Where refugees settle matters for their health

first_imgHealthWhere refugees settle matters for their health Where refugees settle can affect their long-term risk of type 2 diabetes. Muhammed Muheisen/AP [email protected] Experts have long observed that people who live in poor areas face higher risks of future health problems. But because researchers cannot go around randomly placing families in different neighborhoods and studying what happens, they have struggled to tease apart whether neighborhoods themselves play causative roles in future health problems, or if the factors that drive people to live in poor neighborhoods are the root of the health issues.A policy in place in Sweden during the 1980s and 1990s created something of a natural, randomized experiment.A similar natural experiment occurred when a US program offered some people in low-income public housing vouchers through a lottery to move to better neighborhoods. In that case, researchers found that people who received the vouchers had lower rates of obesity and diabetes down the road than those who stayed.But one limitation was that families had to elect to enroll in the lottery. The refugees in Sweden — who were fleeing conflicts such as the Iran-Iraq War — did not choose to partake in the dispersal policy.The Swedish government, concerned about the influx of people settling in Stockholm, Gothenburg, and other cities, divided the refugees throughout the country, based only on education, language, and family size.For their analysis, Hamad’s team — led by her husband, health policy expert Justin White of the University of California, San Francisco, along with colleagues at Stanford and in Sweden — studied health data from more than 61,000 refugees who arrived in Sweden as adults between 1987 and 1991, when the dispersal policy was most strictly implemented. They chose to examine type 2 diabetes because of how where you live can contribute to it: Is healthy food available? Is the area walkable? Are good jobs available?Poring over the data, the team discovered that people placed in the more deprived neighborhoods had a higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes than people placed in the more affluent neighborhoods. (The researchers divided neighborhoods into three levels of deprivation based on poverty and unemployment, education, and social welfare participation.) About the Author Reprints As a girl, Dr. Rita Hamad and her family fled Lebanon’s civil war and found a home in the United States. Three decades later, her research is offering a glimpse into the long-term health impacts of such a migration.And while the research’s focus is on the 1980s and 1990s, it’s a period that echoes what is happening today: conflict driving people from their homes on a mass scale, and the countries where they are heading struggling with the economic, cultural, and political ramifications.The study, published Wednesday in the Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, throws another question into that mix: How will the specific places the thousands of refugees settle affect their well-being years down the road? And it could influence broader conversations, including those in the United States, about how where we live shapes our future.advertisement Related: In the worst neighborhoods, 7.9 percent of refugees had the disease, compared to 7.2 percent in the moderately deprived neighborhoods. In the best neighborhoods, only 5.8 percent of refugees had the disease — a rate on par with the national average. And where people were settled initially had an impact on their health even if they moved within a few years of arriving in Sweden, the researchers found.“It helps build the story that there might actually be something about the composition of the neighborhood that does matter,” said Kathleen Cagney, a sociologist who directs the University of Chicago’s Population Research Center and who was not involved with the study.The study’s results could also inform efforts to reduce the type 2 diabetes rates in the United States, said Briana Mezuk, an epidemiologist at Virginia Commonwealth University. If the government’s National Diabetes Prevention Program, for example, proves to be more effective in some areas than others, then specific neighborhood differences could be in part responsible.“When we go to refine diabetes prevention programs, [the study is] going to be very important for us to look to,” Mezuk said.The study’s findings come as the number of people displaced around the world reaches levels never before recorded. According to the United Nations, more than 1 million refugees and migrants headed to Europe by sea in 2015 alone.Of course, the exact difference in risk experienced by the people included in the study might not apply to other settings. Sweden, for example, has a famously strong safety net that could have even improved the health of arriving refugees overall.And it’s possible that the Swedish dispersal policy, which ended in the mid-1990s, actually lowered the overall prevalence of type 2 diabetes. If refugees had chosen where to settle, Hamad noted, they might have largely congregated in lower-income areas because of affordability and the presence of refugees there already.The research team started work on the project two years ago, before the refugee crisis exploded across Europe and the world. That meant Hamad did not reflect on a personal connection to the research until more recently.Her father had studied at the University of Texas at Austin, so her family headed to that city when they left the Middle East. But, she said, “if we had decided to go to Europe for some reason, we could have been subject to this type of policy.” Related: Deportation raids draw protest for harming immigrants’ mental health Tags community healthdiabetesimmigration Diabetes rose fourfold over last 25 years, WHO says Andrew Joseph @DrewQJoseph By Andrew Joseph April 27, 2016 Reprints General Assignment Reporter Andrew covers a range of topics, from addiction to public health to genetics. Hamad and her colleagues specifically looked at refugees who went to Sweden and found that they were more likely to develop type 2 diabetes if they landed in poorer neighborhoods.“We did not intend for this to be informing the refugee crisis in Europe,” said Hamad, a family medicine doctor and PhD student at Stanford University. “But it does suggest that when people wind up in highly deprived neighborhoods straight off the bat … that we are going to see the effects of that years later.”advertisementlast_img read more

