barre

Kylie Jenner Criticized for Posing in a Wheelchair for Racy Photo Shoot

Photo: Getty Images

Photo: Getty Images

Kylie Jenner is facing backlash for a racy spread in the December issue of Interview magazine. In the issue, the 18-year-old reality star and youngest member of the Kardashian/Jenner family is shown straddling a table and wearing some very NSFW latex pants, but it’s the photos of her posing in a wheelchair that have many people, including disability advocates, up in arms.

Photo: Interview/Screengrab

Photo: Interview/Screengrab

RELATED: Kylie Jenner Explains Her Unbelievable Cleavage

Health spoke with Carol Glazer, president of the National Organization on Disability, a non-profit that focuses on increasing employment opportunities for Americans with disbilities, to weigh in on the photos. “Any effort to bring the wheelchair into mainstream media in a positive way is good. It’s often a misconception that women who use wheelchairs aren’t able to be sexy or even have sex, so to the extent that Kylie Jenner is portrayed as sexy while sitting in a wheelchair is not all bad,” she says. “However, we are concerned that this portrayal of Jenner—who is not disabled—as an inanimate object and using the wheelchair as a prop, is unfortunate. Instead of being depicted as a prop, wheelchairs should be shown as helping women live free and independent lives.”

RELATED: Kim Kardashian’s Dangerous Pregnancy Complication, Explained

Many Twitter users echoed this sentiment:

RELATED: 9 Celebrities With Lupus

In the future, Glazer hopes Jenner will use her stardom to elevate the issue of how people with disabilities are depicted in the media. “She could use her platform and connections to feature real wheelchair users in a way that heightens sensitivity and awareness,” she says, adding that Jenner’s anti-bullying #IAmMoreThan Instagram campaign is a good example of this.

Although Jenner has yet to address the criticism of the shoot, Interview is defending the photos.  “At Interview, we are proud of our tradition of working with great artists and empowering them to realize their distinct and often bold visions,” a spokesperson said in a statement provided to E! News . “The Kylie Jenner cover by Steven Klein, which references the British artist Allen Jones, is a part of this tradition, placing Kylie in a variety of positions of power and control and exploring her image as an object of vast media scrutiny.”

RELATED: Khloe Kardashian on Staying Strong During Difficult Days: “You Can Only Control Yourself”




from Health News / Tips & Trends / Celebrity Health http://ift.tt/1l8lSbC

Pollution From Coal Burning Most Damaging to Health, Study Finds

WEDNESDAY, Dec. 2, 2015 (HealthDay News) — Air pollution particles from the burning of coal are far more dangerous to your health than those from other sources, a new study indicates.

Researchers analyzed data gathered from 450,000 people in 100 U.S. cities between 1982 and 2004. The team from NYU Langone Medical Center, in New York City, found that exposure to tiny particles in fossil fuel emissions are associated with an increased risk of heart disease. Fossil fuels include coal, crude oil and natural gas.

The investigators found that — pound for pound — particles from coal burning contribute about five times more to the risk of death from heart disease than other air pollution particles of the same size — less than one ten-thousandth of an inch in diameter (known as PM 2.5).

The findings were published online Dec. 2 in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, just as world leaders gather in Paris for the United Nations Climate Change Conference. Delegates will consider numerous ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Greenhouse gases trap heat and make the planet warmer, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States is from burning fossil fuels for electricity, heat and transportation.

Air pollution kills about 3 million people worldwide each year, according to the World Health Organization. Coal emissions are a major factor in this public health crisis, the study authors said. These emissions must be reduced to lower the number of deaths caused by air pollution, the researchers said.

“Past studies of this kind have essentially assumed that all PM 2.5 particles have the same toxicity, irrespective of their source,” lead investigator George Thurston, a professor of population health and environmental medicine, said in a Langone news release.

“Our results indicate that, pound for pound, coal-burning particles contribute roughly five times as much to heart disease mortality risk as the average air pollution PM 2.5 particle in the United States,” he added.

The researchers also found that PM 2.5 particles from wind-blown soil and the burning of wood and other biomass were insignificant in terms of the risk of death from heart disease.

