Miami Wellness and Health

Miami Police Departments receives training to better deal with people with Mental Illness // Departamentos de Policia de Miami se entrenan para atender mejor a personas con enfermedad mental

2016-01-27T18:28:00.000-08:00

The Memphis Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) is an innovative police based first responder program that has become nationally known as the "Memphis Model" of pre-arrest jail diversion for those in a mental illness crisis. This program provides law enforcement based crisis intervention training for helping those individuals with mental illness. Involvement in CIT is voluntary and based in the patrol division of the police department. In addition, CIT works in partnership with those in mental health care to provide a system of services that is friendly to the individuals with mental illness, family members, and the police officers.

Right now, 29 police departments in Miami Dade County are affiliated with this program in an attempt to reduce police confrontation when a mental health crisis emerges.

El Equipo de Intervención [Memphis Crisis[ ( CIT ) es un programa innovador de respuesta inicial policiaca que se ha dado a conocer a nivel nacional como el " Modelo Memphis " de pre- arresto que evita la cárcel para las personas que están en una crisis a causa de una enfermedad mental. Este programa ofrece capacitación a cerca de intervención en crisis a las entindades encargadas de hacer cumplir la ley con la intención de ayudar y servir mejor a las personas con enfermedad mental. La participación en el CIT es voluntaria y a discreción del Departamento de Policía local. Además , CIT trabaja en colaboración con los prestadores de servicios de atención de salud mental locales, para proporcionar un sistema de servicios que es amigable con las personas con enfermedad mental , miembros de la familia , y los oficiales de policía.

En la actualidad 29 departamentos de policía del condado Miami Dade se encuentran afiliados a este programa que busca reducir la confrontación policial cuando una crisis por problemas de salud mental emerge.

The departments affiliated with this program are: Los departamentos afiliados a este programa son:

· Aventura Police Department

· Bay Harbour Island Police Department

· Biscayne Park Police Department

· City of Miami Police Department

· Coral Gables Police Department

· Doral Police Department

· Florida City Police Department

· Florida International University Police

· Hialeah Police Department

· Homestead Police Department

· Key Biscayne Police Department

· Medley Police Department

· Miami Beach Police Department

· Miami Gardens Police Department

· Miami Shores Police Department

· Miami Springs Police Department

· Miami-Dade Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

· Miami-Dade School Resource Police

· Miami-Dade Sheriff's Office

· North Miami Beach Police Department

· North Miami Police Department

· Opalocka Police Department

· Pinecrest Police Department

· South Miami Police Department

· Sunny Isles Police Department

· Surfside Police Department

· Sweetwater Police Department

· University of Miami Police Department

· Village of Pinecrest Police Department

Free preventive care for Women // Cuidado preventivo gratuito para mujeres.

2012-08-02T07:26:00.000-07:00

The White House has reported that; starting August 1st, and for the first time ever, women will have access to potentially life-saving preventive care free of charge. Thanks to the Obama’s health care law, services including well-woman visits, gestational diabetes screening, breastfeeding support and supplies, contraception, domestic violence screening, and more will be covered without cost sharing in new health plans starting August 2012; giving women more control over their own health.

To learn more about this new benefits becoming available for women, the Department of Health and Human Services has presented the following web site to answer all the questions that might arise. http://www.healthcare.gov/news/factsheets/2011/08/womensprevention08012011a.html#

La Casa Blanca ha reportado que; comenzando el 1ro de Agosto de 2012, y por primera vez, las mujeres tendrá acceso a servicios preventivos de salud que potencialmente podrían salvar muchas vidas; todas completamente gratis (sin co-pago para la persona asegurada. Gracias a la ley de reforma a la salud de Obama, servicios que incluyen bienestar, exámenes de detención de diabetes gestacional , apoyo a la lactancia, servicios de anticoncepción, y exámenes de prevención de violencia domestica, entre otros, serán cubiertos; algunos otros más serán ofrecidos con un co-pago mínimo, permitiendo a las mujeres más control sobre su propia salud.

Para aprender más a cerca de estos nuevos beneficios disponibles para las mujeres, el Departamento de Salud y Servicios Humanos, ha presentado el siguiente sitio web para responder todas las preguntas que puedan surgir.

http://www.healthcare.gov/news/factsheets/2011/08/womensprevention08012011a.html#

Health Care reform: A major public health victory!! // Reforma a la Salud: Una gran victoria para la Salud Publica

2012-06-29T13:15:00.001-07:00

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Health care reform, also called "Obama Care"; the most influential Health Organizations in the nation (Such as APHA, IOM and American Heart Association, among others) celebrated the decision and reacted positively after the decision was made public. Here I am presenting President Obama’s speech in regards of this historical moment.

El día de Ayer, La Corte Suprema de Estados Unidos ratificó la reforma a la salud también llamada como “Obama Care”. Las organizaciones más influyentes en el área de la salud en la nación (Tal como La Asociación Americana de Salud Publica; El Instituto de Medicina y la Asociación Americana del Corazón, entre otras) celebraron la decisión y reaccionaron positivamente después de que la decisión se hizo pública. En esta entrada estoy presentando el discurso que el presidente Obama presentó con respecto a este histórico momento.

The new DSM. Are the Pharmaceutical companies behind the new Diagnostic Criterias // El nuevo DSM: Están las compañías farmacéuticas detrás de los nuevos criterios diagnósticos?

2012-05-31T12:38:00.000-07:00

Doctor Allen Frances, M.D., was chair of the DSM-IV Task Force that published the well known Manual in 1994; He was also chair of the department of psychiatry at Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC and is currently professor emeritus at Duke. While working at the DSM, he established strict guidelines to ensure that changes from DSM‐III‐R to DSM‐IV would be few and well supported by empirical data. Recently, Dr. Frances objected the new Diagnostic Criteria and predicted potentially grave problems in the DSM‐V goals, methods, and products due to the intervention of the Pharmaceutical companies in the edition and selection of those criterias; he stated that “unless its course is corrected, DSM‐V will lead to many damaging unintended consequences”.

Here is the editorial published by Psychiatric Times where Dr Frances reveals the tensions within the members of the DSM V task force and the intervention of the Pharmaceutical Companies.

El Doctor Allen Frances perteneció a la fuerza de trabajo que desarrollo el DSM IV y que publico su famoso manual en 1994. El fue también miembro del departamento de psiquiatría de la universidad de Duke en Carolina del Norte, donde hoy trabaja como profesor emérito. Mientras trabajaba en el DSM, el estableció unos estrictos parámetros para asegurar que los cambios entre el DSM-III-R y el DSM IV fueran pocos y bien soportados por datos empíricos. El Dr. Frances, recientemente, objetó los nuevos criterios diagnósticos y predijo potenciales graves problemas en las metas, métodos y productos del DSM V, gracias a la intervención de las compañías farmacéuticas en la redacción y selección de dichos criterios. El ha dicho que “A menos que el curso sea corregido, el DSM V llevara a muchas, aunque involuntarias, consecuencias nefastas” (la traducción es mía). Aquí está el editorial publicado por la revista “Psychiatric Times” en donde el Dr. Frances revela las tensiones entre los miembros de la fuerza de trabajo para el DSM V y la intervención de las compañías farmacéuticas.

Mike Rosenthal: http://vectorbelly.com/electrical45.html

DSM-5: Dissent From Within

By Allen Francis, MD | January 3, 2011

Many people associated with DSM-5 have privately expressed their serious doubts to me, but felt muzzled into public silence by constraining confidentiality agreements and loyalty to the process. Gary Greenberg's recent DSM-5 piece inWired offers a set of dispirited quotes from discouraged Work Group members--but again he elicited them only under the promise of strict anonymity. Until now, the only people connected to DSM-5 to express public displeasure were the two who have resigned from it.

John Livesley, a highly respected member of the Personality Disorders (PD) Work Group, has now broken this fortress defensiveness and enforced wall of silence. He has published a brilliantly reasoned critique titled "Confusion and Incoherence in the Classification of Personality Disorder: Commentary on the Preliminary Proposals for DSM-5."

