Tag Archives: medical

For veterans, mental health care often fragmented

For veterans with mental health conditions, prompt and continuous access to mental health care can be lifesaving. However, research shows that after deployment, veterans often go years without obtaining mental health care, and when they do, their care is often fragmented. A recent study found that, among veterans with mental health conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression, the average time between return from deployment and initiation of mental health care was two years. The study, which looked at veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars who visited Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers between 2001 and 2011, also found that an average of seven and a half years lapsed between the first mental health visit, and the start of treatment that would be considered “minimally adequate” for these conditions which would be eight treatment sessions within a year. By the end of the study, 75 percent of veterans had not received minimally adequate care. The findings were published in the December 2012 issue of the journal Psychiatric Services. Prompt care is important because mental illness can impair people's lives and interfere with their relationships and jobs, said study researcher Shira Maguen, a psychologist at the San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center who treats patients with PTSD. “If we can get them into care sooner, thats less time that they have to live with some of those challenges after they return from deployment,” Maguen said. Many factors can interfere with veterans getting mental health care, including the stigma associated with mental illnesses (such as the belief that seeking care is a sign of weakness), concern that seeking care may jeopardize their careers, trouble finding transport to VA centers, and trouble getting appointments. (Last year, a report from the VA inspector general found that about half of veterans seeking a mental health evaluation waited an average of 50 days for an evaluation.) To broaden access to mental health care, the VA says it has taken steps to increase staffing and to partner with community health care centers. In a report released last week, the VA said it has made agreements with 15 local clinics in seven states to allow veterans to be treated at those clinics. Maguen said it is also important to identify the factors that keep veterans coming back for care. Her study found that most veterans who receive minimally adequate care do so within one year of their first visit. Follow-up appointments are critical for patients at risk for suicide studies show that one of the highest risk periods for suicide is the month following discharge from a hospital or emergency room for a suicidal episode. But a report from the VA inspector general released last month found that about one-third of veterans at high risk for suicide did not receive the required four mental health follow-up visits within a month after their discharge. What's more, for about a third of these at-risk veterans, there was no documented attempt to contact them to remind them of their appointments. “That kind of a clinical response is not acceptable,” said M. David Rudd, provost of the University of Memphis who has studied suicide risk among veterans. “You dont have control over whether or not somebody will keep and appointment. You do have control of whether you attempt to track them.” The inspector general report said the VA needs to improve its effort to reach out to patients who do not show up for mental health appointments. Rudd said the VA may want to consider conducting home visits for psychiatric patients who have trouble getting to VA centers. The inspector general report said the VA should consider expanding the use of telemental health services, such as videoconferencing. The VA also said this week it has increased capacity of its Veterans Crisis Line to connect veterans in crisis with trained mental health providers. 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/2013/05/31/for-veterans-mental-health-care-often-fragmented/

