.
Brownstein said the ACLU may challenge the 20-week ban law and was preparing a challenge to the heartbeat bill.
'If it becomes law, it will be the most draconian anti-abortion bill in the country and affect many, many women,' Brownstein said of the heartbeat bill.
Republican state Representative Andy Mayberry, the primary sponsor, said the 20-week ban law was modeled after a similar law in Nebraska and he believes it is constitutional.
'Maybe there will be lawsuits, but lawmakers don't always let the criticisms of their opponents influence their votes,' Republican state Senator David Sanders said on Thursday of the rare vote to override the governor's veto.
The chief executive of Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, Jill June, said the so-called 'heartbeat' bill would be the most stringent restriction on abortion in the country.
Governor Beebe had said he vetoed the 20-week ban because he believed it contradicted the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe versus Wade decision that legalized abortion, and it would be costly to defend the law from legal challenges.
Late-term abortions remain relatively rare. Most of the recent state laws banning most abortions after 20 weeks are based on controversial medical research suggesting that a fetus feels pain starting at 20 weeks of gestation.
(Editing by David Bailey, Greg McCune and Leslie Adler)
Thursday, February 28, 2013
No clear benefits for kids' blood pressure checks
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - There's no evidence that checking kids' and teens' blood pressure - and treating them if it's high - can reduce their heart risks in adulthood, according to a new analysis.
What's more, researchers found blood pressure tests may not always be accurate among young people, or consistent from one reading to the next.
'At this point, the jury is out. We just don't know if this is worth doing or not,' said Dr. Matthew Thompson, who led the new research at Oxford University in the UK.
'We desperately need research on how to diagnose kids with high blood pressure, which kids should be treated and what are the most effective treatments.'
Thompson said although most U.S. children have their blood pressure measured at routine checkups, those readings are never taken on healthy kids in the UK.
His team reviewed the latest evidence on childhood blood pressure tests for the government-backed U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.
Thompson and his colleagues analyzed 34 studies covering diagnosis, treatment and long-term effects of high blood pressure in kids and teens. None of those answered the researchers' central question - whether screening can help prevent or delay cardiovascular disease in adults.
Accuracy of blood pressure readings from one measurement to the next was 'modest at best,' according to Thompson.
'The false positive rate. means that most children who screen positive won't actually have high blood pressure,' he told Reuters Health.
Among studies that tracked children and teens over time, researchers found anywhere from 19 to 65 percent of youth with high blood pressure also had hypertension as adults.
Seven studies tested seven different drugs for kids with hypertension and found they typically weren't any better at lowering blood pressure than a drug-free placebo pill. But those studies lasted only a few weeks - and children with hypertension would likely take the drugs for years.
'That's really not good enough evidence to know if they're effective and safe for decades,' Thompson said.
Programs aiming to change young people's lifestyle, such as by encouraging them to be more active or eat less salt, also didn't have a clear effect, the researchers wrote this week in Pediatrics.
'PART OF STANDARD CARE'
Based on the findings, the Task Force concluded in a draft recommendation that there isn't enough evidence to balance the benefits and harms of screening young people to prevent future disease.
The draft is available online for public comment for the next month here: http://bit.ly/uRZqMF.
The U.S. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute recommends all children routinely get their blood pressure measured. But another recent review also concluded there isn't enough evidence to support blood pressure checks for kids, further stoking controversy on the issue (see Reuters Health story of Jan 7, 2013 here: http://reut.rs/V5FY63.)
Dr. Bonita Falkner, a pediatrician at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia who has studied hypertension, said she doesn't think the findings should change practice.
'It remains unknown how much hypertension in childhood contributes to (adult high blood pressure), but there is evidence it begins in childhood,' Falkner, who wasn't involved in the review, told Reuters Health.
The researchers agreed there's a need for more studies to address the information gaps related to childhood blood pressure checks.
'It's been recommended for some time now that pediatricians measure blood pressure in children, starting at age three, as part of routine health assessments,' she said. 'It's pretty much become part of standard care.'
Thompson said until more research is done, it's unclear what the right answer is on blood pressure checks for youth.
'To me, the evidence shows that it's not clear that screening or not screening is good or bad,' he said.
SOURCE: http://bit.ly/WtBzqF Pediatrics, online February 25, 2013.
What's more, researchers found blood pressure tests may not always be accurate among young people, or consistent from one reading to the next.
'At this point, the jury is out. We just don't know if this is worth doing or not,' said Dr. Matthew Thompson, who led the new research at Oxford University in the UK.
'We desperately need research on how to diagnose kids with high blood pressure, which kids should be treated and what are the most effective treatments.'
Thompson said although most U.S. children have their blood pressure measured at routine checkups, those readings are never taken on healthy kids in the UK.
His team reviewed the latest evidence on childhood blood pressure tests for the government-backed U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.
Thompson and his colleagues analyzed 34 studies covering diagnosis, treatment and long-term effects of high blood pressure in kids and teens. None of those answered the researchers' central question - whether screening can help prevent or delay cardiovascular disease in adults.
Accuracy of blood pressure readings from one measurement to the next was 'modest at best,' according to Thompson.
'The false positive rate. means that most children who screen positive won't actually have high blood pressure,' he told Reuters Health.
Among studies that tracked children and teens over time, researchers found anywhere from 19 to 65 percent of youth with high blood pressure also had hypertension as adults.
Seven studies tested seven different drugs for kids with hypertension and found they typically weren't any better at lowering blood pressure than a drug-free placebo pill. But those studies lasted only a few weeks - and children with hypertension would likely take the drugs for years.
'That's really not good enough evidence to know if they're effective and safe for decades,' Thompson said.
Programs aiming to change young people's lifestyle, such as by encouraging them to be more active or eat less salt, also didn't have a clear effect, the researchers wrote this week in Pediatrics.
'PART OF STANDARD CARE'
Based on the findings, the Task Force concluded in a draft recommendation that there isn't enough evidence to balance the benefits and harms of screening young people to prevent future disease.
The draft is available online for public comment for the next month here: http://bit.ly/uRZqMF.
The U.S. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute recommends all children routinely get their blood pressure measured. But another recent review also concluded there isn't enough evidence to support blood pressure checks for kids, further stoking controversy on the issue (see Reuters Health story of Jan 7, 2013 here: http://reut.rs/V5FY63.)
Dr. Bonita Falkner, a pediatrician at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia who has studied hypertension, said she doesn't think the findings should change practice.
'It remains unknown how much hypertension in childhood contributes to (adult high blood pressure), but there is evidence it begins in childhood,' Falkner, who wasn't involved in the review, told Reuters Health.
The researchers agreed there's a need for more studies to address the information gaps related to childhood blood pressure checks.
'It's been recommended for some time now that pediatricians measure blood pressure in children, starting at age three, as part of routine health assessments,' she said. 'It's pretty much become part of standard care.'
Thompson said until more research is done, it's unclear what the right answer is on blood pressure checks for youth.
'To me, the evidence shows that it's not clear that screening or not screening is good or bad,' he said.
SOURCE: http://bit.ly/WtBzqF Pediatrics, online February 25, 2013.
First lady announces effort to help kids exercise
CHICAGO (AP) - Imagine students learning their ABCs while dancing, or memorizing multiplication tables while doing jumping jacks.
Some schools are using both methods of instruction, and Michelle Obama would like to see more of them use other creative ways to help students get the recommended hour of daily exercise.
In Chicago on Thursday, the first lady was announcing a new public-private partnership to help schools do just that. 'Let's Move Active Schools' starts with a website, www.letsmoveschools.org , where school officials and others can sign up to get started.
Mrs. Obama said too many penny-pinched schools have either cut spending on physical education or eliminated it outright to put the money toward classroom instruction. But the first lady who starts most days with a workout - and other advocates of helping today's largely sedentary kids move their bodies - say that's a false choice, since studies that show exercise helps youngsters focus and do well in school.
The effort is one of the newest parts of Mrs. Obama's 3-year-old campaign against childhood obesity, known as 'Let's Move,' which she has spent the week promoting.
'With each passing year, schools feel like it's just getting harder to find the time, the money and the will to help our kids be active. But just because it's hard doesn't mean we should stop trying,' the first lady said in her prepared remarks. 'It means we should try harder. It means that all of us - not just educators, but businesses and nonprofits and ordinary citizens - we all need to dig deeper and start getting even more creative.'
She was being joined for the announcement at McCormick Place in her hometown by several Olympians, including gymnasts Dominique Dawes and Gabby Douglas, sprinter Allyson Felix, tennis player Serena Williams and decathlete Ashton Eaton, along with San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick and triathlete Sarah Reinertsen, whose left leg was amputated above the knee when she was a child. Thousands of students from city middle schools also were being brought in for the event.
Research shows that daily exercise has a positive influence on academic performance, but kids today spend too much time sitting, mostly in school but also outside the classroom while watching TV, playing video games or surfing the Internet. Federal guidelines recommend that children ages 6-17 get at least 60 minutes of exercise daily, which can be racked up through multiple spurts of activity throughout the day.
The White House says the most current data, from 2007, shows that just 4 percent of elementary schools, 8 percent of middle schools and 2 percent of high schools provided daily physical education.
Education Secretary Arne Duncan said he's proof of the link between exercise and academic performance. As a boy, he said, he had a hard time sitting still in class but that exercise helped him focus.
'What's true for me is true for many of our nation's children,' he said in an interview.
Duncan, who played basketball professionally in Australia, said the choice is not between physical activity or academics, especially with about one-third of U.S. kids either overweight or obese and at higher risk for life-threatening illnesses like heart disease or diabetes.
'It's got to be both,' he said. Duncan cited the examples of students learning the alphabet while dancing or memorizing multiplication tables while doing jumping jacks.
Mrs. Obama called on school staff, families and communities to help get 50,000 schools, about half the number of public schools in the U.S., involved in the program over the next five years.
The President's Council on Fitness, Sports & Nutrition, the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, and the Alliance for a Healthier Generation will oversee the program. Funding and other resources will come from Nike Inc., the GENYOUth Foundation, ChildObesity180, Kaiser Permanente and the General Mills Foundation.
Under the new initiative, modest grants will be available from the Education Department to help some programs get started. The GENYOUth Foundation and ChildObesity180 also will be awarding grants.
Nike has committed $50 million to the effort over the next five years; the remaining groups together have pledged more than $20 million.
Williams said it's important to structure the activity so that it doesn't feel like a workout.
'I had fun and I didn't realize it was work,' she said about her years of practice before become one of America's top tennis players.
___
Online:
Let's Move: http://www.letsmove.gov
___
Follow Darlene Superville on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/dsuperville
Some schools are using both methods of instruction, and Michelle Obama would like to see more of them use other creative ways to help students get the recommended hour of daily exercise.
