Friday, October 21, 2011

Talk of treaty ban on mercury concerns scientists (AP)

LONDON � Scientists are warning officials negotiating a global treaty on mercury that banning the deadly chemical completely would be dangerous for public health because of the chemical's use in vaccines.

The ban option is one of several proposals on the table for a meeting later this month in Nairobi, but a final treaty isn't expected until 2013.

According to the World Health Organization, mercury is one of the top 10 chemicals of public health concern and is highly toxic. Most of the worry is centered on mercury emissions from burning coal, gold mining and people eating mercury-tainted fish.

Mercury in small amounts is also found in many products including light bulbs, batteries and thermometers. WHO advises such products to be phased out, suggesting for example, that health systems switch to digital thermometers instead.

The problem is that a proposed ban might include thiomersal, a mercury compound used to prevent contamination and extend the shelf life of vaccines, many scientists say. It is used in about 300 million shots worldwide, against diseases including flu, tetanus, hepatitis B, diptheria and meningitis.

"Not being able to use mercury is not a viable option," said David Wood, a WHO vaccines expert.

Wood said there isn't a viable alternative to thiomersal at the moment. If banned, pharmaceuticals would likely have to switch to preservative-free vaccines, which would complicate the supply chain and vaccination campaigns in poor countries, since the injections would have a much shorter shelf life. Costs would also spike since manufacturers would need to reconfigure their factories.

In 2009, the United Nations Environment Programme, or UNEP, began working on a legally binding global treaty on mercury. At the end of October, the third of five meetings to hammer out a treaty will take place in Nairobi.

"The document is a draft at the moment, so some of these proposals have to be taken with a grain of salt," said Tim Kasten, head of the chemicals branch at UNEP. Kasten said the amount of mercury in vaccines is so minute it doesn't threaten the environment. He said there could be provisions to allow mercury for certain uses, such as in dental fillings and vaccines.

But according to an annex in the draft document, there is currently no "allowable use exemption" for mercury products in pharmaceutical products, putting vaccines in the same category as banned mercury-containing paints and pesticides.

"That would be a terrible idea," said Paul Offit, an infectious diseases expert at the University of Pennsylvania. "It would be another tragic example of us not being able to explain to the public where the real risk lies."

Thiomersal has mostly been removed from childhood vaccines in the U.S. and Canada. In some European countries, including Norway and Sweden, manufacturers have been encouraged to make thiomersal-free vaccines � and no other uses of mercury as a medical preservative are allowed.

Fears about thiomersal in vaccines were first raised after a flawed medical study in 1998 linked a common childhood injection to autism. But numerous studies since have found no sign the mercury compound is risky.

Experts hope countries won't go overboard in their attempts to control the substance.

"Provided you know the risks and it's handled properly, there isn't a problem," said Andrew Nelson, a toxicology expert at the University of Leeds. "The health of so many millions of children benefit from vaccines containing mercury that an absolute ban is ridiculous."

___

Online:

http://www.unep.org

http://www.who.int



Powered By WizardRSS.com | Full Text RSS Feed | Amazon Plugin | Settlement Statement

Thursday, October 20, 2011

Docs facing questions about 'Michael Jackson drug' (AP)

LOS ANGELES � Doctors sometimes call the anesthesia drug by its nickname � milk of amnesia. Patients are calling it the "Michael Jackson drug."

Ever since propofol was blamed in the singer's death, patients who seldom asked or cared about what kind of sedation they were getting were suddenly peppering their doctors with questions about the potent drug.

"You won't believe how many people with their eyes wide open ask me: `Are you going to give me the Michael Jackson drug?' They're scared to death," said Dr. H.A. Tillmann Hein, president of the Texas Society of Anesthesiologists.

While some initially balk at going under, fearing they will end up like Jackson, they come around after Hein explains that propofol, widely used for surgeries and other procedures for more than 20 years, is safe when used by a trained professional in a hospital or clinic.

Propofol gained notoriety in 2009 after an autopsy found Jackson died of an overdose. Prosecutors have accused his personal physician, Dr. Conrad Murray, of giving the 50-year-old pop icon a lethal dose at the singer's rented Los Angeles mansion.

