|
| |
|
| |
2/22/2010 - Some Plastic Purses Found Contaminated with Lead |
| |
| The Center for Environmental health went to 100 of the nation's top retailers - including Target, Macy's, Wal-Mart and Kohl's - and bought purses, nearly all made of polyvinyl chloride and manufactured in China. The results showed high levels of lead. |
| |
February 1, 2010
The Center for Environmental Health went to 100 of the nation's top retailers -- including Target, Macy's, Wal-Mart and Kohl's – and bought purses.
The group had the bags tested for lead at an independent lab. Some bags were wiped to see how much, if any, lead would simply rub off the material. The bags also were tested for the total lead content of the products. Nearly all of the bags tested were manufactured in China.
The tests came back showing disturbingly high levels of lead, the Center for Environmental Health said. In some tests, bags had levels 30 to 100 times higher than the federal limit for lead in all children's items. That limit is the only federal limit on the books for lead in consumer products, other than paint.
Lead can be found in many bags made of polyvinyl chloride, or PVC. Some manufacturers find it useful in items like synthetic handbags, because it makes material pliable. It also can be found in some pigments because it makes bright colors last longer.
Lead can rub off of the purse and end up on people's hands, or on children's hands and then into their mouths. Lead has been implicated in a laundry list of health concerns, including learning disabilities and high blood pressure, and some have even linked childhood lead exposure to Alzheimer's later in life.
The Center for Environmental Health told ABC News it is in discussion with more than 60 major retailers and suppliers working toward agreements for tougher standards.
|
|
| |
| |
|
| |
2/22/2010 - Cranberry Juice Can Keep Hearts Healthy |
| |
| Researchers in London measure the cardio-protective potential of cranberry juice and found it may help lower blood pressure and help promote heart health. |
| |
LONDON, Feb. 15 (UPI) -- Researchers in London measured the cardio-protective potential of cranberry juice and found it may help lower blood pressure and help promote heart health.
Researchers at Queen Mary University of London compared the cardio-protective potential of cranberry juice and that of red wine, cocoa and green tea and found that oligomeric procyanidins were present in regular and light cranberry juice cocktail.
Dr. Roger Corder of Queen Mary University identified oligomeric procyanidins in cranberries that can promote a healthy heart by inhibiting Endothelin-1 synthesis -- a blood vessel constrictor that causes heart disease.
"Red wine has long been associated with heart health, but this new study shows that cranberry juice is a very promising alcohol-free alternative," Corder, author of "The Red Wine Diet," said in a statement. "We have now identified oligomeric procyanidins as the specific compound in cranberries that can boost the health of blood vessels, helping to prevent blood vessel constriction -- a leading cause of high blood pressure."
The research was published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry.
|
|
| |
| |
|
| |
2/22/2010 - New Analysis Uncovers Relationship Between Low LDL Cholesterol and Cancer - (Updated: 2/22/2010) |
| |
| - Results from a new analysis suggests that the cardiovascular benefits of achieved levels of LDL cholesterol might be offset by an increased risk of cancer |
| |
New analysis uncovers relationship between low LDL-cholesterol levels and cancer
JULY 23, 2007 | Michael O'Riordan
Boston, MA - Results from a new analysis, initially designed to determine whether there was a correlation between the extent to which statins lowered LDL-cholesterol levels and liver and muscle toxicity, suggests that the cardiovascular benefits of achieved levels of LDL cholesterol might be offset by an increased risk of cancer [1]. In an analysis of patients enrolled in large, randomized statin trials, investigators observed a "significant and linear relationship" between achieved LDL levels and the risk of new cancer cases.
"The statin trials have clearly shown that statin therapy, overall, reduces cardiovascular risk," said senior investigator Dr Richard Karas (Tufts-New England Medical Center, Boston, MA). "These findings don't change that. They're based on the same studies. But a component of that, perhaps one of the costs of that, is a relationship between the LDL lowering and cancer risk."
Speaking with heartwire, Karas said there is concern about how the new findings will be reported and interpreted, especially if the message causes some patients to stop taking statins. "What we're always doing in terms of trying to take care of patients is balance benefit and risk," he said. "This analysis was really focused on trying to enhance our understanding of the risk side of that equation. It has produced a provocative and interesting result that raises a lot of new questions . . . but it's a complicated message, and the conclusion people will jump to if they are not being careful is that statins cause cancer. We don't know that, and our data don't show that."
