Monday, October 24, 2011

Divide over when to use in-depth cholesterol tests (AP)

WASHINGTON � For heart health, you're supposed to know your numbers: Total cholesterol, the bad LDL kind and the good HDL kind. But your next checkup might add a new number to the mix.

More doctors are going beyond standard cholesterol counts, using another test to take a closer look at the bad fats � a count of particles that carry LDL through the blood.

Cardiologists are divided over the usefulness of that approach. Proponents contend it might help them spot at-risk patients that regular checks might miss, or get more information about how aggressively to treat them.

But so far, guidelines from major heart organizations don't recommend these extra tests. They're pricier than regular cholesterol exams, although Medicare and many other insurers pay for them. And it's not always clear what the results mean.

"I see a lot of people being confused," says Dr. Nieca Goldberg of New York University Langone Medical Center and the American Heart Association. Especially when they're used on lower-risk people, "you don't know how to make sense of the information."

Yet up to half of patients diagnosed with heart disease apparently had normal levels of LDL cholesterol, and some doctors say particle testing might help find some of them sooner.

"For most people, the standard lipid profile is fine," says Dr. Michael Davidson of the University of Chicago. But "I get referred people who said, `My cholesterol was fine, why do I have heart disease?' We're showing them, well, because your particle number's sky high and they were not aware that was a problem."

Davidson chaired a committee of the National Lipid Association which this month called the extra tests reasonable to assess which at-risk patients might need to start or intensify cholesterol treatment. That committee's meeting was paid for by a grant from eight pharmaceutical companies, including some makers of particle tests.

Cholesterol isn't the only factor behind heart disease. High blood pressure, smoking, obesity, diabetes or a strong family history of the disease can put someone in the high-risk category even if their cholesterol isn't a red flag. Some doctors also are testing for inflammation in arteries that may play a role, too.

On the cholesterol front, doctors have long focused on three key numbers:

_Total cholesterol should be below 200.

_An LDL or "bad" cholesterol level below 130 is good for healthy people, but someone with heart disease or diabetes should aim for under 100.

_For HDL, the "good" cholesterol that helps control the bad kind, higher numbers are better � 60 is protective while below 40 is a risk.

Where do particles come in? Scientists have long known that small, dense LDL particles sneak into the artery wall to build up and narrow blood vessels more easily than larger, fluffier particles. While overall LDL levels usually correlate with the amount of particles in blood, they don't always, just as a beach bucket of sand may weigh the same as a bucket of pebbles but contain more particles.

Only in recent years have commercial tests made particle checks more feasible � although there's no standard method, and different tests measure in different ways. The tests add another $100 to $150 to regular cholesterol checks.

But is knowing about your particles really useful, and if so when? That's where doctors are split.

A study published last spring used one particle test, from Raleigh, N.C.-based LipoScience, to analyze a database of more than 5,000 middle-aged people whose heart health was tracked for five years. Most people's overall LDL and particle counts correlated pretty well. But people had a higher risk of heart disease when their particle count was much higher than their LDL predicted � and, conversely, a lower risk if their particle count was lower than expected, says lead researcher Dr. David Goff Jr. of Wake Forest University.

"We could be treating some people who don't need to be treated ... and we may be missing some people who should be treated," Goff says. "But I'd also say that we haven't done all the research that needs to be done to prove that this will lead to better patient outcomes."

Many of those higher-risk patients could be caught by a closer look at standard tests "for no additional charge," says Dr. Roger Blumenthal of Johns Hopkins University and the American College of Cardiology.

Triglycerides, another harmful fat, are a good indicator, Blumenthal says. You're at risk despite a low LDL if your triglycerides are over 130, not to mention a low HDL, he said. People who are obese, diabetic of borderline diabetic also are at greater risk, because they often have higher LDL particle counts.

Another way to measure without an added test: Just subtract HDL from your total cholesterol number. The resulting bad-fat total should be no higher than 30 points above your recommended LDL level � and if they are, it's time for serious diet and exercise, adds Dr. Allen Taylor of Washington Hospital Center.

Still, even some doctors who don't think particle testing is for the masses say they use it sometimes to tip the scales on a borderline patient.

Others use it to guide therapy. Consider Denny Fongheiser of Santa Monica, Calif. At 52, his usual 3-mile-a-day walk suddenly left him panting, but his insurer wouldn't pay for a stress test because his cholesterol was normal.

