Diet Rich in Whole Grains Might Extend Your Life, Study Says

Findings held even after researchers accounted for person's weight, age and smoking status

By Dennis Thompson

HealthDay Reporter

MONDAY, Jan. 5, 2015 (HealthDay News) -- Over time, regularly eating whole wheat bread, oatmeal or other whole grains may add years to your lifespan, a new Harvard-led study concludes.

Whole grains are so healthy that a person's risk of an early death drops with every serving added to a daily diet, according to findings published online Jan. 5 in JAMA Internal Medicine.

"We saw clear evidence that the more whole grain intake, the lower the mortality rate is," said Dr. Qi Sun, an assistant professor of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health. "When we looked at risk of death from heart disease, there was an even stronger association."

The researchers estimate that every one-ounce serving of whole grains reduced a person's overall risk of an early death by 5 percent, and their risk of death from heart disease by 9 percent.

However, eating whole grains did not appear to affect a person's risk of death from cancer, the study noted.

Sun's team based the findings on data from two long-term health studies dating back to the mid-1980s involving more than 118,000 nurses and health professionals. In the studies, participants were required to fill out food and diet questionnaires every two to four years, which included questions about their whole grain intake.

Freshly harvested grains such as wheat, barley and oatmeal consist of three parts. An outer shell called the bran protects the seed. The germ is the small embryo inside the seed that could sprout into a new plant. And the endosperm -- by far the largest part of the seed -- is the potential food supply for a new plant started from the germ.

In refining grains to make processed flour, manufacturers typically strip away the bran and the germ -- leaving only the calorie-rich endosperm. But whole grain foods such as oatmeal, popcorn, brown rice and whole wheat bread and cereal contain all three parts of the seed.

Over 26 years, there were about 27,000 deaths among the people participating in the two studies, the researchers said.

View the original article here

Rotating Night Shift Work May Raise Risks of Heart Disease, Lung Cancer: Study

Research can't prove cause-and-effect, but does suggest a link

By Robert Preidt

HealthDay Reporter

MONDAY, Jan. 5, 2015 (HealthDay News) -- Working rotating night shifts may pose a threat to your health, a new study suggests.

The study defined rotating shift work as at least three nights spent working each month, in addition to days and evenings worked in the month.

In the new study, researchers led by Dr. Eva Schernhammer of Harvard Medical School tracked 22 years of data from about 75,000 nurses across the United States.

While the study couldn't prove cause-and-effect, it found that people who worked rotating night shifts for more than five years had an 11 percent increased risk of death from all causes.

The risk of death from heart disease was 19 percent higher among those who worked such shifts for six to 14 years, and 23 percent higher for those who worked such shifts for 15 or more years, Schernhammer's group found.

Nurses who worked rotating night shifts for 15 or more years also had a 25 percent higher risk of death from lung cancer, according to the study.

The findings are to be published in the March issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

According to the study authors, prior research has shown that night shift work is linked with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and cancer.

"These results add to prior evidence of a potentially detrimental relation of rotating night shift work and health and longevity," Schernhammer, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard and associate epidemiologist at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, said in a journal news release.

Further research is needed to learn how individual traits might interact with rotating night shift work to harm health, she added.

View the original article here

Binge Drinking May Weaken Immune System, Study Suggests

But whether this makes you more vulnerable to colds or flu isn't known

By Alan Mozes

HealthDay Reporter

MONDAY, Jan. 5, 2015 (HealthDay News) -- Young adults who engage in just one bout of binge drinking may experience a relatively quick and significant drop in their immune system function, a new small study indicates.

It's well-known that drinking ups injury risk, and this new study suggests that immune system impairment might also hamper recovery from those injuries.

"There's been plenty of research, mainly in animals, that has looked at what happens after alcohol has actually left the system, like the day after drinking," said study lead author Dr. Majid Afshar, an assistant professor in the departments of medicine and public health at Loyola University Health Systems in Maywood, Ill. "And it's been shown that if there is infection or injury, the body will be less well able to defend against it."

The new research, which was conducted while Afshar was at the University of Maryland, found immune system disruption occurs while alcohol is still in the system.

