barre

It Turns Out ‘Man Flu’ Might Actually Be Real

Getty Images

Getty Images

TIME-logo.jpg

A recent study in the American Journal of Physiology suggests that certain estrogen-based compounds can make it harder for flu viruses to infect cells. Estrogen, of course, is a female reproductive hormone so it was no surprise that the estrogen compounds, including drugs that are used to treat breast cancer, worked better against the flu in cells that came from women than those that came from men.

The study didn’t prove that women exposed to the flu were less likely to get sick than men. The researchers, from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and School of Medicine, only studied cells, in a lab dish, taken from the nasal passages of men and women. But what it did suggest was that there might be something about the female hormonal physiology that might be worth looking into for new flu fighting strategies.

There’s some precedent for investigating the connection between estrogen and the immune system—studies show that inflammation, one of the immune system’s responses against infection, changes in the presence of estrogen. Women’s inflammatory responses also change during their life course as their levels of estrogen fluctuate before, during and after menopause, and also during pregnancy. So the fact that introducing estrogen-related agents can lower the flu virus’ ability to replicate isn’t entirely out of the question. But that doesn’t mean that we’re ready to declare a female immunity of some sort. More research needs to be done to move the work from the lab dish into human volunteers, and scientists need to understand exactly how the hormone interacts with the immune system in more detail before that can happen.

This article originally appeared on Time.com.




from Health News / Tips & Trends / Celebrity Health http://ift.tt/209Xplk

High-Rise Living May Lower Your Chances of Surviving Cardiac Arrest

By Steven Reinberg
HealthDay Reporter

MONDAY, Jan. 18, 2016 (HealthDay News) — The view from those upper floors may be breathtaking, but it might come with a risky cost: people living on higher floors appear less likely to survive cardiac arrest, a new study found.

In fact, above the third floor, your chances of surviving cardiac arrest get worse the higher up you live — and above the 16th floor, survival is “negligible,” according to the study authors.

The likely reason is simple. “It takes first responders longer to get to the patients who live on higher floors, so treatment is delayed,” said lead researcher Ian Drennan, a paramedic with the York Region Paramedic Services in Canada.

When cardiac arrest occurs, patients have a better chance of surviving the sooner they can be defibrillated — shocking the heart back to a normal rhythm. The longer it takes before defibrillation, the less likely the shock will be effective, Drennan said.

“The delay of responders getting to higher floors meant there were fewer patients with shockable rhythms, which may explain why they had decreased survival,” he said.

Drennan said the findings aren’t unique to Canada. “Anywhere there are high-rise buildings, there are always going to be delays getting to higher floors. The quicker you can get to people the better,” he said.

The report was published Jan. 18 in CMAJ.

Cardiac arrest is the abrupt loss of heart function in someone who may or may not have diagnosed heart disease. It’s not the same thing as a heart attack, which occurs when the flow of oxygen-rich blood to the heart suddenly becomes blocked.

In the study of more than 8,000 people who suffered a cardiac arrest in high-rise apartment buildings from 2007 to 2012 in Toronto, 3.8 percent survived until they could be discharged from the hospital, the researchers found.

Among the nearly 6,000 people living on the first or second floor, 4.2 percent survived, but only 2.6 percent of the nearly 2,000 people living above the third floor survived, the researchers said.

Above the 16th floor, less than 1 percent survived a cardiac arrest, and above the 25th floor, no one survived, the study found.

Drennan said that helping first responders speed their way to the patient may help improve survival. He recommends having a plan in place that includes making sure building doors are unlocked and an elevator is ready in the lobby.

In addition, training residents to give CPR and having automatic external defibrillators available in the building might improve survival by enabling bystanders to start lifesaving treatment before paramedics arrive, he said.

Dr. Gregg Fonarow, a professor of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said the “time from onset of cardiac arrest to defibrillation and CPR is critical, with every minute that passes without treatment associated with worse survival.”

A 2015 study done in Seattle showed similar results that suggest the findings of this Canadian study also apply in the United States, he said.