A month later, chest pain sent Fongheiser to the hospital where he needed a stent to unclog an artery. It turned out he had high particle levels, which his cardiologist now aims to get below the LipoScience-recommended level of 1,000 with cholesterol-lowering drugs.

"I was basically a time bomb," Fongheiser says. He welcomes "being able to test this and know what's going on."



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

Demise of Obama long-term care plan leaves gap (AP)

WASHINGTON � It's the one major health expense for which nearly all Americans are uninsured. The dilemma of paying for long-term care is likely to worsen now that the Obama administration pulled the plug on a program seen as a first step.

The Community Living Assistance Services and Supports program, or CLASS, was included in the health overhaul law to provide basic long-term care insurance at an affordable cost. But financial problems dogged it from the outset.

Those concerns prompted the administration to announce that CLASS would not go forward. Yet it could take a decade or longer for lawmakers to tackle the issue again, and by then the retirement of the Baby Boomers will be in full swing.

Most families don't plan for long-term care. Often the need comes unexpectedly: an elder takes a bad fall, a teen is calamitously injured in a car crash or a middle-aged worker suffers a debilitating stroke.

Nursing home charges can run more than $200 a day and a home health aide averages $450 a week, usually part-time. Yet Medicare doesn't cover long-term care, and only about 3 percent of adults have a private policy.

"Long-term care is a critical issue, and people are in total denial about it," said Bill Novelli, former CEO of AARP. "I am very sorry the administration did what they finally did, although I understand it. It is going to take a long time to get this back � and fixed."

The irony, experts say, is that paying for long-term care is the kind of problem insurance should be able to solve. It has to do with the mathematics of risk.

Most drivers will have some kind of accident during their years behind the wheel, but few will be involved in a catastrophic wreck. And some very careful drivers will not experience any accidents. The risks of long-term care are not all that different, says economist Harriet Komisar of the Georgetown University Public Policy Institute.

"A small percentage of people are going to need a year, two years, five years or more in a nursing home, but for those who do, it's huge," Komisar said. "Insurance makes sense when the odds are small but the financial risk is potentially high and unaffordable."

Komisar and her colleagues estimate that nearly 7 in 10 people will need some level of long-term care after turning 65. That's defined as help with personal tasks such as getting dressed, going to the toilet, eating, or taking a bath.

Many of those who need help will get it from a family member. Only 5 percent will need five years or more in a nursing home. And 3 in 10 will not need any long-term care assistance at all.

For those who do need extended nursing home care, Medicaid has become the default provider, since Medicare only covers short-term stays for rehab. But Medicaid is for low-income people, so the disabled literally have to impoverish themselves to qualify, a wrenching experience for families.

Liberals say the answer is government-sponsored insurance, like the CLASS plan the Obama administration included in the health overhaul law, only to find it wouldn't work financially.

The administration was unable to reconcile twin goals of CLASS: financial solvency and affordable coverage easily accessible to all working adults, regardless of health.

Conservatives have called for private coverage, perhaps with tax credits to make it more affordable.

Some experts say it will take a combination of both approaches.

"It almost has to be," said Robert Yee, a financial actuary hired by the Obama administration to try to make CLASS work.

Lower-income workers probably would never be able to afford private insurance, Yee explained. And a lavish public plan is out of the question.

"Anytime people talk about a social program, you are talking about a basic layer," he said.

Indeed, Yee had proposed to keep CLASS afloat by using some of the techniques of private insurers to attract the healthy and discourage the frail. The administration rejected that hybrid approach as incompatible with the law's intent to cover all regardless of health.

"Despite our best analytical efforts, I do not see a viable path forward for CLASS implementation at this time," Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told congressional leaders.

Although CLASS would have come too late to help his disabled mother, Jacob Bockser of Walnut Creek, Calif., says he is disappointed.

Bockser, 29, is a former emergency medical technician studying to become a respiratory therapist. His mother Elizabeth, 58, is struggling with an aggressive form of multiple sclerosis.

She had moved to lower-cost Washington state to save money, but as her condition worsens her son is trying to find a way to bring her back to California. She can still live in her own home, with help to keep safe.

"She did a lot of good saving. But because she did good, it disqualifies her from some kinds of public assistance," said the son. "When you are only 58 and looking at hopefully living another 20 or 25 years, it's scary to think the money just won't last."

Bockser says he doesn't expect the government to solve everything, but "even if there is the opportunity to try to piece together a couple of different programs that would be a start."