More information

The World Health Organization has more on air pollution.





from Health News / Tips & Trends / Celebrity Health http://ift.tt/1IpiB1G

Negative News on Statins Tied to Dropped Prescriptions

By Amy Norton
HealthDay Reporter

WEDNESDAY, Dec. 2, 2015 (HealthDay News) — News reports on the downsides of statins may push some people to stop taking the cholesterol-lowering drugs, a new study hints.

The findings, published Dec. 2 in the European Heart Journal, cannot prove that media stories drive statin users to give up their prescriptions.

Instead, Danish researchers found a broad correlation between “negative” media coverage and people’s odds of quitting a statin within six months of their first prescription.

But even without a clear cause-and-effect connection, experts said it’s reasonable to assume that media stories had an influence over some statin users in the study.

It rings true to Dr. Thomas Whayne Jr., of the Gill Heart Institute at the University of Kentucky.

“I’ve seen this happen a lot,” said Whayne, who was not involved in the study. “News stories come out, and you have patients saying, ‘I’m not going to take these dangerous medications.’ “

Much of the negative press around statins has focused on muscle-related side effects. Most often, that means muscle pain and weakness known as myopathy, which affects roughly 10 percent of statin users, Whayne said.

Rarely, patients can develop a more severe problem called rhabdomyolysis — a breakdown of muscle fibers that can lead to permanent kidney damage if it’s not recognized.

Type 2 diabetes is another widely reported risk connected to statins, Whayne pointed out. But, he said, it’s not that a statin triggers diabetes in a perfectly healthy person. Instead, it’s thought the drugs may hasten diabetes onset in some people with risk factors.

And the odds appear small. One research review published in BMJ last year found that 4.9 percent of study patients given statins developed diabetes over four years, compared with 4.5 percent of patients given placebo pills.

“Statins can, of course, have side effects, and some patients can’t tolerate them,” Whayne said. But overall, he added, the benefits of the drugs “far outweigh” the potential risks for people at high risk of heart disease.

That kind of context can be missing in news stories on statin risks, said Dr. Borge Nordestgaard, the lead researcher on the new study and a professor at Copenhagen University Hospital in Denmark.

The stories deemed to be “negative” in this study, he said, often focused on side effects without mentioning potential benefits.

“Patients should always talk with their doctor before stopping taking their statin — to get a balanced view of potential side effects, in relation to the overall beneficial effect of reductions in heart disease, stroke and premature death,” Nordestgaard said.

Dr. Erin Michos, an associate professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, emphasized the importance of doctor-patient communication.

“It’s important for doctors to discuss their reasons for prescribing a statin, so that patients are already armed with information when they see news reports on the drugs,” said Michos, a spokesperson for the American College of Cardiology.

For patients, Michos had this advice: “If you’re concerned about something you see in the news, don’t just stop taking your medication. Talk to your provider about it, and get the other side of the story, too.”

For the study, Nordestgaard’s team used a database with information on nearly 675,000 Danish adults who started taking a statin between 1995 and 2010. Using another database, they found almost 2,000 print, TV and radio news transcripts on statins, which they then graded as “neutral,” “positive” or “negative.”

The majority of the stories won the “neutral” label, but 110 were considered negative.

Over the study period, statin prescriptions rose — as did the number of people quitting them within six months. By 2010, that figure stood at 18 percent.

In general, the researchers found, statin users were more likely to quit early if national or regional media were running negative stories at the time. For each negative story, the odds of early quitting rose by 9 percent.

Those dropped prescriptions were, in turn, linked to a 26 percent increase in the risk of suffering a heart attack over the next four years. The odds of dying from heart-related complications rose by 18 percent, the study found.

Whayne said the risks of statins should not be dismissed. “They are real,” he said. “They’re not in patients’ heads.”

But they are also manageable, short of stopping medication altogether, Whayne said.

Switching to another statin often does the job, he said, since the drugs do differ. Lovastatin (Altoprev, Mevacor) and simvastatin (Zocor) carry higher risks of muscle problems, for example.

And while statins are the “standard of care,” Whayne said, there are other options for lowering cholesterol. Alternative medications include ezetimibe (Zetia) and a group of drugs called bile acid sequestrants.