In that earlier study, published in the journal Prehospital Emergency Care, researchers found building size and height affected the time it took to get to patients and how quickly they could be defibrillated, which had an impact on survival.

“More rapid access to automatic external defibrillators and other interventions to shorten response and treatment time in high-rise buildings are urgently needed,” Fonarow said.

More information

To learn more about cardiac arrest, visit the American Heart Association.





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

Could Implanted Sensor Revolutionize Brain Monitoring?

By Randy Dotinga
HealthDay Reporter

MONDAY, Jan. 18, 2016 (HealthDay News) — Working with rats, researchers say they may have found a more efficient way to measure pressure and temperature inside the skull — using a tiny, dissolvable sensor.

The implant would transmit information wirelessly to physicians during surgery or after a brain injury. Such a device might also have potential for use in other organs of the body, a study co-author said.

“Anytime you do surgery you want information from the organ you’re working on,” said neurosurgeon Dr. Rory Murphy, chief neurosurgery resident at Washington University in St. Louis. “We could put these sensors in next to the organs or the vessels we’re trying to fix and get information from them for a period of time.”

Much more research is needed, however, before the silicon sensor could even be tested in humans.

Monitoring so-called intracranial pressure is critical after trauma or during brain surgery because the skull prevents the brain from expanding. Tracking brain temperature is important, too, because chilling the brain is a tool that neurosurgeons use to boost healing, experts say.

Currently, neurosurgeons use several types of devices to monitor the brain, including a plastic tube placed into the spinal fluid, explained Dr. Donald Whiting, of Drexel University College of Medicine in Philadelphia. Whiting, a professor of neurosurgery, wasn’t involved in the new study.

But, Murphy said, these current devices sometimes promote an immune reaction. In addition, the wires and cables they require interfere with patient care, and the monitors eventually require surgical removal, Murphy added.

Standard hardware also poses a risk for infection, the study authors explained in background notes.

Whiting said development of an implantable device that would dissolve on its own would be a major improvement. It would also help to have a device that transmits data electronically and works like a thermostat, allowing physicians to adjust temperature and pressure in the brain, he said.

In the new study, published Jan. 18 in Nature, researchers tested a sensor the size of a pencil tip that’s connected to a penny-sized transmitter, Murphy said. The study authors reported that the new device, at least in rats, works about as well as existing devices at measuring pressure and temperature.

According to Murphy, the device wouldn’t necessarily need to be bigger in humans. The material dissolves over time.

The sensor’s cost and the potential for side effects aren’t known yet. And, of course, no one knows if it will work in humans.

“This is just a first step in an animal model,” Whiting said. “It still has to be tested in humans, who are much more complex. A lot of things don’t necessarily translate.”

Researchers are looking for funding from the U.S. Department of Defense, which studies brain injury, to launch the next stages of laboratory testing, Murphy said. That phase of research could take three to four years before tests in humans could begin, he said.

More information

The U.S. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke has more about traumatic brain injury.





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

Minorities More Likely To Be Diagnosed With Colon Cancer at Younger Age

MONDAY, Jan. 18, 2016 (HealthDay News) — Members of minority groups in the United States are more likely than whites to be diagnosed with colon cancer at younger ages and with more advanced disease, researchers report.

An analysis of data from 1973 to 2009 revealed that minorities under age 50 were twice as likely to be diagnosed with colon cancer as whites, said study author Dr. Jamal Ibdah, who chairs cancer research at the University of Missouri School of Medicine.

“On average, minorities were diagnosed between the ages of 64 and 68, while non-Hispanic whites were typically diagnosed at age 72. When diagnosed, minority groups also had more advanced stages of cancer,” Ibdah said in a university news release.

The study was recently published in the journal Cancer Medicine.

Colon cancer is the third most common type of cancer and the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States, the researchers said.

“While we know the risk of developing colorectal cancer increases with age, little is known about its prevalence within various minority and ethnic groups,” Ibdah said.