The title says it all --the PD proposal is a pretentious emperor without any clothes. Livesley systematically catalogs all its many defects: breathtakingly radical change based on questionable empirical support, lack of reasonable rationale, mind boggling and incoherent complexity, poor taxonomic methods, and inconsistency among components. This is a proposal that will never be used by clinicians, will greatly hamper personality disorder research, and will blacken the reputation of dimensional diagnosis. It will reduce the credibility of personality disorder as an important clinical issue, leading patients with severe personality problems to be misdiagnosed and hence mistreated or not treated at all.

Opposition to the proposal is virtually unanimous among personality disorder experts. Strong critiques have been, or soon will be, published in The American Journal of Psychiatry; the Journal of Abnormal Psychology; the Journal of Personality Disorders; and Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment. Only a very flawed and unnecessarily closed DSM-5 process could have allowed the survival to this late stage of such bizarrely misguided and idiosyncratic suggestions.

Clearly, breaking with his colleagues was not an easy step for Dr Livesley, or one he took lightly. The confidentiality restrictions turned out not to be a problem-- he bypassed them simply by using only information that is already available in the public domain. His more difficult choice was whether to expose the follies of the PD work group-- given his understandable bond of loyalty to colleagues on the committee. Fortunately, this was trumped by four much stronger and even more admirable loyalties-- "to intellectual honesty, respect for empirical findings, and concern for the future of the field and patient care."

I know that many other DSM-5 workers are similarly disturbed by the lack of organization in the DSM-5 process and the wayward nature of many of its proposals. They have heretofore been frozen into immobile public silence by some combination of team spirit, passivity, the confidentiality agreements, distaste for controversy, and fear of retaliation. Dr Livesley's well reasoned dissenting opinion provides DSM-5 participants with a model of responsible behavior under difficult circumstances. Principled and open dissent is a time-honored way of reconciling the conflicting pressures they must feel. If this is a good enough approach for the Supreme Court, why not have it inform a DSM-5 process that has become the supreme court of diagnostic judgment?

Everyone involved with DSM-5 should follow Dr Livesley's example and at last feel encouraged to speak openly. They needn't worry about confidentiality agreements if comments focus on information that is posted and public. Intellectual honesty and concern for patient welfare trump narrow loyalties to colleagues or guild interest.

It is not too late to save DSM-5 from itself-- if only those working on it will finally break free of groupspeak and share their thoughts with the field-- as they should have been encouraged to do from very outset. The current sad state of DSM-5 has been caused by secrecy and defensiveness. The only salvation is completely frank and open discussion. Great thanks are owed to Dr Livesley for having demonstrated the wisdom, responsibility, and courage to light this path for his colleagues.

Dr Livesley's article can be found online in the current issue of the journal Psychological Injury and the Law -http://www.springerlink.com/openurl.asp?genre=article&id=doi:10.1007/s12207-010-9094-8. I recommend it highly to anyone interested in the conceptual issues that underlie personality disorder diagnosis and more broadly to those concerned with the problems that have bedeviled the development of DSM-5. He will be publishing additional thoughts in a spring issue of the Journal of Personality Disorders devoted to the DSM-5 suggestions.

Child Obesity is Child Abuse! // Obesidad Infantil es Abuso Infantil.

2012-05-20T18:52:00.000-07:00

Some Facts

Without reducing consumption, more than one in five children will be obese by 2020.

"16% of American youth 6-19 are now overweight and 34% are at risk for becoming overweight."

Centers for Disease Control, August 2007

"The prevalence of overweight adolescents 12-19 has nearly tripled in the past two decades."

U.S. Surgeon General, December 2002

The health consequences of the obesity epidemic among kids demand immediate action. Children's food choices are heavily dependent on adults, and childhood obesity predicts a lifetime of struggles with weight and disease. It's time for an all-out national campaign to change this disturbing picture.

American youngsters have a long way to go to reach new goals for a lower childhood obesity rate, new study shows.

The science behind “broken heart syndrome” // La ciencia detras del "Sindrome de Corazon Roto"

2012-05-19T13:22:00.000-07:00

The science behind “broken heart syndrome”

Posted By P.J. Skerrett On February 14, 2012

http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/the-science-behind-broken-heart-syndrome-201202144256/print/

During Valentine’s season, it’s not hard to run across articles on what’s come to be called broken-heart syndrome. These often open with a touching story of a long-married couple that died within days of each other.
Many of these articles lump two completely different conditions under the “broken heart” heading. One is stress cardiomyopathy, sometimes known as takotsubo cardiomyopathy. The other is myocardial infarction, better known as a heart attack.
A huge sudden stress—like news that a loved one has died, experiencing an earthquake, or learning that your accountant has stolen all of your retirement savings—unleashes a torrent of stress hormones. Most of us weather this storm just fine. Others don’t.

Stress cardiomyopathy

Stress cardiomyopathy is a weakening of the left ventricle, the heart’s main pumping chamber. The bottom portion of the left ventricle balloons out each time the heart beats. It was originally called takotsubo cardiomyopathy because the shape of the left ventricle resembles the tako-tsubo, a Japanese trap used to catch octopi (see image). Exactly how stress makes this happen isn’t yet known.
Calling this “broken-heart syndrome” is cute, but limited. In addition to happening after news of unexpected loss, stress cardiomyopathy can be caused by an accident, episode of severe fear or pain, fierce argument, or even something that’s supposed to be pleasurable, like a surprise party or winning the lottery.
Stress cardiomyopathy feels like a heart attack—pain in the chest, left arm, jaw, or upper back; feeling short of breath or lightheaded; the sudden onset of nausea, dizziness, or a cold sweat. It even looks like one on an electrocardiogram. But none of the coronary arteries are blocked, the hallmark of a heart attack.
Treating stress cardiomyopathy generally involves the use of heart-protecting medications such as beta blockers, ACE inhibitors, and diuretics. Over the course of a week or longer, the ballooning tends to fade and the left ventricle usually recovers its pumping power.
(You can read more about stress cardiomyopathy in this article from the Harvard Women’s Health Watch.)

Myocardial infarction

Plaque is the cholesterol-filled gunk that builds up inside arteries throughout the body. Small plaques are silent; large ones can cause angina—chest pain or pressure brought on by physical activity or emotional stress. A big, sudden stress can lead to a heart attack two ways: by causing plaque to burst, or by triggering a dangerous heart rhythm.
When a plaque bursts, it spews a mixture of activated cholesterol, white blood cells, and other debris into the bloodstream. A blood clot forms to seal the leak and contain the damage. If the clot is so big that it completely blocks the artery, blood stops flowing to a section of heart muscle. Without oxygenated blood, that area of the heart begins to die. That’s a heart attack.
A surge or stress hormones can also interfere with the precisely timed signals that keep the heart beating steadily. It can make the left ventricle beat so fast and so erratically that it never has time to relax and fill with blood. Circulation to the brain and body stops. This situation, known as ventricular fibrillation, is a common cause of sudden (and deadly) cardiac arrest.
Over the years, a number of studies have shown that sudden stress from earthquakes, wars, sporting events, and more are followed by a spike in heart attacks. It happens with sudden loss and grief, too. A new study from Harvard-affiliated Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center showed that the risk of having a heart attack is 21 times higher than normal within the first day after a loved one dies. The elevated risk drops as the days pass. The report was published in the journal Circulation. (You can read more about sudden stress and heart attack in this article from the Harvard Heart Letter.)

Prevention is tricky

There’s no way to steel yourself against the shock of bad news. All you can hope for is that your heart can handle it. The best way to get it ready is by making the kinds of healthy daily choices that protect the heart and prevent the buildup of plaque. You know which ones I mean—exercising, eating a healthy diet, not smoking, and the like.
If your heart has been broken and you are in mourning or grief, take care of yourself, advise the Beth Israel Deaconess researchers. Try to eat and sleep, don’t forget to take any needed medications, and take seriously symptoms such as chest pain.