The latest option, Whayne noted, is a class of drugs called PCSK9 inhibitors. But since these injection drugs are so expensive, they’re only used for certain high-risk patients right now.

The study was funded by Copenhagen University Hospital.

More information

The American Heart Association has more on cholesterol medications.





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

False-Positive Mammogram May Hint at Breast Cancer Risk Later

By Kathleen Doheny
HealthDay Reporter

WEDNESDAY, Dec. 2, 2015 (HealthDay News) — In a finding that suggests a false-positive result on a mammogram may be somewhat more worrisome than thought, a new study says women who get such a result may be at increased risk of developing breast cancer later.

However, the study finding needs to be put into perspective, said study leader Louise Henderson, an assistant professor of radiology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

“There are a lot of things that increase risk,” Henderson said. A false positive “does increase your risk, but it is not increasing your risk to a huge degree. It’s another piece to the puzzle of breast cancer risk.”

In the study, published in the December issue of Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, the researchers analyzed national breast cancer data from 1994 through 2009. They looked at the results of more than 2.2 million screening mammograms done on nearly 1.3 million women in different parts of the United States. The women were aged 40 to 74.

After an initial screening, the researchers tracked the women for up to 10 years, looking to see if a false positive was linked with breast cancer risk later.

The women were divided into three groups: Those who had a negative result; those who had a false positive and were referred for additional tests (such as an MRI); and those who had a false-positive result and were sent for a biopsy. The researchers reasoned that those sent for a biopsy had more concerning or suspicious findings than those sent for additional testing.

Compared to women with a negative result, those who got a false positive and were referred for more tests had a 39 percent higher risk of developing cancer during the follow-up period. Women referred for a biopsy had a 76 percent higher risk of developing breast cancer than the women with a negative result did, the findings showed.

While those increased risks sound high, they need to be put into perspective, Henderson said. For women who got a false positive and were sent for more imaging, compared to those who got a negative result, about one or two additional women would develop breast cancer in the next decade, she said. In addition, for a false positive that led to a biopsy, an additional one to three women would develop breast cancer later.

Dr. Joanne Mortimer, director of women’s cancers programs at City of Hope Cancer Center, in Duarte, Calif., agreed that there is no cause for undue alarm. Rather, she said, women should have a “heightened awareness” about asking their doctor what to do if they have a false-positive mammogram result.

The findings may be a case of “over-reading,” she said. Those radiologists who have analyzed more mammograms may be less prone to do that, Mortimer added.

On the other hand, those reading the mammograms might be seeing a transitional change, from normal cells to eventual cancer, she suggested.

Reading a mammogram is not a simple task, Mortimer explained. “It’s not one single abnormality that is looked at that turns out to be a false positive,” she said. Rather, it’s an accumulation of suspected abnormalities that may prompt a radiologist to call a test suspicious and ask for more testing.

False-positive rates in the United States are higher than in other countries, Henderson said. Among experts who don’t advocate annual mammograms, the worry and anxiety produced by false positives is often held up as the reason, along with unneeded extra testing.

Women with a false-positive result should follow up with their doctor and ask what screening intervals are best for them, Henderson said. She added that she hopes the new information will be incorporated into risk models that also consider family history, genetic mutations and other factors.

More information

To learn more about breast cancer screening, visit the American Cancer Society.





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

Survival Improves for Patients With Advanced Breast Cancer

WEDNESDAY, Dec. 2, 2015 (HealthDay News) — American women diagnosed with advanced, stage 4 breast cancer have a better chance of survival, and are surviving longer, compared to two decades ago, a new study finds.

Stage 4 breast cancer involves a tumor that has spread — metastasized — beyond the breast and surrounding lymph nodes to other organs in the body.

“Survival in stage 4 breast cancer has improved and is increasingly of prolonged duration, particularly for some women undergoing initial breast surgery,” report researchers led by Mary Schroeder, an assistant professor of health services research at the University of Iowa in Iowa City.

Her team published their findings online Dec. 2 in the journal JAMA Surgery.

One expert was heartened by the results.

“It is not surprising that there has been an improvement in length of survival in patients with stage 4 breast cancer, as there have been many advances in chemotherapeutic and immunologic therapies,” said Dr. Stephanie Bernik, chief of surgical oncology at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City.

