FRIDAY, April 8, 2022 (HealthDay News) -- When women go into pregnancy with mild high blood pressure, treating the condition can cut the risk of health threats to themselves and their babies, a new clinical trial has shown.

Experts said the findings could change the way many women have their blood pressure managed during pregnancy.

Until now, the value of treating pregnant women for milder chronic high blood pressure had been unclear. And there have been concerns that it might reduce blood flow to the fetus, potentially impairing growth.

In the new trial's findings, published April 2 in the New England Journal of Medicine, those fears were not realized. Instead, treating women reduced the risk they would develop severe preeclampsia -- a dangerous pregnancy complication -- and helped prevent some preterm births.

Dr. Kjersti Aagaard, one of the researchers on the trial, said the results should change practice.

"This is one of those rare trials where you say, 'Yes, I'm going to do something differently tomorrow from the way I do it today,'" said Aagaard, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston.

At issue are women who go into pregnancy with chronic high blood pressure, which differs from the form that arises in some women during pregnancy.

When people who aren't pregnant have high blood pressure, treatment with medication is standard. But treatment during pregnancy has been more controversial.

Experts have agreed that treatment is necessary when a pregnant woman's chronic high blood pressure is severe -- around 160/110 mm Hg or higher. But there have been no clear guidelines on how to manage milder elevations.

The result is, treatment is "all over the map," said Dr. Michael Greene, an emeritus professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School.

In some cases, a woman and her doctor might decide to treat the condition. But often, treatment is withheld unless a woman's blood pressure numbers spike into the severe range. Sometimes, Greene added, a woman who was already on blood pressure medication before pregnancy will be taken off of it.

Greene, who co-wrote an editorial published with the study, noted that findings from one trial may not convince everyone.

"But as a provider, I say, yes, this should change how pregnant women are treated for chronic hypertension," he said.

The trial involved more than 2,400 pregnant women at medical centers across the United States. All had milder chronic high blood pressure. Half were randomly assigned to "tighter" management, which meant using medication to get their numbers below 140/90 mm Hg. The other half only started medication if their blood pressure rose to 160/105 mm Hg or higher.

Tighter control, the trial found, cut a woman's risk of developing severe preeclampsia, a condition marked by high blood pressure and signs of dysfunction in vital organs like the kidneys and liver. When preeclampsia is severe, doctors may have to induce labor or do a C-section to deliver the baby early.

In the trial, 23% of women on tighter blood pressure control developed preeclampsia with "severe features," versus 29% of women in the comparison group.

Similarly, the odds of needing a "medically indicated" birth before the 35th week of pregnancy were slashed -- to 12% among women on tighter blood pressure control, versus nearly 17% in the comparison group.

Those are important differences for women, babies and public health, said Dr. Emre Seli, chief science officer for the nonprofit March of Dimes.

"The United States has a high preterm birth rate, of around 10%," Seli said. "This is not a rare event."

He also noted that the trial included many women of color, who are disproportionately affected by these pregnancy complications. About 48% of the participants were Black, and 20% were Hispanic.

Seli said the findings underscore the importance of going into pregnancy in good cardiovascular health -- which ideally includes not smoking, getting regular moderate exercise, being at a healthy weight, and having healthy blood pressure.

If medication is needed, Greene noted, there are certain blood pressure drugs that are contraindicated during pregnancy, including ACE inhibitors. He said that women with high blood pressure who are planning a pregnancy should talk to their doctor to be sure they are on an appropriate blood pressure medication.

As for pregnant women wondering if their blood pressure is being optimally controlled, Aagaard said this: "Talk to your doctor. Ask them about this trial and if they've had a chance to read about it yet."

The research was funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health.

More information

The March of Dimes has more on managing high blood pressure during pregnancy.

SOURCES: Kjersti Aagaard, MD, PhD, professor, obstetrics and gynecology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston; Michael Greene, MD, professor emeritus, obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive biology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston; Emre Seli, MD, chief science officer, March of Dimes, Arlington, Va., and professor, obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn.; New England Journal of Medicine, April 2, 2022, online

FRIDAY, April 8, 2022 (HealthDay News) -- Supply chain problems are causing significant shortages of baby formula in the United States, and some retailers are now limiting how much people can buy at one time.

About three-quarters of U.S. babies receive formula within their first six months, but it's getting more difficult to find.

About 29% of the top-selling baby formula products were out of stock at more than 11,000 monitored stores as of the week of March 13, compared with 11% in November, according to an analysis by Datasembly, CBS News reported.

