Nothing natural about DMAA Research Supplement:

Wednesday, July 25, some manufacturers HealthDay News)-sports supplements are falsely claiming that a compound known as DMAA is a natural material extracted from geraniums, the researchers say.

Instead, research shows that artificial, consisting of the DMAA is four compounds called stereoisomers.

DMAA (1,3-dimethylamylamine) is an invigorating sports nutrition supplements number found. The investigators analyzed eight different from plants growing in a variety of essential geranium areas, none of the traces of the DMAA. In addition, the chemical make-up of the so-called natural plant derived DMAA was identical to that of synthetic DMAA responsibility.

The researchers concluded DMAA found in supplements may not have a plant geranium.

"The FDA should regulate or forbid other products of significant amounts of synthetic compounds for pharmacological research," said author Daniel Armstrong, University of Texas at Arlington, the journal news release. "In addition, this information should be clearly labeled, including potential side effects, and their effects so that consumers can make an informed choice decision."

Recently published research, analysis, drug tests.

DMAA is the question of safety in recent years. In 2011, following the deaths of two soldiers who were United States heart attacks during training exercises and removed was the Department of Defense, DMAA United States supplements that contain DMAA its stores on military bases.

-Mary Elizabeth Dallas copyright © HealthDay 2012. All rights reserved. Source: Wiley-Blackwell, press release, July 2012

View the original article here

Health news Watchdog barks at stories about health of children and dogs

An article published in Pediatrics, Respiratory tract diseases during the first year of life: effect of dog and cat contacts "is getting a lot of attention in the news, but more than misses what most of these stories generally Miss: you cannot prove cause and effect from an observational study.  And there are major limitations on research based on people keeping diaries and answer questionnaires.

The study concludes:

".. dog contacts may have a protective effect on the respiratory tract infections during the first year of life. Our findings support the theory that, during the first year of life, contacts are important, possibly leading to greater resistance to infectious respiratory diseases during childhood "

The Wall Street Journal reported:

"While the study controlled just under 400 babies, the researchers said that the results were statistically significant because it relied on questionnaires completed by parents. weekly" (Our reaction: huh?  This sentence makes no sense.  Statistical significance is not determined by filling out questionnaires from parents.)

WebMD reported:

"It is not clear why live with a dog makes a difference."  (Our reaction: it is not clear that living with a dog makes a difference. Making a difference means you have already proved the cause and effect and this study did not do it.)

HealthDay reported:

"Exhibition of cats also showed a protective effect, but was not as strong as the effect of exposure of the dog". (Our reaction: no protective effect was created in this observational study.)

None of these news organizations earlier and any of the following mentioned the limitations of observational studies and that it is not possible to establish a causal relationship.  Reuters Health nor the Los Angeles Times, or CNN. (90 minutes later Addendum: Nor CBS.  Or TIME.com. Neither the Toronto Star. )

From our early morning sweep, just a news story of my HealthNewsDaily the MSNBC.com included what we were looking for:

"The relationship between pets and less infections held even when the researchers took into account factors known to affect infection rates of infants, how to breastfeed and number of brothers. Still, the researchers acknowledged that it could not account for all factors and noted that they found a correlation, not a relationship of cause and effect. "

That wasn't so hard, was it?

Our usual reminder: journalists and consumers must read our booklet, "the language fits the evidence?  Association Versus causation. "

View the original article here

Scanning the news about concerns over explosion in medical imaging scans

In case you missed them, many stories reported on a new analysis of the explosion in the use of CT, MRI and other advanced imaging methods.

The Los Angeles Times: “Use of imaging tests soars, raising questions on radiation risk.”

Researchers looked at “data from patients enrolled in six large health maintenance organizations,” and “found that doctors ordered CT scans at a rate of 149 tests per 1,000 patients in 2010, nearly triple the rate of 52 scans per 1,000 patients in 1996.” Meanwhile, “MRI use nearly quadrupled during the period, jumping from 17 to 65 tests per 1,000 patients.”

The New York Times: “Radiation Concerns Rise With Patients’ Exposure.”

 ”The study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, says that while advanced medical imaging has undoubted benefits, allowing problems to be diagnosed earlier and more accurately, its value needs to be weighed against potential harms, which include a small cancer risk from the radiation.”

WebMD: “CT Scan Rates Tripled at HMOs in the Last 15 Years, Doubling Radiation Exposure to Patients”

Reuters:

The average radiation dose from a chest CT scan is 7 millisieverts, compared with 0.1 millisieverts for a typical chest X-ray, according to the American College of Radiology. But those levels can vary widely by machine, with some low-dose scanners delivering as little as 1.5 millisieverts for a chest CT, and some older machines delivering far higher doses.

