Tag Archives: california

Quit-smoking treatments safe, effective, review says

Popular smoking cessation treatments - such as nicotine replacements and antidepressants - improve people's chances of kicking the habit without much risk, according to a review of past research. “It seems very clear that medications can help. They're not the magic bullet but you do improve your chances of quitting - generally - if you try them. And as far as we can tell, they're safe to use,” said Kate Cahill, who led the study. Several reviews have looked at the effectiveness of smoking cessation treatments, but the researchers wanted to put those results into a single large review to help people who want to use medical treatments to stop smoking, Cahill, a senior researcher for the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group at the University of Oxford, UK, said. About one fifth of the U.S. and UK populations are current smokers, according to the researchers. Previous studies have found between 70 percent and 75 percent want to quit, but only about 3 percent accomplish that every year. For the new study, the researchers pulled data from 12 reviews published by the Cochrane Collaboration, an international research organization that evaluates medical evidence. Those analyses, which were conducted between 2008 and 2012, included data from 267 studies of more than 101,000 smokers. The studies typically compared smokers trying to quit without the help of a smoking cessation treatment to smokers using nicotine replacement therapies, such as nicotine gum and patches, or prescription drugs. The medications include varenicline (marketed by Pfizer as Chantix or Champix) and bupropion (marketed by GlaxoSmithKline as Zyban or Wellbutrin, but available as a generic). The researchers found that the nicotine replacement therapies and the antidepressant bupropion led about eighteen people to successfully give up smoking for every 10 people who quit without treatments. Varenicline performed even better and led to about 28 people quitting for every 10 who did so without medication. What's more, Cahill and her colleagues found that lesser-known smoking cessation treatments were also effective. Those include the antidepressant nortriptyline and cytisine, a plant-derived supplement available in Eastern Europe. All of the treatments also appeared to be reasonably safe, according to the researchers who published their results on Thursday in The Cochrane Library. Previous reports have found that about 1 in every 1,000 people taking bupropion has a seizure, but the researchers found a lower rate of 1 in 1,500. Also, despite conflicting reports over the safety of varenicline, the researchers didn't find evidence that the drug increased the risk of neuropsychiatric or heart problems. Judith Prochaska, who researches tobacco treatment but was not involved in the new study, said not all smokers will use smoking cessation tools but it's important for them to know they're available. Nicotine replacement therapy is available over the counter in the U.S. and varenicline and bupropion are available with a prescription for about $4 per day - less than a pack of cigarettes, said Prochaska, associate professor of medicine at the Stanford Prevention Research Center in California. “They have been shown to pretty much double the likelihood that somebody will quit,” she added. Cahill cautioned, however, that smoking cessation tools won't work for everyone, but “they certainly help some people.”source : http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/05/31/quit-smoking-treatments-safe-effective-review-says/