Murray has pleaded not guilty to involuntary manslaughter. His lawyers contend the amount of propofol Murray gave him to battle insomnia while prepping for his comeback tour was too small to cause the singer's death.

While Jackson's death thrust propofol into the spotlight, the circumstances of the case are rare.

Since the drug is hard to get (it's usually kept in medical settings) and hard to use (it's injected through an IV), there's little abuse in the general public. Almost all cases of recreational propofol use and deaths involve medical professionals.

Even before Jackson died, the federal government had considered adding the drug to its roster of controlled substances amid concerns about growing abuse in the medical community.

For the past two years, anesthesiologists have tried to counter the bad rap that propofol has gotten in the Jackson case.

Before Jackson's death, less than 10 percent of patients that Dr. John Dombrowski saw asked about propofol. Now more than half do, mostly about what monitoring safeguards are in place in case problems occur.

"It's important to have this conversation so people aren't fearful," said Dombrowski, who runs the private Washington Pain Center.

While doctors are seeing more patients with questions, they say no one has refused care after they are reassured that their situations are different than those of Jackson.

About 40 million Americans undergo anesthesia each year, with the vast majority receiving propofol. Because it is fast-acting and clears quickly from the body, people can return to normal activities sooner than older anesthetics.

During the past two weeks, prosecution witnesses said Murray flouted the standard of care by giving propofol in Jackson's home to help the superstar sleep and by leaving the room while he was sedated. Propofol is not approved to treat sleep disorders.

Propofol expert Dr. Steven Shafer of Columbia University testified Wednesday for the prosecution without a fee, saying he wanted to restore public confidence in doctors who use propofol, which he called "an outstanding drug" when properly administered.

Like many anesthesiologists, Shafer said he has received questions from many patients in the operating room about whether they will receive "the drug that killed Michael Jackson."

"I get that question daily. This is a fear that patients do not need to have," said Shafer, who wrote the package insert that guides doctors in the use of the anesthetic and demonstrated to jurors the appropriate way to administer the drug.

Within the medical profession, there have been growing concerns in recent years about abuse by health care workers. Published studies have uncovered several overdose deaths and cases of medical professionals who self-administer propofol to get high.

"It takes away anxiety, fear and pain," said anesthesiologist Dr. Paul Wischmeyer of the University of Colorado, Denver, who has studied propofol abuse. "That's the draw of the drug."

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration's proposal to make propofol a controlled substance is pending.

At UAB Hospital in Birmingham, Ala., officials are already treating propofol like other controlled drugs such as morphine and Valium by requiring stricter accounting of how it is disposed of.

Before that change went into effect eight months ago, doctors would dump leftover propofol bottles and used syringes in a biohazard container after an operation. Now the hospital requires another witness to be present to document the disposal.

Hospital officials first considered that change several years ago after reports of abuse by health care workers around the country. The Jackson case heightened awareness, chief pharmacy officer Mark Todd said.

"It got some momentum" after Jackson's death, Todd said. "It helped move it along."

___

Online:

American Society of Anesthesiologists: http://www.asahq.org

___

Follow Alicia Chang's coverage at http://twitter.com/SciWriAlicia



Powered By WizardRSS.com | Full Text RSS Feed | Amazon Plugin | Settlement Statement

Report: Food labels need Energy Star-like ratings (AP)

WASHINGTON � Just like that Energy Star tag helps you choose your appliances, a new report says a rating symbol on the front of every soup can, cereal box and yogurt container could help hurried shoppers go home with the healthiest foods.

Thursday's report urges the Food and Drug Administration to adopt new food labeling that clears the confusing clutter off today's packages and gives consumers a fast way to compare their choices.

It wouldn't replace the in-depth Nutrition Facts panel that's now on the back or side of food packages. But few shoppers stop to read or heed that fine print in the middle of the grocery aisle.

The Institute of Medicine says it's time to put right upfront the most important information for health: how many calories per serving � and just how big that serving is � along with stars or some other symbol to show at a glance how the food rates for certain fats, sodium and added sugars.

