The Truth About Emergency Contraceptives
Posted by on March 28, 2013 - 10:43am

Recently, emergency contraceptives have been at the center of the debate as to whether employers must cover contraception under their health insurance plans. Under the Affordable Care Act, which covers preventive care, non-exempt employers must cover the morning-after pill (Plan B) and the week-after pill (ella) for their employees. Some companies don’t want to follow this requirement because they claim that these drugs cause abortions. However, it seems that these claims are based on outdated information, because recent research now definitively proves that Plan B doesn't cause abortions, and that ella most likely doesn’t impact established pregnancies.

In the past, researchers knew that Plan B prevented pregnancy primarily by stopping ovulation, and therefore, fertilization. However, they were not certain whether it prevented fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterus. An abortifacient (abortion-causing drug) is something that interrupts an established pregnancy, which is typically considered to be when a fertilized egg implants in a woman’s uterus. By this definition, a drug that causes an unimplanted fertilized egg to leave a woman’s body is not considered an abortion, but it is still objectionable by some parties.

Recent studies, including one led by the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics, have proven that these objections are unfounded by showing that Plan B only prevents ovulation and fertilization. It in no way stops a fertilized egg from implanting in a woman’s uterus, and does not cause abortions. This is also most likely the case with the week-after pill, known as ella, although the research is not as definitive. Ella is related to the abortion drug, RU-486 (Mifeprex), but unlike that drug which predominantly affects a woman’s endometrium, ella more strongly affects a woman’s ovaries, preventing ovulation. One study found that the rate of women who took ella after ovulation experienced pregnancy at the same rate as women who did not take it, indicating that the drug most likely does not prevent implantation.

While there is still stronger controversy when it comes to ella, individuals in the medical field opposed to abortion are starting to accept the fact that Plan B doesn't cause abortions, which is an important step in its increased acceptance as a contraceptive.

Source: Rovner, Julie. “Morning-After Pills Don’t Cause Abortion, Studies Say.” NPR. 4 February 2013.

For more information on the preventive services covered for women under the Affordable Care Act, click here.

Saluting those who support breastfeeding!
Posted by on March 28, 2013 - 8:39am

Medela, a company focused on women and infant health, has announced a call for nominations for its Breastfeeding Hall of Excellence, a program created to recognize individuals who help moms successfully nurse and reach their breastfeeding goals. Those eligible  include lactation consultants, professionals and community advocates, including bloggers. Inductees will be awarded grants to support breastfeeding-related research, education and charities. Nominations will be accepted online March 26 – April 30, 2013. Full program guidelines and nomination forms can be found at breastfeedinghallofexcellence.com.

The deadline for nominations is Tuesday, April 30, 2013.

Durbin Amendment supports medical innovation
Posted by on March 26, 2013 - 12:28pm
Teresa K. Woodruff, PhD

An amendment to increase biomedical research at the National Institute of Health(NIH) passed by unanimous consent on March 22.  The Women's Health Research Institute at Northwestern applauds the introduction of a bipartisan amendment by our own Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) and others to increase funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) within the FY 2014 Budget Resolution  We are grateful to have champions that recognize the extraordinary medical advancements made possible by NIH and its role as an economic engine, creating jobs and supporting economic activity across the nation.

Our Institute Director Teresa Woodruff and her work was cited in Senator Durbin's official remarks supporting the amendment:

"Insufficient funding and cuts to NIH will force the agency to not award some grants. And it may need to reduce awards that have already been announced. Research and clinical trials that have already started are less likely to be given funding to continue, so promising projects will be terminated, suspended or forced to lay off workers.  I would like to share the story of Dr. Teresa Woodruff, a researcher and professor at Northwestern University's Feinberg School of Medicine. Dr. Woodruff is leading one of the first major studies on the impact of superfund environmental toxins on reproductive health. Her work could help us understand the health risks of certain chemicals and how pollutants enter the human body. The Monday after sequestration took effect, Dr. Woodruff was delighted to learn that the NIH had awarded funding for her research, but disappointed to learn that--due to sequestration--the grant was cut by more than half.

Dr. Woodruff is thankful for the NIH funding, but this cut means she will have to drop key parts of her research, like studying the impact of toxins on men and children and how pollutants end up in the food we eat. Because of the drastic cut in funding, Dr. Woodruff will not hire new people and will have fewer training slots to teach the next generation of scientists. Dr. Woodruff's experience is being played out across the country as promising researchers are forced to stall clinical trials and lay off support staff."