In an editorial accompanying the published study, which appears in the July 31, 2007 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Dr John LaRosa (State University of New York Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn) observes that the benefits of all drugs come with a price [2]. While these new data do not provide definitive answers to the question of cancer risk associated with lowering cholesterol levels, he said the finding highlights an issue that has been repeatedly raised: does the process of lowering LDL, particularly to very low levels, introduce hazards of its own in either causing or accelerating the progress of cancer?
LaRosa, who is the chair of the steering committee of the Pfizer-sponsored Treating to New Targets (TNT) study, said the findings should be viewed only as hypothesis generating. While clinicians should continue to be vigilant in ensuring the benefits of statins outweigh the risks, this vigilance should not deny the benefits of LDL lowering to those who need it, he said, a sentiment echoed by the study authors. "The bottom line is that at the current time clinical practice should not change," said Karas.
Initially only looked at muscle and liver toxicity
Speaking with heartwire, Karas said the cancer association was a surprise and initially wasn't even on his group's radar. The Boston researchers conducted their analysis examining the relationship of the degree of LDL-cholesterol lowering to liver toxicity and rhabdomyolysis in 23 randomized, controlled trials assessing statin therapy, including, among others, the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S), West of Scotland Coronary Prevention Study (WOSCOPS), Long-term Intervention with Pravastatin in Ischemic Disease (LIPID) study, the Heart Protection Study (HPS), and the more recent trials of intensive vs moderate lipid-lowering therapy such as PROVE-IT, TNT, and IDEAL.
Investigators also studied the effect of drug dosage on liver and muscle toxicity. In the first analysis, no matter how investigators looked at the extent of LDL reduction, as a relative or absolute reduction or achieved LDL-cholesterol levels, they observed no relationship between how much the cholesterol was lowered and the risk of liver or muscle toxicity. In the second analysis, however, when they looked at muscle toxicity on the basis of the dose of the drugs, they found that the higher the dose of statins used in the study, the higher the risk of toxicity to the liver.
"Overall, statins are very safe, but the safety implication here is that it does matter how you lower LDL-cholesterol levels," said Karas. "In other words, the high-dose statins are associated with a higher risk of side effects. This does then have implications for how we practice medicine, the question being, and it's just a question, as to whether or not we might be better off using multiple medications, all at modest doses, to try to get the cholesterol targets that we want to get to, to minimize side effects and maximize the benefit."
Cancer findings
Considering these findings worthy of publication, the group submitted the manuscript to the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, but, as noted in an editorial comment by journal editors Dr Anthony DeMaria and Ori Ben-Yehuda [3], the researchers were asked to include cancer in the analysis because "this was the other major side effect often feared from statin therapy." Of the 23 statin therapy trials, 13 studies included the number of patients with newly diagnosed cancer. Overall, there was no significant relationship between percent and absolute reductions in LDL-cholesterol levels. There was, however, a highly significant inverse relationship between achieved LDL-cholesterol levels and rates of newly diagnosed cancer (R2=0.43, p=0.009). The researchers found one additional incident of cancer per 1000 patients with low LDL levels when compared with patients with higher LDL levels. The new cancers were not of any specific type or location.
To heartwire, Karas said the findings are paradoxical in light of recent meta-analyses concluding there is no significant increase in the risk of cancer with statin therapy. Karas stressed, however, that the new findings are observational, hypothesis generating, and in no way definitive. "This is an association at this point," he said. "It might have nothing to do with cause and effect. The best analogy is to say that I have a dog, and every time an airplane goes over my house, my dog goes out into the backyard and barks at the plane. That airplane has never landed in my yard. Now we could say there is a very strong association between my dog barking and planes not landing in my yard, but there certainly is no cause and effect. "Even if the risk of cancer is increased with statin use, Karas said clinicians would have to balance the magnitude of that risk with the benefits of statin therapy.
Dr Thomas Pearson (University of Rochester School of Medicine, NY), who was not affiliated with the study, told heartwire that the results should be interpreted carefully.