In Chicago on Thursday, the first lady was announcing a new public-private partnership to help schools do just that. 'Let's Move Active Schools' starts with a website, www.letsmoveschools.org , where school officials and others can sign up to get started.
Mrs. Obama said too many penny-pinched schools have either cut spending on physical education or eliminated it outright to put the money toward classroom instruction. But the first lady who starts most days with a workout - and other advocates of helping today's largely sedentary kids move their bodies - say that's a false choice, since studies that show exercise helps youngsters focus and do well in school.
The effort is one of the newest parts of Mrs. Obama's 3-year-old campaign against childhood obesity, known as 'Let's Move,' which she has spent the week promoting.
'With each passing year, schools feel like it's just getting harder to find the time, the money and the will to help our kids be active. But just because it's hard doesn't mean we should stop trying,' the first lady said in her prepared remarks. 'It means we should try harder. It means that all of us - not just educators, but businesses and nonprofits and ordinary citizens - we all need to dig deeper and start getting even more creative.'
She was being joined for the announcement at McCormick Place in her hometown by several Olympians, including gymnasts Dominique Dawes and Gabby Douglas, sprinter Allyson Felix, tennis player Serena Williams and decathlete Ashton Eaton, along with San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick and triathlete Sarah Reinertsen, whose left leg was amputated above the knee when she was a child. Thousands of students from city middle schools also were being brought in for the event.
Research shows that daily exercise has a positive influence on academic performance, but kids today spend too much time sitting, mostly in school but also outside the classroom while watching TV, playing video games or surfing the Internet. Federal guidelines recommend that children ages 6-17 get at least 60 minutes of exercise daily, which can be racked up through multiple spurts of activity throughout the day.
The White House says the most current data, from 2007, shows that just 4 percent of elementary schools, 8 percent of middle schools and 2 percent of high schools provided daily physical education.
Education Secretary Arne Duncan said he's proof of the link between exercise and academic performance. As a boy, he said, he had a hard time sitting still in class but that exercise helped him focus.
'What's true for me is true for many of our nation's children,' he said in an interview.
Duncan, who played basketball professionally in Australia, said the choice is not between physical activity or academics, especially with about one-third of U.S. kids either overweight or obese and at higher risk for life-threatening illnesses like heart disease or diabetes.
'It's got to be both,' he said. Duncan cited the examples of students learning the alphabet while dancing or memorizing multiplication tables while doing jumping jacks.
Mrs. Obama called on school staff, families and communities to help get 50,000 schools, about half the number of public schools in the U.S., involved in the program over the next five years.
The President's Council on Fitness, Sports & Nutrition, the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, and the Alliance for a Healthier Generation will oversee the program. Funding and other resources will come from Nike Inc., the GENYOUth Foundation, ChildObesity180, Kaiser Permanente and the General Mills Foundation.
Under the new initiative, modest grants will be available from the Education Department to help some programs get started. The GENYOUth Foundation and ChildObesity180 also will be awarding grants.
Nike has committed $50 million to the effort over the next five years; the remaining groups together have pledged more than $20 million.
Williams said it's important to structure the activity so that it doesn't feel like a workout.
'I had fun and I didn't realize it was work,' she said about her years of practice before become one of America's top tennis players.
___
Online:
Let's Move: http://www.letsmove.gov
___
Follow Darlene Superville on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/dsuperville
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Friday, February 22, 2013
Thursday, February 21, 2013
Experts issue guidelines for gene tests in kids
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Groups representing pediatricians and geneticists issued new recommendations on Thursday to provide doctors with guidance about when to test a child's DNA for genetic conditions.
The recommendations are the first collaboration between the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Neither organization has issued guidelines for genetic testing of kids in over a decade, according to one of the study's lead authors.
'What we're trying to show is a unified and consistent message about genetic testing in children,' said Dr. Lainie Friedman Ross, the Carolyn and Matthew Bucksbaum Professor of Clinical Ethics at the University of Chicago.
'The first thing is what hasn't changed and the most important thing is (that) what is best for the child should be front and center for everything in pediatrics,' Ross said.
That includes offering every parent the opportunity to screen their newborn children for treatable genetic conditions - such as sickle-cell disease, which can lead to chronic health problems as well as fatal sickle-cell 'crises.'
Newborn screening 'shouldn't just be offered. It should be strongly encouraged, because the benefits far outweigh the risks,' Ross said.
Testing children for diseases that don't affect people until adulthood, however, should be discouraged unless a childhood treatment may decrease the risk of complications or death, according to the experts.
For example, the new policy would recommend against girls being screened for the BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutations, which put adult women at a higher risk for breast and ovarian cancer.
About one in 600 women in the U.S. carry the mutations, and those women may decide to have their breasts and ovaries removed later in life.
There is no reason to test babies or children for those types of mutations because the results would not change how doctors treat the child, according to Ross.
'That's something you get pretty universal agreement on from the geneticist side, to not test children for adult onset conditions,' said Dr. David Sweetser, chief of medical genetics at MassGeneral Hospital for Children in Boston.
'Giving that kind of information makes us all uneasy - especially if it's something you can't do anything about it, or if it's a test that's not 100 percent accurate,' added Sweetser, who was not involved with the new recommendations.
But the experts agreed that an exception can be made if it will relieve the emotional burden of not knowing whether or not the child has a condition.
'Our feeling is, we should educate them and counsel them against it, but if they tell us its overwhelming.. We should respect that,' Ross said.
The guideline authors urge that adopted children should be treated just like biological children in situations where testing is being considered. And they discourage the use of at-home genetic tests kits.
The recommendations also address the need for experts to help patients and doctors understand the results of genetic testing and screening.
Sweetser said that's an important point, because test results are often more complicated than a simple answer.
'It's not uncommon to get a patient transferred to us. to explain what the results are because the physician wasn't aware they could get such an ambiguous result,' he said.
The experts also said that children being tested as possible tissue donors should have access to an advocate 'or similar mechanism' to protect the child's interests.
Ross said the current statement does not address genetic testing or screening for research purposes, or analyzing a child's entire genome.
'I thought it was a well thought out policy statement. It does have some clear recommendations that I agree with. It's not overly restrictive, and it does allow a bit of latitude,' said Sweetser.
Ross added that these are just recommendations, and they are not requirements.
'These are guidelines, neither organization is telling people how to practice medicine, but they're important (recommendations) because they combine the knowledge of pediatricians, geneticists and ethicists,' she said.
The recommendations were published simultaneously in the journals Pediatrics and Genetics in Medicine.
SOURCE: http://bit.ly/UMHfjb Pediatrics, online February 21, 2013.
The recommendations are the first collaboration between the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Neither organization has issued guidelines for genetic testing of kids in over a decade, according to one of the study's lead authors.
'What we're trying to show is a unified and consistent message about genetic testing in children,' said Dr. Lainie Friedman Ross, the Carolyn and Matthew Bucksbaum Professor of Clinical Ethics at the University of Chicago.
'The first thing is what hasn't changed and the most important thing is (that) what is best for the child should be front and center for everything in pediatrics,' Ross said.
That includes offering every parent the opportunity to screen their newborn children for treatable genetic conditions - such as sickle-cell disease, which can lead to chronic health problems as well as fatal sickle-cell 'crises.'
Newborn screening 'shouldn't just be offered. It should be strongly encouraged, because the benefits far outweigh the risks,' Ross said.
Testing children for diseases that don't affect people until adulthood, however, should be discouraged unless a childhood treatment may decrease the risk of complications or death, according to the experts.
For example, the new policy would recommend against girls being screened for the BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutations, which put adult women at a higher risk for breast and ovarian cancer.
About one in 600 women in the U.S. carry the mutations, and those women may decide to have their breasts and ovaries removed later in life.
There is no reason to test babies or children for those types of mutations because the results would not change how doctors treat the child, according to Ross.
'That's something you get pretty universal agreement on from the geneticist side, to not test children for adult onset conditions,' said Dr. David Sweetser, chief of medical genetics at MassGeneral Hospital for Children in Boston.
'Giving that kind of information makes us all uneasy - especially if it's something you can't do anything about it, or if it's a test that's not 100 percent accurate,' added Sweetser, who was not involved with the new recommendations.
But the experts agreed that an exception can be made if it will relieve the emotional burden of not knowing whether or not the child has a condition.
'Our feeling is, we should educate them and counsel them against it, but if they tell us its overwhelming.. We should respect that,' Ross said.
The guideline authors urge that adopted children should be treated just like biological children in situations where testing is being considered. And they discourage the use of at-home genetic tests kits.
The recommendations also address the need for experts to help patients and doctors understand the results of genetic testing and screening.
Sweetser said that's an important point, because test results are often more complicated than a simple answer.
'It's not uncommon to get a patient transferred to us. to explain what the results are because the physician wasn't aware they could get such an ambiguous result,' he said.
The experts also said that children being tested as possible tissue donors should have access to an advocate 'or similar mechanism' to protect the child's interests.
Ross said the current statement does not address genetic testing or screening for research purposes, or analyzing a child's entire genome.
'I thought it was a well thought out policy statement. It does have some clear recommendations that I agree with. It's not overly restrictive, and it does allow a bit of latitude,' said Sweetser.
Ross added that these are just recommendations, and they are not requirements.
'These are guidelines, neither organization is telling people how to practice medicine, but they're important (recommendations) because they combine the knowledge of pediatricians, geneticists and ethicists,' she said.
The recommendations were published simultaneously in the journals Pediatrics and Genetics in Medicine.
SOURCE: http://bit.ly/UMHfjb Pediatrics, online February 21, 2013.
Adults cut back fast food, but U.S. kids still eat too much fat: CDC
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - American adults have made a little progress in recent years in cutting back on calories from fast food, but children are still consuming too much fat, U.S. health researchers say.
French fries, pizza and similar items accounted for about 11 percent of U.S. adults' caloric intake from 2007 to 2010, on average, down from about 13 percent between 2003 and 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in one of two reports released on Thursday.
Younger adults, black Americans and those who are already obese consumed the highest amounts of such food, which is often high in fat, salt and calories that can doom waistlines.
The CDC found in a separate report that while American children, on average, are consuming fewer calories overall than they used to, the percentage of their calories from artery-clogging saturated fat was still above optimal levels.
Recommended U.S. guidelines suggest that no more than 10 percent of one's daily calories should come from such fat, but American youth took in between 11 percent and 12 percent from 2009 to 2010, data from the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics showed.
Americans' diets and weight is a source of constant scrutiny and research in a country where two-thirds of the population is considered overweight or obese. According to the CDC, 36 percent of U.S. adults, or 78 million, and 17 percent of youth, or 12.5 million, are obese. Another third are overweight.
The slight decline in fast food consumption among adults reflects a growing trend toward healthier options. Many food and beverage companies have revamped their products or created new, healthier options to account for the shift in consumer tastes.
