Active, Passive Smoking Tied to Infertility, Early Menopause: Study

By Kathleen Doheny
HealthDay Reporter

TUESDAY, Dec. 15, 2015 (HealthDay News) — Smoking and being exposed to secondhand smoke may trigger early menopause and infertility in women, a new study suggests.

Other research has linked smoking with higher rates of infertility and perhaps earlier menopause. However, “secondhand smoke is less researched,” especially among never-smoking women, said study author Andrew Hyland, chair of health behavior at Roswell Park Cancer Institute, in Buffalo, N.Y.

In the study, Hyland and his colleagues evaluated women enrolled in the Women’s Health Initiative, a large study launched in 1991 to look at a variety of health issues in more than 160,000 generally healthy, postmenopausal women.

Hyland’s team looked at information about age of menopause and fertility, along with tobacco exposure, among some of the women enrolled in the study. The investigators evaluated information available on about 88,000 women to look at the fertility effects. They also looked at information on about 80,000 to examine onset of natural, or nonsurgical, menopause.

Both smoking and exposure to secondhand smoke were linked to fertility issues and early menopause (before the typical age of 50), the researchers found.

Compared with never smokers, current or former smokers were 14 percent more likely to be infertile and 26 percent more likely to have early menopause. Early menopause has been linked with a higher risk of death from all causes, Hyland pointed out.

Among never smokers, those exposed to the highest level of secondhand smoke (such as living with a smoker for 10 years or more) were 18 percent more likely to have fertility problems and early menopause, the study found.

Women who had ever smoked reached menopause about 22 months before those who never smoked or never were exposed to smoke. Those exposed to the highest level of passive smoke reached menopause 13 months earlier than those not exposed, the findings showed.

But the study cannot prove cause and effect, Hyland added. “This is an observational study looking at data already collected,” he said. “It [the link] could be something associated with early development and exposure as a young child.”

Smoke interacts with hormones and can have adverse effects as well, he added.

The study was published online Dec. 15 in the journal Tobacco Control.

The findings are a valuable reminder to avoid all smoke, said Patricia Folan, director of the Center for Tobacco Control at North Shore-LIJ Health System in Great Neck, N.Y.

“This study provides additional motivation and incentive for women of all ages to avoid smoking and exposure to secondhand smoke, as well as to quit smoking,” she said. Both are associated with premature birth, low birth weight, infant death and certain birth defects, she added.

“This evidence, in addition to the data from the current study, offers health care providers, particularly ob-gyn practitioners, the information needed to counsel women about the hazards of smoking and secondhand smoke, and to encourage cessation,” Folan said.

More information

To learn more about the risk of secondhand smoke, visit the American Cancer Society.

---

from Health News / Tips & Trends / Celebrity Health http://ift.tt/1T0sWSu

Certain Antidepressants May Be Linked to Bipolar Disorder: Study

By Steven Reinberg
HealthDay Reporter

TUESDAY, Dec. 15, 2015 (HealthDay News) — Some commonly used antidepressants may increase certain patients’ risk of developing mania or bipolar disorder, a large study suggests.

The strongest link was for depressed patients prescribed Effexor (venlafaxine) or antidepressants called serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), the British study found. SSRIs include citalopram (Celexa), escitalopram (Lexapro), fluoxetine (Prozac), paroxetine (Paxil) and sertraline (Zoloft).

However, many patients who developed mania or bipolar symptoms likely had underlying bipolar disorder or a predisposition because of family history or other factors, the researchers believe.

Also, the study was observational, and “we did not demonstrate a causal association between antidepressants and mania and bipolar disorder,” said lead researcher Dr. Rashmi Patel, of the department of psychosis studies at King’s College London’s Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience.

Still, the findings highlight the need to consider risk factors for bipolar disorder in people treated for major depression, Patel said.

These include a family history of bipolar disorder, a prior depressive episode with psychotic symptoms, depression at a young age, or depression that doesn’t respond to treatment, he said.

“If you are taking antidepressants and are concerned that you might be experiencing adverse effects, it is important to seek medical advice to review your medication and to not stop your treatment suddenly, as this may result in withdrawal symptoms,” Patel said.

