Search This Blog

Saturday, July 16, 2011

No difference in brand name and generic drugs regarding thyroid dysfunction

There is no difference between brand-name and generic drug formulations of amiodarone -- taken to control arrhythmia – in the incidence of thyroid dysfunction, according to a study in CMAJ (Canadian Medical Association Journal).



Amiodarone, prescribed to control irregular heartbeats, is known for causing hypo- and hyper-thyroidism. Amiodarone is available in Canada in formulations as well as less costly generic versions. Generic formulations may be substituted if considered bioequivalent to the brand name drug. However, in some drugs there are concerns that generic formulas may be less effective or increase the number of adverse events.
 occurs in one in five  on amiodarone.
There is no information on the effects of brand-name versus generic versions of amiodarone on the incidence of thyroid dysfunction. Researchers from McGill University Health Centre and Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Quebec; Western University of Health Sciences, Pomona, California; University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC and the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences in Toronto, Ontario sought to examine the incidence of thyroid dysfunction in patients taking brand name formulations of amiodarone compared with generic versions.
They looked at data on 60 220 patients aged 66 and older with atrial fibrillation taking amiodarone. Of these, 2804 (4.7%) used the brand-name formulation and 6278 (10.4%) took the generic formulation. There was no significant difference in rates of thyroid dysfunction between the two groups, measured in hospital admissions, visits to physicians for the condition or taking drugs for thyroid dysfunction.
"The incidence rate for thyroid dysfunction was estimated at 14.1 per 100 person-years, similar for both formulations," writes Dr. Louise Pilote, physician and researcher at the McGill University Health Center, with coauthors. "The incidence rates for hypothyroidism and hyperthyroidism per 100 person-years were comparable between brand-name and generic formulations, with hypothyroidism occurring more commonly than hyperthyroidism."
They caution that patients should be warned of the risks of amidarone when they begin the drug so they can recognize and report symptoms.
"We found no difference in the incidence of thyroid dysfunction between generic and brand-name formulations," conclude the authors. "The results from this study provide valuable information for both clinicians and policy makers concerning the prescription of brand name versus generic drugs."
In a related commentary, Dr. Aaron Kesselheim of Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston states, "Decades of experience and numerous clinical studies suggest that patients and physicians can be confident in the bioequivalence of brand-name and generic drugs approved by Health Canada, the FDA or other similar regulatory authorities. In the rare circumstances where there is concern over interchangeability, such as for high-risk patients, it may be reasonable for physicians to take extra precautions, such as additional monitoring, when substitution occurs."
Provided by Canadian Medical Association Journal (news : web)

Friday, July 15, 2011

Parkinson's disease patients may benefit from virtual-reality-based therapies

In people with Parkinson's Disease (PD), the inability to make quick movements limits basic functioning in daily life. Movement can be improved by various cueing techniques, such as providing visual or auditory stimuli when movements are started. In a study scheduled for publication in the August issue of the Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, researchers report that virtual reality (VR) and physical reality exercises can be used to provide effective stimuli to increase movement speeds in PD patients.



Investigators from the Departments of , Neurology, and, the Institute of Education, and Allied Health Sciences, the National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan, studied a group of 13 women and 16 men with PD who were age-matched against 14 women and 11 men without PD. Each participant was asked to reach for and grasp a stationary ball as quickly as possible. Then, moving balls were rolled down a ramp and the participants were asked to catch them when they reached a particular point on the ramp. When trying to catch the moving balls, the targets were visible for periods from 1.1 to 0.5 seconds. These trials were done in both normal physical reality and in a .
"This study contributes to the field of rehabilitation by providing evidence about how to manipulate task and environmental constraints to improve movement in persons with PD," commented lead investigator Hui-Ing Ma. "Specifically, this study shows how to manipulate VR scenarios to improve movement speed in persons with PD, while at the same time depicting their movement characteristics in VR. Our study extends the previous findings of the  effect in physical reality to VR. Our findings suggest that with an appropriate choice of cueing speed, VR is a promising tool for offering  stimuli to increase movement speed in persons with PD."
The authors highlight three main findings. First, in both VR and physical reality, the PD group had longer movement time and lower peak velocity than the control group when reaching for a stationary ball at a self-determined maximum speed. Second, for both VR and physical reality, movement time was significantly shorter and peak velocity was higher in the faster cueing conditions. Third, when moving targets were provided, the PD group showed more improvement than the control group in movement time and peak velocity, thus reaching a performance level similar to that of the control group.
More information: The article is "Comparison of Virtual Reality Versus Physical Reality on Movement Characteristics of Persons With Parkinson's Disease: Effects of Moving Targets" by Ching-Yi Wang, MS, OT, Wen-Juh Hwang, MD, Jing-Jing Fang, PhD, Ching-Fan Sheu, PhD, Iat-Fai Leong, PhD, and Hui-Ing Ma, ScD, OT. It will appear in Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Volume 92, Issue 8 (August 2011). doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2011.03.014

