Study shows no link between increased cell phone use, brain cancer incidence.

NBC Nightly News (12/3, story 9, 0:20, Williams) reported, "There's been speculation for years that there's been a link between" cell phones and brain cancer, but "the results of a very large, very long study of just about everybody in Scandinavia found no link."

USA Today (12/4, Szabo) reports that, according to the study, published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, researchers found "no link between rising cell phone use and rates of brain cancer." The finding is "consistent with most other studies," but Melissa Bondy, of MD Anderson Cancer Center, noted that "even if the study had found an increase in brain tumor rates," cell phones may not be "to blame," because "lots of other trends" can "help explain changes in disease rates."

The Los Angeles Times (12/3, Roan) "Booster Shots" blog reported that "the study is important, because it mirrors the international Interphone case-control studies which have shown no overall increase in glioma or meningioma rates." The authors of the current study pointed out, however, that "the Interphone studies...'leave open the possibility of a small to moderate increased risk for glioma among the heaviest users of mobile phones.'"

Their own analysis of "data on 60,000 people diagnosed with glioma and meningioma in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden" revealed that "the incidence of brain tumors...were stable, decreased, or gradually increased, starting before cell phones became popular," HealthDay (12/3, Reinberg) reported. They also found "no change in incidence of brain tumors...during a period of rapid increase in cell phone usage."

The researchers argued that "if cell phones were a significant cause of brain tumors after five to 10 years of usage," the "incidence rates should show an acceleration in brain tumors relative to earlier trends," MedPage Today (12/3, Gever) reported. They speculated that "increased brain cancer rates may simply reflect an increase in diagnoses from new imaging technologies."

WebMD (12/3, Hendrick) reported that the authors mentioned other "reasons for their finding," including that "the induction period relating cell phone use to brain tumors exceeds five to 10 years," or that "the increased risk is restricted to subgroups of brain tumors or cell phone users." Reuters (12/3, Fox) and BBC News (12/4) also covered the story.

In the San Jose Mercury News (12/3) "Wish Book" column, C.J. Hirai observed, "California's budget fiasco this year resulted in the elimination of optometry and optical services for adults 21 years and older, though there are exceptions for residents of nursing homes." In California, there "are about 400,000" people "who suffer from low vision." Due to the state's financial difficulties, "those who least can afford healthcare coverage are no longer covered for low-vision evaluations and aids, leaving them at greater risk for injuries, accidents, and depression." The column went on to describe products and services offered by charities, clinics, and nonprofits to help needy Californians with low vision maintain their independence.

USA Today (12/4, Rubin) reports that "breastfeeding may offer mothers long-term protection against a condition linked to diabetes and heart disease." Analyzing data on "704 women in an ongoing, government-funded study of heart-disease risk factors," a team from Kaiser Permanente's Division of Research found that "the longer women breast-fed, the lower their chance of developing metabolic syndrome."

Even breastfeeding "for just a couple of months can significantly lower a woman's risk of metabolic syndrome," HealthDay (12/3, Gordon) reported. "In women who didn't have pregnancy-related (gestational) diabetes, breast-feeding between one and five months lowered a woman's risk of developing metabolic syndrome by 39 percent, while breast-feeding for the same duration lowered the risk of the syndrome by 44 percent in women with gestational diabetes."

WebMD (12/3, Boyles) reported, "In the population as a whole, breastfeeding for longer than nine months was associated with a 56% reduction in risk for developing metabolic syndrome during the follow-up period." In comparison, "in women who developed gestational diabetes during one or more pregnancies, the risk reduction was 86%." The study, which "was funded by the National Institutes of Health," will appear "in...the journal Diabetes." MedPage Today (12/3, Phend), the UK's Daily Mail (12/4), and the UK's Telegraph (12/4, Alleyne) also covered the story, as did NPR (12/3, Neighmond) in its "Shots" health blog.

Gestational glucose intolerance may predict increased likelihood of metabolic syndrome. HealthDay (12/3, Preidt) reported that, according to a study appearing online Nov. 19 in advance of publication in the Feb. issue of the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, "pregnant women who develop gestational glucose...intolerance are at increased risk for metabolic syndrome three months after they give birth." Researchers from the University of Toronto studied "487 pregnant women who were tested and divided into three groups: normal glucose tolerance; gestational glucose intolerance; or gestational diabetes." Then, after checking the women "three months after giving birth," the investigators "determined that gestational glucose intolerance was associated with increased likelihood of metabolic syndrome."

MedWire (12/4, Williams) reports that researchers in Sweden "found raised levels of celiac disease-related antibodies in children newly diagnosed with type I diabetes" after examining 169 diabetics, "88 siblings of the patients, and 96 age- and gender-matched controls." Specifically, the "prevalence of confirmed celiac disease was 10.1% in type 1 diabetes patients, compared with 4.5% of siblings, all of whom were asymptomatic, and 2.1% of controls." However, a "change in diet in individuals with genetic susceptibility may reduce the risk of developing type 1 diabetes," the authors concluded.