Major depression is one of the most common mental disorders in the United States, According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about one in 10 Americans aged 12 years and over takes antidepressant medication.

For the study, Patel and colleagues studied the medical records of more than 21,000 adults treated for major depression in London between 2006 and 2013.

SSRIs were the most commonly prescribed antidepressants (35.5 percent), the researchers said.

Effexor, a dual-acting drug used to treat both depression and anxiety, was taken by less than 6 percent of patients. Fewer than 10 percent took mirtazapine (Remeron) and fewer than 5 percent used tricyclics (Elavil).

Nearly 1,000 patients were diagnosed with bipolar disorder or mania during the follow-up period of roughly four years.

“We found that antidepressants were widely prescribed and associated with a small increased risk in developing mania and bipolar disorder,” said Patel.

This association was particularly strong for SSRIs and Effexor. These drugs seemed to increase the risk 34 percent to 35 percent, the researchers said.

The peak age for manic or bipolar episodes among depression patients taking antidepressants was 26 to 35, the researchers reported.

According to the U.S. National Institute of Mental Health, bipolar disorder, also known as manic-depressive illness, causes unusual shifts in mood, energy, activity levels and the ability to carry out everyday tasks.

The study authors noted that people with undiagnosed bipolar disorder may be more likely to seek treatment when in the depressive stage of the illness, which could help explain the link between antidepressants and later bipolar behavior.

The report was published Dec. 15 in the online journal BMJ Open.

Dr. Ami Baxi, interim director of inpatient and emergency psychiatry at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City, said, “As the prevalence of depression increases, more and more antidepressants are being prescribed and patients often ask about the risks associated with these drugs.”

In this case, however, it is difficult to say that these medications cause bipolar disorder, since several risk factors related to underlying bipolar disorder were not assessed in this study, said Baxi, who was not involved with the study.

This research indicates a correlation of antidepressant treatment and manic episodes without reviewing preexisting risk factors of developing bipolar disorder, she explained.

“For patients who are concerned about this risk of conversion to bipolar disorder, the results of this study should encourage a discussion with your doctor regarding the benefits of the antidepressant and your risk factors for developing bipolar disorder before making any changes in medications,” she said.

Patel agreed and said better ways of identifying depression patients who may be at risk of developing bipolar disorder need to be developed.

More information

For more on bipolar disorder, visit the U.S. National Institute of Mental Health.

---

from Health News / Tips & Trends / Celebrity Health http://ift.tt/1T0sUdg

Here’s How Far You Actually Need to Run to Reap the Health Benefits

 

Photo: Getty Images

If you like to run but don’t looove to run, here’s some news that’s sure to put a bounce in your step. A recent review of studies found that to score the major health perks of running, you don’t have to pound the pavement for long: Jogging just five or six miles a week is enough.

The researchers report that people who logged that many miles over the course of one or two runs (and less than 51 cumulative minutes) per week had a lower risk of certain cancers, stroke, osteoarthritis, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol compared to people who jogged less or not at all.

It gets even better: When the reviewers looked at the effect of running on cardiovascular mortality and death from any cause, they found that the low-mileage group had the same reduction in risk as people who laced up more often and covered more ground every week.

RELATED: 15 Running Tips You Need to Know

“Maximal health benefits of running appear to occur at quite low doses, well below those suggested by the US physical activity guidelines,” the researchers write in the study, which was published in the journal Mayo Clinic Proceedings. (The government recommends 75 minutes of vigorous activity per week.)

But of course, if you’re running to lose weight, the same logic still applies: More steps means more calories burned. You may want to stick to your usual schedule and route. But for anyone who’s been pushing herself on long-distance jaunts in pursuit of optimal health, the new findings may offer some sweet relief.

So what is a good goal to shoot for, according to science?

Carl J. Lavie, MD, the review’s lead author and the medical director of cardiac rehabilitation and prevention at the Ochsner Medical Center in New Orleans offered this advice to the New York Times: “Running for 20 to 30 minutes, or about a mile-and-a-half to three miles, twice per week would appear to be perfect.”

