We wish you a wonderful day of family, faith, friendship, food, and football.
Come back and visit us tomorrow and every day for the latest in health news and views.
For many of us the holidays mean family, feasting and fun. But for our nation’s 18 million health care workers – 28% of whom will be working on Thanksgiving, all celebrations will be placed on hold while they help those who are sick or injured.
And, as Christmas approaches, things don’t get any better. The number of 911 calls and hospital visits spike as the temperatures plummet. For example, around 5,800 people are treated for holiday decorating injuries alone, each year. On top of this, the number one day for cardiac deaths is December 25th with December 26th and January 1st coming in a close second and third.
To raise awareness of the strain put on healthcare workers during the holiday season and some ways they can address it, Carrington College, has released these infographics:
Whatever you end up doing tomorrow, let’s not forget to say a word of thanks to our healthcare professionals. And if you do end up in their care be thankful they’re there.
And no, you’re not a germophobe, it’s just that your hand-sanitizer habit is helping to protect you from colds and flu and other nasty’s, that are wet, sticky and not yours!
And even if it doesn’t, it’s harmless. Right?
Not so fast! Word on the street has it that despite how clean your hands feel after using a hand sanitizer, they’re actually still dirty. Worse still, they’re potentially toxic and might actually lower your resistance to disease.
So are these rumors true?! Let’s take a look at the evidence.
When it comes to safety and effectiveness, the main concern with hand sanitizers is triclosan, – the main antibacterial ingredient used in non-alcoholic hand sanitizers.
“There’s no good evidence that triclosan-containing products have a benefit,” says Allison Aiello PhD, associate professor of epidemiology at the University of Michigan. In fact, hospitals in Europe and the United States, won’t even use them because it’s thought that they don’t reduce infections or illness.
Dr. Anna Bowen, an epidemiologist at The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, says, “Triclosan-containing products don’t provide any disease protection beyond what you get from washing with soap and water.”
Research has shown that triclosan can disrupt the endocrine system, amplifying testosterone. In animal studies, it reduced muscle strength. It may also harm the immune system. Whether these findings add up to human toxicity isn’t established yet, but the FDA is currently reviewing the issue.
A more established concern: “When you expose bacteria to triclosan, it can elicit antibiotic resistance,” says Aiello. “Once the resistance is transferred, pathogenic bacteria can become resistant to many types of antibiotics.” She also points out that quaternary ammonium, another antibacterial found in nonalcoholic hand sanitizers, has been shown to elicit antibiotic resistance.
The main concern with triclosan, that it’s an anti-bacterial, meaning it doesn’t protect against viruses or fungi. Which means, colds and flu are not destroyed because they are caused by viruses, not bacteria.
Alcohol-based sanitizers, on the other hand, are fairly effective and safe. Those that contain 60% alcohol are good at killing bacterial pathogens and can also kill some viruses though not all of them. Norovirus, for example, the bug responsible for the recent cruise-ship outbreaks is not affected.
“If you can’t get to a sink quickly, an alcohol-based sanitizer is a good alternative to washing with soap and water,” says Aiello.
One caveat: They don’t work on visibly dirty hands. The alcohol can’t get past the dirt.
So how does soap and water match up? First, they are both safe and effective. That’s right. Good old-fashioned hand washing before you prepare food or after you go to the toilet has been shown to drastically reduce the risk of diarrhea.
“Hand-washing campaigns reduce absenteeism in schools,” says Bowen, “and that means parents miss fewer days of work, too.”
But, and it’s a big but – you have to wash your hands correctly.
According to the CDC you need to wash for about 24 seconds to remove bacteria and viruses from your hands. You need to cover all parts of your hands, front and back and under your nails and then dry your hands well.
How long is 24 seconds? Apparently it’s about as long as it takes to sing two verses of Happy Birthday. However, as I always tell my infection control students, if you’re in public, sing it with your inner voice …or you could have more than germs to worry about!
Bottom line – soap and water beats sanitizers hands-down. Suds up and stay safe this cold and flu season.
(d) Heart Disease
(e) None of the above
While there’s no doubt options (a) through (d) challenge our healthcare system, the correct answer is in fact (e). What’s more, this public health crisis may have gone unnoticed by many. What we’re referring to is the fungal meningitis outbreak that was traced to the New England Compounding Center. So far, there have 751 reported cases, including 64 deaths.
Indeed, most Americans had never heard of compounding pharmacies until the now-shuttered New England Compounding Center was blamed for making tainted steroid injections that killed and sickened people in 20 states.
Since then, the FDA has issued more than 60 reports of compounding pharmacies that had one or more quality or sterility issues. Five compounding pharmacy testing labs received similar reports.
