What You Can Learn From Controversial DIY Gene Tests Like 23andMe

Photo: Getty Images

After being warned by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) in 2013 to “immediately discontinue” their services, 23andMe is back in business. Curious consumers can once again ship off a saliva sample to the Google-backed company to learn about the secrets encoded in their genes.

But what can you really learn about yourself from these tests? And do you even want to know?

For $199, 23andMe’s new Personal Genome Service (PGS) will tell you whether you carry any of one of 36 mutations that can put you at risk of having a child with a genetic disorder, including cystic fibrosis and beta thalassemia, a blood disorder that causes anemia, stunted growth and other problems. They can also test your “carrier status” for more even more rare conditions like Bloom syndrome, which causes sensitivity to the sun and an increased risk for cancer.

The company will also continue to offer the “wellness” component of their report, which mostly tests for things you already know: how you might react to caffeine, for example, and how likely you are to be lactose intolerant. Of those tests, 23andMe president Andy Page explained to Business Insider: “It isn’t always about the test outcome. Just engaging in the genetics and learning fun things … it tells people ‘don’t be afraid.'”

What the new version doesn’t wade into are the murky waters of whether you carry genes that boost your likelihood of cancer or affect how you respond to certain drugs. That’s what got 23andMe in trouble with its first Personal Genome Service, which claimed to offer users “health reports on 254 diseases and conditions,” including breast cancer and Alzheimer’s disease.

Back in November 2013, the FDA sternly warned 23andMe to stop selling this test to consumers, saying that the company was violating federal law by selling a device “without marketing clearance or approval,” and putting people at risk by giving them potentially inaccurate information on life-or-death health issues.

RELATED: Sweet Tooth? Blame Your Gene

23andMe and its competitors were offering health information based on “sound bites” of DNA known as single-nucleotide polymorphisms, or SNPs, with results that were wide open to interpretation, explains Joy Larsen Haidle, a genetic counselor at the Humphrey Cancer Center in Minneapolis and current president of the National Society of Genetic Counselors.

“It was difficult for consumers to be able to determine how accurate the test result is, how reliable it is, and if you sent a test result to more than one lab you could easily get a different interpretation of your risk based on the same question,” Larsen Haidle says. “That was part of what prompted the whole concern in that era.”

23andMe quickly stopped selling its $99 spit kit after the FDA smackdown. The new version, according to a 23andMe press release, is the product of “two years of work with the FDA, extensive user comprehension testing and a complete redesign.”

“It’s a test that is most useful for those who are pregnant or considering planning for a pregnancy and are interested in knowing their risk to have a child with one of these genetic disorders that are tested for in their panel,” says Jerry Feldman, MD, PhD, president of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. “This is the type of testing that’s routinely been offered to pregnant women or couples interested in knowing this information for many years, and there are some guidelines by the various physician organizations that make specific recommendations in regards to such testing.”

RELATED: What You Should Know Before a Breast Cancer Gene Test

He adds: “What they’re offering from a testing standpoint is not unique, other than that it is an FDA-approved test and it offers patients the opportunity to have that testing performed direct-to-consumer.”

What concerns Dr. Feldman about direct-to-consumer testing is the need to make sure that patients understand what the test involves and what it will tell them, and how to interpret the results. “Our recommendation is to always have a genetics health care professional, such as a board-certified clinical geneticist or genetic counselor, involved in that process,” he says. And, he explains, patients need to know “that there’s a risk to getting this kind of information without having all the appropriate genetic counseling that goes along with it.”

There is definitely a place for direct-to-consumer genetic testing, Larsen Haidle says, with some caveats. “What’s important for consumers is that if they choose to have a direct test done, if they had a result that they weren’t certain what it meant or how to use it, meeting with a genetic counselor can be a good next step,” she says. “We’re happy to see them and be a resource.”

She adds: “We’re always in such a hurry that it is really worthwhile to take a moment and think about the root issue, what is it that I’m looking for…and will the test result help me reach that goal?”