No science behind blood-type diets, researchers say

They are a fad that refuses to fade, but no solid evidence exists to show whether or not eating plans tailored to ABO blood types promote health, say Belgian researchers who tried their best to find some. After sifting through the scientific literature, researchers identified just one indirectly related study - it looked at the effects of low-fat diets on cholesterol levels in people with different blood types - and even that one was weak, they concluded. Some studies have found links between blood type and risk for developing blood clots or certain cancers, of having a heart attack and of hemorrhaging when infected with Dengue fever. But no peer-reviewed research has indicated that eating foods supposedly compatible with one's blood type will improve health or induce weight loss more than a general diet plan. Medical professionals already knew this, according to the study's senior author, Dr. Philippe Vandekerckhove at the Belgian Red Cross-Flanders in Mechelen. “However, the general populace have access to blood type diets, regardless of medical guidance, and cannot be expected to be able to determine whether or not the health claims are, in fact, ‘evidence-based',” Vandekerckhove said. Blood type is determined by proteins on the surface of red blood cells and antibodies in the blood. The most familiar grouping, known as ABO blood types, refers to whether a person's cells carry the proteins known as A or B, or both of them, or neither of the two - which is designated blood type O. The idea that blood type influences an individual's life - and even personality - is popular in parts of Asia. In 2011, for example, a Japanese politician apologized for a rude remark he had made about tsunami victims by blaming his blood type. But blood type eating regimens are often premised on the theory that blood group signals a population's evolutionary background - primarily agrarian or hunter-gatherer, for instance - and that ancient history inclines people of certain blood types to thrive or suffer when eating one kind of diet or another. Vandekerckhove's team, who published their results in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, searched the largest online databases of published research for clinical trials, reviews and all other types of studies for reports about people grouped by blood type following specifically prescribed diets. Of 1,415 articles that initially turned up in the search, 16 looked promising at the start but 15 of those were discarded on closer analysis when the authors saw that they were poorly designed. Only one was relevant to the topic and strong enough to be included in an analysis because it was a randomized controlled trial. But it had several other weaknesses, including the fact that participants knew which group they had been assigned to, the group sizes were small, and the main endpoint assessed was “bad cholesterol” levels, which doesn't directly address the question of health or weight. Vandekerckhove and his coauthors were surprised and disappointed to find that no studies had been done that actually addressed the question, he said. “Until a study has been performed which recruits people with a certain blood type who have adhered to the diet, compared with those of the same blood type who have not adhered to the diet, and the incidence of disease/measurement of health can be assessed, then the health effects of a blood type diet are not proven,” he wrote in an email. “Currently, there is no evidence to support that ‘Blood Type Diets' have any effect on positively benefiting your health,” said Beth Warren, a registered dietician in New York City who was not involved in the study. “The fad diet was only made popular by a book during 1996…with no evidence to support it,” Warren said. “Eat Right 4 Your Type” by Peter D'Adamo has more than 7 million copies in print, and outlines a theory about which foods are best for people with the various ABO blood types to eat and which to avoid. D'Adamo says he believes in the diet based on circumstantial evidence. “All the authors did was conclude, as have I, that there is a lack of direct research on the subject,” D'Adamo said by email. He too would like to see direct research on the diets, but such studies are unlikely because they would be too costly. One-size-fits-all diets don't make sense either, D'Adamo said, and it may be that blood type is one way to predict which general weight loss diets work better for which people. “We hope the results of this systematic review will reinforce the need for individuals and companies to take responsibility of their claims and clearly differentiate between something that is “evidence-based” rather than something that is “theoretical”,” Vandekerckhove said. “We have to be very careful when we hear of fad diets and look into if and how this way of eating benefits our health and goals for weight-loss and maintenance,” Warren said. “In this case, we cannot say that it does at this time,” she said.source : http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/05/31/no-science-behind-blood-type-diets-researchers-say/

New possibilities for prostate cancer treatment revealed

Published today in Science Translational Medicine, a study led by Monash University researchers has found prostate cancer cells that survive androgen withdrawal treatment. Previously unidentified, these cells are potential targets for future treatments. As they are present early in disease development, there is the possibility of therapy before the cancer reaches the aggressive, incurable stage. Prostate cancer is the most common form of cancer in men, with around 20,000 new cases diagnosed each year in Australia…

Woman to have ‘dolphin-assisted’ birth

A pregnant woman and her husband have traveled to Hawaii where they plan on having a “dolphin-assisted birth,” a water delivery among dolphins, according to Medical Daily. Heather Barrington, 27, and her husband Adam, 29, of South Carolina, are preparing for the July arrival of their first child through a series of prenatal and postnatal swims with a pod of dolphins at The Sirius Institute in Pohoa, Hawaii. The Sirius Institute describes itself as a “a research consortium with the purpose of 'dolphinizing' the planet.” They recently set up the Dolphin Attended, Water, Natural and Gentle Birth Center (DAWN), due to what they claim is an increasing demand on their web site for people looking to give birth near dolphins. The Sirius Institute claims that giving birth with dolphins is part of an ancient native Hawaiian practice. While dolphin-assisted births are rare, dolphin assisted therapy (DAT) has been used for more than 25 years in patients with mental and physical disabilities and autism, according to Medical Daily. During DAT, patients swim and play with dolphins living in captivity while completing tasks meant to improve skills like hand-eye coordination. However, scientists claim there is little scientific evidence indicating that DAT is therapeutically effective. Water births – without the presence of dolphins –have proven benefits, including more efficient contractions, improved blood circulation for the mother, less pain and more oxygen for the baby, according to the American Pregnancy Association (APA). However, the APA noted that few studies have been done examining the risks associated with water births.       In the event that a “dolphin-assisted” birth cannot occur, the couple has made plans to deliver with a midwife. Experts point out that dolphins are predators and can become aggressive, though dolphin-related injuries among people are relatively rare, Medical Daily reported. “Having that connection with the pod of dolphins anytime – even if the birth doesn’t happen in the water – still brings peace, comfort and strength to the mother and baby during labor,” Heather told the South Charlotte News. Click for more from Medical Daily.source : http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/05/28/woman-to-have-dolphin-assisted-birth/