“Hispanic, Asian, Pacific Islander, American Indian, Alaska Native and African-American populations are the fastest-growing racial and ethnic minority groups in the United States. Having the most accurate statistical data is critical to providing cancer prevention and control programs for these groups,” he explained.

Several factors could lead to colon cancer at a younger age, including genes, environment, diet and lifestyle. Possible reasons why minorities are more likely to be diagnosed with advanced colon cancer include less access to health care and education, lower screening rates and lower income levels, Ibdah said.

Current guidelines call for colon cancer screening to start at age 50, which might be too late, the study suggests.

“Regular screening for colorectal cancer is essential for prevention and early diagnosis,” Ibdah said. “Our findings suggest a need for further studies to examine current guidelines for all minority groups in the U.S. and the development of possible new interventional strategies.”

More information

The American Cancer Society has more about colon cancer.





from Health News / Tips & Trends / Celebrity Health http://ift.tt/1neYjz1

More Evidence That Severe Poverty Harms Kids’ Health

MONDAY, Jan. 18, 2016 (HealthDay News) — Severe poverty is a threat to young children’s health and development, a new study suggests.

“Deep poverty, which affects approximately 3.9 million young children, clearly makes large numbers of U.S. children vulnerable to health and developmental problems that limit their life opportunities,” said study senior author Sheila Smith. She is director of early childhood at the National Center for Children in Poverty at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health in New York City.

Researchers analyzed U.S. data gathered from 2011 to 2013. They focused on children younger than age 9, comparing those in deep poverty — defined as a family income below 50 percent of the federal poverty line — with those who are poor but not in deep poverty, and those who aren’t poor.

Children in deep poverty were more likely to be obese than those in the other two groups. The study also found that kids in deep poverty had blood lead levels three times higher than poor children and more than 17 times higher than those who aren’t poor.

High blood lead levels are associated with learning and behavior problems, the researchers said.

The researchers also found that children in deep poverty were also more likely to have parents with poor or fair physical or mental health, and more frequent parental stress. Children in deep poverty were also more likely to have parents who lacked social support and security in their neighborhood.

These family circumstances are associated with poor health and developmental problems in children, according to the authors.

Compared to children in the other two groups, those in deep poverty are less likely to be considered “flourishing” by their parents.

“To give young children a fair chance of life success, we need to strengthen basic safety net policies, including Temporary Aid to Needy Families, expand Medicaid across all states so that parents will not be left in poor health without health coverage, and invest in programs that have proven effective in helping families overcome adversities so their children can thrive,” Smith said in a Columbia news release.

The report was published recently by the National Center for Children in Poverty.

More information

The Children’s Defense Fund has more about child poverty.





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

Here’s The Reason You Got Sick Over the Long Weekend

Photo: Getty

Photo: Getty

Your bags were packed, your out-of-office reply was set, and you could finally relax for your much-needed vacation. And all of a sudden…your body ached, your nose was running, and you wound up staying in bed all weekend. Ugh.

There’s actually a name for this: leisure sickness. Tilburg University researchers from the Netherlands coined this term in 2001 after surveying 1,893 Dutch people and finding that about 3% of both men and women reported flu-like symptoms, as well as headaches, fatigue, muscular pains, and nausea while taking time off. Many of the survey respondents believed their symptoms came from balancing a heavy workload, stress associated with travel, and having a hard time winding down when they had time off.

RELATED: 10 Signs You Really Need a Vacation

Other than this study, though, leisure sickness has not been widely researched, and not all experts believe it really exists. Haidar Al-Saadi, DO, medical director of Lakes Urgent Care in Farmington Hills, Michigan says that while you may be more susceptible to catching something when you are traveling for vacation, he doesn’t see a connection between sicknesses caused by relaxing alone. “In terms of just taking time off of work and being at home, I don’t see any scientific basis behind that,” he says.

