barre

Kitchen Utensils Can Spread Bacteria, Study Finds

THURSDAY, Nov. 12, 2015 (HealthDay News) — Kitchen utensils such as knives and graters can spread bacteria between different types of produce, a new study finds.

University of Georgia researchers contaminated different types of fruits and vegetables with bacteria such as salmonella and E. coli. They cut the produce with a knife or shredded it with a grater, then used the unwashed utensils on other produce.

Both utensils spread the bacteria to other types of produce, the study found.

The researchers also found that certain types of produce contaminated knives to different degrees.

“For items like tomatoes, we tended to have a higher contamination of the knives than when we cut strawberries,” said lead author Marilyn Erickson, an associate professor in the department of food science and technology.

“We don’t have a specific answer as to why there are differences between the different produce groups. But we do know that once a pathogen gets on the food, it’s difficult to remove,” she said in a university news release.

Further testing revealed that brushes and peelers also transfer bacteria between produce.

Many people don’t know that kitchen utensils can spread bacteria, Erickson said.

“Just knowing that utensils may lead to cross-contamination is important,” she said. “With that knowledge, consumers are then more likely to make sure they wash them in between uses.”

The study results were published recently in the journal Food Microbiology.

More information

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has more about food safety.





from Health News / Tips & Trends / Celebrity Health http://ift.tt/1PqQSjr

Arm Artery Access Safer for Angioplasty, Review Finds

By Maureen Salamon
HealthDay Reporter

FRIDAY, Nov. 12, 2015 (HealthDay News) — For patients experiencing heart attacks or severe chest pain, it is safer to access blocked vessels through an arm artery rather than a groin artery, a new analysis finds.

After reviewing four international trials involving more than 17,000 patients, the Italian researchers found that 27 percent fewer patients died when their vessel-opening angioplasties were performed via the arm artery.

And more than 40 percent fewer major bleeding events were recorded in this group when compared to the groin artery group, according to the meta-analysis, published Nov. 10 in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

“I was not surprised, as several previous trials and pooled analyses had already suggested that radial [arm] access reduces access site-related major bleeding and that this occurrence may ultimately reduce mortality,” said study author Dr. Giuseppe Ando, an assistant professor of cardiovascular medicine at the University of Messina.

“These pooled data, given such a clinically relevant mortality benefit, may represent the best incentive for centers to support the transition towards radial [arm] access,” he added.

Widely embraced in Europe, Canada and Asia, the arm artery approach has been used for more than two decades to diagnose and treat heart disease, including angioplasty procedures to open blocked blood vessels. About 16 percent of heart catheterization procedures in the United States use the arm artery instead of the groin artery, according to 2012 statistics.

About 500,000 Americans undergo angioplasty each year, while 450,000 have tube-like stents inserted to keep narrowed vessels open, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Ando and his team compared clinical outcomes with arm access versus groin access in thousands of patients with acute coronary syndrome, an emergency situation that includes heart attacks and unstable angina (chest pain).

In addition to the benefits in reducing death and bleeding risks, the review showed a 14 percent reduced risk of major complications in arm artery patients compared to the groin artery group. But because arm artery procedures use a smaller vessel, they lasted slightly longer than groin artery procedures and came with higher risks for “access-site crossover,” meaning the procedure needed to be finished through another access point.

Ando agreed with Dr. Michael Savage, director of the angioplasty center at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital in Philadelphia, that arm artery access is more technically challenging than accessing the heart through the larger groin artery.

“There are a number of reasons why doctors in the United States are slower to adopt it,” said Savage, who authored an editorial accompanying the new review. “Even in the meta-analysis, the need to use an alternative access site is about fourfold higher in the [arm] artery group than the [groin artery] group, even in centers that are fairly proficient in [arm] access. So, there are some tradeoffs.”

But the arm artery’s location close to the skin in the wrist and its ready “compressibility” make it easier to reduce any procedure-related bleeding there than at the groin artery, Savage noted in his editorial.

He urged doctors in the United States to further embrace the use of arm access, and emphasized their need to be proficient using both sites.

“People tend to be fanatical about these things, and to imply that all procedures should be from the arm and not the leg is not correct,” Savage said. “Our feeling is that having [physicians] comfortable with both is the best option because that way you can individualize the procedure.”