RELATED: Prenatal Gene Tests Can Sometimes Spot Cancer in Mom-to-Be

Consumers also need to be sure to provide informed consent before sending in a sample for testing, she added, and to be fully aware of how their genetic information might be used.

Feldman and Larsen Haidle agree we’re still a long way away from the sci-fi promise of being able to read our medical fate in our genes.

“Genetic testing is evolving and evolving rapidly because new technology is making it more feasible to obtain that type of genetic information. However, there is certainly a lot more research and understanding of that genetic information that has to take place before it would become routine for every individual to have that testing performed and be given information that would be medically useful in all circumstances,” Dr. Feldman says.

An easy first step anyone can take toward the future of personalized medicine, according to Larsen Haidle, is to get to know your family medical history, and talk with relatives about the kinds of health problems that run in the family, and when people were diagnosed. “Any test that we have, the interpretation of it is best done in the context of your personal and family medical history,” she says.

RELATED: 6 Medical Breakthroughs That Matter

from Health News / Tips & Trends / Celebrity Health http://ift.tt/1XCgo6G

Drugmaker Recalls Injectors Used to Treat Allergic Reactions

THURSDAY, Oct. 29, 2015 (HealthDay News) — Hundreds of thousands of epinephrine injectors are being recalled by the drug company Sanofi because they may not deliver the correct amount of the life-saving drug to people suffering severe allergic reactions.

All packs of the Auvi-Q injectors are being recalled in the United States, the French drug maker said in a news release. Most packs contain two injectors. It’s believed that about 200,000 people in the United States have the injectors.

Sanofi said it has received 26 reports from the United States and Canada of inaccurate dosage delivery from the injectors, but none resulted in patient deaths.

The injectors are used to treat severe allergic reactions triggered by insect bites or stings, foods, medications, latex, and other causes. If a patient having a serious allergic reaction — called anaphylaxis — did not receive the intended dose, serious health problems could ensue, including death, the company said.

The recall covers all Auvi-Q injectors, including the 0.15 milligram and 0.3 milligram strengths for hospitals, retailers and consumers. The products have lot numbers 2299596 through 3037230 and expiration dates of March 2016 through December 2016.

To learn how to return the injectors and to get more information, Sanofi said consumers can call 1-866-726-6340 Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. ET, or email cs@sanofi.com. The company’s website has additional information.

Patients with Auvi-Q injectors should immediately contact their doctor for a prescription for another epinephrine auto-injector, Sanofi said.

More information

The American Academy of Family Physicians has more about epinephrine injection for anaphylaxis.

---

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

Too Much TV Linked to Leading Causes of Death

THURSDAY, Oct. 29, 2015 (HealthDay News) — A new study links watching too much TV with some of the leading causes of death in the United States.

Ninety-two percent of Americans have a TV in their home, according to background information in the study. And 80 percent of American adults watch an average of three-and-a-half hours of TV a day, which is more than half of their leisure time.

“We know that television viewing is the most prevalent leisure-time sedentary behavior and our working hypothesis is that it is an indicator of overall physical inactivity,” explained study author Sarah Keadle, a cancer prevention fellow at the U.S. National Cancer Institute.

“In this context, our results fit within a growing body of research indicating that too much sitting can have many different adverse health effects,” Keadle said.

In the study, the researchers followed more than 221,000 people, aged 50 to 71, who did not have any chronic diseases at the start of the nearly 15-year study. All were followed until death or until December 2011.

The more TV the older adults watched, the more likely they were to die from conditions such as heart disease, cancer, diabetes, flu/pneumonia, Parkinson’s disease and liver disease, the investigators found.

Compared with those who watched less than one hour of TV per day, the risk of death during the study period was 15 percent higher among those who watched three to four hours of TV a day, and 47 percent higher for those who watched seven or more hours a day, the findings showed.

Even after the researchers took into account for other risk factors — such as smoking, drinking alcohol, calorie intake and health problems — the association between TV viewing and increased risk of death during the study period remained.