 

 

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

Dogs’ Sloppy Drinking Style Actually the Model of Efficiency: Study

TUESDAY, Dec. 15, 2015 (HealthDay News) — Your dog’s seemingly sloppy drinking involves great precision and timing, researchers report.

The Virginia Tech College of Engineering team filmed 19 dogs of different breeds and sizes, and found that after they plunge their tongue into water, dogs curl the tongue downward toward their lower jaw.

“They quickly retract their tongues and a column of water forms and rises into their mouths, but they also curl the underside of their tongues to bring a tiny ladle of water upward,” the researchers wrote in a university news release.

“Dogs precisely bite down to capture the water. In an instant, they reopen their mouths and immerse their tongues back into the water,” the study authors explained.

The study was published Dec. 14 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The researchers have previously studied the drinking technique of cats, and were surprised to find significant differences between the two types of pets.

Unlike dogs, cats lightly touch the surface of the water with their tongue and usually never fully immerse them in the water. When the tongue returns to the mouth, water clings to the upper side and forms an “elegant water column.”

“Dog drinking is more acceleration driven, using unsteady inertia to draw water upward in a column, whereas cats employ steady inertia,” study author Sunghwan Jung, an associate professor of biomedical engineering and mechanics, said in a university news release.

More information

The ASPCA offers dog care tips.

---

from Health News / Tips & Trends / Celebrity Health http://ift.tt/1NS9JCi

ADHD Patients Show Weaker Connections in Brain Networks Tied to Focus: Study

By Amy Norton
HealthDay Reporter

TUESDAY, Dec. 15, 2015 (HealthDay News) — Children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder may have weaker connections among brain networks that help the mind focus, a new study suggests.

Using MRI brain scans from 180 children with and without ADHD, researchers found that kids with the disorder showed weaker interactions among three brain networks involved in attention.

What’s more, the more severe a child’s attention problems, the weaker those brain connections were.

The findings, published online Dec. 15 in the journal Biological Psychiatry, add to evidence that children with ADHD differ from other kids in the way their brains are wired.

Specifically, the study highlights the importance of the “salience network,” said senior researcher Vinod Menon, a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Stanford University School of Medicine, in Stanford, Calif.

At any given moment, Menon explained, people are getting numerous pieces of information from their environment. The salience network helps the brain decide which piece deserves the most attention.

“The core brain systems involved in attention are dysfunctional in ADHD,” Menon said. “There is an underlying biological aspect to these symptoms.”

It’s not clear, though, whether weaker connections in the salience network actually cause ADHD, according to Menon. It’s possible that the root cause lies somewhere else.

“The hope,” Menon said, “is that once we can identify the causes, we’ll get a better handle on how to intervene with therapy.”

In the United States, more than 6 million school-age children and teens have been diagnosed with ADHD, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The problem is, there’s no objective way to help doctors diagnose the disorder, said Dr. Solomon Moshe, vice chair of neurology and pediatric neurology at Montefiore Medical Center, in New York City.

“So it’s both overdiagnosed and underdiagnosed,” said Moshe, who was not involved in the new study.

He said the findings are interesting from a research standpoint, and offer more insight into what’s happening in the brains of at least some children with ADHD.

But for now, Moshe said, there’s no way to put that information into practice — by using brain imaging to diagnose ADHD, for example.

For one, the study showed that, as a group, children with ADHD had weaker interactions among the salience network and two other brain networks involved in focus. But that does not mean that’s true of all children with ADHD, Moshe said.

Menon agreed. And, he said, it’s not clear whether the brain differences his team saw are specific to ADHD: They might show up in children with various other neurological or mental health disorders, from depression to autism.

For the study, Menon’s team looked at functional MRI scans from 180 children, half of whom had been diagnosed with ADHD. Functional MRI allowed researchers to chart blood flow in the brain, which served as a marker for brain activity.

All of the scans were part of a large database, and included kids from New York, Portland, Ore., and Beijing, China.

That’s important, Menon said, because no matter where the children were from, the general patterns were the same: Those with ADHD typically showed weaker connections among the salience network and two related brain systems. Those systems were the default-mode network, which directs “self-referential” activities like daydreaming; and the central executive network, which is involved in short-term memory and concentration.

