Sunday, November 13, 2011

Group predicts 522M could have diabetes by 2030 (AP)

GENEVA � The International Diabetes Federation predicts that one in 10 adults could have diabetes by 2030, according to their latest statistics. In a report issued on Monday, the advocacy group estimated that 522 million people would have diabetes in the next two decades, based on things like aging and demographic changes.

The figure includes both types of diabetes. The group expects the number of cases to jump by 90 percent even in Africa, where infectious diseases have previously been the top killer. Without including the impact of increasing obesity, the International Diabetes Federation said its figures were conservative.

According to the World Health Organization, there are about 346 million people worldwide with diabetes, with more than 80 percent of deaths occurring in developing countries. The agency projects diabetes deaths will double by 2030 and said the International Diabetes Federation's prediction was possible.

"It's a credible figure," said Gojka Roglic, head of WHO's diabetes unit. "But whether or not it's correct, we can't say."

Roglic said the projected future rise in diabetes cases was because of aging rather than the obesity epidemic. Most cases of diabetes are Type 2, the kind that mainly hits people in middle age, and is linked to weight gain and a sedentary lifestyle.

Roglic said a substantial number of future diabetes cases were preventable. "It's worrying because these people will have an illness which is serious, debilitating, and shortens their lives," she said. "But it doesn't have to happen if we take the right interventions."

___

Online:

http://www.idf.org

http://www.who.int



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

Study: New drug cuts deaths after heart attack (AP)

ORLANDO, Fla. � People recovering from a heart attack or severe chest pain are much less likely to suffer another heart-related problem or to die from one if they take a new blood-thinning drug along with standard anti-clotting medicines, a large study finds.

But this benefit had a cost: a greater risk of serious bleeding, usually in the digestive tract.

Still, some doctors said the drug, Xarelto, could become a new standard of care for up to a million Americans hospitalized each year for these conditions. A low dose of the drug substantially cut the risk of dying of any cause during the study.

"Mortality trumps everything," so a drug that improves survival is a win, said Dr. Paul Armstrong of the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

He had no role in the study, discussed Sunday at an American Heart Association conference in Florida and published online by the New England Journal of Medicine. The study was sponsored by the drug's makers � Johnson & Johnson and Bayer Healthcare � and some researchers work or consult for the companies.

Xarelto is approved now at higher doses for preventing strokes in people with a common heart rhythm problem and for preventing blood clots after joint surgeries. It works in a different way than aspirin and older blood thinners do.

Dr. C. Michael Gibson of Harvard Medical School led a study testing it in 15,500 patients around the world who were leaving the hospital after a heart attack or severe chest pain from clogged arteries.

All were prescribed aspirin and an older blood thinner. One-third also received a low dose of Xarelto, and one-third got a higher dose. After about a year on average, nearly 11 percent of those on just the usual medicines had suffered a heart attack, heart-related death or a stroke versus less than 9 percent of those on either dose of Xarelto.

The lower dose proved better and safer. Fewer than 3 percent of those getting Xarelto died of any cause during the study, compared with 4.5 percent of those getting just the usual medicines. That translates to a 32 percent lower risk with Xarelto.

"Our study group has been going for 27 years and we've not seen that" magnitude of benefit from a drug like this, said Dr. Eugene Braunwald of Harvard-affiliated Brigham and Women's Hospital, the study's chairman.

To prevent a single heart-related death, heart attack or stroke, only 56 people would need to be treated for two years with a low dose of the drug, Gibson said.

However, serious bleeding was nearly four times more common with Xarelto, including bleeding in the head, a potentially disabling side effect. Fatal bleeding was no greater with Xarelto, though.

"There's a trade-off" between thinning the blood to prevent clots and raising the risk of bleeding, said Dr. Roger Blumenthal, preventive cardiology chief at Johns Hopkins Medical Center.

Cost is another issue. Usual care for these patients is changing with newer drugs that have come on the market since this study started. One � ticagrelor, sold as Brilinta in the U.S. and other brands elsewhere � also proved beneficial for similar patients taking just aspirin instead of pricier additional medicines used in the Xarelto study.

Xarelto's makers will seek approval to sell it for people like those in this study by the end of the year, a Johnson & Johnson spokesman said. A price has not been set, but the higher doses sold now for other purposes run more than $7 a day.

The good results with Xarelto contrast with the disappointing ones from an experimental blood thinner by Merck & Co., vorapaxar.

The drug flopped in a key late-stage study aimed at preventing heart attacks, strokes and other problems in people similar to those in the study of Xarelto � hospitalized for a heart attack or severe chest pain from clogged arteries.

Vorapaxar gave no significant benefit when added to standard medicines in a study of 13,000 patients around the world. It also raised the risk of serious bleeding.