More information

The U.S. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute offers more on the heart vessel-opening procedure.





from Health News / Tips & Trends / Celebrity Health http://ift.tt/1Y7Txjv

Pamela Anderson Cured of Hepatitis C: What You Should Know About the Virus

Photo: Getty Images

Photo: Getty Images

Pamela Anderson has announced she’s been cured of hepatitis C after living with the virus for 16 years.

The actress and model, 48, took to Instagram to share her good news. “I am CURED!!! – I just found out #nomorehepc,” she wrote in the caption. “I pray anyone living with hep C can qualify or afford treatment. It will be more available soon. I know treatment is hard to get still…#dontlosehope.”

RELATED: 6 Medical Breakthroughs That Matter

Hepatitis C can be a debilitating and even fatal condition, but it can also be asymptomatic for years before it causes problems. That’s why it can go entirely unnoticed for years. In fact, of the estimated 2.7 million people in the United States who have hep C, three in four don’t know they’re infected, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Many, many more people have never even heard of it. Below, we outline the need-to-know facts on the condition.

What exactly is Hepatitis C?

Hepatitis C is a blood-borne virus that causes inflammation of the liver. In some cases, people exposed to it (more later on how that happens) can fight it off on their own. But about 75% of people exposed go on to develop chronic infection, with many ultimately developing complications like chronic liver disease, liver failure, and liver cancer. Hepatitis C is the leading cause of liver transplants in the U.S.

How does Hepatitis C spread?

Like other blood-borne viruses, hepatitis C is spread through contact with infected blood. Anderson first went public with her diagnosis back in 2002, telling People in a statement at the time that she contracted it after sharing a tattoo needle with her then-husband Tommy Lee.

Sharing needles related to injection drug use is currently the most common way people contract it, per the CDC, but many people are also exposed at birth if their mother is infected or via accidental needle-sticks in hospitals or other healthcare settings.

Infection rates were highest in the 1970s and 1980s due to blood transfusions; there was no available hepatitis c blood screening test until 1992. The result: baby boomers, or people born between 1945 and 1975, are five times more likely to be infected. Blood banks now can screen for the virus, making the transmission risk from a transfusion extremely small.

Hepatitis C can also be transmitted through sexual activity if one partner is infected, though it’s much less common.

RELATED: 8 Things You Didn’t Know About Hepatitis

What makes hepatitis C so serious?

Unlike hepatitis B, another serious virus that affects the liver, there is no vaccination to prevent hepatitis C. It’s also the most common blood-borne virus in the U.S., according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and it kills roughly 15,000 Americans every year.

Referred to as a silent epidemic, it’s also usually symptomless, and many people who have hepatitis C may even live for years without feeling sick—or may never feel effects at all, if they catch it before it advances. (The Baywatch star didn’t experience symptoms: “I don’t have any liver damage and I don’t have any side effects,” she told People in a previous interview.)

If an infected person does have symptoms, they can include fever, vomiting, abdominal pain, joint pain, dark urine, or jaundice (a yellowing of the skin and eyes).

Then how do you know if you have it?

The only way to know for sure is to get tested. Doctors use a blood test to scan for specific chemicals that the virus releases into the bloodstream. (Follow-up tests by your doctor would be the next step.)

The CDC made a big push in 2013 to educate baby boomers about the virus, and  encourage them to get tested. If you’re never been tested, especially if you have risk factors like previous intravenous drug use, it can’t hurt to talk to your doctor about it.

What’s the connection between Hep C and HIV?

Both hepatitis C and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) are blood-borne viruses that can be transmitted through injection drug use. Because of this, a high proportion of adults at risk of HIV may be at risk of infection for both diseases. According to the CDC, about a quarter of all HIV-positive people in the U.S. are “co-infected” with hepatitis C.

The hep C infection also tends to progress more quickly into liver damage in HIV-positive individuals.

RELATED: 20 New Things You Need to Know About HIV

Can it really be cured?

Yes, it’s now possible, but there are barriers. The FDA approved a pill that can cure hep C in December 2013, which has been considered a major medical breakthrough in recent years. Known as Sovaldi (sofosbuvir), the pill can cure up to an estimated 80 to 90% of Hep C patients in a matter of eight to 24 weeks when it’s used in combination with another newer drug, Olysio (simeprevir), which was approved a month before Sovaldi.