Immunotherapy now used to treat cancers beyond melanoma

Diagnosed with advanced lung cancer over a year ago, Gabe Tartaglia was loath to undergo the kind of harsh chemotherapy that had devastated his sister before her death three years earlier from pancreatic cancer. He decided to enter a clinical trial for a new drug designed to trigger the immune system to fight cancer. The results were better than anyone expected. “Everything has shrunk,” said the 62-year-old contractor from Wolcott, Connecticut, who still goes for treatment every two weeks and has regular scans to keep tabs on his progress. “Some of the tumors you can't even see.” Just a few years ago, nobody believed it was possible to harness the immune system to respond to cancer, but drugs like nivolumab, the experimental Bristol-Myers drug Tartaglia receives, are showing promise, even in some patients who have never tried any other treatments. The drugs will be a main focus of this year's American Society of Clinical Oncology five-day meeting in Chicago beginning on May 31. Much of the attention will be trained on agents that disable a protein called programmed death 1, or PD-1, that enables tumors to evade the immune system. In addition to nivolumab, experimental drugs in the class include Merck's lambrolizumab and Roche's MPDL3280A, which work by blocking a partner protein known as PD-L1 (the L is for ligand). PD-L1 in turn works within cancer cells to shut down the immune response. Analysts and investors will be parsing the ASCO data for clues to the market potential for the drugs, which are expected to generate billions of dollars in annual sales. Nivolumab alone is forecast to have sales of $1.2 billion in 2017, according to Wall Street analysts tracked by Thomson Reuters Pharma. 'I GET TO COME HOME AND EAT' Part of the excitement comes from a Phase 1 study last year of nivolumab, which showed lasting response rates among 20 percent to 30 percent of a group of patients with multiple cancers, including lung cancer, a leading cause of cancer death that so far has shown limited response to immune system therapies. The trials are still in the early stages. Researchers are working to understand why most patients do not respond and are exploring combining immunotherapies with other treatments. Aside from the nuisance of frequent blood draws, Tartaglia has had few complaints. “The best part is, I get to come home and eat. I'm all set. Other people are throwing up,” he said of patients at Yale Cancer Center in New Haven who are still getting conventional chemotherapy. Normally, experimental cancer drugs are only used in patients who fail other treatments, said Dr Scott Gettinger, Tartaglia's doctor and an associate professor of medical oncology at the center. “Now we are starting to use immunotherapy drugs as first-line treatments … I know what first-line chemotherapy can do for lung cancer, and it's not great.” Patients with non-small-cell lung cancer, the most common form of lung cancer, who are treated with the current standard of care - chemo and Roche's Avastin - have a median survival of about a year, Gettinger said, noting that some of his patients have been on nivolumab for more than three years. “We haven't really realized the potential of this therapy,” he said. “As we learn how to use this drug, we are going to see higher response rates.” Another of Gettinger's patients, 68-year-old Bruce Leonard, tried chemotherapy, but his lung cancer returned after two years, prompting a decision to enter the nivolumab study. “I felt at the time that by just doing chemo again, at best I would see the same result,” the retired commodity buyer said. “About two months after I started (the trial), there was a 30 percent improvement … and it has gotten progressively better, to the point that with my last scan they found absolutely nothing.” Many patients do not respond to the treatments, but for those who do, the responses have been extraordinary; some patients have lived for years. Yervoy, Bristol-Myers' breakthrough melanoma treatment, only benefits about 10 to 15 percent of patients. Newer agents, such as nivolumab, have shown response rates ranging from 20 percent to 40 percent. A small study released earlier this month looking at a combination of the two drugs showed 53 percent of patients had their tumors shrink by at least half after 12 weeks. In 18 percent of patients on the dual therapy, tumors were no longer detectable. Bristol-Myers has three late-stage clinical trials of nivolumab in melanoma, two late-stage trials in lung cancer and one in kidney cancer. Last November, interim results from an early-phase trial of Merck's lambrolizumab in patients with advanced melanoma showed that it shrank tumors in 51 percent of patients after 12 weeks, compared with a typical response rate of about 5 percent for similar patients given conventional treatment. Merck plans to present an update of this study on June 2 at the ASCO meeting. The company also is studying its anti-PD-1 drug in so-called triple-negative breast cancer, a hard-to-treat form of the disease, as well as head and neck cancer, bladder cancer and lung cancer. Last month, lambrolizumab won designation from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as a breakthrough therapy, which could speed its approval. “It's clear now that these medicines do have activity across a broader spectrum of tumors, and they seem to be remarkably potent in very challenging clinical oncology settings,” said Dr Gary Gilliland, a senior vice president who heads the oncology franchise at Merck Research Labs. In April, Roche reported results of a small safety study of its anti-PD-L1 drug MPDL3280A that showed anti-tumor activity against a variety of cancers including lung, kidney, colon and gastric cancers. Roche plans to start a Phase III study in lung-cancer patients. The findings are driving enthusiasm for immunotherapies. “It tells us these are poised to be the most important agents in oncology,” said Dr Antoni Ribas of the University of California Los Angeles' Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center. Citigroup research analyst Andrew Baum expects immunotherapies to form the backbone of treatments for up to 60 percent of cancers over the next decade, up from less than 3 percent today, transforming the treatment of cancer from a desperate struggle with death into a chronic disease, in which treatments keep patients alive for years. Baum estimates that would generate annual sales of $35 billion. “The current explosion in all ongoing approaches ... to utilize the immune system to seek and destroy cancer cells marks a watershed, analogous to the impact of HIV drugs transforming life expectancy in (patients infected with) HIV,” Baum said in a recent note to investors. YEARS, NOT MONTHS Doctors have been trying for decades to get the immune system to fight cancer with limited, sporadic success. But the disease has developed wily defenses that camouflage tumor cells. “The tide really turned in 2010 with the first presentation of pivotal data about ipilimumab,” said Dr Jedd Wolchok of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center of the drug now sold as Yervoy. In 2011 ipilimumab became the first immunotherapy drug to help extend the lives of patients with advanced melanoma. “We're very pleased that Yervoy prolongs survival in one out of five individuals, but there is still room for growth,” said Michael Giordano, senior vice president of global development for oncology and immunology at Bristol-Myers. “Our goal here is to have very long-term durable responses. We're not just trying to increase the patient's disease-free survival for a few months,” said Nils Lonberg, senior vice president of discovery biologics at Bristol-Myers. Lonberg envisions a day when immunotherapy will be as important a tool for oncologists as surgery, radiation and chemotherapy. Wolchok says the promise for immunotherapies is treatment responses that last. “The immune system is a dynamic organ. It remembers things,” he said.source : http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/05/31/immunotherapy-is-not-just-for-melanoma-anymore/