Instead, he explains that the sluggishness and body aches are more likely a result of traveling in the days leading up to your time off. “When people are getting sick, a lot of it is because—especially when they are flying—that you are surrounded by a bunch of people that you haven’t been exposed to before that may have cough or cold-like symptoms,” Dr. Al-Saadi says. “When you get to where you need to be and you suddenly get sick after a few days, it’s probably because of traveling.”

RELATED: 21 Products for the Best Sleep of Your Life

Regardless of whether or not leisure sickness is a real thing, Dr. Al-Saadi says you can ward off feeling under the weather during your time off just by giving your usual sickness protection an extra boost. “Start by washing your hands above and beyond what you would normally do, along with eating healthy and drinking plenty of water,” Dr. Al-Saadi says. “Increase the precautions that you would if you were being exposed to other people who are ill.”

 




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

3 Beauty Dilemmas You Can Solve With Your Smartphone

Photo: Getty Images

Photo: Getty Images

Which beauty apps are worth your time and storage space? These will make your life simpler, and you more gorgeous.

RELATED: 29 Expert Beauty Tips Every Woman Should Know

You get a weird rash, and your regular derm is not an option

You’re on vacation and a rash appears on your leg. Instead of scrambling to find a local doctor, pull out your smartphone and snap a few photos with Spruce (free; iTunes and Google Play). For $40—comparable to a typical co-pay—people in 17 states (more coming soon) get a quick diagnosis and any necessary prescriptions.

You need an appointment for _____ right now

If the whole office can hear you book your wax appointment over the phone, sidestep the receptionist with this app: Beautynow (free; iTunes and Google Play). It hooks you up with services (facials, blowouts, manicures, even Botox) right when and where you need them. Simply pick your preferred service and time to get a list of available salons along with Yelp reviews.

RELATED: 15 Red Carpet Beauty Tips for Real Life

Your favorite product just got discontinued

Finding a replacement for that discontinued lipstick you loved just got easier. Upload a photo of the product and ShadeScout (free; iTunes and Google Play) will find a makeup match in the same shade. Use your front-facing camera to virtually try on the hue, then purchase it straight from the app.




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

Could Genetics Be Key to a Nation’s Happiness?

MONDAY, Jan. 18, 2016 (HealthDay News) — There appears to be a genetic basis for happiness levels in countries around the world, new research reports.

And a pleasant climate apparently helps, the findings suggested.

For the study, researchers analyzed data gathered by the World Values Survey between 2000 and 2014. The investigators found that people in countries that have the highest happiness ratings are more likely to have a specific version (allele) of a gene variant that boosts sensory pleasure and reduces pain.

Nations with the highest percentages of people with the A allele in the FAAH gene variant rs324420 were the happiest, according to the report. These countries included Ghana and Nigeria in West Africa, and northern Latin American nations, such as Mexico and Colombia.

Nations with the lowest rates of the allele were least likely to rate themselves as “very happy,” and included China, Hong Kong, Iraq, Jordan, Taiwan and Thailand, the study authors said.

A nation’s climate also appeared to have a major impact on happiness, according to the report in the Journal of Happiness Studies.

“It seems that some equatorial and tropical environments select for a higher occurrence of the A allele as a counterbalance to environmental stressors,” study co-author Michael Minkov said in a journal news release. He is with the Varna University of Management in Bulgaria.

The researchers said that economic wealth, law systems and disease patterns were not major factors in nations’ happiness levels. However, they pointed out that politics and economics did cause fluctuations in happiness levels in some countries during the study period.

But people in countries without beneficial genes and climate don’t need to be concerned, the study authors said. They studied only differences between nations, not absolute measures.

“In other words,” study co-author Michael Bond, of Hong Kong Polytechnic University, said, “we have not shown that a nation’s genetic and climatic heritage doom a particular country to a specific happiness score, but that it can still rise and fall because of situational factors.”

More information

The Berkeley Greater Good Science Center has more about happiness.





from Health News / Tips & Trends / Celebrity Health http://ift.tt/1Qidl1X

Women May Have Better Flu Defenses

MONDAY, Jan. 18, 2016 (HealthDay News) — When it comes to fending off the flu, women may have an advantage over men, new research suggests.

