TUESDAY, May 28 (HealthDay News) -- The news media and the mind may have a powerful role in people's experience of so-called "Wi-Fi syndrome," if a new study is correct.

Researchers found that when they showed people a news report on the purported health risks of Wi-Fi, some of them suddenly developed symptoms when they were later exposed to a Wi-Fi signal. Except that "signal" wasn't real.

The findings, researchers say, point to the power of the media and the power of the "nocebo effect" -- where your worries over ill health effects actually make you feel sick. It's the negative version of the storied placebo effect, which causes you to feel better because you expect good things from a therapy.

"Our study represents the first to demonstrate that sensational and one-sided media reports might be able to amplify the nocebo effect in this particular form of environmental intolerance," said lead researcher Michael Witthoft, with the psychology department at Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz, in Germany.

"Environmental intolerance" refers to symptoms that people develop in reaction to chemicals or other exposures in their daily surroundings. Witthoft's study zeroed in on one: electromagnetic fields (EMFs) -- which include the radio waves given off by cell phones and Wi-Fi networks.

There is little evidence that those fields pose a cancer risk, or have other health effects. Still, some people report suffering symptoms, like headaches, tingling sensations, nausea and concentration problems, that they attribute to electromagnetic field exposure.

Witthoft's team studied the phenomenon by recruiting 147 adults and randomly assigning them to watch one of two BBC news reports: one on the potential health effects of Wi-Fi, or another on the security of Internet and cellphone data.

Afterward, volunteers sat in a room with a laptop, where they believed they were being exposed to a Wi-Fi signal -- when, in fact, they were not. Yet 54 percent of the study participants reported suffering symptoms, like tingling and concentration problems, that they blamed on the Wi-Fi exposure.

And people who had seen the scary news report were more vulnerable, Witthoft said -- particularly if they were anxiety-prone types to begin with, a trait the researchers assessed with a standard questionnaire.

The findings, which recently appeared in the Journal of Psychosomatic Research, highlight how the mind -- and the media -- influence how you feel, experts said.

"For the media, I think it is essential to present the available scientific evidence in a balanced and cautious way," Witthoft said.

The particular report his team used was a notoriously one-sided program that was seen by close to 5 million Britons when it aired in 2007. It was later called "misleading" by the BBC's own Editorial Complaints Unit.

It is "disturbing" that for some people in this study, just seeing the report was enough to trigger symptoms, according to John Kelley, an associate professor of psychology at Endicott College in Beverly, Mass.

Kelley is also deputy director of Harvard Medical School's Program in Placebo Studies, which was created about two years ago specifically to research the placebo response.

"Unfortunately," Kelley said, "people's expectations can work in the negative direction, as well as the positive."

He said it would be interesting to see whether a more balanced news report on the issue of electromagnetic fields and health would have produced the same results. But it's possible that wouldn't make much difference, Kelley noted.

It may be that simply getting the information makes many people more vigilant for symptoms -- especially the anxiety-prone.

"You start to pay more attention to your body and may notice some things -- a headache, a dry mouth -- that you otherwise wouldn't notice," Kelley said.

And it's not just a phenomenon of "gullible" people falling victim to sensationalist media reports, he noted. Medical students are famous for developing symptoms of the diseases they are currently studying. "It happens to doctors, too," Kelley said.

Study author Witthoft recommended viewing health news with a skeptical eye. "It appears essential to stay critical about any kind of scientific, or pseudo-scientific, information in the media," he said. "I would advise consumers not to jump to simple conclusions prematurely, but to critically review several sources of evidence."

Simply knowing that the things you hear and see can influence actual physical experiences may be helpful -- and eye-opening -- to many people, according to Kelley. "We don't like to believe that we can be pushed to feel something we wouldn't otherwise feel," he said. "But we can be."

More information

Learn more about placebo effects from Harvard's Program in Placebo Studies.

Permalink| Comments

FRIDAY, May 24 (HealthDay News) -- Regular doses of the dietary supplement Coenzyme Q10 cut in half the death rate of patients suffering from advanced heart failure, in a randomized double-blind trial.

Researchers also reported a significant decrease in the number of hospitalizations for heart failure patients being treated with Coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10). About 14 percent of patients taking the supplement suffered from a major cardiovascular event that required hospital treatment, compared with 25 percent of patients receiving placebos.

In heart failure, the heart becomes weak and can no longer pump enough oxygen- and nutrient-rich blood throughout the body. Patients often experience fatigue and breathing problems as the heart enlarges and pumps faster in an effort to meet the body's needs.

The study is scheduled to be presented Saturday at the annual meeting of the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology, in Lisbon, Portugal.

"CoQ10 is the first medication to improve survival in chronic heart failure since ACE inhibitors and beta blockers more than a decade ago and should be added to standard heart failure therapy," lead researcher Svend Aage Mortensen, a professor with the Heart Center at Copenhagen University Hospital, in Denmark, said in a society news release.

While randomized clinical trails are considered the "gold standard" of studies, because this new study was presented at a medical meeting, the data and conclusions should be viewed as preliminary until published in a peer-reviewed journal.

American cardiologists greeted the reported findings with cautious optimism.

"This is a study that is very promising but requires replication in a second confirmatory trial," said Dr. Gregg Fonarow, a professor of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and a spokesman for the American Heart Association.

Fonarow noted that earlier, smaller trials with Coenzyme Q10 have produced mixed results. "Some studies have shown no effect, while other studies have shown some improvement, but not nearly the impressive effects displayed in this trial," he said.

Coenzyme Q10 occurs naturally in the body. It functions as an electron carrier in cellular mitochondria (the cell's "powerhouse") to help convert food to energy. It also is a powerful antioxidant, and has become a popular over-the-counter dietary supplement.

CoQ10 levels are decreased in the heart muscle of patients with heart failure, with the deficiency becoming more pronounced as the severity of their condition worsens, Mortensen said in the news release.

In this study, 420 patients with moderate to severe heart failure were tracked during two years. About half received 100 milligrams of CoQ10 three times a day, while the other half received a placebo.

By the end of the study, 18 patients from the CoQ10 group had died versus 36 deaths in the placebo group. Major adverse cardiovascular events requiring hospitalization had taken place in 29 CoQ10 patients, compared with 55 patients in the placebo group.

"It seems to be the largest trial so far to look at it in a rigorous way, to see if Coenzyme Q10 therapy affects outcomes in heart failure," said Dr. Margaret Redfield, head of the circulatory failure research group at Mayo Clinic. "As far as outcome trials go, it's still a pretty small trial. We have to interpret it cautiously. But it did seem to show a decrease in heart failure related events."

The potential of Coenzyme Q10 to treat heart failure patients has been a story told for more than two decades, added Dr. Michael Givertz, medical director for heart transplant and mechanical circulatory support at Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, and an associate professor of medicine for Harvard Medical School.