Major US study links cellphone exposure to cancer — at least in rats

first_img By Megan Thielking and Dylan Scott May 27, 2016 Reprints The one time WebMD didn’t tell me it was cancer, it was What you need to know about the new study on cellphones and cancer Spencer Platt/Getty Images “We feel that these findings are potentially of interest to the discussion over the cellphone safety issues,” Bucher said. “We felt it was important to get the word out.”However, “the results from our studies are far from definitive at this point,” he said. For human health, “this may have relevance. This may have no relevance.”advertisement “These data will probably raise the level of suspicion that there might be a problem. I didn’t see them as strong enough to say that there’s really a problem,” said Kenneth Foster, a bioengineering professor at the University of Pennsylvania who has studied radiation and health. “It’s really hard to know just how to interpret these results.”He noted in particular the finding that male rats exposed to radiation lived longer than those not exposed to radiation.Michael Lauer, deputy director of extramural research for the NIH, who provided comment to the NTP on the study, said that because of the small sample size, the study’s findings are suspect. “It is much more likely than not that this is not a true finding,” he said.As recently as Wednesday, the NIH said the study was still under review by unnamed additional experts.“It is important to note that previous human, observational data collected in earlier, large-scale population-based studies have found limited evidence of an increased risk for developing cancer from cellphone use,” the NIH said in a statement.The agency did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the report’s release, which followed a Wednesday report by the website Microwave News that disclosed what the researchers had found.The researchers have more data stockpiled that they haven’t reported. They say the rest of the results from the study will likely trickle out starting in late 2017.Potential firestormThe new study has the potential to start a firestorm. Until now, there have been conflicting results from other research about whether cellphones cause cancer, but the general takeaway from official authorities was that there is no definitive link — as the NIH statement reiterates.Dr. Jonathan Samet, director of the University of Southern California’s Institute for Global Health, said one of the big takeaways is “we really need a more serious research agenda.”“I think the public needs to know if there’s any risk,” he said. “I think this is something that needs to be taken as a need for further research and investigation. … We should not say there is no risk.” HealthMajor US study links cellphone exposure to cancer — at least in rats Related: @meggophone [email protected] The study had some head-scratching findings. For instance, it found that despite developing more tumors, male rats exposed to radiation for about nine hours every day also lived longer than a control group not exposed to radiation. In addition, it was unusual that no cancers occurred in the control group in this study. The incidence of malignant gliomas in male rats exposed to radiation — 2.2 to 3.3 percent — was within the range seen in nonexposed rats in previous studies, the authors said.Still, the authors said that the brain and heart tumors observed in rats exposed to the radiofrequency radiation are similar to malignancies seen in some epidemiological studies of cellphone use. They say their findings “appear to support” the World Health Organization’s classification of cellphones as a possible carcinogen. (That’s the same classification given to coffee and talcum powder.)Elisabeth Cardis, the lead investigator on the study that spurred that classification, said the NTP report provided “really quite novel findings.”“A lot of people felt that the issue was closed; there’s nothing there and you can just move on. The release of these results now … really raises the question about whether, in fact, there is a real effect,” she said.Population implicationsBut other population-level studies in humans have found no increased risk, and the incidence of brain cancer has not risen in recent decades as cellphone use has exploded. Does exercise prevent cancer? Related:center_img Megan Thielking Please enter a valid email address. Newsletters Sign up for Weekend Reads Our top picks for great reads, delivered to your inbox each weekend. Tags cancerradiationWHO A major new study provides evidence of a possible link between cellphone exposure and cancer, at least in rats — findings that are likely to spark a fierce new debate about the 21st century’s most ubiquitous tech gadget.When researchers exposed rats to the radiofrequency radiation emitted by cellphones, they saw higher incidence of two types of cancer: malignant gliomas in the brain and schwannomas in the heart. The increased risk was relatively small, but if the findings translate to humans — still an unknown — it could have a large public health impact, given the widespread use of cellphones worldwide.The highly anticipated, $25 million study was conducted by the US National Toxicology Program. Partial results were released late Thursday, before full results were available, because of intense public interest, according to John Bucher, associate director of the NTP.advertisement Privacy Policy About the Authors Reprints The findings could jeopardize the conventional wisdom at a time when the number of Americans who own a cellphone has exceeded 90 percent in recent years.“None of us expected them to find anything in this study. I’ve been quoted as saying it’s a total waste of money,” said David Carpenter, director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University of Albany.The results have been long anticipated. An NIH official told Congress in 2009 that the results would likely be released in 2014, but their release appeared to be prompted only by this week’s leak.“We’ve been waiting a long time for this study, far too long for this study,” said Joel Moskowitz, director and principal investigator at the Center for Family and Community Health at the University of California, Berkeley.Still, he added: “The debate will keep going on, I’m sure. This is not going to be the definitive study.”This story has been updated with new details about the study and previous research on cellphones. Related: Leave this field empty if you’re human: News Editorlast_img read more