This could mean that if you already have an infection, binge drinking might make it worse, he said. Or it might make you more susceptible to a new infection. "It's hard to say for sure, but our findings suggest both are certainly possible," Afshar added.

The findings appear in the current online issue of Alcohol.

The U.S. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism defines binge drinking as drinking that brings blood alcohol concentration levels to 0.08 g/dL, which is the legal limit for getting behind the wheel. In general, men reach this level after downing five or more drinks within two hours; for women the number is four.

About one in six American adults binge-drinks about four times a month, with higher rates seen among young adults between 18 and 34, figures from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate.

To assess the impact of just one bout of binge drinking, investigators focused on eight women and seven men who were between 25 and 30 years old.

Although all the volunteers said they had engaged in binge drinking prior to the study, none had a personal or family history of alcoholism, and all were in good health.

View the original article here

Fertility Treatments Have Low Complication Rates, Study Finds

Improvements through the years have made these procedures safer, researchers say

By Mary Elizabeth Dallas

HealthDay Reporter

TUESDAY, Jan. 6, 2015 (HealthDay News) -- Assisted reproductive technology -- or fertility treatments -- to help conceive a baby is growing safer in the United States and is now a low-risk procedure, according to a new study.

The researchers found the risk of complications was low for both "autologous procedures" -- where women use their own eggs -- as well as donor-assisted procedures.

As the use of assisted reproductive technology (ART) in the United States increases, efforts have been made to improve patient safety. These safety measures include using less aggressive medication regimens to stimulate ovulation. And egg retrieval before ovulation is no longer done through laparoscopic surgery, but through a less invasive vaginal procedure, according to background information with the study.

To gain a better understanding of how these changes have improved ART complication rates, the researchers examined statistics and trends in reported complications from both patients and donors involved in fresh (not frozen) assisted reproductive technology.

The findings were published in the Jan. 6 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

The decade-long review, led by Dr. Jennifer Kawwass of the Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, spanned the years 2000 to 2011. It was based on a surveillance system established by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the study authors noted in a journal news release.

The researchers said reported complications had to be directly related to assisted reproductive technology and take place within 12 weeks of the procedure. Possible problems included infection, bleeding, complications related to anesthesia, hospitalization, and death.

Among nearly 1.2 million ART cycles where women used their own eggs, the most commonly reported patient complications were ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) -- an overreaction to ovarian stimulation -- and hospitalization.

"Increased awareness of the most common complication, OHSS, may prompt additional study to characterize predictors of this and other adverse events to inform the development of effective approaches necessary to decrease complication occurrence," the study authors wrote.

The researchers noted that rates of all other complications remained below 10 per 10,000 cycles.

The study authors said they identified 58 deaths associated with ART during the study period. Of these, 18 deaths were related to ovarian stimulation and 40 others occurred before delivery. Overall, the death rates for women who had an ART-conceived live birth ranged from 14.2 per 100,000 in 2004 to 1.6 per 100,000 in 2008.

View the original article here

Type 1 Diabetes Linked to Lower Life Expectancy in Study

But, second study suggests that intensive blood sugar management can make a difference

By Dennis Thompson

HealthDay Reporter

TUESDAY, Jan. 6, 2015 (HealthDay News) -- People with type 1 diabetes today lose more than a decade of life to the chronic disease, despite improved treatment of both diabetes and its complications, a new Scottish study reports.

Men with type 1 diabetes lose about 11 years of life expectancy compared to men without the disease. And, women with type 1 diabetes have their lives cut short by about 13 years, according to a report published in the Jan. 6 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

The findings "provide a more up-to-date quantification of how much type 1 diabetes cuts your life span now, in our contemporary era," said senior author Dr. Helen Colhoun, a clinical professor in the diabetes epidemiology unit of the University of Dundee School of Medicine in Scotland.

Diabetes' impact on heart health appeared to be the largest single cause of lost years, according to the study. But, the researchers also found that type 1 diabetics younger than 50 are dying in large numbers from conditions caused by issues in management of the disease -- diabetic coma caused by critically low blood sugar, and ketoacidosis caused by a lack of insulin in the body.