To create focus, the salience network has to quiet the default-mode system, while dialing up the central executive network. If the interaction among those networks is lacking, you might get stuck in a daydream rather than tackling the task at hand.

“Functional MRI can give insights into the underlying biology of ADHD,” Moshe said. What’s unknown, he added, is whether the pricey technology could have any value when it comes to diagnosing or monitoring children with ADHD.

Another question is whether weak connections among these three brain networks can be strengthened.

“The hope,” Menon said, “is that once you work with children to improve their focus and attention, these brain circuits would be normalized.”

More information

The CDC has an overview of ADHD.

---

from Health News / Tips & Trends / Celebrity Health http://ift.tt/1I7eOGA

Everything You Need to Know About the Latest Foodborne Illness Outbreak at Chipotle

Photo: Getty Images

If you’ve been keeping up with the news in recent weeks, you’ve probably crossed Chipotle Mexican Grill off your list of grab-and-go dinner spots.

The popular chain, which was also the probable source of a recent E. coli outbreak that affected nine states, is now embattled in yet another food safety scare: more than 140 people in Boston have fallen ill with norovirus after eating at a local Chipotle.

“It’s a really tough time; I’m sorry for the people who got sick,” Chipotle CEO Steve Ells said on the Today show last Thursday morning. “They’re having a tough time. I feel terrible about that. We’re doing a lot to rectify this.”

RELATED: 13 Things You Should Know About Stomach Flu

Norovirus is a pathogen that causes gastroenteritis, or inflammation of the stomach or intestines (a.k.a. food poisoning or stomach flu, although it isn’t an actual “flu” at all). Here’s the deal on the current outbreak, including what you should know about the illness in general.

Norovirus is contracted person to person, through contaminated water and food, and via contact with contaminated surfaces. Recent research in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases also suggests it can spread through the air and infect people a few feet away. The virus can withstand many common disinfectants, as well as survive at very hot temperatures as high as 140 degrees.

The facts about the current outbreak

The Chipotle at the source of the outbreak, which is located near Boston College has been temporarily shut down, but the virus is still expected to infect more people. Why? Even after an individual recovers, they can still spread the infection for two weeks or longer.

This is why Ben Kruskal, MD, chief of infectious disease at Harvard Vanguard Medical Associates, told the Boston Herald he wouldn’t be surprised if the number of infected folks climbed: “It is totally possible that it could spread,” he said.

RELATED: Your Stomach Bug May Well Be Norovirus

It can happen anywhere

While you may feel inclined to steer clear of all burrito bowls for the time being, you should know that norovirus outbreaks can happen any time, anywhere, to anyone. In fact, it’s the most common cause of foodborne-disease outbreaks in the U.S., causing roughly 20 million illnesses in the country every year.

A lot of the time, an outbreak is caused by a sick employee coming to work and touching foods, like raw fruits and vegetables, with their bare hands before serving them. In fact, according to a city food inspection report, someone at the Boston location worked while sick on Dec. 3. (The report also cited the chain for keeping meat at temperatures around 125 degrees, rather than the required 140 or above.)

While sit-down restaurants are hot beds for the bug (they’ve accounted for more than 60% of outbreaks in recent years), norovirus can quickly spread just about anywhere. Nicknamed the “cruise ship virus,” the bug spreads easily in closed, populated places, including schools, day care centers, and nursing homes.

Norovirus symptoms normally subside within three days

Symptoms include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, abdominal pain and fever—roughly 12 to 48 hours after exposure to the virus. The virus usually clears up in a few days, and drinking plenty of liquids and eating a bland, low-fiber diet full of bananas, rice, applesauce, and toast may help with symptoms.

RELATED: 12 Germs That Cause Food Poisoning

It’s not as worrisome as an E. coli outbreak

Though it’s certainly not fun, the good news is norovirus is not as serious as other types of food poisoning, like E. coli.

Back in October, health officials linked an outbreak of Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC) in Washington and Oregon back to Chipotle restaurants. The outbreak eventually spread to a total of nine states, with 52 people reportedly getting sick, and 20 requiring hospitalization.