New CDC data reveal scope of the Flint water crisis

first_img By Rebecca Robbins June 24, 2016 Reprints Although there is no level of lead known to be safe for children, five micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood is typically the threshold at which children are given dietary changes and social and educational services. No Flint children hit the extremely high mark of 45 micrograms per deciliter during the crisis, at which point people are treated with more extreme measures like chelation therapy. A nurse draws a blood sample from a 5-year-old in Flint, Mich., where students were being tested for lead. Carlos Osorio/AP Elevated blood lead levels declined after the city issued a water advisory and switched to a different water source — data collected in a five-month period concluding this March showed just 48 cases — but the CDC report emphasized that could be attributable to behavioral changes like drinking bottled water rather than safer city water.Data previously released by the state of Michigan and outside researchers had shown similar results, but the new CDC report provides the biggest, most granular picture over the longest period of time.The Environmental Protection Agency said Thursday that city water that is filtered is now safe for all residents to drink, including babies, children, and women who are pregnant or nursing. Related: New federal data provide the most extensive look so far at the scope of the water crisis in Flint, Mich., which became a flashpoint this past winter for the dangers of lead and government inaction in a poor community.Flint children consuming city water were nearly 50 percent more likely to test for a blood lead level considered high after Flint switched in 2014 to a water source that corroded the city’s underground pipes, a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows.The report, released Friday, draws from nearly 10,000 blood tests conducted over the course of nearly three years on children under 6 years old, who can experience lasting health consequences and developmental delays as a result of exposure to even relatively low levels of lead.advertisement Tags CDClead exposure Leave this field empty if you’re human: center_img Please enter a valid email address. HealthNew CDC data reveal scope of the Flint water crisis Uncertainty haunts parents of Flint, as every rash, every tantrum raises alarms Privacy Policy The data suggest the impact on Flint children may not have been as devastating as it could have been. Nearly 86 percent of the 162 Flint children found to have high blood lead levels during the crisis tested for fewer than 10 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood, the lowest tier considered to be elevated.“It provides some reassurances that these exposures were not as high as people were concerned they could be,” Patrick Breysse, the director of the CDC’s National Center for Environmental Health, told STAT. “These children are not doomed, they’re not poisoned — that’s a medical term that doesn’t represent what we’re seeing here.”advertisement Newsletters Sign up for Daily Recap A roundup of STAT’s top stories of the day.last_img read more

Pfizer wins big in opioid deal with Chicago. But what does the city get?