"In many ways it is déjà vu all over again," said Pearson. "In the 1970s, there were several papers describing higher risks from cancer in those with the lowest cholesterol levels. This is from the prestatin era. Old-time clinicians will tell you that monitoring cholesterol levels is useful, such that when they start to fall, you should look for a cancer. Indeed, the MRFIT study looked at this and showed the shorter the interval between the cancer diagnosis and the blood test, the lower the cholesterol."
For this reason, said Pearson, one should assume the very low cholesterol levels in patients with cancer on statins are due to a cancer-low cholesterol link rather than a statin-cancer association.
In his editorial, LaRosa points out that no single form of cancer predominates, "so the effect of low achieved LDL would have to have been one that stimulates neoplasia in a variety of tissues." In addition, the effect of low LDL-cholesterol levels would have to be unusually rapid, given that most statin trials lasted five years or less, in producing new cancers.
Most important, LaRosa said it is possible to further address the cancer risk without further trials. Karas and colleagues had access to just 13 studies reporting the number and type of incident cancers. Other data sets have not been published, but an analysis of other LDL-lowering trials, including statin studies, other drug studies, diet, or even ileal-bypass surgery trials, supported by a neutral source such as the National Institutes of Health, could determine whether there is a significant problem with low LDL-cholesterol levels that needs to be addressed, said LaRosa.
Study generated scrutiny and discussion
In their editorial comment, DeMaria and Ben-Yehuda write that in the five years they have been editors at Journal of the American College of Cardiology, no other manuscript stimulated such intense scrutiny and discussion.
"Given the growing public angst regarding the safety of prescription medications, all were concerned that the paper contained great potential for harm and good," they write. "In the end, we agreed to publish the article with as much caution and perspective as possible."
|
|
| |
| |
|
| |
1/13/2010 - Ultrasound Before Breast Biopsies |
| |
| A paper presented at the Radiological Society of America in December, 2009, shows that ultrasound exams seem to work as well as breast biopsies to find cancer in young women. |
| |
| Ultrasound exams seem to work as well as breast biopsies to find cancer in young women. Two studies at the University of Washington in Seattle showed that ultrasound found 100 percent of cancers in women under age 40 who felt a lump or suspicious area in the breast or whose doctors noticed a lump. In one study, researchers looked at 1,100 ultrasound exams of women under age 30; in a second, they studied 1,500 ultrasounds in the 30-39 age group. In both of the studies, ultrasound correctly identified which changes were cancer and which ones were benign. Not only was ultrasound accurate in distinguishing between malignant and benign lumps that could be felt, it is a quick, easy and inexpensive test ($100 to $200 per exam). Of all the women examined, less than three percent had breast cancer, but many more than that might have been sent to receive surgical biopsies if ultrasound hadn't been offered. The type of ultrasound used in the tests is called "targeted" because it looks only at the area where a lump has been felt. The findings were presented at a meeting of the Radiological Society of America in December, 2009. |
|
| |
| |
|
| |
1/07/2010 - America’s Best Hospitals: The 2009-10 Honor Roll - (Updated: 1/13/2010) |
| |
| US News and World Report has published the annual ranking of the country’s elite medical centers as a toll for patients who need medical sophistication that most facilities cannot offer. |
| |
America's Best Hospitals: the 2009–10 Honor Roll
They're the best of the best—the 0.4 percent of all hospitals with high scores in 6 or more specialties.
By Avery Comarow
Posted July 15, 2009
America's Best Hospitals, an annual ranking of the country's elite medical centers, is a tool for patients who need medical sophistication most facilities cannot offer. Unlike other rankings and ratings that grade hospitals on how well they execute routine procedures like outpatient hernia repair or manage common conditions like low-grade heart failure, the U.S. News approach looks at how well a hospital handles complex and demanding situations—replacing an 85-year-old man's heart valve, diagnosing and treating a spinal tumor, and dealing with inflammatory bowel disease, to name three examples. High-stakes medicine.
This year, the 20th for Best Hospitals, institutions are ranked in 16 specialties, from cancer and heart disease to respiratory disorders and urology. A total of 4,861 hospitals were considered; 174, or less than 0.4 percent of the total, were ranked in even one of the 16 specialties.
