Human Gut Germs Dictated by Diet

Lifestyle advances over thousands of years may have altered people's microbial makeup, study suggests

From: http://www.webmd.com/diet/obesity/news/20170824/human-gut-germs-dictated-by-diet?src=RSS_PUBLIC

Tips to stay safe as Hurricane Harvey approaches

What to put in your "go-bag," and other advice for anyone facing a weather emergency

From: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hurricane-harvey-texas-safety-tips/

High school friendships might predict future well-being

New research affirms being popular in high school isn't everything

From: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/high-school-friendships-might-predict-mental-well-being-later-in-life/

Opioid epidemic takes toll in Maine lobster industry

The nation's opioid crisis has hit hard in Maine, where at least one person died every day last year of drug overdoses. Economic leaders say the impact of the opioid epidemic on the lobster industry could affect an entire generation. CBS News' Kenneth Craig reports.

From: https://www.cbsnews.com/videos/opioid-epidemic-takes-toll-in-maine-lobster-industry/

After Heart Attack, Just 1 in 3 Go for Rehab: CDC

Recommended outpatient treatment reduces risk of recurrence

From: http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/news/20170824/after-heart-attack-just-1-in-3-go-for-rehab-cdc?src=RSS_PUBLIC

Mayo Clinic Minute: Stroke and heat concerns

From: Mayo Clinic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awuDT5qIoHg

Some treatment centers accused of keeping addicts hooked

"The incentive is to keep them in this relapse system, this gravy train that doesn't end until the person leaves in a body bag or an ambulance. There's no money in sobriety"

From: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/some-treatment-centers-keep-addicts-hooked-for-insurance-dollars/

Report: This region's health lags way behind rest of U.S.

The 25 million people who live here have struggled to keep up with the health gains of other Americans

From: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/appalachia-health-continues-to-lag-behind-rest-of-the-us/

When a drug does serious harm, the FDA wants to hear from you

I frequently lecture to physicians, pharmacists, and other healthcare professionals on drug safety, and I often start by asking how many people have ever observed a serious adverse drug event. Almost everyone in the room raises his or her hand. I then ask how many have ever reported a serious adverse drug event to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or to a drug company, and almost all of the hands go down. Often, healthcare providers do not know the important role that they can play in drug safety surveillance. Even less well known is that consumers can also contribute directly to enhancing drug safety surveillance by reporting adverse drug events that they personally have experienced.

What is a serious adverse event?

The FDA describes an adverse event as “any undesirable experience associated with the use of a medical product” (this includes medical devices as well as drugs). A serious adverse event is one that is life-threatening, requires hospitalization, results in permanent damage or disability (including birth defects), or that jeopardizes the health or life of the person using it in some other way.

The FDA’s role in drug safety

The FDA is responsible for regulating many of the products we use every day, from foods and cosmetics to dietary supplements and medical devices. It is also in charge of assuring the safety and effectiveness of medicines. This includes approving prescription drugs that have been proven to work after a series of rigorous studies, as well as monitoring whether these drugs cause unforeseen problems once they are approved and used by large numbers of individuals.

One of the main tools that the FDA uses to monitor for adverse events after a drug is approved is called MedWatch: The FDA Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program. Anyone, including physicians, pharmacists, nurses, and patients themselves, can go to the MedWatch website and report a suspected problem with a drug. The FDA uses a separate reporting system for adverse events related to vaccines, called the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS. These websites ask a series of questions related to the problem (e.g., what kind of problem it was, the date that it occurred, test results) and the product(s) thought to have caused the problem. Some questions require responses in order to provide the FDA some minimally necessary information, but others do not. Individuals are encouraged to provide as much specific information as they can. Individuals can also report an adverse drug event to the company that makes the drug. Drug companies are then required to send all reports of serious adverse drug events to the FDA.

What happens after you report an adverse event to the FDA?

The FDA collects and evaluates all of this information to determine whether further evaluation of particular drug products is needed. Each year, the FDA receives more than a million reports of suspected adverse drug events, but it is believed that this represents only a fraction of all of the adverse events that occur; after all, Americans fill more than 300 million prescriptions each year. Only a small portion of the reports that the FDA receives comes directly from patients.

As patients, we have the most information about adverse drug events that we experience, and are often in the best position to describe the problem and the circumstances surrounding it. The FDA’s MedWatch system allows us not only to notify the FDA about problems, but it provides the FDA critical information needed to make decisions and issue communications that can help others. For example, in 2001 the cholesterol drug cerivastatin (Baycol) was removed from the market because of reports linking it to a rare condition called rhabdomyolysis, which causes injury to and breakdown of muscles and can lead to kidney failure.