"American shoppers are busy shoppers," said Ellen Wartella, a psychology professor at Northwestern University who chaired the IOM committee that studied the issue at the government's request.

"We want a really simple system that says if you have three marks, that product is healthier than one with two marks."

How to get Americans to eat more wisely is a huge problem as obesity and diet-related diseases are skyrocketing. The FDA already was working to change the food-labeling system to make it more user-friendly. The agency didn't say if it would adopt a ratings approach but called Thursday's report a thoughtful analysis that would help it decide next steps.

"FDA agrees consumers can benefit from a front-of-pack labeling system that conveys nutrition information in a manner that is simple and consistent with the Nutrition Facts panel," said spokeswoman Siobhan DeLancey.

But the IOM's recommendation would face an uphill battle with food manufacturers who are pushing their own version of on-the-front food labels and don't like the idea of ranking one food as healthier than a competitor's.

"We believe the most effective programs are those that trust consumers and not ones that tell consumers what they should and should not eat," said Scott Faber, a lobbyist for the Grocery Manufacturers Association.

___

Associated Press writer Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report.



Powered By WizardRSS.com | Full Text RSS Feed | Amazon Plugin | Settlement Statement

Mexico tackles epidemic of childhood obesity (AP)

MEXICO CITY � Anghella Torres is just 4 years old, but already she weighs 66 pounds (30 kilos) � twice what she should. Because of her excess girth, her little feet constantly hurt from bearing the extra weight.

Anghella knows she is obese and she doesn't like it. And now, even though she doesn't know how to read or count calories, she is on a diet. With the help of her grandmother and caretaker, Elizabeth Sucilla, Anghella is following a modest diet and exercise program established for her by a nurse at a local public hospital earlier this year.

"I have to stop eating candies," she said.

Her new regimen also requires her to cut down on the deep-fried potato wedges she ate every other day in the streets and spoonfuls of heavy cream she downed like yogurt.

Mexico, which claims to have the fattest children in the world, is trying to encourage others to follow Anghella's lead. Public schools have banned junk food and are requiring more hours of physical education while the federal government has launched a media campaign that invites families to enroll their kids in a public weight-loss program.

Yet three-quarters of Mexico City's 2,400 public schools don't have playgrounds or gyms for exercise. And 80 percent of the schools don't have water fountains. Experts stress the importance of drinking more water and fewer sugary drinks to prevent and reverse weight gain.

President Felipe Calderon said earlier this year that Mexico had the highest rate of obesity for children ages 5 to 19 in the world. And although he did not cite any source, University of North Carolina nutrition professor Barry Popkin, who has studied childhood obesity in many countries, agrees that it "is the highest I know of in the world."

While a large number of children in Mexico's poor, rural villages are still underweight, the country as a whole has seen the second-fastest growth rate for childhood obesity of nine countries examined by Popkin in a 2007 study, including the United States. The fastest growth rate of the nine is in Australia, according to the study, which compares health statistics in the countries over the past two decades.

The problem in Mexico is especially pronounced in the capital, Mexico City, and near the U.S.-Mexico border, according to a study by Mexico's National Institute of Public Health.

Children and teenagers make up Mexico's largest age group, representing 39 percent of the country's 112 million people. More than 28 percent of children between 5 and 9, and 38 percent of preteens and teenagers ages 10 to 19, are overweight or obese, according to statistics from the Mexican Social Security Institute.

In the U.S., the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says 12.5 million, or 17 percent, of children and adolescents ages 2 to 19 are obese. First lady Michelle Obama has tackled the issue with her "Let's Move" campaign, pushing for better school lunches, more access to fruits and vegetables and more physical activity. And Congress last year passed a new law requiring school lunches to be healthier.

In Brazil, a newly industrialized nation like Mexico, 19 percent of children ages 5 to 9 are overweight, and 15 percent are obese, according to government statistics. Officials did not have statistics available for teenagers.

Mexico's public health institute says the problem lies not just with children: Seventy percent of Mexican adults are overweight or obese as well. Officials have decided to target children and teens first, however, because they are the largest age group and fighting their habits now would prevent large numbers of diabetes cases and other illnesses in the future, the officials said.

