The University of Pittsburgh is looking for older adults with lower back pain and depression. Researchers at the school’s “Late Life Depression Program” are looking for participants for a clinical trial that will study the effectiveness of medication combined with counseling. Participants must be at least 60-years-old with low back pain that has lasted for at least three months and symptoms of depression. For more information:
Tag Archives | study
New Studies Show that Yoga Helps Relieve Chronic Low Back Pain …
By Jessica Smith Soto Chronic back pain affects millions of Americans; it is not only a painful condition, it also limits many areas of daily life and mobility. Low back pain sufferers may soon find a new source of relief: yoga. A 2011 study on ‘Yoga for Chronic Low Back Pain’ published in the Annals of Internal Medicine found that yoga provides not just more effective low back pain than usual care, but also provides it faster. The study used 313 adults with recurrent low back pain, and half of the group underwent a 12 week yoga program while the other half used usual low back pain care for 12 months. According to the authors of the study, “The benefits of yoga may be greater than those of exercise alone because yoga offers a combination of physical exercise with mental focus, and patients are taught good posture, self-awareness, and self-care along with relaxation.” The 12 week yoga programs created improvements not only in back pain, but also in back function. The poses in class focused on improving mobility, strength, posture and reducing pain through poses that targeted stiff and weak areas of the body. Class would gradually built on strength to increase confidence in performing daily activities. This study indicates that yoga for back pain is helpful on several different levels and quicker than usual care. See full study: http://www.annals.org/content/155/9/569.full.pdf+html.Another recent study looked at the effects of yoga in a population of veterans, who are particularly susceptible to low back pain. The San Diego Health Services Research and Development conducted a specialized study in 2008 on the effects of yoga in veterans suffering from chronic low back pain. Significant improvements
Schoolbags Increase Children's Back Pain | TopNews Arab Emirates
As per the research which has been published in the Archives of Disease in Childhood, it has been revealed that most common cause of spinal pain in school children is their school bags. In order to reach the above conclusion, researchers from Spain assessed 1403 schoolchildren, who were aged between 12 and 17. It was found that a quarter of them have been suffering from lower back pain and many of them have also been suffering from problem known as curvature of the spine. Co-author Prof. Alberto Ruano, of University of Santiago De Compostel, Spain, said: “Many children transport excessively loaded backpacks, an excess which would not be allowed for workers in employment. We strongly encourage the medical and educational community to start advising parents and school children about the risks posed by heavy school bags”. The study researchers were of the view that though the study has been conducted in Spain, the problem is common across the globe. It is a high time now that schools should understand the fact that heavy school bags can damage back of children. Recently, Britain was also found to be witnessing similar problems. Some of the many common back problems being found in school going children are scoliosis, lower back pain and involuntary muscle contractions. The bag increases about 15% of the body weight and hurts the back of children. Daily pressure leads to back injury and in many cases the problem becomes untreatable. It is also recommended that children should be asked to perform some light weight exercise, which can keep their back in correct posture as well as they should be asked to sit in right posture.
