The following article will be featured on an upcoming episode of Dr. Asa on Call with Dr. Asa Andrew:
Nutritional labels will be mandatory on 40 popular cuts of meat and poultry products beginning in 2012, a measure the U.S. Department of Agriculture said on Wednesday will make it easier for consumers to understand the content of the foods they buy.
USDA said the nutritional information will be required for major cuts of raw, single-ingredient meat and poultry products. These include whole or boneless chicken breasts, beef whole cuts such as brisket or tenderloin steak, and hamburger and ground turkey.
"More and more, busy American families want nutrition information that they can quickly and easily understand," Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said. "We need to do all we can to provide nutrition labels that will help consumers make informed decisions."
The nutritional panels will include the number of calories and the grams of total fat and saturated fat a product contains. A product that has a lean percentage statement, such as "76 percent lean," on its label also will list its fat percentage.
The new measure goes into effect on January 1, 2012.
The National Cattlemen's Beef Association said in a statement it supported showing the nutritional content of beef products on a label. But Kristina Butts, NCBA's executive director of legislative affairs, said the industry needed more time to implement the new requirements.
"While NCBA believes consumers have the right to know what nutrients are found in meat, we also realize retailers and others in the food-production chain will face significant new costs associated with this final rule," said Butts.
"We wish USDA would have granted our request for an 18- to 24-month implementation period," she said.
To hear more of Dr. Asa Andrew, join him for Dr. Asa on Call or log onto www.drasa.com
In Study, Babies Fed Protein Hydrolysate Formula Gained Weight at a Normal Pace
The following article will be featured this week on Dr. Asa on Call with Dr. Asa Andrew:
Researchers report that infants fed cow milk formula gained more weight more quickly than infants fed protein hydrolysate formulas, which are also known as hypoallergenic formulas meant for babies that have problems digesting certain proteins. The proteins in the formula have already been broken down to make digestion easier.
Investigators led by Julie Mennella, PhD, from the Philadelphia-based Monell Chemical Senses Center, a research institute dedicated to studying the chemistry behind taste and smell, compared the benefits of drinking cow milk formula vs. protein hydrolysate formula.
Sixty-four healthy infants aged 0.5 months to 7.5 months were randomly assigned to one of the formulas for seven months. Infants were weighed and measured once a month to assess their growth. The two groups of infants were similar in birth weight and length at birth. Feeding time lengths were also similar between the two groups; the infants were also introduced to solid foods at about the same time.
Differences in the rate of weight gain appeared as early as two months after starting the study. Although infants fed the protein hydrolysate formula gained weight at a normal pace, infants fed the cow's milk formula gained more weight more quickly. Overall, the protein-hydrolysate-formula-fed infants had lower weight-for length scores than those children given cow’s milk formula.
The researchers proposed a few theories to explain the differences in weight gain between the two groups.
“Infants may dislike the taste of protein hydrolysate formula and consequently consume less, thereby gaining weight more slowly,” the authors wrote. It’s also possible the higher-protein content of this particular formula made infants feel fuller quicker, so they didn’t need to eat as much. Researchers also question whether the amino acids in protein hydrolysate formula may play a role in absorption and metabolism. All of these theories would require further evaluation.
“Longer-term effects of hydrolyzed protein diets, which are relatively new in the human food supply and are growing in use, also need to be investigated,” the researchers write. “Because dietary and nutritional programming can have long-term consequences in terms of later development of obesity, diabetes, and other diseases, it is imperative that we learn more about the long-term consequences of the early growth differences caused by environmental triggers, such as those associated with infant formulas, and how and why they differ from breastfeeding, which is the optimal mode of feeding
To hear more of Dr. Asa Andrew, join him for Dr. Asa on Call or log onto www.drasa.com
Researchers report that infants fed cow milk formula gained more weight more quickly than infants fed protein hydrolysate formulas, which are also known as hypoallergenic formulas meant for babies that have problems digesting certain proteins. The proteins in the formula have already been broken down to make digestion easier.
Investigators led by Julie Mennella, PhD, from the Philadelphia-based Monell Chemical Senses Center, a research institute dedicated to studying the chemistry behind taste and smell, compared the benefits of drinking cow milk formula vs. protein hydrolysate formula.
Sixty-four healthy infants aged 0.5 months to 7.5 months were randomly assigned to one of the formulas for seven months. Infants were weighed and measured once a month to assess their growth. The two groups of infants were similar in birth weight and length at birth. Feeding time lengths were also similar between the two groups; the infants were also introduced to solid foods at about the same time.
Differences in the rate of weight gain appeared as early as two months after starting the study. Although infants fed the protein hydrolysate formula gained weight at a normal pace, infants fed the cow's milk formula gained more weight more quickly. Overall, the protein-hydrolysate-formula-fed infants had lower weight-for length scores than those children given cow’s milk formula.
The researchers proposed a few theories to explain the differences in weight gain between the two groups.
“Infants may dislike the taste of protein hydrolysate formula and consequently consume less, thereby gaining weight more slowly,” the authors wrote. It’s also possible the higher-protein content of this particular formula made infants feel fuller quicker, so they didn’t need to eat as much. Researchers also question whether the amino acids in protein hydrolysate formula may play a role in absorption and metabolism. All of these theories would require further evaluation.
“Longer-term effects of hydrolyzed protein diets, which are relatively new in the human food supply and are growing in use, also need to be investigated,” the researchers write. “Because dietary and nutritional programming can have long-term consequences in terms of later development of obesity, diabetes, and other diseases, it is imperative that we learn more about the long-term consequences of the early growth differences caused by environmental triggers, such as those associated with infant formulas, and how and why they differ from breastfeeding, which is the optimal mode of feeding
To hear more of Dr. Asa Andrew, join him for Dr. Asa on Call or log onto www.drasa.com
Moms-to-Be Who Take Iron, Folic Acid Have Smarter Babies
The following article will be featured on an upcoming episode of Dr. Asa on Call with Dr. Asa Andrew:
While most American women of childbearing age already know that taking folic acid supplements before and during pregnancy is essential in helping prevent neural tube defects, they probably don't know that folic acid, when combined with iron supplements, may make children smarter. At least that's what a new study on mothers and children in rural Nepal suggests.
The research, published in the latest issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, found that when mothers in Nepal took iron and folic acid supplements before and during pregnancy, their children showed greater cognitive and motor skills when compared to children whose mothers did not receive prenatal supplements.
The study followed 676 children in a double-blind, randomized controlled trial of micronutrient supplementation given between 1999 and 2001. Researchers followed up with the children at ages 7 to 9. The children whose mothers had received prenatal supplements of folic acid and iron showed stronger cognitive ability, higher reasoning skills, better motor skills and enhanced inhibitory control when compared to their study group peers whose mothers had not taken supplements.