Studies have shown that Coenzyme Q10 does no harm and produces no side effects, Givertz said, but have not been able to definitively prove any solid benefit.

"The general recommendation to patients has been, probably not a huge benefit. It appears to be safe, it doesn't seem to have any side effects, it can't hurt, but it's pretty costly," he said. "Most cardiologists have not recommended it, and I don't think this size of a trial is going to change practice and change guidelines."

"I would say this is an intriguing trial," Givertz said. "It certainly deserves a definitive trial large enough to look at a mortality endpoint. I would look forward to seeing the full results published in a peer-reviewed journal."

More information

Visit the U.S. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute to learn more about heart failure.

Permalink| Comments

WEDNESDAY, May 22 (HealthDay News) -- Fish oil supplements could help reduce the risk for type 2 diabetes, new research suggests.

The supplements, also known as omega-3 fatty acids, increase levels of a hormone called adiponectin that's linked to insulin sensitivity, Harvard researchers found. Higher levels of this hormone in the bloodstream have also been linked to a lower risk for heart disease.

"While prior animal studies found fish oil increased circulating adiponectin, whether similar effects apply in humans is not established," the study's lead author, Jason Wu, from the Harvard School of Public Health, said in a news release from the Endocrine Society.

For their study, the researchers conducted a "meta-analysis" of 14 clinical trials. A meta-analysis reviews existing research and attempts to find a consistent pattern. In this case, the studies that were reviewed were all randomized, placebo-controlled trials, which is considered the gold standard in research.

"By reviewing evidence from existing randomized clinical trials, we found that fish oil supplementation caused modest increases in adiponectin in the blood of humans," Wu explained.

Overall, the new study looked at 682 people who took fish oil supplements, and 641 who were given placebos such as sunflower or olive oil.

Among the people treated with fish oil, adiponectin levels increased by 0.37 micrograms per milliliter of blood. This hormone plays a beneficial role in processes that affect metabolism, such as blood sugar regulation and inflammation.

Because the effects of fish oil varied significantly in the studies analyzed, the researchers suggested that omega-3 fatty acids could have a stronger effect in certain groups of people. The investigators concluded that more research is needed to determine which people would benefit most from fish oil supplements.

"Although higher levels of adiponectin in the bloodstream have been linked to lower risk of diabetes and coronary heart disease, whether fish oil influences glucose [blood sugar] metabolism and development of type 2 diabetes remains unclear," Wu said.

"However, results from our study suggest that higher intake of fish oil may moderately increase blood level of adiponectin, and these results support potential benefits of fish oil consumption on glucose control and fat cell metabolism," he added.

But the association does not prove a cause-and-effect relationship between fish oil supplementation and decreased diabetes risk.

Roughly 37 percent of adults and 31 percent of children in the United States take fish oil supplements, according to a 2007 survey by the National Institutes of Health's National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine.

The study is scheduled for publication in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism. It was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health's National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

More information

The U.S. National Library of Medicine has more about fish oil supplements.

Permalink| Comments

MONDAY, May 20 (HealthDay News) -- Music can help soothe the fear and anxiety of critically ill patients who have been placed on ventilators, reducing both their stress and their need for sedatives, according to a new study.

Intensive care unit (ICU) patients allowed to listen to music of their choice whenever they liked enjoyed a 36 percent reduction in their anxiety levels compared to patients not offered music, researchers found.

The ICU patients who were provided music also needed less sedation, with their sedative intake dropping 38 percent compared to other patients, the findings showed.

"They had significantly less anxiety, and they also received less frequent and less intense sedatives and medication," said lead author Linda Chlan, of Ohio State University. "We can use music to reduce the common symptom of anxiety along with less medicine to promote patient comfort."

The study, published online May 20 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, involved 373 patients from 12 ICUs at five hospitals in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area. All patients had been placed on a ventilator between September 2006 and March 2011 due to respiratory failure.

A group of 126 patients were offered the opportunity to listen to music of their own choice through headphones whenever they liked.

"The music patients listened to was tailored to them based on their musical preferences determined by the music therapist on our research team," Chlan said. "The interesting thing about that, we all have different preferences. Really, it ran the gamut. So much of it has to do with age, whether or not someone's a musician, that type of thing." Oldies and classical music were two favorite choices.

The study also involved two control groups who were either provided usual care or given the choice to wear noise-canceling headphones whenever they wanted to block out hospital noise. All three patient groups had their anxiety levels measured daily as well as the intensity and frequency of the sedation they required.

During the five-day study period, patients allowed to listen to music needed less sedation and felt less anxiety than patients receiving usual care. They also needed fewer doses of sedatives than patients wearing noise-cancelling headphones, but did not experience a comparatively significant reduction in anxiety or sedation intensity.

Patients with music listened for an average of 80 minutes a day, while patients with noise-canceling headphones used them an average of 34 minutes a day, the study authors noted.

Music therapist Barbara Else, a senior advisor to the American Music Therapy Association, called the new report "an important study for the music therapy profession."

"While this topic is not new in the music therapy research literature, this study demonstrates one of the valuable roles board-certified music therapists can provide within the context of the interdisciplinary team, working with patients and in cooperation with critical care nursing staff," said Else, who was not involved with the research.

She said it "was also valuable because the protocol designed by ... Chlan and colleagues provided the patient with some control. Patients could control when and how long they used the music intervention each day or night. The music selections were tailored by the music therapist, working with the patient."

Chlan said she got the idea of self-administered music therapy from observing the practice of patient-controlled analgesia in hospital settings. ICU patients on ventilators aren't allowed to control their intake of pain medication, but she thought providing them the choice of their own music might provide them some small sense of control.

"Patients are more satisfied with pain control when they can administer their own medicine," Chlan said. "I thought, 'Well, I wonder, if we can encourage and empower patients to use preferred relaxing music, can we help reduce their anxiety level?' It really is unusual to empower patients in the ICU, and this study is novel in that the patients decided for themselves when they wanted to listen to music."

It was vital to allow patients to choose their own music. "We all have musical memories, and those types of music we have pleasant memories from we need to maximize," Chlan said.

Music also has been shown to reduce levels of stress hormones in the body, and can block out the disconcerting background noises that occur in a hospital setting, she said.

"Music provides a very complex auditory stimulus," Chlan said. "It can occupy areas of the brain with a pleasant comforting stimulus, which can block out unpleasant hospital stimulus. People think, 'Oh, music is just something nice to listen to,' but it's so much more than that."

More information

Visit the American Music Therapy Association to learn more about the connection between music and health.

Permalink| Comments

WEDNESDAY, May 15 (HealthDay News) -- People who follow the ancient practice of yoga may be getting an added health boost, with a new study suggesting it can fight high blood pressure -- also known as hypertension.

"This study confirms many people's feelings that exercise may be useful in the control of hypertension," said Dr. Howard Weintraub, a cardiologist and associate professor of medicine at NYU Langone Medical Center in New York City. Weintraub was not connected to the new study.