Still, Americans lead the world in calorie consumption. Portion sizes also have increased over the years, coupled with an increasingly sedentary lifestyle, have added up to extra pounds. Complications from obesity include diabetes, heart disease, arthritis and some cancers.
'Previous studies have reported that more frequent fast-food consumption is associated with higher energy and fat intake and lower intake of healthful nutrients,' CDC wrote.
Young black adults are especially a concern. Those aged 20 to 39 get more than one-fifth, or 21 percent, of their calories from fast food versus whites and Hispanics in the same age group who get about 15 percent from such foods, CDC found.
Obese and overweight adults also ate more fast food, it added.
Healthy weight is calculated by measuring body mass index, or BMI, using height and weight. For example, a 5-foot, 6-inch (1.7 meter) woman weighing 186 pounds (84 kilograms) would be considered obese as would a 6-foot (1.8 meter) man weighing 221 pounds (100 kilograms).
The CDC also said that American boys aged 2 to 19 took in about 2,100 calories daily during 2009 and 2010, a drop from 2,258 calories in 1999-2000. Girls saw their daily caloric intake fall to 1,755 from 1,831 during the same timeframe.
It is not yet clear how the recent change has affected childhood obesity rates, the agency added.
Among the other findings:
* The consumption of calories from fast food 'significantly decreased' with age;
* Fast food consumption was about the same for low-income and higher-income adults;
* More children are eating more protein, except for black girls;
* Carbohydrate consumption is lower among white boys and girls as well as black boys.
(Editing by Doina Chiacu)
French fries, pizza and similar items accounted for about 11 percent of U.S. adults' caloric intake from 2007 to 2010, on average, down from about 13 percent between 2003 and 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in one of two reports released on Thursday.
Younger adults, black Americans and those who are already obese consumed the highest amounts of such food, which is often high in fat, salt and calories that can doom waistlines.
The CDC found in a separate report that while American children, on average, are consuming fewer calories overall than they used to, the percentage of their calories from artery-clogging saturated fat was still above optimal levels.
Recommended U.S. guidelines suggest that no more than 10 percent of one's daily calories should come from such fat, but American youth took in between 11 percent and 12 percent from 2009 to 2010, data from the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics showed.
Americans' diets and weight is a source of constant scrutiny and research in a country where two-thirds of the population is considered overweight or obese. According to the CDC, 36 percent of U.S. adults, or 78 million, and 17 percent of youth, or 12.5 million, are obese. Another third are overweight.
The slight decline in fast food consumption among adults reflects a growing trend toward healthier options. Many food and beverage companies have revamped their products or created new, healthier options to account for the shift in consumer tastes.
Still, Americans lead the world in calorie consumption. Portion sizes also have increased over the years, coupled with an increasingly sedentary lifestyle, have added up to extra pounds. Complications from obesity include diabetes, heart disease, arthritis and some cancers.
'Previous studies have reported that more frequent fast-food consumption is associated with higher energy and fat intake and lower intake of healthful nutrients,' CDC wrote.
Young black adults are especially a concern. Those aged 20 to 39 get more than one-fifth, or 21 percent, of their calories from fast food versus whites and Hispanics in the same age group who get about 15 percent from such foods, CDC found.
Obese and overweight adults also ate more fast food, it added.
Healthy weight is calculated by measuring body mass index, or BMI, using height and weight. For example, a 5-foot, 6-inch (1.7 meter) woman weighing 186 pounds (84 kilograms) would be considered obese as would a 6-foot (1.8 meter) man weighing 221 pounds (100 kilograms).
The CDC also said that American boys aged 2 to 19 took in about 2,100 calories daily during 2009 and 2010, a drop from 2,258 calories in 1999-2000. Girls saw their daily caloric intake fall to 1,755 from 1,831 during the same timeframe.
It is not yet clear how the recent change has affected childhood obesity rates, the agency added.
Among the other findings:
* The consumption of calories from fast food 'significantly decreased' with age;
* Fast food consumption was about the same for low-income and higher-income adults;
* More children are eating more protein, except for black girls;
* Carbohydrate consumption is lower among white boys and girls as well as black boys.
(Editing by Doina Chiacu)
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
First Person: Choosing Natural Products, Giving My Kids a Healthier Future
A report released Tuesday says the man-made chemicals in products we use every day-toys, perfumes, beverage containers and more-are likely responsible for at least some cancers, birth defects and psychiatric problems. How do parents approach the use of chemicals in their homes? Yahoo News asked for some perspectives. Here's one.
FIRST PERSON | For 28 years, I didn't pay attention to the chemicals I put on and in my body. Then, in 2008, my daughter was born. I started reading about man-made chemicals in products marketed towards children. The more research I did, the more I realized that many of the teethers, lotions and cups my daughter was using were laced with possible endocrine disruptors and carcinogens.
As a 33-year-old mom in Los Angeles, California raising two children, I am aware that my kids are exposed to environmental chemicals. After all, L.A. isn't exactly known for its clean air. However, until I move to a location with fewer pollutants, I'm doing my best to avoid personal products with harmful chemicals. My daughter is almost 5. My son just turned 1. I strongly believe that my actions will help my kids lead a healthier life.
Since having children, our entire family has switched to shampoos, lotions and body washes that are paraban- and phthalate-free. If I do use a fragranced product, the scent comes from natural sources such as almond oil. In general, I avoid any children's products that contain things like formaldehyde and 1,4 dioxane.
I have also altered the way I clean. For years, I used bleach to whiten. Then, I realized that baking soda and vinegar were just as effective. I also switched from harsh detergent to plant based cleaners. I don't want the clothes my children wear and the bath they sit in to be coated in chemicals. Finally, I make sure my children's teethers and cups are BPA-free.
I could choose to ignore studies that say these man-made chemicals are dangerous. Some people think I am wasting my money. I just think I'm investing in my family's future.
Monday, February 18, 2013
Study: Better TV might improve kids' behavior
SEATTLE (AP) - Teaching parents to switch channels from violent shows to educational TV can improve preschoolers' behavior, even without getting them to watch less, a study found.
The results were modest and faded over time, but may hold promise for finding ways to help young children avoid aggressive, violent behavior, the study authors and other doctors said.
'It's not just about turning off the television. It's about changing the channel. What children watch is as important as how much they watch,' said lead author Dr. Dimitri Christakis, a pediatrician and researcher at Seattle Children's Research Institute.
The research was to be published online Monday by the journal Pediatrics.
The study involved 565 Seattle parents, who periodically filled out TV-watching diaries and questionnaires measuring their child's behavior.
Half were coached for six months on getting their 3-to-5-year-old kids to watch shows like 'Sesame Street' and 'Dora the Explorer' rather than more violent programs like 'Power Rangers.' The results were compared with kids whose parents who got advice on healthy eating instead.
At six months, children in both groups showed improved behavior, but there was a little bit more improvement in the group that was coached on their TV watching.
By one year, there was no meaningful difference between the two groups overall. Low-income boys appeared to get the most short-term benefit.
'That's important because they are at the greatest risk, both for being perpetrators of aggression in real life, but also being victims of aggression,' Christakis said.
The study has some flaws. The parents weren't told the purpose of the study, but the authors concede they probably figured it out and that might have affected the results.
Before the study, the children averaged about 1½ hours of TV, video and computer game watching a day, with violent content making up about a quarter of that time. By the end of the study, that increased by up to 10 minutes. Those in the TV coaching group increased their time with positive shows; the healthy eating group watched more violent TV.
Nancy Jensen, who took part with her now 6-year-old daughter, said the study was a wake-up call.
'I didn't realize how much Elizabeth was watching and how much she was watching on her own,' she said.
Jensen said her daughter's behavior improved after making changes, and she continues to control what Elizabeth and her 2-year-old brother, Joe, watch. She also decided to replace most of Elizabeth's TV time with games, art and outdoor fun.
During a recent visit to their Seattle home, the children seemed more interested in playing with blocks and running around outside than watching TV.
Another researcher who was not involved in this study but also focuses his work on kids and television commended Christakis for taking a look at the influence of positive TV programs, instead of focusing on the impact of violent TV.
'I think it's fabulous that people are looking on the positive side. Because no one's going to stop watching TV, we have to have viable alternatives for kids,' said Dr. Michael Rich, director of the Center on Media and Child Health at Children's Hospital Boston.
____
Online:
Pediatrics: http://www.pediatrics.org
___
Contact AP Writer Donna Blankinship through Twitter (at)dgblankinship
This article is sponsored by real estate news.
The results were modest and faded over time, but may hold promise for finding ways to help young children avoid aggressive, violent behavior, the study authors and other doctors said.
'It's not just about turning off the television. It's about changing the channel. What children watch is as important as how much they watch,' said lead author Dr. Dimitri Christakis, a pediatrician and researcher at Seattle Children's Research Institute.
The research was to be published online Monday by the journal Pediatrics.
The study involved 565 Seattle parents, who periodically filled out TV-watching diaries and questionnaires measuring their child's behavior.
Half were coached for six months on getting their 3-to-5-year-old kids to watch shows like 'Sesame Street' and 'Dora the Explorer' rather than more violent programs like 'Power Rangers.' The results were compared with kids whose parents who got advice on healthy eating instead.
At six months, children in both groups showed improved behavior, but there was a little bit more improvement in the group that was coached on their TV watching.
By one year, there was no meaningful difference between the two groups overall. Low-income boys appeared to get the most short-term benefit.
'That's important because they are at the greatest risk, both for being perpetrators of aggression in real life, but also being victims of aggression,' Christakis said.
The study has some flaws. The parents weren't told the purpose of the study, but the authors concede they probably figured it out and that might have affected the results.
Before the study, the children averaged about 1½ hours of TV, video and computer game watching a day, with violent content making up about a quarter of that time. By the end of the study, that increased by up to 10 minutes. Those in the TV coaching group increased their time with positive shows; the healthy eating group watched more violent TV.
Nancy Jensen, who took part with her now 6-year-old daughter, said the study was a wake-up call.
'I didn't realize how much Elizabeth was watching and how much she was watching on her own,' she said.
Jensen said her daughter's behavior improved after making changes, and she continues to control what Elizabeth and her 2-year-old brother, Joe, watch. She also decided to replace most of Elizabeth's TV time with games, art and outdoor fun.
During a recent visit to their Seattle home, the children seemed more interested in playing with blocks and running around outside than watching TV.
Another researcher who was not involved in this study but also focuses his work on kids and television commended Christakis for taking a look at the influence of positive TV programs, instead of focusing on the impact of violent TV.
'I think it's fabulous that people are looking on the positive side. Because no one's going to stop watching TV, we have to have viable alternatives for kids,' said Dr. Michael Rich, director of the Center on Media and Child Health at Children's Hospital Boston.