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/

How war changes the mind of a warrior

Memorial Day is an appropriate time to focus on the types of psychological harm veterans have willingly exposed themselves to in order to defend our nation.  While words like post-traumatic stress disorder, major depression and post-concussion syndrome have become well-known, the true suffering of individuals with such illnesses—caused by combat or proximity to it—still isn’t as well known. It is one thing to imagine and empathize with the plight of a man or woman without limbs, who cannot walk or run or jump, but it is arguably more difficult to imagine and empathize with the suffering of those whose emotional equilibrium, memory, concentration, sleep patterns and even grasp on reality have been shredded. So, I hope I can help bring those wounds into focus. Men and women are born with an inexplicable, immeasurable and intensely beautiful quality: human empathy.  We resonate with the feelings of others.  This fact means we are also exquisitely vulnerable to conditions that expose us to the destruction of others – not to mention threaten our own existence.   I often tell my patients that the soul is like a Ferrari, not a Camry.  Treat it like a tank, not an exotic vehicle, and all manner of damage can result—and routinely does.  It is popular to speak of people as resilient, and there is some truth to this.  But it is perhaps more truthful that people are finely tuned emotional instruments who choose to put themselves in harm’s way out of love for their fellow man, and cannot then be expected – with rare exception – to come through it all unscathed.   When people, however brave or strong, live for protracted periods in a war zone, in which they must bury the natural fear of death, natural pangs of grief and the natural horror of killing, all that buried emotion does not remain underground.  It resurfaces like shards of glass and steel, walled off under the skin, until abscesses develop and eventually burst to the surface, shredding any façade of peace.  This is when the sadness of leaving one’s family for years, taking the unspeakable risk of never seeing one’s loved ones again, can erupt as nightmares that shatter sleeping patterns, or hopelessness and despair that tear up any plans for the future.  This is when the horror of watching good friends die, when the anxiety of marching into trouble over and over again manifests as flashbacks to unspeakable and unfathomable events, or panic of death and destruction that comes out of nowhere.  This is when marching into hell, with one’s God-given, highly-calibrated, compassionate, soulful self, means you bring hell back with you – inside you. No one who goes to war ever comes home – not in the emotional, psychological sense.  No one.  Some make it back, mostly—which is an amazing and happy fact.  Most make it back far less—which is fully expected but still not acknowledged as widely as it must be.  And some return only physically, and are forever unrecognizable psychologically. This is the unspoken risk our warriors take when they leave us to fight.  We worry over their legs and their eyes, but we still don’t fully grasp the peril in which they place their psyches and their souls. That men and women take these risks, and willingly, is nothing short of miraculous. This is why, on Memorial Day – and every day – we should remember all fighting men and women, thank them and thank God for them.Dr. Keith Ablow is a psychiatrist and member of the Fox News Medical A-Team. Dr. Ablow can be reached at info@keithablow.com.source : http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/05/27/how-war-changes-mind-warrior/

