Thursday, 29 September 2011

[CDC, Office of Women's Health, Health Matters for Women] Influenza Vaccination Coverage Among Pregnant Women-United States, 2010-11 Influenza Season

Women are at increased risk for morbidity and mortality from influenza during pregnancy (1). Vaccinating pregnant women for influenza can protect both the women and their infants, especially infants aged <6 months who are not old enough to receive influenza vaccination (2--4). Since 2004, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have recommended inactivated influenza vaccine for all women who are pregnant during influenza season, regardless of trimester (1,5). Before 2009, estimated influenza vaccination coverage among pregnant women had been consistently low (approximately 15%) (1,5). However, vaccination levels increased substantially in response to the 2009 influenza A (H1N1) pandemic to nearly 50% (6--7). To estimate influenza vaccination coverage among pregnant women for the 2010--11 season, CDC analyzed data from an Internet panel survey conducted in April 2011 among women who were pregnant any time during October 2010--January 2011. Among 1,457 survey respondents, 49% reported that they had received influenza vaccination: 12% were vaccinated before pregnancy, 32% during pregnancy, and 5% after pregnancy. Women offered influenza vaccination by a health-care provider (62%) were more likely to be vaccinated (71%) than other women (14%) and were more likely to have positive attitudes about vaccine effectiveness and safety. These results indicate that the higher vaccination level achieved the previous season (2009--10) was sustained and emphasize the critical role of health-care providers in promoting influenza vaccination. Continued efforts are needed to encourage health-care providers to strongly recommend and offer influenza vaccination to pregnant patients to protect both the mothers and their infants.

CDC conducted an Internet panel survey during April 4--25, 2011, to provide end-of-season estimates of influenza vaccination coverage and information on knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors related to influenza vaccination among pregnant women. Women aged 18--49 years who were pregnant at any time since August 1, 2010, were recruited from the SurveySpot panel operated by Survey Sampling International.* Of all panel members contacted in April 2011, a total of 2,126 were determined to be eligible for the survey, and 1,937 (91%) completed the online survey. The sample was weighted to reflect the age and race/ethnicity distribution based on census region estimates from the U.S. population of pregnant women (8). To be consistent with a previous study (6), the study population was limited to 1,457 women reporting pregnancy at any time during the peak influenza vaccination period (October 2010--January 2011).

Survey respondents were asked if they had an influenza vaccination since August 1, 2010, and if yes, in which month and whether it was before, during, or after pregnancy. Pregnancy status questions included whether respondents were currently pregnant or pregnant at any time since August 1, 2010, and if so, what were the actual months of pregnancy. Respondents who were pregnant at the time of the survey were asked their expected delivery date. All respondents were asked if their doctor or other health professional had offered them influenza vaccination during an office visit and their attitudes toward influenza and influenza vaccination. Weighted analyses were conducted using statistical software. Confidence intervals were calculated, and chi-square tests were used to assess statistical significance of differences in vaccination coverage levels between subgroups.

Of the 1,457 women pregnant at any time during October 2010--January 2011, 49% reported influenza vaccination for the 2010--11 season: 12% were vaccinated before pregnancy, 32% during pregnancy, and 5% after pregnancy. Vaccination after pregnancy was more prevalent for women delivering early in the vaccination period, and vaccination before pregnancy was more prevalent among women who were in earlier stages of pregnancy later in the vaccination period (Figure). Younger women (aged 18--24 years) were less likely to be vaccinated than older women (aged 25--49 years) (44% versus 52%) (Table 1). College graduates were more likely to be vaccinated than those with less education. Women with health insurance coverage also were more likely to report influenza vaccination compared with those who were not insured.

Overall, 62% of women reported that they were offered influenza vaccination by their health-care providers; among those offered vaccination, 71% received influenza vaccination, substantially higher than the 14% vaccination level among women whose health-care providers did not offer vaccination (Table 1). Forty-five percent of women reported influenza vaccination in a previous influenza season, and these women were four times as likely to report 2010--11 vaccination as women without previous vaccination (84% versus 21%).

Compared with women whose health-care provider did not offer vaccination, women who received a health-care provider offer were more likely to have positive attitudes about the effectiveness of influenza vaccination (82% versus 54%), safety of influenza vaccination for pregnant women (78% versus 53%), and safety of vaccination for their infants (75% versus 47%) (Table 2). In addition, women who received a health-care provider offer consistently had higher vaccination levels than those who did not receive a health-care provider offer, regardless of their perceptions of vaccination safety or effectiveness expressed in April 2011. Moreover, women with a negative attitude toward vaccination who had received a health-care provider offer of vaccination were more likely to be vaccinated than women who had a positive attitude without a health-care provider offer.