However, the association seen in the study does not mean that watching too much TV causes death from these diseases.

The increased risk of death associated with watching a lot of TV was seen in both active and inactive people in the study, according to the report published online Oct. 27 in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

“Although we found that exercise did not fully eliminate risks associated with prolonged television viewing, certainly for those who want to reduce their sedentary television viewing, exercise should be the first choice to replace that previously inactive time,” Keadle said in a journal news release.

The findings add to growing evidence that spending too much time sitting is a threat to health.

“Older adults watch the most TV of any demographic group in the U.S.,” Keadle said. “Given the increasing age of the population, the high prevalence of TV viewing in leisure time, and the broad range of mortality outcomes for which risk appears to be increased, prolonged TV viewing may be a more important target for public health intervention than previously recognized.”

More information

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention offers healthy living advice.

---

from Health News / Tips & Trends / Celebrity Health http://ift.tt/1PWP1lq

Breast Cancer Equally Common Now Among Blacks, Whites

THURSDAY, Oct. 29, 2015 (HealthDay News) — Breast cancer is now as common among black women as among whites, although black women continue to have a higher death rate from the disease, an American Cancer Society report says.

For decades, black women had lower breast cancer rates than whites, but that gap has narrowed in recent years, the cancer society said.

From 2008 to 2012, breast cancer rates rose by 0.4 percent a year among black women, while remaining stable among whites and Hispanics.

That means that by 2012, overall breast cancer rates among blacks and whites converged. In fact, the researchers said, rates for black women now exceed those of whites in seven states: Alabama, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma and Tennessee.

In addition, black women still tend to fare worse than whites after a breast cancer diagnosis, and breast cancer death rates continue to be higher among blacks than whites, according to the American Cancer Society (ACS). By 2012, death rates among black women were 42 percent higher than in white women, and this trend is likely to continue at least in the near future, the researchers said.

One expert wasn’t surprised by the findings.

“The racial disparities between survival amongst patients with breast cancer have been known for some time,” said Dr. Stephanie Bernik, chief of surgical oncology at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City. “It is upsetting to see that the disparities persist, despite efforts to ensure that minority women have access to screening and treatment.”

Medicine is making inroads against breast cancer, but some groups are benefiting more than others. According to the new report, from 2003 to 2012, breast cancer death rates fell 1.8 percent a year among whites, 1.5 percent among Hispanics, and 1.4 percent among blacks.

Along with having the highest breast cancer death rate, black women are also more likely to be diagnosed at later stages of the disease and have the lowest survival rate at each stage of diagnosis. According to the ACS, potential reasons for these trends include lack of regular screening and/or follow-up of suspicious results; poor access to timely, high-quality treatment; and higher rates of aggressive, harder-to-treat tumors.

Dr. Paolo Boffetta is chief of cancer prevention and control at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City. He said the new report “shows more clearly than ever before how disparities between white and African-American women have worsened during in the last years, a trend which will likely continue.”

Boffetta believes the disparities exist because black women may have higher exposure to certain breast cancer risk factors compared to white women, and they often have poorer access to mammography and other types of screening, as well as effective therapies.

“Possible solutions require complex interventions targeted at reducing risk factors, improving screening, and providing access to effective treatment,” Boffetta suggested.

According to the ACS, as of Jan. 1, 2014, more than 3.1 million American women with a history of breast cancer were alive. Most of them were cancer-free, but some still had cancer and may have been receiving treatment, the report said.

There has been a 36 percent decline in U.S. breast cancer death rates since 1989, which means that 249,000 breast cancer deaths have been prevented, the ACS said.

In 2013, 69 percent of women aged 45 and older said they’d had a mammogram within the past two years. Screening rates are lower among those who are uninsured or have lower levels of schooling, and for Hispanics and American Indian/Alaska Natives.