ADHD medications not tied to drug, alcohol abuse

Taking Ritalin and other drugs for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) doesn't affect a child's chances of trying or abusing alcohol and drugs later in life, a new review suggests. Researchers pooled data from 15 studies that included a total of 2,600 kids and teenagers with ADHD who were or were not medicated with stimulants and were followed for anywhere from 3 to 28 years. They found no clear difference in how many participants started using or abusing alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana or cocaine, based on how their ADHD was managed. “The scientific evidence suggests that the risk for alcohol and substance problems later in development, in adolescence or adulthood, doesn't seem to be strongly tied to whether or not children were previously… treated with stimulant medication,” said psychologist Steve Lee, who worked on the new study. That means parents should focus on discussing more immediate effects of stimulants with their child's doctor, such as sleep or appetite problems, he added. Kids with ADHD are known to be at higher risk of developing substance problems than those without the disorder. One analysis from 2003 suggested kids treated with stimulants were less likely to develop alcohol and drug problems than their peers with ADHD. Lee and his colleagues from the University of California, Los Angeles, wanted to see how that picture looked once more recent studies were taken into account. The researchers analyzed data related to substance use or abuse of each drug separately. For every category they looked at - alcohol, nicotine, marijuana, cocaine and other drugs - Ritalin and similar stimulants weren't tied to a clear increase or decrease in future use or abuse. That finding isn't the end of the story, the study team said. For example, it's not clear whether the effects of stimulants are different for boys and girls. And because kids in these studies were not randomly assigned to take stimulants or not, it's possible they varied in other ways that may have affected future drug and alcohol use, such as ADHD severity, the researchers write in JAMA Psychiatry. “What I say to parents when I'm talking to them about medication is, the medication is unlikely to have any adverse effects on substance use as far as we know right now,” said William Pelham, head of the Center for Children and Families at Florida International University in Miami, who wasn't involved in the new study. But, he said, “We don't have a lot of studies going into the full range of years when people (are most at risk for) substance abuse.” According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, parent reports suggest that close to one in 10 kids and teens in the U.S. has ever been diagnosed with ADHD, and two-thirds of those with a current diagnosis are treated with medication such as stimulants. Those drugs can come with short-term side effects, including appetite loss and stomach aches. Because of that, “psychosocial, parent-management types of strategies probably ought to be the first line of treatment,” rather than medication, Lee said. In general, stimulants haven't been shown to have long-term side effects in the years after kids stop taking them, Pelham said - but they also don't seem to have long-term benefits. He agreed with Lee that parents should be looking to non-drug ways to improve the outlook for children with ADHD, including working closely with teachers as kids grow up. And because those youth are at higher risk of drug and alcohol problems due to their ADHD, they should have access to programs to improve decision-making skills and peer relationships, Pelham said.source : http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/05/30/adhd-medications-not-tied-to-drug-alcohol-abuse/

Cholesterol sets off chaotic blood vessel growth

The work, led by Yury Miller, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine at UC San Diego, will be published in the advance online edition of the journal Nature on May 29. Cholesterol is a structural component of the cell and is indispensable for normal cellular function, although its excess often leads to abnormal proliferation, migration, inflammatory responses or cell death. The researchers studied how the removal of cholesterol from endothelial cells (cells that line the blood vessels) impacts the development of new blood vessels, the process called angiogenesis. According to Miller, removal of excess cholesterol from endothelial cells is essential for restraining excessive growth of blood vessels. …

