Tag Archives: count

10 signs you may have obsessive-compulsive disorder

Hooked on hand sanitizer? Closet organized to a T? Quirks like this can usually be chalked up to personality or preference, but in some cases they may point to a more serious issue: obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), a condition marked by obsessive thoughts and compulsions that affects about 1 percent of U.S. adults. How can you tell if OCD tendencies are symptoms that require professional help? There's no easy test, as it's usually a matter of degree, said Jeff Szymanski, executive director of the International OCD Foundation, a Boston-based advocacy organization. Still, there are certain patterns that may indicate the full-blown disorder. Here are 10 of the most common. Hand-washing Compulsive hand-washing or hand sanitizer use is so prevalent in OCD that “washers” has become a widely accepted category of OCD patient. The urge commonly stems from a fear of germs (the most common obsession seen in OCD), but it also can be rooted in fears of making others sick or of being impure or immoral. When to seek help: If you think about germs even after washing your hands, worry that you're not scrubbing well enough, or have irrational fears about disease (such as getting HIV from a shopping cart), it could be a sign that your hand-washing is compulsive, Szymanski said. Elaborate hand-washing routines—needing to wash five times and get soap under each nail, for example—are another warning sign. Health.com: Do You Have an Anxiety Disorder…

The dirt on hotel rooms

We asked several industry insiders to help us peel back the covers on your home away from home. Here's how to make the most of any stay.  “Eco-Friendly” Actually Means “Dirty Sheets” Here's a travel tip you might not have heard: Bedspreads are often cleaned just once a month. But sheets can dodge detergent, too.  “Some hotels take a unique approach to the water-conservation trend,” the housekeeping director we interviewed said. “Unless they look soiled, sheets may not be changed.” The solution: Ask for fresh sheets.  “When I travel, I change my own sheets,” one hotel director said.  Know what else you should change while you're on the road? Your diet. (Find out how one Men's Health reader wedged tough workouts and smart dining into his busy schedule.) Your Bill is Bogus The average business traveler is overcharged $11.35 a night, according to an audit of hotel bills by Corporate Lodging Consultants, a firm that helps companies and governments trim travel costs. Beware of fees for fridges, or anything labeled “local.” The solution: Question every charge, especially at the end of the month, one hotel controller said.  “It's unbelievable what managers do to make budget.” Even worse than the managers are some of the offerings at the morning buffet. (Avoid these 8 killer breakfast foods.) Upgrades Can Come Cheap Here's a travel tip from insiders: Upgrade at check-in. Full occupancy is rare - the average is 63 percent, according to the American Hotel and Lodging Association, and suites are often vacant.  “A smart manager knows that the cost to clean a suite is roughly the same as for a regular room,” one manager said. The solution: Make the hotel more money. Offer 20 percent more than your current rate for the upgrade; you could be sleeping in a suite. (Just make sure you're sleeping in style with this well-traveled wardrobe.) Some Souvenirs Have Legs Hotels are a haven for bedbugs. Pest-control companies say hotels account for more than 37 percent of their bedbug business, according to Pest Control Technology magazine. The solution: Search for your hotel on bedbugregistry.com. Scan mattress and couch creases for the reddish brown bloodsuckers and their black droppings, Jason Rasgon, a public-health professor at Johns Hopkins, said. At home, dry your clothes on high for 45 minutes to kill stowaways. The Bathroom is Cleaner Than the TV Remote  Often, the worst germ incubators are the frequently touched surfaces: the thermostat dial, phone, and remote. Chuck Gerba, a professor of microbiology at the University of Arizona, actually found more traces of fecal matter on these surfaces than in the bathroom. The solution: Use hand sanitizer, and wash your hands frequently. A recent study reported that cold germs linger for more than a day on surfaces.source : http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/06/03/dirt-on-hotel-rooms/