____
Online:
Pediatrics: http://www.pediatrics.org
___
Contact AP Writer Donna Blankinship through Twitter (at)dgblankinship
This article is sponsored by real estate news.
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Evidence lacking on how to help kids after trauma
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - There's no good evidence to say what types of treatment might help ward off anxiety and stress disorders in kids and teens exposed to traumatic events, according to a new analysis.
Researchers said that a few psychological interventions, including talk therapy and school-based programs, 'appear promising' for helping young people cope with the kind of trauma stemming from accidents, mass shootings and natural disasters. But so far, there are too many holes in the data to know what to recommend for children's long-term health and wellbeing, according to Meera Viswanathan from RTI International in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, and her colleagues.
Nicole Nugent, who has studied stress disorders in kids at Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, said one difficulty is that children get exposed to many different types of trauma, and as a result have many different treatment needs.
Nonetheless, 'We can't just say, 'Let's just not address it until we know more about the interventions that are effective,'' Nugent, who wasn't involved in the new review, told Reuters Health.
'One thing that we know doesn't work is nothing,' she said.
'Something horrible happens, and (kids) think, 'If I don't think about it, if I don't talk about it, it will go away.' And that absolutely doesn't happen.'
So-called nonrelational trauma is different from interpersonal trauma, which stems from acts committed by a person the child knows, such as sexual abuse or maltreatment by a friend or family member.
The young victim in the recent Alabama hostage drama, a six-year-old known only as Ethan, who was held in an underground bunker for six days, could have suffered nonrelational trauma because he didn't have a prior relationship with his kidnapper, Viswanathan said.
In an interview today on the 'Dr. Phil' television show, Ethan's mother talked about the boy's emotional state since being rescued, including his difficulty sleeping - a symptom common among both kids and adults following trauma.
Viswanathan's team analyzed 25 studies in which children who had been exposed to nonrelational trauma were assigned to a particular treatment intervention or a comparison group.
Depending on the trial, some of those children were already experiencing anxiety and other symptoms related to the trauma.
Treatment programs varied in their methods - from medication to talk therapy - as well as in their intensity and how long they lasted.
None of the studies testing medications such as antidepressants found they had a positive effect on children's mental health, according to the findings published Monday in Pediatrics.
On the other hand, youth who went through some type of talk therapy tended to do better than others who weren't treated at all - though Viswanathan called that pattern a 'weak signal.'
Researchers said some of what has been learned helping children who experience interpersonal trauma can be applied to young survivors of accidents and natural disasters as well.
'In the absence of other evidence,' Viswanathan told Reuters Health, 'certainly don't ignore the problem. Provide children with the support that can be available, and also tailor it for the needs of the children.'
She urged for more research looking at how kids respond to nonrelational trauma, in particular.
'Sadly, the shootings in Newtown are unlikely to be the last that we see, and we don't want to be in a position that we wish we had better evidence' on how to help children move on.
SOURCE: http://bit.ly/XAOQ3Z Pediatrics, online February 11, 2013.
This article is sponsored by free dating site.
Researchers said that a few psychological interventions, including talk therapy and school-based programs, 'appear promising' for helping young people cope with the kind of trauma stemming from accidents, mass shootings and natural disasters. But so far, there are too many holes in the data to know what to recommend for children's long-term health and wellbeing, according to Meera Viswanathan from RTI International in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, and her colleagues.
Nicole Nugent, who has studied stress disorders in kids at Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, said one difficulty is that children get exposed to many different types of trauma, and as a result have many different treatment needs.
Nonetheless, 'We can't just say, 'Let's just not address it until we know more about the interventions that are effective,'' Nugent, who wasn't involved in the new review, told Reuters Health.
'One thing that we know doesn't work is nothing,' she said.
'Something horrible happens, and (kids) think, 'If I don't think about it, if I don't talk about it, it will go away.' And that absolutely doesn't happen.'
So-called nonrelational trauma is different from interpersonal trauma, which stems from acts committed by a person the child knows, such as sexual abuse or maltreatment by a friend or family member.
The young victim in the recent Alabama hostage drama, a six-year-old known only as Ethan, who was held in an underground bunker for six days, could have suffered nonrelational trauma because he didn't have a prior relationship with his kidnapper, Viswanathan said.
In an interview today on the 'Dr. Phil' television show, Ethan's mother talked about the boy's emotional state since being rescued, including his difficulty sleeping - a symptom common among both kids and adults following trauma.
Viswanathan's team analyzed 25 studies in which children who had been exposed to nonrelational trauma were assigned to a particular treatment intervention or a comparison group.
Depending on the trial, some of those children were already experiencing anxiety and other symptoms related to the trauma.
Treatment programs varied in their methods - from medication to talk therapy - as well as in their intensity and how long they lasted.
None of the studies testing medications such as antidepressants found they had a positive effect on children's mental health, according to the findings published Monday in Pediatrics.
On the other hand, youth who went through some type of talk therapy tended to do better than others who weren't treated at all - though Viswanathan called that pattern a 'weak signal.'
Researchers said some of what has been learned helping children who experience interpersonal trauma can be applied to young survivors of accidents and natural disasters as well.
'In the absence of other evidence,' Viswanathan told Reuters Health, 'certainly don't ignore the problem. Provide children with the support that can be available, and also tailor it for the needs of the children.'
She urged for more research looking at how kids respond to nonrelational trauma, in particular.
'Sadly, the shootings in Newtown are unlikely to be the last that we see, and we don't want to be in a position that we wish we had better evidence' on how to help children move on.
SOURCE: http://bit.ly/XAOQ3Z Pediatrics, online February 11, 2013.
This article is sponsored by free dating site.
Hyper-parents can make college aged children depressed-study
LONDON (Reuters) - Turbo-charged parents still running their university-aged children's schedules, laundry and vacations could be doing more harm than good with a study on Wednesday showing these students were more likely to be depressed and dissatisfied with life.
Researcher Holly Schiffrin from the University of Mary Washington in Virginia found so-called helicopter parenting negatively affected college students by undermining their need to feel autonomous and competent.
Her study found students with over-controlling parents were more likely to be depressed and less satisfied with their lives while the number of hyper-parents was increasing with economic fears fuelling concerns over youngsters' chances of success.
'You expect parents with younger kids to be very involved but the problem is that these children are old enough to look after themselves and their parents are not backing off,' Schiffrin, an associate professor of psychology, told Reuters.
'To find parents so closely involved with their college lives, contacting their tutors and running their schedules, is something new and on the increase. It does not allow independence and the chance to learn from mistakes.'
Schiffrin's study, published in Springer's Journal of Child and Family Studies, was based on an online survey of 297 U.S. undergraduate students in which students described their mothers' parenting behavior and their own autonomy and researchers assessed their happiness and satisfaction levels.
The study comes as debate rises over how much parents should run their children's lives to make them succeed.
Schiffrin said the increase in technology had changed the involvement of parents in their children's college lives as the once-a-week phone call home was replaced with regular texting, emails and messaging.
The competitive marketplace and jostling for top college slots and the best jobs has also boosted the involvement of parents in college lives.
She said to counteract this, rising numbers of universities were starting to run parental orientation days parallel to events for students to help encourage parents to give their children more freedom.
LEARN FROM MISTAKES
In the UK, a housemaster from top British public school, Eton College, is involved in a campaign to get parents to slow down a little, arguing that hyper-parenting may in fact demotivate a child and even cause psychological damage.
Mike Grenier said the increase in helicopter parenting in the past 10 years had accompanied a changing attitude towards childhood, with more anxiety and fear over youngsters now seen as being at risk and vulnerable if confronted with failure.
The greater focus on testing and success at exams has fuelled this and raised anxiety levels further.
'There is a very fine line between the helicopter parent and the committed and caring parent while at the other end of the spectrum is the negligent parent which can be more dangerous,' Grenier told Reuters.
'But this time of austerity seems to be ratcheting up the tension with more competition for jobs.'
Grenier said it was disconcerting to see parents putting children as young as 3 or 4 into tutoring to ensure they get into the best schools and remain in the best schools to get top university places.
'There is the fear that if they don't get the right school and don't get the right university then they won't get the opportunity to fight for the best jobs,' he said. 'The stakes are higher in people's minds.'
Grenier is an advocate of a movement called 'slow education', a concept adapted from the Italian culinary movement that has prompted a wider philosophical approach to travel, business, living and now schooling.
'The real danger of hyper-parenting is that it is intrusive and parents don't let their children make their own decisions, take risks and learn for themselves,' he said.
(Reporting by Belinda Goldsmith, editing by Paul Casciato)
This article is sponsored by technology.
Researcher Holly Schiffrin from the University of Mary Washington in Virginia found so-called helicopter parenting negatively affected college students by undermining their need to feel autonomous and competent.
Her study found students with over-controlling parents were more likely to be depressed and less satisfied with their lives while the number of hyper-parents was increasing with economic fears fuelling concerns over youngsters' chances of success.
'You expect parents with younger kids to be very involved but the problem is that these children are old enough to look after themselves and their parents are not backing off,' Schiffrin, an associate professor of psychology, told Reuters.
'To find parents so closely involved with their college lives, contacting their tutors and running their schedules, is something new and on the increase. It does not allow independence and the chance to learn from mistakes.'
Schiffrin's study, published in Springer's Journal of Child and Family Studies, was based on an online survey of 297 U.S. undergraduate students in which students described their mothers' parenting behavior and their own autonomy and researchers assessed their happiness and satisfaction levels.
The study comes as debate rises over how much parents should run their children's lives to make them succeed.
Schiffrin said the increase in technology had changed the involvement of parents in their children's college lives as the once-a-week phone call home was replaced with regular texting, emails and messaging.
The competitive marketplace and jostling for top college slots and the best jobs has also boosted the involvement of parents in college lives.
She said to counteract this, rising numbers of universities were starting to run parental orientation days parallel to events for students to help encourage parents to give their children more freedom.
LEARN FROM MISTAKES
In the UK, a housemaster from top British public school, Eton College, is involved in a campaign to get parents to slow down a little, arguing that hyper-parenting may in fact demotivate a child and even cause psychological damage.
Mike Grenier said the increase in helicopter parenting in the past 10 years had accompanied a changing attitude towards childhood, with more anxiety and fear over youngsters now seen as being at risk and vulnerable if confronted with failure.
The greater focus on testing and success at exams has fuelled this and raised anxiety levels further.
'There is a very fine line between the helicopter parent and the committed and caring parent while at the other end of the spectrum is the negligent parent which can be more dangerous,' Grenier told Reuters.
'But this time of austerity seems to be ratcheting up the tension with more competition for jobs.'
Grenier said it was disconcerting to see parents putting children as young as 3 or 4 into tutoring to ensure they get into the best schools and remain in the best schools to get top university places.