first_img All of these are all useful and important steps, but a Pfizer spokeswoman acknowledged the company already follows these practices. Certainly, the company should be doing so. If nothing else, it’s illegal to promote a prescription medicine for unapproved uses, and samples should not be distributed for controlled substances such as opioids.“Pfizer looks good. They get a lot of public relations points,” said David Juurlink, a clinical pharmacologist at the Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto and a member of Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing, a nonprofit that advocates for stricter prescribing. “But when you dissect the agreement, it won’t make any practical difference, unless they shared information with Chicago not in the public domain.”Indeed, city officials may have received damning evidence that could help win their lawsuit, although this may not become clear until or unless the case goes to trial and documents become public. Clearly, this is what they are betting, especially because the US Senate is sitting on the results of a four-year-old probe into financial ties between drug makers and the medical organizations that set guidelines for opioid use.Pfizer also agreed not to support patient or other outside groups that make inappropriate claims about opioids. But the company did not commit to ending support for organizations hat resisted new federal guidelines for reducing opioid prescribing. Pfizer, however, is not a party to the case. The drug maker is really a bit player in the opioid market. Its only product, known as Embeda, generated just $16.6 million in sales and some 28,200 prescriptions last year, according to the IMS Health research firm.But for city officials, Pfizer serves a useful purpose.Like all drug makers, Pfizer tracks what rivals are doing and this kind of marketing intelligence can help with a lawsuit. And so, as Chicago officials noted, Pfizer provided them with “documents and other evidence.” This may explain how the city was able to revise its lawsuit last November with fresh information about alleged wrongdoing.In doing so, Pfizer may have broken from the pack and ratted on other drug makers — but they are competitors, after all. Meanwhile, the company avoided being pulled into the litigation.In return, Pfizer made several promises.These include agreeing not to promote its painkiller for unapproved uses or provide free samples to physicians. The company must disclose the risk of addiction in its materials and will fund programs to educate doctors about opioid risks. Pfizer will also note there is insufficient research to say opioids can be used longer than 12 weeks, a nod to concerns about long-term use that can lead to addiction. Related: Watch: ‘Like you’re living in hell’: A survivor on what opioid withdrawal did to his body This weekly column offers opinions on the latest pharmaceutical industry news.At a meeting held last week to review the opioid epidemic, FDA Commissioner Dr. Robert Califf told the audience that “there’s a lot of sin to go around.” And among the sinners, he noted, are drug makers.On the same day, coincidentally, one of those companies was given a chance to make amends.In an unusual development, Pfizer signed a pact with the city of Chicago and agreed not to engage in the sort of marketing that helped fuel the epidemic in the first place. Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel boasted of a “landmark agreement” and a “big step” toward blunting the risks of these prescription painkillers, which were blamed for more than 14,000 deaths two years ago, according to federal health officials.advertisement Here is the back story that prompts me to write this. The deal was reached as Chicago officials press a two-year-old lawsuit against five other drug makers — including Purdue Pharma and Johnson & Johnson — for allegedly misleading the public about the risks of opioids and causing a rise in city health care costs. By Ed Silverman July 12, 2016 Reprints Mark Lennihan/AP Pharmalot Columnist, Senior Writer Ed covers the pharmaceutical industry. Leave this field empty if you’re human: Meanwhile, Pfizer may have smartly distinguished itself from the competition. Along with Eli Lilly, the company is developing an injectable drug that could be a safer alternative to opioids for chronic back or cancer pain. The plan is to seek regulatory approval in 2018 and, if that happens, Pfizer gets to pitch itself as a more forthright company.For now, the extent to which the Pfizer information proves useful to Chicago officials remains unknown. And even if such information eventually surfaces, the city could still lose the lawsuit. By then, however, Pfizer will likely have been forgiven for any sins. Related: Pfizer agrees to opioid marketing deal to escape a lawsuit by Chicago center_img About the Author Reprints To be sure, any time a drug maker agrees to restrict or enhance its marketing in ways that benefit public safety is noteworthy, especially given the eye-popping fines that so many of these companies have paid over the past decade to settle charges of illegal marketing.But this particular deal is unlikely to make much, if any, difference. In fact, for the moment, the only certain winner in this arrangement is Pfizer. And it’s a big win.advertisement Privacy Policy The Pharmalot ViewPfizer wins big in opioid deal with Chicago. But what does the city get? Newsletters Sign up for Pharmalot Your daily update on the drug industry. Ed Silverman @Pharmalot [email protected] Please enter a valid email address. Tags opioidsPfizerpolicylast_img read more