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

Sunday, October 23, 2011

BPA in pregnant women might affect kids' behavior (AP)

CHICAGO � Exposure to BPA before birth could affect girls' behavior at age 3, according to the latest study on potential health effects of the widespread chemical.

Preschool-aged girls whose mothers had relatively high urine levels of bisphenol-A during pregnancy scored worse but still within a normal range on behavior measures including anxiety and hyperactivity than other young girls.

The results are not conclusive and experts not involved in the study said factors other than BPA might explain the results. The researchers acknowledge that "considerable debate" remains about whether BPA is harmful, but say their findings should prompt additional research.

The researchers measured BPA in 244 Cincinnati-area mothers' urine twice during pregnancy and at childbirth. The women evaluated their children at age 3 using standard behavior questionnaires.

Nearly all women had measurable BPA levels, like most Americans. But increasingly high urine levels during pregnancy were linked with increasingly worse behavior in their daughters. Boys' behavior did not seem to be affected.

The researchers said if BPA can cause behavior changes that could pose academic and social problems for girls already at risk for those difficulties.

"These subtle shifts can actually have very dramatic implications at the population level," said Joe Braun, the lead author and a research fellow at Harvard's School of Public Health.

For every 10-fold increase in mothers' BPA levels, girls scored at least six points worse on the questionnaires.

The study was released online Monday in Pediatrics.

Linda Birnbaum, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Toxicology Program, said the study contributes important new evidence to "a growing database which suggests that BPA exposure can be associated with effects on human health."

Grants from that federal agency helped pay for the study.

The Food and Drug Administration has said that low-level BPA exposure appears to be safe. But the agency also says that because of recent scientific evidence, it has some concern about potential effects of BPA on the brain and behavior in fetuses, infants and small children. The FDA is continuing to study BPA exposure and supports efforts to minimize use in food containers.

BPA has many uses, and is found in some plastic bottles and coatings in metal food cans. It was widely used in plastic baby bottles and sippy cups but industry phased out that use.

Braun said it's possible that exposure to BPA during pregnancy interferes with fetal brain development, a theory suggested in other studies, and that could explain the behavior differences in his study. Why boys' behavior wasn't affected isn't clear. But BPA is thought to mimic the effects of estrogen, a female hormone.

The researchers evaluated other possible influences on children's behavior, including family income, education level and whether mothers were married, and still found an apparent link to BPA.

But Dr. Charles McKay, a BPA researcher and toxicologist with the Connecticut Poison Control Center, said the researchers failed to adequately measure factors other than BPA that could explain the results.

For example, there's no information on mothers' eating habits. That matters because mothers' higher BPA levels could have come from eating lots of canned foods instead of healthier less processed foods, which might have affected fetal brain development.

The American Chemistry Council, a trade group whose members include companies that use BPA, said the research "has significant shortcomings ... and the conclusions are of unknown relevance to public health."

___

Online:

FDA: http://tinyurl.com/ya4d4ku

Info for parents: http://www.hhs.gov/safety/bpa/

___

AP Medical Writer Lindsey Tanner can be reached at http://www.twitter.com/LindseyTanner



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

Russia parliament adopts law restricting abortions (AP)

MOSCOW � Russia's parliament adopted a law Friday limiting abortions but rejected even tougher restrictions backed by the country's conservative Orthodox Church.

Health officials say Russia's abortion rates are among the world's highest, contributing to a fertility rate of only 1.4 children per woman � far below the 2.1 needed to maintain the existing population. The country's birth rate has become a serious concern for Russia as it fights to stem a steep population decline.

The Health Ministry says more than a million pregnancies are terminated in Russia annually, although abortion critics say the statistics don't include private clinics and the real number amounts to six million a year.

The law passed Friday limits abortions to 12 weeks of pregnancy, except for women who say they can't afford a child, who may have an abortion up to 22 weeks. The law also stipulates a mandatory waiting period of two to seven days before the procedure to allow a woman to reconsider her decision.

The law does not include restrictions proposed by the Russian Orthodox Church, such as a requiring a husband's consent for married women, parents' consent for teenage girls or for a doctor's right to refuse an abortion.

During the Soviet era, abortion laws were liberal and unrestricted abortions became virtually the only effective method of family planning, as condoms were unreliable and seldom used.