Based on the new findings, "yoga would be a useful adjunct in the lowering of blood pressure in certain populations," he said.

In the study, researchers led by Dr. Debbie Cohen of the University of Pennsylvania tracked 58 women and men, aged 38 to 62, for six months.

Although the study couldn't prove a cause-and-effect relationship, doing yoga two to three times a week was associated with an average drop in blood pressure readings from 133/80 to 130/77, the researchers said.

In comparison, the average decrease in blood pressure was smaller (134/83 to 132/82) among people who ate a special diet but did not do yoga.

In a bit of a surprise, doing yoga in tandem with a special diet did not outperform doing yoga alone -- blood pressure numbers fell only slightly (135/83 to 134/81) among people who ate a special diet and also did yoga, the researchers said.

The small decline in blood pressure among people who ate a special diet and did yoga may be because doing both required a greater amount of time, making it more difficult for participants to stick with their regimens, the authors said.

Weintraub said the study shows that "yoga can have a favorable effect" on hypertension. Although the amount of change was small, he said, "some large population studies have suggested that changes of this magnitude could have very significant long-term benefits."

The study did have some limitations, including its relatively short length and the fact that most participants were young and had milder forms of high blood pressure, Weintraub said.

Another expert agreed that the ancient Indian practice of yoga might ease hypertension.

"Yoga, along with deep breathing exercises, meditation and inner reflection, is a good adjunctive and integrative cardiovascular approach to better health, including lowering blood pressure, as this data suggests," said Dr. David Friedman, chief of Heart Failure Services at the North Shore-LIJ Plainview Hospital, in Plainview, N.Y.

"In addition to proper diet and aerobic physical fitness most days of the week, I recommend that my patients take time each day for the above measures of finding disciplined inner peace, for improved health and well-being," he said.

The findings were presented Wednesday at the annual scientific meeting of the American Society of Hypertension, in San Francisco. Findings presented at medical meetings typically are considered preliminary until published in a peer-reviewed journal.

More information

The American Academy of Family Physicians has more about high blood pressure.

Permalink| Comments

THURSDAY, May 2 (HealthDay News) -- Lipsticks and lip glosses apparently give you more than colorful kissers, according to a new study by California scientists that contends the products contain lead, cadmium, chromium, aluminum and five other toxic metals.

The research team tested 32 different lip glosses and lipsticks commonly sold at drug and department stores. Some metals were detected at levels that could raise potential health concerns, the researchers said.

"Lipsticks and lip glosses often have levels of toxic metals which approach or exceed acceptable daily doses based on public health guidelines," said researcher Katharine Hammond, a professor of environmental health sciences at the University of California, Berkeley.

Hammond declined to name brands tested. "I would treat these results as applicable to all lipsticks," she said.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, however, does list the lead content of many lipsticks by brand on its website.

In the new study, lead was found in 24 of the 32 products, but at a concentration usually lower than the acceptable daily intake levels.

"At an average level of use, it's not likely to be an issue," Hammond said. She added that she's concerned, however, about children playing with makeup, as no level of lead exposure is considered safe for them. Heavy adult users might consider cutting down, she added.

In the study, certain colors were not more likely than others to have the toxic metals, Hammond said. Nor were glosses more likely to have them than lipsticks, or vice versa.

The study was published online May 2 in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.

The new report isn't the first to focus on toxins in lipsticks. In 2007, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics tested 33 lip products and found that 61 percent contained lead, some with levels high enough to cause concern.

The current study went further than measuring the levels of lead and eight other metals. Researchers estimated risk based on the concentration of the metals detected and the users' potential daily intake -- average or high. They compared that information with existing public health guidelines about acceptable intake levels.

The researchers focused on lipstick and lip gloss, they said, because those who wear them absorb or eat them, bit by bit.

High use was defined as ingesting 87 milligrams of the product a day. That would involve repeated reapplying, Hammond said. Average use was about 24 milligrams a day.

When used at an average daily rate, the estimated intake of chromium from 10 products exceeded acceptable daily intake, the researchers found. Chromium has been linked to stomach tumors.

High use of the products, they found, also could result in overexposure to aluminum, cadmium and manganese. High manganese levels have been linked to nervous system problems.

The findings do signal a need for more public oversight, the researchers said.

The FDA regulates cosmetics safety under the authority of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. Cosmetics must be safe when used as the label directs or under ordinary conditions. The FDA does not, however, require cosmetics to get pre-market approval. Color additives must get pre-market approval, in most cases. No limits for lead in cosmetics have been set by the FDA.

The FDA, however, has set specifications for lead in the color additives that are used in cosmetics.

The Personal Care Products Council, a trade association representing the cosmetics industry, said in a statement Wednesday that the lead content of lipsticks has already been studied by the FDA and that the agency decided the amounts involved were not a threat to public safety.

"Trace amounts of metals in lip products need to be put into context," Linda Loretz, chief toxicologist for the council, said in the statement. "Food is a primary source for many of these naturally present metals, and exposure from lip products is minimal in comparison. For example, daily trace amounts of chromium or cadmium from lip products based on the results in this report are less than 1 percent of daily exposures one would get from their diet. In the case of manganese, typical daily intake from food is more than 1000-fold greater than the amount from lip products."

"Cosmetic companies are required by law to substantiate the safety of their products before they are marketed. Nothing matters more to cosmetic companies than the safety and the well-being of the people who use and enjoy them," Loretz added.

The findings are not surprising, said Dr. Luz Fonacier, head of the allergy and training program at Winthrop University Hospital in Mineola, N.Y. Many lip products are packaged in metal containers, she said, "and this may affect the amount detected by investigators."

"I agree with the authors that there should be U.S. standards for metal content in cosmetics and that monitoring of metals in cosmetics, especially those with a higher likelihood of ingestion or absorption, should be done," Fonacier said.

Dr. Ken Spaeth is director of occupational and environmental medicine at North Shore-LIJ Health System in New Hyde Park, N.Y. He reviewed the findings and has written a book for doctors on detecting heavy metal exposure problems.

He said, "The findings should certainly raise concern about the use of the products."

Certain people should be especially careful about exposure, he said, including pregnant women and teens. "The fetus is particularly susceptible," he said. "And brain development continues throughout adolescence."

More information

To learn more about cosmetic regulation, including lipstick and lead, visit the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Permalink| Comments

MONDAY, April 22 (HealthDay News) -- Alternative treatments like transcendental meditation, biofeedback and guided breathing appear to reduce high blood pressure in some people, a new report suggests.

But only one method that does not involve medication -- aerobic exercise -- is both proven to have a major impact and highly recommended.

The report, by the American Heart Association, also says research doesn't support a reduction in high blood pressure from other relaxation and meditation techniques, yoga or acupuncture. However, the quality of research into these strategies is limited, the report adds, suggesting that there's still hope they have an effect.