After skin cancer, breast cancer remains is the most common type of cancer among American women, accounting for nearly one in three cancers. It is the second-leading cause of cancer death among American women, after lung cancer.

In 2015, it is estimated that about 232,000 new cases of invasive breast cancer will be diagnosed in the United States and there will be nearly 40,300 deaths.

The new study findings are published in the Oct. 29 issue of CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, and the accompanying consumer publication Breast Cancer Facts & Figures.

More information

The American Academy of Family Physicians has more about breast cancer.

---

from Health News / Tips & Trends / Celebrity Health http://ift.tt/1PWP3d2

Statins May Dampen Protective Powers of Flu Vaccines

By Randy Dotinga
HealthDay Reporter

THURSDAY, Oct. 29, 2015 (HealthDay News) — Two new studies raise the possibility that the popular cholesterol-lowering drugs known as statins may blunt the effectiveness of flu vaccines in seniors.

But experts caution that more research is needed to better understand the issue, and that older people shouldn’t throw away their statins just yet.

“There is a clear-cut benefit to persons taking statins, so patients should not stop statin use because of the study results, even for a short time,” said Dr. Robert Atmar, a clinical research professor of infectious diseases at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. He co-wrote a commentary that accompanied the studies.

And flu vaccines provide at least some protection in people who take statins, so “patients should still receive an influenza vaccine to be protected,” Atmar added.

Still, the findings raise yet another question about the safety of statins. While they can lower the risk of heart problems due to clogged arteries, some research has shown that the drugs can also cause side effects, such as muscle pain, liver damage and memory loss.

In the first study, funded by Novartis Vaccines, Dr. Steven Black of the Center for Global Health, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, and colleagues looked at the medical records of nearly 7,000 people over the age of 65 in the United States and three other countries. They had all taken part in a 2009-2011 clinical trial of a flu vaccine.

The researchers looked at the results of tests taken three weeks after the study participants were vaccinated. The levels of antibodies to flu — a measurement of the vaccine’s effectiveness at priming the body to fight off the virus — were 38 percent to 67 percent lower in those who took statins, depending on the type of flu strain. Natural statins seemed to have less of a vaccine-dampening effect than those created artificially. Red yeast rice is a natural statin, while Lipitor and Crestor are examples of synthetic statins.

The researchers suggested that older people on statins may need higher doses of flu vaccines or vaccine boosters to better arm their immune system. A high-dose flu vaccine is approved and available for adults aged 65 and older in the United States, along with several standard-dose vaccines, they added.

The second study, which examined the effects of the flu vaccine on a kind of respiratory illness, was launched because of reports that statins decrease inflammation in the body, explained study author Dr. Saad Omer, an associate professor at the Emory Vaccine Center in Atlanta.

Inflammation, part of the body’s immune response to invaders, can be harmful. According to Omer, statins may improve cardiac health in part by lowering inflammation levels in blood vessels.

On the other hand, the flu vaccine primes the body to fight the influenza virus through inflammation. Essentially, Omer explained, “a little bit of inflammation after vaccination is good.”

To gain more insight into how statins and the flu vaccine might interact, Omer and colleagues looked at cases of so-called acute respiratory illness, which can be caused by influenza, among almost 140,000 Kaiser Permanente health plan patients in Georgia. The researchers tracked the patients over flu seasons from 2002 to 2011.

The investigators wanted to understand if patients who got flu vaccines developed less protection against influenza if they also took statins. Statistical formulas designed to measure vaccine effectiveness reveal that they did, even after researchers adjusted their statistics so they wouldn’t be thrown off by various factors.

The findings suggest that “if you are on statins, the flu vaccine is slightly less effective,” Omer said.

But that may not be the whole picture, he said. It’s possible that the inflammation-fighting powers of statins could help the body fight off flu once it’s infected.

What now? More studies are needed, said Atmar, who acknowledged getting funding from a vaccine company in the past. However, he said, the findings of the two new studies “are plausible, based upon what we know about the effects of statins.”

