Sen. Sam Brownback's (R-Kan.) recent support for HHS Secretary-designate Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D) is provoking criticism from antiabortion-rights advocates, who typically have been "enthusiastic backers" of Brownback, the AP/Wichita Eagle reports. Austin Ruse, president of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, said it "makes absolutely no sense" that Brownback, an opponent of abortion rights, would endorse Sebelius, who supports abortion rights. Ruse said the senator "could have remained silent" instead. Troy Newman, president of Operation Rescue, said, "There is profound disappointment within the pro-life community on [Brownback's] position. Politicians stick their fingers up in the air to see which way the wind is blowing, and it's up to the grassroots to make the wind blow."
Brian Hart, a spokesperson for Brownback, said that the senator's office has received "quite a few" phone calls and that there have been angry Internet postings in recent days regarding Brownback's support for Sebelius. Hart said the senator understands the criticism but that he "feels that despite profound policy differences, he should support a fellow Kansan who has been asked to serve by the president." In expressing his support for Sebelius earlier this week, Brownback noted that the "president won the election."
Mary Kay Culp, executive director of Kansans for Life, said Brownback's stance has drawn mixed reactions from the antiabortion-rights movement because some of its members would like to see him replace Sebelius as governor in 2010. Culp said she "disagree[s] with his decision on this, but it doesn't make me question his being pro-life." She added, "We know it doesn't serve the cause of unborn children and their mothers to beat up on" Brownback.
According to the AP/Eagle, criticism of Brownback "seems less vocal in Kansas" because he intends to run for governor, "fulfilling a promise not to run for another Senate term." Sebelius is not allowed to run for a third term under the state Constitution, and she was considered to be the Democrats' best candidate to run for Brownback's vacant Senate seat. If the Senate confirms Sebelius as head of HHS, it "all but ends any chance she'll run," the AP/Eagle reports. Newman said he suspects that Brownback's support for Sebelius is motivated by the GOP's desire to keep his Senate seat in their party. Nonetheless, abortion-rights opponents have been "vocal enough to prompt a counter-campaign" by groups that support Roman Catholic Democrats who support abortion rights, such as Sebelius, the AP/Eagle reports.
Supporters of Sebelius note that the governor has supported efforts to expand adoption and programs to help unmarried pregnant women. In addition, they said the abortion rate has declined in Kansas since she ran for office in 2002. Sebelius, who has also served as state insurance commissioner and a state legislator, said she has "worked pretty diligently for over 20 years to reduce the conditions for women to be in a situation where they feel they have no alternative." She added that she is "proud" that the abortion rate declined by 11% during her time in office. Ruse contended that Sebelius cannot take credit for the Kansas decline, saying that it has occurred all over the country.
Sebelius vetoed antiabortion bills in 2003, 2005, 2006 and 2008. She also has attracted criticism from antiabortion-rights advocates because abortion provider George Tiller attended an April 2007 reception at the governor's residence. Kansas City, Kan., Archbishop Joseph Naumann -- who in 2008 urged Sebelius to stop taking Holy Communion because of her position on abortion rights -- said her nomination is "particularly troubling." Naumann said in a recent blog posting on The Catholic Key that as HHS secretary, Sebelius would be in a position to make decisions "promoting legalized abortion and her cooperation in this intrinsic evil" (Hanna, AP/Wichita Eagle, 3/5).
Reprinted with kind permission from nationalpartnership. You can view the entire Daily Women's Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women's Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.
© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.
четверг, 16 февраля 2012 г.
четверг, 9 февраля 2012 г.
New Jersey Health Department Releases Records Of Investigation Into Operations Of Abortion Clinic, Reasons Behind Closure
New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services officials on Tuesday released the records of their investigation of one of the state's largest abortion providers, Metropolitan Medical Associates in Englewood, N.J., after ordering the clinic to close last month, the Bergen Record reports (Padawer, Bergen Record, 3/14). Metropolitan Medical, which opened in the 1970s, performs more than 10,000 abortions annually and is one of the few clinics in the state that performs abortions up to 24 weeks' gestation. Rasheedah Dinkins, who had an abortion at Metropolitan Medical, earlier this month filed a lawsuit in the State Superior Court in Newark, N.J., against the clinic, charging clinic physicians Keith Gresham and Nicholas Kotopoulos with "negligent, careless and reckless care." According to Dinkins' lawyer Adam Slater, Dinkins on Jan. 27 went to Metropolitan Medical to have an abortion of a fetus at more than 15 weeks' gestation. After the procedure, she had pains and was taken to Newark Beth Israel Medical Center, where she was unconscious for more than three weeks, had two strokes and was forced to undergo a hysterectomy, according to Slater. Newark Beth Israel filed a complaint against Metropolitan Medical to the state health department (Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 3/2). Investigators in separate records released on Tuesday concluded that Metropolitan Medical failed to notify the health department "of an event occurring within the facility that jeopardized the health and safety of a patient." The department declined to release details of the event, the Record reports (Bergen Record, 3/14).