23andMe’s lesson for Silicon Valley: ‘Put aside the skepticism, and engage’

first_imgHealth What is it? STAT+ is STAT’s premium subscription service for in-depth biotech, pharma, policy, and life science coverage and analysis. Our award-winning team covers news on Wall Street, policy developments in Washington, early science breakthroughs and clinical trial results, and health care disruption in Silicon Valley and beyond. Justin Sullivan/Getty Images 23andMe’s lesson for Silicon Valley: ‘Put aside the skepticism, and engage’ Unlock this article by subscribing to STAT+ and enjoy your first 30 days free! GET STARTED Daily reporting and analysis The most comprehensive industry coverage from a powerhouse team of reporters Subscriber-only newsletters Daily newsletters to brief you on the most important industry news of the day STAT+ Conversations Weekly opportunities to engage with our reporters and leading industry experts in live video conversations Exclusive industry events Premium access to subscriber-only networking events around the country The best reporters in the industry The most trusted and well-connected newsroom in the health care industry And much more Exclusive interviews with industry leaders, profiles, and premium tools, like our CRISPR Trackr. Log In | Learn More In the end, the secret sauce behind Thursday’s milestone announcement by the Food and Drug Administration to permit 23andMe to market genetic tests for diseases directly to consumers was hard-earned trust.Now the company will be able to include information on the genetic predisposition for 10 important conditions or diseases — including Parkinson’s and late-onset Alzheimer’s — from a single saliva test that costs $199. The move comes four years after FDA banned 23andMe from selling such data, forcing it back to the drawing board. With exceptions for some tests, such as the genetic marker for breast cancer that often leads to surgical intervention, the agency intends to let the company offer similar tests without premarket review — a landmark for the genetic testing industry as a whole. Tags diagnosticsgeneticspolicySTAT+ GET STARTED By Charles Piller April 10, 2017 Reprints What’s included?last_img read more

Pharmalittle: Novartis faces dilemma with a drug; PDUFA going nowhere fast?

first_img Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the middle of the week. Congratulations on making it this far and remember, there are only a few more days until the weekend arrives. So keep plugging away. After all, what are the alternatives? While you ponder the possibilities, we invite you to join us for a delightful cup of stimulation. Our flavor today is mocha nut fudge. Remember that no prescription is required. Meanwhile, here is the latest menu of tidbits to help you on your way. Have a wonderful day and please do stay in touch …Novartis recently discovered a drug it sells for rare inflammatory disorders could be used to treat a more common ailment, but there’s a problem: the $16,000-per-dose price tag, The Wall Street Journal says. Sold as Ilaris, a recent clinical trial suggests it can reduce the risk of serious complications in heart attack patients. But if it wins regulatory approval, Novartis would have to drastically cut its price to make it competitive with other cardiovascular drugs. By Ed Silverman July 12, 2017 Reprints Ed Silverman Unlock this article by subscribing to STAT+ and enjoy your first 30 days free! GET STARTED Pharmalot Columnist, Senior Writer Ed covers the pharmaceutical industry. Daily reporting and analysis The most comprehensive industry coverage from a powerhouse team of reporters Subscriber-only newsletters Daily newsletters to brief you on the most important industry news of the day STAT+ Conversations Weekly opportunities to engage with our reporters and leading industry experts in live video conversations Exclusive industry events Premium access to subscriber-only networking events around the country The best reporters in the industry The most trusted and well-connected newsroom in the health care industry And much more Exclusive interviews with industry leaders, profiles, and premium tools, like our CRISPR Trackr. About the Author Reprints [email protected] @Pharmalot What’s included?center_img Log In | Learn More Pharmalittle: Novartis faces dilemma with a drug; PDUFA going nowhere fast? STAT+ is STAT’s premium subscription service for in-depth biotech, pharma, policy, and life science coverage and analysis. Our award-winning team covers news on Wall Street, policy developments in Washington, early science breakthroughs and clinical trial results, and health care disruption in Silicon Valley and beyond. GET STARTED Tags pharmaceuticalspolicySTAT+ Pharmalot Alex Hogan/STAT What is it?last_img read more