State budget talks move forward - Florida - MiamiHerald.com

2012-03-05T06:40:00.000-08:00

Florida Senator Negron wants to cut the, already insuficient, budget to cover the mental health of Floridians, are you nuts????
State budget talks move forward - Florida - MiamiHerald.com

Antidepressants: can they cure tiredness or premenstrual tension? / Los antidepresivos pueden curar el cansancio y la tension pre menstrual?

2012-03-04T19:39:00.002-08:00

A rise in prescribing of antidepressants by doctors who are not psychiatrists, often for uses other than depression/anxiety, has helped build what is now a massive market. According to IMS Health, sales of antidepressants in the United States alone surpassed $11 billion in 2010. Antidepressants are now the third most commonly prescribed drug class in this country. Four out of five physicians prescribing antidepressants are not psychiatrists, and antidepressants are commonly prescribed by primary care doctors. Between 1996 and 2007, the percentage of doctor visits during which antidepressants were prescribed but no psychiatric diagnosis was noted increased from 59.5% to 72.7%, according to the study. Antidepressants have been demonstrated to be clinically effective for only a limited number of psychiatric conditions: major depressive disorder, chronic depression, some anxiety disorders, and a few other well-defined conditions, but antidepressant use is becoming concentrated among people with less severe and poorly defined medical conditions and even problems such as tiredness, nonspecific pain, smoking problems, headaches, abnormal sensations and premenstrual tension. What’s the reason behind this?

CLICK HERE

El incremento en la prescripción de antidepresivos por médicos que no son psiquiatras, a menudo para usos diferentes a los de tratar Depresión/Ansiedad, ha contribuido en la construcción de un Mercado masivo en esta industria. De acuerdo con IMS Health, las ventas de antidepresivos en Estados Unidos solamente ha sobrepasado los $11 billones de dólares en 2010. Antidepresivos son la tercera prescripción mas común en el país. Cuatro de cada cinco médicos que prescriben anti depresivos, no son psiquiatras y los anti depresivos son recetados por médicos primarios. El porcentaje de visitas a estos doctores mientras no existía un diagnostico psiquiátrico se incremento de 59.5% hasta 72.7% de acuerdo al estudio. Este tipo de drogas han demostrado que son clínicamente efectivas únicamente en un limitado numero de condiciones psiquiátricas: depresión mayor, depresión crónica, algunos desordenes de ansiedad, y algunas cuantas condiciones bien definidas, pero el uso de antidepresivos se ha ido concentrando en personas con diagnósticos menos severos o incluso pobres diagnósticos como cansancio, dolores inespecíficos, problemas para dejar de fumar, dolores de cabeza, sensaciones anormales y síndrome pre menstrual entre otros. Cual es la razón detrás de esto?

CLICK AQUI

Any link between Breast Cancer and the use of Deodorant? // Vinculos entre Cáncer de Seno y uso de desodorante?

2012-02-12T12:39:00.000-08:00

Articles in the press and on the Internet have warned that underarm antiperspirants or deodorants cause breast cancer. The reports have suggested that these products contain harmful substances (focused on the so called “parabens”), which can be absorbed through the skin or enter the body through nicks caused by shaving. Some scientists have also proposed that certain ingredients in underarm antiperspirants or deodorants may be related to breast cancer because they are applied frequently to an area next to the breast.

However, researchers at the National Cancer Institute (NCI), a part of the National Institutes of Health, are not aware of any conclusive evidence linking the use of underarm antiperspirants or deodorants and the subsequent development of breast cancer. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which regulates food, cosmetics, medicines, and medical devices, also does not have any evidence or research data that ingredients in underarm antiperspirants or deodorants cause cancer. A new development has been presented in the FOLLOWING ARTICLE.

Artículos publicados en prensa e internet han advertido que el uso de anti-transpirantes o desodorantes esta ligado al cáncer de seno. Estos reportes han sugerido que dichos productos contienen substancias nocivas (se han enfocado en los llamados “parabens”), que pueden ser absorbidos a través de la piel o ingresar al cuerpo a través de heriditas causadas por la rasurada. Algunos investigadores han propuesto que ciertos ingredientes en los anti-transpirantes o desodorantes pueden estar relacionados con cáncer de seno porque ellos son aplicados frecuentemente en un área cercana al seno.

Sin embargo, Investigadores del Instituto Nacional del Cáncer en Estados Unidos, una división del Instituto Nacional de Salud, no tiene conocimiento de alguna evidencia concreta que asocie el uso de desodorantes o anti-transpirantes con el subsecuente desarrollo de cáncer de seno. La Administración de Drogas y Alimentos (FDA), encargada de regular alimentos, cosméticos, medicinas y aparatos médicos, tampoco ha encontrado alguna evidencia o investigación que indique que los ingredientes de estos productos produzcan cáncer. Un nuevo desarrollo ha sido planteado en el SIGUIENTE ARTICULO.

War Against Sweets // Guerra contra los Dulces.

2012-02-05T07:18:00.000-08:00

Sugar May Be Bad; But Is the Alternative Worse? A group of researchers from Purdue University, who reviewed several articles published in the last decade, have concluded that sweeteners and sugar alternatives produces the same health problems as their nemesis: the sugar. These conclusions added a new element to the "war against obesity" declared by first lady Michelle Obama.
A controversial proposal, seconded by several scientists, plans to regulate sugar and sweeteners as toxic substances and classify them as dangerous based on their proven relationship with higher risks of heart disease, stroke and type 2 diabetes. will this multi million industry fight back using powerful lobbyists and politician friends? Well... Yeah... Duh!!! Clik here to see the article.

El azúcar pude ser malo; pero, es peor la alternativa? Un grupo de investigadores de la Universidad Purdue revisó varios artículos publicados la última década y concluyó que las alternativas artificiales producen los mismos problemas de salud que su rival: el azúcar. Estas conclusiones han añadido un nuevo elemento a la "Guerra contra la Obesidad" liderada por la Primera Dama Michelle Obama.
Una propuesta controversial, secundada por varios científicos, planea regular el azúcar y los endulzantes como SUSTANCIAS TOXICAS y clasificarlos como peligrosos basados en su probada relación con el elevado riesgo asociado a problemas coronarios, ACV's y Diabetes tipo II. Querría esta industria multi-millonaria dar la pelea y utilizar a sus poderosos cabilderos y políticos amigos? pues claro... Click aqui para ver el articulo.

First you get the Sugar, then you get the Power, then you get the Women!

If you have a work related injury, are you covered?

2012-02-04T10:30:00.000-08:00

If you have a work related injury, are you covered? Does that impact you financially? THINK TWICE!!!

The journal Milbank Quarterly, published the article Economic Burden of Occupational Injury and Illness in the United State. Here, the author exposes that, an average of 5,600 fatal injuries and around 8,500,000 Non-Fatal occur every year in the US, bringing a cost of $200 billion of medical expenses and insurance claims. The workers compensation plans covered ONLY 25% of those costs; can you imagine who would assume the rest of the debt? CLICK HERE to read the report.

Si usted tiene una lesion relacionada con su trabajo, esta usted cubierto? Esto impactara sus finanzas? Pienselo OTRA VEZ!!!

La revista Milbank Quarterly publicó el articulo titulado “Carga económica de las lesiones y enfermedades ocupacionales en los Estados Unidos. En el, el autor expone que en promedio 5,600 fatalidades y alrededor de 8,500,000 de accidentes no fatales ocurren cada año en los Estados Unidos. Generando un costo de $200 millones de millones en gastos médicos y cobros al seguro. Los planes de compensación laboral solo cubrieron el 25% de ese monto. Puede usted imaginar quien tendrá que asumir el resto de la deuda? Haga CLICK AQUÍ para acceder al reporte.

Supercentenarians!!! Is this the secret to living to 100+ years old?