One of the study researchers, Laura Murray-Kolb, assistant professor at Penn State University and adjunct associate professor at Johns Hopkins University, told AOL Health that studies in rodents had already shown that iron deficiency during gestation can alter neurotransmitters in the brain, often impacting the speed of information processing. The study in Nepal suggests the same may be true in humans.
Even more than that, however, it points to the need for better prenatal care in developing nations. "We need effective, low-cost prental programs that can be implemented at the community level," Murray-Kolb says. "A lot of these women are not seeing physicians."
But the problem doesn't exist solely in developing nations. "We see this issue even in the U.S.," says Murray-Kolb. "Most women here are not entering pregnancy with the level of deficiency of women in Nepal, but previous studies have shown that as many as 30 percent of women in the U.S. are anemic by the end of pregnancy."
"Women are getting the message about prenatals," Murray-Kolb says, "but they tend to become more lax about it as pregnancy progresses." And that's not a good thing. While folic acid supplements are most important before and during the early months of pregnancy, iron supplementation is most critical at the end.
The World Health Organization estimates that in developing countries, some 50 percent of pregnant women are anemic. This latest study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
To hear more of Dr. Asa Andrew, join him for Dr. Asa on Call or log onto www.drasa.com
While most American women of childbearing age already know that taking folic acid supplements before and during pregnancy is essential in helping prevent neural tube defects, they probably don't know that folic acid, when combined with iron supplements, may make children smarter. At least that's what a new study on mothers and children in rural Nepal suggests.
The research, published in the latest issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, found that when mothers in Nepal took iron and folic acid supplements before and during pregnancy, their children showed greater cognitive and motor skills when compared to children whose mothers did not receive prenatal supplements.
The study followed 676 children in a double-blind, randomized controlled trial of micronutrient supplementation given between 1999 and 2001. Researchers followed up with the children at ages 7 to 9. The children whose mothers had received prenatal supplements of folic acid and iron showed stronger cognitive ability, higher reasoning skills, better motor skills and enhanced inhibitory control when compared to their study group peers whose mothers had not taken supplements.
One of the study researchers, Laura Murray-Kolb, assistant professor at Penn State University and adjunct associate professor at Johns Hopkins University, told AOL Health that studies in rodents had already shown that iron deficiency during gestation can alter neurotransmitters in the brain, often impacting the speed of information processing. The study in Nepal suggests the same may be true in humans.
Even more than that, however, it points to the need for better prenatal care in developing nations. "We need effective, low-cost prental programs that can be implemented at the community level," Murray-Kolb says. "A lot of these women are not seeing physicians."
But the problem doesn't exist solely in developing nations. "We see this issue even in the U.S.," says Murray-Kolb. "Most women here are not entering pregnancy with the level of deficiency of women in Nepal, but previous studies have shown that as many as 30 percent of women in the U.S. are anemic by the end of pregnancy."
"Women are getting the message about prenatals," Murray-Kolb says, "but they tend to become more lax about it as pregnancy progresses." And that's not a good thing. While folic acid supplements are most important before and during the early months of pregnancy, iron supplementation is most critical at the end.
The World Health Organization estimates that in developing countries, some 50 percent of pregnant women are anemic. This latest study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
To hear more of Dr. Asa Andrew, join him for Dr. Asa on Call or log onto www.drasa.com
Teen birthrate at lowest point in seven decades
The following article will be featured on an upcoming episode of Dr. Asa on Call with Dr. Asa Andrew:
Teenagers are giving birth at the lowest rates noted in seven decades of record-keeping, according to statistics from the federal government released Tuesday.
The report doesn't speculate on why the birthrate has fallen, but two decades of public-health initiatives to curb teenage pregnancy may be paying dividends. The National Center for Health Statistics report shows that the teen birthrate fell to 39.1 births per 1,000 teenagers ages 15 to 19 in 2009. That's a 6% drop from 2008 and the lowest rate since 1940. In 1991, in contrast, the rate was 61.8 per 1,000.
Birthrates fell for groups that have had the highest rates, including Hispanics, whose rate fell 10% but still stands at 70.1 births per 1,000.
Other birth data:
The overall birthrate for all U.S. women fell for the second straight year. The decline appears to be continuing, based on data for the first half of 2010.
About 41% of births were to unmarried mothers in 2009, up from 40.6% in 2008.
The birthrate for women in their early 20s fell 7% and now stands at the lowest rate since 1973.
The preterm birthrate continued its much-need improvement -- falling for the third straight year.
The cesearean section rate reached a new high of 32.9%. It has increased every year since 1996, when the rate was 20.7%.
To hear more of Dr. Asa Andrew join him for Dr. Asa on Call or log onto www.drasa.com
Teenagers are giving birth at the lowest rates noted in seven decades of record-keeping, according to statistics from the federal government released Tuesday.
The report doesn't speculate on why the birthrate has fallen, but two decades of public-health initiatives to curb teenage pregnancy may be paying dividends. The National Center for Health Statistics report shows that the teen birthrate fell to 39.1 births per 1,000 teenagers ages 15 to 19 in 2009. That's a 6% drop from 2008 and the lowest rate since 1940. In 1991, in contrast, the rate was 61.8 per 1,000.
Birthrates fell for groups that have had the highest rates, including Hispanics, whose rate fell 10% but still stands at 70.1 births per 1,000.
Other birth data:
The overall birthrate for all U.S. women fell for the second straight year. The decline appears to be continuing, based on data for the first half of 2010.
About 41% of births were to unmarried mothers in 2009, up from 40.6% in 2008.
The birthrate for women in their early 20s fell 7% and now stands at the lowest rate since 1973.
The preterm birthrate continued its much-need improvement -- falling for the third straight year.
The cesearean section rate reached a new high of 32.9%. It has increased every year since 1996, when the rate was 20.7%.
To hear more of Dr. Asa Andrew join him for Dr. Asa on Call or log onto www.drasa.com
Study Gives 'Striking' Snapshot of Stroke Prognosis
The following article will be featured on an upcoming episode of "Dr. Asa on Call" with Dr. Asa Andrew:
Nearly two-thirds of Medicare patients who are discharged after having a stroke will die or be readmitted to the hospital within a year, according to a new study in the journal Stroke.
The findings are “striking,” says study author Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, the Eliot Corday Professor of Cardiovascular Medicine and Science and the director of the Ahmanson-UCLA Cardiomyopathy Center in Los Angeles.
