Declining eyesight improved by looking at deep red light

Declining eyesight improved by looking at deep red light

Staring at a deep red light for three minutes a day can significantly improve declining eyesight, finds a new study, the first of its kind in humans.

#vision #eyesight #redlight

Glen Jeffery, Magella Neveu, Victor Chong, Chris Hogg, Sobha Sivaprasad, Manjot Grewal, Harpreet Shinhmar. Optically improved mitochondrial function redeems aged human visual decline. The Journals of Gerontology: Series A, 2020; DOI: 10.1093/gerona/glaa155

https://academic.oup.com/biomedgerontology/article-abstract/doi/10.1093/gerona/glaa155/5863431?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Hepatitis B viruses cured – Pilot Study

Hepatitis B viruses cured – Pilot Study

Researchers have for the first time succeeded in conquering a chronic infection of the hepatitis B virus in a mouse model. The team showed in its publication, that T-cell therapy can provide a permanent cure. #hbv #hepatitisb #cure Karin Wisskirchen, Janine Kah, Antje Malo, Theresa Asen, Tassilo Volz, Lena Allweiss, Jochen M. Wettengel, Marc Lütgehetmann, Stephan Urban, Tanja Bauer, Maura Dandri, Ulrike Protzer. T cell receptor grafting allows virological control of hepatitis B virus infection. Journal of Clinical Investigation, 2019; DOI: 10.1172/JCI120228 https://www.jci.org/articles/view/120228

Where’s the Science? The Sorry State of Psychotherapy ” not grounded in science”

2009 study posted for filing

 

The prevalence of mental health disorders in this country has nearly doubled in the past 20 years. Who is treating all of these patients? Clinical psychologists and therapists are charged with the task, but many are falling short by using methods that are out of date and lack scientific rigor. This is in part because many of the training programs—especially some Doctorate of Psychology (PsyD) programs and for-profit training centers—are not grounded in science.

 

A new report in Psychological Science in the Public Interest, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, by a panel of distinguished clinical scientists—Timothy Baker (University of Wisconsin-Madison), Richard McFall (Indiana University), and Varda Shoham (University of Arizona)—calls for the reform of clinical psychology training programs and appeals for a new accreditation system to ensure that mental health clinicians are trained to use the most effective and current research to treat their patients.

 

There are multiple practices in clinical psychology that are grounded in science and proven to work, but in the absence of standardized science-based training, those treatments go unused.

 

For example, cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) has been shown to be the most effective treatment for PTSD and has the fewest side-effects, yet many psychologists do not use this method. Baker and colleagues cite one study in which only 30 percent of psychologists were trained to perform CBT for PTSD and only half of those psychologists elected to use it. That means that six of every seven sufferers were not getting the best care available from their clinicians. Furthermore, CBT shows both long-term and immediate benefits as a treatment for PTSD; whereas medications such as Paxil have shown 25 to 50 percent relapse rates.

 

The report suggests that the escalating cost of mental health care treatment has reduced the use of psychological treatments and shifted care to general health care facilities. The authors also stress the importance of coupling psychosocial interventions with medicine because many behavioral therapies have been shown to reduce costs and provide longer term benefits for the client.

 

Baker and colleagues conclude that a new accreditation system is the key to reforming training in clinical psychology. This new system is already under development: the Psychological Clinical Science Accreditation System (PCSAS http://www.pcsas.org).

Beta-Blocker Use NOT Associated With Lower Risk of Cardiovascular Events: They May Not Work

Beta-Blocker Use Not Associated With Lower Risk of Cardiovascular Events

ScienceDaily (Oct. 2, 2012) — Among patients with either coronary artery disease (CAD) risk factors only, known prior heart attack, or known CAD without heart attack, the use of beta-blockers was not associated with a lower risk of a composite of cardiovascular events that included cardiovascular death, nonfatal heart attack or nonfatal stroke, according to a study in the October 3 issue of JAMA.

“Treatment with beta-blockers remains the standard of care for patients with coronary artery disease, especially when they have had a myocardial infarction [MI; heart attack]. The evidence is derived from relatively old post-MI studies, most of which antedate modern reperfusion or medical therapy, and from heart failure trials, but has been widely extrapolated to patients with CAD and even to patients at high risk for but without established CAD. It is not known if these extrapolations are justified. Moreover, the long-term efficacy of these agents in patients treated with contemporary medical therapies is not known, even in patients with prior MI,” according to background information in the article.

Sripal Bangalore, M.D., M.H.A., of the NYU School of Medicine, New York, and colleagues conducted a study to evaluate the association between beta-blocker use and long-term cardiovascular outcomes. The observational study included data from patients in the Reduction of Atherothrombosis for Continued Health (REACH) registry. From this registry, 44,708 patients met the study inclusion criteria of whom 14,043 patients (31 percent) had prior MI, 12,012 patients (27 percent) had documented CAD but without MI, and 18,653 patients (42 percent) had CAD risk factors only. The last follow-up data collection was April 2009. The primary outcome for this study was a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke. The secondary outcome was the primary outcome plus hospitalization for atherothrombotic events or a revascularization procedure. The overall median (midpoint) follow-up was 44 months. Among the 44,708 patients in the study, 21,860 were included in the propensity score-matched analysis.

The researchers found that in the prior MI group, the event rates were not significantly different among those with beta-blocker use (489 [16.93 percent]) vs. those without beta-blocker use (532 [18.60 percent]) for the primary outcome, or the secondary outcome (30.96 percent vs. 33.12 percent, respectively). In the CAD without MI cohort, the event rates were not different in those with beta-blocker use (391 [12.94 percent]) vs. those without p-blocker use (405 [13.55 percent]) for the primary outcome, for cardiovascular death, for stroke, and for MI. The event rates were higher in those with beta-blocker use (1,101 [30.59 percent] vs. those without beta-blocker use (1,002 [27.84 percent]) for the secondary outcome and for hospitalization in the propensity score-matched model.

In the risk factors alone group, the event rates were higher in those with beta-blocker use (467 [14.22 percent] vs. those without beta-blocker use (403 [12.11 percent]) for the primary outcome, for the secondary outcome (870 [22.01 percent] vs. 797 [20.17 percent], respectively) but not for MI or stroke. In the propensity score-matched model, there were similar event rates for cardiovascular death and for hospitalization.

The researchers also found that among patients with recent MI (one year or less), beta-blocker use was associated with a lower incidence of the secondary outcome.

“Among patients enrolled in the international REACH registry, beta-blocker use was not associated with a lower event rate of cardiovascular events at 44-month follow-up, even among patients with prior history of MI. Further research is warranted to identify subgroups that benefit from beta-blocker therapy and the optimal duration of beta-blocker therapy,” the authors conclude.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121002161753.htm