However, the pill cocktail comes at an extremely high price, which has sparked a lot of controversy. For a full course of treatment of just one of the pills alone, it costs more than $80,000.

Anderson didn’t disclose the exact drug treatment that she took to clear the virus, but she did raise an important point about how few people have access to the new treatments.

Will the drugs become more accessible in the future, as Anderson suggests? The answer is unclear, although drug companies and insurance providers appear to be working tirelessly to lower prices.

The New York Times explained in a September op-ed that government-run programs, like Medicaid, have placed certain restrictions on the drugs in an effort to control costs. For instance, some restrictions require that patients already have advanced liver disease before they can get the medication, or that the treatments can only be prescribed by specialists, like infectious disease experts.

This past June, the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS Nancy Mahon penned a letter to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services requesting to do away with restrictions that are denying people earlier treatment.

Prescription-assistance programs do exist; experts generally recommend that patients speak to their doctors about financial support and medication co-pay options.

RELATED: Illnesses, Deaths Spur FDA Warning on Hepatitis C Drugs




from Health News / Tips & Trends / Celebrity Health http://ift.tt/1MEPsQ7

Kidney Woes Tied to Raised Cancer Risk, Study Finds

THURSDAY, Nov. 12, 2015 (HealthDay News) — Kidney failure and having a kidney transplant may increase the risk for certain types of cancer, a new study suggests.

Poor kidney function and immune system-suppressing drugs may be behind this increased risk, according to Elizabeth Yanik, of the U.S. National Cancer Institute, and colleagues.

For the study, published in the Nov. 12 online edition of the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, the researchers looked at data from more than 200,000 U.S. kidney transplant candidates and recipients.

Along with finding that these patients are at increased risk for certain types of cancer, the investigators also identified clear patterns of risk associated with different types of treatment. However, the associations seen in the study do not prove cause-and-effect.

The risk of kidney and thyroid cancers was especially high when kidney failure patients were on dialysis. The risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, lung cancer, melanoma and certain other types of skin cancers was highest after kidney transplantation. The increased risk after a transplant is probably a result of the drugs that suppress the immune system that patients have to take to prevent rejection of the new kidney, the study authors suggested.

“Our study indicates that the needs of individuals with end-stage renal disease, in terms of cancer prevention and cancer screening, will likely differ over time,” Yanik said in a news release from the American Society of Nephrology.

“Vigilance for kidney cancer and thyroid cancer may be of particular importance while these individuals are on dialysis. Extra consideration for screening for melanoma or lung cancer may be called for while taking immunosuppressant medications following a kidney transplant,” she concluded.

The findings show the need to closely monitor these patients for cancer, Yanik’s team said.

More information

The Urology Care Foundation has more about kidney failure.





from Health News / Tips & Trends / Celebrity Health http://ift.tt/1HEwfgY

Physical Fitness Linked to Mental Fitness in Seniors

THURSDAY, Nov. 12, 2015 (HealthDay News) — Connections between different parts of the brain weaken with age, but new research suggests that being physically fit can boost long-term brain function.

A study from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign found that age-related differences in the brains of older adults varied, depending on their level of aerobic endurance.

The researchers found greater fitness is associated with stronger brain connections later in life. However, the study did not prove a cause-and-effect relationship between the two.

“Our study provides the strongest evidence to date that fitness in an older adult population can have substantial benefits to brain health in terms of the functional connections of different regions of the brain,” Arthur Kramer, director of the Beckman Institute, said in a university news release.

The study involved both younger and older adults. Using functional MRI brain scans, the researchers assessed the strength of the connections in different parts of the participants’ brains while they were awake but not performing any particular task.

Unsurprisingly, the younger adults had stronger brain connections than the older participants. But among the older people, the investigators found a relationship between their level of fitness and the strength of the connections between certain areas of their brains.

The findings were published online recently in the journal NeuroImage.

“An encouraging pattern in the data from our study and others is that the benefits of fitness seem to occur within the low-to-moderate range of endurance, suggesting that the benefits of fitness for the brain may not depend on being extremely fit,” study leader Michelle Voss, who was a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Illinois at the time of the study, said in the news release.