The top five "main" reasons for not receiving influenza vaccination were "I am concerned about possible safety risks to my baby if I got vaccinated" (20%), "I am concerned that the vaccination would give me the flu" (17%), "I don't think the vaccination is effective in preventing flu" (14%), "I am concerned about possible safety risk to myself if I got vaccinated" (11%), and either "I don't think I would get very sick if I got the flu" or "I think if I get the flu, I will just get some medication to treat it" (14%).

The majority of women who were vaccinated during pregnancy received vaccination at their obstetrician/gynecologist or midwife's office (61%), followed by another doctor's office or another medical-related place (22%), a pharmacy or grocery store (8%), health department (5%), and their workplace or school (5%). Among women vaccinated either before or after pregnancy, 18% were vaccinated in an obstetrician/gynecologist or midwife's office, and 61% in another doctor's office or another medical-related place.

Reported by

Deborah K Walker, EdD, Sarah Ball, ScD, Robert Black, MPH, David Izrael, MS, Abt Associates, Inc., Atlanta, Georgia. Helen Ding, MD, Gary L. Euler, DrPH, James A. Singleton, MS, Carolyn B. Bridges, MD, Immunization Svc Div, Lisa A. Grohskopf, MD, Influenza Div, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases; Denise J. Jamieson, MD, Div of Reproductive Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC. Corresponding contributor: Helen Ding, hding@cdc.gov, 404-639-8513.

Editorial Note

Results from this survey indicate that the record high influenza vaccination levels among pregnant women reported for the previous influenza season (2009--10) were sustained during the 2010--11 season. During 2009--10, pregnant women were included in the initial target groups to receive the inactivated 2009 H1N1 pandemic vaccine, and CDC worked closely with key partners, especially the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, to increase awareness that pregnant women were at increased risk for severe illness from influenza and were recommended for influenza vaccination to protect themselves and their infants (9). However, vaccination levels are still below the Healthy People 2020 target of 80% influenza vaccination coverage for pregnant women.?

This study found that women who received a health-care provider offer were more likely to believe influenza vaccination was effective, protective, and safe for themselves and their infants, and were nearly five times more likely to report receipt of vaccination compared with those who visited a doctor but did not receive an offer of vaccination. Pregnant women who had previously received influenza vaccination were four times more likely to receive influenza vaccination compared with those without a prior history of influenza vaccination. Because influenza vaccination is now recommended for all persons aged ?6 months (1), further implementation of the universal vaccination recommendation among women of childbearing age might help to increase the likelihood of influenza vaccination before and during pregnancy.

Pregnant women who receive regular prenatal care have many more opportunities for a health-care provider offer of influenza vaccination than nonpregnant women. However, nearly four out of 10 women in this survey did not receive an offer of vaccination even though they visited a health-care provider at least one time. Barriers to providing influenza vaccination in health-care providers' offices identified by previous studies include lack of infrastructure for vaccine storage, lack of training for nurses to administer vaccines, and concern about safety and related lawsuits for vaccinating first trimester women (10). Another finding of this study was that women still reported safety risk to their infant as the most common main reason for refusing influenza vaccination, even though influenza vaccination during pregnancy can protect women and their infants (2--4). This study also indicated that a substantial proportion of women who delivered early in the influenza season received their vaccination after delivery. Vaccination of members of households with an infant aged <6 months is important for minimizing influenza risk for the upcoming influenza season.

The findings in this report are subject to at least two limitations. First, selection bias might remain after weighting adjustments, given the exclusion of women with no Internet access and the self-selection processes for entry into the panel and participation in the survey. However, influenza vaccination coverage estimated from this study, restricted to women who were pregnant at any time during December 2010 (48%), was similar to the coverage estimates based on December 2010 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) interviews of women who were pregnant at that time (51%) (CDC, unpublished data, 2011). BRFSS is a telephone survey and also might be subject to selection bias because of exclusion of households without landline telephone service. Pregnant women account for only 1% of the general population, and conducting a random-digit--dialing survey or a mail survey large enough to obtain an adequate sample size would be costly and time-consuming. The similar estimate from BRFSS provides more evidence to support the use of Internet panels as useful surveillance data sources for timely midseason and postseason evaluation of influenza vaccination among pregnant women. Second, the survey was self-administered, and because pregnancy and vaccination status were not validated by medical record review, all responses are subject to recall and reporting error.