Money talks when it comes to weight loss

The secret to weight loss may be much simpler than anyone ever imagined – so simple, in fact, you may wonder why it hasn’t been thought of before? A study completed by Mayo Clinic researchers has discovered that money is the most effective motivator when it comes to weight loss. When conducting a comparison between study groups, one group was incentivized, the other was not. The results were overwhelming, with 62 percent of study participants from the incentivized group completing the study, compared to only 26 of the non-incentivized group. And, the incentivized group lost an average of 9.08 pounds versus 2.34 pounds in the other group. Financial incentives for weight loss began to gain popularity in January, as New Year’s resolutions to finally drop excess pounds began to dominate water cooler chatter in offices across the nation. A number of websites and wellness firms now offer individuals, as well as teams, the ability to place bets on their weight loss efforts, and some even offer additional tools to help you succeed. According to a report by the National Business Group on Health, teaming up with co-workers to whittle your middle is an effective way to lose weight.  The media lit up in the wake of New Year’s resolutions to discuss the increases in employer-incentivized weight loss competitions. Wellness consultant groups and websites, like DietBet.com and Healthywage.com, have helped tens of thousands of employees shed as much as 5 percent of their body weight in just three months – enough to make a significant  difference in certain health risk factors. The effectiveness of the program is in line with the Mayo Clinic study: money talks when it comes to weight loss. And inside the office, the team mentality only enhances success. Independent wellness firms work with employers to establish teams within the office and offer a grand prize (as much as $10,000 cash) for the winning team and smaller prizes for milestones along the way, as well as runner-up rewards. In an interview, an employee of a participating company told The Wall Street Journal that staying on track was easier because he feared letting down his team in the pursuit of $10,000. A fellow teammate responded, agreeing, “The last thing you want to do is catch the wrath of your team.” Independent firms offer complete programs, including private weigh-ins. Employees may participate on a voluntary basis and a small fee is often required, but the rewards – even if you don’t win the grand prize – often outweigh the fee. There is speculation, as with most diets, about maintaining your weight loss after the allure of the money has long passed. However, studies have shown that in team weight loss “competitions” like these, many times teammates continue to help each other stay on track. Physician-supervised weight loss is also a healthy way to not only achieve weight loss results for contests like these, but to ensure you maintain it. Your doctor can be a vital part of your weight management team and help you uncover strategies that will lead to long term weight loss success – long after you have pocketed your weight loss earnings. Click to learn more about the Mayo Clinic study. Dr. Jennifer Landa is Chief Medical Officer of BodyLogicMD, the nation's largest franchise of physicians specializing in bioidentical hormone therapy. Dr. Jen spent 10 years as a traditional OB-GYN, and then became board-certified in regenerative medicine, with an emphasis on bio-identical hormones, preventative medicine and nutrition. She is the author of “The Sex Drive Solution for Women.” & Learn more about her programs at www.jenlandamd.com.& source : http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/05/27/money-talks-when-it-comes-to-weight-loss/

How to keep your kid healthy this summer

