Suicide rates spike among middle-aged US adults

• 

Suicide rates among middle-age U.S. adults are on the rise, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Over the last decade, the rate of suicide among adults ages 35 to 64 increased 28 percent, from 13.7 suicides per 100,000 people in 1999, to 17.6 suicides per 100,000 people in 2010.

The greatest increases in suicide rates were among people ages 55 to 59 (a 49 percent increase) and ages 50 to 54 (a 48 percent increase).

While suicide prevention efforts have traditionally targeted the young and the old, the new findings suggest that it's important for prevention strategies "to address the types of stressors that middle-aged Americans might be facing," Linda Degutis, director of CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, said in a statement.

Overall, firearms were the most common way people committed suicide (8.3 suicides per 100,000 people), followed by hanging/suffocation (4.1 suicides per 100,000 people), and poisoning (3.8 suicides per 100,000 people). During the study period, the rate of suicide from hanging/ suffocation increased 81 percent.

The reason for the rise in suicide rates is not known. Previous research has suggested that the recent economic downturn, as well as a rise in access to prescription painkillers may be contributing factors, the report said.

"Suicide is a tragedy that is far too common," CDC Director Dr. Tom Frieden said in a statement. "This report highlights the need to expand our knowledge of risk factors so we can build on prevention programs that prevent suicide."

Suicide prevention strategies include enhancing social support and access to mental health services, and reducing the stigma associated with seeking such care, the report said. Strategies that help people overcome job loss, partner violence and the stress of caring for loved ones are also critical, the report said.

Since 2009, suicide deaths have been more common than deaths from car accidents. In 2010, there were 33,687 deaths from motor vehicle crashes and 38,364 suicides, the CDC said.

Copyright 2013 MyHealthNewsDaily, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

View the original article here

Soy tied to better lung cancer survival among women

• 

Women with lung cancer who ate the most soy before their diagnosis might live a little longer than those who ate the least, according to a new study.

Of 444 Chinese women with lung cancer, researchers found those who consumed the most soy milk, tofu and similar products were 7 to 8 percent less likely to die over a 13-year period, compared to women who ate an average amount of soy.

"To our knowledge this is the first study to suggest this association. Although this finding is promising, it would be premature to make any recommendation based on the findings of a single study," said Dr. Gong Yang, the study's lead author from Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, Tennessee.

Another study from Yang's group published last year found women who ate the most soy were less likely to develop lung cancer in the first place.

"Based on that study, we hypothesized people with a history of eating a lot of soy food - if they're diagnosed with lung cancer, their lung cancer would be less aggressive," he said.

Laboratory and animal research has also suggested phytoestrogens - plant-based estrogens similar to those produced by women's ovaries, which are present in soy - can prevent tumor cells from spreading.

According to the researchers, only 15 percent of U.S. women who develop lung cancer are still alive five years after their diagnosis. So any improvement in survival could be meaningful.

For the new study, the researchers used information from the Shanghai Women's Health Study, which began in 1997 and surveys 75,000 women every two to three years.

Between 1997 and 2010, 444 women in the study developed lung cancer, and 318 of them died. They were - on average - 66 years old at diagnosis, and 92 percent of them had never smoked.

Before the women were diagnosed, they had eaten an average of 16 grams of soy from food each day, according to diet questionnaires.

The researchers found women who consumed more than that - 21 to 31 g of soy per day - were about seven to 8 percent less likely to die during the study, compared to women who ate 16 g daily.

On the other hand, women who only ate about 6 g of soy per day were over 40 percent more likely to die during that time.

"This longitudinal follow-up study provides the first evidence that soy food consumption before cancer diagnosis may favorably affect clinical outcomes of lung cancer in women," the researchers wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology on Monday.

But Matthew Schabath, a lung cancer researcher who was not involved with the new study, stressed that it can't prove eating soy prevents people with lung cancer from dying.

For example, Schabath, from the Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Florida, told Reuters Health women who eat a lot of soy may be in better health to begin with, and would be expected to live longer than women in poorer health.

Researchers also said more studies on soy and lung cancer are needed to confirm the findings.

"We need to take it with a grain of salt until this data is validated in clinic trials," Schabath said.

View the original article here

BUDGET JITTERS: Razor-Thin Vote Exposes Cracks Among Dems

• 

Senate Democrats approved their first budget in four years early Saturday morning -- but just barely. 