These particular strains of E. coli can cause severe anemia or kidney failure, or life-threatening dehydration. In fact, 61 Americans die each year from these infections, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

To compare, between 2009 and 2012, there were only two deaths related to food-related norovirus outbreaks, per the latest CDC report.

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

Many Pet Owners Happy to Have Fido, Fluffy Share the Bed

TUESDAY, Dec. 15, 2015 (HealthDay News) — When your bedtime approaches, does a four-legged friend hop onto the blankets, too? A new study finds that for many American pet owners, that’s not a bad thing.

According to a Mayo Clinic study surveying 150 people, “more respondents perceived their pets to not affect or even benefit rather than hinder their sleep,” while “some respondents described feeling secure, content and relaxed when their pet slept nearby.”

The study is published in the December issue of Mayo Clinic Proceedings.

The research was led by Dr. Lois Krahn of the Center for Sleep Medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, Ariz. Her team said there hasn’t been good research to date on the impact a pet slumbering nearby might have on an owner’s sleep.

Sleep problems continue to plague millions of Americans, and “pet ownership and the number of pets per household are at the highest level in two decades,” the study authors wrote.

In their research, Krahn’s team used interviews and questionnaires to discover how pets in the bedroom affect sleep. Seventy-four of the 150 adults interviewed had at least one pet, and 31 had multiple pets. More than half (56 percent) of pet owners allowed their animal (or animals) to sleep with them in the bedroom or on the bed.

Only 15 pet owners (20 percent) considered the pet’s presence “disruptive” to their sleep. Some said their pets wandered, snored, whimpered or needed bathroom breaks, for example. One single 51-year-old woman complained that her pet parrot “consistently squawked at 6 a.m.,” according to the researchers.

Many more were just fine with a pet sleeping nearby, however. Forty-one percent of people who allowed their pet to sleep with them said that it was either “not an issue or [was] advantageous” to their sleep.

“A single 64-year-old woman commented that she felt more content when her small dog slept under the covers near her feet,” Krahn’s group wrote. In addition, they reported that a 50-year-old woman said she did “‘not mind when my lovely cat’ slept on her chest and another described her cat as ‘soothing.'”

Some people even said that part of the reason they acquired a dog or cat in the first place was to help them relax at night, and this was especially true for single people or people whose partners often traveled or worked at night.

The researchers stressed that having a pet in the bedroom is not always a calming experience, and people should prioritize their need for restful sleep over the need of a pet to be close by.

However, when pet-human slumber does work, it can be very rewarding, according to Krahn and colleagues.

“The value of these experiences . . . cannot be dismissed, because sleep is dependent on a state of physical and mental relaxation,” the authors concluded.

More information

There’s more on getting a good night’s sleep at the National Sleep Foundation.

---

from Health News / Tips & Trends / Celebrity Health http://ift.tt/1m4LzK3

Stem Cell Transplants May Not Help Tough-to-Treat Crohn’s, Study Says

By Steven Reinberg
HealthDay Reporter

TUESDAY, Dec. 15, 2015 (HealthDay News) — Stem cell transplants seem no better than conventional therapy for Crohn’s disease that hasn’t responded to other treatments, a new study finds.

The European study also found that for patients who cannot undergo surgery for the condition, stem cell transplants resulted in serious side effects, including infections.

“In this group of the most resistant cases of Crohn’s disease, stem cell transplant was an effective treatment, but it is not a miracle cure that could be applied to anyone with Crohn’s disease, because it only seems to work in a minority of patients and the treatment is challenging and hazardous,” said lead researcher Christopher Hawkey. He is a professor of gastroenterology at Queen’s Medical Centre in Nottingham, England.

For the study, Hawkey and colleagues randomly assigned 45 patients with Crohn’s disease to transplants with their own stem cells or to continued standard medical care. Patients were followed for one year.

Crohn’s disease is a chronic inflammatory condition of the intestinal tract that produces symptoms such as persistent diarrhea, rectal bleeding and painful cramps, according to the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation of America. The condition can cause lifelong ill health, impaired quality of life and reduced lifespan.

Immunosuppressive drugs are the standard of care, but some patients do not respond to them or stop responding, Hawkey said.

Stem cell transplants represent an attempt to reset the immune system, which turns on itself in Crohn’s disease, Hawkey explained.