Summer’s right around the corner and as the weather warms up and your kids get ready for endless days at the beach, pool and park, keeping them healthy is your top priority. Find out how to prevent and treat the most common ailments so your kids will be healthy all summer long. Sunburn According to the Skin Cancer Foundation, one blistering sunburn before the age of 18 doubles your child’s chances of developing melanoma—the deadliest form of skin cancer—later on in life. “The most important thing is prevention,” said Dr. Gary Goldenberg, medical director of the dermatology faculty practice at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York City.  Goldenberg recommended checking the UV index to find out what your your risk for sunburn is. “It’s not enough to just look outside and say, ‘It’s hot, but it’s cloudy so the chance of sunburn is low,’” he said. Thirty minutes before heading outdoors, apply a broad-spectrum sunscreen with an SPF of 50. Since the FDA doesn’t measure higher numbers, you might be getting an SPF 50 anyway, Goldenberg said. Be sure to reapply every time your kid comes out of the water and every few hours. Keep your kid in the shade when possible, and dress him in clothing with UPF protection. If your kid does get a sunburn, Vaseline, aloe or Aquaphor can help to ease discomfort. If the burn is severe, a pediatrician might prescribe a topical or oral steroid. Poison ivy, oak, sumac If your kid comes into contact with any of these plants—through skin or clothing—the potent oil urushiol can cause a rash of linear streaks or blisters that is extremely itchy. Depending on how much your child has been exposed to, the rash can show up right away on one part of the body and then on another a few days later, Goldenberg said.  Plus, scratching the rash can help transfer it to another part of the body. Applying calamine lotion or hydrocortisone cream is usually the best way to treat the rash, yet sometimes a topical or oral steroid might be needed. Be sure to wash your child’s clothing several times in hot water, because the oil can live on clothing for months, according to Dr. JJ Levenstein, a retired, board certified pediatrician and founder MDMoms.com The best way to prevent getting this nasty rash? Follow the old saying: Leaves of three, let it be. Mosquito bites These little bugs, which start to emerge as the sun sets, can be super itchy when they bite. Long sleeves and pants are best to keep them at bay, but if it’s too hot outside, a bug spray with DEET is most effective.  A word of caution: Since DEET has been shown to be toxic to the central nervous system, experts agree it shouldn’t be used on young children.  Apply DEET carefully so your child doesn’t inhale it, and be sure to bathe him or her before bedtime. Hydrocortisone is usually the best way to treat mosquito bites, although your pediatrician might prescribe a topical steroid. Bee stings A bee sting might hurt, but in some kids, it can cause an allergic reaction known as anaphylaxis, which can cause the airways to close. If your kid has been stung and he or she is having trouble breathing, go to the emergency room immediately. If you notice the welt getting larger and larger after each bee sting, speak with his or her pediatrician about carrying an EpiPen, Goldenberg said. Protective clothing, repellent sprays and staying away from bees are the best prevention. Ticks If your kid will be walking through wooded areas or through tall grasses, a tick could possibly latch onto his or her skin, putting them at risk for Lyme disease.  This condition is most common among children ages 5 to 14, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Tucking pants into socks, hair into hats and wearing long sleeves can help. Be sure to check your kid from head to toe for ticks, because the sooner you catch one, the easier it is to remove. If you’re unable to remove it, your child’s pediatrician might run some tests and prescribe antibiotics. Dehydration and heat stroke If your child doesn’t drink enough fluids, long, hot days in the sun can spell trouble for your kid in the form of dehydration, or worse, heat stroke. “Heat stroke means that you’re overheated to a point where you actually start to become a little delirious,” said Levenstein. “Your pulse is rapid, you feel dizzy and incoherent and your core body temperature could rise above 98.6 degrees. You lose your ability to cool yourself down because you’re out of sweat.” Kids under the age of 6 should pre-hydrate 30 minutes before heading outdoors with two to three large cups of water; older kids should drink a liter of water. They should re-hydrate every 30 to 60 minutes and urinate every three to four hours.  If your kid is playing sports, every second or third drink should have electrolytes in it to replace the sodium lost through sweat.Julie Revelant is a freelance writer specializing in parenting, health, food and women's issues and a mom. Learn more about Julie at revelantwriting.com.source : http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/05/26/how-to-keep-your-kid-healthy-this-summer/