Fonarow and colleagues analyzed the death and hospital readmission rates for more than 91,000 Medicare beneficiaries treated for ischemic stroke at 625 hospitals from April 2003 and December 2006. The most common type of stroke, ischemic strokes occur when blood flow to the brain is blocked.
In-hospital death rates are about 14% within a month and 30% within one year of hospital admission for stroke. Within one year of hospital discharge, the stroke death or readmission rate is close to 62%, the new study showed. There were no improvements in death or rehospitalization rates from 2003 to 2006.
There was variation in rates by hospital. For example, the 30-day death rate after admission for stroke was as low as 9.8% in the top-performing hospitals to 17.8% in the bottom-performing hospitals, the study showed.
There were also no significant differences in readmission or death rates in hospitals that were certified as primary stroke centers. A primary stroke center is a hospital that provides emergency care to people having a stroke or admits stroke patients and offers additional care or transfers patients to a comprehensive stroke center when needed.
Findings Likely Apply to All Senior Citizens With Stroke
The new study only looked at Medicare beneficiaries, but the findings are likely generalizable, Fonarow says.
About 65% of patients hospitalized for stroke are aged 65 or older, which is the age that most people become eligible for Medicare. “The [new] findings thus are likely generalizable to these patients, however, whether similar findings would be seen in younger patients needs further study,” he says.
The death and rehospitalization rates seen in the study are likely due to the severity of the stroke, presence of other related health problems, and the in-hospital and follow-up care, he says.
“Between of the acute presentation with an ischemic stroke and a readmission to the hospital or postdischarge death, a window of opportunity exists for interventions to reduce the burden of postischemic stroke morbidity and mortality,” he says.
Patrick Lyden, MD, chairman of the department of neurology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, says the findings likely apply to all senior citizens with stroke -- not just Medicare beneficiaries.
“It is very generalizable because most strokes occur in the Medicare-eligible population,” he says.
“Stroke patients are much more concerned about stroke-related disability,” he says. “What matters is are we making patients better. We need to be focusing on stroke-related disability and getting people treated in primary stroke centers.”
A clot-busting agent should be given as soon as possible after an ischemic stroke to reduce long-term damage, and this is more likely to be administered at a stroke center, he says.
Stroke warning signs include sudden numbness or weakness in the face, arm, or leg; sudden confusion, trouble speaking, sudden trouble walking, and/or a severe headache that comes on suddenly.
“Call 911 if you suspect a stroke,” Lyden says. “It is becoming more and more common for medics to direct people to stroke centers,” he says.
Aggressive Follow-up Care Can Lower Death, Readmission Rates After Stroke
Stroke is a slippery slope, says Irene Katzan, MD a stroke neurologist in the Neurological Institute at Cleveland Clinic and the director of Enterprise Stroke Systems in the Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation in Ohio.
“Stroke is a bad disease and occurs in patients who are often sick and have other comorbid diseases,” she says. People who have strokes are often left severely disabled, and when you are disabled, you are prone to readmission and death, she says.
“This paper provides an overall national picture of how bad the problem is, and this is the tip of the iceberg because most people don’t die from a stroke, but are left functionally disabled,” she says. “These findings are not surprising, but it is sobering to see it in print on a national scale,” Katzan tells WebMD.
But aggressive follow-up care can help make a dent in these sobering statistics, she says.
“Once you leave the hospital, you should follow up with a neurologist or primary care physician so they reduce the chance of death or readmitted,” she says.
To hear more of Dr. Asa Andrew, join him for Dr. Asa on Call or log onto www.drasa.com
Nearly two-thirds of Medicare patients who are discharged after having a stroke will die or be readmitted to the hospital within a year, according to a new study in the journal Stroke.
The findings are “striking,” says study author Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, the Eliot Corday Professor of Cardiovascular Medicine and Science and the director of the Ahmanson-UCLA Cardiomyopathy Center in Los Angeles.
Fonarow and colleagues analyzed the death and hospital readmission rates for more than 91,000 Medicare beneficiaries treated for ischemic stroke at 625 hospitals from April 2003 and December 2006. The most common type of stroke, ischemic strokes occur when blood flow to the brain is blocked.
In-hospital death rates are about 14% within a month and 30% within one year of hospital admission for stroke. Within one year of hospital discharge, the stroke death or readmission rate is close to 62%, the new study showed. There were no improvements in death or rehospitalization rates from 2003 to 2006.
There was variation in rates by hospital. For example, the 30-day death rate after admission for stroke was as low as 9.8% in the top-performing hospitals to 17.8% in the bottom-performing hospitals, the study showed.
There were also no significant differences in readmission or death rates in hospitals that were certified as primary stroke centers. A primary stroke center is a hospital that provides emergency care to people having a stroke or admits stroke patients and offers additional care or transfers patients to a comprehensive stroke center when needed.
Findings Likely Apply to All Senior Citizens With Stroke
The new study only looked at Medicare beneficiaries, but the findings are likely generalizable, Fonarow says.
About 65% of patients hospitalized for stroke are aged 65 or older, which is the age that most people become eligible for Medicare. “The [new] findings thus are likely generalizable to these patients, however, whether similar findings would be seen in younger patients needs further study,” he says.
The death and rehospitalization rates seen in the study are likely due to the severity of the stroke, presence of other related health problems, and the in-hospital and follow-up care, he says.
“Between of the acute presentation with an ischemic stroke and a readmission to the hospital or postdischarge death, a window of opportunity exists for interventions to reduce the burden of postischemic stroke morbidity and mortality,” he says.
Patrick Lyden, MD, chairman of the department of neurology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, says the findings likely apply to all senior citizens with stroke -- not just Medicare beneficiaries.
“It is very generalizable because most strokes occur in the Medicare-eligible population,” he says.
“Stroke patients are much more concerned about stroke-related disability,” he says. “What matters is are we making patients better. We need to be focusing on stroke-related disability and getting people treated in primary stroke centers.”
A clot-busting agent should be given as soon as possible after an ischemic stroke to reduce long-term damage, and this is more likely to be administered at a stroke center, he says.
Stroke warning signs include sudden numbness or weakness in the face, arm, or leg; sudden confusion, trouble speaking, sudden trouble walking, and/or a severe headache that comes on suddenly.
“Call 911 if you suspect a stroke,” Lyden says. “It is becoming more and more common for medics to direct people to stroke centers,” he says.
Aggressive Follow-up Care Can Lower Death, Readmission Rates After Stroke
Stroke is a slippery slope, says Irene Katzan, MD a stroke neurologist in the Neurological Institute at Cleveland Clinic and the director of Enterprise Stroke Systems in the Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation in Ohio.