2012-02-04T10:02:00.000-08:00

Genes are probably the key to open the answers to many questions that he humankind has made since the beginning of our time. Only one in five million people cross the boundary of a century of life. But, what the scientist discovered is incredible: “People who live 110 years or longer have as many disease-associated genes as those in the general population”. So… what’s the explanation? This article posted at the site Everyday Health explains the findings of those recent studies.

CLICK HERE

Genes son probablemente la llave para abrir las respuestas a algunas de las muchas preguntas que la humanidad ha hecho desde el comienzo de nuestros tiempos. Únicamente uno entre cinco millones de personas cruza la frontera del centenario de vida. Lo que los científicos han encontrado es increíble: Las personas que viven 110 años o más, tienen tantos genes asociados a enfermedades como el resto de la población, entonces… ¿Cuál es la explicación? El siguiente articulo publicado en el portal Everyday Health, explica los resultados de los recientes estudios.

CLICK AQUI

6 foods that can change your life // Seis comidas que pueden cambiar tu vida

2012-01-17T19:16:00.000-08:00

We have heard it many times, WE ARE WHAT WE EAT, but behind this affirmation rest a fact; food can make us sick, but can food cure?
Let’s check some food that can help us improve our health.
CLICK HERE.

Todos hemos escuchado muchas veces que SOMOS LO QUE COMEMOS, pero detrás de esta afirmación se encuentra una realidad. La comida puede enfermarnos, pero también puede curarnos?
Los invito a conocer algunos alimentos que pueden ayudarnos a mejorar nuestra salud.
CLICK AQUI.

BREAKING NEWS FDA Allows "Mystery" Pills from China to Be Sold in U.S. // ATENCION FDA au

2012-01-17T18:50:00.000-08:00

Is not a secret that pharmaceutical companies make zillions every year with “creative” strategies, but this has gone too far.

CLICK HERE

No es un secreto que las compañías farmacéuticas producen millones de dólares anuales con estrategias “creativas”, pero esto ha ido muy lejos.

CLICK AQUI

'Healthy' Diet Best for ADHD Kids // Dieta saludable es mejor para Ninos con Hiperactividad.

2012-01-11T19:01:00.000-08:00

According to researchers from Children's Memorial Hospital in Chicago, a relatively simple diet low in fats and high in whole grains, fruits, and vegetables is one of the best alternatives to drug therapy for ADHD. Omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acid supplements have also been shown to help in some controlled studies. I personally believe that the ADHD has been over diagnosed in our recent years and dietary habits, based on processed and fast food, have been underestimated in the role played at the time of diagnosing ADHD. The article presented here gives an idea of how an appropriate diet can help in modifying certain behaviors and can constitute in an element to be taken in consideration at the time of developing a comprehensive treatment.
CLICK HERE

De acuerdo con Investigadores del Children's Memorial Hospital de Chicago, una relativamente simple dieta baja en grasas in rica en granos integrales, frutas y vegetales, es una de las mejores alternativas para la terapia con fármacos en Déficit de Atención e Hiperactividad (ADHD por sus siglas en ingles). Omega 3 y Omega 6, suplementos de ácidos grasos también han mostrado cierta ayuda al aplicarse en estudios controlados. Yo personalmente considero que el ADHD ha sido sobre diagnosticado en nuestros años recientes y los hábitos alimenticios, basados en comidas rápidas y procesadas, ha sido subestimado en el papel que juegan a la hora de diagnosticar ADHD. El articulo presentado en esta entrada da una idea de cómo una dieta apropiada puede ayudar a modificar ciertos comportamientos y puede constituirse en elemento para ser tenido en cuenta al momento de desarrollar un tratamiento exhaustivo.

CLICK AQUI

Are you more stressed than you think? // Esta usted mas estresado de lo que piensa?

2012-01-10T10:36:00.000-08:00

Stress is considered as a psychological and physical response of the body that occurs whenever we must adapt to changing conditions, whether those conditions be real or perceived, positive or negative. Although everyone has stress in their lives, people respond to stress in different ways. Some people seem to be severely affected while others seem calm, cool, and collected all the time. Regardless, we all have it. However, a stage of continues stress could lead to serious health problems and is the door to many of the most common preventable chronic diseases. Here are NINE signs that revel that you are more stressed out than you think.

Estrés es considerado como una respuesta psicológica y fisiológica de nuestro cuerpo que ocurre cada vez que nos debemos adaptar a condiciones cambiantes. Condiciones reales o percibidas, positivas o negativas. Aunque todas las personas tenemos estrés en nuestras vidas, cada persona responde al estrés de diferentes maneras; algunas personas se pueden percibir severamente afectadas mientras que otras se ven calmadas, tranquilas y contenidas todo el tiempo. A pesar de esto, todos tenemos estrés. Sin embargo un continuo estado de estrés podría conducir a serios problemas de salud y es la puerta para muchos de las más comunes enfermedades crónicas prevenibles. Aquí están NUEVE señales que revelan si usted estaría más estresado de lo que pensaba.

Test to Understand Cancer Risk

2012-01-07T17:42:00.001-08:00

This test was developed by the Harvard School of Public Health and evaluates risk factors of the most common types of cancer. This interactive tool estimates the risk of cancer and provides personalized tips for prevention. Anyone can use it, but it's most accurate for people age 40 and over who have never had any type of cancer.
This tool takes only few minutes to be answered and helps you understand your risk so you can MODIFY them and focus on your prevention efforts.

Because the best way to fight cancer is to stop it before it starts!

CLICK HERE TO GO TO THE TEST

Este Test fue desarrollado por la Escuela de Salud Publica de la Universidad de Harvard, evalúa los factores de riesgo de los más comunes tipos de Cáncer. Esta herramienta interactiva estima el riesgo de desarrollar Cáncer y provee consejos personalizados para iniciar la prevención.

Esta herramienta toma únicamente unos pocos minutos para ser respondida y produce una enorme ayuda para entender SU riesgo de tal manera que usted puede modificarlo y centrarse en los esfuerzos para prevenir.

Porque la mejor manera de combatir el cáncer es detenerlo antes de que comience.

CLICK AQUI PARA IR AL TEST

Do you wanna get rid of your belly fat? Start exercising.

2012-01-07T06:42:00.001-08:00

Jogging Beats Weight Lifting for Losing Belly Fat

Compared with resistance training, aerobic exercise burns 67% more calories, research shows.

By Robert Preidt, HealthDay News

FRIDAY, Aug. 26 (HealthDay News) — Aerobic exercise is better than resistance training if you want to lose the belly fat that poses a serious threat to your health, researchers say.

That's the finding of their eight-month study that compared the effectiveness of aerobic exercise (such as jogging), resistance training (such as weight lifting), or a combination of the two activities in 196 overweight, sedentary adults aged 18 to 70.

The participants in the aerobic group did the equivalent of 12 miles of jogging per week at 80 percent maximum heart rate, while those in the resistance group did three sets of eight to 12 repetitions three times per week.

The Duke University Medical Center researchers looked at how these types of exercise reduced the fat that's deep within the abdomen and fills the spaces between internal organs. This type of fat — called visceral and liver fat — is associated with increased risk of heart disease, diabetes, and some types of cancer.

Aerobic exercise significantly reduced visceral and liver fat and improved risk factors for heart disease and diabetes, such as insulin resistance, liver enzymes and triglyceride levels. Resistance training didn't deliver these benefits. Aerobic exercise plus resistance training achieved results similar to aerobic exercise alone, the investigators found.

"Resistance training is great for improving strength and increasing lean body mass," lead author and exercise physiologist Cris Slentz said in a Duke news release. "But if you are overweight, which two-thirds of the population is, and you want to lose belly fat, aerobic exercise is the better choice because it burns more calories."

Aerobic exercise burned 67 percent more calories than resistance training, the researchers found.

The study was published in the Aug. 25 issue of the American Journal of Physiology.

Are U.S. clinical trial results under-reported?