"These conditions really reflect the day-to-day challenge that people with type 1 diabetes continue to face, how to get the right amount of insulin delivered at the right time to deal with your blood sugar levels," Colhoun said.

A second study, also in JAMA, suggested that some of these early deaths might be avoided with intensive blood sugar management.

In that paper, researchers reduced patients' overall risk of premature death by about a third, compared with diabetics receiving standard care, by conducting multiple blood glucose tests throughout the day and constantly adjusting insulin levels to hit very specific blood sugar levels.

"Across the board, individuals who had better glucose control due to intensive therapy had increased survival," said co-author Dr. Samuel Dagogo-Jack, chief of the division of endocrinology, diabetes and metabolism at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis.

View the original article here

Random Mutations Responsible for About Two-Thirds of Cancer Risk: Study

Cancer often linked to 'bad luck,' Hopkins researchers say

By Mary Elizabeth Dallas

HealthDay Reporter

THURSDAY, Jan. 1, 2015 (HealthDay News) -- Although about one-third of cancers can be linked to environmental factors or inherited genes, new research suggests the remaining two-thirds may be caused by random mutations.

These mutations take place when stem cells divide, according to the study by researchers at Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center. Stem cells regenerate and replace cells that die off. If stem cells make random mistakes and mutate during this cell division, cancer can develop. The more of these mistakes that happen, the greater a person's risk that cells will grow out of control and develop into cancer, the study authors explained in a Hopkins news release.

Although unhealthy lifestyle choices, such as smoking, are a contributing factor, the researchers concluded that the "bad luck" of random mutations plays a key role in the development of many forms of cancer.

"All cancers are caused by a combination of bad luck, the environment and heredity, and we've created a model that may help quantify how much of these three factors contribute to cancer development," said Dr. Bert Vogelstein, professor of oncology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.

"Cancer-free longevity in people exposed to cancer-causing agents, such as tobacco, is often attributed to their 'good genes,' but the truth is that most of them simply had good luck," added Vogelstein, who is also co-director of the Ludwig Center at Johns Hopkins and an investigator at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.

The researchers said their findings might not only change the way people perceive their risk for cancer, but also funding for cancer research.

Cristian Tomasetti is a biomathematician and assistant professor of oncology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and Bloomberg School of Public Health. "If two-thirds of cancer incidence across tissues is explained by random DNA mutations that occur when stem cells divide, then changing our lifestyle and habits will be a huge help in preventing certain cancers, but this may not be as effective for a variety of others," Tomasetti said in the news release.

View the original article here

Weight-Loss Surgery May Extend Lives, Study Finds

Results applied to older men and women, even with other health problems

By Steven Reinberg

HealthDay Reporter

TUESDAY, Jan. 6, 2015 (HealthDay News) -- Weight-loss surgery appears to prolong life for severely obese adults, a new study of U.S. veterans finds.

Among 2,500 obese adults who underwent so-called bariatric surgery, the death rate was about 14 percent after 10 years compared with almost 24 percent for obese patients who didn't have weight-loss surgery, researchers found.

"Patients with severe obesity can have greater confidence that bariatric surgical procedures are associated with better long-term survival than not having surgery," said lead researcher Dr. David Arterburn, an associate investigator with the Group Health Research Institute in Seattle.

Earlier studies have shown better survival among younger obese women who had weight-loss surgery, but this study confirms this finding in older men and women who suffer from other health problems, such as diabetes and high blood pressure, he said.

The findings were published Jan. 6 in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

"We were not able to determine in our study the reasons why veterans lived longer after surgery than they did without surgery," Arterburn said. "However, other research suggests that bariatric surgery reduces the risk of diabetes, heart disease and cancer, which may be the main ways that surgery prolongs life."

Dr. John Lipham, chief of upper gastrointestinal and general surgery at the Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said that patients who have weight-loss surgery usually see their diabetes disappear.

"This by itself is going to provide a survival benefit," he said. Shedding excess weight also lowers blood pressure and cholesterol levels and reduces the odds of developing heart disease, he said.

"If you are obese and unable to lose weight on your own, bariatric surgery should be considered," Lipham said.

Arterburn said most insurance plans including Medicare cover bariatric surgery.