"In general, there's a surprising level of evidence supporting some of the alternative techniques being effective, and surprisingly little or conflicting evidence in regard to other techniques," said Dr. Robert Brook, an associate professor of medicine at the University of Michigan. "These alternative techniques are a neglected stepchild and often not given nearly as much attention or funding for research, and are often not taken as seriously as other approaches."

Two things are clear, he said: The alternative approaches don't appear to be harmful, and they shouldn't be used instead of following a doctor's advice regarding medication.

The American Heart Association launched its report to give guidance to doctors and patients about treatments for high blood pressure, Brook said. "Traditionally, we'll talk about weight loss, diet, salt restriction and exercise. They're difficult to comply with, and people don't follow them. We decided it was time to review all of the research into alternative ways to lower blood pressure."

The report ranks aerobic exercise, like brisk walking, as having the greatest effect on high blood pressure and the highest quality research to support it.

Biofeedback, weight lifting, transcendental meditation and synchronized breathing (such as breathing to a series of tones) also scored well in terms of effectiveness.

When they're effective, the techniques may reduce the systolic number in a high blood pressure reading -- the top number -- by a modest 5 to 10 millimeters of mercury (mmHg), Brook said. A reading of 140 or higher is a sign of potential trouble.

How do the strategies work to reduce blood pressure? It's not clear in some cases, he said, although exercise appears to boost the functioning of blood vessels by widening them.

Samuel Sears, director of health psychology programs at East Carolina University, in Greenville, N.C., said the report is important but its focus misses the "mental benefits" of alternative treatments. "Patients seek and may gain broader benefits from some of these therapies, such as psychological and perceived control of their condition," he said.

So, should you try these strategies?

Dr. Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, an associate professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, said they're generally considered safe. However, "the inappropriate reliance on these approaches could result in delays in seeking medical treatment of hypertension," she said. "And many of these interventions are associated with out-of-pocket costs for patients, which is an additional consideration particularly if such interventions are ultimately shown not to be effective."

The report appears April 22 in the journal Hypertension.

More information

For more about high blood pressure, try the U.S. National Library of Medicine.

Permalink| Comments

MONDAY, April 22 (HealthDay News) -- Parks and urban gardens may do more than just get city dwellers back to nature -- a new British study suggests there's also a large benefit to their overall well-being.

Specifically, people with access to numerous green areas reported less mental distress and higher levels of life satisfaction than those without such access, according to the study published online April 22 in the journal Psychological Science.

This link between green spaces and greater well-being held true even after the researchers accounted for factor such as income, job and marital status and type of housing. In fact, the positive impact of green spaces on well-being was equal to about one-third that of being married and equal to one-tenth of being employed vs. unemployed, they said.

"These kinds of comparisons are important for policymakers when trying to decide how to invest scarce public resources, such as for park development or upkeep, and figuring out what 'bang' they'll get for their buck," study leader Mathew White, of the University of Exeter's European Center for Environment and Human Health in Truro, said in a university news release.

The findings come from an analysis of data from more than 10,000 people in U.K. households between 1991 and 2008.

While this study does not prove that moving to an area with more green spaces will increase a person's happiness or sense of well-being, it does fit with previous research showing that short periods of time in a green space can improve mood and mental skills.

"This research could be important for psychologists, public health officials and urban planners who are interested in learning about the effects that urbanization and city planning can have on population health and well-being," White concluded.

More information

Mental Health America offers tips on how to live your life well.

Permalink| Comments

TUESDAY, March 26 (HealthDay News) -- Results from a major trial on controversial chelation therapy for patients with a history of heart attack find a modest benefit from the expensive treatment, but experts conclude there's no clear evidence supporting its use.

Still, "groups that advocate for chelation and groups that oppose chelation will both find comfort in the results," said one expert not connected to the study, Dr. Stephen Green, associate chairman in the department of cardiology at North Shore University Hospital in Manhasset, N.Y.

Chelation therapy involves dozens of arduous infusions conducted over a period of years, aimed at leaching excess metals from the body. Patients typically also receive high doses of vitamins and minerals. The therapy has been offered to heart patients by some clinics across the United States for decades, although its use for this purpose has been considered controversial and it has never received approval as a heart disease treatment from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

The results of this latest study are published in the March 27 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association. Findings from the same study were also presented earlier this month at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology (ACC) in San Francisco, and at last fall's annual meeting of the American Heart Association.

Speaking at the ACC meeting on March 10, the study's lead researcher said that the modest benefit noted in the study had not made him any more ready to recommend chelation therapy.

"These findings should stimulate further research, but are not by themselves sufficient to recommend the routine use of chelation therapy and high-dose vitamins in most patients," said Dr. Gervasio Lamas, chief of the Columbia University division of cardiology at Mount Sinai Medical Center, in Miami Beach, Fla.

The trial, which was funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, involved more than 1,700 patients from the United States and Canada who had suffered a previous heart attack. Most were already taking standard therapies such as daily aspirin, cholesterol-lowering statins or blood pressure medications.

In the new analysis of the data, the patients were divided into two groups: high-dose vitamin/mineral supplements plus chelation or "dummy" placebo infusions/supplements. Chelation therapy consisted of 40 three-hour sessions with the IV infusions spread over anywhere between 50 and 110 weeks. Doses of vitamins and minerals given were much higher than recommended daily intakes.

After an average follow-up of more than four and a half years, the team did see a slight benefit among the group who took the vitamins/minerals in combination with chelation therapy. Twenty-six percent of people in this group experienced some kind of cardiovascular event such as heart attack, stroke or hospitalization for angina (chest pain) -- less than the 30 percent seen among those who got placebo/placebo therapy only.

Still, the gap was not huge and Lamas, who does not use chelation therapy in his own practice, said he cannot recommend it at this time. The researchers also noted that the drop-out rate among participants was relatively high: 281 people in the placebo arm stopped treatment before the study's end, as did 233 of those taking chelation.

"The message really is a cautious message," Lamas said. "We brought something that has been an alternative medicine treatment into the realm of scientific inquiry and found unexpected results that may merit future research. However, we don't think that the results of any single trial are enough to carry this novel hypothesis into daily use for patients."

In an editorial published in JAMA, the journal's editor-in-chief, Dr. Howard Bauchner said that "based on full consideration of the strengths and limitations of [this study], the conclusion is clear and should influence practice -- these findings do not support the routine use of chelation therapy as secondary prevention for patients with previous [heart attack] and established coronary disease."

But Green said the debate over chelation's effectiveness may continue.

"The use of chelation therapy for coronary artery disease has had its advocates for decades, but predominantly outside of regular medical circles," Green noted. "This is because there has not been what was considered a good hypothesis to explain why it should work for coronary atherosclerosis [hardening of the arteries]."