"This is a shocking number that you don't see for other categories," Ben Reich, CEO of Datasembly told CBS MoneyWatch.

"We've been tracking it over time and it's going up dramatically. We see this category is being affected by economic conditions more dramatically than others," he added.

In 24 U.S. states, 30% of formula was out of stock as of mid-March, but other states had even more severe shortages, according to Datasembly.

Rates were 54% in Minnesota and at least 40% in Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, North and South Dakota, Rhode Island and Texas, CBS News reported.

Over the first seven months of 2021, between 2% and 8% of baby formula products were out of stock.

The supply chain problems affecting the supply of baby formula include difficulties getting key ingredients, worker shortages and packaging issues, according to CBS News.

In addition, there was a major recall of baby formula earlier this year.

Manufacturers are boosting production to meet the demand for baby formula, according to a recent statement posted on the Infant Nutrition Council of America's website.

The council also advised parents to keep a 10-day to two-week supply of formula at home, but urged them not to stockpile it, CBS News reported.

More information

Visit the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for more on baby formula.

SOURCE: CBS News

FRIDAY, April 8, 2022 (HealthDay News) -- With the advent of smartphones came the rise of selfies, shared daily by "like"-seeking millions across social media.

But a small new study suggests that, unlike photos taken with regular cameras, smartphone selfies distort facial features in a not-so-flattering way. And those unappealing — if inaccurate — results may be fueling a hankering for plastic surgery.

"Social media has led to an increase in requests for plastic surgery from patients due to increased awareness of their looks," explained study author Dr. Bardia Amirlak.

It's a trend that's has been underway since 2014, added Amirlak, an associate professor of plastic surgery at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

That finding was based on work with 23 women and seven men, all of whom volunteered to have their photos taken in three different ways.

Participants ranged in age from 24 to 62 (at an average age of 34). Seven of them had previously underwent cosmetic surgery and/or had procedures involving cosmetic injectables.

One non-selfie photo was taken with a standard DSLR (digital single-lens reflex) camera, set about five feet away from each subject. But the other two photos were smartphone selfies. One was taken at a distance of one foot, to reflect selfies taken with a bent elbow, while the other was taken at 1.5 feet, to reflect a full arm's length distance held with a bent wrist.

All three images of each participant were taken under the same lighting and in the same body position.

The results were then analyzed both by the study team and by the volunteers.

Clinically, said Amirlak, facial distortions varied from 5% to 10%.

For example, "we found that nasal length [in selfies] was longer compared to regular clinical photography. And the ratio of the base of the nose to the facial width was decreased in selfies. [Meanwhile], the length of the chin was shorter in selfies, compared to clinical photography," Amirlak said.

Compared with a standard portrait image, 12-inch selfies caused the nose to appear to be 6.4% longer, while 18-inch selfies produced noses that appeared to be 4.3% longer, the investigators found.

Foot-long selfies also resulted in a 12% decrease in chin length, the study team determined. That triggered a 17% increase in the ratio between a subject's nose length and chin length. And selfies were also found to widen the base of the nose, relative to overall facial width.

When asked to review the photos, the volunteers clearly picked up on the selfie problem.

For example, when assessing their noses' appearance, scores went up by about 9% when comparing standard camera photos to 12-inch selfies. Similarly, overall face assessments also rose — by nearly 6% — when stacking camera shots against 18-inch selfies.

Many participants also noted that their face looked "more proportional" in conventional photos.

Amirlak said that the findings highlight how smartphones may be undermining the self-confidence of those seeking plastic surgery.

For one, he said, selfie distortions have "been shown to negatively affect an individual's self-esteem." And among both men and women, he sees a clear "relationship between the increase in selfie photographs and an increase in rhinoplasty [nose job] requests, particularly among younger patients."

So, Amirlak said, it's critical that users understand that selfies are not terribly flattering. He also suggested that surgeons account for the fact that their patients are often relying on those selfies, both when opting for plastic surgery and also when assessing post-surgery results.

All of that is already clear to Dr. Samuel Lam, a Plano, Texas-based facial plastic and hair restoration surgeon in private practice.

Though not involved in the study, he noted that he has definitely "had patients come to me because they do not like how their selfies appear. And I have to educate them that my goal was not to fix the selfie, but how their nose looks in a mirror or in person."

Lam did acknowledge that people who tend to take lots of selfies are often simply more concerned about their looks in the first place. "This is actually the number one reason [for plastic surgery] I have noticed," he said.