Merck's senior vice president of cardiovascular research, Dr. Michael Mendelsohn, said results due out early next year from another large study testing vorapaxar in different types of patients will tell more about the drug's potential.

___

Online:

Heart Association: http://www.americanheart.org

New England Journal: http://www.nejm.org

___

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



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

Friday, November 11, 2011

Doctors: Test all kids for cholesterol by age 11 (AP)

CHICAGO � Every child should be tested for high cholesterol as early as age 9 � surprising new advice from a government panel that suggests screening kids in grade school for a problem more common in middle age.

The idea will come as a shock to most parents. And it's certain to stir debate.

The doctors on the expert panel that announced the new guidelines Friday concede there is little proof that testing now will prevent heart attacks decades later. But many doctors say waiting might be too late for children who have hidden risks.

Fat deposits form in the heart arteries in childhood but don't usually harden them and cause symptoms until later in life. The panel urges cholesterol screening between ages 9 and 11 � before puberty, when cholesterol temporarily dips � and again between ages 17 and 21.

The panel also suggests diabetes screening every two years starting as early as 9 for children who are overweight and have other risks for Type 2 diabetes, including family history.

The new guidelines are from an expert panel appointed by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute and endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Some facts everyone agrees on:

� By the fourth grade, 10 to 13 percent of U.S. children have high cholesterol, defined as a score of 200 or more.

� Half of children with high cholesterol will also have it as adults, raising their risk of heart disease.

� One third of U.S. children and teens are obese or overweight, which makes high cholesterol and diabetes more likely.

Until now, cholesterol testing has only been done for kids with a known family history of early heart disease or inherited high cholesterol, or with risk factors such as obesity, diabetes or high blood pressure. That approach misses about 30 percent of kids with high cholesterol.

"If we screen at age 20, it may be already too late," said one of the guideline panel members, Dr. Elaine Urbina, director of preventive cardiology at Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center. "To me, it's not controversial at all. We should have been doing this for years."

Elizabeth Duruz didn't want to take that chance. Her 10-year-old daughter, Joscelyn Benninghoff, has been on cholesterol-lowering medicines since she was 5 because high cholesterol runs in her family. They live in Cincinnati.

"We decided when she was 5 that we would get her screened early on. She tested really high" despite being active and not overweight, Duruz said. "We're doing what we need to do for her now, and that gives me hope that she'll be healthy."

Dr. Roger Blumenthal, who is preventive cardiology chief at Johns Hopkins Medical Center and had no role in the guidelines, said he thinks his 12-year-old son should be tested because he has a cousin with very high "bad" cholesterol who needed heart bypass surgery for clogged arteries in his 40s.

"I'm very supportive" of universal screening, he said. "The knowledge of their cholesterol numbers as well as their blood sugar levels can be very helpful for the physicians and their families about which patients are headed toward diabetes."

Dr. William Cooper, a pediatrics and preventive medicine professor at Vanderbilt University, said expanding the testing guidelines "would seem to me to make sense."

But he added: "One of the risks would be that we would be treating more kids, potentially, and we don't know yet the implications of what we're treating. Are we treating a number or are we treating a risk factor?"

That's the reason a different group of government advisers, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, concluded in 2007 that not enough is known about the possible benefits and risks to recommend for or against cholesterol screening for children and teens.

One of its leaders, Dr. Michael LeFevre, a family medicine specialist at the University of Missouri, said that for the task force to declare screening beneficial there must be evidence that treatment improves health, such as preventing heart attacks, rather than just nudging down a number � the cholesterol score.

"Some of the argument is that we need to treat children when they're 14 or 15 to keep them from having a heart attack when they're 50, and that's a pretty long lag time," he said.

The guidelines say that cholesterol drugs likely would be recommended for less than 1 percent of kids tested, and they shouldn't be used in children younger than 10 unless they have severe problems.

"We'll also continue to encourage parents and children to make positive lifestyle choices to prevent risk factors from occurring," steps such as diet and exercise, said Dr. Gordan Tomaselli, president of the American Heart Association. The group praised the guidelines and will host a presentation on them Sunday at its annual conference in Florida.

Cholesterol tests cost around $80 and usually are covered by health insurance. Several of the 14 doctors on the guidelines panel have received consulting fees or have had other financial ties to makers of cholesterol medicines.

Typically, cholesterol drugs are used indefinitely but they are generally safe, said Dr. Sarah Blumenschein, director of preventive cardiology at Children's Medical Center in Dallas, who had no role in the guidelines but supports them.

"You have to start early. It's much easier to change children's behavior when they're 5 or 10 or 12" than when they're older, she said.

The guidelines also say doctors should:

� Take yearly blood pressure measurements for children starting at age 3.