“We have also gotten better at targeting specific kinds of cancers with drugs that are directed to treating certain tumor types, and are moving away from a ‘one-size-fits-all’ treatment regimen,” Bernik said.

In its study, Schroeder’s group tracked outcomes for more than 21,000 patients who were diagnosed with stage 4 breast cancer between 1988 and 2011. The women did not receive radiation therapy as part of their first course of treatment.

The investigators found that the patients’ median survival rose from 20 months between 1988 and 1991, to 26 months between 2007 and 2011.

At the same time, rates of breast surgery declined during the study period. However, women who did undergo surgery were more likely to survive, the researchers found. Among patients diagnosed before 2002, nearly 10 percent of those who had surgery survived at least 10 years, compared with about 3 percent of those who did not have surgery.

Along with surgery, other factors associated with longer survival included the patient’s marital status, her year of diagnosis, tumor size and the tumor’s hormone receptor status (sensitivity to hormones can affect how aggressive a tumor might be).

Further research is needed to learn more about the link between surgery and improved survival, the researchers said.

Experts said that the value of surgically removing a breast when the cancer has already spread beyond it is still being debated.

“Why remove a woman’s breast in the face of overt metastatic disease? This is not a new idea, with some retrospective, non-randomized trials showing that survival is increased if one removes the primary breast cancer,” said Dr. Charles Shapiro, director of translational breast cancer research at Mount Sinai Health System in New York City.

“Why biologically this would be so is unclear,” he said, but some theorize that removing the originating cancer might help the immune system battle the disease, or stop the primary tumor from “seeding” new tumors elsewhere in the body.

Dr. Richard Bleicher is a breast surgeon and associate professor at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia. He pointed out that the Iowa study was retrospective — not the gold standard prospective, randomized trial needed to say for sure that surgery does boost survival for women with stage 4 breast cancers.

While the current study does suggest a benefit, “it remains unclear, however, from this data, whether this is true for all women or particular subsets, and the study poses as many questions as it answers,” he said.

“This study reinforces the suggestion that surgery is beneficial in stage 4 disease, but ultimately for the definitive word on this issue, we will need prospective data to sort out the issues of selection bias in this type of retrospective study,” Bleicher said.

More information

The U.S. National Cancer Institute has more about breast cancer treatment.





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

Hearts Entombed With Loved Ones Give Clues to Cardiac Disease Centuries Ago

WEDNESDAY, Dec. 2, 2015 (HealthDay News) — “My heart will go on” may be more than a line from a song: Researchers say they’re learning more about the history of heart disease from spousal hearts buried with loved ones centuries ago.

The hearts — encased in decorative, heart-shaped urns — were buried about 400 years ago in France.

“It was common during that time period to be buried with the heart of a husband or wife. This was the case with one of our hearts. It’s a very romantic aspect to the burials,” study author Dr. Fatima-Zohra Mokrane, a radiologist at the University Hospital of Toulouse, France, said in a news release from the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA).

As described by the researchers, the several burial vaults in the basement of the Convent of the Jacobins in Rennes date back to the late 16th or early 17th century. The vaults were excavated by France’s National Institute for Preventive Archaeological Research and were found to contain five urns with preserved hearts.

Mokrane’s team scanned the centuries-old hearts using MRI and CT. The process was difficult, she said, because materials used to embalm the hearts needed first to be painstakingly removed. Then, her team “rehydrated” the dried-out cardiac muscle.

“Since four of the five hearts were very well-preserved, we were able to see signs of present-day heart conditions, such as plaque and atherosclerosis [hardening of the arteries],” Mokrane said.

One heart had no signs of disease, three had evidence of coronary artery disease, and the fifth was in too poor shape to be studied.

The inscription on one urn said the heart belonged to Toussaint Perrien, Knight of Brefeillac. His heart had been removed after his death and later buried with his wife, Louise de Quengo, Lady of Brefeillac, whose body was found on the site.

The study was presented Dec. 2 at the RSNA’s annual meeting in Chicago.

More information

The U.S. National Institutes of Health explains how to reduce your heart risks.





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

Is Breast Density an Overrated Cancer Risk Factor?