Investigation Findings, Reaction
The health department after a licensing inspection last month ordered the clinic to stop seeing patients after finding violations that posed "immediate and serious risk of harm to patients" (Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 3/2). According to investigation records, state health officials found "brownish blood-like residues" encrusted on forceps, rusty crochet hooks used to remove intrauterine devices, and one-quarter-inch of dark red "dirt and debris" under an examination table at the clinic. Health officials also found that the clinic could not provide evidence that it had an infection-control plan or of an infection-control specialist on staff. The clinic had a letter on file documenting the appointment of a particular employee as the infection-control professional; however, that employee was not familiar with the appointment. The employee also had not received training or certification in infection control and prevention, which is a violation of state law. The report found that packs of sterilized instruments, which are supposed to be opened just before their use, had been unsealed and left open in storage. In other areas of the clinic, investigators found open packages of sterilized speculums, scissors, forceps and clamps, and some surgical instruments were found in the same drawer as light bulbs, the Record reports. According to the records, the clinic failed to train janitorial personnel upon employment and annually about proper cleaning procedures and equipment care, as is required by law. In addition, the health department found that a clinic patient who is suing for malpractice had incomplete medical and operative records (Bergen Record, 3/14). The state is requiring the clinic to hire infection-control and administrative consultants, both of whom must be approved by the state and be at the clinic at least 40 hours per week. The consultants "shall have full authority to review, revise, if necessary, and implement all facility policies and procedures," the order said. In addition, the consultants must submit weekly written reports to the health department (Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 3/2). Representatives of the health department and the clinic say the clinic is working to correct the problems and hoping to resume operations as soon as possible. "It is clear that facility is going through an extremely rigorous review," Frank Capece, attorney for Metropolitan Medical, said. He added, "We can debate whether that is arbitrary or necessary, but it's a moot point. It is the intention of the facility to be in full compliance with all requirements. And it's my perception that everyone's working in good faith. ... There's no doubt that we're being held to a strict standard, a tougher standard than any other facility that we know of" (Bergen Record, 3/14).
"Reprinted with permission from kaisernetwork. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at kaisernetwork/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation . © 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.
четверг, 2 февраля 2012 г.
FDA Advisory Committee To Review Genentech's Avastin For Use As Breast Cancer Treatment
Genentech on Thursday announced that an FDA advisory panel in December will review its colon and lung cancer treatment Avastin as a first-line treatment for metastatic breast cancer, Reuters reports (Baertlein, Reuters, 9/13).
Genentech in May 2006 filed for FDA priority review of its application to use Avastin as a breast cancer treatment based on data from a late-stage clinical trial. The trial -- which involved 722 patients with previously untreated, locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer -- found that Avastin reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 52% for patients who used the treatment with chemotherapy, compared with patients who only underwent chemotherapy.
Avastin -- which costs about $50,000 annually as a treatment for colon cancer -- might cost as much as $100,000 to treat breast cancer because breast cancer patients would require a double dose of the drug. FDA in September 2006 requested that Genentech provide more thorough data than it gave in the late-stage trial -- which was organized by National Cancer Institute researchers -- as well as require radiologists not involved in the trial to determine when patients' cancer has worsened (Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 9/12/06).
According to Reuters, FDA's Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee in December will consider the application. FDA is expected to take action on the application by Feb. 23, 2008 (Reuters, 9/13). Avastin, which is approved as a breast cancer treatment in the European Union, increasingly is being prescribed off-label to treat breast cancer, Dow Jones reports (Gryta, Dow Jones, 9/13).
Reprinted with kind permission from kaisernetwork. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at kaisernetwork/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation© 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.
View drug information on Avastin.