“The idea that fitness could be related to brain health regardless of one’s physical activity levels is intriguing because it suggests there could be clues in how the body adapts for some people more than others from regular activity,” Voss said. “This will help our understanding of how fitness protects against age-related cognitive [mental] decline and dementia.”

More information

The U.S. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke has more about the human brain.





from Health News / Tips & Trends / Celebrity Health http://ift.tt/1MqA1Ye

Military Deployment Tied to Greater Odds of Child Abuse, Neglect

By Tara Haelle
HealthDay Reporter

THURSDAY, Nov. 12, 2015 (HealthDay News) — Young children of U.S. Army soldiers may have a higher risk of abuse or neglect during and just after a parent is deployed abroad, a new study finds.

“The findings are not that surprising because a family experiences enormous stress when a soldier goes off on a deployment,” said Dr. Bob Sege, a pediatrician specializing in child abuse and vice president of Health Resources in Action, in Boston.

“The men and women who go off to fight for us are doing very admirable work, and it’s not a surprise that it’s stressful for their families,” Sege said.

Other kinds of stress, such as extreme poverty, partner abuse and postpartum depression, are already known to increase the risk of child abuse, said Sege, who wasn’t involved in this research.

“This study confirms the family stress theory of what causes child maltreatment,” Sege said. “That’s important because I think many people feel that people who maltreat their children are morally deficient. But, those of us in the field know that often, they’re just really stressed out beyond their capacity to deal with their situation.”

It’s important to note that the study’s design only shows a link between deployment and child abuse, it cannot prove a cause-and-effect relationship.

Findings from the study were published online Nov. 12 in the American Journal of Public Health.

More than 2.1 million American men and women have been deployed to international conflicts since late 2001. And, nearly half are parents, according to background information in the study.

Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia researchers looked at rates of confirmed maltreatment among children of more than 112,000 deployed U.S. Army soldiers. The investigators looked at the period between 2001 and 2007. They searched for evidence of neglect, physical abuse, general abuse, sexual abuse and abusive head trauma, including shaken baby syndrome.

The study focused on children under age 2 because they are at the highest risk for abuse or neglect, the authors said.

The rates of maltreatment hovered around 0.5 percent among children of soldiers who had been deployed once or twice. However, the rates were higher during and just after deployment compared to the six months before deployment.

In families of soldiers deployed once, nearly four episodes of abuse or neglect occurred per 10,000 children per month during deployment. That compared to three episodes in the six months before deployment. And, in the six months after deployment, the rate was almost 4.5 episodes per 10,000 children, the study found.

In families of soldiers deployed twice, the highest rate of abuse and neglect occurred during the second deployment, at a rate of nearly five episodes per 10,000 children per month, the research revealed.

The non-soldier caregiver perpetrated the child abuse 88 percent of the time during deployment. But, after deployment, the soldier was the perpetrator just over half the time (55 percent), the research revealed.

“The implication is that repeated experiences of relocation, separation, isolation and lengthy periods of absences by caregivers intensifies stress reactions and increases the incidence of child maltreatment,” said Mayra Mendez, program coordinator for intellectual and developmental disabilities and mental health services at Providence Saint John’s Child and Family Development Center in Santa Monica, Calif.

Sege recommended that families seek support.

“The social connection with other people in similar circumstances can be incredibly protective against child maltreatment,” Sege said. “Now the military can look at the whole family when a soldier is deployed and has the opportunity to keep a watch out for families that are in need. It offers the military a real chance to help.”

The study authors said the Army currently offers a variety of programs to the families of deployed soldiers, including parenting classes, child care services, and classes to help soldiers readjust to home life.

Study senior author Dr. David Rubin, a pediatrician and child abuse expert at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said the “value of our study was to help identify the highest risk periods for young families in the Army so that the Family Advocacy Program and other support initiatives could be best targeted when families were most stressed.”

He noted that the Army had “already known that the period of deployment was a high-risk period as parents were separated from their families; our study reveals as well that when a soldier returns home, this period may be equal if not more stressful for some families.”

Yet the study may not offer enough information for the Army to determine specifically what more to do, suggested Dr. Christopher Greeley, chief of the section of public health pediatrics at Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston.