Thursday, July 14, 2011

State should take obese kids from parents: US doctors July 13, 2011


"State intervention may serve the best interests of many children with life-threatening obesity, comprising the only realistic way to control ," wrote Lindsey Murtagh of the Harvard School of Public Health and David Ludwig of Children's Hospital in Boston.
"In severe instances of , removal from the home may be justifiable from a legal standpoint because of imminent health risks and the parents' chronic failure to address medical problems."
Some two million children in the United States are considered severely obese with a  at or above the 99th percentile, the doctors wrote.
"Obesity of this magnitude can cause immediate and potentially irreversible consequences, most notably type 2 diabetes," they said.
Child abuse laws have long addressed situations in which children are starved or neglected, but "only a handful of states, including California, Indiana, Iowa, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, and Texas, have legal precedent for applying this framework to overnourishment and severe obesity."
Murtagh, who is also a lawyer by training, and Ludwig said that while it may be an undesirable option, placing a child in temporary foster care could allow better habits to take root and avoid the risks of .
"Although removal of the child from the home can cause families great emotional pain, this option lacks the physical risks of bariatric surgery."
The opinion piece in the  made waves in the medical community and US media, and JAMA issued a statement pointing out that the piece did not reflect the institution's view.
"This commentary does not reflect policy or opinion of the American Medical Association (AMA) or JAMA. The content of this commentary is solely the responsibility of the authors," it said.

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

Research provides insight into new drug resistance in hospital microbes



Research provides insight into new drug resistance in hospital microbes


Hospitals struggle to prevent the infections that complicate treatment for cancer, joint replacement, heart surgery and other conditions. Hospital-acquired infections are often resistant to multiple antibiotics, leading to approximately 100,000 deaths and more than $30 billion in additional health care costs yearly. New drugs are being developed to combat these infections, but resistance invariably emerges to these last-line drugs.



Daptomycin, a new antibiotic approved by the FDA in 2003, is used to treat infections caused by multi-drug resistant bacteria, including staph and microbes known as enterococci. Scientists in the Department of Ophthalmology at Mass. Eye and Ear and Harvard Medical School, and the pharmaceutical company Cubist, which produces daptomycin under the trade name Cubicin, teamed up to discover the basis for resistance that has now begun to emerge to daptomycin in the enterococci. Their discovery of a new mechanism of resistance is described in an article in the current (July) issue of .
In a two-week experiment, investigators were able recreate the development of resistance in the laboratory in a manner similar to that which occurred in the hospital. Using new genome sequencing technology, they resequenced the entire genome of the resistant enterococcus strain to identify all of the . The researchers found changes in genes that they were also able to identify in hospital daptomycin resistant strains. Mutations in a gene encoding an enzyme called cardiolipin synthase were able by itself to confer daptomycin resistance to a laboratory strain of enterococcus.
"Knowing the changes that correspond with resistance not only tells us what happens in , it tells us much about how exactly how the antibiotic works, providing new ideas for better treatment and next generation drugs," observed Dr. Michael S. Gilmore, a scientist at Harvard Medical School and the Mass. Eye and Ear, and the corresponding author.
Provided by Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary

Monday, July 11, 2011

Fresh meat versus processed meat: Here's why it matters

(NaturalNews) Every July 4th, Americans gobble down enormous quantities of meat. Some of it actually comes from animals. The rest comes from factories that assemble bits and pieces of meat scraps, using chemical additives to make the final substance resemble something edible. That's where hot dogs come from… and sausage, pepperoni and deli meats.