In order for this system to work, the FDA needs to hear from you or your healthcare provider, either directly or through reports submitted to drug companies.

The post When a drug does serious harm, the FDA wants to hear from you appeared first on Harvard Health Blog.

From: Joshua Gagne, PharmD, ScD https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/drug-serious-harm-fda-wants-hear-2017082412310

More Support for Tight Blood Pressure Control

Aggressive treatment seemed well-tolerated and worth greater expense, studies found

From: http://www.webmd.com/hypertension-high-blood-pressure/news/20170823/more-support-for-tight-blood-pressure-control?src=RSS_PUBLIC

Cyberbullying Weighs Heavily on Young People

Suicide attempts more common in both bullied and bulliers

From: http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20170823/cyberbullying-weighs-heavily-on-young-people?src=RSS_PUBLIC

Zinc May Help Against Vision Loss in Seniors

But no large studies prove the inexpensive pill slows age-related macular degeneration, eye expert says

From: http://www.webmd.com/eye-health/macular-degeneration/news/20170823/zinc-may-help-against-vision-loss-in-seniors?src=RSS_PUBLIC

Do Fewer Dreams Mean Higher Dementia Risk?

For every 1 percent drop in sleep's REM phase, a 9 percent jump in odds for thinking, memory troubles, study found

From: http://www.webmd.com/alzheimers/news/20170823/do-fewer-dreams-mean-higher-dementia?src=RSS_PUBLIC

WHO: Understanding and Managing Fear - Training for humanitarian workers in emergencies

From: World Health Organization https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwjVYDJUXs8

Strong study shows no link between vasectomy and prostate cancer

In the 1980s, reports began to surface of a potential connection between vasectomies and prostate cancer. This worried men considering vasectomies for birth control, but it was also controversial. Some studies detected an association while others didn’t. Harvard Prostate Knowledge last covered the topic in 2015, after the largest study to that point detected slightly higher risks of high-grade prostate cancer among men who had a vasectomy compared to men who hadn’t.

Now that study has been eclipsed by an even larger one.

Here’s how the analysis worked

For this new effort, researchers with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota looked through 53 studies with a combined 15 million men who had a vasectomy and were then followed for up to 24 years. The Mayo researchers also controlled for a potential bias that made some of the earlier studies hard to interpret: specifically, that men who get a vasectomy are more likely to pay attention to their health, including prostate cancer screening with a PSA test. Scientists had speculated that reported links between vasectomy and prostate cancer could have more to with screening results and early detection than with vasectomy itself.

To control for that possibility, the Mayo team stratified all 53 studies by whether their risk of bias was high, medium, or low.

Here’s what researchers found

They found that evidence linking vasectomy with prostate cancer was strongest in the more biased studies. And when looking at the low-bias studies — the ones that best accounted for the effect of early detection with PSA screening — the connection with prostate cancer was “negligible,” according to Dr. Bimal Bhindi, a urologist at the Mayo Clinic who led the research. Furthermore, the low-bias studies contained no evidence at all that vasectomy elevates risks for the high-grade prostate cancers that threaten survival.

“We synthesized three decades of epidemiological research on the topic and found no clear proof that vasectomy causes prostate cancer,” Bhindi wrote. “Nor do we know of any clear biological mechanism for how it could do so.”

“The current study is noteworthy for its sheer size,” added Dr. Marc Garnick, the Gorman Brothers Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, and editor in chief of HarvardProstateKnowledge.org, who offered a more tempered assessment. “However, retrospective analyses that try to sort out biases are always challenging. For now, the potential risk of prostate cancer should probably not dissuade an individual from having a vasectomy if that procedure is thought to result in the most optimal birth control method.”

The post Strong study shows no link between vasectomy and prostate cancer appeared first on Harvard Health Blog.

From: Charlie Schmidt https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/strong-study-shows-no-link-vasectomy-prostate-cancer-2017082312265

Strong study shows no link between vasectomy and prostate cancer

In the 1980s, reports began to surface of a potential connection between vasectomies and prostate cancer. This worried men considering vasectomies for birth control, but it was also controversial. Some studies detected an association while others didn’t. Harvard Prostate Knowledge last covered the topic in 2015, after the largest study to that point detected slightly higher risks of high-grade prostate cancer among men who had a vasectomy compared to men who hadn’t.

Now that study has been eclipsed by an even larger one.