In 12 of the 16 specialties, those in which quality of care can spell life or death, hospitals were scored on reputation, death rate, patient safety, and care-related factors such as nursing and patient services; the 50 highest scorers were ranked. Scores and complete data for unranked hospitals are available as well. In the other four specialties—ophthalmology, psychiatry, rehabilitation, and rheumatology—hospitals were ranked on reputation alone, because so few patients die that mortality data don't mean much.
Here are a few of the details: Reputation, which counted as 32.5 percent of the score, was based on three years of specialist surveys—a total of almost 10,000 physicians were asked to name five hospitals they consider among the best in their specialty for difficult cases, without taking into account cost or location. A mortality index, also 32.5 percent of the score, indicates a hospital's ability to keep patients with serious problems alive. Patient safety, new this year, made up 5 percent of the score; it indicates how well a hospital minimizes harm to patients. And a group of other care-related factors, such as nurse staffing and available technology, accounted for the remaining 30 percent.
Of the 174 hospitals that are ranked in one or more specialties, 21 qualified for the Honor Roll by earning high scores in at least six specialties. This demonstrates unusual breadth of excellence. Johns Hopkins Hospital tops the list, as it has every year from 1991 on. (The Mayo Clinic was No. 1 in 1990, Best Hospitals' first year.)
Hospitals are listed by total points. A hospital got 2 points if ranked at or close to the top in a specialty and 1 point if ranked slightly lower.
Rank Hospital
1 Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore
2 Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
3 Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles
4 Cleveland Clinic
5 Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston
6 New York-Presbyterian University Hospital of Columbia and Cornell
7 University of California, San Francisco Medical Center
8 Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
9 Barnes-Jewish Hospital/Washington University, St. Louis
10 Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston
10 Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.
12 University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle
13 UPMC-University of Pittsburgh Medical Center
14 University of Michigan Hospitals and Health Centers, Ann Arbor
15 Stanford Hospital and Clinics, Stanford, Calif.
16 Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville
17 NYU Medical Center, New York
18 Yale-New Haven Hospital, New Haven, Conn.
19 Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York
20 Methodist Hospital, Houston
21 Ohio State University Hospital, Columbus
Rankings in all 16 specialties:
- Cancer
- Diabetes & Endocrine Disorders
- Digestive Disorders
- Ear, Nose & Throat
- Geriatric Care
- Gynecology
- Heart & Heart Surgery
- Kidney Disorders
- Neurology & Neurosurgery
- Ophthalmology
- Orthopedics
- Psychiatry
- Rehabilitation
- Respiratory Disorders
- Rheumatology
- Urology |
|
| |
| |
|
| |
1/02/2010 - Tylenol Arthritis Caplet Voluntary Rrecall Expanded |
| |
| The Associated Press reports that Johnson&Johnson is expanding a voluntary recall of Tylenol Arthritis Caplets due consumer reports of a moldy smell that can cause nausea and sickness. |
| |
Johnson & Johnson is expanding a voluntary recall of Tylenol Arthritis Caplets due to consumer reports of a moldy smell that can cause nausea and sickness.
According to a statement posted to the Food and Drug Administration Web site late Monday, the New Brunswick, N.J., company is now recalling all product lots of the Arthritis Pain Caplet 100 count bottles with the red EZ-Open Cap.
Johnson & Johnson had recalled five lots of the product last month after consumers complained of a musty, mildew-like odor that triggered nausea, stomach pain, vomiting and diarrhea.
The health care company said the odor results from trace amounts of a chemical called 2,4,6-tribromoanisole. That chemical is believed to result from the breakdown of another chemical used to treat wooden pallets that transport and store packaging materials.
To date, the side effects, which also include vomiting and diarrhea, have been "temporary and non-serious," although the health effects of the compound have not been studied.
The recall only affects the specific lots cited. All other Tylenol Arthritis pain products remain available.
The company will reintroduce Tylenol Arthritis Pain Caplets 100 count by January after moving production to a new facility.
J&J's McNeil consumer health care division sells a range of over-the-counter medicines, including cold reliever Sudafed and the antacid Mylanta. The unit posted $16 million in sales in 2008, according to J&J's annual report.
Consumers seeking a refund or replacement can call J&J at 1-888-222-6036.
Company shares rose 38 cents to $65.32 in morning trading Tuesday. |
|
| |
|
|
|