As with any surgery, however, weight-loss surgery carries some risks. "The main risk from surgery is the risk of dying from a major complication such as bleeding or infection, which typically occurs in less than 0.3 percent of patients," Arterburn said.

View the original article here

Study Debunks Notion of 'Healthy Obesity'

Very heavy people slip into poor health over time, researchers find

By Dennis Thompson

HealthDay Reporter

MONDAY, Jan. 5, 2015 (HealthDay News) -- The notion of potentially healthy obesity is a myth, with most obese people slipping into poor health and chronic illness over time, a new British study claims.

The "obesity paradox" is a theory that argues obesity might improve some people's chances of survival over illnesses such as heart failure, said lead researcher Joshua Bell, a doctoral student in University College London's department of epidemiology and public health.

But research tracking the health of more than 2,500 British men and women for two decades found that half the people initially considered "healthy obese" wound up sliding into poor health as years passed.

"Healthy obesity is something that's a phase rather than something that's enduring over time," Bell said. "It's important to have a long-term view of healthy obesity, and to bear in mind the long-term tendencies. As long as obesity persists, health tends to decline. It does seem to be a high-risk state."

The obesity paradox springs from research involving people who are overweight but do not suffer from obesity-related problems such as high blood pressure, bad cholesterol and elevated blood sugar, said Dr. Andrew Freeman, director of clinical cardiology for National Jewish Health in Denver.

Some studies have found that people in this category seem to be less likely to die from heart disease and chronic kidney disease compared with folks with a lower body mass index, Freeman said -- even though science also has proven that obesity increases overall risk for heart disease, diabetes and some forms of cancer.

No one can say how the obesity paradox works, but some have speculated that people with extra weight might have extra energy stores they can draw upon if they become acutely ill, Freeman said.

To test this theory, University College London researchers tracked the health of 2,521 men and women between the ages of 39 and 62. They measured each participant's body mass index (a calculation based on height and weight), cholesterol, blood pressure, fasting blood sugar and insulin resistance, and ranked them as either healthy or unhealthy and obese or non-obese.

View the original article here

Kids With Bedroom Smartphones Sleep Less: Study

Experts recommend limiting use of small screen devices

By Alan Mozes

HealthDay Reporter

MONDAY, Jan. 5, 2015 (HealthDay News) -- A smartphone in a child's bedroom may undermine good sleep habits even more than a TV, new research suggests.

A study of more than 2,000 elementary and middle-school students found that having a smartphone or tablet in the bedroom was associated with less weekday sleep and feeling sleepy in the daytime.

"Studies have shown that traditional screens and screen time, like TV viewing, can interfere with sleep, but much less is known about the impacts of smartphones and other small screens," said study lead author Jennifer Falbe, of the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley.

Small screens are of particular concern because they provide access to a wide range of content, including games, videos, websites and texts, that can be used in bed and delay sleep, she said. They also emit audible notifications of incoming communications that may interrupt sleep.

"We found that both sleeping near a small screen and sleeping in a room with a TV set were related to shorter weekday sleep duration," Falbe noted. "Children who slept near a small screen, compared to those who did not, were also more likely to feel like they did not get enough sleep."

The findings were published online Jan. 5 and in the February print issue of the journal Pediatrics.

"Despite the importance of sleep to child health, development and performance in school, many children are not sleeping enough," Falbe said.

Preteen school-aged children need at least 10 hours of sleep each day, while teenagers need between nine and 10, the U.S. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute advises.

For this study, the researchers focused on the sleep habits of nearly 2,050 boys and girls who had participated in the Massachusetts Childhood Obesity Research Demonstration Study in 2012-2013.

The children were in the fourth or seventh grade in one of 29 schools. More than two-thirds of the children were white, and roughly one-fifth were Hispanic.

All were asked about electronic devices in the bedroom, what time they went to bed, what time they woke up, and how many days over the prior week they felt they needed more sleep.

View the original article here

Study: HPV Vaccine Doesn't Increase Risk for Multiple Sclerosis

Researchers say findings provide more evidence supporting safety of the cervical cancer inoculation

By Mary Elizabeth Dallas

HealthDay Reporter

TUESDAY, Jan. 6, 2015 (HealthDay News) -- The HPV vaccine for cervical cancer and other diseases doesn't increase the risk for multiple sclerosis or other central nervous system disorders, according to a new study.