2012-01-06T16:35:00.000-08:00

Research

Andrew P Prayle, NIHR doctoral research fellow,

Matthew N Hurley, Wellcome Trust paediatric clinical research fellow,

Alan R Smyth, professor of child health

Abstract

Objective To examine compliance with mandatory reporting of summary clinical trial results (within one year of completion of trial) on ClinicalTrials.gov for studies that fall under the recent Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act (FDAAA) legislation.

Design Registry based study of clinical trial summaries.

Data sources ClinicalTrials.gov, searched on 19 January 2011, with cross referencing with Drugs@FDA to determine for which trials mandatory reporting was required within one year.

Selection criteria Studies registered on ClinicalTrials.gov with US sites which completed between 1 January and 31 December 2009.

Main outcome measure Proportion of trials for which results had been reported.

Results The ClinicalTrials.gov registry contained 83 579 entries for interventional trials, of which 5642 were completed within the timescale of interest. We identified trials as falling within the mandatory reporting rules if they were covered by the FDAAA (trials of a drug, device, or biological agent, which have at least one US site, and are of phase II or later) and if they investigated a drug that already had approval from the Food and Drug Administration. Of these, 163/738 (22%) had reported results within one year of completion of the trial compared with 76/727 (10%) trials that were not subject to mandatory reporting (95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions 7.8% to 15.5%; χ² test, P=2.6×10⁻⁹). Later phase trials were more likely to report results (P=4.4×10⁻¹¹), as were industry funded trials (P=2.2×10⁻¹⁶).

Conclusion Most trials subject to mandatory reporting did not report results within a year of completion.

Introduction

A key principle in the good conduct of clinical trials is that a summary of the trial protocol should be freely available while the study is ongoing and that, on completion of the study, the results should be readily accessible to all in a timely fashion. In February 2000 the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Modernization Act (1997) prompted the creation of a national clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov).1 2 Similar databases (such as the ISRCTN) have been established elsewhere. From 2005 the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) required that clinical trials should be indexed in a clinical trial registry to qualify for publication in a journal following the uniform requirements for manuscripts.3 Subsequently, the FDA Amendments Act (FDAAA) of 2007 required registration of summaries of trial protocols for “applicable clinical trials” (trials that are covered by the FDAAA).4 These are trials that have at least one site in the United States; are of a drug, device, or biological agent; and are “initiated or ongoing as of September 2007,” excluding phase I studies and early feasibility trials of devices.5 Clinical trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (clinicaltrials.gov) by “responsible parties” and uploaded to the website by using the Protocol Registration System (http://prsinfo.clinicaltrials.gov). The uploading of trial results is achieved in a similar fashion and reviewed by a Protocol Registration System administrator before publication on ClinicalTrials.gov. At present, clinical trials of drugs that already have FDA approval are required to report results within one year of completion of the trial (with some provisions for delayed reporting), although in the future applicable clinical trials of unapproved drugs or biological agents that are regulated by the FDA may also be required to report results.6 These results are posted in the form of a table of values for each of the pre-specified primary and secondary outcome measures for each arm of the clinical trial, with associated statistical tests.

This new legislation should help to overcome the problem of trials that are done but not reported.7 Zarin et al have recently described the current activity of ClinicalTrials.gov,8 and Wood has given a thoughtful discussion of the current legislation,6 but no systematic evaluation of compliance with the FDAAA has been published (to the best of our knowledge). Zarin et al recently commented that the “usefulness [of ClinicalTrials.gov] depends upon the research community to submit accurate, informative data.” While searching the ClinicalTrials.gov database, we noted that studies under the jurisdiction of the FDAAA had not yet reported basic results. We decided to look into this further.

Studies of a drug, device, or biological agent with a site in the United States that completed in 2009 are subject to the FDAAA regulations and are required to submit a protocol summary to ClinicalTrials.gov. Of these, most trials of drugs approved by the FDA are subject to mandatory reporting within a year. Our aim was to systematically assess the compliance with mandatory reporting on ClinicalTrials.gov of interventional clinical trials falling under the FDAAA and to look for evidence of reporting bias by using publicly available datasets.

We did a database search of trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov which completed in 2009 and are covered by the FDAAA. To identify the subgroup of these studies for which mandatory reporting is required within one year of study completion, we cross referenced our search results with Drugs@FDA (the US database of FDA approved drugs).

Methods

Not all trials registered with ClinicalTrials.gov are covered by the FDAAA, and only a proportion of those covered by the FDAAA are required to report results within one year (“trials subject to mandatory reporting”). We identified this group of trials as follows. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov (search date 19 January 2011) for all intervention studies. We identified completed studies by using the “primary completion date” field (or, where this was not recorded, the “completion date”). The primary completion date, as defined by ClinicalTrials.gov, is the date of collection of primary outcome data on the last patient to be enrolled. The completion date is the date of completion of the study, as defined by the individual trial’s investigators. We selected trials subject to mandatory reporting (within one year) which were completed between 1 January and 31 December 2009. We chose these dates because all the studies completing within this timeframe would have had at least one year in which to report results.

We excluded phase 0 and I trials, as well as trials that did not report a phase. We used a script to programmatically obtain the study site(s) for each trial. We excluded studies that did not have a site in the United States. Additionally, we excluded studies that were not clinical trials of a drug, biological therapy, or device. The remaining studies therefore consisted of trials that are covered by the FDAAA.

Trials of drugs that are not approved by the FDA at the time of the 12 month deadline are not yet required to be reported. We cross referenced the investigational drug for each of the applicable clinical trials with the FDA database of approved drugs, Drugs@FDA (www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/drugsatfda/index.cfm), to identify trials of approved drugs (hereafter termed “trials subject to mandatory reporting”—see data supplement (http://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.j512f21p) for further description and examples of this classification). Owing to the nature of the records available on Drugs@FDA, this removed devices and some biological agents from the mandatory reporting dataset. For the primary analysis, we categorised a drug as being FDA approved if the active compound listed on ClinicalTrials.gov was listed as an approved drug on Drugs@FDA. For example, if tobramycin was administered by injection in the trial, we classified this as an approved drug, as tobramycin products administered by injection are approved on Drugs@FDA. However, for a trial in which tobramycin was administered as a dry powder for inhalation, we did not classify this as an approved drug, as this formulation was not approved on Drugs@FDA at the time of our search. One investigator (APP) classified all drugs. Another investigator (MNH) classified a 10% sample of these to measure inter-rater agreement.

We occasionally had difficulty in deciding whether a generic drug listed in a ClinicalTrials.gov record was in fact a formulation approved by the FDA. For this reason, we did a subgroup analysis in which only drugs approved by the FDA and identified by brand name on ClinicalTrials.gov were considered approved drugs.

We compared the reporting rate of trials subject to mandatory reporting with trials that fall under the FDAAA but are not subject to mandatory reporting. We examined the relation of phase of study and funder of the trial with reporting of results for trials subject to mandatory reporting.

We imported the dataset from ClinicalTrials.gov into Microsoft Excel. We used R (R-Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria; version 2.12.1) to “webscrape” additional information from the ClinicalTrials.gov website.9 We analysed the final reported dataset by using R. Further details of the categorisation of trials, the complete dataset, and R scripts to produce the results that we report here are available as data supplements (http://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.j512f21p).

Results

At the time of our search, the ClinicalTrials.gov registry included 83 579 entries for intervention studies (figure⇓). Of these, we identified 31 556 as having “completed,” and 5642 had completion dates between 1 January and 31 December 2009. We excluded phase 0 and I studies (n=1098), as well as trials that did not indicate a phase of clinical study (1170), those that did not have a US site (1752), and trials that were not of a device, drug, or biological agent (157). This established a group of 1465 trials covered by the FDAAA, for which more than a year had passed since completion in which to report results.

View larger version:

In a new window

Download as PowerPoint Slide

Flow diagram to show selection of trials

Reporting for applicable trials is (at present) mandatory only for drugs, biological agents, or devices approved by the FDA. By cross referencing with Drugs@FDA (www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/drugsatfda/index.cfm), we found that 738 trials covered by the FDAAA were subject to mandatory reporting. APP categorised drugs from trials as previously approved by the FDA. MNH repeated this classification for a sample of 150 (10%) of the records. Disagreement resolved by discussion led to a change in classification in 3/150 (2%) of records.