“Stroke is a bad disease and occurs in patients who are often sick and have other comorbid diseases,” she says. People who have strokes are often left severely disabled, and when you are disabled, you are prone to readmission and death, she says.
“This paper provides an overall national picture of how bad the problem is, and this is the tip of the iceberg because most people don’t die from a stroke, but are left functionally disabled,” she says. “These findings are not surprising, but it is sobering to see it in print on a national scale,” Katzan tells WebMD.
But aggressive follow-up care can help make a dent in these sobering statistics, she says.
“Once you leave the hospital, you should follow up with a neurologist or primary care physician so they reduce the chance of death or readmitted,” she says.
To hear more of Dr. Asa Andrew, join him for Dr. Asa on Call or log onto www.drasa.com
After Inching Up for Years, Life Expectancy Drops Slightly
The following article will be featured on an upcoming episode of "Dr. Asa on Call" with Dr. Asa Andrew
The life expectancy for Americans has fallen by about a month after steadily rising for years, the government said.
A baby born in 2008 will live to be about 77.8 years old, which has dipped since its all-time peak of 77.9 years in 2007, according to a preliminary report released Thursday.
"For the first time in history, it is possible that total life expectancy will be higher for the parents than the children," longevity expert Dr. Walter M. Bortz, the author of "Living Longer for Dummies" and "Road Map to 100," told AOL Health. "I think it's the American lifestyle. In those counties [where the life expectancy is going down] the smoking rates and obesity rates are the highest."
Life expectancy also dropped slightly in 2005 and 1993. It was down in 2008 for both women and men, but women still live longer -- to about 80 years old compared to 75 for men.
The lead author of the report, issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics, said the 2008 decline is so small as to be insignificant. Arialdi Minino said it wouldn't be known for years whether it represented an actual trend.
"2008 was not much different from 2007," Minino told the Associated Press. "Once you look under the hood, and look at the trends and the causes, you do find differences. But overall, it wasn't that different."
While Bortz agreed it's wise to be cautious about the latest findings, he said a drop in U.S. life expectancy has been anticipated for a while.
"Everyone is looking for it to happen. We expect it's going to happen," he said. "It's predictable."
The gap between the life expectancy for blacks and whites shrank slightly, to 4.6-years. For the first time, black men's average age of death was above 70. Life expectancy data for Hispanics hasn't been included in the annual reports because the data hasn't been relialble, according to the CDC.
Emory University health policy professor Ken Thorpe said the minor dip in overall life expectancy could be because of skyrocketing obesity rates in the United States. But the cause for the decrease wasn't clear.
"It's something to keep our eyes on," Thorpe told the AP.
U.S. Life Expectancy Continues to Lag Behind Other Nations Female life expectancy on the drop in some U.S. counties Calculate your life expectancy Bortz said the solution is "behavior change."
"Have people walk, watch what they put in their mouth and how much they put in their mouth," he told AOL Health.
The CDC's report is based on almost all the death certificates for the year 2008. A final version will be released later.
The preliminary findings show that stroke dropped from its spot as the third leading cause of death for the first time in 50 years, replaced by chronic lower respiratory diseases like emphysema, persistent bronchitis and asthma.
Cancer and heart disease stayed put as the two top killers of people in the United States, contributing to half of all deaths.
Death rates fell for six of the 15 top causes of death: cancer, heart disease, stroke, murder, diabetes and accidents. Mortality rates rose for Alzheimer's disease, flu and pneumonia, suicide, kidney disease and high blood pressure.
The infant death rate dropped by about 2 percent to a record low of 6.59 deaths per 1,000 births.
To hear more of Dr. Asa Andrew, join him for "Dr. Asa on Call" or log onto www.drasa.com
The life expectancy for Americans has fallen by about a month after steadily rising for years, the government said.
A baby born in 2008 will live to be about 77.8 years old, which has dipped since its all-time peak of 77.9 years in 2007, according to a preliminary report released Thursday.
"For the first time in history, it is possible that total life expectancy will be higher for the parents than the children," longevity expert Dr. Walter M. Bortz, the author of "Living Longer for Dummies" and "Road Map to 100," told AOL Health. "I think it's the American lifestyle. In those counties [where the life expectancy is going down] the smoking rates and obesity rates are the highest."
Life expectancy also dropped slightly in 2005 and 1993. It was down in 2008 for both women and men, but women still live longer -- to about 80 years old compared to 75 for men.
The lead author of the report, issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics, said the 2008 decline is so small as to be insignificant. Arialdi Minino said it wouldn't be known for years whether it represented an actual trend.
"2008 was not much different from 2007," Minino told the Associated Press. "Once you look under the hood, and look at the trends and the causes, you do find differences. But overall, it wasn't that different."
While Bortz agreed it's wise to be cautious about the latest findings, he said a drop in U.S. life expectancy has been anticipated for a while.
"Everyone is looking for it to happen. We expect it's going to happen," he said. "It's predictable."
The gap between the life expectancy for blacks and whites shrank slightly, to 4.6-years. For the first time, black men's average age of death was above 70. Life expectancy data for Hispanics hasn't been included in the annual reports because the data hasn't been relialble, according to the CDC.
Emory University health policy professor Ken Thorpe said the minor dip in overall life expectancy could be because of skyrocketing obesity rates in the United States. But the cause for the decrease wasn't clear.
"It's something to keep our eyes on," Thorpe told the AP.
U.S. Life Expectancy Continues to Lag Behind Other Nations Female life expectancy on the drop in some U.S. counties Calculate your life expectancy Bortz said the solution is "behavior change."
"Have people walk, watch what they put in their mouth and how much they put in their mouth," he told AOL Health.
The CDC's report is based on almost all the death certificates for the year 2008. A final version will be released later.
The preliminary findings show that stroke dropped from its spot as the third leading cause of death for the first time in 50 years, replaced by chronic lower respiratory diseases like emphysema, persistent bronchitis and asthma.
Cancer and heart disease stayed put as the two top killers of people in the United States, contributing to half of all deaths.
Death rates fell for six of the 15 top causes of death: cancer, heart disease, stroke, murder, diabetes and accidents. Mortality rates rose for Alzheimer's disease, flu and pneumonia, suicide, kidney disease and high blood pressure.
The infant death rate dropped by about 2 percent to a record low of 6.59 deaths per 1,000 births.