Here’s how the analysis worked

For this new effort, researchers with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota looked through 53 studies with a combined 15 million men who had a vasectomy and were then followed for up to 24 years. The Mayo researchers also controlled for a potential bias that made some of the earlier studies hard to interpret: specifically, that men who get a vasectomy are more likely to pay attention to their health, including prostate cancer screening with a PSA test. Scientists had speculated that reported links between vasectomy and prostate cancer could have more to with screening results and early detection than with vasectomy itself.

To control for that possibility, the Mayo team stratified all 53 studies by whether their risk of bias was high, medium, or low.

Here’s what researchers found

They found that evidence linking vasectomy with prostate cancer was strongest in the more biased studies. And when looking at the low-bias studies — the ones that best accounted for the effect of early detection with PSA screening — the connection with prostate cancer was “negligible,” according to Dr. Bimal Bhindi, a urologist at the Mayo Clinic who led the research. Furthermore, the low-bias studies contained no evidence at all that vasectomy elevates risks for the high-grade prostate cancers that threaten survival.

“We synthesized three decades of epidemiological research on the topic and found no clear proof that vasectomy causes prostate cancer,” Bhindi wrote. “Nor do we know of any clear biological mechanism for how it could do so.”

“The current study is noteworthy for its sheer size,” added Dr. Marc Garnick, the Gorman Brothers Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, and editor in chief of HarvardProstateKnowledge.org, who offered a more tempered assessment. “However, retrospective analyses that try to sort out biases are always challenging. For now, the potential risk of prostate cancer should probably not dissuade an individual from having a vasectomy if that procedure is thought to result in the most optimal birth control method.”

The post Strong study shows no link between vasectomy and prostate cancer appeared first on Harvard Health Blog.

From: Charlie Schmidt https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/strong-study-shows-no-link-vasectomy-prostate-cancer-2017082312265

Applicants sought for Alliance for Cavity-Free Future, Colgate grant program

The Canada-United States chapter of the Alliance for a Cavity-Free Future announced July 14 it is offering, for the second year, a grant program to help fund interprofessional projects that positively impact the oral health of pregnant women and children under 6.

From: http://www.ada.org/en/publications/ada-news/2017-archive/august/applicants-sought-for-alliance-for-cavity-free-future-colgate-grant-program

How we can all help protect babies with immunizations

When you are pregnant, what you hear from people around you makes a difference. You want to do the right thing for your child; if someone you trust gives you advice, you listen.

That’s why we need to be sure that pregnant women get good advice.

In a study recently published in the journal Pediatrics, researchers in New Zealand found that when pregnant women got discouraging information about immunization, only 57 percent of them immunized their children on time. That means that almost half of them did not.

When the women got both encouraging and discouraging information about immunization, 61 percent immunized their children on time; that number went up to 71 percent when they got only encouraging information. So still not perfect — just over two-thirds — but better.

In this study of more than 6,000 women, health care providers gave encouraging information 100 percent of the time (for dietitians and nutritionists, that number was 40 percent; for alternative health care providers, it was 18 percent). The main source of discouraging information? Family and friends.

But here is the part of this study that is most concerning: 56 percent of the women, more than half, got no information about immunization at all.

Vaccines work. The rates of the diseases they prevent, many of which can be deadly, are at historical lows. This is something that actually has begun to work against vaccines; diseases like measles, or polio, or meningitis, or epiglottitis caused by the bacteria Haemophilus influenzae, have become rare enough that many people don’t think of them as real, let alone a threat. But they are real, and especially in a global society where both people and their diseases can easily travel, they are a threat.

All medical treatments have side effects, and vaccines are no exception. But the risks are small. The risks from a vaccine are always smaller than the risks of the diseases they prevent, a fact that often gets lost in the discussion.

This study should mostly be a wake-up call to health care providers, who clearly need to do a better job of getting information about the benefits of immunization to pregnant women. But it also points out that every single one of us can make a difference, by getting the word out.

The majority of American children are fully immunized, yet it’s the parents who choose not to immunize who are more vocal. That needs to change — especially because studies clearly show that when it comes to health information, the opinions of friends and family really do matter.

So speak up. If you have vaccinated your children, talk with your friends about it, especially your friends who are pregnant or thinking about having a baby. Tell them why you chose to do it. Talk about your experience. Encourage them to vaccinate their child.

You could quite literally save a life.

The post How we can all help protect babies with immunizations appeared first on Harvard Health Blog.

From: Claire McCarthy, MD https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/help-protect-babies-immunizations-2017082212323