New Evidence Supports Positive Outcomes of Cooled …
ROSWELL, Ga., Development 12, 2012 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ –Kimberly-Clark Health Care today announced thе results οf a randomized proscribed trial on thе use οf cooled radiofrequency (RF) tο handle sacroiliac joint (SIJ) pain in thе decrease back. Thе results wеrе published in thе Development journal οf Pain Medicine, official journal οf thе American Academy οf Pain Medicine, thе Faculty οf Pain Medicine οf thе Australian and new Zealand College οf Anesthetists, and thе International Spine Intervention Society. Thе study used thе SInergy Cooled Radiofrequency System manufactured by Kimberly-Clark Health Care. at thе three-month follow-up, those patients treated with cooled radiofrequency ѕhοwеԁ significant improvements in pain, disability and feature οf life outcomes. Thе durability οf thе relief wаѕ maintained at thе nine-month follow-up whеrе 59 percent οf treated subjects achieved behavior success. Cooled radiofrequency іѕ a minimally-invasive behavior for hard-tο-handle spine anatomy. SInergy Cooled Radiofrequency System іѕ proposed tο target and handle thе pain-generating nerves in thе decrease back and buttock region thаt mау be responsible for sacroiliac joint pain. Internally cooled, RF electrodes hаνе been applied in pain medicine tο overcome thе challenges οf capturing diffused οr inconsistently located target structures through larger lesion formation. Thе behavior deal wіth саn greatly reduce low back pain and potentially even eliminate it. Dr. Nilesh Patel οf Advanced Pain Management in Green Bay, Wis., led thе study whісh enrolled 51 patients with 34 in thе behavior group and 17 in thе sham group. “Chronic sacroiliac joint pain іѕ a debilitating and painful condition and behavior-аѕ-usual has failed many οf these patients. Thе trial results indicate cooled radiofrequency іѕ a much-needed interventional behavior thаt offers a safe and effectual option for alleviating chronic, hard-tο-handle low back pain,” said
Value of mass prostate cancer screenings questioned
STORY HIGHLIGHTS Does mass prostate cancer screening saves lives? Cancer screening tests haven’t always shown a decrease in overall mortality American Cancer Society Dr. Otis Webb Brawley: Mass screenings should stop Prostate screenings, he says, should be done within a physician-patient relationship Editor’s note: CNN conditions expert Dr. Otis Webb Brawley is the chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society, a world-renowned cancer expert and a practicing oncologist. (CNN) — Q: The New England Journal of Medicine has published more information on prostate cancer screening. Why is it so controversial? A: Approximately 28,200 American men will die of prostate cancer in 2012. Among cancers, only lung cancer kills more men in the U.S. each year. This week’s issue of the New England Journal of Medicine has a follow-up evaluation of The European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC), which analyzed data from 162,000 men. The ERSPC study concluded that screening reduced an individual’s relative risk of prostate cancer death by 21%. Many will quickly interpret this to mean that prostate screening with the blood test known as PSA saves lives. But the paper deserves a deeper examination, as the findings are not that simple. Prostate cancer screening has been common in the U.S. since the early 1990s. Mass prostate screening, where large numbers of men are encouraged to get the test at health fairs, shopping malls and community meetings has become a lucrative part of the business plan for many hospitals, clinics and medical practices. So it’s surprising to note that the 2009 ERSPC publication was the first well-designed clinical trial to even suggest that screening saves lives. The ERSPC reported a 21% decrease in relative risk of death in 2009. Put into perspective, a 21% decline in relative risk means that a man choosing screening goes from a lifetime risk of prostate cancer death of 3% to a lifetime risk
Schoolbags Increase Children's Back Pain | TopNews Arab Emirates
As per the research which has been published in the Archives of Disease in Childhood, it has been revealed that most common cause of spinal pain in school children is their school bags. In order to reach the above conclusion, researchers from Spain assessed 1403 schoolchildren, who were aged between 12 and 17. It was found that a quarter of them have been suffering from lower back pain and many of them have also been suffering from problem known as curvature of the spine. Co-author Prof. Alberto Ruano, of University of Santiago De Compostel, Spain, said: “Many children transport excessively loaded backpacks, an excess which would not be allowed for workers in employment. We strongly encourage the medical and educational community to start advising parents and school children about the risks posed by heavy school bags”. The study researchers were of the view that though the study has been conducted in Spain, the problem is common across the globe. It is a high time now that schools should understand the fact that heavy school bags can damage back of children. Recently, Britain was also found to be witnessing similar problems. Some of the many common back problems being found in school going children are scoliosis, lower back pain and involuntary muscle contractions. The bag increases about 15% of the body weight and hurts the back of children. Daily pressure leads to back injury and in many cases the problem becomes untreatable. It is also recommended that children should be asked to perform some light weight exercise, which can keep their back in correct posture as well as they should be asked to sit in right posture.