Of the 738 trials that were classified as subject to mandatory reporting, 163 (22%) had reported results. In comparison, 76/727 (10%) trials covered by the FDAAA but not subject to mandatory reporting had reported results (95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions 7.8% to 15.5%; χ² test, P=2.6×10⁻⁹).

The proportion of trials subject to mandatory reporting that had reported results was influenced by the phase of the study (table 1⇓). Fewer phase II trials had reported results compared with phase III and IV trials (χ² test, P=4.4×10⁻¹¹). We categorised the funder of the trial as industry, mixed, National Institutes of Health/government, or other and found that the funder of the trial influenced the proportion that had reported results (Fisher’s exact test, P=2.2×10⁻¹⁶) (table 2⇓). Industry funded trials were more likely to report results. We therefore grouped trials subject to mandatory reporting into “solely industry funded” and “not solely industry funded.” More solely industry funded studies (126/317; 40%) had reported results than had those not solely industry funded (37/421 (9%); 95% confidence interval for the difference 24.7% to 37.3%; χ² test, P=2.2×10⁻¹⁶).

View this table:

Table 1

Number of trials subject to mandatory reporting which had reported results, grouped by phase of study

View this table:

Table 2

Number of trials subject to mandatory reporting which had reported results, grouped by funder of study

We did a subgroup analysis to determine the proportion of trials that gave the brand name of the investigated drug on the ClinicalTrials.gov record (for which we had more confidence in our categorisation of the drug as being approved by the FDA) which reported results. Of the 738 drug trials that we had classified as being subject to mandatory reporting, 347 trials gave the brand name for each and every drug in the trial. Of these 347 trials, 96 (28%) had reported results.

Discussion

Reporting of summary results on ClinicalTrials.gov is an important step forward in reducing bias in the literature. We have cross referenced the ClinicalTrials.gov and Drugs@FDA databases to produce a dataset of trials that should have reported results at the time of our search, and we found that only 22% of trials had done so. If the reporting rate does not increase, the laudable FDAAA legislation will not achieve its goal of improving the accessibility of trial results.

The influence of funding body and sponsor seems to be considerable. Industry funded trials subject to mandatory reporting were more likely to report results compared with other funders. Phase III and IV studies seem more likely to be reported than phase II studies.

Comparison with literature

Many potential sources of bias may skew the literature.10 11 Apart from citation bias, these biases can be ascribed to the investigator, sponsor, and publisher. Although studies with positive results are published more quickly,12 13 14 no significant relation seems to exist between trial results and time between submission of a manuscript to a journal and publication.15 ClinicalTrials.gov allows dissemination of summary results independent of a publisher. Our study supports the suggestion that study investigators and sponsors act as the principal sources of reporting bias; reporting of results to ClinicalTrials.gov is independent of peer review, manuscript preparation, and editorial priorities.

Strengths and limitations of study

The FDAAA requirements for mandatory reporting came into force during 2008. By selecting studies that completed during 2009, and doing our search in early 2011, we have ensured that the trials completed during the period when the FDAAA was applicable and that at least one year had elapsed for data to be submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov. We are reliant on responsible parties from each study uploading accurate data to ClinicalTrials.gov. We believe that our search in January 2011 represents the earliest reasonable time to do our study. We anticipate (and hope) that as more investigators become familiar with the legislation, reporting rates will increase. As we present a cross sectional study from a single year, we cannot comment on trends in reporting of results.

An important limitation of the study is that we have identified trials subject to mandatory reporting through publicly available summary data on the trials. We categorised a trial as covered by the FDAAA if it had at least one site in the United States, was Phase II or later, and investigated a device, drug, or biological agent. The possibility remains of misclassification of trials as either FDAAA applicable or FDAAA non-applicable, owing to the nature of the information available to us on ClinicalTrials.gov.

We identified a group of trials subject to mandatory reporting by cross referencing the ClinicalTrials.gov record with Drugs@FDA (the online database of FDA approved drugs). This was straightforward when the brand name of the drug was listed in the ClinicalTrials.gov record and that product had FDA approval. Similarly, categorising drugs as non-FDA approved when the brand name drug was not listed on Drugs@FDA or when a generic form with a different formulation or route of administration to the FDA approved product was used in the trial was a simple process. We had more difficulty in categorising a drug administered in a trial if the generic name given in the ClinicalTrials.gov record was approved by the FDA, as the approved drug may not necessarily have been the formulation administered in the trial. In these cases, we took an inclusive approach and included these trials in our mandatory reporting required group. We did a subgroup analysis using only trials of drugs for which the brand name of the drug was given in the trial (thus eliminating uncertainty as to whether the formulation in the trial was or was not FDA approved). In this analysis, 28% of trials had reported results, broadly similar to the 22% that we found with the more inclusive approach.

We have no data on the number of studies that applied for exemptions from the requirement for reporting. Industry funded studies are perhaps most likely to form part of an application for licensing/marketing, and therefore most likely to apply for an exemption, but we have found that industry funded studies are more likely to report results than are studies funded by other means. We also note that trials investigating new indications for drugs previously approved by the FDA are not required to upload results until two years after completion, but our methods did not allow us to identify these trials.

Although these various effects could increase our denominator and falsely decrease the overall reporting effect, we believe that this is unlikely to account for approximately 78% of the trials not reporting. Phase IV trials are (by definition) trials of drugs that have marketing approval, and so are of an FDA approved drug, and the indication studied in the trial should be the same as the approved indication. All of these studies should have reported results within one year, and yet only 31.3% had done so (table 1⇑). Although our denominator is necessarily somewhat uncertain, owing to the nature of the data that are publicly available, we believe that many clinical trials that should have reported basic results had not.

Conclusions and policy implications

Through studying the ClinicalTrials.gov database, which mandates the reporting of outcomes of completed but unpublished studies, we believe that an understanding of the extent of bias in the literature due to unpublished studies can be gained. This will be of great benefit to the clinicians who prescribe new treatments, the patients who take them, healthcare funders, and especially researchers doing systematic reviews of treatment interventions which inform all of the above. The availability of both the protocol and results in outline form helps to overcome both outcome reporting bias and publication bias.

We report a systematic approach to examining compliance with mandatory reporting. In a study such as ours, which uses only publicly available data and cross references one dataset to another, some debate will inevitably take place about whether we have accurately identified trials that fall under the FDAAA requirement for mandatory reporting. Within the limitations of our study design, we have identified a group of trials of which the vast majority should have reported summary results within a year and had not done so.

We believe that the FDAAA is an important milestone on the path to a future in which all the available evidence can be used to make decisions about treatment, and we applaud the farsighted nature of the legislation. We have found that trials subject to mandatory reporting are more likely to have reported results compared with other trials, illustrating the positive effect of the legislation and efforts of ClinicalTrials.gov. Nevertheless, overall reporting is poor.

What is already known on this topic

Reporting bias prevents the dissemination of results of clinical trials
Where trial data are not accessible to practitioners, clinical decisions cannot be based on the best evidence and may be flawed
Recent US legislation mandates publication of a results summary on ClincalTrials.gov for recent trials of drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration and should improve access to trial results

What this study adds

At the time of the search, many trials that should have published data on ClincalTrials.gov had not done so

Notes

Cite this as: BMJ 2012;344:d7373

Footnotes

Contributors: APP, MNH, and ARS designed the study. APP wrote the script to webscrape additional data from ClinicalTrials.gov. APP categorised the trials, MNH cross checked a subset, and ARS arbitrated. All authors had full access to the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. All authors wrote the manuscript. APP and MNH contributed equally to this work. ARS is the guarantor.
Funding: The study was not externally funded.
Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare that APP is supported by a National Institute for Health Research fellowship (DRF-2009-02-112) and MNH is supported by a Wellcome Trust fellowship (WT092295AIA). ARS declares relevant activities outside the submitted work of membership of a REMPEX steering committee, consultancies for Novartis and Biocontrol, and a lecture paid for by Chiesi Pharma. ARS has registered trials on ClinicalTrials.gov and other registries.
Ethical approval: Not needed.
Data sharing: Technical appendix, statistical code, and dataset available from the corresponding author (andrew.prayle@nottingham.ac.uk) or at http://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.j512f21p. Participants’ consent for data sharing not required.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non commercial and is otherwise in compliance with the license. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ and http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/legalcode.