"Add to that issue that there is a huge uptick in Zoom calls during the pandemic," he noted. "That is the leading reason people have decided to see me for rhinoplasty, among other cosmetic procedures."

So Lam's response is to serve as a sort of reality check.

"I think everyone has underlying insecurities that drive them to see a plastic surgeon," he noted. "However, I try very hard to ensure that that insecurity is not a manifestation of a deeper psychological disease, like body dysmorphic disorder. Also, I try to make sure that the decision has been well thought out, and is a longstanding concern rather than a whimsical one decided on in the recent past."

The findings were published in the April issue of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.

More information

There's more on the psychology behind plastic surgery at American Psychological Association.

SOURCES: Bardia Amirlak, MD, associate professor, department of plastic surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas; Samuel M. Lam, MD, FACS, facial plastic & hair restoration surgeon, private practice, Plano, Texas; Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, April 2022

FRIDAY, April 8, 2022 (HealthDay News) -- A rule requiring U.S. federal government employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19 has been reinstated by a federal appeals court.

The mandate was introduced in September but enforcement was halted in January by a preliminary injunction issued by a federal judge in Texas, The New York Times reported.

On Thursday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled 2-1 that the Texas judge did not have the jurisdiction to block the requirement that federal workers be vaccinated or face disciplinary measures. The rule also applies to health care workers and certain private sector staff.

The appeals court also said the lawsuit by the group Feds for Medical Freedom challenging the mandate should be dismissed, the Times reported.

About 95% of federal employees had already been vaccinated by the time the injunction was issued, according to the White House.

Enforcement of a Biden administration vaccine-or-test mandate for large employers was blocked by the U.S. Supreme Court in January, and a vaccine requirement for employees of federal contractors was blocked by a federal judge in December.

As of Thursday, two-thirds of eligible Americans were fully vaccinated against COVID-19, according to the latest data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

More information

Visit the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for more on COVID vaccines.

SOURCE: The New York Times

FRIDAY, April 8, 2022 (American Heart Association News) -- Ten days before his 13th birthday, Trenden Johnston spent the afternoon doing yardwork and bouncing on a trampoline. So when his mom left to pick up dinner, he went to his room to rest.

Suddenly, he felt sick. He vomited. The left side of his body seemed to go limp.

Scared, he called his mom, Amanda Blough. His words came out so garbled that she could hardly understand what he was saying. She thought he said something about not being able to feel his body.

As Amanda raced home, she called her 21-year-old son, Kody Blough. He was home with Trenden and their two younger sisters.

Kody went to Trenden's room. The door was locked. Trenden didn't come open it. So Kody broke down the door. He found Trenden unable to move.

When Amanda walked into the house, she found Kody dragging Trenden into the living room. Seeing Trenden's drooping face, Amanda recalled the strokes her grandmother experienced. She struggled to grasp that her not-yet-teenager could be having something she always associated with elderly people.

At a local hospital, doctors discovered Trenden was having a hemorrhagic stroke; he was bleeding inside his brain. He needed to be flown by helicopter to a better-equipped facility in Pittsburgh.

By the time Amanda made the hourlong drive, Trenden was already in surgery to relieve the pressure on his brain.

Trenden's stroke was caused by a rupture of a tangle of abnormal vessels connecting the arteries and veins in the brain. It's called a cerebral arteriovenous malformation, or cerebral AVM, and it usually forms before birth.

In about half of people with cerebral AVMs, a hemorrhagic stroke can be how they learn of its existence. That was the case with Trenden. But the AVM was too deep to repair immediately. They needed to stabilize him first.

Johnston spent the next month at the hospital relearning how to walk, swallow and move his left arm and hand. He spent the following month at a rehabilitation center.

By the time he returned home, he was still on the road to recovery. He could walk but struggled with anything that required using his left hand. When he was tired, his face drooped.

Trenden's ordeal began around the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. He arrived home in June. That month, and again in September, he underwent radiation treatment to shrink the AVM. By reducing the size, they closed the path for blood flow, thus reducing the risk of future strokes. Annual tests show that to be the case so far. If that holds through July 2023, the AVM will be considered resolved.

Trenden returned to school in fall 2020. He regained enough strength and agility to participate in some drills for wrestling. Then puberty hit. By January 2021, he'd grown three inches and gained nearly 30 pounds. His body changed too much and too fast for his brain.

"It was like starting from Day 1 all over again," Amanda said.