Researchers say a radiation dose of 50 millisieverts starts to raise concerns about human health, and a dose of 100 millisieverts is thought to raise the risk of cancer.

MedPage Today: “Expanding indications, patient and physician demand, medical uncertainty, and defensive medicine likely all contributed to those trends.”

View the original article here

Industry editorial makes outlandish claim about impact of medical devices

Minnesota is the home of several medical device makers.  So there’s been a lot of editorializing about the medical device tax in the Affordable Care Act. There has been some criticism of Minnesota politicians over whose interests they represent on the issue.

Today’s Star Tribune carries a commentary from an industry spokesman – Dale Wahlstrom, president and CEO of LifeScience Alley. He retired from Medtronic in 2006 after 24 years.  His commentary includes this claim:

Medical devices save and improve lives. Between 1980 and 2000, medical device technology slashed the death rate from heart disease by a stunning 50 percent and cut the death rate from stroke by 30 percent. As a result, life expectancy was extended by more than three years.

Please note: I’ve written to a contact at LifeScience Alley asking for the source of that data.  In fairness, he hasn’t had much time to respond but I don’t expect an answer on the data source because I don’t think there is one. I’ll be happy to post an amendment/addendum if/when an answer is forthcoming. That editorial has been published for hours already and I think it’s important to publish even this quick analysis as quickly as I can.

This quote attributes ALL cardiovascular health improvements to devices rather than siphoning off the mere fraction that might be attributable to devices versus drug therapies versus lifestyle changes.

One analysis published in the New England Journal of Medicine concluded:

Approximately 47% of this decrease (in coronary disease death rate) was attributed to treatments, including secondary preventive therapies after myocardial infarction or revascularization (11%), initial treatments for acute myocardial infarction or unstable angina (10%), treatments for heart failure (9%), revascularization for chronic angina (5%), and other therapies (12%). Approximately 44% was attributed to changes in risk factors, including reductions in total cholesterol (24%), systolic blood pressure (20%), smoking prevalence (12%), and physical inactivity (5%), although these reductions were partially offset by increases in the body-mass index and the prevalence of diabetes, which accounted for an increased number of deaths (8% and 10%, respectively).

So a little less than half is attributable to changes in risk factors.  A little more than half to ALL treatments – including drugs, surgery, etc.

The largest reductions in deaths came from the use of secondary-prevention medications or rehabilitation after acute myocardial infarction or after revascularization (a total reduction of approximately 35,800 deaths) and from the use of initial treatments for acute myocardial infarction or unstable angina (approximately 35,145 deaths), followed by treatments for heart failure and hypertension, statin therapy for primary prevention, and treatments for chronic angina.

The editorial is more than a matter of playing loose with the numbers; it is a vast overstatement and a distortion of the evidence. There’s no question that medical devices have contributed to the decline.  It is disingenuous to attribute ALL of the benefit to devices.

I’m not going to comment on the medical device tax.  For now, I’ll leave that to the politicians and special interests.

But on this site, we address and try to correct any misleading claims about medical interventions whenever we see them – whatever the source.  And this editorial made a whopper!

I only hope that such whopping misleading claims aren’t misleading politicians into positions they wouldn’t take if they evaluated the claims.

View the original article here

Patient satisfaction surveys don’t tell the whole story about health care quality

The following is a guest post by Harold DeMonaco, one of our expert editors for HealthNewsReview.org and director of the Innovation Support Center at the Massachusetts General Hospital.

————————————————————

A recent study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine is turning a few heads in the health policy arena.  The cost of satisfaction: A national study of patient satisfaction, health care utilization, expenditures and mortality  study examined the records of more than 34,000 adults for 4 years.  The results are a surprise to say the least.

For years, patients, insurers and government programs have pushed hard for improvement in the level of satisfaction of patients receiving healthcare.  The most recent push involves the development of Accountable Care Organization (ACO)  initiated by the Centers for Medicare  and Medicaid Services(CMS).  ACO’s link the quality and cost of healthcare directly to the reimbursement to providers.  Quality, as defined by CMS, is measured in five domains: patient/caregiver experience, care coordination, patient safety, preventative health, and at-risk population/frail elderly health.

The study in The Archives came to some interesting conclusions:

The most satisfied patients had an 8% lower rate of visits to the emergency room compared to the least satisfiedThe most satisfied patients had a 12% higher hospital inpatient admission rate.The most satisfied patients had a 9% higher prescription and total healthcare costsAND a 26% higher mortality.