References

↵

Food and Drug Administration. Modernization Act of 1997. Public Law No 105-115, 1997.
↵

McCray AT, Ide NC. Design and implementation of a national clinical trials registry. J Am Med Inform Assoc2000;7:313-23.

FREE Full Text
↵

Laine C, Horton R, DeAngelis CD, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, Godlee F, et al. Clinical trial registration—looking back and moving ahead. N Engl J Med2007;356:2734-6.

CrossRef Medline Web of Science
↵

Food and Drug Administration. Amendments Act of 2007. Public Law No 110-85, 2007.
↵

Tse T, Williams RJ, Zarin DA. Reporting “basic results” in ClinicalTrials.gov. Chest2009;136:295-303.

FREE Full Text
↵

Wood AJ. Progress and deficiencies in the registration of clinical trials. N Engl J Med2009;360:824-30.

CrossRef Medline Web of Science
↵

Dwan K, Altman DG, Arnaiz JA, Bloom J, Chan A-W, Cronin E, et al. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PLoS One2008;3:e3081.

CrossRef Medline
↵

Zarin DA, Tse T, Williams RJ, Califf RM, Ide NC. The ClinicalTrials.gov results database—update and key issues. N Engl J Med2011;364:852-60.

CrossRef Medline Web of Science
↵

R Development Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2010.
↵

Dwan K, Altman DG, Cresswell L, Blundell M, Gamble CL, Williamson PR. Comparison of protocols and registry entries to published reports for randomised controlled trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2011;1:MR000031.

Medline
↵

Higgins JPT, Green S, Cochrane C. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Wiley-Blackwell, 2008.
↵

Stern JM, Simes RJ. Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects. BMJ1997;315:640-5.

FREE Full Text
↵

Hopewell S, Clarke M, Stewart L, Tierney J. Time to publication for results of clinical trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2007;2:MR000011.

Medline
↵

Hopewell S, Loudon K, Clarke MJ, Oxman AD, Dickersin K. Publication bias in clinical trials due to statistical significance or direction of trial results. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2009;1:MR000006.

Medline
↵

Dickersin K, Olson CM, Rennie D, Cook D, Flanagin A, Zhu Q, et al. Association between time interval to publication and statistical significance. JAMA2002;287:2829-31.

FREE Full Text

Why Boozing Can Be Bad for Your Sex Life

2012-01-06T16:26:00.000-08:00

Sure, you're more likely to ask for her phone number after throwing back a few. But when it comes to your sexual health, alcohol can be one big turn off. Here's why.

By Chris Iliades, MD

Medically reviewed by Farrokh Sohrabi, MD

http://www.everydayhealth.com/erectile-dysfunction/why-boozing-can-be-bad-for-your-sex-life.aspx?xid=tw_everydayhealth_20120106_boozesex

Drink a little alcohol; kiss your bedroom jitters goodbye: Anyone who’s transformed into Don Juan after a couple of cocktails knows that. But beyond that newfound confidence, is alcohol good for your sex life?
Actually, the effect can be the opposite as your blood alcohol level increases. Alcohol is a depressant, and using it heavily can dampen mood, decrease sexual desire, and make it difficult for a man to achieve erections or reach an orgasm while under the influence. In fact, overdoing it on booze is a common cause of erectile dysfunction.
That doesn’t mean you need to cut back completely — most experts say moderation is key. But what's “moderation” exactly? According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), moderate drinking is no more than two drinks a day for men (and one drink a day for women). The liver can only break down the amount of alcohol in about one standard-size drink an hour, so regularly drinking more than that means that toxins from alcohol can build up in your body and affect your organs, including those involved in sex.
Here’s why you should think twice about tossing back too many.

5 Ways Alcohol Can Wreck Your Sex Life

For men, heavy drinking can lead to:
Temporary erectile dysfunction. Researchers have found that too much alcohol affects both your brain and your penis. In one University of Washington study, sober men were able to achieve an erection more quickly than intoxicated men — and some men are unable to have an erection at all after drinking.
That’s because pre-sex boozing decreases blood flow to your penis, reduces the intensity of your orgasm, and can dampen your level of excitement (in other words, even if you are able to have sex, it may not be nearly as pleasurable as it would be without the excess alcohol).
Long-term erectile dysfunction. The risk for long-term erectile dysfunction has been linked to chronic heavy use of alcohol. In fact, studies show that men who are dependent on alcohol have a 60 to 70 percent chance of suffering from sexual problems. The most common of these are erectile dysfunction, premature ejaculation, and loss of sexual desire.
Ruined relationships. According to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, alcohol use beyond moderation is associated with relationship problems that include conflict, infidelity, economic insecurity, and divorce. In addition, 90 percent of all sexual assaults involve alcohol consumption.
The sexual repercussions of smoking. If you are someone who tends to light up while drinking, you could be further increasing your risk for ED. For men under the age of 40, smoking is the biggest cause of erectile dysfunction — and studies show that men who smoke more than 10 cigarettes daily are at an increased risk for erectile dysfunction.
STDs. Another big risk when combining sex and alcohol? Getting exposed to a sexually transmitted disease. Studies show that almost 50 percent of unplanned sexual encounters involve alcohol, and 60 percent of STDs are transmitted when alcohol is involved. Young adults who use alcohol are seven times more likely to have unprotected sex.

Why Less Is More

The relaxing effect of alcohol and the feeling of well-being that comes with a drink or two have made alcohol humans’ favorite beverage for about 10,000 years. Though some studies confirm that alcohol (in moderation!) is good for your heart and circulation (which can work against erectile dysfunction), it’s important to remember that sex and alcohol are a delicate balancing act.
If you've experienced a lack of sexual desire, premature ejaculation, relationship problems, or erectile dysfunction because of mixing alcohol and sex, you may be letting alcohol get the best of your sex life.

Last Updated: 01/04/2012

Is Driving With a Cold Like Driving Drunk?

2012-01-06T15:54:00.000-08:00

Suffering from the sniffles drops your behind-the-wheel competence as much as a night of boozing, according to a new report.

By Jaimie Dalessio

http://www.everydayhealth.com/cold-and-flu/0105/is-driving-with-a-cold-like-driving-drunk.aspx?xid=tw_everydayhealth_20120105_colddrunk

THURSDAY, Jan. 5, 2012 — Hopping into the driver’s seat after a few shots of whiskey is a bad idea, not to mention illegal. But a new report warns suffering from bad cold can put you in a similar mental state behind the wheel.
The small study, conducted by UK-based insurance company Young Marmalade and automotive-retailer Halfords, found that driving with a heavy cold or the flu is the equivalent of driving after throwing back four double whiskeys. (We’re not sure how they measured those shots, but that sounds like a lot.) Either way, it seems like having a cold does a number on your concentration.
Researchers recorded slower reaction times, more frequent sudden braking, and decreased awareness of surrounding traffic among cold-suffering motorists, which they monitored via black boxes placed in cars to track speed, braking, and corner-turning.
Then there are those violent sneezes. A big old achoo in the driver’s seat can be dangerous when it causes you to close your eyes briefly, notes police officer Steve Rounds of the Central Motorway Police Group in a Halfords press release.
Aside from the mental fogginess caused by a cold, certain over-the-counter medications can also make you drowsy, so check the label before you hit the road.
So next time you find yourself coughing and sneezing all over the place do yourself (and the innocent drivers in your area) a favor by asking a friend to give you a ride to wherever it is you need to go so badly when you’re sick. Or better yet, stay home and cozy up with some hot tea. No whiskey, though. At least not four double shots of it. Sorry.
Do you feel like having a bad cold or cough derails your driving skills? Should people stay off the road while under the weather, or do you think the risk is being overblown?