Value of mass prostate cancer screenings questioned
STORY HIGHLIGHTS Does mass prostate cancer screening saves lives? Cancer screening tests haven’t always shown a decrease in overall mortality American Cancer Society Dr. Otis Webb Brawley: Mass screenings should stop Prostate screenings, he says, should be done within a physician-patient relationship Editor’s note: CNN conditions expert Dr. Otis Webb Brawley is the chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society, a world-renowned cancer expert and a practicing oncologist. (CNN) — Q: The New England Journal of Medicine has published more information on prostate cancer screening. Why is it so controversial? A: Approximately 28,200 American men will die of prostate cancer in 2012. Among cancers, only lung cancer kills more men in the U.S. each year. This week’s issue of the New England Journal of Medicine has a follow-up evaluation of The European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC), which analyzed data from 162,000 men. The ERSPC study concluded that screening reduced an individual’s relative risk of prostate cancer death by 21%. Many will quickly interpret this to mean that prostate screening with the blood test known as PSA saves lives. But the paper deserves a deeper examination, as the findings are not that simple. Prostate cancer screening has been common in the U.S. since the early 1990s. Mass prostate screening, where large numbers of men are encouraged to get the test at health fairs, shopping malls and community meetings has become a lucrative part of the business plan for many hospitals, clinics and medical practices. So it’s surprising to note that the 2009 ERSPC publication was the first well-designed clinical trial to even suggest that screening saves lives. The ERSPC reported a 21% decrease in relative risk of death in 2009. Put into perspective, a 21% decline in relative risk means that a man choosing screening goes from a lifetime risk of prostate cancer death of 3% to a lifetime risk of 2.4%. Here they found that 1,055 men would need to be screened to identify 37 men with prostate cancer and save one life. To be fair, not all accepted cancer screening tests have demonstrated a decrease in overall mortality. Trials have shown breast cancer mammography has met this standard, as has lung cancer screening using low dose spiral CT. I am aware of no cervical cancer or colorectal cancer screening studies showing a decrease in overall mortality, but many have shown a decrease in the incidence of disease. Reducing the number of people getting the cancer is another accepted benefit of screening. Q: Why do we need a new study of prostate cancer screenings? A: The purpose of a screening test is to save lives. A test is not necessarily successful in saving lives if it simply finds cancer. I believe it is not necessarily a successful test it finds disease earlier and leads to an increase in the number of people surviving five or 10 years after diagnosis. Screening is only successful if it decreases the number of people dying from the disease. Unfortunately this important point about screening is not widely understood beyond those with expertise in screening. Indeed, a recent study in the Annals of Internal Medicine suggests that this point is not appreciated by more the 75% of practicing physicians. The only way to truly determine if screening saves lives is through taking a large number of people at risk for the disease and randomly assigning half to get the experimental test on a regular basis over time and half to not get the test over the same period of time. The two groups are then watched to see if the number of deaths from the cancer and the all-causes mortality rate differs in the two groups. The double edge sword of cancer screening is that screening itself can cause harm. Prostate cancer screening can detect and diagnosis a cancer that would never have needed treatment. The subsequent unnecessary treatment can cause incontinence, sexual impotence and even death. Indeed studies show that about 1% of men undergoing prostate cancer surgery in the U.S. die due to the surgery. The European study investigators estimate that half of all the cancers they diagnosed fell into the category of those not needing treatment. Most men elected to have treatment. Q: So should I get screened, or not? A: In draft guidelines issued in the fall of 2012, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force noted that four studies published over the past 15 years have documented the harms of prostate cancer screening and only the ERSPC has suggested that screening leads to a mortality reduction. They use this as reasoning to recommend against prostate cancer screening. When one takes a hard look at the scientific data, the benefits of screening are not at all clear. Given the uncertainty, I believe: — Mass screenings should stop. — Screening should only be done within the physician-patient relationship. Doctors and the men they serve need to learn the true facts about screening. Only after understanding the known harms and potential benefits of screening should a man be encouraged to make a personal decision about screening. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of CNN or the American Cancer Society.