Genentech in May 2006 filed for FDA priority review of its application to use Avastin as a breast cancer treatment based on data from a late-stage clinical trial. The trial -- which involved 722 patients with previously untreated, locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer -- found that Avastin reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 52% for patients who used the treatment with chemotherapy, compared with patients who only underwent chemotherapy.
Avastin -- which costs about $50,000 annually as a treatment for colon cancer -- might cost as much as $100,000 to treat breast cancer because breast cancer patients would require a double dose of the drug. FDA in September 2006 requested that Genentech provide more thorough data than it gave in the late-stage trial -- which was organized by National Cancer Institute researchers -- as well as require radiologists not involved in the trial to determine when patients' cancer has worsened (Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 9/12/06).
According to Reuters, FDA's Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee in December will consider the application. FDA is expected to take action on the application by Feb. 23, 2008 (Reuters, 9/13). Avastin, which is approved as a breast cancer treatment in the European Union, increasingly is being prescribed off-label to treat breast cancer, Dow Jones reports (Gryta, Dow Jones, 9/13).
Reprinted with kind permission from kaisernetwork. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at kaisernetwork/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation© 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.
View drug information on Avastin.
четверг, 26 января 2012 г.
It Is A Tragedy So Many Newborns Die Each Year
According to Save the Children, over two million newborns die within one day of being born worldwide every year - eight million children die each before they reach the age of five. Most of these deaths could be prevented if simple provisions were available, such as trained midwives.
The charity, in a report called The State of the World's Mothers 2006 says more than 500,000 women die annually from either giving birth or complications of pregnancy. Many of them give birth at home, alone.
Save the Children estimates that 70% of these deaths could and should be prevented.
The report describes childbirth as a dance with death for many babies and their mothers in the developing world. When I read it I was reminded of those baby turtles that break out of their eggs and race to the sea, hoping to make it before being picked off by swooping seagulls.
The report paints a bleak picture for many pregnant women and newborns in the developed world. It also reveals a gigantic gap between the rich and poorest nations.
Out of 1000 babies born in Japan, 1.8 die in their first day of life. In parts of sub-Saharan Africa the number stands at 200 out of every 1000.
The charity, in a report called The State of the World's Mothers 2006 says more than 500,000 women die annually from either giving birth or complications of pregnancy. Many of them give birth at home, alone.
Save the Children estimates that 70% of these deaths could and should be prevented.
The report describes childbirth as a dance with death for many babies and their mothers in the developing world. When I read it I was reminded of those baby turtles that break out of their eggs and race to the sea, hoping to make it before being picked off by swooping seagulls.
The report paints a bleak picture for many pregnant women and newborns in the developed world. It also reveals a gigantic gap between the rich and poorest nations.
Out of 1000 babies born in Japan, 1.8 die in their first day of life. In parts of sub-Saharan Africa the number stands at 200 out of every 1000.
четверг, 19 января 2012 г.
Early Consumption Of Soda Indicator Of Unhealthy Diet
Young girls who drink soda have less healthy diets through adolescence than their peers who do not drink soda, according to a Penn State study.
The ten-year study showed that girls who drank soda at age five had diets that were less likely to meet nutritional standards for the duration of the study, which ended at age 15. Girls who did not drink soda at age five did not meet certain nutritional requirements, but their diets were healthier.
The difference between the two groups in nutrient intake is "not just because of what they are consuming, but because of what they are not consuming," said Laura Fiorito, postdoctoral fellow in Penn State's Center for Child Obesity Research.
Milk intake differed greatly between the two groups - soda drinkers drank far less milk than non-soda drinkers - and milk has all of the nutrients that differed between the groups except fiber. At age five, non-soda drinkers consumed 10 to 11 ounces of milk daily, while soda drinkers had less than seven ounces.
"Adequate nutrient intake is important for optimal health and growth," the researchers reported in a recent issue of the Journal of the American Dietetic Association.
For example, low calcium intake is associated with increased risk of bone fractures and higher added sugar is associated with dental problems and the development of several chronic diseases, such as type 2 diabetes.
The Institute of Medicine, part of the National Academy of Sciences, recommends that girls between age 14 and 18 receive at least 65 milligrams of vitamin C daily. In this study, soda drinkers fell short at just 55 milligrams daily, while non-soda drinkers exceeded the recommendation at 70.5 milligrams daily.