Trenden continues to do therapy three times a week to stimulate his muscles and build strength and agility. A new brace for his left foot helps him walk, but he's unable to bend his toes or foot; he needs help getting his shoes on. He can't lift weights heavier than 40 pounds to avoid complications with his AVM.

Unable to wrestle or play football, Trenden serves as a team manager. He also enjoys playing video games, using a modification that allows him to play solely with his right hand.

Trenden has gone through a range of emotions. One of his challenges is not knowing many other stroke survivors his age. While family and friends have been great support, they can't truly relate to his experience.

"Accepting that this happened to me and that there's no going back, that's the biggest challenge," he said.

Trenden – who turns 15 on April 16 – is now a freshman in high school. He hopes to regain enough dexterity to return to wrestling and to possibly run track.

American Heart Association News covers heart and brain health. Not all views expressed in this story reflect the official position of the American Heart Association. Copyright is owned or held by the American Heart Association, Inc., and all rights are reserved. If you have questions or comments about this story, please email editor@heart.org.

By Suzanne Marta, American Heart Association News

THURSDAY, April 7, 2022 (HealthDay News) – Researchers report that life expectancy in the United States dropped in 2021, continuing a troubling trend that began in the first year of the pandemic.

Specifically, average U.S. life expectancy tumbled from 78.86 years in 2019 to 76.99 in 2020. It then fell by a smaller amount in 2021, to 76.60 years, the new report found.

One thing was different about the latest longevity numbers: Losses in life expectancy among white Americans were largely responsible for that continuing trajectory, the new study found.

In 2020, Black and Hispanic Americans were disproportionately impacted by the pandemic amid chronic health disparities.

The research team speculated that the reason for the changing dynamics in 2021 could be vaccine hesitancy among some white Americans and a resistance to pandemic restrictions, including in states with disproportionately white populations.

“We already knew that the U.S. experienced historic losses in life expectancy in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. What wasn’t clear is what happened in 2021. To our knowledge this is the first study to report data for 2021, and the news isn’t good,” corresponding study author Dr. Steven Woolf, director emeritus of the Center on Society and Health at Virginia Commonwealth University, said in a university news release.

“Early in 2021, knowing an excellent vaccine was being distributed, I was hopeful that the U.S. could recover some of its historic losses,” said Woolf. “But I began to worry more when I saw what happened as the year unfolded. Even so, as a scientist, until I saw the data it remained an open question how U.S. life expectancy for that year would be affected. It was shocking to see that U.S. life expectancy, rather than having rebounded, had dropped even further.”

The emergence of the faster-spreading Delta and Omicron COVID-19 variants played a big role, the experts said.

"Deaths from these variants occurred almost entirely among unvaccinated people,” Woolf noted. However, he believes that “what happened in the U.S. is less about the variants than the levels of resistance to vaccination and the public’s rejection of practices, such as masking and mandates, to reduce viral transmission.”

Lead study author Ryan Masters, an assistant professor of sociology at University of Colorado Boulder (CU) and an affiliate with the CU Population Center, added that high rates of obesity and heart disease, along with inequities in access to health care, only made matters worse once the pandemic began.

“Those same factors made the U.S. more vulnerable than other countries to the mortality consequences of COVID-19,” Masters said.

For their study, the team used official data for 2018 to 2020, and then provisional data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics for 2021. They used modeling to analyze the changes in life expectancy. Previous reports using the same modeling have been proved accurate when final numbers were available, Woolf noted.

Not only did longevity drop further in the United States, but America fared worse than 19 other wealthy countries during the pandemic.

The life expectancy decline for communities of color was huge in 2020 by all historical standards, but that did not continue in 2021.

Hispanic Americans maintained life expectancy between the two most recent years, after dropping 3.7 years in 2020. Black Americans rebounded 0.42 years in 2021, compared to their decline of 3.22 years in 2020. No estimates are available for Asian Americans, Native Americans or other demographics because of data limitations.

The study was posted Thursday on the MedRxiv preprint server and has not yet been peer-reviewed.

Gregg Gonsalves, a Yale School of Public Health epidemiologist not involved in the study, said the findings were important as well as “heartbreaking” for the “real lives lost.”

“Yes, greater coverage of vaccination may have stemmed some of this suffering,” he told the Washington Post. “But we also have had an overriding desire to put the pandemic behind us for over a year now in the United States, which shaped our decisions to forgo basic protections at a personal and community level, throwing us all into harm’s way.”

More information

The U.S. COVID website has more on COVID-19.