Beyond that are safety concerns linked to the therapy's removal of calcium from the bloodstream. In the study, the researchers noted that the treatment "may cause hypocalcemia [abnormally low calcium in the blood] and death."

Speaking at the time of the ACC meeting presentation in San Francisco, cardiologist Dr. Tara Narula, associate director of the cardiac care unit at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City, was similarly dubious of chelation's usefulness.

"Although it is noteworthy that chelation may be helpful, it is an expensive treatment and does carry significant side effects," she said.

More information

There's more on the care of heart attack patients at the U.S. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Permalink| Comments

SUNDAY, March 10 (HealthDay News) -- There's mixed news from a much-anticipated clinical trial for people who've suffered a heart attack: While a study found that daily high doses of vitamins and minerals did nothing to improve patient outcomes, there was a hint that controversial "chelation" therapy might.

Still, the lead researcher said he's not ready to recommend chelation therapy, in which doctors give patients high-dose vitamins along with special infusions that seek to leach heavy metals from the body.

"These findings should stimulate further research, but are not by themselves sufficient to recommend the routine use of chelation therapy and high-dose vitamins in most patients," said Dr. Gervasio Lamas, chief of the Columbia University Division of Cardiology at Mount Sinai Medical Center, in Miami Beach, Fla.

The trial, which was funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, looked at whether chelation therapy might help patients who'd suffered a heart attack. The findings were presented Sunday at the American College of Cardiology (ACC) annual meeting, in San Francisco.

The expensive treatment, which involves dozens of arduous infusions conducted over a period of years, has been offered by certain clinics for decades but has yet to gain U.S. Food and Drug administration approval for heart patients.

However, its reputation got a boost in November when preliminary results from the same trial were presented at the annual meeting of the American Heart Association. Those results did show a modest benefit from chelation therapy for some patients.

The trial involved more than 1,700 patients from the United States and Canada who had suffered a prior heart attack. Most were already taking standard therapies such as daily aspirin, cholesterol-lowering statins or blood pressure medications.

Because chelation therapy also involves daily high-dose vitamins and minerals, Lamas explained that the new analysis tried to separate out the effects of the supplements from that of the chelation itself.

The patients therefore were randomly selected to receive one of four regimens: high-dose vitamin/mineral supplements plus chelation, vitamins/minerals plus a placebo ("dummy") chelation therapy, chelation with placebo vitamin/minerals, or a placebo/placebo group (no actual therapy given). Chelation therapy consisted of 40 three-hour sessions with the IV infusion spread over 18 months, and the doses of vitamins and minerals given were much higher than recommended daily intakes.

After an average follow-up of more than four years, the researchers found no benefit for people who took the daily high-dose vitamins/minerals alone.

"We cannot recommend high-dose oral vitamins and minerals as adjunct therapy for people who have had [heart attacks]," Lamas said at an ACC press briefing on Sunday.

However, the team did see a slight benefit among the group who took the vitamins/minerals in combination with chelation therapy. Twenty-six percent of people in this group experienced some kind of cardiovascular event such as heart attack, stroke or hospitalization for angina (chest pain) -- less than the 32 percent seen among those who got placebo/placebo therapy only.

Still, the gap was not huge and Lamas, who does not use chelation therapy in his own practice, said he cannot recommend it at this time.

"The message really is a cautious message," he said. "We brought something that has been an alternative medicine treatment into the realm of scientific inquiry and found unexpected results that may merit future research. However, we don't think that the results of any single trial are enough to carry this novel hypothesis into daily use for patients."

Two experts who were not connected to the study were less than impressed by the findings.

"Many Americans think that a multivitamin a day is the cure-all to most ailments," said Dr. Tara Narula, associate director of the Cardiac Care Unit at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City. However, "when it comes to heart disease, this appears to be a myth," she said. "There is no evidence that vitamin and mineral supplementation can be beneficial to cardiac patients."

Dr. Sripal Bangalore is assistant professor in the department of medicine at NYU Langone Medical Center, in New York City. He agreed with Narula that high-dose vitamins are of no help to heart patients, and added that the finding regarding chelation therapy is an isolated one and "needs to be studied further."

For her part, Narula said that "although it is noteworthy that chelation may be helpful, it is an expensive treatment and does carry significant side effects."

Findings presented at medical meetings are considered preliminary until published in a peer-reviewed journal.

More information

There's more on the care of heart attack patients at the U.S. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Permalink| Comments

WEDNESDAY, March 6 (HealthDay News) -- Fraudulent health products are commonplace and can cause serious injury or even death, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warns.

These products prey on people's desires for easy solutions to difficult health problems and often make claims related to weight loss, sexual performance, memory loss and serious diseases such as cancer, diabetes, heart disease, arthritis and Alzheimer's disease.

Besides wasting your money, use of these products can cause serious harm or even death.

"Using unproven treatments can delay getting a potentially life-saving diagnosis and medication that actually works," Gary Coody, the FDA's national health fraud coordinator, said in an agency news release. "Also, fraudulent products sometimes contain hidden drug ingredients that can be harmful when unknowingly taken by consumers."

"Health fraud is a pervasive problem, especially when scammers sell online," Coody said. "It's difficult to track down the responsible parties. When we do find them and tell them their products are illegal, some will shut down their website. Unfortunately, however, these same products may reappear later on a different website, and sometimes may reappear with a different name."

The FDA offered the following things to be on the lookout for when identifying fraudulent health products:

• One product does it all. Be suspicious of products that claim to cure a wide range of diseases.
• Personal testimonials. Success stories, such as, "It cured my diabetes" or "My tumors are gone," are easy to make up and not a substitute for scientific evidence.
• Quick fixes. Few diseases or conditions can be treated quickly, even with legitimate products.
• All natural. Some plants can kill when consumed. The FDA also has found numerous products promoted as "all natural" that contain hidden and dangerously high doses of prescription drug ingredients or untested artificial ingredients.
• Claims such as "miracle cure," "new discovery," "scientific breakthrough" or "secret ingredient." Discoveries of real cures for serious diseases are widely reported in the media and prescribed by doctors, not revealed in ads, infomercials or on websites.
• Conspiracy theories. Claims that drug companies and the government are working together to hide information about a miracle cure are untrue and unfounded.

Even with these tips, it may be difficult to spot a fraudulent health product. If you have any doubts about an unproven product or one with questionable claims, check with your doctor or other health care professional first, the FDA recommended.

More information

The American Academy of Family Physicians offers advice about herbal health products and supplements.

Permalink| Comments

FRIDAY, Feb. 22 (HealthDay News) -- Premature babies who spend their first few days of life in the neonatal intensive care unit may be exposed to a possibly harmful chemical widely used in the manufacture of hard plastics, new research says.

The chemical, bisphenol A (BPA), is used to make many of the ventilators, intravenous lines, catheters and other devices tiny babies need to stay alive in those first critical days.