Although soda drinkers had less healthy diets, both groups failed to meet recommendations for certain nutrients. The Institute recommends that girls age 14 to 18 receive at least 1,300 milligrams of calcium daily. At age 15, soda drinkers in the study averaged 767 milligrams a day, while non-soda drinkers had slightly higher intakes at 851 milligrams a day, but were still deficient.
The researchers also found that both groups increased their soda consumption by age 15. However, soda drinkers were consuming nearly twice as much soda at age 15 than their counterparts - 6.6 ounces a day versus 3.4 ounces a day.
Although the study has considerable implications on how beverages impact diet, Fiorito believes children may already have developed drinking preferences and patterns by age five.
"We think that the patterns develop when they are younger. Some studies show that children already drinking soda or carbonated beverages at age two," said Fiorito.
The study followed 170 girls for 10 years, documenting meals three times every two years. Girls classified as "soda drinkers" - those who drank roughly four ounces of soda daily at age five - showed much lower intakes of fiber, protein, vitamin C, vitamin D, calcium, magnesium, phosphorous, and potassium throughout the study than "non-soda drinkers" -- those who had no soda intake at age five. Also, the soda drinkers had much higher intake of added sugars. The study did not distinguish between diet and regular soda because the "soda drinkers" drank both types, but diet soda intake was very low at age five.
Parents of soda drinkers in the study had higher body mass indexes than non-soda drinkers' parents. Fiorito believes this suggests that "parents model consumption patterns for their children," and that the parents' unhealthy eating habits not only contributed to an increased BMI, but influenced children.
There have been other studies on the effects of soda on dieting, but this is the first study to track the consumption of multiple beverages over a ten-year period. Included in the study were coffee/tea, soda, milk, 100 percent fruit juice, and fruit drinks - any fruit-flavored drinks with less than 100 percent fruit juice.
Other beverages have come under scrutiny in recent years for their possible negative health consequences. For example, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a formal statement in 2001 that recommended limits on children's fruit juice intake. The Academy has not issued any formal statement on soda, but this study provides a clear link showing that soda can prevent people from maintaining a healthy diet.
Other researchers on the study were Leann L. Birch, distinguished professor of human development and family studies; Helen Smiciklas-Wright, professor emerita of nutritional sciences; Diane C. Mitchell, diet assessment coordinator, and Michele Marini, project assistant, all at Penn State.
The National Institutes of Health and the National Dairy Council supported this work.
Source:
A'ndrea Elyse Messer
Penn State
The ten-year study showed that girls who drank soda at age five had diets that were less likely to meet nutritional standards for the duration of the study, which ended at age 15. Girls who did not drink soda at age five did not meet certain nutritional requirements, but their diets were healthier.
The difference between the two groups in nutrient intake is "not just because of what they are consuming, but because of what they are not consuming," said Laura Fiorito, postdoctoral fellow in Penn State's Center for Child Obesity Research.
Milk intake differed greatly between the two groups - soda drinkers drank far less milk than non-soda drinkers - and milk has all of the nutrients that differed between the groups except fiber. At age five, non-soda drinkers consumed 10 to 11 ounces of milk daily, while soda drinkers had less than seven ounces.
"Adequate nutrient intake is important for optimal health and growth," the researchers reported in a recent issue of the Journal of the American Dietetic Association.
For example, low calcium intake is associated with increased risk of bone fractures and higher added sugar is associated with dental problems and the development of several chronic diseases, such as type 2 diabetes.
The Institute of Medicine, part of the National Academy of Sciences, recommends that girls between age 14 and 18 receive at least 65 milligrams of vitamin C daily. In this study, soda drinkers fell short at just 55 milligrams daily, while non-soda drinkers exceeded the recommendation at 70.5 milligrams daily.
Although soda drinkers had less healthy diets, both groups failed to meet recommendations for certain nutrients. The Institute recommends that girls age 14 to 18 receive at least 1,300 milligrams of calcium daily. At age 15, soda drinkers in the study averaged 767 milligrams a day, while non-soda drinkers had slightly higher intakes at 851 milligrams a day, but were still deficient.
The researchers also found that both groups increased their soda consumption by age 15. However, soda drinkers were consuming nearly twice as much soda at age 15 than their counterparts - 6.6 ounces a day versus 3.4 ounces a day.
Although the study has considerable implications on how beverages impact diet, Fiorito believes children may already have developed drinking preferences and patterns by age five.