The study doesn’t separate the specific kinds of maltreatment, and 80 percent of maltreatment is neglect, Greeley said. For example, a previous study looked at the rates of abusive head trauma in more than a half-million children of service members from all military branches and didn’t find a higher rate in military families, whether a parent had been deployed or not, he said.

“This [neglect] could potentially be a very different mechanism than physical abuse,” Greeley said.

“Thus, the strategies for intervention or prevention would also be very different,” he added.

More information

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has more about preventing child abuse and neglect.





from Health News / Tips & Trends / Celebrity Health http://ift.tt/1MqA1Y9

California Vaccine Refusers Cluster in Rich, White Areas

By Amy Norton
HealthDay Reporter

THURSDAY, Nov. 12, 2015 (HealthDay News) — California’s anti-vaccine sentiment tends to concentrate in wealthier, largely white areas of the state — a pattern that has left certain communities with childhood vaccination rates as low as 50 percent, a new study finds.

The study, published online Nov. 12 in the American Journal of Public Health, is the latest to delve into the issue of personal belief exemptions for vaccines.

Right now, 20 U.S. states permit the exemptions, which allow parents to opt out of routine childhood vaccinations based on philosophical objections.

California is technically still one of those states, but a law passed earlier this year will end personal belief exemptions in that state in July 2016, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL).

The new law came largely in response to this year’s measles outbreak, which sickened 189 people in 24 U.S. states and Washington, D.C., according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The main outbreak was traced to California’s Disneyland. The CDC believes it started with a foreign traveler who contracted measles in another country before visiting the amusement park — where he or she encountered other unvaccinated people.

Health officials put part of the blame on personal belief exemptions, which have left some children unprotected against measles and other infections. In California, over 3 percent of school-age children had a personal belief exemption for the 2013-2014 school year, according to the state health department, the researchers noted.

That was double the number from just six years earlier, the study found.

“Many commentators have said that white, higher-income, more-educated parents are the primary drivers of that trend,” said lead researcher Tony Yang, an associate professor in the department of health administration and policy at George Mason University, in Fairfax, Va.

His team found that the profile is at least partially true: California communities with larger white populations and higher median incomes tended to have higher rates of personal belief exemptions.

In 2013, children in private schools had nearly double the number of personal belief exemptions as kids in public schools — around 5.5 percent, versus less than 3 percent.

But a community’s typical education level did not, by itself, show an influence.

It’s not clear why that would be, Yang said, since people with high incomes are often well-educated. It could be a phenomenon particular to California, he noted.

Still, Yang said, it’s likely that the general pattern in California holds true in other states, too — with white, higher-earning parents accounting for the lion’s share of personal belief exemptions.

Depending on the state’s laws, parents may have to go through a significant amount of red tape to get an exemption. “People with more resources are better able to jump the hurdles than low-income people are,” Yang said.

Dr. Paul Offit, a vaccine expert who was not involved in the study, offered another explanation for why more-advantaged parents are more likely to opt out of vaccinations.

“I think it’s often about hubris,” said Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “Some people who’ve ‘mastered’ something — like the job field they’re in — think they can ‘master’ anything. They go online, do some research, and think they now know more about vaccines than the doctor does.”

What do parents find online? Sometimes it’s misinformation about vaccine safety. Vaccine fears were first set off in 1998, when a small study linked the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine to autism.

That research was later found to be fraudulent, but the idea that vaccines carry more risks than benefits persists, Offit said.

According to Yang, education efforts aimed at curbing personal belief exemptions should probably focus on white, more affluent communities.

But Offit doubted whether “education” can change those parents’ minds. “I think the people who exempt their children from receiving any vaccines are a really hard-core group,” he said. “They know that vaccines stand on a mountain of scientific evidence, and they’ve chosen to discount that.

“I think the other states with personal belief exemptions should do what California did,” Offit said.

Under the new California law, parents will still be able to opt out of vaccinations for philosophical (including religious) reasons — but their kids will not be allowed into day care or school.

Vermont recently passed a similar law, though religious exemptions remain an option, according to the NCSL.

“I think that in California, you’ll either see more kids being vaccinated, or more kids being home-schooled,” Offit said. “In Vermont, it’ll either be more vaccinations, more home schooling, or more families suddenly becoming religious.”