“The stem cell treatment involves wiping out the body’s immune system and replacing it with the patient’s own innocent stem cells, a sort of immunological spring clean,” he said.

The report was published Dec. 15 in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

One year after treatment, the researchers found no statistically significant difference between the groups in the proportion of patients whose disease was in remission in the past three months — just two in the transplant group and only one receiving standard care.

But 61 percent in the transplant group had been able to discontinue active treatment in the past three months compared with 23 percent in the usual care group, the researchers said.

In all, 76 serious adverse events occurred in transplant patients — mostly infections — versus 38 in the usual care group. And one transplant patient died, Hawkey said.

“Stem cell transplantation is probably the most effective treatment for Crohn’s disease, but also the most toxic,” he said. “It cannot be recommended for widespread use at the present time but may be a risk worth taking for a small number of patients who have run out of treatment options.”

The challenge now, Hawkey added, is to find ways to identify those most likely to benefit and those who will not.

However, the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation of America is more cautious.

“At this time, we are not certain that the benefits of stem cell transplants in Crohn’s disease patients outweigh the risks,” the foundation says in a policy statement.

Stem cell transplants are not a cure, and patients are still genetically predisposed to redevelop Crohn’s disease, the foundation says. It notes that transplant patients are also at risk of adverse events, including infection, because the patient’s immune system is severely compromised for several weeks.

The study authors recommend further research to assess the value of maintenance immunosuppressive therapy alongside stem cell transplant.

More information

For more on Crohn’s disease, visit the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation of America.

---

from Health News / Tips & Trends / Celebrity Health http://ift.tt/1m4LztA

Surgery May Beat Radiation for Men With Early Stage Prostate Cancer

TUESDAY, Dec. 15, 2015 (HealthDay News) — Men with prostate cancer that’s still confined to the organ are more likely to survive if they have surgery rather than radiation therapy, a new Canadian study suggests.

This type of “localized” prostate cancer is the most common form of the disease, accounting for about 80 percent of cases, said a team led by Dr. Robert Nam of the Odette Cancer Centre at Sunnybrook Research Institute in Toronto.

The most common treatments for localized prostate cancer are surgery and radiation therapy.

But which works best to keep the disease at bay?

To find out, Nam’s team looked over data from 19 studies that included a total of nearly 119,000 men with localized prostate cancer.

Findings from 15 of the studies showed that those who received radiation therapy were twice as likely to die from prostate cancer as those who had surgery.

Findings from 10 of the studies also showed that men who had radiation therapy were 50 percent more likely to die sooner of any cause, compared to those who had surgery.

The results of the analysis were published Dec. 14 in the journal European Urology.

“In the past, studies that have compared the success rates of surgery or radiation have been confusing because of their methods,” Nam said in a journal news release. “We have evaluated all the good-quality data comparing surgery and radiotherapy, and the results are pretty conclusive; in general, surgery results in better mortality rates than radiotherapy.”

But prostate cancer treatment is never a one-size-fits-all matter, he added.

“There are times when radiotherapy may be more appropriate than surgery, so it is important that a patient discusses treatment options with his clinician,” Nam said.

He believes that “the important thing about this research is that it gives physicians and patients additional information to consider when making the decision about how to treat localized prostate cancer.”

Two U.S. experts came to somewhat different conclusions about the results.

“The results of this study point not only to the efficacy of surgery as a principal mode of treatment and first line of defense against prostate cancer, but also as a way to extend the life of men affected by prostate cancer,” said Dr. David Samadi, chief of robotic surgery at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City.

He said that surgical removal of the prostate “is the only option which removes the entire prostate, and therefore allows for more accurate staging and grading [of the tumor]. This means your doctor can create a better long-term plan of care for each individual patient.”

And Samadi stressed that “radiation is still possible as a secondary treatment after surgery. So patients have yet another way of combating their cancer if necessary.”

But another expert had some reservations about the study. Dr. Jonathan Haas is chief of radiation oncology at Winthrop-University Hospital in Mineola, N.Y. He said that the Canadian review may not have accounted for recent improvements in radiation treatment that could boost outcomes for patients.