BPA is believed to be an endocrine disruptor, which means it may interfere with the hormone system in humans. Some research has linked BPA with reproductive and developmental problems, including attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Last July, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration banned BPA from baby bottles and sippy cups.

The lead author of the new study, published online Feb. 18 and in the March print issue of Pediatrics, stressed that her paper did not come to any conclusions regarding health effects of BPA.

"This was an exposure assessment study," said Susan Duty, an associate professor of nursing at Simmons School of Nursing and Health Sciences in Boston. "We did not set out to determine any health outcome so I cannot speak to health effects from these particular exposures."

Most human exposure to BPA comes through diet: BPA can leach into foods and beverages from the containers in which it is packaged.

In this study, though, that turned out not to be the case. BPA levels in urine samples taken before and after feeding (either breast-feeding or formula feeding) were the same in the 55 infants who participated in this study. All were premature newborns staying in a hospital neonatal intensive care unit (NICU).

But babies who needed four or more medical devices had 1.6 times higher BPA levels in their urine when compared to those who were exposed to three or fewer devices.

Respiratory devices were linked with higher BPA exposure than other devices.

And, although in all cases urine concentrations of BPA were lower than those cited as potentially harmful by the U.S. Environmental and Protection Agency, they were still 16 to 32 times higher than those seen in children from the general population, Duty said.

Also, she added, "there is controversy about the effect of low-dose BPA exposures because some studies of exposure during vulnerable time periods of child development report effects on behavior and executive function in children and shortened [anal-genital] distance in male offspring."

Duty pointed out that the particular NICU she studied had made "a conscious voluntary decision to choose products without BPA whenever possible and still we found these associations with BPA."

It's unclear if there are alternative ways to make the devices needed to keep tiny, vulnerable babies alive.

Sharon Wilkerson, dean of the Texas A&M Health Science Center College of Nursing, cited one study that had found differences in exposure levels between hospitals, "suggesting that some products may be better than others."

On the other hand, BPA strengthens plastic and plays a cementing role.

"We don't want a catheter in the vein to come apart because that would be worse than the BPA," Wilkerson said. "There's a fine line of making sure that as we try and get people to use less BPA in the production of products, we don't jeopardize the outcome from that."

A group representing the chemical industry said the study is not cause for alarm.

"This study found that exposures to BPA from the use of life-saving medical equipment on premature infants in the NICU were low and well within safe limits established by regulators," said Steven Hentges, of the Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group at the American Chemistry Council.

In a council news release, Hentges added that "the BPA exposures for all of the infants in this study are short-term, limited to the time when life-saving medical treatment is necessary, and well below government-set safe intake limits for BPA, which are conservatively set."

A medical expert not involved with the study said more information is needed.

"Clearly, this study found more exposure but the question is what does that mean," said Dr. David Mendez, a neonatologist with Miami Children's Hospital in Florida. "We just don't know enough right now.

"If we find that BPA is a real player in the long-term health outcomes of babies, we can come up with safer ways to deliver nutrition, to deliver our oxygen," he added.

For now, study author Duty said, "the first priority must be to provide the medical care needed to help these infants survive their premature birth."

More information

The U.S. National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences has more on BPA.

Permalink| Comments

MONDAY, Feb. 18 (HealthDay News) -- Hay fever sufferers may find some relief with acupuncture, a new study suggests, though the therapy's appeal in the "real world" is yet to be seen.

The study, of 422 people with grass and pollen allergies, found that those randomly assigned to a dozen acupuncture sessions fared better than patients who did not receive the procedure.

On average, they reported greater symptom improvements and were able to use less antihistamine medication over eight weeks. The advantage, however, was gone after another eight weeks, according to findings reported in the Feb. 19 issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine.

Still, that doesn't necessarily mean that acupuncture's benefits fade, said lead researcher Dr. Benno Brinkhaus, of Charite-University Medical Center in Berlin.

Hay fever symptoms were much better in all three study groups by week 16, and Brinkhaus said that's probably because pollen season was dying down at that point.

The study was well done and "positive," because acupuncture seemed helpful, said Dr. Harold Nelson, an allergist at National Jewish Health, a Denver hospital that specializes in respiratory diseases.

But Nelson doubted whether the time, inconvenience and expense of acupuncture sessions would seem worthwhile to many hay fever sufferers -- especially because there are simpler ways to manage the condition.

"I don't know how many people will want to wait in an acupuncturist's office, then sit with 16 needles in them for 20 minutes, and do that 12 times, when they could use a nasal spray," Nelson said.

Specifically, Nelson pointed to prescription nasal sprays that contain anti-inflammatory corticosteroids. The sprays -- which include brand names like Flonase and Nasonex -- are taken daily to help prevent hay fever symptoms.

Patients in this study were not using nasal steroids. They were taking antihistamines as needed -- which, Nelson said, is not the most effective way to manage hay fever.

Still, Nelson added, there are people who want to avoid medication, and they may be interested in acupuncture as an option.

Many studies have suggested that acupuncture helps ease various types of pain, such as migraines and backaches, as well as treat nausea and vomiting related to surgery or chemotherapy. According to traditional Chinese medicine, acupuncture works by stimulating certain points on the skin believed to affect the flow of energy, or "qi" (pronounced "chee"), through the body.

But some recent research suggests that the needle stimulation also triggers the release of pain- and inflammation-fighting chemicals in the body. No one is sure why acupuncture would help with hay fever, but there is evidence that it curbs inflammatory immune-system substances involved in allergic reactions.

For the new study, Brinkhaus and colleagues recruited 422 adults with hay fever. They randomly assigned the patients to one of three groups: one that received 12 acupuncture sessions over eight weeks; one that received a "sham" version of acupuncture; and one that received no acupuncture.

In the sham version, acupuncturists used real needles, but inserted them only superficially and into areas of the skin that are not traditional acupuncture points. Patients in all three groups were allowed to take antihistamine medication when their symptoms flared up.

After eight weeks, the study found, patients given real acupuncture reported more symptom improvement than those in either of the comparison groups. On average, their quality-of-life "scores" were 0.5 to 0.7 points better -- which, in real life, should translate to a noticeable difference in hay fever symptoms, according to Nelson.

Brinkhaus, who is a medical doctor and acupuncturist, said he would recommend acupuncture to patients who are not satisfied with allergy medication -- either because it's not working or because of the side effects.

Dr. Remy Coeytaux, who co-wrote an editorial published with the study, agreed that acupuncture is worth a shot.

"Absolutely, give it a try if you are interested," said Coeytaux, an associate professor of community and family medicine at Duke University School of Medicine, who studies acupuncture.

According to Coeytaux, one of the strengths of this study is that it compared acupuncture against both antihistamines alone and sham acupuncture. The fake procedure was used to help control for the "placebo effect" -- where people feel better after receiving a treatment just because they believe it will work.

But Coeytaux said it's also time for studies to move beyond testing real acupuncture against sham versions. One reason is that those fake procedures may actually have physiological effects of their own -- making them poor placebos.