This study found that the higher vaccination level achieved during the 2009--10 influenza season (the fall wave of 2009 H1N1 virus activity) among pregnant women was repeated the following season, and identified key elements highly associated with pregnant women's acceptance of influenza vaccination, such as the health-care provider offer of vaccination and past receipt of influenza vaccination. Continued efforts are needed to encourage health-care providers to strongly recommend and offer influenza vaccination to their pregnant patients. Additional efforts are needed to remove barriers for health-care providers to administer influenza vaccination as part of routine practice. Messages to pregnant women from health-care providers and others should emphasize the safety and effectiveness of maternal influenza vaccination to maximize protection of pregnant patients and their infants.

Acknowledgments

John Boyle, PhD, Chuck Shuttles, Abt SRBI, Inc., Washington, DC. Peng-jun Lu, MD, Leah N Bryan, MPH, Immunization Svc Div, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, CDC.

References

  1. CDC. Prevention and control of influenza with vaccines: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), 2010. MMWR 2010;59(No. RR-8).
  2. Eick AA, Uyeki TM, Klimov A, et al. Maternal influenza vaccination and effect on influenza virus infection in young infants. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2011;165:104--11.
  3. Zaman K, Roy E, Arifeen SE, et al. Effectiveness of maternal influenza immunization in mothers and infants. N Engl J Med 2008;359:1555--64.
  4. Poehling KA, Szilagyi PG, Staat MA, et al., Impact of maternal immunization on influenza hospitalizations in infants. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011;204(6 Suppl 1):S141--8.
  5. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Obstetric Practice. Influenza vaccination and treatment during pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 2004;104(5 pt 1):1125--6.
  6. Ding H, Santibanez TA, Jamieson DJ, et al. Influenza vaccination coverage among pregnant women---National 2009 H1N1 Flu Survey (NHFS). Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011;204(6 Suppl 1):S96--106.
  7. CDC. Seasonal influenza and 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccination coverage among pregnant women---10 states, 2009--10 influenza season. MMWR 2010;59:1541--5.
  8. CDC. Estimated pregnancy rates for the United States, 1990--2005: an update. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2009;58(4).
  9. Rasmussen SA, Kissin DM, Yeung LF, et al; Pandemic Influenza and Pregnancy Working Group. Preparing for influenza after 2009 H1N1: special considerations for pregnant women and newborns. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011;204(6 Suppl 1):S13--20.
  10. Naleway AL, Smith WJ, Mullooly JP. Delivering influenza vaccine to pregnant women. Epidemiol Rev 2006;28:47--53.


What is already known on this topic?

Pregnant women are recommended by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices to receive influenza vaccination regardless of trimester. Vaccination coverage among pregnant women was approximately 50% for the 2009--10 season, much higher than coverage reported for previous influenza seasons. Health-care provider recommendation is strongly associated with vaccination among pregnant women.

What is added by this report?

Approximately 49% of pregnant women in an Internet panel survey were vaccinated for influenza for the 2010--11 influenza season; 32% were vaccinated during pregnancy, and 17% before pregnancy or after delivery. Among the 62% of pregnant women who received a health-care provider offer for influenza vaccination, nearly three quarters were vaccinated, which was five times the coverage among those who didn't receive a health-care provider offer.

What are the implications for public health practice?

Continued efforts are needed to 1) encourage health-care providers to strongly recommend and offer inactivated influenza vaccination to their pregnant patients and 2) remove barriers for health-care providers to administer influenza vaccination as part of routine practice. Messages to pregnant women from health-care providers and others should emphasize the safety and effectiveness of maternal influenza vaccination to maximize protection of pregnant patients and their infants.


FIGURE. Percentage of women aged 18--49 years pregnant at any time during October 2010--January 2011 (N = 1,457) who received influenza vaccination before, during, or after pregnancy for the 2010--11 influenza season, by month of delivery or expected month of delivery --- United States, Internet panel survey, April 2011

Alternate Text: The figure above shows the percentage of women aged 18-49 years pregnant at any time during October 2010-January 2011 (N = 1,457) who received influenza vaccination before, during, or after pregnancy for the 2010-11 influenza season, by month of delivery or expected month of delivery, in the United States, based on results of an Internet panel survey conducted in April 2011. Vaccination after pregnancy was more prevalent for women delivering early in the vaccination period, and vaccination before pregnancy was more prevalent among women who were in earlier stages of pregnancy later in the vaccination period.


