Tag Archives: academy

A path to lower-risk painkillers: Newly-discovered drug target paves way for alternatives to morphine

Now, new research from the University of Michigan Health System and a major pharmaceutical company has identified a novel approach to moderate and severe pain therapy that paves the way for lower dosage painkillers. The findings appear in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Drugs such as hydrocodone (the main ingredient of Vicodin) and oxycodone (Oxycontin) are often the best options for the treatment of moderate to severe pain for patients facing medical conditions ranging from a wisdom tooth extraction to cancer. The drugs bind to specific molecules (opioid receptors) on nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord to prevent the feeling of pain…

Shape of nanoparticles points the way toward more targeted drugs

A new study involving Sanford-Burnham Medical Research Institute’s Erkki Ruoslahti, M.D., Ph.D., contributing to work by Samir Mitragotri, Ph.D., at the University of California, Santa Barbara, found that the shape of nanoparticles can enhance drug targeting. The study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found that rod-shaped nanoparticles — or nanorods — as opposed to spherical nanoparticles, appear to adhere more effectively to the surface of endothelial cells that line the inside of blood vessels. …

Potential new way to suppress tumor growth discovered

Writing in this week’s online Early Edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), Willis X. Li, PhD, a professor in the Department of Medicine at UC San Diego, reports that a particular form of a signaling protein called STAT5A stabilizes the formation of heterochromatin (a form of chromosomal DNA), which in turn suppresses the ability of cancer cells to issue instructions to multiply and grow. Specifically, Li and colleagues found that the unphosphorylated form of STAT promotes and stabilizes heterochromatin, which keeps DNA tightly packaged and inaccessible to transcription factors. …

Heading to the beach? New SPF regulations issued by the FDA

In the summer of 2011, Andrea Syglowski noticed a mole she’d had her entire life was starting to look different. Concerned, she booked an appointment with a dermatologist, and within a week was diagnosed with stage-0 melanoma – an early phase of the deadliest type of skin cancer. A week later, Syglowski, a Philadelphia-based actress who is in her 20s, underwent surgery to remove the mole, leaving her with a five-inch scar on her leg. Syglowski said that while she used sunscreen before her diagnosis, she now realizes she didn’t always use it correctly. “I think all I knew was that I needed to have it on,” Syglowski told FoxNews.com. Skin cancer affects millions of people like Syglowski every year, but many remain confused about the basic rules of sunscreen application. However, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recently implemented new changes to sunscreen labeling, which aim to clear up some of the confusion. Here’s what to look for on sunscreen labels this summer. ‘Broad spectrum’ protection There are two types of ultraviolet light: UVA and UVB rays.  Currently, all sunscreens contain UVB protection, which shields the skin against cancer-causing sunburns. But not all sunscreens are required to have UVA protection, which protects against both skin cancer and aging. “UVB is what causes a sun burn; UVA doesn’t sunburn you. But now, we want something more. We want sunscreens to prevent cancer and wrinkles in addition to sunburn,” Dr. James Spencer, a member of the American Academy of Dermatology and a board certified dermatologist in St. Petersburg, Fla., told FoxNews.com. According to the new FDA guidelines, new sunscreen labels can only claim that they offer “broad spectrum protection” if they protect against both UVA and UVB rays. “When we say broad spectrum, we mean we're covering both UVA and UVB as wide in the spectrum as we can cover,” pharmacist Ian Ginsberg, owner of C.O. Bigelow in New York City, told FoxNews.com. Furthermore, sunscreens can now only claim to “prevent cancer” and “prevent wrinkles” if they contain both UVA and UVB protection. “It turns out that UVA contributes to cancer and wrinkles but not to burns. So now we’re asking sunscreens to help (protect us) from cancer and wrinkles too; we want that UVA added in,” Spencer said. ‘Water resistant’ not ‘waterproof’ Waterproof sunscreen may sound like a great option, but according to Spencer, “there’s no such thing as waterproof.” Sunscreen companies must now remove the word “waterproof” from their labels and replace it with the phrase “water resistant,” according to the new FDA guidelines. A “water resistant” sunscreen will be less likely to wash off in water, but doctors warn that it still needs to be reapplied. To make sure people remember to lotion up again after getting wet, the FDA now requires all sunscreens to state whether they are water resistant for “40 minutes” or “80 minutes.” “So that gives you an idea…how long you’re good for; that’s useful information,” Spencer said. And if you’ve had the same tube of sunscreen for the entire summer – you’re doing something wrong. “One tube should only last two weeks, and if you’re going to the beach, (it should last) for a week,” Dr. Hooman Khorosani, assistant professor of dermatology and chief of division of Mohs, reconstructive and cosmetic surgery at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, who also treated Syglowski, told FoxNews.com. Don't forget to take note of the expiration date on your tube of SPF either. Expired sunscreen could be less effective.  “Most people throw these things in their beach bag and/or let them sit in direct sunlight for hours on end so you should live by the (expiration) date,” Ginsberg said.  SPF 30, not SPF 100 Resist the urge to reach for the highest SPF on the shelf.  It likely won’t offer any more protection, according to doctors. “An SPF 30 blocks 97 percent of UBV rays - SPF 45 blocks 98 percent. Once you get to 98 percent, it’s getting a little silly. And SPF 100 is a little misleading,” Spencer said. “You can’t get more than 100 percent blocked.” Spencer said the FDA is considering prohibiting sunscreens labeled higher than SPF 50, but due to objections from sunscreen companies, the change is still being negotiated.   In the meantime, Spencer recommends looking for an SPF of at least 30 and reapplying sunscreen every few hours. Syglowski – who has now been melanoma-free for nearly two years – says she is much more vigilant about sunscreen application and schedules regular skin checks with Khorosani – something she encourages other women to do as well. As for Khorosani, he said one technique seems to be particularly effective at encouraging patients to be vigilant about sun protection. “I have a photo of a patient who sat by the window every day. The left side of her face, which was facing the window, was being hit by (wrinkle-causing) UVA rays, so it looks like she’s 50. The right side looks like she’s 35,” Khorosani said. “All I need to do is show that photo to the women who come in.”  source : http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/05/22/heading-to-beach-new-spf-regulations-issued-by-fda/