Instead, Coeytaux said, it may be time for more studies that compare acupuncture head-to-head with other therapies, to see how it stacks up.

For now, hay fever sufferers who want to try acupuncture may face some obstacles. Depending on where you live, there may not be many licensed acupuncturists nearby; in the United States, most states require practitioners to be licensed.

Then there is the cost. Acupuncture prices vary, but they typically run around $100 for a session, and health plans often do not cover it.

Nelson added that people who want a "natural" remedy for their hay fever woes might also consider allergy shots. That means getting a series of injections that expose you to tiny amounts of the substance causing your allergies, to train your immune system to tolerate it.

More information

Learn more about hay fever from the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology.

Permalink| Comments

FRIDAY, Feb. 15 (HealthDay News) -- Small amounts of mood-altering drugs used to treat psychiatric disorders that are making their way into rivers and streams may be changing the behavior of some fish, a new study suggests.

Researchers in Sweden found exposure to the anti-anxiety drug, Oxazepam, caused fish to become bolder, less social and eat faster.

Reporting in the Feb. 15 issue of Science, the researchers explained that trace amounts of the drug and other medications end up in waterways downstream of wastewater treatment plants, after being excreted by people. The team worries that exposure of wildlife to pharmaceuticals such as Oxazepam could eventually lead to unexpected ecological and evolutionary consequences.

In the study, the researchers gave wild European perch a dose of Oxazepam that was similar to the amounts of the drug found in Sweden's waterways. They found that even trace amounts of the mood-altering medication seemed to alter the behavior and foraging rate of the wild perch.

"Normally, perch are shy and hunt in schools. This is a known strategy for survival and growth. But those who swim in Oxazepam became considerably bolder," lead researcher Tomas Brodin, an ecologist at Umea University, said in a university news release.

He said that perch exposed to Oxazepam became more independent, leaving the safety of schools to forage on their own - potentially exposing themselves to being eaten by other fish.

"In contrast, unexposed fish stayed hidden in their refuge," Brodin said in a news release from Science.

Since the fish also ate their food more quickly, the researchers pointed out, this behavior could change the composition of species in the water. This unbalance, they added, could alter ecological events over time, such as the blooming of algae.

Exposure to Oxazepam also made the fish less social, making them easier prey for potential predators, the researchers noted. "Perch that were exposed to Oxazepam lost interest in hanging out with the group, and some even stayed as far away from the group as possible," said Brodin.

The study's authors suggested the wild fish in Sweden rivers and streams may be experiencing similar changes since the concentrations of the drug found in their muscles are similar to the drug concentration in the fish examined in the study. They noted wild fish are exposed to other drugs in waterways as well, which could compound the effects on their behavior and the ecosystem.

The researchers said more studies are needed to investigate the effects of drugs on wildlife and ecosystems.

"The solution to this problem isn't to stop medicating people who are ill but to try to develop sewage treatment plants that can capture environmentally hazardous drugs," study co-author Jerker Fick, also of Umea University, said in a university news release.

More information

Find out more about psychiatric medications at the U.S. National Institute of Mental Health.

Permalink| Comments

The Cleveland Clinic suggests how to practice focused imagery:

• Visualize a peaceful, relaxing image to help you tune out stress.
• Go to a quiet spot where you can relax without interruption.
• Get into a comfortable position, either sitting or lying down.
• Close your eyes and breathe deeply a few times.
• Imagine paradise in your mind, whether it's relaxing on a beach or fishing on a lake. Imagine all of the sights, sounds and smells.
• Frequently imagine this paradise, especially when you feel stressed. Perhaps play an audio tape that reminds you of your image.

Permalink| Comments

TUESDAY, Feb. 12 (HealthDay News) -- Whether it's lush palms or piney groves, the health of trees in your neighborhood might influence your physical health, a new study suggests.

Research from the U.S. Forest Service found that the loss of 100 million trees on the East Coast and in the Midwest was associated with an increase in deaths from heart and lower respiratory disease.

Although the study adds to existing evidence that exposure to the natural environment can improve health, the researchers pointed out that their findings do not prove a causal link, so the reason for the association between trees and human health remains unclear.

The researchers examined demographic, human death and forest health data collected from 1990 and 2007 on almost 1,300 counties spread across 15 states. In doing so, they saw a discrepancy in human health among those living in areas infested by a particular beetle, known as the emerald ash borer, which kills ash trees.

They found that residents in the areas affected by this beetle had 15,000 more deaths overall from heart disease and 6,000 more deaths from lower respiratory disease than people living in other areas.

The study's authors noted that there was an association between tree loss and human death rates, even after they took into account people's income, race and level of education.

"There's a natural tendency to see our findings and conclude that, surely, the higher mortality rates are because of some confounding variable, like income or education, and not the loss of trees," Geoffrey Donovan, a research forester at the Forest Service's Pacific Northwest Research Station, said in a USDA Forest Service news release. "But we saw the same pattern repeated over and over in counties with very different demographic makeups."

The emerald ash borer was first discovered in 2002 near Detroit. The beetle attacks all 22 species of North American ash and kills the majority of trees that it infests.

The study was published in the February issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

More information

The New York State of Environmental Conservation provides more information on the emerald ash borer.

Permalink| Comments

WEDNESDAY, Feb. 6 (HealthDay News) -- The ancient Chinese discipline of Tai Chi may help modern-day stroke patients avoid debilitating falls, a small new study suggests.

Stroke survivors suffer seven times as many falls as healthy adults. These falls can cause fractures, decrease mobility and increase the fear of falling, which can lead to social isolation or dependence on others, the researchers noted.

"Learning how to find and maintain your balance after a stroke is a challenge," lead author Ruth Taylor-Piliae, an assistant professor at the University of Arizona College of Nursing, in Tucson, said in an American Stroke Association news release.

Taylor-Piliae's team tracked 89 people, who had an average age of 70 and had suffered a stroke an average of three years before the start of the study. Twenty-eight of the patients received usual care, 31 were assigned to a national fitness program for Medicare-eligible seniors called SilverSneakers and 30 practiced Tai Chi.

Tai Chi, an exercise routine that dates back to ancient China, includes physical movement, mental concentration and relaxed breathing.

The people in the Tai Chi and SilverSneakers programs did one-hour classes three times a week for 12 weeks. The usual-care group received a weekly phone call and written material about physical activity.

During the three months of the study, the participants suffered a total of 34 falls in their homes, mainly from slipping or tripping. There were 15 falls in the usual-care group, 14 falls in the SilverSneakers group and only five falls in the Tai Chi group, according to the findings, which were to be presented Wednesday at the annual meeting of the American Stroke Association in Honolulu.

"Tai Chi is effective in improving both static and dynamic balance, which is important to prevent falls," Taylor-Piliae said. She added that Tai Chi is also "readily available in most U.S. cities and is relatively inexpensive."