"We think that the patterns develop when they are younger. Some studies show that children already drinking soda or carbonated beverages at age two," said Fiorito.
The study followed 170 girls for 10 years, documenting meals three times every two years. Girls classified as "soda drinkers" - those who drank roughly four ounces of soda daily at age five - showed much lower intakes of fiber, protein, vitamin C, vitamin D, calcium, magnesium, phosphorous, and potassium throughout the study than "non-soda drinkers" -- those who had no soda intake at age five. Also, the soda drinkers had much higher intake of added sugars. The study did not distinguish between diet and regular soda because the "soda drinkers" drank both types, but diet soda intake was very low at age five.
Parents of soda drinkers in the study had higher body mass indexes than non-soda drinkers' parents. Fiorito believes this suggests that "parents model consumption patterns for their children," and that the parents' unhealthy eating habits not only contributed to an increased BMI, but influenced children.
There have been other studies on the effects of soda on dieting, but this is the first study to track the consumption of multiple beverages over a ten-year period. Included in the study were coffee/tea, soda, milk, 100 percent fruit juice, and fruit drinks - any fruit-flavored drinks with less than 100 percent fruit juice.
Other beverages have come under scrutiny in recent years for their possible negative health consequences. For example, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a formal statement in 2001 that recommended limits on children's fruit juice intake. The Academy has not issued any formal statement on soda, but this study provides a clear link showing that soda can prevent people from maintaining a healthy diet.
Other researchers on the study were Leann L. Birch, distinguished professor of human development and family studies; Helen Smiciklas-Wright, professor emerita of nutritional sciences; Diane C. Mitchell, diet assessment coordinator, and Michele Marini, project assistant, all at Penn State.
The National Institutes of Health and the National Dairy Council supported this work.
Source:
A'ndrea Elyse Messer
Penn State
четверг, 12 января 2012 г.
Link Between Increased Contraceptive Supply And Fewer Unintended Pregnancies
Rates of unintended pregnancies and abortions decrease significantly when women receive a one-year supply of oral contraceptives, instead of being prescribed one- or three-month supplies, a UCSF study shows.
Researchers observed a 30 percent reduction in the odds of pregnancy and a 46 percent decrease in the odds of an abortion in women given a one-year supply of birth control pills at a clinic versus women who received the standard prescriptions for one - or three-month supplies.
The researchers speculate that a larger supply of oral contraceptive pills may allow more consistent use, since women need to make fewer visits to a clinic or pharmacy for their next supply.
"Women need to have contraceptives on hand so that their use is as automatic as using safety devices in cars, " said Diana Greene Foster, PhD, lead author and associate professor in the UCSF Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences. "Providing one cycle of oral contraceptives at a time is similar to asking people to visit a clinic or pharmacy to renew their seatbelts each month."
Foster also is director of research for Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health, part of the UCSF Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health. Her study's findings appear online here.
The researchers linked 84,401 women who received oral contraceptives in January 2006 through Family PACT (Planning, Access, Care, Treatment), a California family planning program, to Medi-Cal data showing pregnancies and births in 2006. Through Family PACT, some family planning clinics are able to dispense a one-year supply of pills on-site.
Oral contraceptive pills are the most commonly used method of reversible contraception in the United States, the team states. While highly effective when used correctly (three pregnancies per 1,000 women in the first year of use), approximately half of women regularly miss one or more pills per cycle, a practice associated with a much higher pregnancy rate (80 pregnancies per 1,000 women in the first year of use), according to the team.
The findings of this study have implications for women using oral contraceptives across the country. Most oral contraceptive users in the United States get fewer than four packs at a time; nearly half need to return every month for resupply, according to a 2010 study published in Contraception.
Making oral contraceptive pills more accessible may reduce the incidence of unintended pregnancy and abortion, while saving taxpayers' dollars, the researchers state. If the 65,000 women in the analysis who received either one or three packs of pills at a time had experienced the same pregnancy and abortion rates as women who received a one-year supply, almost 1,300 publicly funded pregnancies and 300 abortions would have been averted, according to the team.
"The evidence indicates that health plans and public health programs may avoid paying for costly unintended pregnancies by increasing dispensing limits on oral contraceptives," said Foster. "Improving access to contraceptive methods reduces the need for abortion and helps women to plan their pregnancies."