The abortion debate in Russia has not become as divisive and heated as the abortion debate in the United States, but the effort to restrict them has strong backing from the Russian Orthodox Church, which has sought a more muscular role in society.

Russia's population, now at 143 million, has shrunk by 5.7 million since the 1991 fall of the Soviet Union, a plunge blamed on rampant alcoholism, bad diets and lack of exercise.



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

Friday, October 21, 2011

Largest study on cellphones, cancer finds no link (AP)

LONDON � Danish researchers can offer some reassurance if you're concerned about your cellphone: Don't worry. Your device is probably safe.

The biggest study ever to examine the possible connection between cellphones and cancer found no evidence of any link, suggesting that billions of people who are rarely more than a few inches from their phones have no special health concerns.

The Danish study of more than 350,000 people concluded there was no difference in cancer rates between people who had used a cellphone for about a decade and those who did not.

Last year, a separate large study found no clear connection between cellphones and cancer. But it showed a hint of a possible association between very heavy phone use and glioma, a rare but often deadly form of brain tumor. However, the numbers of heavy users was not sufficient to make the case.

That study of more than 14,000 people in multiple countries, in addition to animal experiments, led the International Agency for Research on Cancer to classify electromagnetic energy from cellphones as "possibly carcinogenic," adding it to a list that also includes things such as coffee and gasoline engine exhaust.

But that designation does not mean the phones necessarily pose a risk. Cellphones do not emit the same kind of radiation as that used in some medical tests or found in other sources such as radon in soil.

Two U.S. agencies � the Food and Drug Administration and the Federal Communications Commission � have found no evidence that cellphones are linked to cancer.

Yet fears of a link persist, despite the fact that cancer rates have not risen since cellphones were introduced.

In the latest research, published online Thursday in the journal BMJ, researchers updated a previous study examining 358,403 cellphone users aged 30 and over in Denmark from 1990 to 2007. They found cellphone users did not have a higher cancer risk compared with those without cellphones.

Cancer rates in people who used cellphones for about 10 years were similar to rates in people without a cellphone. Cellphone users were also no more likely to get a tumor in the part of the brain closest to where phones are usually held against the head. The study was paid for by the government's Danish Strategic Research Council.

"Our study provides little evidence for a causal association, but we cannot rule out a small to moderate increase in risk for subgroups of heavy users," said Patrizia Frei, of the Institute of Cancer Epidemiology in Copenhagen, Denmark, one of the paper's authors.

"This is encouraging news, but it doesn't mean we're at the end of the road," said Hazel Nunn, head of Health Evidence and Information at Cancer Research U.K., which was not linked to the study.

About three-quarters of the world's population, more than 5 billion people, use a cellphone. That makes it difficult for scientists to compare cancer incidence in people who use the devices versus those who do not.

Others disputed the Danish study's findings. The advocacy group MobileWise, which believes cellphones pose a health risk, said the study wasn't long enough to consider the long-term risk, since brain tumors can take decades to develop.

In an accompanying editorial in BMJ, Anders Ahlbom and Maria Feychting of Sweden's Karolinska Institute wrote that one of the study's strengths was its use of objective data from cellphone records. Previous studies have been criticized for relying on people to recall their cellphone habits from decades earlier.

In about 30 other studies done in Europe, New Zealand and the U.S., patients with brain tumors have not reported using their cellphones more often than unaffected people.

The editorial writers pointed out that research on cellphones and cancer was not sparked by any evidence of a connection, but from concerns that something about the relationship between radio frequency fields and human physiology had been "overlooked or misunderstood." Research into the safety of cellphones is now "extensive," they wrote.

Nunn said studies with longer-term data were still needed and that there was little information on children's exposure to cellphones.

There was no biological evidence for how cellphones might cause cancer, unlike, for example, the proof that tobacco is carcinogenic, she added.

Cellphones send signals to nearby towers via radio waves, a form of energy similar to microwaves. But the radiation produced by cellphones cannot directly damage DNA and is different from stronger types of radiation like X-rays or ultraviolet light. At very high levels, radio frequency waves from cellphones can heat up body tissue, but that is not believed to damage human cells.

Nunn said people should not change their cellphone habits based on the current evidence, except perhaps for limiting their kids' use of the devices.

"There are a lot more worrying things in the world than mobile phones," she said.

___

Online:

Journal: http://www.bmj.com

IARC: http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208(underscore)e.pdf

FDA advice: http://tinyurl.com/29e8qzr



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

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