One stroke expert not connected to the study said he's seen the discipline's benefits firsthand.

"Tai Chi is an exercise form that emphasizes balance, core strength and integration of mind and body in movement," said Dr. Jesse Weinberger, professor of neurology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, in New York City. "It has previously been shown to improve motor function and prevent falls in the elderly and in patients with Parkinson's disease.

"In addition to being a vascular neurologist, I also practice the Yang style of the Tai Chi form and I have several patients in my class who have had strokes or have Parkinson's and they show improvement in balance and coordination," Weinberger said.

"The main benefit of Tai Chi for the stroke patient is the integration of mind and body through meditation in motion to improve motor control," he said.

Taylor-Piliae agreed that Tai Chi offers a wide range of benefits beyond the physical. "Psycho-social benefits include less depression, anxiety and stress, and better quality of life," she said.

Findings presented at medical meetings should be considered preliminary until published in a peer-reviewed journal.

More information

The U.S. National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine has more about Tai Chi.

Permalink| Comments

MONDAY, Feb. 4 (HealthDay News) -- People who live close to the equator may be more likely to have allergies and asthma than those in other parts of the world, a new study suggests.

This increased risk appears to be related to exposure to ultraviolet-B rays in sunlight, according to the authors of the report published in the February issue of Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology.

"UV-B rays exposure is higher for people living in areas closer to the equator," study lead author Vicka Oktaria said in a news release from the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (ACAAI). "This increase in UV-B may be linked to vitamin D, which is thought to modify the immune system. These modifications can lead to an elevated risk of developing allergy and asthma."

Previous research has shown that climate, housing, and social and cultural variations among people living in different latitudes can affect their levels of exposure to airborne allergens.

This study is one of the first to examine how geographic location and UV-B exposure can affect allergy and asthma risk, according to the news release. However, while the study found an association between UV-B exposure near the equator and a raised risk of allergies and asthma, it did not prove a cause-and-effect relationship.

"Allergies and asthma are serious diseases that can be life-threatening if not diagnosed and treated properly," Dr. Richard Weber, president of the ACAAI, said in the news release. "Both conditions can be more than bothersome for people, no matter their geographic location, and can last year-round."

It's estimated that 75 percent to 85 percent of people with asthma also have an allergy, according to the ACAAI.

More information

The U.S. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute has more about asthma.

Permalink| Comments

TUESDAY, Jan. 29 (HealthDay News) -- A new study finds that people who are already ambivalent about climate change often switch their opinions based on which way the wind blows -- literally.

While Republicans and Democrats tended to stick to their guns on whether or not climate change is real, Independent voters quickly changed their mind on the issue as short-term weather patterns blew through, the U.S. researchers found.

"Independent voters were less likely to believe that climate change was caused by humans on unseasonably cool days and more likely to believe that climate change was caused by humans on unseasonably warm days," Lawrence Hamilton, a professor of sociology at the University of New Hampshire, said in a university news release.

"The shift was dramatic," he added. "On the coolest days, belief in human-caused climate change dropped below 40 percent among independents. On the hottest days, it increased above 70 percent."

Along with Mary Stampone, an assistant professor of geography at the university and the New Hampshire state climatologist, Hamilton analyzed data from about 5,000 people in New Hampshire who took part in surveys conducted between 2010 and 2012 by the Granite State Poll.

The poll participants were asked whether they believed that climate change was occurring now and was caused mainly by human activities, or whether they believed that climate change is not happening, or is happening but mainly due to natural causes.

The researchers compared the participants' responses with data about weather conditions around the time they were interviewed.

Unseasonably warm or cool temperatures on the interview day and the day before seemed to boost the overall likelihood of respondents saying they believed that humans were causing climate change, the team found.

When the researchers analyzed the responses by political affiliation, they found that temperature had the greatest effect on Independent voters' views about climate change, compared to Democrats or Republicans.

"We find that over 10 surveys, Republicans and Democrats remain far apart and firm in their beliefs about climate change. Independents fall in between these extremes, but their beliefs appear weakly held. ... Interviewed on unseasonably warm days, independents tend to agree with the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change. On unseasonably cool days, they tend not to," the researchers wrote.

The study was published online Jan. 23 in the journal Weather, Climate, and Society.

More information

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention explains the health effects of climate change.

Permalink| Comments

MONDAY, Jan. 21 (HealthDay News) -- A chemical called melamine that's found in some dishware might raise your risk for kidney stones, a small new study suggests.

"Melamine is a chemical used widely in industry and found in many household products," noted one expert not connected to the study, Dr. Kenneth Spaeth.

"For consumers, one of the most common sources of exposure to melamine is from kitchenware including plates, bowls, mugs, etcetera, as melamine has long been known to migrate from these into food," said Spaeth, who is director of the Occupational and Environmental Medicine Center at North Shore University Hospital in Manhasset, NY.

He noted that both higher temperatures (from hot soups, for example) or more acidic foods can encourage melamine to contaminate food, especially in older or low-quality kitchenware.

The new Taiwanese study included 12 healthy men and women who ate hot noodle soup from either a melamine or ceramic bowl. Urine samples were collected from the participants for 12 hours after they ate the soup.

Three weeks later, the participants consumed the same kind of soup but the type of bowl they used was reversed. Urine samples were collected again.

Total melamine levels in urine for 12 hours after eating the soup was 8.35 micrograms when the participants ate out of the melamine bowls versus about 1.3 micrograms when they ate out of ceramic bowls.

"Melamine tableware may release large amounts of melamine when used to serve high-temperature foods. The amount of melamine released into food and beverages from melamine tableware varies by brand, so the results of this study of one brand may not be generalized to other brands," a team led by Chia-Fang Wu, of Kaohsiung Medical University in Taiwan, wrote in the study.

They added that it's not yet clear what effect all of this might have on human health. However, prior studies have linked chronic, low-dose melamine exposures to an increased risk for kidney stones in both children and adults, the researchers said.

The study was published online Jan. 21 in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine.

Would melamine absorbed into the body via food cause harm? According to Spaeth, "there is little human health data to adequately characterize the risk such exposure poses." However, he said that, "studies of melamine toxicity in animals indicate that ingestion can cause kidney stones, kidney damage and may induce cancer."

Spaeth said that, since scientists really have no clear idea as to the level of the danger (if any), "it is not unreasonable to try and reduce one's exposure [to melamine]" by avoiding using melamine-containing kitchenware.

He added that the same advice would apply to other plastics chemicals suspected of causing harm to humans, such as phthalates and bisphenol-A. "Avoid storing food in these products and avoid putting these in the microwave to heat food," Spaeth advised.

The most notorious episode involving melamine occurred in 2008, when the chemical was found to be widespread, and at high levels, in milk and baby formula fed to babies in China.

More information

The U.S. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases has more about kidney stones.

Permalink| Comments