Heart device approval delays leave U.S. doctors frustrated

Americans accustomed to immediate access to the newest technology may be shocked to find that is not the case when it comes to devices that treat ailing hearts. U.S. approval requirements for cardiac devices are much more stringent than in Europe, where there is no centralized decision-making body. But a growing number of U.S. heart doctors feel the regulations are so demanding that patients are being denied access to beneficial therapies. From 2006 to 2011, European regulators approved mid-to-high-risk medical devices, including heart devices, an average of four years ahead of the more conservative U.S. Food and Drug Administration, according to a report last year by Boston Consulting Group. The quicker road to market in Europe did not lead to a discernible increase in recalls or safety problems, according to BCG and the California Healthcare Institute, which conducted the study, and Eucomed, the European trade group. “There is frustration among the U.S. investigators(researchers) and U.S. care providers around delayed access to certain interventions that appear to be a winner,” said Dr. Patrick O'Gara, a cardiologist with Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston. An example cited by several doctors is a replacement for diseased heart valves made by U.S. device maker Edwards Lifesciences. The Sapien transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) system is particularly suited for elderly and frail patients, since it can be put in place via a catheter threaded through an artery rather than replacing a valve by cracking open the chest for heart surgery. “With this disease, if you wait two or three years, 60 or 80 percent of (patients) are dead. So not to have the most updated version of the device to treat more patients like this doesn't seem to be a particularly good idea,” said Dr. Martin Leon, director of the Center for Interventional Vascular Therapy at Columbia University Medical Center in New York. Heart disease remains the world's No. 1 killer. An estimated 500,000 Americans suffer from severely diseased heart valves, according to the American Heart Association. Many could be candidates for valve replacements. The approval delays are also costing device makers, such as Edwards and Medtronic Inc, hundreds of millions of dollars in potential sales while they are being asked to help pay for U.S. healthcare reform through new taxes. Dismay among heart doctors over delayed access to new devices gained momentum at this year's American College of Cardiology (ACC) meeting, which featured several U.S. clinical trials of devices long available in Europe. One top researcher at the meeting called the United States “a Third World country” when it comes to availability of cutting-edge heart devices. Only Edwards' original Sapien valve has U.S. approval - which it received in 2011, four years after Europe and elsewhere. European cardiologists have been using a next-generation version, which doctors find easier to maneuver into place and believe may cause less trauma to the artery, for three years. That is why Leon, who is co-lead investigator of U.S. clinical trials for both the original Sapien heart valve and the smaller, newer Sapien XT, sends some patients to Europe for treatment if he believes them better suited for the sleeker XT. Medtronic has a similar heart valve replacement awaiting U.S. approval that has been used in Europe since 2007. Asked at the ACC meeting if he found the situation frustrating, Dr. Gary Mintz, chief medical officer of the Cardiovascular Research Foundation in New York, shot back: “You mean because Algeria had TAVR before the U.S.?” “Even the FDA recognizes the problem, but they are answerable to Congress, not us,” Mintz said. FDA'S BID TO STREAMLINE The FDA requires proof of efficacy as well as safety through carefully controlled, randomized clinical trials before approving products, and may ask for long-term follow-up data. “We recognize that some of our regulatory requirements have been viewed as impediments compared to other parts of the world,” said Andrew Farb, medical officer in the FDA's division of cardiovascular device evaluation. The FDA is working on a new program to help streamline the path to U.S. approval that would involve the agency much earlier in device development - possibly discussing results with researchers after use in the first patient, according to Farb. The agency expects to publish this year its “early feasibility study guidance,” which it hopes will outline a path toward swifter reviews and approvals of devices in development in the United States, Farb said. “When you're starting a new way of thinking, getting this really ramped up is a challenge, but we're hopeful,” he said. Some companies, eager for faster returns on their investments, have moved early-stage device trials overseas, since they know they are likely to be able to begin selling the products there years earlier. That has added to delays of U.S. trials and approvals, Farb and others said. Enrolling patients in randomized U.S. trials mandated by the FDA is also being hampered by patient fear they would be put in a control group that did not get the new device, doctors said. Farb said the FDA is concerned by such trends and is seeking ways to move early-stage human trials back to the United States. EUROPE MAY SEEK TIGHTER CONTROLS In Europe, device makers must prove a product's safety to the satisfaction of one of some 80 designated regulator bodies and show it functions as intended. Effectiveness is determined through post-approval surveillance as it is used in patients. Some European politicians view the system as too lax and have called for a model closer to the U.S. “I think we need to meet somewhere in between,” said Dr. David Holmes, a cardiologist at the Mayo Clinic and a past ACC president, of the two regulatory systems. He said Europe may need to tighten its regulations without necessarily adding years to its process. One suggestion put forward by Eucomed - a device industry trade group that represents thousands of companies - and others would significantly cut the number of European regulators allowed to approve higher-risk devices. U.S. doctors are actively looking for ways to address the issue. “We need a coalition of involved, thoughtful and balanced individuals who see things on both sides of the equation and look for every opportunity to shorten this time line,” O'Gara said. Holmes said such a coalition, including researchers, manufacturers and physician groups like ACC and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons, is looking to work more closely with the FDA on the issue. He said the group is compiling a database of all patients getting TAVR to enhance understanding of the procedure's long-term performance and aid the FDA in making decisions. MILLIONS IN LOST SALES The approval lag means companies are leaving money on the table when it comes to their newest devices. Edwards' original Sapien sells for about $32,000 per patient and had U.S. sales of about $200 million in its first year on the market. Had it been available in the United States at the same time as Europe, the company could have rung up at least an additional $800 million in sales, said Joanne Wuensch, an analyst with BMO Capital Markets. “That assumes no growth, which is ridiculous, so that is an extraordinarily conservative number,” she said. Proving efficacy can be a lengthy process. St Jude Medical's Amplatzer Occluder device, used to close a tiny hole in the heart, is awaiting an FDA decision. The decisive U.S. trial, which was not deemed complete until a pre-specified number of patients suffered strokes or died, took eight years. Eucomed is campaigning to keep in place the system that brings new products to those markets earlier. “As you get physician experience developing, you also start immediately improving the product,” said Eucomed CEO Serge Bernasconi. “That explains why by the time it gets to market in the U.S., often in Europe we are already on the second or third generation.” Edwards, which considers the original Sapien valve to be obsolete and manufactures it only for U.S. use, expects European approval for its third-generation version by the end of 2013. Meanwhile, U.S. doctors still await its predecessor.source : http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/05/28/heart-device-approval-delays-leave-us-doctors-frustrated/

