Statin use did not reduce colon cancer in postmenopausal women
PHILDELPHIA — A prospective analysis of the Women’s Health Initiative showed that statins had no chemopreventive effect for women aged 50 to 79 years.
Michael S. Simon, MD, professor of oncology at Wayne State University’s Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, in Detroit, presented the results during the Ninth Annual AACR Frontiers in Cancer Prevention Research. Researchers sought to confirm results from earlier case-control studies showing a moderate reduction in colorectal cancer risk associated with 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A inhibitors. Simon said, however, that there was no correlation between reduction in colon cancer risk and type of statin used, statin potency or use of other lipid-lowering medications.
“While biologically plausible, there was no significant reduction in risk for colorectal cancer among users of statins among postmenopausal women in the Women’s Health Initiative cohort,” Simon said.
The study included 159,219 women who participated in the Women’s Health Initiative. Participants were asked to bring all current medications to their screening interviews, and information on statin use and other lipid-lowering medications was entered into a database. That information was updated at 1 year and at 3 years.
Researchers collected further information on colorectal cancer risk factors through both patient-administered and staff-administered questionnaires.
Simon said 7.6% of women in the cohort reported using statins.
At an average follow-up of 10.7 years, 2,000 patients had been diagnosed with colorectal cancer. The annualized rate of colorectal cancer was 0.13% among statin users and 0.12% among nonusers (HR=0.99; 95% CI, 0.83-1.20).
Researchers did not observe a reduction in risk for colorectal cancer by duration of statin use whether patients used the drugs for less than 1 year (HR= 0.91; 95% CI, 0.66-1.27), 1 to 3 years (HR=1.28; 95% CI, 0.97-1.68) or more than 3 years (HR=0.79; 95% CI, 0.56-1.11).
Additionally, there was no relationship between statin use and tumor location or clinical features. – by Jason Harris
Weaning Yourself Off An Antidepressant
(HealthNewsDigest.com) – BOSTON—Taking an antidepressant can be a godsend when depression robs you of joy. But once you are feeling better, you may start thinking about going off the drug. First, talk to your physician or therapist to make sure you aren’t at risk of falling back into depression. Then slowly lower the dose, reports the November 2010 issue of Harvard Women’s Health Watch.
Suddenly stopping an antidepressant can cause a number of physical and emotional problems that include nausea, vomiting, dizziness, sweating or flushing, sleep disturbances, tremors, irritability, or strange sensations. The best way to minimize or prevent these problems is by gradually lowering the dose (tapering off) over weeks to months. Sometimes this process involves substituting other medications for the one you are quitting.
Harvard Women’s Health Watch notes that if you’re thinking about stopping antidepressants, you should consider the following:
Take your time. Depression can return if you stop taking an antidepressant too soon. Clinicians generally recommend sticking with the drug for six to nine months before considering going off it. Before stopping, you should feel confident that you’re functioning well and that your life circumstances are stable.
Make a plan. Going off an antidepressant usually involves reducing your dose in increments, allowing two to six weeks—or more—between dose reductions. Your clinician can instruct you in tapering your dose and can prescribe pills of the appropriate dosage for making the change. Other techniques for dose tapering include pill cutting and using a liquid antidepressant formulation.
Seek support. Stay in touch with your clinician as you go through the process. Let her or him know about any physical or emotional symptoms you are having, and check in one month after you’ve stopped.
Harvard Women’s Health Watch is available from Harvard Health Publications (www.health.harvard.edu
8 Ways the Election Will Change Women’s Health & Reproductive Rights
Now that the dust has settled a bit since Tuesday’s midterm election, every talking head on TV and writer in the blogosphere can’t help but take a stab at the answer to two big words: “What now?” There’s no doubt the election’s results will affect the future of our country … and the future of American women’s health. Daunting, I know.
Here, eight major shake-ups, take-downs, and potential changes on the horizon …
1. Birth Control & Abortion Ban. Defeated
In Colorado, the so-called “personhood” amendment was voted down by a large margin—72 to 28. The amendment would have mandated that a fertilized egg have the same rights as a born human from the moment of conception. In other words, if it had passed, it would have outlawed abortion (even in cases of rape or incest), emergency contraception, hormonal contraception (like the NuvaRing, Depo-Provera, Mirena IUD, etc. which alter the lining of the uterine wall to make it inhospitable to fertilized eggs), and even medical care that could potentially harm the fetus.
2. The “Rape Comment” Republican. Defeated.
Colorado also did not elect Ken Buck, the unsuccessful Republican challenger for U.S. Senate. This is the guy who accused a rape victim of “buyer’s remorse.”
3. Abortion Tax Proponent. Elected.
House Speaker John Boehner & Co. has promised to push the new “Stupak on Steroids” bill, which would ban coverage of abortion in the new health care system and impose a tax on Americans with private insurance plans that include abortion coverage. (That’s 87% of private plans.) Boehner is one of more than 180 current House members who are co-sponsors of this legislation.
4. Healthcare Reform Hating Governors. Elected.
The recently picked up GOP governorships will likely impede the Affordable Care Act (known to some as “Obamacare”) at the state level. The federal statute for healthcare reform leaves a lot up to state government (like setting up a process by which to review “unreasonable” premium hikes and creating state-level insurance exchanges). But the GOP governors, who are now at the helm of more than 30 states, could introduce officials who favor a lax regulatory regime, which would undermine the law early on.
5. (Several) Pro-Life Candidates. Defeated.
In Washington, Nevada, California, Louisiana, Rhode Island, Hawaii, and Delaware, pro-choice candidates beat out pro-life, not-very-femme-friendly ones—one who even argued that rape victims ought to “turn lemons into lemonade.”
6. The Anti-Masturbation Candidate. Defeated.
Speaking of Delaware … Christine O’Donnell lost her bid for Senator, and therefore will not be able to introduce anti-masturbation legislation.
7. Healthcare Reform Hating Congressmen. Elected.
The new GOP majority in the House of Representatives promised that they will go to great lengths—potentially even shutting down government—to overturn healthcare reform, which currently aims to widen women’s access to birth control and prenatal care services.
8. Abstinence-Only Supporters. Elected.
The newly elected Republican representatives want to revive the failed, Bush-era “abstinence-only” programs that emphasize waiting until marriage while excluding discussion of birth control and safe sex.
What do you believe were the biggest victories and defeats for women’s health in this election?