Characteristic

Sample

Vaccination coverage*

No.

%?

(95% CI)

%

(95% CI)

Overall

1,457

---

---

49.0

(�2.8)

Age group (yrs)

18--24

504

34.5

(�2.6)

43.6

(�4.6)

?25

953

65.5

(�2.6)

51.8

(�3.5)

Race/Ethnicity

Hispanic

195

21.7

(�2.7)

53.2

(�7.3)

White, non-Hispanic

977

56.3

(�2.9)

46.5

(�3.3)

Black, non-Hispanic

200

16.5

(�2.1)

47.1

(�7.2)

Other

84

5.5

(�1.2)

63.8

(�10.9)

Education

<College graduation

890

63.3

(�2.7)

43.4

(�3.6)

College graduate

441

30.2

(�2.6)

54.9

(�5.1)

>College graduation

93

6.5

(�1.4)

66.9

(�10.7)

Marital status

Married

567

40.9

(�2.8)

53.6

(�3.6)

Not married

890

59.1

(�2.7)

42.3

(�4.4)

Working status

Working

830

56.6

(�2.8)

54.6

(�4.2)

Not working

625

43.4

(�2.7)

44.6

(�3.7)

Health insurance coverage (at interview)

Any public

656

46.2

(�2.8)

46.2

(�4.1)

Private/military

688

46.1

(�2.8)

54.1

(�4.1)

None

113

7.8

(�1.5)

35.0

(�9.4)

Had influenza vaccination in previous season

Yes

644

44.8

(�2.8)

83.5

(�3.0)

No

813

55.2

(�2.7)

20.9

(�3.0)

Other high-risk conditions**

Yes

354

26.3

(�2.5)

58.2

(�5.6)

No

1,103

73.7

(�2.5)

45.7

(�3.2)

Offered influenza vaccination??

Yes

836

61.7

(�2.8)

70.8

(�3.3)

No

512

38.3

(�2.8)

14.4

(�3.1)


Response

Sample distribution

Vaccination coverage*

Offer? (n = 836)

No offer (n = 512)

Offer (n = 836)

No offer (n = 512)

No.

%

(95% CI)

No.

%

(95% CI)

%

(95% CI)

%

(95% CI)

Flu vaccine is somewhat/very effective in preventing flu

Yes

576

81.9

(�3.1)

168

53.8

(�6.0)

86.7**

(�3.0)

36.1**

(�7.6)

No

132

18.1

(�3.1)

147

46.2

(�5.9)

46.2

(�9.4)

4.5

(�3.4)

Agree/strongly agree that if a pregnant woman receives the flu vaccination, it will protect the baby from getting the flu after it is born

Yes

431

52.5

(�3.7)

146

29.0

(�4.3)

81.1**

(�3.9)

24.7**

(�7.4)

No

404

47.5

(�3.7)

364

71.0

(�4.2)

59.6

(�5.3)

10.4

(�3.2)

Flu vaccination is somewhat/very/completely safe for most adult women

Yes

774

92.6

(�1.9)

428

83.2

(�3.5)

73.6**

(�3.3)

16.1**

(�3.6)

No

61

7.4

(�2.0)

82

16.8

(�3.5)

39.0

(�13.3)

6.7

(�6.0)

Flu vaccination is somewhat/very/completely safe for pregnant women

Yes

645

77.8

(�3.1)

272

52.7

(�4.6)

80.6**

(�3.2)

21.9**

(�5.1)

No

190

22.2

(�3.0)

240

47.3

(�4.7)

37.7

(�7.4)

6.1

(�3.1)

Flu vaccination that a pregnant woman receives is somewhat/very/completely safe for her baby

Yes

618

75.1

(�3.2)

241

47.0

(�4.6)

81.7**

(�3.2)

23.3**

(�5.6)

No

217

24.9

(�3.1)

270

53.0

(�4.7)

38.9

(�7.0)

6.7

(�3.0)

Somewhat/very worried about getting sick from this season's flu vaccination

Yes

397

47.9

(�3.7)

194

37.2

(�4.4)

74.2

(�4.6)

13.4

(�5.0)

No

438

52.1

(�3.7)

317

62.8

(�4.5)

68.1

(�4.6)

15.1

(�4.0)

If a pregnant women gets the flu, it is somewhat/very likely to harm the baby

Yes

445

60.1

(�3.8)

258

61.7

(�5.0)

70.8

(�4.4)

17.1

(�4.8)

No

299

39.9

(�3.8)

171

38.3

(�4.9)

72.0

(�5.5)

15.0

(�5.6)


Use of trade names and commercial sources is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

References to non-CDC sites on the Internet are provided as a service to MMWR readers and do not constitute or imply endorsement of these organizations or their programs by CDC or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. CDC is not responsible for the content of pages found at these sites. URL addresses listed in MMWR were current as of the date of publication.