American Cancer Society turns 100 as cancer rates fall

The American Cancer Society - one of the nation's best known and influential health advocacy groups - is 100 years old this week. Back in 1913 when it was formed, cancer was a lesser threat for most Americans. The biggest killers then were flu, pneumonia, tuberculosis, and stomach bugs. At a time when average life expectancy was 47, few lived long enough to get cancer. But 15 doctors and businessmen in New York City thought cancer deserved serious attention, so they founded the American Society for the Control of Cancer. The modern name would come 31 years later. The cancer society's rise coincided with the taming of infectious diseases and lengthening life spans. “Cancer is a disease of aging, so as people live longer there will be more cancer,” explained Dr. Michael Kastan, executive director of Duke University's Cancer Institute. Cancer became the nation's No. 2 killer in 1938, a ranking it has held ever since. It also became perhaps the most feared disease - the patient's own cells growing out of control, responding only to brutal treatments: surgery, radiation and poisonous chemicals. The cancer society is credited with being the largest and most visible proponent of research funding, prevention and programs to help house and educate cancer patients. Last year, the organization had revenues of about $925 million. It employs 6,000 and has 3 million volunteers, calling itself the largest voluntary health organization in the nation. “The American Cancer Society really is in a league of its own,” Kastan said. The rate of new cancer cases has been trending downward ever so slightly. Some historical highlights: 1913 - The American Society for the Control of Cancer is founded in New York City. 1944 - The organization is renamed the American Cancer Society. The change is spurred by Mary Lasker, the wife of advertising mogul Albert Lasker. 1946 - A research program is launched, built on $1 million raised by Mary Lasker. A year later, Dr. Sidney Farber of Boston announces the first successful chemotherapy treatment. 1948 - The cancer society pushes the Pap test, which has been credited with driving a 70 percent decline in uterine and cervical cancer. 1964 - Prodded by the cancer society and other groups, U.S. Surgeon General Luther Terry issues a report irrefutably linking smoking to cancer. 1971 - The cancer society helps lead passage of the National Cancer Act to ramp up research money. President Nixon declares a national “war on cancer,” which becomes an extended effort derided by some as a “medical Vietnam.” 1976 - The cancer society suggests women 40 and older consider a mammogram if their mother or sisters had breast cancer. 1976 - The cancer society hosts a California event to encourage smokers to quit for the day. A year later, the annual Great American Smokeout is launched nationally. 1988 - Atlanta becomes headquarters for the society. 1997 - The cancer society recommends yearly mammograms for women over 40. 2000 - Dr. Brian Druker of Oregon reports the first success with “targeted” cancer therapy. 2003 - The cancer society stops recommending monthly breast self-exams. But it continues to urge annual mammograms for most women over 40, even after a government task force says most don't need screening until 50. 2012 - The cancer society reports the rate of new cancer cases has been inching down by about half a percent each year since 1999.source : http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/05/22/american-cancer-society-turns-100-as-us-cancer-rates-fall/