If you're eating hot dogs this Fourth of July, you're engaged inacts of nutritional tyranny against your own body. So if you eat meat, eat fresh meat, not processed meat. Here's why:

Read meat versus processed packaged meat

Countless scientific studies have concluded that eating red meat is bad for you. But in those studies, researchers routinely fail to differentiate between processed junk meat versus free-range, grass-fed organic beef which isn't processed with chemicals. And in doing so, they cast a dark shadow of doubt over all red meat when the reality is that there is a huge difference in the health impacts of fresh meat versus processed factory-made meat.

Just like the primary health risk of smoking cigarettes is from the chemical additives, not merely the tobacco (http://www.naturalnews.com/032795_t...);the primary health risk from eating red meat is from the chemical additives, not from the meat itself.

That's my conclusion after reading tens of thousands of news headlines, research reports and study abstracts: Red meat may be objectionable for lots of reasons -- the ethics of raising animals in food factory concentration camp conditions, for example -- but any focus on thehealth impactsof the meat must conclude that the chemicals are the real problem, not merely the meat. (Unless, of course, it's meat raised on genetically modified corn, in which case the meat probably is biologically toxic, and that's 95% of all conventional meat, just so ya know…)

Why I don't eat red meat

I don't eat red meat, by the way. That fact possibly gives this article even more impact, because it's not even being written by a routine red meat eater. (I tried a bit of organic free-range beef a month ago but just couldn't stomach it. Not my bag, baby!)

From an ethical standpoint, I personally don't wish to participate in the beef industry's treatment of cattle, yet at the same time I've found myself advocating grass-fed organic beef to those who still choose to consume beef for their own reasons. I'm not a food Nazi. People can eat whatever they want -- I just try to help them make healthier choices, and all the evidence I've seen on this issue convinces me that it's theadditivesin processed meat that are killing people, not the consumption of fresh meat itself.

It doesn't take much sodium nitrite, for example, to greatly increase a person's risk of pancreatic cancer or colon cancer. And guess where you find that chemical? Hot dogs, bacon, sausage, pepperoni, ham, lunchmeat and even beef jerky. It's also in all the quick lunch trays for children, by the way. But never in the fresh meat.

People who eat fresh meat don't poison their bodies with sodium nitrite. Nor MSG (bacon, sausage, beef jerky) nor all the other chemical additives typically added to meat products. That's something to remember if you shop for meat of any kind. And don't forget that unless it's organic meat, it's almost certainly contaminated with GMOs, because cows, pigs and chickens are all fed genetically modified corn and soy as part of their diets.

If you're eating that stuff, you're committing slow suicide. And maybe not even that slow, come to think of it.

People who eat their own farm-fresh meat are remarkably healthy

One interesting angle in all this is that people who eat farm-fresh meat usually don't have all the chronic health problems of people who buy and consume processed factory-made meat. It's the quality of the meat that makes all the difference. I know people who eat their own chickens, cows and pigs, and their health is just great! (But they wouldn't dare eat GMO-contaminated pork sausage sold at the grocery store…)

When research says that "red meat" is linked to pancreatic cancer (for example), what they mean is processed red meat laced with chemical additives. We're never told this, of course, because the entire medical system is so nutritionally ignorant that modern medical researchers don't even recognize any qualitative difference between LIVE foods versus DEAD foods -- nor fresh meat versus processed meat. To them, it's all the same. So their questionnaires simply ask study participants about "meat consumption" without breaking it out into "fresh" versus processed. That's why all meat gets a bad rap when it's really just the processed, GMO-contaminated meat that's the culprit.

Avoiding meat isn't a guaranteed health strategy, either

Interestingly, avoiding meat doesn't automatically make you healthier. While I personally follow a largely plant-based diet that's rich in superfoods and smoothies, I've also met quite a few sick vegetarians and vegans who are eating processed vegetarian foods (pastas, white rice, factory-made foods, etc.) that make them look like they're about to die from malnutrition. An alarming number of vegetarians, I've discovered, are chronically deficient in omega-3s and vitamin B12. They've taken on vegetarianism but never learned how to pursue a plant-based diet in a healthy way.