To hear more of Dr. Asa Andrew, join him for "Dr. Asa on Call" or log onto www.drasa.com
U.S. Gets 'Unsatisfactory' Grade on Women's Health
The following article will be featured on an upcoming episode of Dr. Asa on Call with Dr. Asa Andrew
More women are binge drinking and fewer women are getting Pap smears to test for cervical cancer, a new analysis reveals. On a positive note, a lower proportion of women are dying of stroke, heart disease, lung cancer, and breast cancer.
The nation and most states continued to receive a grade of “unsatisfactory” on key issues affecting women’s health in an updated report released today by the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC).
For the fifth time this decade and the first time since 2007, the group has issued a national and state-by-state report card on the status of important health goals for women set a decade ago by federal officials in their Healthy People 2010 initiative.
As the end of the decade approaches, the analysis revealed that very few of these goals have been met.
The number of women in the nation receiving mammograms, the number being screened for colorectal cancer, and the number that had annual dental exams met or exceeded national goals for 2010.
But 23 other health objectives graded by NWLC will not have been met by the end of this year.
And several disturbing health trends have emerged over the last three years, including:
The percentage of women that reported one or more episodes of binge drinking within a month of being questioned increased to 10.6% from 7.3% in 2007. Binge drinking was defined as having five or more drinks on a single occasion.
The percentage of women that reported getting annual Pap smears declined from 86% to 78% during the same period.
The percentage of women that tested positive for the sexually transmitted infection chlamydia increased from 6.3% to 7.4%.
Compared to three years ago, a higher percentage of women in the U.S. are also obese and have high blood pressure and/or diabetes.
In 2010, 26.4% of women were obese, compared to 24% in 2007. Both figures fall far short of the goal of a 15% obesity rate by 2010 set by government health officials at the beginning of the decade.
State-by-State Findings
Colorado had the lowest obesity rate in the nation, at just below 20%; Mississippi had the highest, at 34%.
When states were ranked in terms of successful implementation of policies designed to address access to health care, California, Nevada, and Massachusetts came closest to meeting policy goals and Mississippi, Idaho, and South Dakota were at the bottom of the list.
The report noted that about 12% of Americans live in areas that are considered medically underserved. The state with the highest percentage of medically underserved residents was Louisiana, at 34%. The state with the lowest was New Jersey, at 1%.
Nationally, more than a third of women live in counties without an abortion provider, according to the report. Nineteen states restrict private insurers’ ability to cover abortions, and 26 require that a woman receive counseling before obtaining an abortion.
In a news conference held Wednesday, National Women’s Law Center vice president for health and reproductive rights Judy Waxman said health care reform is poised to address many of the access issues of concern.
She says of 68 policies dealing with insurance coverage and other aspects of access to medical, fully two-thirds are addressed to some degree by the new law, known as the Affordable Care Act.
“From 2000 to 2010 we have seen some improvements, some declines, but overall, unfortunately, we still have a long way to go in terms of women’s health in this country,” she said. “The Affordable Care Act holds enormous potential for expanding coverage and, over time, improving women’s health.”
To hear more of Dr. Asa Andrew, join him for Dr. Asa on Call or log onto www.drasa.com
More women are binge drinking and fewer women are getting Pap smears to test for cervical cancer, a new analysis reveals. On a positive note, a lower proportion of women are dying of stroke, heart disease, lung cancer, and breast cancer.
The nation and most states continued to receive a grade of “unsatisfactory” on key issues affecting women’s health in an updated report released today by the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC).
For the fifth time this decade and the first time since 2007, the group has issued a national and state-by-state report card on the status of important health goals for women set a decade ago by federal officials in their Healthy People 2010 initiative.
As the end of the decade approaches, the analysis revealed that very few of these goals have been met.
The number of women in the nation receiving mammograms, the number being screened for colorectal cancer, and the number that had annual dental exams met or exceeded national goals for 2010.
But 23 other health objectives graded by NWLC will not have been met by the end of this year.
And several disturbing health trends have emerged over the last three years, including:
The percentage of women that reported one or more episodes of binge drinking within a month of being questioned increased to 10.6% from 7.3% in 2007. Binge drinking was defined as having five or more drinks on a single occasion.
The percentage of women that reported getting annual Pap smears declined from 86% to 78% during the same period.
The percentage of women that tested positive for the sexually transmitted infection chlamydia increased from 6.3% to 7.4%.
Compared to three years ago, a higher percentage of women in the U.S. are also obese and have high blood pressure and/or diabetes.
In 2010, 26.4% of women were obese, compared to 24% in 2007. Both figures fall far short of the goal of a 15% obesity rate by 2010 set by government health officials at the beginning of the decade.
State-by-State Findings
Colorado had the lowest obesity rate in the nation, at just below 20%; Mississippi had the highest, at 34%.
When states were ranked in terms of successful implementation of policies designed to address access to health care, California, Nevada, and Massachusetts came closest to meeting policy goals and Mississippi, Idaho, and South Dakota were at the bottom of the list.
The report noted that about 12% of Americans live in areas that are considered medically underserved. The state with the highest percentage of medically underserved residents was Louisiana, at 34%. The state with the lowest was New Jersey, at 1%.
Nationally, more than a third of women live in counties without an abortion provider, according to the report. Nineteen states restrict private insurers’ ability to cover abortions, and 26 require that a woman receive counseling before obtaining an abortion.
In a news conference held Wednesday, National Women’s Law Center vice president for health and reproductive rights Judy Waxman said health care reform is poised to address many of the access issues of concern.
She says of 68 policies dealing with insurance coverage and other aspects of access to medical, fully two-thirds are addressed to some degree by the new law, known as the Affordable Care Act.
“From 2000 to 2010 we have seen some improvements, some declines, but overall, unfortunately, we still have a long way to go in terms of women’s health in this country,” she said. “The Affordable Care Act holds enormous potential for expanding coverage and, over time, improving women’s health.”
To hear more of Dr. Asa Andrew, join him for Dr. Asa on Call or log onto www.drasa.com
Georgia Tops U.S. in Seasonal Flu Activity
The following article will be featured on an upcoming episode of Dr. Asa On Call with Dr. Asa Andrew
Flu season is here, and so far Georgia is the state hit the hardest by this year’s influenza virus, according to the CDC.
“Georgia is reporting high levels of influenza-like activity,” Anne Schuchat, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said at a news conference. ” It gets a 10 of 10, and is leading the country in terms of what we will be seeing.”
The flu -- largely influenza type B -- has been reported throughout Georgia, and been seen mainly in school-aged children, she says.
In the U.S., flu season usually begins in the fall and runs through early spring. It peaks anywhere from late November through March.
“We know that the flu season has started here in Georgia, and there has been sporadic reporting of influenza-like viruses throughout the country,” including the Southeast region of the U.S. and some of the Western states, she says. “Places that don’t have as much flu as Georgia will.”