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. …

Newer whooping cough vaccine not as protective

A newer version of the whooping cough vaccine doesn't protect kids as well as the original, which was phased out in the 1990s because of safety concerns, according to a new study. During a 2010-2011 outbreak of whooping cough in California, researchers found that youth who had been vaccinated with the newer, so called acellular vaccine were six times more likely to catch whooping cough than those who had received a series of the older whole-cell vaccine. “This is an ongoing saga,” said Dr. H. Cody Meissner, a pediatric infectious diseases specialist from Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston. The rate of whooping cough, or pertussis, has been climbing in recent years, he said - to the point where “we're worried about losing control of pertussis in the United States.” The pertussis vaccine is given in combination with vaccines for diphtheria and tetanus. Originally the shot contained whole pertussis bacteria, which triggered reactions in some babies - including prolonged crying, fever and a “shock-like state,” said Meissner, who wasn't involved in the new research. So in the 1990s, the U.S. switched over to an acellular version of the vaccine, which has reduced the rate of side effects. “But the price we've paid to get more safety is that we have less effectiveness,” Meissner told Reuters Health. “It doesn't protect as well against pertussis.” The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends four doses of the diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccine (DTaP) be given to babies between two and 18 months, and a fifth dose by age six. A booster was recently added to the vaccine schedule for 11- to 12-year-olds. For the new study, researchers from the Kaiser Permanente Northern California health system compared the vaccination history of 138 teenagers and preteens who tested positive for whooping cough and about 55,000 who did not during the state's 2010-2011 outbreak. Over the course of the outbreak, 78 out of every 100,000 adolescents were infected per year. Almost all of the kids had received the newer acellular vaccine as their fifth DTaP dose. But Dr. Nicola Klein and her colleagues found that teens who'd been vaccinated with the acellular version for each of their first four doses as well were six times more likely to contract whooping cough than those who'd received four doses of the whole-cell vaccine. Each extra acellular rather than whole-cell dose increased a child's risk of later developing whooping cough by about 40 percent, the researchers reported Monday in Pediatrics. Klein said there seem to be some differences in the initial immune response to the whole-cell vaccine versus the acellular vaccine, which may persist as children get older. Her team's study, she said, suggests there needs to be more of a focus on developing a third pertussis vaccine. But any new shot for whooping cough that could address both safety and effectiveness concerns is still years away, Meissner said. “So now we're confronted with this difficult problem,” he said. “It's very hard to recommend a vaccine that is known to be associated with more side effects than another vaccine that's safer, even though the first vaccine gives better protection. It's a dilemma.” The findings do not mean parents shouldn't get their children fully vaccinated against pertussis, the researchers agreed. “In the short run, we have to keep vaccinating kids on the recommended schedule because that's definitely the best way to protect kids,” Klein told Reuters Health. “The acellular vaccine does work, it just doesn't last as long as we hoped,” she said. “It's the best tool we have right now to protect against pertussis.”source : http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/05/20/newer-whooping-cough-vaccine-not-as-protective/

Can you think yourself well?

What if you had the ability to heal your body just by changing how you think and feel? I know it sounds radical, coming from a doctor. When people are doing everything “right”—eating veggies, avoiding red meat and processed foods, exercising, sleeping well and so forth—we should expect them to live long, prosperous lives and die of old age while peacefully slumbering, right? So why is it that so many health nuts are sicker than other people who pig out, guzzle beer and park in front of the TV…