Now, after months of negotiating, the US Senate has finally passed legislation that was drafted in the wake of the scandal. The Drug Quality and Security Bill will give the FDA greater oversight of compounding pharmacies and also creates a national system for tracking prescription medicines from factory to pharmacy. The bill, which was already passed by the US House, is designed to bolster the pharmaceutical supply chain, and now goes to President Obama for his signature
The bill will create a new class of compounding pharmacies, as suggested by the FDA. The agency believes that traditional compounders – those who mix or alter ingredients for individual patients on an as-needed basis, should be distinguished from ‘non-traditional’ compounders – those that sell high volumes and ship out of state because these activities may pose a higher risk.
“We know more from a barcode on a gallon of milk than we do from a barcode on a bottle of prescription drugs, which could mean the difference between life and death,” says US Senator Michael Bennet. “Whether it’s a stronger drug supply chain or better oversight for compounded drugs, this commonsense bill will help restore confidence in our prescription drugs and protect our families from potential health risks.”
The bill also creates a voluntary category for so-called office compounding of sterile medications. These operations would voluntarily register with the FDA and submit to GMP, or good manufacturing practices, compliance and pay fees in exchange for the right to ship product without a prescription. But there is no criteria concerning interstate shipping or the percentage of production involved.
The legislation “leaves regulation of this vital and long-accepted practice by independent community pharmacies to state boards of pharmacy, where it should be,” says the National Community Pharmacists Association.
But not everyone agrees.
Rosa DeLauro, a Democratic Congresswoman from Connecticut, says the “voluntary approach will continue to expose patients to potentially unsafe, mass-produced compounded drugs that are not approved or evaluated by the FDA.”
Similarly, the International Academy of Compounding Pharmacists released a statement saying that “a voluntary category of outsourcing facilities is not the answer” and warned that another potentially deadly New England Compounding Center type of scandal could still occur.
Some health policy experts have even said they fear the new bill will make drugs, less, rather than more, safe.
Critics say that by giving compounding pharmacies the option whether or not to register with the Food and Drug Administration and adhere to stricter guidelines for testing, quality and sterility, does not go far enough.
Carome said he opposes the bill because it allows large scale compounding without individual prescriptions and with no requirement to follow the strictest quality and sterility guidelines that drug manufacturers must adhere to.
“It makes no sense to have two different tiers of drug manufacturers – one that has to meet all the manufacturing guidelines and one that only has to meet some of them. We believe in a level playing field.”
What do you think of this legislation? Has it gone far enough? We’d love to hear from you.
Research presented earlier this week at the American Academy of Ophthalmology annual meeting, showed that women who have taken oral contraceptive pills for three or more years are twice as likely to suffer from glaucoma.
Glaucoma is one of the leading causes of blindness affecting nearly 60 million worldwide.
The researchers caution gynecologists and ophthalmologists to be aware of the role oral contraceptives might play in glaucomatous diseases, and inform patients to have their eyes screened for glaucoma if they also have other risk factors.
The study – conducted by researchers at University of California, San Francisco, Duke University School of Medicine and Third Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, China – is the first to establish such increased risk.
The researchers utilized 2005-2008 data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). The study group included 3,406 US women aged 40 years or older who completed the survey’s vision and reproductive health questionnaire and underwent eye exams. They found that females who had used oral contraceptives, no matter which kind, for longer than three years are 2.05 times more likely to report that they have glaucoma.
Although the results of the study do not speak directly to the causative effect of oral contraceptives on the development of glaucoma, they indicate that long-term use of oral contraceptives might be a potential risk factor for glaucoma. Certainly, “the pill” needs to , be considered as part of the risk profile. Other risk factor include: African American- ethnicity, family history of glaucoma, history of increased eye pressure or existing visual field defects. Previous studies in the field have shown that estrogen may play a significant role in the pathogenesis of glaucoma.
“This study should be an impetus for future research to prove the cause and effect of oral contraceptives and glaucoma,” said Shan Lin, M.D., lead researcher and professor of clinical ophthalmology at the University of California San Francisco. “At this point, women who have taken oral contraceptives for three or more years should be screened for glaucoma and followed closely by an ophthalmologist, especially if they have any other existing risk factors.”
Given the fact that 28% of all sexually active women in the US are on the pill, that’s a lot of glaucoma screening. You may want to call your ophthalmologist or optometrist now and get a jump on the line. Alternately, you may want to reconsider your birth control.
Never fear, SRxA’s Word on Health is here to help start your week off right with some health news that may just bring a smile to your face.
While many people associate a healthy lifestyle with grueling workouts, strict dieting and general deprivation and misery – this is a misconception.