'There is the fear that if they don't get the right school and don't get the right university then they won't get the opportunity to fight for the best jobs,' he said. 'The stakes are higher in people's minds.'
Grenier is an advocate of a movement called 'slow education', a concept adapted from the Italian culinary movement that has prompted a wider philosophical approach to travel, business, living and now schooling.
'The real danger of hyper-parenting is that it is intrusive and parents don't let their children make their own decisions, take risks and learn for themselves,' he said.
(Reporting by Belinda Goldsmith, editing by Paul Casciato)
This article is sponsored by technology.
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Should toddlers be screened for lazy eye?
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Screening one- and two-year-olds for lazy eye can reliably detect children at risk for vision problems, a new study suggests.
Researchers found tests by trained volunteers correctly caught a similar proportion of toddlers and older preschoolers with the early signs of lazy eye - also known as amblyopia - who were then referred to an ophthalmologist for treatment.
'If you find a child (with vision problems) at five, it's theoretically possible if you treat them that they will get better. It's just that most people believe that waiting until they're three or four or five is a long time, because amblyopia is set in,' said Dr. Susannah Longmuir, an ophthalmologist who led the new study at the University of Iowa in Iowa City.
'Finding it early is generally believed to be better,' she told Reuters Health.
However, not all researchers and policymakers agree screening very young kids for vision problems is definitely worthwhile.
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, a government-backed panel, recommended in 2011 that kids age three to five be screened at least once for lazy eye.
But for babies and toddlers under three years old, the panel said there wasn't enough evidence to weigh the possible benefits and harms of vision screening.
Dr. Michael LeFevre, co-vice chair of the USPSTF and a family doctor at the University of Missouri School of Medicine in Columbia, said the new study doesn't change that.
'The principal research gap really related to after one identifies abnormalities, whether treatment affects the development of amblyopia,' LeFevre, who wasn't involved in the new research, told Reuters Health.
'We had evidence that treatment in the three- to five-year age range prevents long term vision loss, but we didn't have any evidence in the younger age range.'
A PATCH AT TWO?
Treatment for lazy eye - when one eye loses the ability to see details - usually involves covering up the good eye or making it blurry with drops so the child is forced to use the bad eye instead. Sometimes, children with amblyopia also need glasses to improve their vision.
'You can imagine taking your two-year-old and having them run around with a patch on their eye, how easy it is,' LeFevre said. 'It's hard enough at age three to five.'
For the new study, Longmuir and her colleagues analyzed the records of more than 200,000 Iowa preschoolers who were screened for signs of lazy eye between 2000 and 2011. One-fifth of those kids were younger than three years at the time of testing.
Among babies less than one year old, a quarter of screening tests were unreadable, the researchers found. But when they compared one- and two-year-olds only with the older preschoolers, there was no difference in screening accuracy, according to findings published Monday in Pediatrics.
Between three and five percent of kids were referred to an ophthalmologist for further testing and treatment, based on the free screening.
Doctors confirmed that as many as 90 percent of those positive screeners needed treatment.
Some states offer free vision screening for toddlers, but the idea of eye checks in that age group is 'a very debatable topic' given the resources involved, according to Longmuir.
Still, she and her colleagues said parents should take advantage of those programs where they exist - even if their child is younger than three years old.
'If the opportunity exists, go ahead and do it,' Longmuir said.
SOURCE: http://bit.ly/X5dOFk Pediatrics, online February 11, 2013.
Researchers found tests by trained volunteers correctly caught a similar proportion of toddlers and older preschoolers with the early signs of lazy eye - also known as amblyopia - who were then referred to an ophthalmologist for treatment.
'If you find a child (with vision problems) at five, it's theoretically possible if you treat them that they will get better. It's just that most people believe that waiting until they're three or four or five is a long time, because amblyopia is set in,' said Dr. Susannah Longmuir, an ophthalmologist who led the new study at the University of Iowa in Iowa City.
'Finding it early is generally believed to be better,' she told Reuters Health.
However, not all researchers and policymakers agree screening very young kids for vision problems is definitely worthwhile.
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, a government-backed panel, recommended in 2011 that kids age three to five be screened at least once for lazy eye.
But for babies and toddlers under three years old, the panel said there wasn't enough evidence to weigh the possible benefits and harms of vision screening.
Dr. Michael LeFevre, co-vice chair of the USPSTF and a family doctor at the University of Missouri School of Medicine in Columbia, said the new study doesn't change that.
'The principal research gap really related to after one identifies abnormalities, whether treatment affects the development of amblyopia,' LeFevre, who wasn't involved in the new research, told Reuters Health.
'We had evidence that treatment in the three- to five-year age range prevents long term vision loss, but we didn't have any evidence in the younger age range.'
A PATCH AT TWO?
Treatment for lazy eye - when one eye loses the ability to see details - usually involves covering up the good eye or making it blurry with drops so the child is forced to use the bad eye instead. Sometimes, children with amblyopia also need glasses to improve their vision.
'You can imagine taking your two-year-old and having them run around with a patch on their eye, how easy it is,' LeFevre said. 'It's hard enough at age three to five.'
For the new study, Longmuir and her colleagues analyzed the records of more than 200,000 Iowa preschoolers who were screened for signs of lazy eye between 2000 and 2011. One-fifth of those kids were younger than three years at the time of testing.
Among babies less than one year old, a quarter of screening tests were unreadable, the researchers found. But when they compared one- and two-year-olds only with the older preschoolers, there was no difference in screening accuracy, according to findings published Monday in Pediatrics.
Between three and five percent of kids were referred to an ophthalmologist for further testing and treatment, based on the free screening.
Doctors confirmed that as many as 90 percent of those positive screeners needed treatment.
Some states offer free vision screening for toddlers, but the idea of eye checks in that age group is 'a very debatable topic' given the resources involved, according to Longmuir.
Still, she and her colleagues said parents should take advantage of those programs where they exist - even if their child is younger than three years old.
'If the opportunity exists, go ahead and do it,' Longmuir said.
SOURCE: http://bit.ly/X5dOFk Pediatrics, online February 11, 2013.
Monday, February 11, 2013
Teen Pregnancy Rates Drop to Historic Lows in U.S
The teen birth rate in the U.S. fell to a historic low in 2011, according to statistics released Monday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The numbers were part of an 'Annual Summary of Vital Statistics: 2010-2011' published online by the journal Pediatrics ahead of its March issue.
The report detailed fertility, birth, and delivery statistics across all groups of women considered to be of childbearing age. Overall, the U.S. birth rate among younger women declined, while the birth rate among older women increased.
Here are some of the statistics that were released as part of the CDC's report.
8: The number of teen births in the U.S. declined a dramatic 8 percent between 2010 and 2011.
1991: As Reuters noted on Monday, the teen pregnancy and birth rate in the U.S. has been falling gradually for more than two decades. The highest teen birth rate recorded in the U.S. in recent years was in 1991.
31.3: For every 1,000 teens between the ages of 15 and 19, the U.S. recorded 31.3 births in 2011, which equals out to just more than 3 percent of all teenagers.
63.2: Overall, the U.S. marked 63.2 births per 1,000 women across all age groups in 2011, which was a 1 percent decline over 2010, and as noted by the article in Pediatrics, the 'lowest rate ever recorded.'
40.7: Births to unmarried mothers declined by a slight 0.1 percent between 2010 and 2011, and accounted for 40.7 percent of all births in the U.S. in 2011.
3.6: Dr. Ed McCabe, who is the senior vice president and medical director for the March of Dimes, told HealthDay News on Monday that if teen pregnancy rates had remained close to the 61.8 births per 1,000 teenagers that it was in 1991, more than 3.6 million more babies would have been born to teen moms.
11.7: The percentage of preterm births dropped to 11.7 percent in 2011, a decline of more than 1.1 percent over the 12.8 percent recorded in 2006.
50: The teen birth rates among non-Hispanic blacks and Hispanics have seen the most significant decreases since 1991, of more than 50 percent apiece. In 1991, the teen pregnancy rate among non-Hispanic blacks was 118.2 per 1,000 teens, while the rate for Hispanic teens was 104.6 per 1,000. In 2011, those rates had dropped to 47.4 per 1,000 teens and 49.4 per 1,000 teens, respectively.
Vanessa Evans is a musician and freelance writer based in Michigan, with a lifelong interest in health and nutrition issues.
The report detailed fertility, birth, and delivery statistics across all groups of women considered to be of childbearing age. Overall, the U.S. birth rate among younger women declined, while the birth rate among older women increased.
Here are some of the statistics that were released as part of the CDC's report.
8: The number of teen births in the U.S. declined a dramatic 8 percent between 2010 and 2011.
1991: As Reuters noted on Monday, the teen pregnancy and birth rate in the U.S. has been falling gradually for more than two decades. The highest teen birth rate recorded in the U.S. in recent years was in 1991.
31.3: For every 1,000 teens between the ages of 15 and 19, the U.S. recorded 31.3 births in 2011, which equals out to just more than 3 percent of all teenagers.
63.2: Overall, the U.S. marked 63.2 births per 1,000 women across all age groups in 2011, which was a 1 percent decline over 2010, and as noted by the article in Pediatrics, the 'lowest rate ever recorded.'
40.7: Births to unmarried mothers declined by a slight 0.1 percent between 2010 and 2011, and accounted for 40.7 percent of all births in the U.S. in 2011.
3.6: Dr. Ed McCabe, who is the senior vice president and medical director for the March of Dimes, told HealthDay News on Monday that if teen pregnancy rates had remained close to the 61.8 births per 1,000 teenagers that it was in 1991, more than 3.6 million more babies would have been born to teen moms.
11.7: The percentage of preterm births dropped to 11.7 percent in 2011, a decline of more than 1.1 percent over the 12.8 percent recorded in 2006.
50: The teen birth rates among non-Hispanic blacks and Hispanics have seen the most significant decreases since 1991, of more than 50 percent apiece. In 1991, the teen pregnancy rate among non-Hispanic blacks was 118.2 per 1,000 teens, while the rate for Hispanic teens was 104.6 per 1,000. In 2011, those rates had dropped to 47.4 per 1,000 teens and 49.4 per 1,000 teens, respectively.
Vanessa Evans is a musician and freelance writer based in Michigan, with a lifelong interest in health and nutrition issues.
What heals traumatized kids? Answers are lacking
CHICAGO (AP) - Shootings and other traumatic events involving children are not rare events, but there's a startling lack of scientific evidence on the best ways to help young survivors and witnesses heal, a government-funded analysis found.