The final vote, which was held after the Senate worked well past midnight churning through dozens of amendments, exposed cracks in Democratic unity as lawmakers facing re-election peeled off, citing the proposal's failure to tackle the deficit. In the end, the budget plan squeaked by on a razor-thin 50-49 vote. 

Four Democrats opposed it, and one did not vote. 

The defections, while amounting to only a handful, nevertheless could spell trouble for Democratic leaders as they head into the next phase of negotiations with House Republicans. Leaders could be pressured by their more moderate members to make a bigger push to balance the budget, even if they don't want to make the kinds of major changes to entitlements that House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., prescribes. 

Sen. Mark Begich, a moderate Democrat from Alaska, proudly announced Saturday that he opposed the Senate's plan because of its copious red ink. 

"While I am happy that Congress is finally talking seriously about our fiscal crisis, this budget didn't go far enough," Begich said. "Alaskans expect us to finish the job and make this staggering deficit manageable. Passing this problem off to our children is not an option." 

Though Democrats say Ryan is relying on unrealistic projections and changes, the House Republican budget aims to eliminate deficits over the next 10 years -- on paper, anyway. The Senate Democrats' budget doesn't come close, despite raising taxes by $1 trillion. Under their plan, the deficit over the next decade never dips below $400 billion and would hover at or near $600 billion by 2023. 

This, as Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions repeatedly notes, would add $7.3 trillion to the national debt over that period. 

"The content of the plan the majority has now approved demonstrates why they were unwilling to reveal it for so long: their proposal, once accurately understood, cannot be publicly defended," Sessions said in a statement. 

House Republicans were not without defections of their own. Ten Republicans opposed Ryan's 2014 plan earlier this week. But the Republicans' budget resolution still passed by a more comfortable margin in the House than the Democrats' did in the Senate. 

The four Senate Democrats who voted against the Democrats' bill were Kay Hagan, D-N.C.; Max Baucus, D-Mont.; Mark Pryor, D-Ark.; and Begich. But there are more up for re-election in 2014 in moderate-to-conservative states where votes for a deficit-heavy budget plan would cause campaign problems. 

President Obama plans to release his own 2014 budget next month, an unveiling that will be studied for whether it signals a willingness to engage Republicans in negotiations or play political hardball. 

The Democratic budget's $975 billion in new taxes would be matched by an equal amount of spending reductions coming chiefly from health programs, defense and reduced interest payments as deficits get smaller than previously anticipated. This year's projected deficit of nearly $900 billion would fall to around $700 billion next year and bottom out near $400 billion in 2016 before trending upward again. Shoehorned into the package is $100 billion for public works projects and other programs aimed at creating jobs. 

Neither the Democratic nor Republican plan will clear Congress in its current form -- plus each is just a blueprint which by itself does not appropriate money.   

Democrats and Republicans will now launch into hard bargaining, and each make sacrifices if they are to settle on a bona fide budget, as opposed to passing stopgap spending bills to fund the government year after year. 

The White House on Saturday again reiterated its displeasure with the House Republican plan, which does not call for tax hikes on anybody. 

"The House Republican budget refuses to ask for a single dime of deficit reduction from closing tax loopholes for the wealthy and the well-connected but instead makes deep cuts to education and manufacturing while asking seniors and the middle class to pay more," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said. 

He said the Senate plan would "create jobs and cut the deficit in a balanced way." Carney said it is time for Congress "to come together to find common ground." 

Begich laid out a series of novel proposals for cutting spending further, including: preventing people making more than $1 million from receiving jobless benefits; allowing senators to give back part of their salary; and cracking down on wasteful spending in the farm subsidy program. 

It would take more than that to bring the budget into balance. 

The blueprint from Ryan claims $4 trillion more in savings over the period than Senate Democrats by digging deeply into health care and food benefits and other safety net programs. It would also transform the health care program for older Americans into a voucher-like system for future recipients. Many Democrats, who say the sequester has cut too deep as it is, are resisting further cuts to domestic spending as well as the specific changes Ryan wants to make to health care entitlements. 

"We have presented very different visions for how our country should work and who it should work for," said Democratic Sen. Patty Murray, who chairs the Senate Budget Committee. "But I am hopeful that we can bridge this divide." 

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Related Stories

Senate approves Democratic budget after marathon 'vote-a-rama'

View the original article here