SOURCE: April 7, 2022, news release, Virginia Commonwealth University; Washington Post

FRIDAY, April 8, 2022 (HealthDay News) – Medicare announced Thursday that it will limit its coverage of the pricey new drug Aduhelm to Alzheimer's patients enrolled in clinical trials of the drug.

Approved amid controversy last year by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the latest decision was meant to protect patients while gathering more clinical data on whether the medication actually helps slow declines in thinking, according to officials with the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).

“There is the potential for promise with this treatment; however, there is not currently enough evidence demonstrating improved health outcomes to say that it is reasonable and necessary for people with Medicare, which is a key consideration for CMS when making national coverage determinations,” said Dr. Lee Fleisher, CMS chief medical officer and director of the Center for Clinical Standards and Quality. “In arriving at this final decision, we looked at the very unique circumstances around this class of treatments and made a decision that weighed the potential for patient benefit against the significance of serious unknown factors that could lead to harm."

While considering its final decision, the CMS received 10,000 comments on its website, a mix of emotional pleas from patients, families and groups representing Alzheimer's patients, as well as doctors and experts who urged caution because the drug has serious potential safety risks and its effectiveness is still uncertain.

CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure told the New York Times that “the vast majority” of comments were for “really limiting coverage of Aduhelm to a really controlled space where we could continue to evaluate its appropriateness for the Medicare population.”

Aduhelm received accelerated approval last summer, which allows authorization of drugs in which benefits are uncertain but there are few alternatives for the conditions they may help.

Among the concerns about Aduhelm are that while in one clinical trial patients showed a slight slowing of thinking declines, an almost identical trial showed no benefit at all. Side effects were serious for about 40% of patients, who experienced brain swelling or brain bleeding that ranged from mild to serious.

Prior to the drug's approval, the FDA’s independent advisory committee had said there wasn’t enough evidence for approval and voiced concerns that the agency had worked too closely with manufacturer Biogen during the approval process. Three committee members resigned in protest over the decision.

Going forward, Medicare will cover the drug for anyone in any trial approved by the FDA and the U.S. National Institutes of Health. Biogen must also complete another clinical trial, but that effort could take years.

Advocacy groups had campaigned for broader coverage of the drug, saying restricting it was discriminatory because not all Alzheimer's patients have access to clinical trials.

"The Alzheimer’s Association is deeply disappointed that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has essentially ignored the needs of people living with Alzheimer’s disease," Harry Johns, CEO of the organization, said in a statement released Thursday. “CMS has created unnecessary barriers for individuals with Alzheimer’s disease. Patients with Alzheimer’s, a fatal disease, should have FDA-approved treatments covered by Medicare just as those facing other diseases do."

"Notably, CMS has said in its decision the only way for patients to access the first approved FDA treatment targeting amyloid in those living with Alzheimer’s is to enroll in a clinical trial," Johns added. "While we note CMS has expanded where those clinical trials may take place, in reality this remains an unnecessary and never before imposed barrier to access an FDA-approved treatment."

A lingering question is whether increases to the Medicare Part B premiums will be revised to reflect that Medicare will not be covering this expensive drug for most people.

The agency “is looking at that, and is still going through the process,” spokeswoman Beth Lynk told the Associated Press.

The projected cost of Aduhelm was a major driver behind a $22 increase in Medicare’s Part B premium this year, boosting it to $170.10 a month. When approved, Aduhelm had an annual price tag of $56,000, but the company lowered that to $28,000 a year following weak sales of the drug after many medical institutions said they would not recommend the drug to their patients.

Lawmakers have since called for a rollback of the premium increase and U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra has already directed Medicare to reassess the premium hike.

Brooks-LaSure told the Times Thursday that the CMS will be reviewing the premium.

More information

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has more on Alzheimer’s disease.

SOURCE: April 7, 2022, statement, Alzheimer's Association, New York Times; Associated Press

FRIDAY, April 8, 2022 (HealthDay News) -- If you're vaccinated and get COVID-19 anyway, which variant you have and whether you've been boosted make a difference.

Symptoms last longer when breakthrough infections are caused by the Delta variant and not the more contagious Omicron variant, according to European researchers who are reporting other differences in how SARS-CoV-2 variants affect vaccinated patients.

They studied nearly 10,000 people, ages 16 to 99, in the United Kingdom who tested positive for the virus after receiving at least two doses of any COVID vaccine. Half got sick when Delta was the dominant strain and half when Omicron was dominant.

On average, researchers found, vaccinated patients with Delta had symptoms for nine days; those with Omicron, for seven.