"The earlier obesity shows up, the higher the risk the kid will become an obese adult and contract other diseases like diabetes, hypertension," said Leticia Martinez, chief nutritionist for Mexico's public health institute. "We see this as an emergency."

Health officials define obesity as having too much body fat. In Mexico, the U.S. and elsewhere, obesity is determined through BMI, a measure of body fat based on height and weight.

Mexico's childhood obesity spans social classes, though the poor are less informed and equipped to deal with the epidemic.

Starting this year, pre-kindergarten and elementary schools completely banned the sale of soft drinks and junk food and replaced previous breakfast programs with dishes rich in vegetables, such as squash blossoms and carrots. Middle schools are only selling sugar-free drinks, low-calorie snacks and small bags of chips that appear in new food guidelines approved by the departments of health and education.

During recess at the Republica Italiana elementary school, children run out of classrooms and form three lines, each one of which leads to a different food option.

Their choices include a turkey hot dog on a wheat bun with tomatoes and no mayonnaise; "nopales," or edible cactus paddles, with sliced peppers on a corn tortilla; sunflower seeds or a scoop of unsweetened lemon sorbet; and slices of cucumbers and carrots.

Principal Yamile Bobadilla says there's nothing she can do about vendors who still gather outside of the school gates to sell sodas, greasy pizzas and chips.

Some of the children, and even some parents, have complained about the junk food ban, she said, adding, "They see me as the witch."

The country's healthy-weight campaign has other challenges: Officials acknowledge there aren't enough dietitians in the public schools to help all of the children in need. They also note a prevailing cultural notion that a chubby baby is a healthy baby.

"Any efforts to improve the school environment are very important to combat the epidemic," said Chessa Lutter, a regional adviser on food and nutrition for the Pan American Health Organization.

Starting in the 2010-2011 school year, education officials began increasing the number of physical education hours from one to three per week based on their conclusion that some children are obese because they don't exercise. On a recent morning at Republica Italiana, several groups of kids were sent out to the school yard to run, play softball or twirl hula-hoops.

Bobadilla said some children still faint and suffer from extreme fatigue because of their weight problems.

Guillermo Ayala, who leads the food guidelines' task force at the Education Department, also heads an effort to have every child in Mexico City weighed and measured by a team of physical education coaches and nurses. Schools with a high number of children who have gained or not lost weight will face administrative sanctions, he said.

Outside the classroom, government-sponsored TV spots show kids struggling under heavy sacks of grain, symbols of the extra pounds (kilos) many are carrying around with them. The ads invite parents to enroll their children in a government-run program of diet and exercise. About 5.3 million children participate every year, but officials don't keep track of how many of them are overweight.

Anghella's grandmother Sucilla took her to a public hospital in May at the suggestion of the girl's day care providers, who said something would have to be done about the child's diet and exercise before she started school in August.

A nurse at the hospital suggested that Anghella start taking regular walks, drinking a lot of water and eating more whole grains, vegetables and fruits.

She goes often to visit the nurse, who weighs her regularly.

At home, when her small hand tries to reach for a sweet roll on the table, Sucilla slaps it and says, "You know why, my little girl."

Anghella said she doesn't like it when adults say she's fat.

"No, sweetheart. You are cuddly," Sucilla tells her. But she then adds, "I worry because I don't want my little girl to be an obese girl."



Powered By WizardRSS.com | Full Text RSS Feed | Amazon Plugin | Settlement Statement

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

Study: Living in poor neighborhood can hurt health (AP)

ATLANTA � Back in the 1990s, the federal government tried an unusual social experiment: It offered thousands of poor women in big-city public housing a chance to live in more affluent neighborhoods.

A decade later, the women who relocated had lower rates of diabetes and extreme obesity � differences that are being hailed as compelling evidence that where you live can determine your health.

The experiment was initially aimed at researching whether moving impoverished families to more prosperous areas could improve employment or schooling. But according to a study released Wednesday, the most interesting effect may have been on the women's physical condition.

About 16 percent of the women who moved had diabetes, compared with about 20 percent of women who stayed in public housing. And about 14 percent of those who left the projects were extremely obese, compared with nearly 18 percent of the other women.