School-based counseling treatments showed the most promise, but there's no hard proof that anxiety drugs or other medication work and far more research is needed to provide solid answers, say the authors who reviewed 25 studies. Their report was sponsored by the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
According to research cited in the report, about two-thirds of U.S. children and teens younger than 18 will experience at least one traumatic event, including shootings and other violence, car crashes and weather disasters. That includes survivors and witnesses of trauma. Most will not suffer any long-term psychological problems, but about 13 percent will develop symptoms of post-traumatic stress, including anxiety, behavior difficulties and other problems related to the event.
The report's conclusions don't mean that no treatment works. It's just that no one knows which treatments are best, or if certain ones work better for some children but not others.
'Our findings serve as a call to action,' the researchers wrote in their analysis, published online Monday by the journal Pediatrics.
'This is a very important topic, just in light of recent events,' said lead author Valerie Forman-Hoffman, a researcher at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.
She has two young children and said the results suggest that it's likely one of them will experience some kind of trauma before reaching adulthood. 'As a parent I want to know what works best,' the researcher said.
Besides the December massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, other recent tragedies involving young survivors or witnesses include the fatal shooting last month of a 15-year-old Chicago girl gunned down in front of a group of friends; Superstorm Sandy in October; and the 2011 Joplin, Mo., tornado, whose survivors include students whose high school was destroyed.
Some may do fine with no treatment; others will need some sort of counseling to help them cope.
Studying which treatments are most effective is difficult because so many things affect how a child or teen will fare emotionally after a traumatic event, said Dr. Denise Dowd, an emergency physician and research director at Children's Mercy Hospitals and Clinics in Kansas City, Mo., who wrote a Pediatrics editorial.
One of the most important factors is how the child's parents handle the aftermath, Dowd said.
'If the parent is freaking out' and has difficulty controlling emotions, kids will have a tougher time dealing with trauma. Traumatized kids need to feel like they're in a safe and stable environment, and if their parents have trouble coping, 'it's going to be very difficult for the kid,' she said.
The researchers analyzed 25 studies of treatments that included anti-anxiety and depression drugs, school-based counseling, and various types of psychotherapy. The strongest evidence favored school-based treatments involving cognitive behavior therapy, which helps patients find ways to cope with disturbing thoughts and emotions, sometimes including talking repeatedly about their trauma.
This treatment worked better than nothing, but more research is needed comparing it with alternatives, the report says.
'We really don't have a gold standard treatment right now,' said William Copeland, a psychologist and researcher at Duke University Medical Center who was not involved in the report. A lot of doctors and therapists may be 'patching together a little bit of this and a little bit of that, and that might not add up to the most effective treatment for any given child,' he said.
___
Online:
Pediatrics: http://www.pediatrics.org
School-based counseling treatments showed the most promise, but there's no hard proof that anxiety drugs or other medication work and far more research is needed to provide solid answers, say the authors who reviewed 25 studies. Their report was sponsored by the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
According to research cited in the report, about two-thirds of U.S. children and teens younger than 18 will experience at least one traumatic event, including shootings and other violence, car crashes and weather disasters. That includes survivors and witnesses of trauma. Most will not suffer any long-term psychological problems, but about 13 percent will develop symptoms of post-traumatic stress, including anxiety, behavior difficulties and other problems related to the event.
The report's conclusions don't mean that no treatment works. It's just that no one knows which treatments are best, or if certain ones work better for some children but not others.
'Our findings serve as a call to action,' the researchers wrote in their analysis, published online Monday by the journal Pediatrics.
'This is a very important topic, just in light of recent events,' said lead author Valerie Forman-Hoffman, a researcher at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.
She has two young children and said the results suggest that it's likely one of them will experience some kind of trauma before reaching adulthood. 'As a parent I want to know what works best,' the researcher said.
Besides the December massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, other recent tragedies involving young survivors or witnesses include the fatal shooting last month of a 15-year-old Chicago girl gunned down in front of a group of friends; Superstorm Sandy in October; and the 2011 Joplin, Mo., tornado, whose survivors include students whose high school was destroyed.
Some may do fine with no treatment; others will need some sort of counseling to help them cope.
Studying which treatments are most effective is difficult because so many things affect how a child or teen will fare emotionally after a traumatic event, said Dr. Denise Dowd, an emergency physician and research director at Children's Mercy Hospitals and Clinics in Kansas City, Mo., who wrote a Pediatrics editorial.
One of the most important factors is how the child's parents handle the aftermath, Dowd said.
'If the parent is freaking out' and has difficulty controlling emotions, kids will have a tougher time dealing with trauma. Traumatized kids need to feel like they're in a safe and stable environment, and if their parents have trouble coping, 'it's going to be very difficult for the kid,' she said.
The researchers analyzed 25 studies of treatments that included anti-anxiety and depression drugs, school-based counseling, and various types of psychotherapy. The strongest evidence favored school-based treatments involving cognitive behavior therapy, which helps patients find ways to cope with disturbing thoughts and emotions, sometimes including talking repeatedly about their trauma.
This treatment worked better than nothing, but more research is needed comparing it with alternatives, the report says.
'We really don't have a gold standard treatment right now,' said William Copeland, a psychologist and researcher at Duke University Medical Center who was not involved in the report. A lot of doctors and therapists may be 'patching together a little bit of this and a little bit of that, and that might not add up to the most effective treatment for any given child,' he said.
___
Online:
Pediatrics: http://www.pediatrics.org
Friday, February 8, 2013
No sign that omega-3s benefit babies' brains
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - A review of the existing evidence finds it to be inconclusive about whether omega-3 fatty acids taken by mothers during pregnancy boost their kids' brain development early in life.
'There are so many trials where pregnant women are supplemented with omega-3 fatty acids and they've all got different results,' said lead study author Jacqueline Gould, a researcher at the Women's and Children's Health Research Institute in Adelaide, Australia. 'We found that there was neither a positive nor a negative effect on visual or neurological outcomes.'
The Australian team, who published their findings in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, analyzed data from 11 clinical trials with a total of 5,272 participants who were randomly assigned to take omega-3 supplements or placebos during the last half of their pregnancies.
Across the trials, the amount of omega-3 taken by the mothers ranged from 240 to 3,300 milligrams per day. And the ages at which children's brain and vision development were assessed ranged from newborn to 7 years old.
According to the researchers, most of the clinical trials included too few participants to distinguish subtle differences expected from nutritional studies, excluded complicated pregnancies (in which greater differences might have been seen) and didn't follow the children long enough during development.
'Our analysis highlights that more research is needed,' Gould told Reuters Health.
Omega-3 fatty acids are crucial for healthy fetal brain development and are commonly found in fatty fish such as tuna, mackerel and sardines. Human brains and eyes contain large amounts of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), both forms of omega-3.
Developing fetuses can get DHA from their mothers' fat stores, and from food and supplements they consume during pregnancy.
The hope that omega-3 supplements might enhance brain development stems from research like a large study from Denmark that found mothers who reported eating more fish had children with greater neurological and motor development in their first months.
The author of that study, Dr. Sjurdur Olsen, head of the Center for Fetal Programming in Copenhagen, cautions, however, that in Denmark at least, mothers who eat more fish tend to be better educated and more well off - which could both be important factors in a child's development.
Other studies have found that an expecting mother's fish oil intake doesn't increase her child's IQ or enhance her baby's visual development. (See Reuters Health story of September 29, 2011 here: http://reut.rs/qbsjxQ
Still, several mainstream organizations, including the European Food Safety Authority and the World Health Organization, do endorse omega-3 supplements for expectant mothers, noted Harry Rice, vice president of regulatory and scientific affairs at the Global Organization for EPA and DHA Omega-3s, a trade organization.
'It's because of the science that many organizations and government agencies around the world recommend DHA supplementation for pregnant and lactating women,' Rice told Reuters Health in an email.
It may be too soon to reach a definitive conclusion on this topic, according to Elvira Larqué, physiology professor at the University of Murcia in Spain, who independently reviewed DHA clinical trials in a 2012 study.
Larqué agreed that more trials are needed. The ones analyzed in the new report had weaknesses, including the fact that all sources of DHA were not accounted for in the mothers' diets, and measures of intelligence were based on tests, such as observing a child play with a toy, that were too subjective.
Olsen said the discrepancy between official encouragement for mothers to take prenatal DHA supplements, and the actual evidence for their effects probably stems from wishful thinking.
'People want to have some good news,' he said. 'There's a strong wish to have simple means to get strong effects.'
SOURCE: bit.ly/YZk5Z8 The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, online January 30, 2013.
'There are so many trials where pregnant women are supplemented with omega-3 fatty acids and they've all got different results,' said lead study author Jacqueline Gould, a researcher at the Women's and Children's Health Research Institute in Adelaide, Australia. 'We found that there was neither a positive nor a negative effect on visual or neurological outcomes.'
The Australian team, who published their findings in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, analyzed data from 11 clinical trials with a total of 5,272 participants who were randomly assigned to take omega-3 supplements or placebos during the last half of their pregnancies.
Across the trials, the amount of omega-3 taken by the mothers ranged from 240 to 3,300 milligrams per day. And the ages at which children's brain and vision development were assessed ranged from newborn to 7 years old.
According to the researchers, most of the clinical trials included too few participants to distinguish subtle differences expected from nutritional studies, excluded complicated pregnancies (in which greater differences might have been seen) and didn't follow the children long enough during development.
'Our analysis highlights that more research is needed,' Gould told Reuters Health.
Omega-3 fatty acids are crucial for healthy fetal brain development and are commonly found in fatty fish such as tuna, mackerel and sardines. Human brains and eyes contain large amounts of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), both forms of omega-3.
Developing fetuses can get DHA from their mothers' fat stores, and from food and supplements they consume during pregnancy.
The hope that omega-3 supplements might enhance brain development stems from research like a large study from Denmark that found mothers who reported eating more fish had children with greater neurological and motor development in their first months.
The author of that study, Dr. Sjurdur Olsen, head of the Center for Fetal Programming in Copenhagen, cautions, however, that in Denmark at least, mothers who eat more fish tend to be better educated and more well off - which could both be important factors in a child's development.
Other studies have found that an expecting mother's fish oil intake doesn't increase her child's IQ or enhance her baby's visual development. (See Reuters Health story of September 29, 2011 here: http://reut.rs/qbsjxQ
Still, several mainstream organizations, including the European Food Safety Authority and the World Health Organization, do endorse omega-3 supplements for expectant mothers, noted Harry Rice, vice president of regulatory and scientific affairs at the Global Organization for EPA and DHA Omega-3s, a trade organization.
'It's because of the science that many organizations and government agencies around the world recommend DHA supplementation for pregnant and lactating women,' Rice told Reuters Health in an email.
It may be too soon to reach a definitive conclusion on this topic, according to Elvira Larqué, physiology professor at the University of Murcia in Spain, who independently reviewed DHA clinical trials in a 2012 study.