The research is published in the Oct. 29 issue of The Journal of Infectious Diseases.

More information

For more about the seasonal flu vaccine, visit the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

---

from Health News / Tips & Trends / Celebrity Health http://ift.tt/1PWP2WK

Media Often Overplays Cancer Drug Research, Study Finds

By Dennis Thompson
HealthDay Reporter

THURSDAY, Oct. 29, 2015 (HealthDay News) — News articles that promise “breakthrough, “game-changing” new cancer drugs could irresponsibly raise the hopes of desperate patients, a new report suggests.

Just five days’ worth of news last June contained 94 articles that lavishly praised 36 different cancer drugs, researchers found by combing Google.

Unfortunately, half of the “marvel” drugs had not been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and 14 percent had never been tested on humans, the results showed.

“The net effect is really confusion,” said study co-author Dr. Vinay Prasad, an oncologist at Oregon Health and Science University.

“We found that the use of superlatives or grandiose descriptors of drugs happens whether drugs are approved or not, whether they are tested in people or not, or whether they improve survival or not,” Prasad said. “I think the average person who follows cancer news is rightfully frustrated, and may be unsure which drugs are really promising.”

The study results were published online Oct. 29 in JAMA Oncology.

Cancer patients are most harmed by this hype, said Dr. Lidia Schapira, editor-in-chief of Cancer.net and an oncologist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

Recently, the extreme optimism displayed in some cancer coverage led to a tough conversation between Schapira and a distraught patient suffering from advanced cancer.

“She was telling me she was surrounded by all of the media reporting all these incredible miracles and successes, and she felt she wasn’t benefitting directly from this,” Schapira said. “It took a long conversation for her to appreciate that what she was referring to was a lot of hype.”

For the study, Prasad and his colleagues scanned Google news for 10 specific superlatives used in conjunction with the term “cancer drug.” The search included the words breakthrough, game changer, miracle, cure, home run, revolutionary, transformative, life saver, groundbreaking and marvel.

The investigators found that 18 of the 36 drugs described had not been approved by the FDA for any particular use in people. Five of the 36 hadn’t even been tested on humans; the stories were based on laboratory research involving mice or cell cultures.

“Targeted therapy” drugs designed to precisely identify and attack cancer cells received the most hype, with 47 percent of the articles focusing on this new type of medication, the findings showed.

More than half the time, the journalists writing the article included the superlative on their own, without attributing it to a source. Physicians provided the hype 27 percent of the time, industry experts 9 percent, and patients 8 percent of the time.

“The doctors who develop drugs, the industry who promotes them, and the journalists who cover them all share in this,” Prasad said.

Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, deputy chief medical officer for the American Cancer Society, said this isn’t a new trend. For many years, he said, he’s “been concerned about what I call the hope and the hype, where there have been reports in the media quoting experts that overpromise on treatments.”

Lichtenfeld said that legitimately important medical advances have taken place in recent years, including the new targeted therapies as well as immunotherapy drugs that goad the body’s immune system into killing cancer cells.

But science is a slow and incremental process, and reporters and researchers are sometimes too quick to describe a single small step as a major leap, said Dr. Louis Potters, chair of radiation for North Shore-LIJ Health System in Great Neck, N.Y.

“I’ve been in practice for 23 years, and you see these tidal waves of discoveries, whether they’re pharmaceutical or devices or surgical, and the hype usually gets ahead of the reality,” said Potters.

Unfortunately, “patients buy into the hype 200 percent,” Potters said. “Cancer is one of the most polluting words in the dictionary, because it creates a tremendous amount of fear and anxiety.”

Journalists should continue to cover advances in science, the experts say, but must avoid using overblown rhetoric and provide important context about each study’s design and potential flaws.

“I believe in sharing results and research with the public. If there are new findings, it’s important to relay that to the public, but do it responsibly,” Schapira said.

For example, reporters and scientists should avoid calling a cancer drug “groundbreaking” if it’s only been tested in a laboratory, Lichtenfeld said.