Co-authors are Denis Hulett, Mary Bradsberry, Phillip Darney, MD, MSc, and Michael Policar, MD, MPH, all with the Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, UCSF Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, and San Francisco General Hospital.
Source:
Karin Rush-Monroe
University of California - San Francisco
Researchers observed a 30 percent reduction in the odds of pregnancy and a 46 percent decrease in the odds of an abortion in women given a one-year supply of birth control pills at a clinic versus women who received the standard prescriptions for one - or three-month supplies.
The researchers speculate that a larger supply of oral contraceptive pills may allow more consistent use, since women need to make fewer visits to a clinic or pharmacy for their next supply.
"Women need to have contraceptives on hand so that their use is as automatic as using safety devices in cars, " said Diana Greene Foster, PhD, lead author and associate professor in the UCSF Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences. "Providing one cycle of oral contraceptives at a time is similar to asking people to visit a clinic or pharmacy to renew their seatbelts each month."
Foster also is director of research for Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health, part of the UCSF Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health. Her study's findings appear online here.
The researchers linked 84,401 women who received oral contraceptives in January 2006 through Family PACT (Planning, Access, Care, Treatment), a California family planning program, to Medi-Cal data showing pregnancies and births in 2006. Through Family PACT, some family planning clinics are able to dispense a one-year supply of pills on-site.
Oral contraceptive pills are the most commonly used method of reversible contraception in the United States, the team states. While highly effective when used correctly (three pregnancies per 1,000 women in the first year of use), approximately half of women regularly miss one or more pills per cycle, a practice associated with a much higher pregnancy rate (80 pregnancies per 1,000 women in the first year of use), according to the team.
The findings of this study have implications for women using oral contraceptives across the country. Most oral contraceptive users in the United States get fewer than four packs at a time; nearly half need to return every month for resupply, according to a 2010 study published in Contraception.
Making oral contraceptive pills more accessible may reduce the incidence of unintended pregnancy and abortion, while saving taxpayers' dollars, the researchers state. If the 65,000 women in the analysis who received either one or three packs of pills at a time had experienced the same pregnancy and abortion rates as women who received a one-year supply, almost 1,300 publicly funded pregnancies and 300 abortions would have been averted, according to the team.
"The evidence indicates that health plans and public health programs may avoid paying for costly unintended pregnancies by increasing dispensing limits on oral contraceptives," said Foster. "Improving access to contraceptive methods reduces the need for abortion and helps women to plan their pregnancies."
Co-authors are Denis Hulett, Mary Bradsberry, Phillip Darney, MD, MSc, and Michael Policar, MD, MPH, all with the Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, UCSF Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, and San Francisco General Hospital.
Source:
Karin Rush-Monroe
University of California - San Francisco
четверг, 5 января 2012 г.
NIH Panel Releases Conclusions About Compound BPA's Effect On Reproductive Disorders
A 12-member panel from NIH's Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction on Wednesday said it has "minimal" or "negligible" concerns that the compound bisphenol A, which is found in plastic and is similar to estrogen, can cause human reproductive disorders, the Los Angeles Times reports. The panel also said that the compound, also known as BPA, could pose some risk to the neurological development of infants and children (Cone, Los Angeles Times, 8/9).
The journal Reproductive Toxicology last week published on its Web site a statement warning that BPA likely is causing various human reproductive disorders. The statement was accompanied by a new study from NIH that found uterine damage in animals exposed to BPA. The damage is a potential predictor of reproductive diseases among women, including fibroids, endometriosis, cystic ovaries and cancers. Several dozen scientists reviewed about 700 earlier studies and for the first time linked BPA to female reproductive disorders. They also concluded that people are exposed to higher BPA levels than those found to harm laboratory animals. Infants and fetuses are most likely to experience harm from BPA.
In the statement, 38 scientists said that BPA causes cells to turn genes on or off, which could predispose a fetus or child to a reproductive disorder. In addition, BPA levels found in lab animals are similar to those found in human fetal blood, the statement said.
According to Retha Newbold of NIH's National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the study found that BPA can cause reproductive damage similar to the anti-miscarriage drug diethylstilbestrol, which was given to pregnant women from the 1940s to the 1970s. Diethylstilbestrol was later found to cause infertility and reproductive cancers among children born to women who took the drug. No studies have been conducted on BPA's effects among humans, and the scientists who signed the statement are calling for human research (Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 8/6).