The small-but-significant differences offered some of the strongest support yet for the idea that where you live can significantly affect your overall health, especially if your home is in a low-income area with few safe places to exercise, limited food options and meager medical services.

"This study proves that concentrated poverty is not only bad policy, it's bad for your health," Shaun Donovan, secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

But no one believes the deficit-plagued federal government is going to expand the program and start moving low-income women to better neighborhoods en masse.

"It's not enough to simply move families into different neighborhoods," Donovan said. Instead, new ways must be found to help families "break the cycle of poverty that can quite literally make them sick." He did not mention specific proposals.

Public health experts have long thought that living in poor neighborhoods could ruin a person's health, but this study put the idea to a rigorous test.

Here's how it worked: Women believed to be about the same in most respects were randomly assigned to one group or another and then followed through time, in a model customarily seen in pharmaceutical studies. That makes it more scientifically rigorous than most research linking health problems to a social environment.

The study's good design "provides a basis to infer cause and effect" between poverty and bad health, said Dr. Robert Califf, a noted Duke University cardiologist who is leading a massive study on neighborhoods and health outcomes.

The research was led by Jens Ludwig, a University of Chicago professor of public policy. It was published in Wednesday's New England Journal of Medicine.

The experiment started as a $70 million HUD project in Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles and New York. It morphed into a health study after a variety of other government agencies and private foundations pitched in with an additional $17 million more.

"In terms of scale, it's not soon or ever to be repeated," said Dr. Robert Whitaker, a Temple University pediatrician who was a study co-author.

The study involved women living in public housing in neighborhoods where 40 percent or more of residents were poor � areas like many of those on the South Side of Chicago or in the Bronx in New York City. The women all had children and were considered heads of households.

From 1994 to 1998, nearly 1,800 of them were offered vouchers to subsidize private housing, but the vouchers were only good in higher-income neighborhoods where fewer than 10 percent of the people were considered poor. They were required to live there at least a year.

The rest of the women were divided into two groups. One group got vouchers they could use in any neighborhood. The other women did not receive vouchers, with the expectation that they would stay put.

Ten years later, women in the study were weighed and gave a blood sample to check for diabetes.

The women who moved to richer areas had the lowest rates of extreme obesity and diabetes. The difference suggests that moving to a better neighborhood could help at least 1 in 25 women. Or, in other terms, a person's risk of diabetes or extreme obesity dropped by about 20 percent by moving to a higher-income neighborhood.

(However, even the women who moved were not exactly models of health. About 14 percent of them were extremely obese, which is twice the national average for women.)

The study has some notable flaws.

Because it did not start out looking at health, the women's medical condition and weight were not checked at the outset. The researchers believe the women in the different groups were about the same, because they matched up on more than 50 other indicators, such as age, race, employment and education. But that is an assumption.

Also, only about half the women offered a chance to move to a more prosperous zip code did so. And many who did move left after a year.

What's more, the study was not designed to answer what it is about more affluent neighborhoods that would cause someone to be healthier. But the authors listed four theories:

� The availability of healthier food is worse in lower-income neighborhoods.

� Opportunities for physical exercise are scarcer, and fear of crime can make people afraid to jog or play in parks.

� There may be fewer doctors' offices and other medical services.

� The long-term stress of living in such an environment may alter the hormones that control weight.

Some of those theories were supported by some women who live in the kind of situation targeted in the study.

Vickie Webb lived in the projects in Durham, N.C., for several years before a housing agency helped relocate her and her husband to a better neighborhood.

"There was too much violence, too much going on in the `hood. It wasn't safe," said Webb, who was not part of the study.

Annie Ricks, who lives with her 14-year-old son and two grandchildren in a public housing unit on Chicago's South Side, was not involved in the study either. But she said efforts like the HUD experiment should be expanded.

Local housing authorities paid for her to relocate to the South Side last year as part of its demolition plans for high-rise tenements. But Ricks lost her child-care job after the move, and says her new neighborhood is worse.

At her old building, Ricks could walk across the street to a supermarket. In her new neighborhood, without a car, she has to take public transportation to get groceries or go to the doctor, and Ricks says there's more crime.