Prostate screenings questioned
STORY HIGHLIGHTS Does mass prostate cancer screening saves lives? Cancer screening tests haven’t always shown a decrease in overall mortality American Cancer Society Dr. Otis Webb Brawley: Mass screenings should stop Prostate screenings, he says, should be done within a physician-patient relationship Editor’s note: CNN conditions expert Dr. Otis Webb Brawley is the chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society, a world-renowned cancer expert and a practicing oncologist. (CNN) — Q: The New England Journal of Medicine has published more information on prostate cancer screening. Why is it so controversial? A: Approximately 28,200 American men will die of prostate cancer in 2012. Among cancers, only lung cancer kills more men in the U.S. each year. This week’s issue of the New England Journal of Medicine has a follow-up evaluation of The European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC), which analyzed data from 162,000 men. The ERSPC study concluded that screening reduced an individual’s relative risk of prostate cancer death by 21%. Many will quickly interpret this to mean that prostate screening with the blood test known as PSA saves lives. But the paper deserves a deeper examination, as the findings are not that simple. Prostate cancer screening has been common in the U.S. since the early 1990s. Mass prostate screening, where large numbers of men are encouraged to get the test at health fairs, shopping malls and community meetings has become a lucrative part of the business plan for many hospitals, clinics and medical practices. So it’s surprising to note that the 2009 ERSPC publication was the first well-designed clinical trial to even suggest that screening saves lives. The ERSPC reported a 21% decrease in relative risk of death in 2009. Put into perspective, a 21% decline in relative risk means that a man choosing screening goes from a lifetime risk of prostate cancer death of 3% to a lifetime risk of 2.4%. Here they found that 1,055 men would need to be screened to identify 37 men with prostate cancer and save one life. To be fair, not all accepted cancer screening tests have demonstrated a decrease in overall mortality. Trials have shown breast cancer mammography has met this standard, as has lung cancer screening
Scientists discover how to stop lower back pain | Machines Like Us
Italian researchers at the Catholic University of Sacred Heart in Rome found an important molecular mechanism responsible for low back pain and other acute vertebral problems like cervical axial pain, all due to aging and degeneration of the vertebral column. The team led by Dr. Luigi Aurelio Nasto and Enrico Pola also developed an experimental drug to inhibit this degenerative mechanism, by blocking its principal culprit, the molecule, “NF-kB” and tested it successfully in mice. The study was carried out in collaboration with the University of Pittsburgh research team led by Paul Robbins, James Kang and Nam Vo (e-mail: von@upmc.edu). Researchers reported their findings in the February 16 online edition of the journal Spine. Nasto and Pola found that high concentration of NF-kB causes the degeneration of intervertebral discs (the structures that separate and damp the vertebrae), a degenerative process that could affect also young adults (30 year old), especially if they adopt a sedentary lifestyle. In other words when NF-kB becomes overactive, it triggers a series of deleterious reactions that ultimately affect the physiological structure of the vertebral column. Due to aging, obesity and sedentary lifestyle, intervertebral discs degenerate, leading to the progressive stiffening of the column. The intervertebral disc degeneration is responsible for syndromes such as chronic low back pain or neck pain that affects a large proportion of the adult population. Back pain and neck pain are ranked among the leading causes of lost working hours and disability in adults Italian scientists found the mechanism behind the degenerative processes of the column. They studied mice that are genetically programmed to age rapidly (progeroid mice). The average lifespan of normal mice is 2 years. The progeroid mice age more quickly and have a lifespan of 8 months. The progeroid mice perfectly mimic the process of spine degeneration that occur in old people and young adults who suffer from low back pain. The researchers found that NF-kB plays a role in the degeneration of the spine. NF-kB is a transcription factor, it modulates the activation of specific target genes. Researchers found that NF-kB activates many genes related to inflammation and turn off anti-inflammatory protective genes. Moreover in many studies NF-kB was found hyperactive in both the spines of old mice and old people. The results of the Italian research suggest that NF-kB induces the onset of deleterious inflammatory processes and inhibit anti-inflammatory mechanisms. Moreover “our study shows that by inhibiting NF-kB, we can stop spine degeneration,” Dr. Nasto says. “Drugs that turn off or even only partially inactivate NF-kB could be used to prevent the degeneration of intervertebral discs in patients.” “In our study, we developed a specific drug, called NBD peptide, able to specifically inhibit the deleterious action of NF-kB – dr Pola explains. NBD has been already successfully tested by a US team in Pittsburgh to slow the course of muscular dystrophy in an animal model (NF-kB is also involved in this disease). This peptide will be soon tested in a clinical trial (phase I) to study its therapeutic effects on Duchenne muscular dystrophy”. According to Nasto and Pola, NBD may also be used to counteract the aging of the vertebral column. “We hope to develop other selective inhibitors of NF-kB to slow the degeneration of intervertebral discs” and cure low back pain, Pola concludes.