Pfizer takes its shot at a vaccine for evasive MRSA superbug

Kathrin Jansen is a microbiologist with at least two breakthrough vaccines to her name: she brought the cervical cancer vaccine Gardasil to market for Merck and helped develop the $4 billion a year pneumonia and meningitis vaccine Prevnar 13 for Pfizer. Jansen's next vaccine success could come by taming the superbug MRSA, a drug-resistant bacterium that she has seen ravage a healthy man up close and personally. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infects an estimated 53 million people globally and costs more than $20 billion a year to treat. In the United States alone, MRSA kills 20,000 Americans each year, exceeding annual deaths from AIDS. Jansen watched the infection unfold two years ago when visiting her stepfather, who was in the hospital for a hip replacement. The man in the bed next door died soon after MRSA attacked the vascular graft in his leg. “He went in healthy and died very quickly,” recalls Jansen, senior vice president of vaccine research and early development at Pfizer Inc, the world's largest drug maker. She says the experience steeled her resolve to develop an effective vaccine that could prevent such deaths. But Staphylococcus aureus has proven a tenacious adversary. In the past decade, vaccine candidates by Nabi Biopharmaceuticals and Merck & Co Inc failed in costly, late-stage clinical trials. Now, led by Jansen, Pfizer is taking a shot. Competitors, including vaccine giants GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis and Sanofi, are, too. And while the race could lead to a viable vaccine, potentially worth billions in sales, critics say companies may be risking costly failure with so much work on a bacterium that is still barely understood. 'Bag of trouble' Staph has been living in and on its human hosts for centuries. At any given time, 25 to 35 percent of individuals will test positive for staph, often with no symptoms. But the bacterium can cause a range of diseases from boils and impetigo to raging blood infections and deadly bacterial pneumonia. The discovery of penicillin in 1928 gave doctors a way to defeat staph infections, but overuse and misuse gave rise to drug-resistant staph. Methicillin was developed to overcome drug-resistance, but by the 1960s, staph evolved new defenses to overcome this more powerful version of penicillin. Thus began the decades-long battle against methicillin-resistant staph, now the most common cause of hospital-acquired infections that is increasingly spreading into army barracks, prisons and daycare centers. Dr. Bill Gruber, a Pfizer senior vice president who led clinical trials for Prevnar 13 and is running the company's Staph aureus trials, thinks of the bacterium as “a little bag of trouble.” “Basically, it has a number of different toxins and defenses to try to defeat you.” That may explain why vaccines from Nabi and Merck failed. Both tried to defeat this bug by attacking on just one front. The vaccine by Nabi, now Biota Pharmaceuticals, focused only on the sugar capsule the bacteria make to hide from the immune system, while Merck's focused on a single protein that helps staph gets its nutrition. Neither lived up to expectations. “We've learned that just focusing on one target of Staph aureus might not be sufficient,” said Dr. Buddy Creech, an infectious diseases expert at Vanderbilt University. It takes stamina Jansen has been working on a Staph aureus vaccine for the past decade, first at Merck, then at Wyeth, and now at Pfizer. The East German-born scientist - who fled to the West in 1960 and earned her PhD in biology at Philipps University in Marburg - says it takes stamina to develop a successful vaccine, a process that can take 15 years or more. With the cervical cancer vaccine Gardasil, which had 2012 sales of $1.6 billion, it took 14 years from lab bench to government approval. “That's actually a fast development program,” she said. With Staph aureus, it took eight years from the first experiments to human safety trials. Now, it could take another seven to 10 years to wind up clinical trials, putting the team about midway through the process. Pfizer's initial vaccine targeted three mechanisms key to staph's survival and ability to cause disease. Two of those focused on sugar capsules. The third attacks a mechanism called “clumping factor,” which allows bacteria to stick to proteins when they enter the body. But Jansen's team wanted one more point of attack. They added a fourth antigen, a protein that allows the bacterium to steal manganese - a key nutrient - from host cells. The result is a four-antigen vaccine that generates antibody responses at distinct points of the life cycle of the bug. The company is testing this in Phase 1/Phase 2 trials in healthy adults in the United States. If Pfizer gets the results they hope for, likely later this year, the company expects to meet with regulators to iron out a plan for larger trials involving thousands of individuals. Initially, the vaccine would be aimed at preventing infections in millions of people globally who need elective procedures such as a hip replacement. Ultimately, it could be used to protect people at risk in the broader community. Rival vaccines Pfizer is furthest along, but the large, untapped market, estimated to be worth $3 billion to $4 billion a year, has drawn interest from several companies. GlaxoSmithKline has been quiet about its approach. The drugmaker had been partnering with Nabi's failed StaphVax candidate, and in 2009 bought another Nabi candidate called PentaStaph for $46 million. Company researchers declined to discuss their program, but Glaxo spokeswoman Melinda Stubbee confirmed the company has a four-component vaccine in Phase 1 development. “We are still evaluating the data and haven't yet announced plans to present the data or to pursue further development,” she said. NovaDigm Therapeutics, a private company based in Grand Forks, North Dakota, is developing a single-antigen vaccine that targets both staph and yeast infections caused by the fungus Candida. Other rivals with early-stage programs include Novartis, which has a vaccine in Phase 1 trials, and Sanofi, which is partnering with privately held biotech Syntiron. Although academic researchers applaud these efforts, they say companies may be rushing into trials too soon, especially when so much is unknown about how staph interacts with people. “Our development of Staphylococcal vaccines has predated an adequate understanding of the human response to infection,” Creech said. For instance, it is still not clear whether a Staph aureus vaccine that protects against skin infections will also protect individuals from bloodstream infections. It may be that instead of preventing infection, some vaccines will merely blunt infection. Dr. Robert Daum, who leads the MRSA Research Center at the University of Chicago Medical Center, doubts any of the current candidates will make it into widespread use. “I am convinced we need a vaccine. I'm just not sure anyone knows how to make one yet.” Jansen, who knows Daum, said she understands his skepticism. “I'm a microbiologist. I know bacteria pretty well. They are very potent adversaries.” She says there's a reason the company was not the first out of the gate. “We wanted to make sure that we looked under all the rocks and found what we needed to find.” Tests in animals and people suggest the vaccine induces production of antibodies that defeat staph's defenses and kill the bacteria. “To our knowledge, we are the only ones who have demonstrated very, very robust killing responses.” That was enough for Jansen. “We essentially said, 'That's it. We put it together as best as we know how. Now is the time to test it.'”source : http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/05/23/pfizer-takes-its-shot-at-vaccine-for-evasive-mrsa-superbug/