According to the United for Medical Research, the NIH’s budget has already suffered a 20 percent decline in the last decade,  and the devastating impact of the March 1st sequester, which could lead to the loss of more than 20,000 jobs and $3 billion in economic activity, has already begun to be felt. Morale among the best and brightest scientific talent is already alarmingly low, even as they stand on the brink of unprecedented scientific opportunity, and we are in real danger of losing an entire generation of medical innovators. It is critical that we restore the $1.5 billion from the NIH’s budget so we our nation can be a leader in medical advancement.

 

 

Today is Diabetes Alert Day.
Posted by on March 26, 2013 - 10:42am

Diabetes affects the body in many ways.  Celebrate Diabetes Alert Day (March 26) by learning how diabetes can effect the female body!   Take a few minutes to look at this female anatomy chart to learn more!

 

New Study Finds Most Babies Fed Solids Too Soon
Posted by on March 25, 2013 - 1:25pm

Do you follow your doctor’s orders?  According to a new study, many new moms may be feeding their babies solid foods too soon – and sometimes they’re just following their doctors’ advice.  According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, babies should not begin consuming solids until they are at least six months old.  But a newly released study in Pediatrics found that almost all of the new mothers surveyed (almost 93%) introduced solid food before six months, and half of these women said it was because their pediatrician told them it was time to introduce solid food.  Click here for the full story on NBC News Vitals.

How well do you understand the Affordable Care Act: Take the Test
Posted by on March 24, 2013 - 9:44am

As the three-year anniversary of the Affordable Care Act approaches, the Kaiser Family Foundation has updated its interactive quiz that allows users to test their knowledge about what’s in – and what's not in – the health reform law.

Quiz takers can compare their health reform knowledge to that of their friends by sharing their quiz results on Facebook and Twitter. The quiz also includes links to more information about specific provisions of the law.   There's a lot posturing and misunderstanding out there so take the quiz and see how informed you are.  I got 9 out of 10, not bad.   Let us know how you do.

New guidelines for diagnosing and treating GERD
Posted by on March 22, 2013 - 11:09am

In May, 2013,  the American College of Gastroenterology has published new guidelines for diagnosing and managing gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).   Dr. Lauren B. Gerson from Stanford University School of Medicine, California, a member of the guidelines panel, highlighted six areas where the guidelines changed since the 2005 version:

1) Weight loss,  bed elevation (for patients with nocturnal GERD symptoms), is an effective lifestyle measure.  Avoidance of foods thought to provoke reflux is not routinely advised.

2) Routine screening and treatment for H. pylori infection are not recommended because there isn't enough evidence that testing and treatment will affect GERD symptoms.

3) While the guidelines continue to advise against routine biopsies of the distal esophagus to diagnose GERD, eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) has become more recognized since the 2005 guidelines. Therefore, biopsies of the distal and mid-esophagus should be obtained when EoE is suspected.

4) Since the last guidelines, there have been multiple concerns regarding the long-term safety of Proton Pump Inhibitors (PPIs). There does not appear to be an increased risk of osteoporosis, except in patients with other risk factors for hip fracture. There also does not appear to be an increased risk of cardiovascular events in patients using concomitant clopidogrel. PPI therapy does appear to be a risk factor for the development of Clostridium difficile infection.

5) GERD can be considered to be a co-factor for patients with extra-esophageal symptoms including cough, laryngitis, and asthma. While a PPI trial can be recommended in patients who also have typical GERD symptoms, reflux monitoring should be considered before a PPI trial in patients without GERD symptoms. Evaluation for non-GERD causes should occur in all patients.

6) Endoscopic therapy is not recommended as therapy for GERD. Obese patients with GERD should consider gastric bypass surgery as treatment for heartburn symptoms.

To review all the new guidelines, Click HERE.

Am J Gastroenterol 2013.

Study Finds Association Between Bikini Waxing and STI Risk
Posted by on March 20, 2013 - 12:10pm

Happy first day of spring! That’s right; even though we are still experiencing sub-zero temperatures in many parts of the country (Chicago weather today is brutal!), it is technically now spring. With spring, comes spring vacation and thoughts of warm weather and spending time at the beach. This month, women and men across the country will shed their parkas and start getting bathing suit ready. For many, this involves a certain amount of grooming, with respect to body hair. Before you get out your razor, clippers or wax, though, we wanted to give you a head’s up on an article, published in the upcoming issue of the journal Sexually Transmitted Infections, suggesting that Brazilian waxing and other methods of pubic hair removal may increase the risk of catching certain skin infections through sex.