Where are all the new Alzheimer’s drugs? Q&A with an expert

first_img Senior Writer, Science and Discovery (1956-2021) Sharon covered science and discovery. Privacy Policy Here’s a transcript of the conversation. [email protected] Newsletters Sign up for Daily Recap A roundup of STAT’s top stories of the day. @sxbegle Live ChatWhere are all the new Alzheimer’s drugs? Q&A with an expert Please enter a valid email address. By Sharon Begley and Damian Garde Sept. 18, 2017 Reprints Damian Gardecenter_img @damiangarde Why are there no good drugs to treat Alzheimer’s? More than 20 years after scientists discovered that mutations in three genes can cause the devastating disease, and that the apoE gene increases people’s risk for it, there are only four FDA-approved drugs to treat Alzheimer’s. And they do little but slow symptoms (if that).Over the last decade, more than 99 percent of the new compounds tested against Alzheimer’s have failed in clinical trials, costing their developers billions of dollars and crushing the hopes of the 5.5 million (and counting) Americans with the disease.Readers joined STAT reporters Sharon Begley and Damian Garde on Monday as they moderated a chat with Alzheimer’s expert Dr. Reisa Sperling of Brigham and Women’s Hospital. We aimed to cover a lot of ground: What drugs are in the pipeline, the therapeutic approaches, and which diet and lifestyle habits might prove protective. Sperling, who has relationships with several biopharma companies, also talked about her “A4 Study,” which is testing a new therapy in patients who are at high risk for Alzheimer’s, but as yet have no symptoms.advertisement Sharon Begley Leave this field empty if you’re human: About the Authors Reprints [email protected] Tags agingdementiadrug development National Biotech Reporter Damian covers biotech, is a co-writer of The Readout newsletter, and a co-host of “The Readout LOUD” podcast.last_img read more

Glaxo loses bid for a new trial in an unusual Paxil suicide case

first_img Glaxo loses bid for a new trial in an unusual Paxil suicide case What is it? STAT+ is STAT’s premium subscription service for in-depth biotech, pharma, policy, and life science coverage and analysis. Our award-winning team covers news on Wall Street, policy developments in Washington, early science breakthroughs and clinical trial results, and health care disruption in Silicon Valley and beyond. By Ed Silverman Sept. 18, 2017 Reprints In a setback for GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), a federal judge upheld a $3 million verdict in a closely watched trial that involved a highly contentious issue — whether consumers can successfully sue a brand-name drug maker if they suffered harm after taking a pill made by a generic rival.The verdict was issued last spring in a lawsuit that was brought by Wendy Dolin, the widow of an attorney who committed suicide after taking a generic version of Glaxo’s Paxil antidepressant. The federal court jury decided the drug maker failed to properly warn about the risk of its medicine. On Monday, a Glaxo spokeswoman wrote us that the company plans to appeal the decision. What’s included? Log In | Learn More Tags legalpharmaceuticalsSTAT+ The case involved a generic version of Paxil. Joe Raedle/Getty Images About the Author Reprintscenter_img GET STARTED @Pharmalot Pharmalot Columnist, Senior Writer Ed covers the pharmaceutical industry. Unlock this article — plus daily coverage and analysis of the pharma industry — by subscribing to STAT+. First 30 days free. GET STARTED Ed Silverman [email protected] Daily reporting and analysis The most comprehensive industry coverage from a powerhouse team of reporters Subscriber-only newsletters Daily newsletters to brief you on the most important industry news of the day STAT+ Conversations Weekly opportunities to engage with our reporters and leading industry experts in live video conversations Exclusive industry events Premium access to subscriber-only networking events around the country The best reporters in the industry The most trusted and well-connected newsroom in the health care industry And much more Exclusive interviews with industry leaders, profiles, and premium tools, like our CRISPR Trackr. Pharmalot last_img read more