Government approves nutritional labels on alcoholic drinks

WASHINGTON – & Alcohol beverages could soon carry nutritional labels like those on food — but only if the producers want to put them there. The Treasury Department, which regulates alcohol, said this week that beer, wine and spirits companies can place labels on packages that include serving size, servings per container, calories, carbohydrates, protein and fat per serving. Such labels have never before been approved. The labels are voluntary, so it will be up to beverage companies to decide whether to use them on their products. The decision is a temporary, first step while the Alcohol and Tobacco Trade and Tax Bureau, or TTB, continues to consider final rules on alcohol labels. Rules proposed in 2007 would have made labels mandatory, but the agency never made the rules final. The labeling regulation issued May 28 comes after a decade of lobbying by hard liquor companies and consumer groups, with clearly different goals: the liquor companies want to advertise low calories and low carbohydrates in their products, while the consumer groups want alcoholic drinks to have the same transparency as packaged foods, which are required to be labeled. “This is actually bringing alcoholic beverages into the modern era,” says Guy Smith, an executive vice president at Diageo, the world's largest distiller and maker of such well-known brands as Johnnie Walker, Smirnoff, Jose Cuervo and Tanqueray. Diageo asked the bureau in 2003 to allow them to add that information to their products as low-carbohydrate diets were gaining in popularity. Almost 10 years later, Smith said he expects Diageo to gradually put the new labels on all of its products, which include a small number of beer and wine companies. “It's something consumers have come to expect,” Smith said. “In time, it's going to be, Why isn't it there?” Not all alcohol companies are expected to use labels, however. Among those who may take a pass: beer companies that don't want consumers counting calories and winemakers that don't want to ruin the sleek look of their bottles. The Wine Institute, which represents more than a thousand California wineries, said in a statement that it supports the ruling but “experience suggests that such information is not a key factor in consumer purchase decisions about wine.” Spokeswoman Gladys Horiuchi said the group knows of no wine companies that plan to use the new labels. The beer industry praised the agency for acknowledging that labels should take into account variations in the concentration of alcohol content in different products. The industry has opposed the idea of defining serving size by fluid ounces of pure alcohol — or as 12 ounces of beer, 5 ounces of wine or 1.5 ounces of 80-proof liquor — on the grounds that you may get more than 1.5 ounces of liquor in a cocktail depending on what else is in the drink and the accuracy of the bartender. The ruling would allow the labels to declare alcohol content as a percentage of alcohol by volume, the approach favored by the beer industry. “We applaud the TTB's conclusion that rules be based on how drinks are actually served and consumed,” said Joe McClain, president of the Beer Institute. McClain said the beer industry is also pleased that the ruling provides “substantial flexibility” in terms of the format and placement of the disclosure on packaging. It is unclear whether beer companies will actually use the labels, however. Consumer advocates criticized the regulation. “It doesn't reflect any concern about public health,” said Michael Jacobson, director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest. “Including fat and carbohydrates on a label could imply that an alcoholic beverage is positively healthful, especially when the drink's alcohol content isn't prominently labeled.” Consumer advocates have also said that listing alcohol content should be mandatory. Jacobson and others support having calorie counts on labels, but they said the labels should not include nutrients that make the alcohol seem more like a food. Current labeling law is complicated. Wines containing 14 percent or more alcohol by volume must list alcohol content. Wines that are 7 to 14 percent alcohol by volume may list alcohol content or put “light” or “table” wine on the label. “Light” beers must list calorie and carbohydrate content only. Liquor must list alcohol content by volume and may also list proof, a measure of alcoholic strength. And wine, beer and liquor manufacturers don't have to list ingredients but must list substances people might be sensitive to, such as sulfites, certain food colorings and aspartame. Tom Hogue of the TTB said the aim of the ruling is to make sure alcohol labeling is more consistent. “The idea here is we are trying to make it easy for the industry to communicate this with consumers if they want to do so, and if their consumers want them to do it,” he said.source : http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/06/01/government-approves-nutritional-labels-on-alcoholic-drinks/