Flu Vaccine Matches This Year’s Strains
The good news is that this year’s flu vaccine, which is recommended for everyone older than 6 months, is likely a good match for this year’s flu, Schuchat says.
“Some H1N1, an A/H3N2 strain, and B-strains have been seen this year, [along with] a mixture of B strains and A strains that haven’t been characterized,” she says. This year’s vaccine protects against seasonal flu and the H1N1 swine flu. “Flu is unpredictable, but based on the viruses circulating so far, we do expect the vaccine to be a good match.”
As far as what type of flu season we can expect, Schuchat can’t predict, but there is ample vaccine to go around which can keep flu activity at a minimum.
Approximately 160 million doses of the vaccine have already been distributed nationwide, she says.
“Don’t be complacent because disease activity is low this year; flu is coming,” she says. “You don’t want to find out how bad the season is going to be before you get the flu vaccine.”
Schuchat says she is encouraged by the number of people who have already received a flu vaccine so far this season.
“We are a little ahead of last year’s seasonal flu vaccine, which we find encouraging because we haven’t had media talking back to back about flu,” she says. Last year, the H1N1 pandemic and a shortage of available vaccine generated many headlines.
“Flu activity is now increasing across the country and the flu season is now underway, so if you are thinking about influenza vaccine, now is a good time to do it,” says Howard Koh, MD, an assistant secretary for health in the Department of Health and Human Services.
This year’s National Influenza Vaccination Week is being observed on December 5-11.
To here more of Dr. Asa Andrew, join him for Dr. Asa on Call, or log onto www.drasa.com
Flu season is here, and so far Georgia is the state hit the hardest by this year’s influenza virus, according to the CDC.
“Georgia is reporting high levels of influenza-like activity,” Anne Schuchat, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said at a news conference. ” It gets a 10 of 10, and is leading the country in terms of what we will be seeing.”
The flu -- largely influenza type B -- has been reported throughout Georgia, and been seen mainly in school-aged children, she says.
In the U.S., flu season usually begins in the fall and runs through early spring. It peaks anywhere from late November through March.
“We know that the flu season has started here in Georgia, and there has been sporadic reporting of influenza-like viruses throughout the country,” including the Southeast region of the U.S. and some of the Western states, she says. “Places that don’t have as much flu as Georgia will.”
Flu Vaccine Matches This Year’s Strains
The good news is that this year’s flu vaccine, which is recommended for everyone older than 6 months, is likely a good match for this year’s flu, Schuchat says.
“Some H1N1, an A/H3N2 strain, and B-strains have been seen this year, [along with] a mixture of B strains and A strains that haven’t been characterized,” she says. This year’s vaccine protects against seasonal flu and the H1N1 swine flu. “Flu is unpredictable, but based on the viruses circulating so far, we do expect the vaccine to be a good match.”
As far as what type of flu season we can expect, Schuchat can’t predict, but there is ample vaccine to go around which can keep flu activity at a minimum.
Approximately 160 million doses of the vaccine have already been distributed nationwide, she says.
“Don’t be complacent because disease activity is low this year; flu is coming,” she says. “You don’t want to find out how bad the season is going to be before you get the flu vaccine.”
Schuchat says she is encouraged by the number of people who have already received a flu vaccine so far this season.
“We are a little ahead of last year’s seasonal flu vaccine, which we find encouraging because we haven’t had media talking back to back about flu,” she says. Last year, the H1N1 pandemic and a shortage of available vaccine generated many headlines.
“Flu activity is now increasing across the country and the flu season is now underway, so if you are thinking about influenza vaccine, now is a good time to do it,” says Howard Koh, MD, an assistant secretary for health in the Department of Health and Human Services.
This year’s National Influenza Vaccination Week is being observed on December 5-11.
To here more of Dr. Asa Andrew, join him for Dr. Asa on Call, or log onto www.drasa.com
Diabetes Cuts Years off Life Span of Americans
The following article will be featured on an upcoming episode of "Dr. Asa on Call" with Dr. Asa Andrew:
Diabetes cuts about 8.5 years off the life span of the average 50-year-old compared to a 50-year-old without diabetes, new research indicates.
The study also shows that older adults with diabetes have a lower life expectancy at every age compared to people who do not have the disease. For example, researchers say, the difference at age 60 is 5.4 years; it’s one year by 90.
The findings come from a new report commissioned by the National Academy on an Aging Society and was supported by Sanofi-aventis U.S., a pharmaceutical company. It was based on data provided by the Health and Retirement Study, a survey of more than 20,000 Americans over age 50 done every two years by the University of Michigan.
Slideshow: Type 2 Diabetes Overview
Increase in Diabetes
“Given the rise in diabetes among boomers and seniors, these findings are alarming,” Greg O’Neill, PhD, director of the National Academy on an Aging Society, says in a news release. “They paint a stark picture of the impact of diabetes and its complications on healthy aging.”
The study shows a significant increase over the past decade in the percentage of adults over age 50 with diabetes, from 11% of non-Hispanic whites in 1998 to 18% in 2008, coinciding with an alarming obesity epidemic affecting most population groups.
The increase among adult non-Hispanic blacks has been even more alarming, from 22% to 32% in the past 10 years, study researchers say.
Compared to older adults without diabetes, patients with the disease are less likely to be employed and more likely to have other health problems, such as heart disease, depression, and disabilities that get in the way of normal life activities, the researchers say.
Scott M. Lynch, PhD, of Princeton University’s Office of Population Research, analyzed data on more than 20,000 adults over the age of 50. The study, described as a “profile,” was written by Nancy Maddox, MPH, a co-founder of Maren Enterprises, a consulting firm specializing in technical and promotional writing in the field of public health.
Many Don’t Realize They Have Diabetes
The researchers say at least 7.8% of the U.S. population, or some 23.6 million people, have diabetes, including 5.7 million who don’t know they do.
The study also shows that:
23.1% of people 60 and older, or 12.2 million people, have diabetes.
By 2034, this number will increase to 44.1 million.
By the same year, 14.6 million people who are Medicare-eligible will have the disease.
Annual diabetes-related spending is expected to reach $336 billion in 2034, which is almost three times the amount spent in 2009.
In 2007, diagnosed diabetes cost the U.S. an estimated $116 billion in direct medical costs and $58 billion in reduced productivity.
People with diabetes are responsible for about 20% of U.S. health care expenditures.
By 2025, more than half of people with diabetes will be 65 and older, and if this trend continues, it will become primarily a geriatric disease. In 2000, people 65 and older accounted for 40% of U.S. diabetes cases.