All MMWR HTML versions of articles are electronic conversions from typeset documents. This conversion might result in character translation or format errors in the HTML version. Users are referred to the electronic PDF version (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr) and/or the original MMWR paper copy for printable versions of official text, figures, and tables. An original paper copy of this issue can be obtained from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), Washington, DC 20402-9371; telephone: (202) 512-1800. Contact GPO for current prices.

**Questions or messages regarding errors in formatting should be addressed to mmwrq@cdc.gov.

Source: http://www2c.cdc.gov/podcasts/download.asp?af=h&f=8620774

women health insurance yeast infection women and health camden pregnant women health insurance

What We're Reading This Week

health:blogDotted Line
NEWS SEPTEMBER 26

Katherine Perry and Lindsay Roseman


Contraception Misconception
That little pink pill you pop every day could have a new, bizarre side effect: change in memory. Docs say the difference in estrogen and progesterone levels might cause women to remember general chains of events rather than specific details. Via Healthland

Sweet, Sweet Indulgence
You were so "good" all summer, that you deserve a little treat now, right? We can't think of a sweeter (or prettier) indulgence than this pears and cream recipe. Head to the farmers market, pick up some fresh pears, and get ready for an incredible, over-the-top dessert. Via Minimally Invasive

Match Made In Heaven
They say you are the company you keep. But what if the company we keep is actually like us? That?s what a new study found. Although we identify better with people like us, research shows we connect better with diverse groups. Via MSNBC

Potatoes and Okra, Oh My!
If you need the perfect side dish for your first autumn gathering, look no further than this roasted potato and okra salad. The veggie combo packs a nutritious punch, and the rosemary seasoning gives the dish a perfect herbal flavor. Via Erin's Food Files

Coffee Crazy
National Coffee Day is this Friday. Will you celebrate? Out of the two-thirds of Americans who drink coffee, a new survey says that 65 percent gulp down 13 cups a week. Most have their first cup less than an hour after the alarm sounds. Via Reuters

Pizza Remix
Delicious pizza without the guilt? Sign us up! This flatbread is high-protein, and grain, gluten, starch and sugar free, but this blogger promises it does not lack in flavor! Via Roost

Tags: headlines

  • Average User Rating:
  • *
  • *
  • *
  • *
  • *

Source: http://www.womenshealthmag.com/health/news-september-26

womens-health-concern.org health advice for pregnant women health sites for women health club women

Organic Roundup

Be beautiful from the inside out! Get advice from eco-experts, discover natural beauty products, organic recipes, and responsibly sourced fashion. Plus, you'll find tons of simple ways to live a little greener.

About Green Goddess Ren�e Loux

Ren�e Loux is infatuated with intersections ? form and function, ecology and economy, entrepreneurship and philanthropy, style and substance. She's secretly a science geek, an admitted natural product junkie, obsessed with food and cooking, and smitten with the smell of static electricity.

A trendsetter in the sustainable food and green-living movement and a maven of natural beauty for more than a dozen years, it's no wonder why she's the green staple of the WH Advisory Board. She?s consulted for some of the leading brands in the natural beauty and eco-fashion sector and sits on the board of Exhale Spas.

As an author, television personality, chef, culinary teacher, restaurateur, and consultant, Ren�e has published four books, including Easy Green Living, The Whole Green Catalog, The Balanced Plate, and Living Cuisine. She is the host of It's Easy Being Green on the Scripps Network, and frequently appears as a green expert on the Today Show, Good Morning America, the Early Show, Extra, Insider Edition, and Fox News.

Visit her at reneeloux.com

Source: http://www.womenshealthmag.com/health/organic-resources

womens health fitness magazine women health insurance yeast infection women and health camden

Breast cancer drug offers fresh hope

He said: "This novel and targeted approach has shown that we are now able to stop the cancer in its tracks while reducing many of the common side effects normally associated with standard chemotherapy treatment."

The trial results, presented at the European Multidisciplinary Cancer Congress conference in Stockholm, also showed far fewer side-effects suffered by those given the new treatment.

While two thirds of those given standard treatment suffered hair loss, as a result of chemotherapy, less than five per cent of the women given T-DM1 lost their hair.