Dispute flares within FDA over safety of popular blood pressure drugs

The top-selling class of blood-pressure drugs is under attack from an unusual source: a senior regulator at the Food and Drug Administration. Bucking his bosses, Thomas A. Marciniak is seeking stronger warnings about the drugs known as angiotensin receptor blockers, or ARBs, according to internal documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. The drugs, which are taken by millions of people and generated $7.6 billion in U.S. sales in 2012, may be linked to higher cancer rates, Dr. Marciniak argues, a view shared by some outside doctors. Top FDA officials say evidence doesn't support a link. The debate over ARBs highlights the question of whether the U.S. drug-safety agency devotes enough effort to examining the safety of long-marketed blockbusters as it focuses on new drugs. In a rare rebellion by an FDA reviewer, Dr. Marciniak has clashed with his bosses over his desire to spend time on ARB safety, instead of just on new-drug applications. Ellis Unger, chief of the drug-evaluation division that includes Dr. Marciniak, called the complaints a “diversion,” and said in an interview, “We have no reason to tell the public anything new.” ARBs on the market in the U.S. include Novartis AG's Diovan, Daiichi Sankyo Co.'s Benicar, Merck & Co.'s Cozaar, Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH's Micardis; Avapro, from Sanofi SA and Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.; and AstraZeneca PLC's Atacand. Patients take these medicines daily to avoid heart attack, stroke and heart failure. In a 2010 study published in Lancet Oncology, Ilke Sipahi and colleagues at University Hospitals in Cleveland looked at five studies involving 68,402 patients and found that people taking ARBs had an 11 percent greater risk of new cancer overall and a 25 percent greater risk of new lung cancer, compared with patients who didn't get the drugs. But within a year, the FDA gave the all-clear signal, saying its own analysis found “no increase in risk” from taking ARBs. Europe's drug regulator also dismissed the cancer concerns. Dr. Marciniak wasn't persuaded. In its analysis, the FDA combined different studies to look at more patients, multiplying its statistical power to find possible side effects from the drugs, a technique called meta-analysis. If the original studies have flaws, however, meta-analyses can simply compound the problem, researchers say. That is what happened to the FDA, says Dr. Marciniak, who warned others in the agency that taking results tabulated by companies was likely to produce unreliable results: “Garbage in, garbage out,” he wrote. Among other things, Dr. Marciniak said in an internal analysis viewed by the Journal that the FDA meta-analysis didn't count cases of “lung carcinomas” as lung cancers, which they are. Click for more from The Wall Street Journal.source : http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/05/31/dispute-flares-within-fda-over-safety-popular-blood-pressure-drugs/

Dealing with the side effects of cancer treatment

Are the side effects of cancer treatment worse than the cancer itself? My immediate response to that question is ‘Yes.’  But for me, the reality is that I have stage 4 cancer, so I have no choice but to suck it up.  As awful as this chemo is, I have to try, try, try to focus on the fact that it is working.  I just hate the way it makes me feel. When I was admitted into this phase one clinical trial , I was elated – even more so when I was told this drug had no side effects. “This is fantastic!” I thought.  It seemed almost too good to be true.  And of course, it was. I am exhausted.  My white count, red count and platelet levels are dangerously low.  The neuropathy in my feet is getting worse, and I now have jaw necrosis – which basically involves having your gums disappear, leaving jaw bone exposed. Talk about pain! Alright, enough complaining. No one wants to read bad news, so I apologize. I am just so tired of all of it.  But, I need to focus on the fact that this drug seems to be working, and the cancer in my liver has decreased a smidgeon, which is positively awesome. I want to share with you an example of how one small group of students put thought and effort in motion to make a difference.  I received a letter this week from the principal of St. Simon the Apostle School in Indianapolis, with a check enclosed for $1,177.  Last October, the students added pink accessories – pink socks, pink nail polish, etc. – to their uniforms in an effort to raise money for breast cancer awareness and to honor relatives who have fought this disease.  They made this donation to my foundation in honor of their math teacher who is retiring after 17 years.  Wow!  I am so honored that they would think of The Noreen Fraser Foundation and trust us to spend their money wisely.  And we will! Thank you to all the young kids and teenagers who move beyond self-indulgence to think of others and show compassion to those who are struggling.Noreen Fraser is living with Stage IV metastatic breast cancer. She is the Founder and CEO of the Noreen Fraser Foundation, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization dedicated to funding groundbreaking women's cancer research.& To stay in touch with Noreen, please 'LIKE' The Noreen Fraser Foundation on Facebook and follow her on Twitter. & Noreen can be contacted via email at noreen@noreenfraserfoundation.org.source : http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/05/30/dealing-with-side-effects-cancer-treatment/