MedWire (12/3, Lyford) reported that, according to a study published online Nov. 25 in the journal Nutrition, Metabolism and Cardiovascular Diseases, "chronic diabetes is associated with an accelerated aging of the heart and a decline in left ventricular structure and function." In a study of "1,005 individuals aged 25-74 years," German researchers found that "left ventricular mass increased by 23.7% in the" prevalent diabetes "group versus 9.34% and 11.8% in the" no diabetes and incident diabetes "groups, respectively." Investigators observed a "similar pattern...for left ventricular end-diastolic diameter, left ventricular mass index, and left atrial diameter, all of which increased significantly more during the study in" participants with prevalent diabetes.

MedPage Today (12/3, Neale) reported that "sulfonylurea monotherapy for type 2 diabetes was associated with increased risks of all-cause death and congestive heart failure compared with metformin," according to "a large, retrospective study " published online in the BMJ.

HealthDay (12/3, Gardner) reported that investigators "looked at records from 1990 through 2005 for over 91,500 diabetics in the United Kingdom." The researchers found that, "compared to those taking metformin, people taking first- or second-generation sulphonylureas had a 24 to 61 percent higher risk of dying from all causes." Individuals "taking second-generation sulphonylureas had up to a 30 percent increased risk for congestive heart failure." The UK's Press Association (12/4) and the UK's Telegraph (12/4, Smith) also cover the story.

Modern Healthcare (12/3, Conn) reported that the Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT has set a January 14 deadline "for institutions of higher education or consortia thereof to apply for $10 million in grants to develop curriculum for the federal government's proposed health information technology workforce development program." Up to five such grants will be awarded, according to a release from the Department of Health and Human Services.

The Senate voted yesterday to defeat a GOP amendment to the healthcare bill, sponsored by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), that would reduce Medicare funding by $460 billion. There was extensive print coverage of the vote, which generally cast the defeat of the amendment in positive terms, although several reports acknowledged Democrats took a political risk. In addition, the Senate approved an amendment by Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) on women's health.

The AP (12/4, Espo) reports, "Unflinching on a critical first test, Senate Democrats closed ranks Thursday behind $460 billion in politically risky Medicare cuts at the heart of healthcare legislation, thwarting a Republican attempt to doom President Barack Obama's sweeping overhaul." The "bid by the bill's critics to reverse cuts to the popular Medicare program failed on a vote of 58-42, drawing the support of two Democratic defectors." The Medicare vote "came not long after the Senate backed a guarantee for all insured women age 40 and older to receive mammograms with no out-of-pocket costs."

The Washington Post (12/4, Montgomery) reports the Medicare amendment "would have sent the bill back to committee with orders to remove the spending cuts. The amendment effectively would have forced Democrats back to the drawing board after months of negotiations to craft a measure that would extend coverage to 30 million additional Americans without increasing budget deficits." Of "four amendments considered Thursday, McCain's was the most potentially damaging."

Under the headline, "Senate Backs Preventive Health Care For Women," the New York Times (12/4, A21, Pear, Herszenhorn) reports the Senate "voted Thursday to require health insurance companies to provide free mammograms and other preventive services to women, and it turned back a Republican challenge to Medicare savings that constitute the single largest source of financing for the bill." The "61-to-39 vote on health benefits for women would, in effect, override new recommendations from a federal advisory panel that said routine mammograms should begin at age 50, rather than 40."

The Washington Times (12/4, Dinan) reports Democrats "successfully defended more than $400 billion in Medicare cuts, turning back a potentially lethal stab at the measure." Democrats "argued that the cuts - totaling $464 billion over 10 years - would not affect the basic services guaranteed by Medicare, and instead would squeeze insurance companies and hospitals that are overcharging for the level of service they are providing."

Politico (12/4, Brown) reports in "response to the McCain amendment, Democrats received unanimous support for an alternative from Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) that restates principles in the bill -- that the Medicare cuts would not affect guaranteed benefits for seniors."

Roll Call (12/4, Drucker) reports Republicans "vowed to offer measures similar to the McCain amendment to try to force Democrats into tough votes on Medicare, the federal health program for the elderly. McCain said he would keep attacking the issue."

Despite AMA backing, other medical groups oppose Senate health bill. The New York Times (12/4, A21, Sack) reports, "Even though the American Medical Association offered qualified support for the Senate healthcare bill this week, many other medical groups are unqualified in their opposition." The Times notes that such groups as the American College of Surgeons and the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery have banded together and written Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) about "taking issue with a variety of provisions in the Senate bill. They include the establishment of a Medicare advisory board with the authority to set reimbursement policy, increased reporting on physician errors and outcomes, an excise tax on elective cosmetic surgery, and measures that might increase payments to primary-care doctors at the expense of specialists."

The AP (12/4, Stobbe) reports that US Surgeon General Regina Benjamin "called for stepped-up efforts in increasing the number of minority physicians" yesterday in one of her first speeches in her new position. Benjamin "noted that the proportion of US physicians who are minorities is only six percent -- the same proportion as a century ago. 'There's something wrong with that,' said Benjamin, speaking at a conference on health disparities at a hotel in downtown Atlanta."

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (12/4) notes that Benjamin told the group, "Unless the current trend is reversed, our country will see a growing ethnic and racial disconnect between those who receive care and those who provide that care." The "53-year-old graduate of the Morehouse School of Medicine" added that "the recent downward trend in minority admissions follows years of gains in these areas. ... Asked whether the need for more minority medical professionals would be a priority of her time as the nation's highest-ranking health profession, the newly appointed Benjamin told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution that she has yet to announce her priorities. But she emphasized that it is an important issue."