According to the Mayo Clinic, Molluscum contagiosum is a skin infection “that results in round, firm, painless bumps ranging in size from a pinhead to a pencil eraser. If the bumps are scratched or injured, the infection can spread to surrounding skin.” Although this infection is most commonly found in children, Molluscum contagiosum involving genitals is considered to be a sexually transmitted infection that can affect adults (particularly those with weakened immune systems). In recent years, the spread of Molluscum contagiosum through sex has increased in some parts of the world, and researchers at a private health clinic in Nice, France wanted to know if the increasing popularity of pubic hair removal had anything to do with this.

A recent article in the Huffington Post states that French researchers focused their investigation on 30 patients (6 women and 24 men), with sexually transmitted Molluscum contagiosum, who visited their clinic in 2011 and 2012. 93 percent of these patients had removed their pubic hair through shaving (70 percent), clipping (13 percent) or waxing (10 percent) and 10 of the 30 had at least one other skin condition. The researchers found an association between pubic hair removal and an increased risk of contracting Molluscum contagiosum. It is important to note, however, that this association is not proof, and there were limitations to the study, such as small number of patients and the exclusion of a comparison group of people who are skin-infection free. Consequently, more research needs to be done.

Nonetheless, experts not involved with the study weighed in to say that pubic hair removal could theoretically increase the risk of genital skin infections and point to the fact that the small scratches or cuts to the skin that sometimes occur with hair removal can make it easier for viruses to establish infections. According to Dr. Robert Brodell, chief of the University of Mississippi Medical Center’s Division of Dermatology, “The body has a number of defense mechanisms to prevent infections. One of those is healthy skin.” He goes on to state that aberrations in the skin “open the door for catching the infections.”

Thus, although the jury is still out on the exact conclusiveness of this study and more investigation is necessary, it would be wise to keep this research in mind when you ready yourself for summer grooming. After all, a skin infection such as Molluscum contagiosum is one thing that might definitely make you think before putting on a bikini.

Celebrate the Women who Shaped America's Health
Posted by on March 19, 2013 - 10:41am

March is National Women's History Month in the U.S.  and we didn't want to close the month without paying tribute to the women who have made significant contributions to the nation's health.   We've provide two links for you to view.  The first link will bring you to the March 19 Huffington Post Healthy Living site where they provide profiles of 50 female scientists and physicians who have made a difference.  The second link is to our own March e-newsletter where we discuss the role women have played in health care reform.    We hope you visit these links and celebrate the important accomplishments all these women have made.

New imaging agent may help locate lymph nodes in cancer surgery
Posted by on March 17, 2013 - 9:33am

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today approved Lymphoseek  Injection, a radioactive diagnostic imaging agent that helps doctors locate lymph nodes in patients with breast cancer or melanoma who are undergoing surgery to remove tumor-draining lymph nodes.

Lymph nodes filter lymphatic fluid that flows from the body’s tissues. This fluid may contain cancer cells, especially if the fluid drains a part of the body containing a tumor. By surgically removing and examining the lymph nodes that drain a tumor, doctors can sometimes determine if a cancer has spread.

Lymphoseek is an imaging drug that helps locate lymph nodes; it is not a cancer imaging drug. Lymphoseek is the first new drug used for lymph node mapping to be approved in more than 30 years. Other FDA-approved drugs used for lymph node mapping include sulfur colloid (1974) and isosulfan blue (1981).

“Removal and pathological examination of lymph nodes draining a primary tumor is an important diagnostic evaluation for some patients with breast cancer or melanoma,” said Shaw Chen, M.D., deputy director of the Office of Drug Evaluation IV in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “To use Lymphoseek, doctors inject the drug into the tumor area and later, using a handheld radiation detector, find lymph nodes that have taken up Lymphoseek’s radioactivity.”

Lymphoseek’s safety and effectiveness were established in two clinical trials of 332 patients with melanoma or breast cancer. All patients were injected with Lymphoseek and blue dye, another drug used to help locate lymph nodes.

Surgeons subsequently removed suspected lymph nodes for pathologic examination. Confirmed lymph nodes were examined for their content of blue dye and/or Lymphoseek. Results showed Lymphoseek and blue dye had localized most lymph nodes, although a notable number of nodes were localized only by Lymphoseek.

The most common side effects identified in clinical trials was pain or irritation at the injection site.

Lymphoseek is marketed by Navidea Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. based in Dublin, Ohio.

For more information:

FDA Approved Drugs: Questions and Answers

 

#

Pages