Motorcycle injuries worsen with weaker helmet law

The average medical claim from a motorcycle crash rose by more than one-fifth last year in Michigan after the state stopped requiring all riders to wear helmets, according to an insurance industry study. Across the nation, motorcyclists opposed to mandatory helmet use have been chipping away at state helmet laws for years while crash deaths have been on the rise. For more than 40 years, Michigan required all motorcycle riders to wear helmets. State legislators changed the law last year so that only riders younger than 21 must wear helmets. The average insurance payment on a motorcycle injury claim was $5,410 in the two years before the law was changed, and $7,257 after it was changed — an increase of 34 percent, the study by the Highway Loss Data Institute found. After adjusting for the age and type of motorcycle, rider age, gender, marital status, weather and other factors, the actual increase was about 22 percent relative to a group of four comparative states, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and Wisconsin, the study found. “The cost per injury claim is significantly higher after the law changed than before, which is consistent with other research that shows riding without a helmet leads to more head injuries,” said David Zuby, chief research officer for the data institute and an affiliated organization, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. The data institute publishes insurance loss statistics on most car, SUV, pickup truck and motorcycle models on U.S. roads. While other studies have shown an increase motorcycle deaths after states eliminate or weaken mandatory helmet requirements, the industry study is the first to look specifically at the effect of repealing helmet requirements on the severity of injuries as measured by medical insurance claims, Zuby said. Some states have sought to mitigate the repeal or loosening of mandatory helmet laws by setting minimum medical insurance requirements, but “that doesn't even come close to covering the lifelong care of somebody who is severely brain-injured and who cannot work and who is going to be on Medicaid and a ward of the state,” said Jackie Gillan, president of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, which backs mandatory helmet requirements for all riders. Jeff Hennie, vice president of the Motorcycle Riders Foundation, dismissed the study, saying the insurance industry views helmets as “the silver bullet that's going to change the landscape of motorcycle safety.” He said insurers are upset because “life has gotten more expensive for them and they have to pay out more.” “The fact is our highways are bloody,” Hennie said. “This (the Michigan helmet law change) doesn't make helmets illegal. ... No one is forcing anyone to ride without a helmet.” Vince Consiglio, president of American Bikers Aimed Toward Education of Michigan, blamed the increase in the severity of injuries on bikers who don't take safety courses required to obtain a special motorcycle license. He said bikers without motorcycle licenses have made up an increasingly larger share of fatalities and injuries in recent years. But Gillan said the study “clearly shows there is no such thing as a free ride, and the public is paying the cost for this.” There's no way to know how many of the Michigan claims involved motorcyclists not wearing helmets, the study said. But another recent study by the University of Michigan's Transportation Research Institute found a significant increase in motorcyclists involved in crashes who weren't wearing helmets after the law changed. From April 13, 2012, the first full day after the change took effect, through the end of the year, 74 percent of motorcyclists involved in crashes were wearing helmets, compared with 98 percent in the same period for the previous four years, the study found. Nationally, motorcycle deaths have risen in 14 of the past 15 years, and appear to have reached an all-time high of more than 5,000, according to an analysis by the Governors Highway Safety Association of preliminary 2012 data. Currently, 19 states and the District of Columbia require all motorcyclists to wear a helmet, 28 states require only some motorcyclists — usually younger or novice riders — to wear a helmet, and three states have no helmet use law. States have been gradually repealing or weakening mandatory helmet laws for nearly two decades. In 1967, to increase motorcycle helmet use, the federal government required that states enact helmet laws in order to qualify for certain federal safety programs and highway construction aid. The federal incentive worked. By the early 1970s, almost all states had motorcycle helmet laws that covered all riders. In 1976, Congress stopped the Transportation Department from assessing financial penalties on states without helmet laws, and state lawmakers began repealing the statutes. In 1991, Congress created new incentives for states to enact helmet and seat belt laws, but reversed itself four years later. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which sent observers to states last year to count how many motorcyclists wore helmets, found that 97 percent of motorcyclists in states with universal helmet laws were wearing helmets compared with 58 percent of motorcyclists in states without such coverage.source : http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/05/30/motorcycle-injuries-worsen-with-weaker-helmet-law/