The prevalence of diabetes is projected to more than double between 2005 and 2050 for U.S. residents 20 to 64 and increase 220% for people between 65 and 74. For people 75 and older the prevalence is expected to increase 449%.
Diabetes is more common among non-whites; African-Americans are more likely to develop the disease than either whites or Hispanics.
African-Americans are more likely to die from diabetes than either Hispanics or whites. The overall diabetes mortality rate is 41% higher for Hispanics than for whites and 113% higher for non-Hispanic blacks than for whites.
To hear more of Dr. Asa Andrew, join him for "Dr. Asa on Call" or log onto www.drasa.com
Diabetes cuts about 8.5 years off the life span of the average 50-year-old compared to a 50-year-old without diabetes, new research indicates.
The study also shows that older adults with diabetes have a lower life expectancy at every age compared to people who do not have the disease. For example, researchers say, the difference at age 60 is 5.4 years; it’s one year by 90.
The findings come from a new report commissioned by the National Academy on an Aging Society and was supported by Sanofi-aventis U.S., a pharmaceutical company. It was based on data provided by the Health and Retirement Study, a survey of more than 20,000 Americans over age 50 done every two years by the University of Michigan.
Slideshow: Type 2 Diabetes Overview
Increase in Diabetes
“Given the rise in diabetes among boomers and seniors, these findings are alarming,” Greg O’Neill, PhD, director of the National Academy on an Aging Society, says in a news release. “They paint a stark picture of the impact of diabetes and its complications on healthy aging.”
The study shows a significant increase over the past decade in the percentage of adults over age 50 with diabetes, from 11% of non-Hispanic whites in 1998 to 18% in 2008, coinciding with an alarming obesity epidemic affecting most population groups.
The increase among adult non-Hispanic blacks has been even more alarming, from 22% to 32% in the past 10 years, study researchers say.
Compared to older adults without diabetes, patients with the disease are less likely to be employed and more likely to have other health problems, such as heart disease, depression, and disabilities that get in the way of normal life activities, the researchers say.
Scott M. Lynch, PhD, of Princeton University’s Office of Population Research, analyzed data on more than 20,000 adults over the age of 50. The study, described as a “profile,” was written by Nancy Maddox, MPH, a co-founder of Maren Enterprises, a consulting firm specializing in technical and promotional writing in the field of public health.
Many Don’t Realize They Have Diabetes
The researchers say at least 7.8% of the U.S. population, or some 23.6 million people, have diabetes, including 5.7 million who don’t know they do.
The study also shows that:
23.1% of people 60 and older, or 12.2 million people, have diabetes.
By 2034, this number will increase to 44.1 million.
By the same year, 14.6 million people who are Medicare-eligible will have the disease.
Annual diabetes-related spending is expected to reach $336 billion in 2034, which is almost three times the amount spent in 2009.
In 2007, diagnosed diabetes cost the U.S. an estimated $116 billion in direct medical costs and $58 billion in reduced productivity.
People with diabetes are responsible for about 20% of U.S. health care expenditures.
By 2025, more than half of people with diabetes will be 65 and older, and if this trend continues, it will become primarily a geriatric disease. In 2000, people 65 and older accounted for 40% of U.S. diabetes cases.
The prevalence of diabetes is projected to more than double between 2005 and 2050 for U.S. residents 20 to 64 and increase 220% for people between 65 and 74. For people 75 and older the prevalence is expected to increase 449%.
Diabetes is more common among non-whites; African-Americans are more likely to develop the disease than either whites or Hispanics.
African-Americans are more likely to die from diabetes than either Hispanics or whites. The overall diabetes mortality rate is 41% higher for Hispanics than for whites and 113% higher for non-Hispanic blacks than for whites.
To hear more of Dr. Asa Andrew, join him for "Dr. Asa on Call" or log onto www.drasa.com
Every Excess Pound Gained Raises Risk of Death
The following article will be featured on an upcoming episode of Dr. Asa on Call with Dr. Asa Andrew:
Your risk of death rises steadily with every overweight pound you gain, a huge study funded by the National Institutes of Health confirms.
Even if you don't smoke and are in otherwise good health, your risk of death goes up 31% with every 5-point increase in BMI, a measure of body mass based on weight and height.
Just being a little bit overweight increases death risk. Compared to those with a normal-range BMI of 22.5 to 24.9:
A BMI of 25.0 to 29.9 increased death risk by 13%
A BMI of 30.0 to 34.9 increased death risk by 44%
A BMI of 35.0 to 39.9 increased death risk by 88%
A BMI of 40.0 to 49.9 increased death risk by 251%
Those figures are for women who do not smoke and who have no underlying disease. The risks are similar for men, note Amy Berrington de Gonzalez, DPhil, of the National Institutes of Health, and colleagues.
"We conclude that for non-Hispanic whites, both overweight and obesity are associated with increased all-cause mortality," they conclude. "All-cause mortality is generally lowest within the BMI range of 20.0 to 24.9."
BMI measured before age 50 had the strongest effect on death risk.
Being underweight may also increase death risk, but it's not clear whether underlying, undetected disease might account for this finding.
The study pooled data from 19 long-term studies that followed 1.46 million white adults for five to 28 years.
The strong statistical significance of the findings suggest that an earlier study of the impact of obesity on death risk -- which was scary enough -- may have underestimated the problem. That study found that adult obesity cut life expectancy by four years. The new data show that obesity has a much greater effect on life span.
"In our study, there were more than five times as many deaths among participants in the highest obesity categories (BMI of 35-0 to 39.9 and 40.0 to 49.9) than in previous studies, because severe obesity had become more common," Berrington de Gonzalez and colleagues note.
Smoking and chronic disease have an enormous effect on death risk. To isolate the effects of obesity, the researchers calculated death risk for nonsmokers who reported no underlying disease.
The findings appear in the Dec. 2 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.
To hear more of Dr. Asa Andrew, join him for Dr. Asa on Call or log onto www.drasa.com
Your risk of death rises steadily with every overweight pound you gain, a huge study funded by the National Institutes of Health confirms.
Even if you don't smoke and are in otherwise good health, your risk of death goes up 31% with every 5-point increase in BMI, a measure of body mass based on weight and height.
Just being a little bit overweight increases death risk. Compared to those with a normal-range BMI of 22.5 to 24.9:
A BMI of 25.0 to 29.9 increased death risk by 13%
A BMI of 30.0 to 34.9 increased death risk by 44%
A BMI of 35.0 to 39.9 increased death risk by 88%
A BMI of 40.0 to 49.9 increased death risk by 251%
Those figures are for women who do not smoke and who have no underlying disease. The risks are similar for men, note Amy Berrington de Gonzalez, DPhil, of the National Institutes of Health, and colleagues.