A study suggests women are less likely to get CPR from bystanders

first_img Trending Now: Tags cardiologywomen’s health “It can be kind of daunting thinking about pushing hard and fast on the center of a woman’s chest” and some people may fear they are hurting her, said Audrey Blewer, a University of Pennsylvania researcher who led the study.Rescuers also may worry about moving a woman’s clothing to get better access, or touching breasts to do CPR, but doing it properly “shouldn’t entail that,” said another study leader, U Penn’s Dr. Benjamin Abella. “You put your hands on the sternum, which is the middle of the chest. In theory, you’re touching in between the breasts.”advertisement The study was discussed Sunday at an American Heart Association conference in Anaheim. Related: “All of us are going to have to take a closer look at this” gender issue, said the Mayo Clinic’s Dr. Roger White, who co-directs the paramedic program for the city of Rochester, Minnesota. He said he has long worried that large breasts may impede proper placement of defibrillator pads if women need a shock to restore normal heart rhythm.The Heart Association and the National Institutes of Health funded the study.Men did not have a gender advantage in a second study discussed on Sunday. It found the odds of suffering cardiac arrest during or soon after sex are very low, but higher for men than women.Previous studies have looked at sex and heart attacks, but those are caused by a clot suddenly restricting blood flow, and people usually have time to get to a hospital and be treated, said Dr. Sumeet Chugh, a cardiologist at Cedars-Sinai Heart Institute in Los Angeles. He and other researchers wanted to know how sex affected the odds of cardiac arrest, a different problem that’s more often fatal. Newsletters Sign up for Morning Rounds Your daily dose of news in health and medicine. Please enter a valid email address. Women are less likely to get CPR from bystanders than men, and discomfort touching chests may be a reason Rogelio V. Solis/AP Leave this field empty if you’re human: Cardiac arrest occurs when the heart suddenly stops pumping, usually because of a rhythm problem. More than 350,000 Americans each year suffer one in settings other than a hospital. About 90 percent of them die, but CPR can double or triple survival odds.“This is not a time to be squeamish because it’s a life and death situation,” Abella said.Researchers had no information on rescuers or why they may have been less likely to help women. But no gender difference was seen in CPR rates for people who were stricken at home, where a rescuer is more likely to know the person needing help.The findings suggest that CPR training may need to be improved. Even that may be subtly biased toward males — practice mannequins (they’re not called “woman-nequins”) are usually male torsos, Blewer said. By Associated Press Nov. 13, 2017 Reprints What doctors need to do to treat America’s ‘heart attack’ Privacy Policy They studied records on more than 4,500 cardiac arrests over 13 years in the Portland area. Only 34 were during or within an hour of having sex, and 32 of those were in men. Most already were on medicines for heart conditions, so their risk was elevated to start with.“It’s a very awkward situation, and a very horrifying situation to be one of the two people who survives,” but more would survive if CPR rates were higher, Chugh said.Results were published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.— Marilynn Marchione HealthA study suggests women are less likely to get CPR from bystanders Comparing the Covid-19 vaccines developed by Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson Associated Press ANAHEIM, Calif. — Women are less likely than men to get CPR from a bystander and more likely to die, a new study suggests, and researchers think reluctance to touch a woman’s chest might be one reason.Only 39 percent of women suffering cardiac arrest in a public place were given CPR versus 45 percent of men, and men were 23 percent more likely to survive, the study found.It involved nearly 20,000 cases around the country and is the first to examine gender differences in receiving heart help from the public versus professional responders.advertisement About the Author Reprintslast_img read more

As the opioid crisis grows, states are opening Medicaid to alternative medicine

first_img [email protected] Daily reporting and analysis The most comprehensive industry coverage from a powerhouse team of reporters Subscriber-only newsletters Daily newsletters to brief you on the most important industry news of the day STAT+ Conversations Weekly opportunities to engage with our reporters and leading industry experts in live video conversations Exclusive industry events Premium access to subscriber-only networking events around the country The best reporters in the industry The most trusted and well-connected newsroom in the health care industry And much more Exclusive interviews with industry leaders, profiles, and premium tools, like our CRISPR Trackr. The quickest way to erase pain is to give patients an opioid. But a rise in prescriptions has fueled a national epidemic of fatal overdoses, with a large share of the deaths occurring in low-income communities.Under intense pressure to combat the problem, states across the country are expanding their Medicaid programs to cover alternative treatments such as acupuncture, massage, and yoga. The effort could increase non-opioid options for low-income patients suffering from pain. But it also opens states to criticism from skeptics who say taxpayers are being forced to fund unproven treatments based on political expediency instead of sound science. Log In | Learn More Unlock this article — plus daily intelligence on Capitol Hill and the life sciences industry — by subscribing to STAT+. First 30 days free. GET STARTED @caseymross By Casey Ross Jan. 17, 2018 Reprints Casey Ross Politics STAT+ is STAT’s premium subscription service for in-depth biotech, pharma, policy, and life science coverage and analysis. Our award-winning team covers news on Wall Street, policy developments in Washington, early science breakthroughs and clinical trial results, and health care disruption in Silicon Valley and beyond.center_img Tags Medicaidopioidspatientspolicy Joe Raedle/Getty Images About the Author Reprints GET STARTED What is it? What’s included? National Technology Correspondent Casey covers the use of artificial intelligence in medicine and its underlying questions of safety, fairness, and privacy. He is the co-author of the newsletter STAT Health Tech. As the opioid crisis grows, states are opening Medicaid to alternative medicine last_img read more