PSA Test for Prostate Cancer Doesn't Save Lives But findings are irrelevant, one expert says.

2012-01-06T15:44:00.001-08:00

FRIDAY, Jan. 6, 2012 (HealthDay News) — Annual screening for prostate cancer doesn't save lives, finds a new study that is unlikely to quell the controversy surrounding routine prostate specific antigen (PSA) screening.
"Organized prostate cancer screening when done in addition to whatever background testing exists in the population does not result in any apparent benefit, but does result in harm from false positives and over-diagnosis," said lead researcher Philip Prorok, from the Division of Cancer Prevention at the U.S. National Cancer Institute.
"Men considering prostate cancer screening should be fully informed of the implications of such testing before making a decision," he added.
Experts have disagreed for some time on whether the blood test saves lives or results in over-diagnosis and over-treatment. The new findings, which extend prior results out to 13 years of follow-up, are published in the Jan. 6 online edition of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
The study followed men enrolled in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening (PLCO) Trial from 1993 to 2009, comparing results for a group of men who had undergone screening with those for men who hadn't had testing. The men were 55 to 74 years old.
One group had PSA screening every year for six years and a digital rectal examination every year for four years. The other men had regular care, which in some cases included screening if requested by the patient or doctor.
Compared to men getting usual care, the screened men had a 12 percent relative increase in prostate cancer but a slightly lower rate of high-grade cancer.
However, no difference in deaths was seen between the two groups.
This finding held true even after age, screening before the trial and other medical conditions were taken into account, the researchers said.
Prorok said that better treatment for prostate cancer may explain the similar mortality results.
Among prostate cancer patients, death from other causes was somewhat higher in the screened group (10.7 percent of 4,250 men with prostate cancer) compared to the usual care group (9.9 percent of 3,815 men with prostate cancer).
This indicates men who underwent PSA screening were over-diagnosed, meaning the test picked up slow-growing tumors that probably weren't lethal, the researchers said.
"PSA testing and digital rectal examination screening as conducted in this trial did not reduce prostate cancer mortality, but there was a persistent excess of prostate cancer cases in the screened arm, suggesting over-diagnosis of prostate cancer," Prorok said.
Some prostate cancer experts disagree with the authors' conclusions.
Dr. Anthony D'Amico, chief of radiation oncology at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, said the results are invalid because the trial was flawed.
According to D'Amico, 52 percent of those who received usual care had a PSA screening. "That's a serious issue which makes it very hard for the study to show if any benefit exists for PSA screening," he said.
Also, 15 percent of those who were supposed to get PSA screening never did, D'Amico said. "So what you've got is a screening study in which 85 percent of the people got PSA screened on the screening arm and 52 percent got screened on the control arm, which makes it impossible to ever measure a difference," he said.
Men should ignore this study, "because it has no relevance to PSA screening," D'Amico said.
D'Amico said he has more confidence in the results of a European study published in 2009 in the New England Journal of Medicine, which showed a 20 percent reduction in cancer mortality with PSA screening.
Men who can benefit most from screening are those at risk for prostate cancer, particularly men who have a family history of prostate cancer, African Americans and men over 60, D'Amico said.
Prorok acknowledged that the PLCO trial wasn't perfect. "Nonetheless, the contamination was not enough to eliminate the early diagnosis of prostate cancers nor the persistent excess of cancers," he said.
PLCO provides information about over-diagnosis, Prorok added. "Even if the contamination did dilute a benefit compared to no screening, the result of no mortality difference between the arms in PLCO could be interpreted to suggest that more intensive screening is not beneficial but does result in harm," he said.
Found in:
http://www.everydayhealth.com/prostate-cancer/0106/psa-test-for-prostate-cancer-doesnt-save-lives.aspx?xid=tw_everydayhealth_20120106_psatest

2012-01-06T15:15:00.000-08:00

MIAMI WELLNESS AND HEALTH is a bilingual blog (English - Spanish) intended to promote healthy habits and share information in areas like Public Health, Mental Health, Behavioral Medicine, Psychology and Disease Prevention. the readers are encouraged to participate by sharing comments and information or asking related questions to the articles posted.

MIAMI WELLNESS AND HEALTH es un blog bilingüe (Español - Ingles) que tiene la intención de promover hábitos saludables y compartir información in temas de Salud Publica, Salud Mental, Medicina Conductual, Psicología y Prevención de Enfermedades. Los lectores están exhortados para participar compartiendo sus comentarios e información o haciendo preguntas relacionadas con los artículos publicados.

Miami Wellness and Health

Miami Police Departments receives training to better deal with people with Mental Illness // Departamentos de Policia de Miami se entrenan para atender mejor a personas con enfermedad mental

Free preventive care for Women // Cuidado preventivo gratuito para mujeres.

Health Care reform: A major public health victory!! // Reforma a la Salud: Una gran victoria para la Salud Publica

The new DSM. Are the Pharmaceutical companies behind the new Diagnostic Criterias // El nuevo DSM: Están las compañías farmacéuticas detrás de los nuevos criterios diagnósticos?

Child Obesity is Child Abuse! // Obesidad Infantil es Abuso Infantil.

Some Facts

Without reducing consumption, more than one in five children will be obese by 2020.

"16% of American youth 6-19 are now overweight and 34% are at risk for becoming overweight."

Centers for Disease Control, August 2007

"The prevalence of overweight adolescents 12-19 has nearly tripled in the past two decades."

U.S. Surgeon General, December 2002

The health consequences of the obesity epidemic among kids demand immediate action. Children's food choices are heavily dependent on adults, and childhood obesity predicts a lifetime of struggles with weight and disease. It's time for an all-out national campaign to change this disturbing picture.

The science behind “broken heart syndrome” // La ciencia detras del "Sindrome de Corazon Roto"

Stress cardiomyopathy

Myocardial infarction

Prevention is tricky

State budget talks move forward - Florida - MiamiHerald.com

Antidepressants: can they cure tiredness or premenstrual tension? / Los antidepresivos pueden curar el cansancio y la tension pre menstrual?

Any link between Breast Cancer and the use of Deodorant? // Vinculos entre Cáncer de Seno y uso de desodorante?

War Against Sweets // Guerra contra los Dulces.

First you get the Sugar, then you get the Power, then you get the Women!

If you have a work related injury, are you covered?

Supercentenarians!!! Is this the secret to living to 100+ years old?

6 foods that can change your life // Seis comidas que pueden cambiar tu vida

BREAKING NEWS FDA Allows "Mystery" Pills from China to Be Sold in U.S. // ATENCION FDA au

'Healthy' Diet Best for ADHD Kids // Dieta saludable es mejor para Ninos con Hiperactividad.

Are you more stressed than you think? // Esta usted mas estresado de lo que piensa?

Test to Understand Cancer Risk

Do you wanna get rid of your belly fat? Start exercising.

Are U.S. clinical trial results under-reported?

Research

Compliance with mandatory reporting of clinical trial results on ClinicalTrials.gov: cross sectional study

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

Comparison with literature

Strengths and limitations of study

Conclusions and policy implications

What is already known on this topic

What this study adds

Notes

Footnotes

References

Why Boozing Can Be Bad for Your Sex Life

Sure, you're more likely to ask for her phone number after throwing back a few. But when it comes to your sexual health, alcohol can be one big turn off. Here's why.

5 Ways Alcohol Can Wreck Your Sex Life

Why Less Is More

Is Driving With a Cold Like Driving Drunk?

Suffering from the sniffles drops your behind-the-wheel competence as much as a night of boozing, according to a new report.

PSA Test for Prostate Cancer Doesn't Save Lives But findings are irrelevant, one expert says.