High doses of common painkillers increase heart attack risks

Long-term high-dose use of painkillers such as ibuprofen or diclofenac is “equally hazardous” in terms of heart attack risk as use of the drug Vioxx, which was withdrawn due to its potential dangers, researchers said on Thursday. Presenting the results of a large international study into a class of painkillers called non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), the researchers said high doses of them increase the risk of a major vascular event - a heart attack, stroke or dying from cardiovascular disease - by around a third. This means that for every 1,000 people with an average risk of heart disease who take high-dose diclofenac or ibuprofen for a year, about three extra would have an avoidable heart attack, of which one would be fatal, the researchers said. This puts the heart risks of generic NSAIDs on a par with a newer class of NSAIDs known as COX-2 inhibitors or coxibs, which includes Vioxx - a painkiller that U.S. drugmaker Merck pulled from sale in 2004 because of links to heart risks. Other drugs in the coxib class include cerecoxib, sold by Pfizer under the brand name Celebrex, and etoricoxib, sold by Merck under the brand name Arcoxia. “What we are saying is that they (coxibs, ibuprofen and diclofenac) have similar risks, but they also have similar benefits,” said Colin Baigent of the clinical trial service unit at Britain's Oxford University, who led the study published in The Lancet medical journal on Thursday. He stressed that the risks are mainly relevant to people who suffer chronic pain, such as patients with arthritis who need to take high doses of painkillers - such as 150mg of diclofenac or 2400mg of ibuprofen a day - for long periods. “A short course of lower dose tablets purchased without a prescription, for example, for a muscle sprain, is not likely to be hazardous,” he said. BALANCING RISKS AND BENEFITS The study team gathered data, including on admissions to hospital for cardiovascular or gastrointestinal disease, from all randomized trials that have previously tested NSAIDs. This allowed them to pool results of 639 randomized trials involving more than 300,000 people and re-analyze the data to establish the risks of NSAIDs in certain types of patients. In contrast to the findings on ibuprofen and diclofenac, the study found that high doses of naproxen, another NSAID, did not appear to increase the risk of heart attacks. The researchers said this may be because naproxen also has protective effects that balance out any extra heart risks. Baigent said it was important patients should not make hasty decisions or change their treatment without consulting a doctor. “For many arthritis patients, NSAIDs reduce joint pain and swelling effectively and help them to enjoy a reasonable quality of life,” he said. “We really must be careful about the way we present the risks of these drugs. “They do have risks, but they also have benefits, and patients should be presented with all those bits of information and allowed to make choices for themselves.” Donald Singer, a professor of clinical pharmacology and therapeutics at Britain's Warwick University, who was not involved in the study, said its findings “underscore a key point for patients and prescribers: powerful drugs may have serious harmful effects”. “It is therefore important for prescribers to take into account these risks and ensure patients are fully informed about the medicines they are taking,” he said in an emailed comment.source : http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/05/30/high-doses-common-painkillers-increase-heart-attack-risks/