More information

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has more information on childhood vaccines.





from Health News / Tips & Trends / Celebrity Health http://ift.tt/1MZUFnK

Sharp Increase in U.S. Babies Born With Syphilis: CDC

By Steven Reinberg
HealthDay Reporter

THURSDAY, Nov. 12, 2015 (HealthDay News) — As syphilis cases increase among U.S. women, doctors are seeing more babies born with the serious infection, health officials report.

Congenital syphilis cases, which are transmitted from an infected mother to her unborn child, increased 38 percent between 2012 and 2014, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Last year, 458 newborns were diagnosed with the infection.

“Congenital syphilis is a needless tragedy, and we need to be doing a better job of protecting newborn babies from this dangerous infection,” said lead researcher, CDC epidemiologist Virginia Bowen.

“These cases are entirely preventable, so 458 cases is 458 cases too many,” she added.

This spike represents a rapid turnaround from just a few years ago. Rates of the sexually transmitted infection dropped between 2008 and 2012, and reports of syphilis-infected infants decreased from 10.5 cases per 100,000 live births to 8.4 cases per 100,000 live births, Bowen said.

“The declines in syphilis gave us confidence that we had been doing a good job,” said Bowen.

But syphilis cases in women jumped 22 percent between 2012 and 2014, likely foreshadowing the jump in infant infections, Bowen said.

“We think this increase in congenital syphilis is mirroring the trends we are seeing in syphilis among women,” she said. Bowen added that syphilis rates are rising among men and women, including those who are gay and bisexual, but the reason why isn’t clear.

The report was published Nov. 13 in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

A child born with syphilis can have major health problems, including brain damage, or die. Last year, congenital syphilis caused 25 stillbirths and eight deaths within 30 days of delivery, the researchers said.

These women should have had prenatal care that included testing for syphilis in the first trimester, Bowen said.

But of the 458 syphilis-infected babies born in 2014, she said 22 percent of the mothers had no prenatal care. Among women who had at least one prenatal visit, 43 percent were not treated for syphilis, although nearly half were diagnosed with the disease. In addition, 15 percent were never tested for syphilis during their pregnancy, according to the report.

“The fact that these women slipped through the cracks and their babies were born with syphilis tells us that something went wrong,” Bowen said.

Had the mothers been treated with penicillin, many infants would have been cured. “If mom is treated at least 30 days before delivery, there’s a 98 percent cure rate,” Bowen said.

Bowen said that local and state health departments, along with doctors, can help get women the needed testing and treatment.

It’s important that syphilis cases be reported and investigated, to make sure women and their partners are diagnosed and treated, she said. And doctors need to test women for syphilis, especially those at high risk, Bowen noted.

Women at increased risk include illicit drug users, ex-convicts and professional sex workers and those living in areas with high rates of syphilis, Bowen said.

One expert offered a theory on why there might have been a spike in cases.

The previous decline in syphilis rates may have made doctors complacent about testing for it, said Dr. Jill Rabin, co-chief of ambulatory care in Women’s Health Programs-PCAP Services at North Shore-LIJ Health System in New Hyde Park, N.Y.

“We can’t stop screening,” she said. “We have to remember that unless a couple is monogamous, it is important to screen for sexually transmitted diseases, including syphilis, especially if they are of reproductive age,” Rabin said.

“We have to test so we can treat,” she added.

More information

For more on syphilis, visit the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.





from Health News / Tips & Trends / Celebrity Health http://ift.tt/1MEcw1n

U.S. Adult Smoking Rate Falls to New Low

By Alan Mozes
HealthDay Reporter

THURSDAY, Nov. 12, 2015 (HealthDay News) — Fewer Americans smoke than a decade ago, and those who still light up do so less often, federal health officials reported Thursday.

Less than 17 percent of adults said they smoked in 2014, down from nearly 21 percent in 2005, a U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report reveals.

And the average number of cigarettes smoked daily fell from nearly 17 to fewer than 14 by 2014.

Smoking still kills half a million Americans every year, the report found. But the findings still suggest that public health efforts to rein in smoking are yielding results.

“There’s a lot of encouraging news in these most recent national smoking estimates,” said lead investigator Brian King, deputy director for research translation at the CDC’s Office on Smoking and Health in Atlanta. “But big socio-economic disparities remain, and are fairly consistent with what we’ve seen in the past.”