Larqué agreed that more trials are needed. The ones analyzed in the new report had weaknesses, including the fact that all sources of DHA were not accounted for in the mothers' diets, and measures of intelligence were based on tests, such as observing a child play with a toy, that were too subjective.
Olsen said the discrepancy between official encouragement for mothers to take prenatal DHA supplements, and the actual evidence for their effects probably stems from wishful thinking.
'People want to have some good news,' he said. 'There's a strong wish to have simple means to get strong effects.'
SOURCE: bit.ly/YZk5Z8 The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, online January 30, 2013.
Thursday, February 7, 2013
Stomach CT scans can be avoided in some kids - study
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Not all kids need a CT scan after a blunt trauma to the abdomen, according to a new study that identifies seven key signs to help doctors decide when a scan is unnecessary.
CT scans are becoming commonplace in emergency rooms, but they aren't harmless. Each scan delivers a dose of radiation that slightly increases a person's long-term risk of cancer - a risk that's especially heightened for children.
The key, researchers said, is determining when a CT will help doctors make an important diagnosis - and is therefore worth the risk - and when it is unlikely to benefit a young patient's care.
'An abdominal CT is the highest CT exposure for kids, and the younger the kid, the higher the exposure,' said Dr. James Holmes, who led the new study at the University of California, Davis School of Medicine.
'This is the big radiation risk, and (parents) need to be aware that if their child really needs the image, they should get it. But if there's no good reason, they shouldn't,' Holmes told Reuters Health.
His team's study included just over 12,000 kids seen at one of 20 ERs after a car or bike crash, fall or other abdominal injury between 2007 and 2010.
Each doctor and hospital decided independently when to do an abdominal scan, and 45 percent of children ended up getting one while in the ER. Just over six percent of all kids had abdominal injuries spotted on a CT scan, and about one-quarter of those needed surgery, a blood transfusion or another intervention.
Based on kids' symptoms and who ended up needing treatment, Holmes and his colleagues designed a seven-point checklist to determine when a CT scan is not warranted:
When children had no seat belt marks or other clear trauma, no stomach tenderness or pain and no thinking problems, breathing issues or vomiting, just one in 1,000 ended up with an acute injury requiring treatment.
Still, one-quarter of kids in the study who fit those criteria received a CT in the ER, the researchers reported in the Annals of Emergency Medicine.
A CT scan to the abdomen and pelvis delivers a radiation dose of eight millisieverts - equal to about three years' worth of natural background radiation, or the combined radiation from 400 chest X-rays.
Holmes said that for an infant, the risk of developing cancer after a single abdominal and pelvic CT scan might be as high as 1 in 200. By adolescence, that risks drops to 1 in 1,000 or 1 in 1,500.
There are times when a CT scan is clearly warranted to help doctors find or rule out serious injuries such as a lacerated spleen or liver, Holmes said.
'You're looking at those things that need to be identified because they need therapy, either an operation to repair their gastrointestinal injury, or perhaps an embolization to repair a bleeding artery,' he said.
In those cases, 'You don't want to send that patient home, because if they need that therapy, they're not going to get it' - and waiting can make things worse.
But, Holmes said, parents should feel comfortable questioning a doctor's decision to perform a stomach CT scan on their child, given the potential risks.
SOURCE: http://bit.ly/WD6wKF Annals of Emergency Medicine, online February 4, 2013.
CT scans are becoming commonplace in emergency rooms, but they aren't harmless. Each scan delivers a dose of radiation that slightly increases a person's long-term risk of cancer - a risk that's especially heightened for children.
The key, researchers said, is determining when a CT will help doctors make an important diagnosis - and is therefore worth the risk - and when it is unlikely to benefit a young patient's care.
'An abdominal CT is the highest CT exposure for kids, and the younger the kid, the higher the exposure,' said Dr. James Holmes, who led the new study at the University of California, Davis School of Medicine.
'This is the big radiation risk, and (parents) need to be aware that if their child really needs the image, they should get it. But if there's no good reason, they shouldn't,' Holmes told Reuters Health.
His team's study included just over 12,000 kids seen at one of 20 ERs after a car or bike crash, fall or other abdominal injury between 2007 and 2010.
Each doctor and hospital decided independently when to do an abdominal scan, and 45 percent of children ended up getting one while in the ER. Just over six percent of all kids had abdominal injuries spotted on a CT scan, and about one-quarter of those needed surgery, a blood transfusion or another intervention.
Based on kids' symptoms and who ended up needing treatment, Holmes and his colleagues designed a seven-point checklist to determine when a CT scan is not warranted:
When children had no seat belt marks or other clear trauma, no stomach tenderness or pain and no thinking problems, breathing issues or vomiting, just one in 1,000 ended up with an acute injury requiring treatment.
Still, one-quarter of kids in the study who fit those criteria received a CT in the ER, the researchers reported in the Annals of Emergency Medicine.
A CT scan to the abdomen and pelvis delivers a radiation dose of eight millisieverts - equal to about three years' worth of natural background radiation, or the combined radiation from 400 chest X-rays.
Holmes said that for an infant, the risk of developing cancer after a single abdominal and pelvic CT scan might be as high as 1 in 200. By adolescence, that risks drops to 1 in 1,000 or 1 in 1,500.
There are times when a CT scan is clearly warranted to help doctors find or rule out serious injuries such as a lacerated spleen or liver, Holmes said.
'You're looking at those things that need to be identified because they need therapy, either an operation to repair their gastrointestinal injury, or perhaps an embolization to repair a bleeding artery,' he said.
In those cases, 'You don't want to send that patient home, because if they need that therapy, they're not going to get it' - and waiting can make things worse.
But, Holmes said, parents should feel comfortable questioning a doctor's decision to perform a stomach CT scan on their child, given the potential risks.
SOURCE: http://bit.ly/WD6wKF Annals of Emergency Medicine, online February 4, 2013.
Monday, February 4, 2013
Traditional herb water linked to smaller babies
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Infants given a traditional Guatemalan drink in the first month of life are almost twice as likely to have stunted growth than other children, according to a new study.
'We believe that aguitas may be part of the explanation for the high child stunting prevalence in Guatemala,' lead author Colleen Doak told Reuters Health by email.
The herbal infusions known as aguitas come in many forms, including cinnamon, chamomile and mint. Indigenous Guatemalans believe the drinks help ease colic and diarrhea and improve general health.
Doak, of VU University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands, and her colleagues surveyed about 450 mothers with children under two years old. Nearly 80 percent of their babies had been given aguitas, and a quarter of those were first given the drink before the age of three weeks.
Half of the babies who had been given aguitas within the first three weeks of life had stunted growth, compared to 35 percent of all other children, according to results in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
The World Health Organization (WHO) defines stunted growth as length below the 5th percentile of the WHO Child Growth Standards. A three month old boy shorter than 22.8 inches, for example, is considered stunted.
The researchers did not follow the children beyond the age of two years. Other studies, however, have found that stunted children tend to perform worse in school and are more likely to be obese and have diabetes or high blood pressure, Dr. Peter Rohloff told Reuters Health by email.
'For all these problems, it is extremely important that we figure out what contributes to the development of stunting, and what to do about it,' said Rohloff, of Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, who was not involved in the study.
NEEDS MORE INVESTIGATION
These findings do not indicate that aguitas cause the higher rates of stunting in Guatemala, only that the two are somehow linked.
If the watery drink regularly takes the place of breastmilk in feedings, the babies could be undernourished, or if the water is served in dirty containers it might spread infection, but neither of these is likely to fully explain the connection the researchers saw, according to Doak.
It is also possible that aguitas is a result and not a cause - babies born with a condition that leads to stomach pain and stunted growth would likely be given the drink earlier.
In any case, the connection deserves more investigation, Doak said, as Guatemala has the highest rates of stunting in Latin America and the third highest rate in the world.
'Obviously poverty is likely to play an important role, but other countries with similar per capita incomes have lower prevalences of child stunting,' said Doak.
She suggests future studies follow mothers and babies from birth so the researchers can be sure when the babies first taste the drink, instead of relying on answers to survey questions.
'Stunting is an important global pediatric health problem, in Guatemala and elsewhere,' said Rohloff, who founded a healthcare organization for indigenous people in the country.
If future studies confirm that the herbal drinks are also a factor, the consequences could be felt outside the country where the current study took place.
'Many different cultures have traditions of giving fluids. Aguitas in Guatemala is just one example,' said Doak.
SOURCE: http://bit.ly/Y5FQAC American Journal of Clinical Nutrition January 30, 2013.
'We believe that aguitas may be part of the explanation for the high child stunting prevalence in Guatemala,' lead author Colleen Doak told Reuters Health by email.
The herbal infusions known as aguitas come in many forms, including cinnamon, chamomile and mint. Indigenous Guatemalans believe the drinks help ease colic and diarrhea and improve general health.
Doak, of VU University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands, and her colleagues surveyed about 450 mothers with children under two years old. Nearly 80 percent of their babies had been given aguitas, and a quarter of those were first given the drink before the age of three weeks.
Half of the babies who had been given aguitas within the first three weeks of life had stunted growth, compared to 35 percent of all other children, according to results in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
The World Health Organization (WHO) defines stunted growth as length below the 5th percentile of the WHO Child Growth Standards. A three month old boy shorter than 22.8 inches, for example, is considered stunted.
The researchers did not follow the children beyond the age of two years. Other studies, however, have found that stunted children tend to perform worse in school and are more likely to be obese and have diabetes or high blood pressure, Dr. Peter Rohloff told Reuters Health by email.
'For all these problems, it is extremely important that we figure out what contributes to the development of stunting, and what to do about it,' said Rohloff, of Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, who was not involved in the study.
NEEDS MORE INVESTIGATION
These findings do not indicate that aguitas cause the higher rates of stunting in Guatemala, only that the two are somehow linked.
If the watery drink regularly takes the place of breastmilk in feedings, the babies could be undernourished, or if the water is served in dirty containers it might spread infection, but neither of these is likely to fully explain the connection the researchers saw, according to Doak.
It is also possible that aguitas is a result and not a cause - babies born with a condition that leads to stomach pain and stunted growth would likely be given the drink earlier.
In any case, the connection deserves more investigation, Doak said, as Guatemala has the highest rates of stunting in Latin America and the third highest rate in the world.
'Obviously poverty is likely to play an important role, but other countries with similar per capita incomes have lower prevalences of child stunting,' said Doak.
She suggests future studies follow mothers and babies from birth so the researchers can be sure when the babies first taste the drink, instead of relying on answers to survey questions.
'Stunting is an important global pediatric health problem, in Guatemala and elsewhere,' said Rohloff, who founded a healthcare organization for indigenous people in the country.
If future studies confirm that the herbal drinks are also a factor, the consequences could be felt outside the country where the current study took place.