"I feel like it would be a blessing" to be able to move to a wealthier area, she said.

___

Associated Press writers Alicia Chang in Los Angeles and Lindsey Tanner in Chicago contributed to this report.



Powered By WizardRSS.com | Full Text RSS Feed | Amazon Plugin | Settlement Statement

Annual cancer screening tests urged less and less (AP)

Annual cancer tests are becoming a thing of the past. New guidelines out Wednesday for cervical cancer screening have experts at odds over some things, but they are united in the view that the common practice of getting a Pap test every year is too often and probably doing more harm than good.

A Pap smear once every three years is the best way to detect cervical cancer, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force says. Last week, it recommended against prostate cancer screening with PSA tests, which many men get every year.

Two years ago, it said mammograms to check for breast cancer are only needed every other year starting at age 50, although the American Cancer Society still advises annual tests starting at age 40. Earlier this week, a large study found more false alarms for women getting mammograms every year instead of every other year.

"The more tests that you do, the more likely you are to be faced with a false-positive test" that leads to unnecessary biopsies and possible harm, said Dr. Michael LeFevre, one of the task force leaders and a professor of family and community medicine at the University of Missouri. "We see an emerging consensus that annual Pap tests are not required for us to see the benefits that we have seen" from screening, he said.

Those benefits are substantial. Cervical cancer has declined dramatically in the United States, from nearly 15 cases for every 100,000 women in 1975 to nearly 7 per 100,000 in 2008. About 12,200 new cases and 4,210 deaths from the disease occurred last year, most of them in women who have never been screened or not in the past five years.

The cancer society and other groups say using Pap smears together with tests for HPV, the virus that causes cervical cancer, could improve screening. But the task force concluded the evidence is insufficient "to assess the balance of benefits and harms" of that.

Instead, more lives probably could be saved by reaching women who are not being adequately screened now, the task force says.

And despite what many people suspect, cost has nothing to do with the task force's stance, its leaders said.

"We don't look at cost at all. We really are most concerned about harms," said Dr. Evelyn Whitlock of Kaiser Permanente Northwest's Center for Health Research in Portland, Ore., who led an evidence review for the task force.

Here are some questions and answers about the cervical cancer guidelines.

Q. At what ages should screening start and end?

A. The task force recommends against screening women under 21 or older than 65. Very few cervical cancer cases occur in women under 21, so the old advice to start screening three years after the age of first intercourse has been changed. HPV tests are only approved for women after age 30 because transient infections that don't pose a cancer risk are more common at younger ages.

"We should not be screening teenagers. It's not helping, it's not finding any more cancers and it's creating way too many harms for them," said Debbie Saslow, the cancer society's director of breast and gynecologic cancer.

Q. Should anyone else not be screened?

A. Women who have had their cervix and uterus removed should not be tested, but check with your doctor � not all hysterectomies are complete; some leave the cervix.

Q. What does screening cost?

A. Paps cost $15 to $60; HPV tests run $50 to $100.

Q. Will insurance pay for HPV tests since the government panel doesn't endorse them?

A. Probably. They are included in preventive services that other federal advisers say should be covered under the Affordable Care Act, and the government has continued to pay for mammograms for women who want them even if it is sooner or more often than the task force recommends.

Q. What if I've had the HPV vaccine?

A. Doctors don't know how the vaccine will affect HPV test results or how long the vaccine lasts, so women should still be screened for cervical cancer if they are within the recommended screening ages.

Q. How can I comment on the guidelines?

A. The web site below for the task force tells how. Comments are accepted for a month before guidance is adopted.

___

Online:

Task force advice: http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/

Cervical cancer science review: http://tinyurl.com/6lc2rzg

CDC on HPV tests: http://www.cdc.gov/hpv/Screening.html

American Cancer Society: http://tinyurl.com/44gnadx

and http://tinyurl.com/257mnge

___

Marilynn Marchione can be followed at http://twitter.com/MMarchioneAP



Powered By WizardRSS.com | Full Text RSS Feed | Amazon Plugin | Settlement Statement