The study found that the female sex hormone estrogen helps keep the flu virus somewhat at bay, which may help explain why flu appears to be harder on men than women.

The findings may also lead to new flu treatments, the researchers said.

In experiments with nasal cells from women and men, the researchers found that estrogen seems to limit the ability of the flu virus to replicate.

Less replication of the virus means that an infected person has less severe symptoms and is less likely to spread the flu to others, said lead investigator Sabra Klein, of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.

“Other studies have shown that estrogens have antiviral properties against HIV, Ebola and hepatitis viruses. What makes our study unique is twofold,” Klein said in a news release from the American Physiological Society.

“First, we conducted our study using primary cells directly isolated from patients, allowing us to directly identify the sex-specific effect of estrogens,” she said.

“Second, this is the first study to identify the estrogen receptor responsible for the antiviral effects of estrogens, bringing us closer to understanding the mechanisms mediating this conserved antiviral effect of estrogens,” she added.

It’s possible this effect is hard to see in the general population because estrogen levels vary throughout the month in women who haven’t gone through menopause, Klein suggested.

“But, premenopausal women on certain kinds of birth control or post-menopausal women on hormone replacement may be better protected during seasonal influenza epidemics,” Klein said.

Therapeutic estrogen — used to treat infertility and menopausal symptoms — may also offer some protection against flu, she added.

The study was published online recently in the American Journal of Physiology — Lung Cellular and Molecular Physiology.

More information

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention explains how to protect against the flu.





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

U.S. Ban on Gun Research Continues Despite Deadly Shootings

By Dennis Thompson
HealthDay Reporter

MONDAY, Jan. 18, 2016 (HealthDay News) — Mass shootings have prompted agony, anger and angst in the United States, causing citizens to ask why these events continue to happen and what can be done to stop them.

There are precious few answers to those questions, and there’s at least one strong reason why: For nearly two decades, the U.S. government has declined to fund research into gun violence.

Without that funding, experts say, crucial questions on gun safety and gun violence have been left unanswered.

“People will tell you that we’ve got lots of laws regarding guns, and they’re just not being enforced,” said Dr. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association. “In my mind, that argument falls short, because we’re not doing the research to evaluate how those laws are doing, to see how to best enforce them or how they should be tweaked if there’s a hole in those laws.”

Other important topics that have been left unstudied include design changes that could make guns safer, the number of nonfatal firearm injuries that occur each year, and the effectiveness of safety training for firearms, experts said.

“There are so many things we just don’t know anything about,” said David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center in Boston. “Any gun-related topic you list, there are huge gaps in our knowledge.”

President Barack Obama’s recent executive orders issued on firearms will do little to resolve this problem, Hemenway added. Obama’s orders focused on improved background checks and effective enforcement of existing gun laws, but only contained a single mention of research to improve gun safety technology.

“Congress controls the funding and they recently eliminated funds in the President’s budget for the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) for gun research,” Hemenway said.

What many Americans might not know, Benjamin said, is that the trillion-dollar spending bill passed by Congress and signed by Obama in December retained a ban on firearms research that dates to the 1990s.

Elected officials renewed the ban despite then-recent mass shootings in San Bernardino, Calif., and Colorado Springs, Colo., and an outcry from public health officials.

A Dec. 16 editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine noted that more than 33,000 people died from gunshot injuries and more than 84,000 were wounded in 2013, according to CDC statistics.

“If any other public health menace were consistently killing and maiming so many Americans, without research, recommendations, and action by the CDC, the public would be outraged,” the journal editorial said.

The research freeze also continued over the objections of the politician it’s named after, former U.S. Rep. Jay Dickey, a Republican from Arkansas. In 1998, what became known as the Dickey Amendment effectively blocked the CDC from conducting future research into gun violence.