“Very few things reported in journals make an overnight impact in the care of our patients,” he said.

More information

For more on cancer drugs, visit the U.S. National Cancer Institute.

---

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

The 5 Biggest Misconceptions About Hair Oils

Photo: Getty Images

There has been a lot of literature thrown around concerning hair oils. Every person has a different favorite product… and a different apprehension. To get my facts straight, I tapped beloved hair-care brand Shu Uemura to explain exactly what hair oils are, how they work, and why they should remain an integral part of my beauty routine. Below, we debunk the most common misconceptions that come along with most oil-based products.

1. Hair oils are heavy.

Not all oils are created equal. While some oil products sit on top of the hair, products with camelia oil rapidly absorb into the hair fiber thanks to its high concentration of lipids and minerals that work to protect and hydrate the hair.

2. Hair oil will make your hair look greasy.

A little goes a long way. Only a pea-sized amount of oil is needed. And remember, oil should only be used on mid-lengths to ends, NEVER roots.

3. Oil should be used on second day hair.

Oils are a great way to revive second day hair—they work to smooth frizz and hydrate ends, as well as banish dullness by refreshing shine and adding a hint of fragrance. Just make sure you avoid applying to the roots which can make hair look greasy.

4. Oil should only be applied to wet hair.

Oils actually have many different uses. In addition to being a great styling aid, they can be applied to dry hair to add shine, tame frizz and flyaways, and also make a great pre-shampoo treatment for extra conditioning when applied to dry hair before washing. For extra nourishment, apply to dry hair at night from mid-lengths through ends and massage into the scalp. Leave on overnight and wash normally in the morning.

5. Hair oils are all the same.

From argan and almond to coconut and camelia, hair oils have come a long way in the past few years and there are many different kinds to choose from. When it comes to hair, the most important thing is to choose an oil that is easily absorbed so it doesn’t weigh hair down.

This article originally appeared on MIMIchatter.com.

More from MIMI:

I Swear By: Shu Uemura Cleansing Oil Shampoo

5 Things Every Curly-Haired Girl Needs

5 Dirty Hair Styling Hacks

MIMI Chatter is an endless stream of beauty content. We bring together the must-knows and the how-tos from your favorite sites, beauty influencers, our editors, and YOU.

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

12 Times The Rock’s Instagram Inspired Us to Be Better People

Sadly #TheRocktober will soon come to an end—but don’t worry, there’s still a bit more time to celebrate Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson.

Why does he deserve our attention?

Aside from stocking his social media accounts with gym videos that seriously pump you up, Johnson is a triple threat with a resume that boasts professional wrestling, Baller acting skills (see what I did there?), and being really good at the Internet. (Remember when he set the Guinness World Record for most selfies taken in 3 minutes?)

Piper Kerman, author of Orange Is the New Black, put it best when she wrote about his effect on her fellow inmates during her year in a women’s prison: “I am confident that some day in the future The Rock, who was once a professional wrestler, will run for president of the United States, and I think that he will win. I have seen with my own eyes the power of The Rock. The Rock is a uniter, not a divider … The Rock has an effect on women that transcends divisions of race, age, cultural background, even social class.”

RELATED: 10 Inspiring Quotes From The U.S. Women’s National Team

Put simply, The Rock is just the best. In these times, when the bad news seems to be constant—the Kardashians will never quit, and even bacon (bacon!) is no longer safe—we need The Rock.

And with that, here are 12 reasons to <3 him.

This is how he warms up for a workout

 

This is how he finishes a workout

 

His kettlebells look like this…

 

This is how he does Disney World

life isn’t so bad, here’s a picture of the rock on splash mountain http://pic.twitter.com/Y5t7GWAYMQ

— j chilliams freakman (@satellitehigh) August 28, 2015

 

This is how he reacts when young fans interrupt his time with his mom

RELATED: 7 Inspiring Women Athletes Over Age 70

This is what he thinks about “fierce chicks”

 

These are his goals

 

This is how he treats his co-workers

 

This is his breakfast

 

THIS

 

AND THIS

 

And finally, I’m not sure what this is exactly but it is a “religious experience” by itself

I mean if that doesn’t motivate you to kick ass, what will?