According to Dr Joseph Mercola, an osteopathic physician, web entrepreneur and New York Times best selling author, healthy habits can be among the most rewarding. Take sex. It counts as moderately intense exercise plus it boosts numerous aspects of both physical and mental health. As long as you’re engaging in safe-sex practices, increasing your sexual activity is a surefire strategy to better health!
Mercola suggests regular sex can reduce stress, bolster self-esteem and foster feelings of intimacy and bonding between partners. Better still, a healthy sex life can result in a longer, healthier and, most would agree, more enjoyable life.
In case that’s not enough – here’s 10 more healthy side effects of sex:
1. Improved Immunity
People who have sex frequently have significantly higher levels of immunoglobulin A (IgA). IgA is part of the immune system that forms your body’s first line of defense. Its job is to fight off invading organisms at their entry points, reducing or even eliminating the need for activation of your body’s immune system. This may explain why people who have sex frequently also take fewer sick days.
2. Heart Health
According to one study, men who made love regularly (at least twice a week) are 45% less likely to develop heart disease than those who did so once a month or less.
Sexual activity not only provides many of the same benefits to your heart as exercise but also keeps levels of estrogen and testosterone in balance, which is important for heart health.
3. Lower Blood Pressure
Sexual activity, and specifically intercourse, is linked to better stress response and lower blood pressure.
4. It’s a Form of Exercise
Sex helps to boost your heart rate, burn calories and strengthen muscles, just like exercise. In fact, research recently revealed that sex burns about 4 calories a minute for men and 3 for women, making it (at times) a ‘significant’ form of exercise. It can even help you to maintain your flexibility and balance.
5. Pain Relief
Sexual activity releases pain-reducing hormones and has been found to help reduce or block back and leg pain, as well as pain from menstrual cramps, arthritis and headaches. One study even found that sexual activity can lead to partial or complete relief of headache in some migraine and cluster-headache patients.
6. Help to Reduce Risk of Prostate Cancer
Research has shown that men who ejaculate at least 21 times a month (during sex or masturbation) have a lower risk of prostate cancer.
After sex, the relaxation-inducing hormone prolactin is released, which may help you to nod off more quickly. The “love hormone” oxytocin, released during orgasm, also promotes sleep.
8. Stress Relief
Sex triggers your body to release it’s natural feel-good chemicals, helping to ease stress and boost pleasure, calm and self-esteem. Research also shows that those who have sexual intercourse responded better when subjected to stressful situations like speaking in public.
9. Boost Your Libido
The more often you have sex, the more likely you are to want to keep doing it. There’s a mental connection there but also a physical one, particularly for women. More frequent sex helps to increase vaginal lubrication, blood flow and elasticity, which in turn make sexual activity more enjoyable.
10. Improved Bladder Control in Women
Intercourse helps to strengthen pelvic floor muscles, which contract during orgasm. This can help women improve their bladder control and avoid incontinence.
SRxA is delighted to announce that earlier this week President Obama signed into law the School Access to Emergency Epinephrine Act. During a week in which Obama and his new healthcare.gov website have made headlines for all the wrong reasons, we thought it only fair to commend him on this important anaphylaxis initiative.
The School Access to Emergency Epinephrine Act is legislation that will help to protect schoolchildren who experience life-threatening anaphylaxis.
“This legislation is a significant milestone for food, venom and latex allergy safety in our nation’s schools,” says Tonya Winders, chief operating officer of Allergy & Asthma Network Mothers of Asthmatics (AANMA). “It will help save lives of children who experience an anaphylactic reaction for the first time or don’t have epinephrine auto-injectors readily available when anaphylaxis occurs.”
The measure provides a funding incentive to states that enact laws allowing school personnel to stock and administer emergency supplies of epinephrine auto-injectors. Epinephrine is the first line of treatment for anaphylaxis.
The School Access to Emergency Epinephrine Act was bipartisan legislation, first passing the U.S. House of Representatives on July 30, 2013, and then the U.S. Senate on Oct. 31, 2013, before heading to the President’s desk.
Allergic reactions to foods are the most common cause of anaphylaxis in community settings, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Studies show that 16-18% of schoolchildren with food allergies have had a reaction from accidentally ingesting food allergens. In addition, 25% of anaphylaxis cases reported at schools happened in children with no prior history of food allergy.
Green states that have passed stock epinephrine laws or regulations:
Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma,Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia
Red states that have no stock epinephrine bills:
Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, Wisconsin, and Wyoming
To find out more about anaphylaxis in schools please visit http://www.epipen4schools.com/ and https://www.anaphylaxis101.com/Resource-Library/Anaphylaxis-in-Schools.asp