"We conclude that for non-Hispanic whites, both overweight and obesity are associated with increased all-cause mortality," they conclude. "All-cause mortality is generally lowest within the BMI range of 20.0 to 24.9."
BMI measured before age 50 had the strongest effect on death risk.
Being underweight may also increase death risk, but it's not clear whether underlying, undetected disease might account for this finding.
The study pooled data from 19 long-term studies that followed 1.46 million white adults for five to 28 years.
The strong statistical significance of the findings suggest that an earlier study of the impact of obesity on death risk -- which was scary enough -- may have underestimated the problem. That study found that adult obesity cut life expectancy by four years. The new data show that obesity has a much greater effect on life span.
"In our study, there were more than five times as many deaths among participants in the highest obesity categories (BMI of 35-0 to 39.9 and 40.0 to 49.9) than in previous studies, because severe obesity had become more common," Berrington de Gonzalez and colleagues note.
Smoking and chronic disease have an enormous effect on death risk. To isolate the effects of obesity, the researchers calculated death risk for nonsmokers who reported no underlying disease.
The findings appear in the Dec. 2 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.
To hear more of Dr. Asa Andrew, join him for Dr. Asa on Call or log onto www.drasa.com
Finger Length a Clue to Prostate Cancer Risk
The following article will be featured on an upcoming episode of "Dr. Asa on Call" with Dr. Asa Andrew
Men whose index finger is longer than their ring finger are at a lower risk of prostate cancer than those with a finger pattern the other way round, according to a new study in the British Journal of Cancer.
The relative length of the first and third fingers is set before birth, and it is thought to relate to the levels of sex hormones the baby is exposed to in the womb. Babies exposed to less of the male sex hormone testosterone are more likely to have longer index fingers.
Finger Length and Prostate Cancer
Over a 15-year period, researchers from The University of Warwick and The Institute of Cancer Research (ICR) collected data on finger length in 1,524 patients with prostate cancer as well as 3,044 healthy people. Men were shown pictures of hands with different finger lengths and asked to identify the one most like their own right hand.
The most common finger length pattern, seen in more than half the men in the study, was a shorter index than ring finger. Men whose index and ring fingers were the same length (about 19%) had a similar prostate cancer risk to those with a shorter index than ring finger. However, men whose index fingers were longer than their ring finger were 33% less likely to have prostate cancer.
Risk reduction was even greater in men aged under 60, say the researchers, who found that this younger group were 87% less likely to be in the prostate cancer group.
Testosterone Exposure
The researchers believe that being exposed to less testosterone before birth helps protect against prostate cancer later in life. The phenomenon is thought to occur because the genes HOXA and HOXD control both finger length and development of sex organs.
“Our results show that relative finger length could be used as a simple test for prostate cancer risk, particularly in men aged under 60,” says joint senior author Professor Ros Eeles from the ICR and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. “This exciting finding means that finger pattern could potentially be used to select at-risk men for ongoing screening, perhaps in combination with other factors such as family history or genetic testing.”
The study was funded by Prostate Cancer Research Foundation and Cancer Research UK.
Diagnosing Prostate Cancer
Helen Rippon, head of research at The Prostate Cancer Charity in the U.K., says in an emailed statement: “Diagnosis of prostate cancer is not a simple affair and the best blood test we have, known as a PSA test, tells us only that something might be wrong with the prostate, not whether it is cancerous or not. Anything that adds to our knowledge about whether a man is likely to develop prostate cancer or not is to be welcomed, especially when it is something as easy as looking at the length of his fingers.
“This research also adds to the growing body of evidence that the balance of hormones we are exposed to before birth influences our health for the rest of our lives.”
Rippon says men who check their hands and find they have a shorter index finger should not be unduly concerned. “They share this trait with more than half of all men and it does not mean they will definitely develop prostate cancer in later life,” she says.
To hear more of Dr. Asa Andrew, join him for "Dr. Asa on Call" or log onto www.drasa.com
Men whose index finger is longer than their ring finger are at a lower risk of prostate cancer than those with a finger pattern the other way round, according to a new study in the British Journal of Cancer.
The relative length of the first and third fingers is set before birth, and it is thought to relate to the levels of sex hormones the baby is exposed to in the womb. Babies exposed to less of the male sex hormone testosterone are more likely to have longer index fingers.
Finger Length and Prostate Cancer
Over a 15-year period, researchers from The University of Warwick and The Institute of Cancer Research (ICR) collected data on finger length in 1,524 patients with prostate cancer as well as 3,044 healthy people. Men were shown pictures of hands with different finger lengths and asked to identify the one most like their own right hand.
The most common finger length pattern, seen in more than half the men in the study, was a shorter index than ring finger. Men whose index and ring fingers were the same length (about 19%) had a similar prostate cancer risk to those with a shorter index than ring finger. However, men whose index fingers were longer than their ring finger were 33% less likely to have prostate cancer.
Risk reduction was even greater in men aged under 60, say the researchers, who found that this younger group were 87% less likely to be in the prostate cancer group.
Testosterone Exposure
The researchers believe that being exposed to less testosterone before birth helps protect against prostate cancer later in life. The phenomenon is thought to occur because the genes HOXA and HOXD control both finger length and development of sex organs.
“Our results show that relative finger length could be used as a simple test for prostate cancer risk, particularly in men aged under 60,” says joint senior author Professor Ros Eeles from the ICR and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. “This exciting finding means that finger pattern could potentially be used to select at-risk men for ongoing screening, perhaps in combination with other factors such as family history or genetic testing.”
The study was funded by Prostate Cancer Research Foundation and Cancer Research UK.
Diagnosing Prostate Cancer
Helen Rippon, head of research at The Prostate Cancer Charity in the U.K., says in an emailed statement: “Diagnosis of prostate cancer is not a simple affair and the best blood test we have, known as a PSA test, tells us only that something might be wrong with the prostate, not whether it is cancerous or not. Anything that adds to our knowledge about whether a man is likely to develop prostate cancer or not is to be welcomed, especially when it is something as easy as looking at the length of his fingers.
“This research also adds to the growing body of evidence that the balance of hormones we are exposed to before birth influences our health for the rest of our lives.”
Rippon says men who check their hands and find they have a shorter index finger should not be unduly concerned. “They share this trait with more than half of all men and it does not mean they will definitely develop prostate cancer in later life,” she says.
To hear more of Dr. Asa Andrew, join him for "Dr. Asa on Call" or log onto www.drasa.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