By Kathleen Doheny
HealthDay Reporter

WEDNESDAY, Dec. 2, 2015 (HealthDay News) — Breast density is considered by many an independent risk factor for breast cancer. But new research from Croatia suggests it might not be that critical after all.

Researchers evaluated thousands of mammogram reports in Croatia and found no substantial difference in breast density between 230 women diagnosed with breast cancer and those who weren’t.

Just a small number of the women with breast cancer had very dense breast tissue, the researchers found.

“We cannot conclude from our study that breast density is not a risk factor, but it might not be a strong factor,” said study researcher Dr. Natasa Katavic of Health Center Osijek in Croatia. “We have an impression that breast density is presented to the public as the most important risk factor, which our study does not support.”

However, two U.S. experts took exception to the study’s conclusions.

“The findings do not apply to U.S. women,” said Dr. Debra Monticciolo, chair of the American College of Radiology Commission on Breast Imaging. She said the study researchers grouped women into four categories of breast density, but “the percent of women in each category is markedly different from what we see in the U.S., so it makes it hard to apply to women in the U.S.”

Dr. Laura Kruper added that the number of screenings evaluated for the study — about 53,000 over five years — was relatively low.

It would have been better to follow the women for several years to be sure they did not develop cancer later, said Kruper. She is director of the Cooper Finkel Women’s Health Center and co-director of the breast cancer program at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, Calif.

Because of the relatively low numbers and the study’s design, she added, “I don’t think you can draw any conclusion.”

Women with dense breasts have a slightly higher risk of breast cancer compared to those with less dense breasts, the American Cancer Society says, although it’s not clear why. Also, when breasts are very dense, it makes it difficult to detect cancers in the breast tissue.

Dense breasts have a lot of fibrous or glandular tissue and not much fatty tissue, according to the cancer society. Density is common. With age, breasts often become less dense.

Some U.S. states require mammography results to include a report on breast density, and some doctors recommend women with dense breasts to undergo additional testing, according to background information with the study.

The women screened for this study were between ages 50 and 69 and seen at five facilities in Croatia. The researchers found that about half of the 230 women diagnosed with cancer were from the group with the least dense breasts. Slightly less than 3 percent were in the highest density group.

The findings were scheduled for presentation Wednesday at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America, in Chicago. Studies presented at medical meetings are usually viewed as preliminary until they undergo rigorous peer review for publication in a medical journal.

In the United States, said Monticciolo, about 50 percent of women have breasts categorized as dense or very dense. In the new study, no more than 17 percent did.

Both U.S. experts said it’s important to keep breast density as a risk factor in perspective. It’s one of many risk factors, and, like age, it’s one that women have no control over. Family history is a stronger risk factor for breast cancer than density, Monticciolo said.

Women should continue to get annual mammograms, whatever their breast density, Monticciolo said, citing the American College of Radiology guidelines. Other organizations recommend mammograms every other year and have different starting ages.

At this time, the American Cancer Society does not recommend that women with dense breast tissue have MRIs in addition to mammograms.

More information

To learn more about breast density, visit the American Cancer Society.





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

Powerful New Pot May Harm the Brain, Researchers Say

By Dennis Thompson
HealthDay Reporter

WEDNESDAY, Dec. 2, 2015 (HealthDay News) — Smoking high-potency marijuana might damage nerve fibers that connect the brain’s two hemispheres, a new study reports.

MRI scans of nearly 100 people — including some diagnosed with psychosis — associated frequent use of high-potency “skunk” marijuana with damage to the corpus callosum, the largest white matter structure in the brain.

“We found that frequent use of high-potency cannabis significantly affects the structure of white matter fibers in the brain, whether you have psychosis or not,” said senior researcher Dr. Paola Dazzan, of the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience at King’s College London.

Further, her team said the damage appears to be dose-dependent. “This reflects a sliding scale where the more cannabis you smoke and the higher the potency, the worse the damage will be,” Dazzan said in a college news release.

This is vital information, given that the potency of street marijuana has increased over the last decade, the study authors said.

Reactions to the findings in the United States were mixed, however.

Dr. Scott Krakower, assistant unit chief of psychiatry at Zucker Hillside Hospital in Glen Oaks, N.Y., agreed that the study “supports the idea that using high-potency marijuana can be detrimental.”