According to Haas, what’s needed to answer the surgery-versus-radiation question is a “prospective randomized trial using state-of-the-art medicine.”

“Only then can the best conclusion be made,” he said. “Patients with this disease have many options including radiation, surgery, and possibly even surveillance. Only by individualizing a treatment plan for an individual patient with their specific information can the best outcomes be obtained.”

More information

The U.S. National Cancer Institute has more about prostate cancer.

---

from Health News / Tips & Trends / Celebrity Health http://ift.tt/1RQ6Lji

Shingles Linked to Raised Heart Risks for Seniors, Study Finds

By Alan Mozes
HealthDay Reporter

TUESDAY, Dec. 15, 2015 (HealthDay News) — Seniors who develop the painful rash known as shingles appear to face a short-term increase in their risk for having a stroke or heart attack, new research indicates.

The finding was based on the tracking of heart health among more than 67,000 newly diagnosed shingles patients who were aged 65 and older.

The analysis revealed that stroke risk more than doubled in the first week following a shingles diagnosis, with heart attack risk also climbing, though not by quite as much. The risk for both appeared to return to normal within six months.

“The study highlights when patients with shingles may be most vulnerable,” explained study author Caroline Minassian, a research fellow in the faculty of epidemiology and population health at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine in England.

“If we know when these events are more likely to happen, this may potentially help to prevent strokes and heart attacks in older people,” she added.

Minassian and her colleagues reported their findings in the Dec. 15 issue of the journal PLOS Medicine.

Shingles is caused by the same virus that causes chickenpox (varicella zoster). Anyone who has ever had chickenpox faces some risk of getting shingles, according to the U.S. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. More than 1 million Americans develop the disease every year, the researchers said.

Many of those are seniors, who are typically diagnosed after the onset of mild to serious burning or tingling pain on one side of their body. The rashes and blisters that ensue are treatable with antiviral medications. In addition, a vaccine (Zostavax) that was released in 2006 can cut shingles risk in half, while also significantly reducing symptom severity when shingles does strike.

The study focused on nearly 43,000 Medicare recipients diagnosed with both shingles and a stroke between 2006 and 2011. Roughly 24,000 shingles patients who experienced a heart attack in the same timeframe were also included.

Average patient age was 80 years, roughly two-thirds were women and about 90 percent were white. Very few (between 2 percent and 3 percent) had received the shingles vaccine before diagnosis, the study authors said.

Stroke and heart attack occurrence were tracked during five different periods of time in the year following a shingles diagnosis: week one; weeks two to four; weeks five to 12; weeks 13 to 26; and six months.

Compared with patient risk prior to a shingles diagnosis, stroke risk was seen to rise “significantly” for up to three months following a shingles diagnosis. The biggest bump — amounting to more than a twofold rise in risk — occurred during the first week. That risk dissipated after six months, the investigators found.

An increase in heart attack risk followed a similar trajectory, with almost a doubling in risk occurring during the first week following a shingles diagnosis, the findings showed.

The study team said there was no evidence that shingles vaccinations had either prevented or aggravated stroke or heart attack risk.

“However, this finding requires further study due to low vaccine uptake in our study population,” Minassian said.

As for exactly why shingles threatens heart health, Minassian said that the study “did not look at the mechanisms involved in the associations.” And the findings do not prove a cause-and-effect relationship between the virus and cardiovascular problems.

“However, possible reasons might include the overall higher level of inflammation in the body associated with a viral infection, or [virus-induced] blood vessel damage,” she said. “Acute increases in blood pressure relating to shingles-associated pain or stress may also play a role.”

Dr. Gregg Fonarow, a professor of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles, pointed out that the study by Minassian and colleagues is not the first to identify a possible link between shingles and a general bump in the risk for heart trouble.

The difference, he said, is that “this new study finds a significant association early after the onset of shingles.”

But shingles, said Fonarow, is not alone in its apparent ability to undermine cardiovascular health. Influenza, community-acquired pneumonia and urinary tract infections have all been previously linked to a similar rise in the risk for heart complications, he explained.

More information

There’s more on shingles at the U.S. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.

---

from Health News / Tips & Trends / Celebrity Health http://ift.tt/1m4Lypo