Next time you’re feeling conflicted, stressed, or down, just remember: The Rock is rooting for you. Get off the couch. Get to the gym, and just imagine The Rock’s voice dropping F-bombs (I’m referring to “Focus!”) in your ear while you sweat.

Get after it!

RELATED: 24 Motivational Weight Loss and Fitness Quotes

from Health News / Tips & Trends / Celebrity Health http://ift.tt/1PWxB8A

VW Emissions Scandal May Cost 60 U.S. Lives, Study Claims

THURSDAY, Oct. 29, 2015 (HealthDay News) — The Volkswagen emissions scandal will directly cause 60 premature deaths in the United States and hundreds of millions of dollars in health care expenses and other costs, U.S. researchers claim.

The German automaker has admitted to using software to evade emissions standards in more than 482,000 diesel vehicles in the United States. According to the authors of the new study, this enabled VW cars to emit 40 times more pollution than permitted by the U.S. Clean Air Act.

In their new analysis, researchers at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Harvard University took that excess pollution figure and multiplied it by the number of affected vehicles sold in the United States, to determine the public health consequences of VW’s action.

They calculated that about 60 Americans will die 10 to 20 years prematurely because of the emissions standards breach. If VW recalls every affected vehicle by the end of 2016, more than 130 additional deaths may be prevented. However, if the company does not order a recall in the United States, there will be an additional 140 premature deaths, the study contends.

In addition, the excess air pollution will contribute directly to 31 cases of chronic bronchitis and 34 hospital admissions for heart and lung problems, and lead to about 120,000 minor restricted activity days — including work absences — and about 210,000 lower-respiratory symptom days, according to the researchers.

They also concluded that the excess vehicle emissions will lead to $450 million in health and social costs. However, a recall of all affected vehicles by the end of 2016 could save up to $840 million in further health and social costs, according to the study.

In a statement, Volkswagen USA refuted the claims.

“Volkswagen has acknowledged that some of its vehicles did not comply with certain emissions regulations,” the company said. “We have suspended the sale of the affected vehicles and are working diligently to remedy the issue as soon as possible. The EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] has noted that the affected vehicles are legal and safe to drive.”

Volkswagen went on to say, “General allegations regarding links between NOx [nitrogen oxide, a component of air pollution] emissions from these affected vehicles and specific health effects are unverified. We have received no confirmed reports that the emissions from such vehicles may cause any actual health problem.”

Study lead author Steven Barrett, an associate professor of aeronautics and astronautics at MIT, said the new study could help U.S. officials better estimate the impacts of VW’s emissions cheating.

“It seemed to be an important issue in which we could bring to bear impartial information to help quantify the human implications of the Volkswagen emissions issue,” he said in an MIT news release. “The main motivation is to inform the public and inform the developing regulatory situation.

“We all have risk factors in our lives, and [excess emissions] is another small risk factor,” Barrett noted. “If you take into account the additional risk due to the excess Volkswagen emissions, then roughly 60 people have died or will die early, and on average, a decade or more early.”

Per kilometer driven, this number is about 20 percent of the number of deaths caused by road transport accidents, he said.

“So it’s about the same order of magnitude, just from these excess emissions,” Barrett said. “If nothing’s done, these excess emissions will cause around another 140 deaths. However, two-thirds of the total deaths could be avoided if the recalls could be done quickly, in the course of the next year.”

The study was published Oct. 28 in the journal Environmental Research Letters.

More information

The American Lung Association has more about the health effects of air pollution.