The upshot? “People should be aware that using this agent isn’t benign, and that there are changes to the brain,” he said.

But marijuana advocates said the study had limitations.

The damage observed by the researchers appears to be very minor, amounting to a “2 percent change in the corpus callosum” structure, said Mitch Earleywine, chair of NORML, a group that promotes marijuana legalization.

Earleywine, who is also a professor of psychology at the State University of New York, Albany, added that the researchers did not measure the study participants’ memory or brain function. “So we have no idea if this had any impact on anything that matters, like memory or impulsivity or depressive symptoms,” he said.

For this study, researchers used MRI to examine white matter in the brains of 56 patients who had been diagnosed with psychosis, as well as 43 healthy people from South East London.

The researchers specifically examined the corpus callosum, an area of the brain particularly rich in receptors that respond to THC, the chemical in pot that produces intoxication.

Participants also were asked about their drug use, including the potency of the marijuana they typically use.

Researchers said they were particularly interested in “skunk” marijuana, since previous studies have shown it induces psychotic symptoms, or a break from reality.

“Skunk” is British slang for pot that is highly fragrant and therefore assumed to have higher potency, said Paul Armentano, deputy director of NORML.

The study found that frequent use of high-potency cannabis was linked to significantly higher mean-diffusivity — a marker of damage in white matter structure — in the corpus callosum.

However, Earleywine questioned why the researchers didn’t look at the hippocampus or areas associated with memory, which are the brain areas that most marijuana studies consider.

The corpus callosum “is a brain area that usually focuses on communication between the hemispheres, or tasks like finding the words for your emotions or having the right hand know what the left hand is doing,” he said, adding that the study didn’t measure any of these functions.

The researchers also appeared to rely on the participants’ own description of both their marijuana use and the potency of their pot, Armentano said.

“It’s all rather arbitrary and speculative,” he said.

Sean Clarkin is director of strategy and program management with the Partnership for Drug-Free Kids. He said this study should open the door for a healthy “periodic check-in” on a person’s marijuana use, to keep it from becoming too frequent or involving increasingly potent pot.

“It provides some scientific basis to say let’s be more vigilant than we’ve been, particularly in the progression from occasional to habitual use,” Clarkin said.

The study was published online recently in the journal Psychological Medicine.

More information

For more on marijuana, visit the U.S. National Institutes of Health.





from Health News / Tips & Trends / Celebrity Health http://ift.tt/1YHQnU3

SIDS Risk Depends on More Than ‘Sleeping Environment’

By Amy Norton
HealthDay Reporter

WEDNESDAY, Dec. 2, 2015 (HealthDay News) — A baby’s sleeping environment is not the whole story when it comes to the risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), a new analysis affirms.

Each year, about 3,500 infants die suddenly in the United States from no obvious cause, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. A majority of those deaths are labeled as SIDS — a phenomenon that researchers still do not completely understand.

One thing that’s clear is that an infant’s sleeping environment is key: In the 1990s, experts launched public campaigns to encourage parents to put their infants on their backs to sleep, remove soft bedding out of the crib, and take other “safe sleeping” steps.

Since then, SIDS deaths in the United States have plummeted.

The new study, published online Dec. 2 in the journal Pediatrics, adds to evidence that those public health messages worked, but it also highlights the role of other influences in SIDS risk, the researchers said.

“The ‘Back to Sleep’ campaign has been one of the most successful public health campaigns of our time,” said lead researcher Dr. Richard Goldstein, who is with the pediatric advanced care team at Boston Children’s Hospital/Dana-Farber Cancer Center.

“But,” he added, “the sleep environment is not the whole story.”

“These days,” Goldstein said, “most infants diagnosed with SIDS are not found sleeping prone [on the belly].”

Studies have shown that there are “intrinsic” factors that make certain babies especially vulnerable to unsafe sleeping conditions, Goldstein explained.

For example, babies exposed to smoking, either in the womb or after birth, are at heightened SIDS risk. On the other hand, infants who are breast-fed and those whose moms had consistent prenatal care are at relatively lower SIDS risk.