Half as many of the most serious side effects, requiring hospitalisation, were reported among those given the new treatment.

Cancer Research UK said targeted treatments which avoided damage to healthy cells were vital to improve survival, but said larger scale trials were needed to test the drug's potential.

Nell Barrie, senior science information officer, said: "This approach combines two effective treatments but until we have results from larger, longer term trials we won't know for sure how beneficial this could be for patients with this particular type of breast cancer."

Around 10,000 women in Britain are diagnosed with HER2-positive cancer each year, making up around 20 to 30 per cent of all breast cancer cases.

The diagnosis means women have been found to have large quantities of a protein known as HER2 on the surface of the tumour cells, which makes the disease more aggressive.

In recent years, Herceptin, which targets this protein, had been hailed as the best solution for such women.

The new trial appears to show that the addition of the antibody DM1 prevents the cell division which spreads cancer.

The combination drug is not yet licensed, and could take three to five years to be available in this country.

Source: http://telegraph.feedsportal.com/c/32726/f/568409/s/18d722dc/l/0L0Stelegraph0O0Chealth0Cwomen0Ishealth0C87869960CBreast0Ecancer0Edrug0Eoffers0Efresh0Ehope0Bhtml/story01.htm

women and mental health female health health insurance for women health magazine

Brain steroids provide MS clue

According to the Daily Mirror there is a ?daily pill to prevent or even cure multiple sclerosis in the pipeline?. The newspaper says that ?experts are ready to start human trials on the pills and hope they could be widely available within seven years?.

In multiple sclerosis (MS) patients experience damage to the protective coating around nerve cells, called myelin sheaths. These sheaths protect the part of the cell, called the axon, responsible for sending signals to other nerve cells. Damage to the myelin sheath, and subsequently to the axon, prevents the brain and spinal cord from communicating with each other.

Although the underlying cause of MS is not known, in recent years researchers have begun considering the role that certain naturally occurring brain steroids may play in the condition. In this latest animal study researchers examined how mice with a multiple-sclerosis-like disease responded to daily injections of a steroid called allopregnanolone, which is normally found in the brain.

The results of this study appear to be promising but, as it is a preliminary study, further research in humans is needed before we will know if the results apply to human disease. Also, even if brain steroids are eventually found to have some therapeutic role in MS treatment, it is unclear how this injected substance could be developed into a pill.

Where did the story come from?

The study was carried out by researchers from the University of Alberta in Canada, Stanford University in the US and Tehran University of Medical Sciences in Iran. The research was funded by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, the Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research and the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada.

The study was published in the peer-reviewed medical journal Brain.

Most media sources reported the research fairly accurately, with the Daily Mirror reporting that the research was carried out in mice and that human studies have not yet started.

What kind of research was this?

This was a controlled animal experiment using a mouse model of multiple sclerosis to examine the potential actions of effects of a steroid on disease progression.

Within our DNA there are sections called genes that contain the instructions for making specific substances. However, these genes are not always ?expressed?. This means that our bodies do not always produce the substances our genes contain the instructions for. The researchers examined the role of a specific molecule called micro-RNA (miRNA), which is responsible for controlling the expression of genes, and which also plays a role in the development of diseases of the nervous system. The researchers say that previous research has shown that miRNAs are involved in the development of MS. They sought to identify which biological substances had their production regulated by these miRNAs, and to examine how replacing underproduced substances affected disease severity, nerve cell damage and inflammation in an MS model.

Animal experiments of this kind are useful for preliminary studies that would not be feasible to conduct in humans. However, further studies are needed to confirm that any results will hold true in humans.

What did the research involve?

The researchers examined the brains of MS patients and other people without MS, quantifying the amount and types of miRNAs present in their brains. They found miRNAs that suppress the expression of protective brain steroids called ?neurosteroids?, and that the action of miRNAs led to significantly lower levels of these neurosteroids in the brains of MS patients compared with non-MS patients. They determined that the production of a neurosteroid called allopregnanolone was most affected by these miRNAs, and set it as a target for the next phase of their study.

A mouse MS model was then used to examine the impact of treating mice with doses of the steroid allopregnanolone, specifically looking at how this affected inflammation of nervous system tissue and MS disease severity. The mice were injected with either a steroid or a control molecule every day for up to 30 days. The researchers measured the amount of various steroids present in the mice?s brains, as well as the functioning of the pathways that normally produce the steroid. In addition, they measured the severity of the disease and the damage done to key nerve structures called the myelin sheath and the axon, which are normally injured as MS progresses in humans.