But Dickey now thinks the nation shouldn’t have to choose between reducing gun-violence injuries and safeguarding gun ownership. And he very publicly said so in a Dec. 1 letter to the House Democrats’ task force on gun violence prevention.

“I took part in cutting off gun violence research dollars at the federal level because of what was considered a misapplication of the dollars by the CDC,” Dickey wrote. “I have recently expressed my regrets that we didn’t continue that research with the provision that nothing shall be done in this project to infringe the rights of gun ownership as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution in the Second Amendment.”

Dickey believes research into the causes of gun violence can save lives just as collision research by highway officials has done. Their investigation didn’t result in the elimination of automobiles, but led to the placement of concrete barriers that keep drivers from veering into oncoming traffic.

“In the same way, scientific research should help answer how we can best reduce gun violence,” Dickey wrote. “Doing nothing is no longer an acceptable solution.”

The Dickey Amendment and the defunding of firearms research have profoundly affected the nation’s knowledge of gun violence, turning many talented scientists away from the topic, said Daniel Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research.

“Scientists get invested in how they’re going to spend their careers, and they need funding to support those careers,” Webster said. “If the federal government signaled that yes, gun violence is a big problem, we’re going to have a long-term investment in better understanding that problem and what we can do to prevent it, you’d have a lot more scientists involved and we’d know a lot more than we do now,” he explained.

“Right now there’s only a handful of researchers who have dedicated a significant portion of their careers on this problem, which is just mind-boggling when you think about where it ranks as a public health problem, not to mention a broader social concern,” Webster added.

Some research has continued, thanks to private funding, Webster said. He cited a recent study that showed mandatory background checks for firearms purchases can save many lives by reducing the number of homicides and suicides, and also by keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.

But Webster, Benjamin and Hemenway rattled off a long list of research topics that have not been pursued, including:

  • Whether firearms as a consumer product can be made safer. “What should the trigger pull be on a firearm so that a kid can’t use it?” Benjamin said. “Is there a way to create a firearm so it can’t be altered beyond the purpose for which the gun was made?”
  • The extent of nonfatal gunshot wounds. “Our systems are not really set up to track these events,” Webster said, adding that an estimated three or four nonfatal injuries are believed to occur for every gun-related fatality.
  • The effectiveness of firearms training programs. “We know virtually nothing about gun training,” Hemenway said. “What is being taught? Can we make it better? Should there be mandatory gun training?”
  • The role of the underground firearms market. “We need to know more about where those guns are and how individuals most prone to use those guns inappropriately might access them,” Webster said.
  • The best ways to prevent gun-related suicides. “Almost two-thirds of all fatalities with guns in the United States are suicides,” Webster said. “There’s been very little research examining what’s the most effective way to separate an individual in crisis from a gun.”

These questions and more could be answered with a push from the federal government, Webster said.

He compared gun research to that conducted on motor vehicle safety and HIV. “You had large and long-term investment of the federal government,” Webster said. “They recognized these as big problems that kill lots of Americans.”

Obama’s executive order regarding research on gun safety technology could prove a first step in that direction, Hemenway noted. The president directed the departments of Defense, Justice and Homeland Security to conduct or sponsor research into technology that would make guns less able to discharge accidentally or be stolen.

“A few years ago I wrote a book entitled ‘While We Were Sleeping: Success Stories in Injury and Violence Prevention.’ It provided 64 documented successes where injury or violence has been successfully reduced,” Hemenway wrote in an editorial on Obama’s announcement. “The vast majority of successes entailed changing technology rather than changing human behavior. The former is much easier to accomplish and more cost-effective.”

From such investment, people with HIV, for instance, now live longer and it costs less to care for them. And, graduated driver’s licenses have saved the lives of countless young drivers by preventing them from driving at night and with other teens in the car, he said.

“If funding is re-established, things would not change overnight,” Webster said. “But goodness, this is a long-term thing. The longer we wait, the more deaths will accumulate.”

More information

For more on gun violence, visit the U.S. National Institute of Justice.





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