More than 175 million doses of HPV vaccines have been distributed worldwide to girls and young women -- and more recently males -- since 2006. Unconfirmed reports in social and news media suggested the possibility of some safety concerns about the vaccine, including increased risk for multiple sclerosis and similar diseases, according to background information with the study.

To investigate this possible risk, researchers led by Nikolai Madrid Scheller, of the Statens Serum Institute in Copenhagen, Denmark, examined data on nearly 4 million Danish and Swedish girls and women from 2006 to 2013. The participants ranged in age from 10 to 44 years.

Using national registers, the researchers analyzed information on HPV vaccination, diagnoses of multiple sclerosis and similar central nervous system disorders.

Of all the girls and women included in the study, approximately 789,000 received an HPV vaccine over the course of the review period, for a total of slightly more than 1.9 million doses.

Between 2006 and 2013, just over 4,300 of the participants were diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. Of these cases, 73 occurred within the two-year risk period for side effects after vaccination. The researchers also identified 3,300 cases of similar diseases, with 90 occurring within the two-year risk period.

The researchers concluded the HPV vaccine does not increase the risk for multiple sclerosis or similar diseases that cause damage to the protective covering -- called myelin -- that surrounds nerve cells.

The findings appear in the Jan. 6 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

"Our study adds to the body of data that support a favorable overall safety profile of the [HPV] vaccine and expands on this knowledge by providing comprehensive analyses of multiple sclerosis and other demyelinating diseases," the study authors wrote.

They added that, given the size of the study population and the random use of nationwide registry data from Denmark and Sweden, it's likely that the findings are applicable to women in other countries.

There are two vaccines available to help protect against the sexually transmitted human papillomavirus (HPV) in the United States: Cervarix and Gardasil. Both vaccines are available for girls, but only Gardasil is available for boys, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The CDC recommends all boys and girls aged 11 and 12 get the three-dose vaccine so that protection is in place before they become sexually active.

View the original article here

Knee Arthritis Drugs Beat Placebos, but Study Finds No Clear Winner

Injections were rated slightly more effective at fighting pain than pills

By Amy Norton

HealthDay Reporter

TUESDAY, Jan. 6, 2015 (HealthDay News) -- Pain-relieving treatments for knee arthritis all work better than doing nothing -- but it's hard to point to a clear winner, a new research review concluded.

Using data from almost 140 studies, researchers found all of the widely used arthritis treatments -- from over-the-counter painkillers to pain-relieving injections -- brought more relief to aching knees over three months than did placebo pills.

But there were some surprises in the study, according to lead researcher Dr. Raveendhara Bannuru, of Tufts Medical Center in Boston.

Overall, the biggest benefit came from injections of hyaluronic acid (HA) -- a treatment some professional medical groups consider only marginally effective.

Hyaluronic acid is a lubricating substance found naturally in the joints. Over the years, studies have been mixed as to whether injections of synthetic HA help arthritic joints, and the treatment remains under debate.

Bannuru cautioned that despite his team's positive findings, it's not clear whether hyaluronic acid itself deserves the credit.

That's because his team found a large "placebo effect" across the HA studies. Patients who received injections of an inactive substance often reported pain relief, too. As a whole, they did better than people in other trials who were given placebo pills.

According to Bannuru's team, that suggests there is something about the "delivery method" -- injections into the knee joint, whatever the substance -- that helps ease some people's pain.

But there's no clear explanation for why that would be, Bannuru said.

He and his colleagues report their findings in the Jan. 6 issue of Annals of Internal Medicine.

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, at least 27 million Americans have osteoarthritis -- the "wear and tear" form of arthritis where the cartilage cushioning a joint breaks down. The knees are among the most commonly affected joints.

In the earlier stages of knee arthritis, doctors often recommend oral painkillers like acetaminophen (Tylenol) or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), such as ibuprofen (Advil, Motrin) and naproxen (Aleve).

Injections are another option -- either with hyaluronic acid or the anti-inflammatory drug cortisone.

View the original article here