Too much red meat may shorten lifespan
In addition, a diet rich in red meat is likely to come up short in other areas, says Robert Ostfeld, M.D. STORY HIGHLIGHTS A new study is the first to estimate the effect of red meat on a person’s lifespan Each additional daily serving was associated with a 20% higher risk of dying Charring red meat at high temperatures can produce carcinogens on the surface Editor’s note: Read this story in Arabic. (Health.com) — Want to live longer? Trade some of the red meat in your diet for fish, nuts, whole grains, and other healthier protein sources, Harvard researchers say. That’s the conclusion of a new study, published this week in the Archives of Internal Medicine, that found that the risk of dying at an early age — from heart disease, cancer, or any other cause—rises in step with red-meat consumption. Eating too much red meat, which is high in saturated fat and cholesterol, has long been seen as unhealthy, especially for the heart. The new study, however, is the first to estimate the effect of swapping out red meat on a person’s lifespan. Health.com: The 10 best foods for your heart Using data from two long-running studies of health professionals, researchers tracked the diets of more than 121,000 middle-aged men and women for up to 28 years. Roughly 20% of the participants died during that period. On average, each additional serving of red meat the participants ate per day was associated with a 13% higher risk of dying during the study. Processed red meat products — such as hot dogs, bacon, and salami — appeared to be even more dangerous: Each additional daily serving was associated with a 20% higher risk of dying. Based on these findings, the researchers estimate that substituting one daily serving of red meat with fish, poultry, nuts, legumes, whole grains, or low-fat dairy products would reduce the risk of dying in this stage of life by 7% to 19%. If everyone in the study had slashed their average red-meat intake to less than half a serving per day, the researchers say, 9% of deaths among men and 8% of deaths among women could have been prevented. Health.com: Easy food swaps that cut cholesterol, not taste “Our message is to try to reduce the red meat consumption to less than two to three servings per week,” says lead author An Pan, Ph.D., a research fellow at the Harvard School of Public Health, in Boston. “We don’t want everyone to be a vegetarian,” Pan says, though he adds that avoiding processed red meat altogether may be a good idea. “It’s better to go with unprocessed products and plant-based foods.” Dean Ornish, M.D., the founder and president of the Preventive Medicine Research Institute, in Sausalito, California, says a plant-based diet provides a “double benefit” in that it reduces a person’s exposure to the harmful substances in meat while also providing valuable nutrients. “There are literally hundreds of thousands of protective substances that you find in fruits and vegetables and whole grains and legumes and soy products that prevent disease,” says Ornish, who wrote an editorial accompanying the study. Health.com: America’s healthiest superfoods for women Why is red meat, and especially processed red meat, potentially harmful? In addition to the high saturated fat content, which can contribute to heart disease, charring red meat at high temperatures can produce carcinogens on the surface, Pan says. And processed meats contain certain additives that in high quantities are believed to promote cancer as well. In addition, a diet rich in red meat is likely to come up short in other areas, says Robert Ostfeld, M.D., a cardiologist and associate professor of clinical medicine at Montefiore Medical Center, in the Bronx, N.Y. “If you eat more red meat, on average, you may be eating fewer fruits and vegetables, so you’re getting the bad things from the red meat and you’re not getting the good things from the fruits and vegetables,” says Ostfeld, who did not participate in the study. “My preference is for people to have as little red meat as they can, and I think it’s ideal to avoid red meat.” Staffan Lindeberg, M.D., an associate professor of medicine at the University of Lund, in Sweden, says singling out red meat may be counterproductive. A bigger threat to health is the sugar- and starch-heavy Western diet as a whole, says Lund, who studies heart disease and diabetes and advocates a version of the so-called Paleolithic diet, which emphasizes lean meats, fruits, and vegetables. “We need to focus more on common foods, like grains, dairy foods, refined fats, and refined sugar,” Lindeberg says. Studies like Pan’s are inherently iffy due to red meat’s unhealthy reputation, which makes red-meat consumption difficult to tease apart from a person’s overall lifestyle, Lindeberg says. “Red meat has been perceived as a villain for many years, and people who avoid red meat take all sorts of precautionary measures for their future health,” he says. “It is not possible to statistically adjust for all of these measures.” Sure enough, Pan and his colleagues found that the men and women in the study who ate the most red meat also tended to be heavier, less physically active, and more likely to smoke and drink alcohol than their peers. However, the researchers did take those and other factors into account in their analysis. Copyright Health Magazine 2011