---

from Health News / Tips & Trends / Celebrity Health http://ift.tt/20cPDrO

Too Many Seniors With Diabetes Are Overtreated, Study Suggests

By Serena Gordon
HealthDay Reporter

THURSDAY, Oct. 29, 2015 (HealthDay News) — When it comes to treating seniors with diabetes, new research suggests that doctors often don’t cut back on medications, even when treatment goals are surpassed.

The study found that when people had potentially dangerous low blood sugar levels, just 27 percent had their medicines decreased. And when blood pressure treatments lowered blood pressure levels too much, just 19 percent saw a reduction in their medications.

“As people get older, the risks of overtreating become greater, and the benefits become shorter. We have to start emphasizing that more isn’t always better,” said study author Dr. Jeremy Sussman, an assistant professor of internal medicine at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor and a primary care doctor at the Ann Arbor VA System.

The findings were published online Oct. 26 in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine.

Practice guidelines generally focus on intensifying treatments for people with diabetes, to ensure that their blood sugar and blood pressure are at levels that have been shown to reduce complications, such as heart disease. But, with greater pressure to meet these treatment goals, overtreatment has now become an issue, the study authors said.

To get a better idea of the scope of the problem, the researchers reviewed U.S. Veterans Health Affairs records for more than 211,000 people with diabetes between 2012 and 2015. All were aged 70 or older. The study participants were receiving treatment to lower blood pressure or blood sugar levels.

The study excluded people taking medications known as angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) for blood pressure, because these medications have additional benefits beyond lowering blood pressure.

The researchers also excluded people who were just taking metformin for their diabetes, because this medication doesn’t have a high risk of causing dangerously low blood sugar levels. It also may have additional benefits beyond lowering blood sugar, the study authors added.

Sussman said that the risks of overtreating high blood pressure could be a substantial increase in falls, confusion and drug interactions. A systolic — the top number — blood pressure of under 120 is too low for people over 70, he noted.

Low blood sugar levels can also lead to confusion, falls and hospitalizations, according to Sussman. A very low blood sugar level is an A1C test of less than 6 percent, the study said. A1C is a rough estimate of blood sugar levels over several months.

“Overtreatment is work, and people are being asked to work hard for something that’s counterproductive,” Sussman said. In addition, failing to reduce treatment when it’s called for is “wasting money for an outcome that will make patients less healthy,” he explained.

So why aren’t doctors stepping treatments down? A second study in the same issue of the journal attempted to answer that question.

Researchers from the Ann Arbor Veterans Affairs Center for Clinical Management Research in Michigan surveyed a national sample of nearly 600 physicians working in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

One-third of doctors surveyed said they thought their patients could benefit from exceeding treatment guideline goals. Nearly one-quarter were concerned about a potential malpractice suit from reducing treatment. Nearly half were concerned that lowering medications for those who’ve exceeded the goals would lower their scores on performance measures, the study found.

Another 20 percent were worried that patients would be upset if they reduced their medications, the survey reported.

“We spend so much time telling people that it’s important to take their medications, it’s tough to now say you’re being overtreated. But people’s needs change with age,” Sussman explained.

Another diabetes expert agreed.

“In elderly patients, we worry about being too aggressive. We don’t necessarily have to bring the A1C to under 7 percent. As patients get older and sicker, even the same medications they’ve been on can cause more low blood pressure and low blood sugar,” said Dr. Joel Zonszein, director of the Clinical Diabetes Center at Montefiore Medical Center in New York City.

But, he said he doesn’t think there needs to be a big push to lower medications across the board. Zonszein said that the need to intensify treatment regimens is generally a bigger problem, and he worries this study might unnecessarily worry patients.

Zonszein added, “Doctors need to use more clinical judgment and provide more patient-centered therapy.”

Sussman said it’s important to remember that “just because a medication was right for you at one point doesn’t mean it always will be. At least once a year, talk to your doctor and make sure all of your medications still make sense.”

More information

Learn more about diabetes treatments from the American Diabetes Association.

---

from Health News / Tips & Trends / Celebrity Health http://ift.tt/20cPDrz