What were the basic results?

When examining brain tissue from MS and non-MS patients, the researchers found significant differences in the expression of miRNAs between the two groups. Most of these miRNAs were involved in regulating genes involved in immune responses and inflammation. Those miRNAs that target the genes involved in the creation of steroids were more present in the MS brain samples, which the researchers say indicates lower levels of production of protective or restorative steroids in these patients? brains.

When examining the impact of treatment with the steroid allopregnanolone on disease severity and the inflammation of brain tissue, the researchers found that mice that received the steroid maintained a better protective myelin coating on the spinal cord than the mice that received the placebo. The mice treated with the steroids also showed less injury to the parts of the spinal cord cells responsible for sending signals.

Mice treated with allopregnanolone also demonstrated significantly reduced disease severity compared with both their own symptoms before treatment and with the mice that received the placebo injection.

How did the researchers interpret the results?

Based on the analysis of miRNAs in MS and non-MS brain tissue samples, the researchers say that the production of steroids in the brain, which was reduced in the MS tissue, may be important to maintaining tissue health. This steroid production seems to be disrupted by the development of MS. The researchers say that previous studies have shown that steroids created in the brain are involved in normal brain cell activity as well as diseases.

Based on the animal experiments, the researchers say that treatment with allopregnanolone reduced inflammation and prevented injury to two vital components of nerve cells, the protective coat that surrounds the fibre, and the axon. These key areas are responsible for sending signals to other nerve cells.

Conclusion

This was a complex animal experiment that examined the possible role of a specific molecule in the progression of multiple sclerosis. The researchers say that it is still unclear whether the increased expression of the miRNAs in MS patients is involved in the development of the disease or is a response to it.

The researchers say that they have identified a novel mechanism involved in the progression of MS, and that this mechanism is well suited to therapeutic interventions. However, the results of this study are based on a mouse model of MS. This is not the same as MS in humans. The model can only be an approximation of human disease. Further research is needed to confirm that the findings hold true in humans.

MS is an extremely complicated disease, and researchers and doctors do not yet fully understand its underlying causes. Previous research has shown that complex changes occur in many different biological processes, contributing to the damage done by the disease. This complexity has meant that, to date, most treatments for people living with MS are aimed at reducing relapse or episodes of increased disease activity that affect the ability to function normally.

Given the challenges presented by researching and understanding the condition in humans, it is unclear at this point whether the ?simple pill? mentioned by some news sources would be sufficient ?to prevent or even cure MS?.

Links To The Headlines

Daily pill to prevent or even cure multiple sclerosis in pipeline, doctors claim.Daily Mirror, September 23 2011

Daily pill 'could stop or even REVERSE multiple sclerosis'. Daily Mail, September 23 2011

Links To Science

Noorbakhsh F, Ellestad KK, Maingat F et al.�Impaired neurosteroid synthesis in multiple sclerosis. Brain (2011) 134 (9): 2703-2721

Source: http://www.nhs.uk/news/2011/09September/Pages/multiple-sclerosis-brain-steroid-pill.aspx

shape magazine health questions health women women health magazines

Breast cancer drug offers fresh hope

He said: "This novel and targeted approach has shown that we are now able to stop the cancer in its tracks while reducing many of the common side effects normally associated with standard chemotherapy treatment."

The trial results, presented at the European Multidisciplinary Cancer Congress conference in Stockholm, also showed far fewer side-effects suffered by those given the new treatment.

While two thirds of those given standard treatment suffered hair loss, as a result of chemotherapy, less than five per cent of the women given T-DM1 lost their hair.

Half as many of the most serious side effects, requiring hospitalisation, were reported among those given the new treatment.

Cancer Research UK said targeted treatments which avoided damage to healthy cells were vital to improve survival, but said larger scale trials were needed to test the drug's potential.

Nell Barrie, senior science information officer, said: "This approach combines two effective treatments but until we have results from larger, longer term trials we won't know for sure how beneficial this could be for patients with this particular type of breast cancer."

Around 10,000 women in Britain are diagnosed with HER2-positive cancer each year, making up around 20 to 30 per cent of all breast cancer cases.

The diagnosis means women have been found to have large quantities of a protein known as HER2 on the surface of the tumour cells, which makes the disease more aggressive.

In recent years, Herceptin, which targets this protein, had been hailed as the best solution for such women.

The new trial appears to show that the addition of the antibody DM1 prevents the cell division which spreads cancer.

The combination drug is not yet licensed, and could take three to five years to be available in this country.