Researchers are also learning more about the “underlying biology” of SIDS, Goldstein said. It’s thought, for example, that infants who die of SIDS have abnormalities in the brain system that normally rouses someone from sleep if there’s not enough oxygen.

One theory on SIDS is that it involves a “triple risk,” Goldstein said. That is, SIDS strikes when infants with an underlying vulnerability face an external stressor (like belly-sleeping) during a critical period of development.

“The sleep environment is still most important,” said Dr. Rachel Moon, who co-wrote an editorial published with the study. “Those are the factors we can most easily change.”

“But,” she added, “this study does remind us that there are other influences at work, too.”

Luckily, Moon said, some of those influences can be changed, too.

For the study, Goldstein’s team analyzed government data on more than 900,000 infant deaths between 1983 and 2012.

During that time, SIDS rates fell by 71 percent. Much of the shift happened between 1994 and 1996, after the “Back to Sleep” campaign was launched.

However, infant deaths from other causes also declined — by 38 percent to 43 percent. And except for the three years from 1994 to 1996, Goldstein said, much of the SIDS decline seemed to be related to “background factors” other than the safe-sleeping campaign.

Some of the critical trends, according to Goldstein, have been the substantial declines in smoking and teen pregnancy.

On top of that, he said, there have been major advances in medical care for premature infants — who are at increased risk of SIDS. Women at risk of preterm labor are now given medications that speed the fetus’s lung development, for example.

But while SIDS is much less common than it was 30 years ago, there has been little change in the past decade or so.

“We’ve hit a plateau,” Goldstein said. “And if we’re going to get any farther, we need to better understand the factors that make children vulnerable. SIDS is still a mystery, and we need to apply science to try to explain it.”

Moon agreed that further research into the underlying mechanisms of SIDS is needed.

For now, she said, the message to expectant parents is to keep doing what they can — including getting early prenatal care, avoiding tobacco smoke and creating a safe sleeping environment for their baby.

More information

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has more on SIDS.





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

Smog Linked to Heart Disease in Seniors

TUESDAY, Dec. 1, 2015 (HealthDay News) — Older people living in cities with high levels of a particular type of air pollution are more likely to be hospitalized for heart disease, a new study reveals.

The type of air pollution in question is known as coarse particulate matter. Increased levels of this kind of air pollution have been linked to construction projects, desert winds and farming, according to the researchers.

These microscopic particles are larger than the air pollutants released by cars and power plants. Scientists say they can have a significant impact on people’s health.

“We suspected that there was an association between coarse particles and health outcomes, but we didn’t have the research to back that up before,” said study leader Roger Peng. He is an associate professor of biostatistics at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore.

“This work provides the evidence, at least for cardiovascular disease outcomes. I don’t feel like we need another study to convince us. Now it’s time for action,” Peng said in a university news release.

But, although the study found a strong link between coarse particle air pollution and heart disease hospitalizations, it wasn’t designed to prove cause-and-effect.

The findings were published in the November issue of Environmental Health Perspectives.

The study involved data collected from an air-monitoring network established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 110 large urban areas. This information was linked to Medicare data on hospitalizations among people aged 65 and older in these regions between 1999 and 2010.

During the study, there were more than 6 million heart-related emergency hospital admissions and 2.5 million respiratory admissions. Respiratory diseases were not linked to high levels of coarse particles. However, admissions for heart-related emergencies were higher on days when levels of these air pollutants were elevated, the study revealed.

Where the participants lived affected hospital admission rates for heart problems. There were higher concentrations of coarse particles in the western United States, but heart-related hospitalizations were higher in the East, suggesting some particles are more harmful than others.

“Just because the particles are the same size doesn’t mean they are made of the same material,” Peng explained. “It’s possible that the chemical composition of the particles in the east could make them more toxic.”

Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA monitors finer particles, and states have taken steps to limit these pollutants with measures, such as stronger car emissions standards. Coarse particles may be more difficult to control since they often come from natural sources, the researchers noted.

How these airborne particles lead to health problems throughout the body isn’t clear. The study’s authors suggested a national monitoring network for these larger particles may be necessary.

“It’s worth revisiting, given this new data,” said Peng.

More information

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has more on the health effects of air pollution.





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