� Start routine anti-smoking advice when kids are ages 5 to 9, and counsel parents of infants not to smoke in the home.

� Review infants' family history of obesity and start tracking body mass index, or BMI, a measure of obesity, at age 2.

The panel also suggests using more frank terms for kids who are overweight and obese than some government agencies have used in the past. Children whose BMI is in the 85th to 95th percentile should be called overweight, not "at risk for overweight," and kids whose BMI is in the 95th percentile or higher should be called obese, not "overweight � even kids as young as age 2, the panel said.

"Some might feel that `obese' is an unacceptable term for children and parents," so doctors should "use descriptive terminology that is appropriate for each child and family," the guidelines recommend.

They were released online Friday by the journal Pediatrics.

___

Marchione reported from Milwaukee and can be followed at http://twitter.com/MMarchioneAP

___

Online:

Guidelines: http://tinyurl.com/7csojas

NHLBI panel: http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/cvd_ped/index.htm

Cholesterol info: http://tinyurl.com/23dtxvo

and http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/public/heart/index.htm(hash)chol



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

Panel: Every child should get a cholesterol test (AP)

CHICAGO � Doctors are recommending that every child be tested for high cholesterol by around age 10 to prevent heart disease later in life.

The advice is in new guidelines from an expert panel appointed by the federal government. These experts say that current testing of children with a family history of heart disease is missing too many kids, and more are at risk because of the rising obesity epidemic.

Doctors say that children should be tested before puberty because cholesterol dips during that time of hormone change and rises later.

The guidelines were released Friday by the journal Pediatrics.



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

Thursday, November 10, 2011

APNewsBreak: New advice on kids' cholesterol tests (AP)

More children should be screened for high cholesterol before puberty, beyond those with a family history of problems, according to wide-ranging new guidelines expected from government-appointed experts who are trying to prevent heart disease later in life.

The new advice will be presented Sunday at an American Heart Association conference by some members of a panel for the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute.

Any call for wider screening is likely to raise concern about overdiagnosing a condition that may not cause problems for decades, if ever. Yet studies suggest that half of children with high cholesterol will also have it as adults, and it's one of the best-known causes of clogged arteries that can lead to heart attacks.

Until now, major medical groups such as the American Academy of Pediatrics have advised screening only children with a family history of early heart disease or high cholesterol and those who are obese or have diabetes or high blood pressure.

However, a West Virginia study tested more than 20,000 fifth graders and found that many with high cholesterol would have been missed by the targeted screening approach used now, said Dr. Stephen Daniels, who led the panel that wrote the new guidelines.

Heart disease starts early in life, and "the risk factors that are important for adults are also important for children and adolescents," Daniels, pediatrics chief at the University of Colorado School of Medicine in Denver, told The Associated Press.

About a third of U.S. children and teens are obese or overweight. And government studies estimate that about 10 to 13 percent of children and teens have high cholesterol � defined as a score above 200.

Daniels and other members said they could not disclose details of the advice before Sunday's presentation. It's the first time a government panel has collectively considered all major contributors to heart disease including obesity, smoking, diabetes, high blood pressure and high blood sugar.

A key change will be more aggressive recommendations for cholesterol screening and treatment in children, including a change in "the age at which we feel we can safely use statins," said Dr. Reginald Washington, a pediatric heart specialist in Denver and member of the panel.

The pediatrics academy already advises that some children as young as 8 can safely use these cholesterol-lowering medicines, sold as Lipitor, Zocor and in generic form. They are known to prevent heart disease and deaths in adults and are approved for use in children. But there aren't big studies showing that using them in children will prevent heart attacks years or decades later.

That is why another group of government advisers, the Preventive Services Task Force, concluded in 2007 that there's not enough known about the possible benefits and harms to recommend for or against cholesterol screening for children and teens.

The pediatrics academy's call for selective screening came out a year later, and even that may not be catching enough children and teens who are at risk, said one of the leaders in establishing those guidelines, Dr. Frank Greer, a pediatrics professor at the University of Wisconsin in Madison.

"If you just use history of cardiovascular disease in the family, you will miss kids," he said. And with the dramatic rise in obesity, "they're at great risk," he said.

Getting a baseline cholesterol test on kids is a good idea, said Dr. Roger Blumenthal, preventive cardiology chief at Johns Hopkins Medical Center.

"Some people will think it will lead to treatment of adolescents and people in their 20s" who don't really need it, but drug treatment should only occur if cholesterol can't be brought down with diet and lifestyle changes, he said.

If screening is done, it should happen before puberty, when cholesterol levels dip before rising again, doctors explain. In children, the test does not need to involve fasting overnight and can be done from a standard blood sample or just a finger-prick test.