(Veganism, when done correctly, is undoubtedly the best diet for a sustainable planet, but personally I've found it impossible to follow as someone who works on a ranch and engages in a fair amount of physical work each day. For me, powering my work takes a small amount of fish, fresh farm eggs, some Moxxor omega-3s and other fish oils such as those from Living Fuel. Overall, my diet is probably 95% plant based. No dairy. I do buy grass-fed free-range beef bones for my dog Roxy who greatly benefits from the raw bone nutrition.)

The real answer in all this is simple:

The QUALITY of what you eat matters more than you think.

A vegetarian living on Cheetos and Diet Coke is going to have far worse health than a farmer eating farm-fresh eggs and his own home-grown beef steaks. It's not merely about meat versus no meat, it's about the quality of the food (meat or otherwise) you choose to consume.

From a nutritional standpoint alone, I'm convinced that avoiding chemical additives and GMOs is far more important than merely avoiding meat.

What about the ethics of eating meat? Well, that's a question for another article.



Learn more:http://www.naturalnews.com/032890_red_meat_food_additives.html#ixzz1RUA9cR31

Sunday, July 10, 2011

Durbin 'Dietary Supplement Labeling Act' to reward FDA for failures and punish responsible supplement producers

(NaturalNews) A new bill introduced by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), S. 1310, the "Dietary Supplement Labeling Act of 2011," threatens to undermine the dietary supplement industry by giving the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) more power over it, despite the agency's failure to enforce existing laws that are already on the books.

The Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN), the leading trade association representing the dietary supplement industry, has come out in opposition to the bill, saying it will essentially "punish all responsible companies with its overreaching mandates."

The introduction of S. 1310 is allegedly a response to the sale of "Lazy Cakes," a brownie food that contains an added supplement melatonin, but that is currently being illegitimately sold as a regular food item in grocery stores and night clubs.

But rather than properly handle the situation like it is tasked to do under current law, the FDA has decided to simply let the product remain on the market. And instead of the agency being reprimanded or held accountable for its error, some lawmakers are actually suggesting that the FDA be given more unnecessary power under S. 1310 (http://www.anh-usa.org/melatonin-ca...).

"The bill contains requirements that already exist under current law that give FDA the proper legal authority to take action to protect consumers and maintain safety standards," writes CRN in a recent press release. "FDA needs to continue working toward becoming a more efficient steward of its resources, and we continuously call on the Agency to use its power under the law."

Because Lazy Cakes contains a food additive that has not received pre-market approval demonstrating its safety, the product cannot legally be sold as "food." So the FDA has a responsibility, in this case, to require that its manufacturer either relabel the product as a dietary supplement, or else require that it no longer be sold -- and the FDA has the power to handle this situation right at this moment without the needed for more power.

Interestingly, none of the provisions in S. 1310 have anything to do with issues surrounding the illegal sale of Lazy Cakes -- they all apply to supplement manufacturers, the vast majority of whom produce safe, effective products in accordance with current law. The producers of Lazy Cakes are basically selling a "supplement" product as a food, which current law prohibits -- and the FDA could choose to take action against the company for its violations, but for whatever reason it is choosing not to.

S. 1310 appears to be nothing more than an assault against the supplement industry disguised as an effort to improve supplement safety. And the FDA's lax response to Lazy Cakes is perhaps an attempt to tarnish the reputation of the dietary supplement industry in order to push for more control over it. Based on their previous actions, both the FDA and Sen. Durbin have demonstrated blatant animosity towards the supplement industry, so it is no surprise to see S. 1310 introduced on their behalf.

Provisions in S. 1310 include burdensome registration requirements for all supplement manufacturers, "enhanced" labeling requirements that mandate the disclosure of proprietary supplement blends, and new legal definitions for "supplements" and "conventional foods." In the end, these provisions grant the FDA more control over supplements, and make it that much more difficult for honest supplement manufacturers to conduct business.

Instead of giving the FDA more power over dietary supplements, how about holding the agency accountable for its current industry responsibilities? And if the FDA is unable to adequately perform the even the duties it has already been tasked with, perhaps it is time to remove dietary supplements from its regulatory arsenal altogether.

Sources for this story include:

http://www.anh-usa.org/dietary-supp...

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...

Learn more:http://www.naturalnews.com/032911_dietary_supplement_labeling_act_FDA.html#ixzz1RU5F1ZD4