For example, investigators found that smoking rates among uninsured adults and poor Medicaid recipients were twice that of people with private insurance or seniors on Medicare.

Those with only a high-school degree and non-whites also were far more likely to smoke than better-educated adults and/or whites, the researchers found.

Investigators found that adult smoking fell a full percentage point — to 16.8 percent — between 2013 and 2014 alone.

And among the privately insured and those with Medicare, rates were as low as 12 percent to 13 percent, the report found.

By contrast, rates hit roughly 28 percent to 29 percent among the uninsured and Medicaid enrollees, with similar numbers among multi-racial Americans, Native Americans and the very poor. Among those with only a high school education, 43 percent were found to smoke.

The latest numbers appear in the Nov. 13 issue of the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Although the survey focused exclusively on adults, King said other recent data suggest that a little more than 9 percent of U.S. high school students smoke cigarettes.

Overall, the broad decline is considered progress toward achieving the national “Healthy People 2020” goal of bringing smoking rates down to 12 percent or less within five years.

“Interventions like increasing the price of tobacco and the passage of comprehensive smoke-free laws at both the state and local levels have made a difference,” King said. Mass-media education campaigns led by the CDC and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration have also contributed to dropping smoking rates, he added.

But as cigarette smoking falls, other forms of tobacco use are rising, King said. “We’re seeing increases in the use of e-cigarettes and hookah use, particularly among American youth,” he said.

“Going forward, we really need to carefully look at how all the different tobacco products are being used, and make sure we’re not simply playing a game of whack-a-mole,” he said, referring to the mallet-defying rodents in the well-known game.

“There’s a lot more we need to do to address the disparities in smoking rates that particularly affect the most vulnerable populations, such as those below the poverty line, those with a lower education and those who remain uninsured,” King added.

Dr. Gregg Fonarow, a spokesman for the American Heart Association and a professor of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles, welcomed the findings but expressed some reservations.

“Over the last 50 years, the rate of adult men and women who have smoked has declined more than half, now reaching a record low of below 17 percent,” he said. This important public health success has contributed to substantial declines in premature death due to heart disease, stroke, lung disease, and cancer, he pointed out.

Nevertheless, cautioned Fonarow, “millions of men and women still smoke in the U.S., putting their lives at risk. More work is needed to address this, particularly among vulnerable populations who disproportionately continue to smoke.”

More information

There’s more on national smoking goals at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.





from Health News / Tips & Trends / Celebrity Health http://ift.tt/1kQ0xmC

Mixed Martial Arts Injuries Less Serious Than Those From Boxing: Study

THURSDAY, Nov. 12, 2015 (HealthDay News) — Mixed martial arts may look more savage than boxing, but the popular sport actually poses a lower risk of serious injury, according to a new study.

Canadian researchers reviewed the medical records of almost 1,200 mixed martial arts fighters and 550 boxers. The athletes fought in Edmonton, Alberta, between 2003 and 2013. Medical exams are required after a match for both sports, the researchers said.

Mixed martial arts fighters were more likely than boxers to suffer an injury during their bouts — about 59 percent versus 50 percent, the study found. But most of those injuries were minor, such as cuts and bruises.

Compared to mixed martial arts fighters, boxers were almost twice as likely to lose consciousness during a match. Boxers were also more likely to have serious eye injuries, and to receive medical suspensions due to injuries suffered during bouts, the research showed.

The study was published in the Clinical Journal of Sports Medicine.

“Yes, you’re more likely to get injured if you’re participating in mixed martial arts, but the injury severity is less overall than boxing,” lead author Dr. Shelby Karpman, a sports medicine physician at the University of Alberta in Canada, said in a university news release.

“Most of the blood you see in mixed martial arts is from bloody noses or facial cuts; it doesn’t tend to be as severe, but looks a lot worse than it actually is,” he added.

Karpman believes that mixed martial arts fighters “do not get the respect they deserve for what they’re doing — or the medical treatment — because the medical community doesn’t want to deal with such a bloody sport with head injuries and concussions.”

More information

The U.S. National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases has more about sports injuries.





from Health News / Tips & Trends / Celebrity Health http://ift.tt/1MEcvKV