Compound in Mediterranean diet makes cancer cells ‘mortal’

By altering a very specific step in gene regulation, this compound essentially re-educates cancer cells into normal cells that die as scheduled. One way that cancer cells thrive is by inhibiting a process that would cause them to die on a regular cycle that is subject to strict programming. This study in cells, led by Ohio State University researchers, found that a compound in certain plant-based foods, called apigenin, could stop breast cancer cells from inhibiting their own death. Much of what is known about the health benefits of nutrients is based on epidemiological studies that show strong positive relationships between eating specific foods and better health outcomes, especially reduced heart disease…

Timing of cancer radiation therapy may minimize hair loss

The study, which appears in the early online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), found that mice lost 85 percent of their hair if they received radiation therapy in the morning, compared to a 17 percent loss when treatment occurred in the evening. The researchers, from the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, the University of Southern California (USC) and the University of California, Irvine (UCI), worked out the precise timing of the hair circadian clock, and also uncovered the biology behind the clockwork — the molecules that tells hair when to grow and when to repair damage. They then tested the clock using radiotherapy. …

Genetic testing guidelines under fire

If you underwent a genetic test for a heart condition, but the test also revealed that you have a high risk of colon cancer, would you want to know? A respected scientific society says your doctor should tell you, but the group is receiving criticism for its recommendation that “incidental findings” of genetic tests be shared with patients. Incidental findings are unexpected results, unrelated to the reason for testing. What to do with these findings has been a controversial issue for adults undergoing genetic testing, as well as children. In March, the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) released guidelines saying that when patients receive genetic testing for any medical reason, they should be screened for mutations in an additional 57 genes, including mutations that strongly increase the risk of breast, ovarian and colon cancer. The ACMG argues that doctors have an obligation to look for and report these mutations because there are ways that people can act to reduce their of developing a medical disorder. However, some researchers and bioethicists say the new recommendations go too far, and take away patients' rights to refuse medical information they do not wish to know. Informed consent A crucial part of genetic testing ethics is ensuring that patients understand what a test might find, and what those findings could mean for future treatment. Under the new recommendations, a patient who consents to any genetic test is consenting to be screened for mutations in an additional 57 genes. Some bioethicists take issue with this approach, because patients may not wish to know their results for all of these genes. A positive result for any one of these mutations may increase patients' anxiety, or cause them to live their life differently, said Susan Wolf, a professor of law, medicine and public policy at the University of Minnesota. Under the new guidelines, “unless they are willing to have this extra analysis done, the only option is to walk away from the sequencings altogether,” Wolf said. “It's all or nothing.” Arthur Caplan, a bioethicist at New York University School of Medicine's Division of Medical Ethics, agreed that patients should have an opportunity to refuse. “People do not have any obligations to accept any findings that they hadnt been expecting,” Caplan said. And even calling such findings “incidental” is a misnomer, Wolf said, because under the new guidelines, researchers have to actively test for these gene mutations. What about kids? Earlier this year, both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the AMCG advised that children not be screened for genetic conditions that occur in adulthood (such as breast cancer), unless some action in childhood can lower the risk of disease or death. Children should wait until they are at least 18 years old to decide if they want to know their risk, the guidelines say. But under the new recommendations, children should be informed about any findings from the extra screening, including those that relate to adult disorders. Supporters of the new recommendations say that they are not at odds with earlier guidelines. Dr. Robert Green, of Harvard Medical School, and colleagues, wrote in the May 16 issue of the journal Science that if doctors are screening a child for a genetic disease that occurs in adulthood, the child would presumably have a family history of the disease. With incidental findings, no other family members, including the child, would be known to be at risk. So reporting an incidental finding could alert the child, as well as other family members including adults, to their risk of a certain condition, Green said. But others disagree, saying the new recommendations contradict earlier guidelines, and are not in children's best interest. “You've deprived the child of their own choice later as an adult,” Wolf said. Practical issues The guidelines also say that patients should be counseled about the implications of genetic testing before the test is ordered. But some argue that discussing all 57 genes would be demanding. “That is going to be a rather time consuming process,” said Dr. Harry Ostrer, a medical geneticist at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City. Wolf and others are calling on the AMCG to reconsider the new guidelines. The AMCG says that the guidelines will be reviewed yearly and updated in light of new evidence. But in the meantime, doctors are in a bind about what to do when screening patients. “It really creates a big dilemma because, when an organization like the AMCG makes a recommendation, it's seen as establishing a standard of care,” Ostrer said. If doctors don't follow the guidelines, patients could sue for malpractice if it turns out they are a carrier of a mutation that the additional screening would have caught, Ostrer said. Ostrer said he would like to see more evidence about how patients respond to being told about incidental findings. Studies looking at this question are being carried out now, he said. Copyright 2013 LiveScience, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.source : http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/05/20/genetic-testing-guidelines-under-fire/