Other parts of the new guidelines: The government will toss out older terms � "at risk for being overweight" and "overweight" � and replace them with "overweight" and "obese" for kids in the 85th and 95th percentiles, Washington said. Some doctors have been reluctant to use such frank terms in children, because of the stigma.

The broader context for these guidelines is stepped-up efforts around the globe to target children and prevent problems later in life.

Last summer, the British government gave its first exercise advice for children under 5, urging some daily activity even for babies too young to walk. And the U.S. Institute of Medicine also recently gave diet and exercise advice for preschoolers.

___

AP Medical Writer Lindsey Tanner in Chicago contributed to this report.

___

Online:

Academy of Pediatrics current guidelines: http://bit.ly/eaqhzp

NHLBI panel: http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/cvd_ped/index.htm

Cholesterol info: http://tinyurl.com/23dtxvo

and http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/public/heart/index.htm(hash)chol

Other government panel advice: http://tinyurl.com/3osn99v

___

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



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

Wednesday, November 9, 2011

Study stirs debate over transplants for alcoholics (AP)

CHICAGO � Some gravely ill alcoholics who need a liver transplant shouldn't have to prove they can stay sober for six months to get one, doctors say in a study that could intensify the debate over whether those who destroy their organs by drinking deserve new ones.

In the small French study, the vast majority of the patients who got a liver without the wait stopped drinking after their surgery and were sober years later. The study involved patients who were suffering from alcohol-related hepatitis so severe that they were unlikely to survive a six-month delay.

The findings, reported in Thursday's New England Journal of Medicine, could boost demand for livers, already in scarce supply, and reopen a bitter dispute over whether alcoholics should even get transplants.

The controversy peaked in the 1990s when celebrities with drinking problems � Larry Hagman, David Crosby and Mickey Mantle � got liver transplants. More recently, British soccer star George Best received a new liver in 2002, started drinking again and died three years later.

Alcohol can cause lethal, liver-destroying diseases such as cirrhosis and hepatitis. Nearly one in five liver transplants in the U.S. go to current or former heavy drinkers. Transplant hospitals commonly require patients waiting for a new liver to give up drinking for six months as a way of assuring doctors they are serious about staying sober after the operation.

Drinkers severely ill with hepatitis account for a very small share of patients needing transplants. The French study suggests that dropping the six-month rule for these patients would increase demand for livers by only about 3 percent.

The study's lead author, Dr. Philippe Mathurin of Huriez Hospital in Lille, France, said a strict application of the six-month rule may be unfair to such patients. He said they are just as deserving as other liver patients, many of whom have diseases caused by poor lifestyle choices such as drug use or obesity.

Mathurin said he favors keeping the rule for other alcoholics with liver disease, noting that some can recover liver function simply by staying sober.

Dr. Robert S. Brown Jr., transplant director of New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia University Medical Center, agreed it is time to rethink the six-month rule. "The challenge of this paper is to come up with better ways, both to treat alcoholism as a disease and to predict who will succeed with transplantation," he said.

Mathurin acknowledged that such a change could put more patients on the waiting list for organs, and said: "It means we have to increase the number of donors."

Nearly 6,300 liver transplants were performed last year in the United States, but more than 1,400 Americans died waiting for a new liver, according to the United Network for Organ Sharing. Adding more people to the list could mean longer waits and more deaths among non-drinkers.

Preschool teacher Jane Sussman, 59, has been waiting for a liver for more than a year. Doctors aren't sure what caused her liver condition, but it wasn't alcohol and she has never been a drinker. She doesn't want the list to get longer by adding more alcoholics.

"Who knows for sure if they're not going to start drinking right way?" Sussman said from her temporary home in Pittsburgh near her transplant hospital. An organ from a deceased donor is "the most amazing gift you'll get in your life. If you don't treat it right, it's a wasted gift that could have gone to someone else, like myself."

The French study involved 26 alcoholics with severe hepatitis who were not getting better with drug treatment. They were carefully selected: Among other things, all had support from family or friends. The patients pledged to quit drinking and received transplants. They were compared with a group of similar liver disease patients who weren't offered transplants.

Not surprisingly, those who got transplants did better: 77 percent were still alive six months later, compared with 23 percent of those who didn't get new livers.

Also, far fewer fell off the wagon than expected: Only three of the transplant patients started drinking again two to three years later, a rate much lower than the estimated 30 percent relapse rate in general among alcoholic patients who meet the six-month sobriety rule.

Dr. Christopher Hughes, director of liver transplantation at University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, said he is worried the pool of potential organ donors could shrink if the public believes organs are going to active drinkers.

"I think this will be very controversial. I don't think you'll find a lot of support for adopting this," Hughes said.

___

Online:

New England Journal: http://www.nejm.org

___

AP Medical Writer Carla K. Johnson can be reached at http://www.twitter.com/CarlaKJohnson



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