Booster shots shortened the number of days spent suffering even more, the study showed.

For patients who had two doses, symptoms averaged 9.6 days for Delta and 8.3 for Omicron. Two shots plus a booster cut that to 7.7 days for Delta and 4.4 for Omicron.

“The shorter presentation of symptoms suggests -- pending confirmation from viral load studies -- that the period of infectiousness might be shorter, which would in turn impact workplace health policies and public health guidance," said study authors Cristina Menni and Tim Spector of King’s College London.

The study is scheduled for publication in The Lancet and presentation at a meeting of the European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases in Lisbon, Portugal, April 23-26. The authors made the comments in a meeting news release.

The researchers also found that loss of smell was much less common in those with Omicron (17%) than with Delta (53%), but the risk of sore throat was 55% higher and hoarseness 24% higher among those with Omicron.

Patients with Omicron also were about half as likely to have at least one of three classic COVID symptoms -- fever, loss of smell and persistent cough -- than those with Delta, the study found.

In addition, Omicron patients were 25% less likely to admitted to the hospital than Delta patients (1.9% vs. 2.6%), and Omicron patients were 2.5 times more likely to recover within a week than those with Delta, the findings showed.

"Understanding both the characteristics of COVID-19 and the dynamics of its causative variants constitutes a crucial milestone in preventing transmission and reducing infection, hospital admission and death," said Linda Houhamdi and Pierre-Edouard Fournier of Aix-Marseille University and Public Assistance Hospital of Marseille in France. They made these comments in an editorial that will accompany the findings.

The findings dovetail with emergence of a new Omicron variant in the U.K.

More information

For more on COVID variants, see the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

SOURCE: European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, news release, April 7, 2022

Medicare limits coverage of Aduhelm to patients in clinical trials. The latest decision is meant to protect Alzheimer's patients while gathering more clinical data on whether the pricey medication actually helps slow thinking declines, agency officials said. Read more

U.S. life expectancy declined again in 2021. Life spans fell for two years in a row, and the new analysis found America faring worse during the pandemic than 19 other wealthy countries — despite the arrival of COVID vaccines. Read more

Among vaccinated, COVID symptoms ease faster with Omicron. A new study finds that, on average, patients with Delta had symptoms for nine days; those with Omicron, for seven. Read more

Many U.S. water systems contain uranium. Two-thirds of U.S. community water systems have detectable levels of the potential toxin, and the highest levels are in Hispanic communities, a new report finds. Read more

FRIDAY, April 8, 2022 (HealthDay News) -- Two-thirds of U.S. community water systems have detectable levels of uranium, and the highest levels are in Hispanic communities, according to a new study.

"Previous studies have found associations between chronic uranium exposure and increased risk of hypertension, cardiovascular disease, kidney damage and lung cancer at high levels of exposure," said researcher Anne Nigra, assistant professor of environmental health sciences at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health in New York City.

Even at low concentrations, uranium, a radioactive metal, is an important risk factor for chronic diseases, but there has been little research on chronic uranium exposure from tap water. About 90% of Americans rely on community water systems.

To learn more, Nigra's team analyzed U.S. Environmental Protection Agency records for 139,000 public water systems that serve 290 million people a year.

Between 2000 and 2011, 2.1% of those water systems had average annual uranium concentrations that exceeded EPA maximums. Uranium was detected in water systems 63% of the time during compliance monitoring.

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, ingesting large quantities of uranium can cause several cancers and damage kidneys.

Semi-urban Hispanic communities had the highest levels of uranium, as well as selenium, barium, chromium and arsenic, the study found.

Elevated levels of these metals were found in Hispanic communities independent of location or region, raising concerns for these communities and the possibility of inequalities in public drinking water, according to findings published April 6 in The Lancet Planetary Health.

The consistent association between elevated levels of uranium and the other metals in the drinking water suggests a failure of regulatory policy or water treatment rather than underlying geology, Nigra and colleagues said.

They noted that Hispanic Americans have a number of health disparities, including increased death due to diabetes, as well as liver, kidney and heart disease.

"Additional regulatory policies, compliance enforcement, and improved infrastructure are therefore necessary to reduce disparities in [community water system] metal concentrations and protect communities served by public water systems with elevated metal concentrations," Nigra said in a Columbia news release. "Such interventions and policies should specifically protect the most highly exposed communities to advance environmental justice and protect public health."

More information

There's more on uranium at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

SOURCE: Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, news release, April 6, 2022