I will apologize up front for providing only relative and not absolute numbers.  Absolute numbers are not provided in the article.  I get the lower ER visits but the rest comes as a surprise especially the higher mortality rate.  The least satisfied patients differed from the most satisfied at baseline in several ways.  The least satisfied tended to have poorer self rated health and there were more smokers.  But even after controlling for confounders, the authors concluded, “The association between higher patient satisfaction and mortality remained significant in an analysis that excluded patients with poor self rated health and three or more chronic diseases.”

A brief report published last September provided the results of a survey of primary care physicians on the topic of appropriate care.  Forty two percent of those responding thought that their patients were receiving too much care.  Only 6% thought that their patients did not receive enough. The reasons for over treatment remain a mystery but likely lie in both the clinicians and patient/family hands.

The Archives paper may suggest how great is the challenge of educating American health care consumers that “More Is Not Always Better.”  And it also suggests – once again – that patient satisfaction surveys don’t tell the whole story of quality health care.

View the original article here

What You Need to Know About Taking Medications During Pregnancy

You are feeling sick or you get suddenly tormented by a strong headache. The easiest way to approach the issue is by taking the appropriate medication. A pregnant woman, however, will have to think twice before deciding on a medical treatment for any condition. The harm that some drugs cause will certainly outweigh the short-term benefits.
Why Medications are Dangerous for the Fetus?
The human fetus is very vulnerable, especially during the first trimester of pregnancy. A chemical that passes to the embryo through the mom's blood stream could be exceptionally dangerous.
Pregnant women have to be extra careful about medicines. Some substances that are harmless for the grown-up organism can be deadly for an unborn child. The medication could slow down the formation of the various bodily systems and it can cause malformations.
Medical treatment is acceptable solely if the health of the mom-to-be is seriously endangered. Drugs should be taken solely after a consultation with a medic and following the prescription. Self-treatment is entirely unacceptable during pregnancy.
Alternative Treatments
We are all so reliant on medications that we have forgotten the numerous natural remedies that we can make use of. These will be especially beneficial for pregnant women who are suffering from one medical condition or another.
If you are suffering from a headache, you do not have to rush for the aspirin. Have a relaxing bath instead. Pamper yourself and you will soon be feeling much better. Some essential oils will deal with the pain and will give you the chance to feel fresh and energetic once again.
Some pregnant women suffer from insomnia and are desperate to get a sleeping pill. A glass of warm milk and some soothing music will be able to produce better results. Taking a short walk in the park before going to bed could also turn into an effective way to overcome insomnia.
Colds can be treated with herbal teas and fruits rich in vitamin C like oranges, lemons and grapefruits.
Common Medications and Their Effect during Pregnancy
Aspirin is one of the common drugs that you should refrain from taking during pregnancy. Aspirin can prolong any type of bleeding, making birth more dangerous for both the mom and her baby.
A doctor could recommend an antibiotic treatment, in case the condition of the mom-to-be demands such treatment. For highest degree of safety, the usage of antibiotics should be avoided during the first trimester.
Anti-depressants should be avoided, just like any other form of medication. Some drugs can be dangerous while others produce no side effects but it would be wisest to refrain from taking artificial substances.
Strong medications that affect the nervous system have to be avoided. Drugs should become a final resort option. The consultation with a psychologist is a much better alternative.
The flu vaccine is another medication that is acceptable only if a doctor has recommended it. During pregnancy, the body strives hard to strengthen its immune response. A vaccination during that period will build more reliable defense against the flu virus.

Oil Futures Trading - What You Need to Know About Oil Stock Trading

Oil is a non-renewable resource. Its demand is more than supply. Energy is most important resource for any economy. Just like human beings who need energy to perform the functions, economy also needs energy to run. Without energy an economy cannot function. Trading in energies like crude oil, natural gas and others is highly profitable. As such, its consumption is more than its production. Probably that is why oil is known as black gold.

Peak oil theory says that prices of crude oil will rise in coming years as it is a limited resource but the demand of oil will increase with time. It is simple; when the demand of certain thing is higher than the supply, the prices tend to increase. You just need to learn how to trade in this energy resource, crude oil, if you want to earn profit.

New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) is one of the world's largest energy futures exchange. New York Mercantile Exchange trades in crude oil, natural gas, heating oil, gasoline coal, electricity and propane. Oil is pervasive as it is not only useful for industry, it is also necessary for an economy and also for financial market.

The rise in the price of oil leads to inflation in an economy. And this situation, i.e. inflation, forces the central bank of economy to raise the interest rate. So, it is said that when oil prices rises, even interest rate increases and when oil prices decreases, the interest rate also faces decline. They generally move in the same direction. The trends in oil market don't develop or change suddenly. You can easily earn a handsome profit by trading in it.

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.