The panel reviewed 500 animal studies and used five rankings -- negligible concern, minimal concern, some concern, concern and severe concern -- for its findings, the Times reports. For fetuses, pregnant women, infants and children, the panel said there is "some concern that exposure to BPA causes neural and behavioral effects." For fetuses and children, the panel said there is "minimal concern" that BPA harms the prostate gland and causes premature puberty. The panel also said that there is "negligible concern" that BPA cases birth defects. For adults, they reported "negligible concern about adverse reproductive effects." According to the Times, part of the reason the panel ranked the reproductive risks less seriously than the other group of scientists is that the panel rejected several studies in which animals were exposed to BPA through injection rather than through their diets. The panel's recommendation will be reviewed by the National Toxicology Program for a federal report that could lead to regulations restricting use of the chemical, the Times reports.
The journal Reproductive Toxicology last week published on its Web site a statement warning that BPA likely is causing various human reproductive disorders. The statement was accompanied by a new study from NIH that found uterine damage in animals exposed to BPA. The damage is a potential predictor of reproductive diseases among women, including fibroids, endometriosis, cystic ovaries and cancers. Several dozen scientists reviewed about 700 earlier studies and for the first time linked BPA to female reproductive disorders. They also concluded that people are exposed to higher BPA levels than those found to harm laboratory animals. Infants and fetuses are most likely to experience harm from BPA.
In the statement, 38 scientists said that BPA causes cells to turn genes on or off, which could predispose a fetus or child to a reproductive disorder. In addition, BPA levels found in lab animals are similar to those found in human fetal blood, the statement said.
According to Retha Newbold of NIH's National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the study found that BPA can cause reproductive damage similar to the anti-miscarriage drug diethylstilbestrol, which was given to pregnant women from the 1940s to the 1970s. Diethylstilbestrol was later found to cause infertility and reproductive cancers among children born to women who took the drug. No studies have been conducted on BPA's effects among humans, and the scientists who signed the statement are calling for human research (Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 8/6).
The panel reviewed 500 animal studies and used five rankings -- negligible concern, minimal concern, some concern, concern and severe concern -- for its findings, the Times reports. For fetuses, pregnant women, infants and children, the panel said there is "some concern that exposure to BPA causes neural and behavioral effects." For fetuses and children, the panel said there is "minimal concern" that BPA harms the prostate gland and causes premature puberty. The panel also said that there is "negligible concern" that BPA cases birth defects. For adults, they reported "negligible concern about adverse reproductive effects." According to the Times, part of the reason the panel ranked the reproductive risks less seriously than the other group of scientists is that the panel rejected several studies in which animals were exposed to BPA through injection rather than through their diets. The panel's recommendation will be reviewed by the National Toxicology Program for a federal report that could lead to regulations restricting use of the chemical, the Times reports.
Comments, Reaction
John Bucher, associate director of NTP, said the panel gave the most weight to neurological effects in children, infants and fetuses because studies consistently have found those effects when newborn animals are exposed to low doses similar to what humans encounter. He added that because the science remains uncertain, it is up to individuals to decide whether to avoid products with BPA.
Steve Hentges of the American Chemistry Council's polycarbonate division said the panel's report is a "strong reassurance to consumers" that products containing BPA are safe. Frederick vom Saal, a University of Missouri-Columbia reproductive toxicologist who has conducted studies on BPA, said that it is disappointing that the panel did not rank the risk higher but that the "panel is now on record saying there are human health concerns."
Some environmental advocates "lambasted" the panel's report, saying it minimized the risks and ignored important research, according to the Times. Anila Jacob of the Environmental Working Group said, "Only the chemical industry agrees with the decision that BPA has little or no human health risks." She added, "That by itself should speak volumes about the corrupted process endorsed by the panel today" (Los Angeles Times, 8/9).
The panel's report is available online. Note: You will need Adobe Acrobat to view the report.
CNN on Thursday included a discussion with CNN medical correspondent Elizabeth Cohen about the panel's findings (Phillips, CNN, 8/9). A transcript of the segment is available online. In addition, NPR's "All Things Considered" on Thursday included a discussion with panel member Jane Adams, a neurodevelopmental toxicologist, about the findings (Seabrook, "All Things Considered," NPR, 8/9). Audio of the segment is available online.
Reprinted with kind permission from kaisernetwork. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at kaisernetwork/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. © 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.
Подписаться на:
Сообщения (Atom)