Source: http://telegraph.feedsportal.com/c/32726/f/568409/s/18d722dc/l/0L0Stelegraph0O0Chealth0Cwomen0Ishealth0C87869960CBreast0Ecancer0Edrug0Eoffers0Efresh0Ehope0Bhtml/story01.htm

www.womens-health-concern.org health care women health and beauty tips for women health websites for women

Saw palmetto no better than placebo for prostate problems

In clinical trials, saw palmetto has consistently failed to outperform placebo.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

  • Clinical trial finds herbal extract no better than sugar pills for enlarged prostate
  • Saw palmetto has long been marketed as a remedy for symptoms
  • Doctor: "I wouldn't object, given the no side effects, if men wanted to try it"

(Health.com) -- The millions of middle-aged men who take saw-palmetto supplements to cope with the symptoms of an enlarged prostate might as well be popping sugar pills.

That's the conclusion of a new clinical trial, published this week in the Journal of the American Medical Association, that found that the herbal extract is no better than placebo at reducing bathroom trips or otherwise improving the urinary-tract symptoms associated with prostate enlargement.

"There's probably no real benefit," says Simon J. Hall, M.D., the chairman of the urology department at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, in New York City, who wasn't involved in the new research. "Ultimately, the way I would look at it is: Is it worth spending $20 or $30 a month to take something that is probably not going to do anything?"

Health.com: Must-know facts about male incontinence

Nearly all men experience some prostate-gland growth as they age. Most have no obvious symptoms, but because the prostate surrounds the urethra, this otherwise harmless enlargement (known as benign prostatic hyperplasia) sometimes causes symptoms such as dribbling after urination, a weak urine stream, and the frequent need to wake up at night to urinate.

Saw palmetto has long been marketed as a remedy for these symptoms, but in clinical trials it has consistently failed to outperform placebo. A 2009 review of 30 randomized controlled trials -- including a rigorous 2006 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine -- concluded that the herbal extract was no more effective than placebo.

In the new study, the largest of its kind to date, the researchers randomly assigned 369 U.S. and Canadian men with prostate-related symptoms to take saw-palmetto capsules or an identical placebo. After 18 months, the men taking saw palmetto were doing no better than those on placebo, even though the dosage of saw palmetto was increased twice during the study, to 960 milligrams -- three times the typical daily dose.

Health.com: Bladder training tips to reduce bathroom trips

Neither saw palmetto nor placebo made a substantial dent in the men's symptoms. At the beginning of the study, the average severity of the men's symptoms measured about 14.5 on a 35-point scale commonly used by urologists; by the end, the average severity had declined by three points in the placebo group and just two points in the saw palmetto group.

Lead author Michael J. Barry, M.D., a primary care physician at Massachusetts General Hospital, in Boston, points out that between 40% and 45% of the men in both groups saw a "perceptible improvement" in their symptoms, however. That improvement can be chalked up only to the placebo effect, not to any active ingredients in the saw-palmetto extract. But that doesn't necessarily mean that men shouldn't take saw palmetto, Barry says.

"We can't show, on the one hand, that it's better than placebo, but some men do have an improvement in their symptoms, and there seem to be virtually no side effects," he says. "I wouldn't object, given the no side effects, if men wanted to try it."

Health.com: 12 myths and facts about incontinence

Hall says he doesn't discourage his patients from taking saw palmetto if the placebo effect appears to be working. "Certainly I've had patients tell me...'I'm taking saw palmetto and it's great,' and I tell them to keep taking it," he says.

Saw palmetto, with just under $19 million in sales, was the second bestselling herbal supplement in the United States in 2010 (behind cranberry), according to the SymphonyIRI Group, a Chicago-based market-research firm.

Barry and his colleagues used a proprietary brand of saw palmetto manufactured in Germany. Since other studies using different brands have had similarly disappointing results, it's unlikely that one brand is more effective than another, he says.

Health.com: Natural remedies for incontinence

The study was funded and partially overseen by the National Institutes of Health, although the supplement manufacturer provided all of the saw palmetto and placebo capsules.

Other treatment options for prostate-enlargement symptoms include prescription drugs and surgery. In most cases, Hall says, treatment is actually not necessary unless there's a true medical problem -- if a man is not able to completely empty his bladder, for example, or if he experiences recurrent bladder infections.

Copyright Health Magazine 2010

Source: http://rss.cnn.com/~r/rss/cnn_health/~3/ZLuHYyS0hEE/index.html

yeast infection women and health camden pregnant women health insurance women and mental health