'Many different cultures have traditions of giving fluids. Aguitas in Guatemala is just one example,' said Doak.
SOURCE: http://bit.ly/Y5FQAC American Journal of Clinical Nutrition January 30, 2013.
New tuberculosis vaccine doesn't protect infants
LONDON (AP) - The world's most advanced tuberculosis vaccine failed to protect babies against the infectious disease, according to a new study in South Africa.
The vaccine, MVA85A, was designed to improve protection from the only existing tuberculosis vaccine, BCG, which is routinely given to newborns. Though the new vaccine appeared safe, scientists found no proof it prevented tuberculosis, an airborne disease that kills more than 1 million people worldwide every year.
Previous tests of the vaccine in adults had been promising and researchers said the trial provided useful data to inform future studies. There are a dozen other TB vaccines currently being tested.
Some health officials were discouraged by the results. 'It's pretty disappointing,' said Dr. Jennifer Cohn, a medical coordinator at Doctors Without Borders, who was not part of the study. 'Infants are at really high risk of TB but this doesn't seem to offer them any protection.'
MVA85A was developed at Oxford University and was tested in nearly 2,800 infants in South Africa who had already been given a BCG shot, between 2009 and 2011. About half of the babies got the new vaccine while the other half got a placebo.
They were followed for up to three years. In the group that got the vaccine, there were 32 cases of TB, versus 39 cases in the group that got a placebo. The vaccine's efficacy rate was about 17 percent.
No serious side effects related to the vaccine were reported.
The study was paid for by Aeras, the Wellcome Trust and the Oxford-Emergent Tuberculosis Consortium. The results were published online Monday in the journal Lancet.
'There is much that we and others can learn from the study and the data it has produced,' said Helen McShane of the University of Oxford, one of the study authors, in a statement. She and colleagues are further analyzing the samples from the trial to better understand how humans become infected with TB bacteria.
McShane and her co-authors wrote that the vaccine could potentially protect adolescents or adults against TB since their immune systems work differently from those of infants. The shot is also currently being tested in people with HIV.
'If this vaccine is effective in adults, that would be hugely valuable because the majority of TB disease and deaths are among adults,' said Richard White, an infectious diseases expert at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. 'But no one knows the answer to that right now.'
'A vaccine is likely to be a cost-effective way of preventing TB,' he said, comparing the $650 million that has been invested into vaccine development in the past decade versus the more than $4 billion it currently costs to control the disease every year, according to the World Health Organization.
White also warned the world couldn't afford to ignore the spike in TB and its drug-resistant forms. 'There are certain boroughs of London that have higher rates of TB than parts of Malawi,' he said. 'TB is such a big problem that we really need to throw the book at it.'
___
Online:
www.lancet.com
The vaccine, MVA85A, was designed to improve protection from the only existing tuberculosis vaccine, BCG, which is routinely given to newborns. Though the new vaccine appeared safe, scientists found no proof it prevented tuberculosis, an airborne disease that kills more than 1 million people worldwide every year.
Previous tests of the vaccine in adults had been promising and researchers said the trial provided useful data to inform future studies. There are a dozen other TB vaccines currently being tested.
Some health officials were discouraged by the results. 'It's pretty disappointing,' said Dr. Jennifer Cohn, a medical coordinator at Doctors Without Borders, who was not part of the study. 'Infants are at really high risk of TB but this doesn't seem to offer them any protection.'
MVA85A was developed at Oxford University and was tested in nearly 2,800 infants in South Africa who had already been given a BCG shot, between 2009 and 2011. About half of the babies got the new vaccine while the other half got a placebo.
They were followed for up to three years. In the group that got the vaccine, there were 32 cases of TB, versus 39 cases in the group that got a placebo. The vaccine's efficacy rate was about 17 percent.
No serious side effects related to the vaccine were reported.
The study was paid for by Aeras, the Wellcome Trust and the Oxford-Emergent Tuberculosis Consortium. The results were published online Monday in the journal Lancet.
'There is much that we and others can learn from the study and the data it has produced,' said Helen McShane of the University of Oxford, one of the study authors, in a statement. She and colleagues are further analyzing the samples from the trial to better understand how humans become infected with TB bacteria.
McShane and her co-authors wrote that the vaccine could potentially protect adolescents or adults against TB since their immune systems work differently from those of infants. The shot is also currently being tested in people with HIV.
'If this vaccine is effective in adults, that would be hugely valuable because the majority of TB disease and deaths are among adults,' said Richard White, an infectious diseases expert at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. 'But no one knows the answer to that right now.'
'A vaccine is likely to be a cost-effective way of preventing TB,' he said, comparing the $650 million that has been invested into vaccine development in the past decade versus the more than $4 billion it currently costs to control the disease every year, according to the World Health Organization.
White also warned the world couldn't afford to ignore the spike in TB and its drug-resistant forms. 'There are certain boroughs of London that have higher rates of TB than parts of Malawi,' he said. 'TB is such a big problem that we really need to throw the book at it.'
___
Online:
www.lancet.com
Friday, February 1, 2013
Type 1 diabetes rising in kids - study
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Cases of insulin-requiring type 1 diabetes rose sharply in children under the age of five in Philadelphia over a two-decade span - similar to increases seen across the U.S. and Europe, according to new research.
'Why are we seeing this large increase in type 1 diabetes in very young children? Unfortunately, the answer is we don't know,' said lead study author Terri Lipman, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing.
In research published in Diabetes Care, Lipman and her colleagues updated a registry started in 1985 of Philadelphia children diagnosed with type 1 diabetes.
By 2004, cases in children under the age of five increased by 70 percent as the number of diagnosed cases among all kids up to age 14 rose by 29 percent.
In 1985, 13.4 out of every 100,000 children in Philadelphia was newly diagnosed with type 1 diabetes, and in 2004, the rate was 17.2 cases per 100,000.
Hispanic children had the highest diabetes rates across all ages whereas cases in black children aged 4 and under, which had historically been very low, rose by 200 percent over the past two decades. Cases among white kids under 4 rose by 48 percent in 2000-2004, however, making theirs the fastest recent increase.
Of the two most common forms of diabetes, type 2 typically affects adults who can still produce insulin, but whose bodies cannot use the hormone to regulate blood sugar. Type 1, previously known as juvenile diabetes, typically strikes children whose immune systems have killed off insulin-producing cells in the pancreas. The disease is usually fatal if left untreated.
Type 1 diabetics must take insulin but many type 2 diabetics can control the disease with medications, diet and exercise.
Type 1 diabetes tends to start in adolescence, but especially in light of the rising number of cases in very young children, experts said parents need to be aware that toddlers and preschoolers are also susceptible.
Children from Chicago to Colorado to Finland have similarly increased rates of type 1 diabetes, though the cause eludes researchers.
'This younger group is a mystery,' said Dr. Carol Levy, a type 1 diabetes specialist at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York who was not involved in the new study. 'Make sure your child has a healthy lifestyle and maintains normal body weight; whether that's a guarantee we're going to reduce risk, we don't know at this point.'
Several theories vie to explain the recent rise in diabetes among youth, including vitamin D deficiencies, lack of breastfeeding and overly-hygienic environments that might cause the immune system to backfire.
'The data is controversial so that's why I'm certainly very reluctant to propose a theory when nothing has been proven,' Lipman told Reuters Health.
'The take home message is not to be alarmist. These data confirm what has been reported worldwide and in other parts of the United States,' said Dr. Lori Laffel, of the Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston, who was not involved in the study.
'It is important to be aware of the symptoms of diabetes,' Laffel told Reuters Health. Symptoms can include extreme thirst, bed wetting or accidents in toilet-trained children or excessively wet diapers in babies, she said.
By the time the disease gets diagnosed, many infants and toddlers are very sick and the degree of illness tends to be more severe the younger the patient, experts noted.
'The young child isn't able to talk about symptoms,' Laffel said. 'A young child may be in diapers, you may not notice because diapers are often wet.'
SOURCE: http://bit.ly/YGkBuW Diabetes Care, online January 22, 2013.
'Why are we seeing this large increase in type 1 diabetes in very young children? Unfortunately, the answer is we don't know,' said lead study author Terri Lipman, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing.
In research published in Diabetes Care, Lipman and her colleagues updated a registry started in 1985 of Philadelphia children diagnosed with type 1 diabetes.
By 2004, cases in children under the age of five increased by 70 percent as the number of diagnosed cases among all kids up to age 14 rose by 29 percent.
In 1985, 13.4 out of every 100,000 children in Philadelphia was newly diagnosed with type 1 diabetes, and in 2004, the rate was 17.2 cases per 100,000.
Hispanic children had the highest diabetes rates across all ages whereas cases in black children aged 4 and under, which had historically been very low, rose by 200 percent over the past two decades. Cases among white kids under 4 rose by 48 percent in 2000-2004, however, making theirs the fastest recent increase.
Of the two most common forms of diabetes, type 2 typically affects adults who can still produce insulin, but whose bodies cannot use the hormone to regulate blood sugar. Type 1, previously known as juvenile diabetes, typically strikes children whose immune systems have killed off insulin-producing cells in the pancreas. The disease is usually fatal if left untreated.
Type 1 diabetics must take insulin but many type 2 diabetics can control the disease with medications, diet and exercise.
Type 1 diabetes tends to start in adolescence, but especially in light of the rising number of cases in very young children, experts said parents need to be aware that toddlers and preschoolers are also susceptible.
Children from Chicago to Colorado to Finland have similarly increased rates of type 1 diabetes, though the cause eludes researchers.
'This younger group is a mystery,' said Dr. Carol Levy, a type 1 diabetes specialist at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York who was not involved in the new study. 'Make sure your child has a healthy lifestyle and maintains normal body weight; whether that's a guarantee we're going to reduce risk, we don't know at this point.'
Several theories vie to explain the recent rise in diabetes among youth, including vitamin D deficiencies, lack of breastfeeding and overly-hygienic environments that might cause the immune system to backfire.
'The data is controversial so that's why I'm certainly very reluctant to propose a theory when nothing has been proven,' Lipman told Reuters Health.
'The take home message is not to be alarmist. These data confirm what has been reported worldwide and in other parts of the United States,' said Dr. Lori Laffel, of the Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston, who was not involved in the study.
'It is important to be aware of the symptoms of diabetes,' Laffel told Reuters Health. Symptoms can include extreme thirst, bed wetting or accidents in toilet-trained children or excessively wet diapers in babies, she said.
By the time the disease gets diagnosed, many infants and toddlers are very sick and the degree of illness tends to be more severe the younger the patient, experts noted.
'The young child isn't able to talk about symptoms,' Laffel said. 'A young child may be in diapers, you may not notice because diapers are often wet.'
SOURCE: http://bit.ly/YGkBuW Diabetes Care, online January 22, 2013.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)