Stanford researchers studying the effect of stem cells injected directly into the brains of stroke patients said Thursday that they were "stunned" by the extent to which the experimental treatment restored motor function in some of the patients. While the research involved only 18 patients and was designed primarily to look at the safety of such a procedure and not its effectiveness, it is creating significant buzz in the neuroscience community because the results appear to contradict a core belief about brain damage — that it is permanent and irreversible.
The results, published in the journal Stroke, could have implications for our understanding of an array of disorders including traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury and Alzheimer's if confirmed in larger-scale testing.
The work involved patients who had passed the critical six-month mark when recoveries generally plateau and there are rarely further improvements. This is the point at which therapies are typically stopped as brain circuits are thought to be dead and unable to be repaired. Each participant in the study had suffered a stroke beneath the brain's outermost layer and had significant impairments in moving their arms and-or legs. Some participants in the study had had a stroke as long as three to five years before the experimental treatment.
The one-time therapy involved surgeons drilling a hole into the study participants' skulls and injecting stem cells in several locations around the area damaged by the stroke. These stem cells were harvested from the bone marrow of adult donors. While the procedure sounds dramatic, it is considered relatively simple as far as brain surgery goes. The patients were conscious the whole time and went home the same day.
They suffered minimal adverse effects such as temporary headaches, nausea and vomiting. One patient experienced some fluid buildup from the procedure that had to be drained but recovered fully from the issue. The volunteers were then tested at one month, six and 12 months after surgery using brain imaging and several standard scales that look at speech, vision, motor ability and other aspects of daily functioning.
More ….
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2016/06/02/stanford-researchers-stunned-by-stem-cell-experiment-that-helped-stroke-patient-walk/?
Friday, June 3, 2016
Sunday, May 29, 2016
Misunderstanding Medicated Kids — Pacific Standard
The stereotypical medicated kid in America is wealthy and spoiled and retains a psychiatrist to guarantee him extra time on tests or to help process the emotional fallout of being neglected by high-powered working parents. In this formulation, rich kids have psychological problems, and poor kids have real problems. But the stereotype isn't accurate; the correlation is, in fact, the opposite. Children in poor families are significantly more likely to be diagnosed with emotional and behavioral problems and to be prescribed medication. Our national understanding of youth and mental health starts with an important mistake.
Commentators posit a variety of logical, common-sense explanations: Maybe poorer kids having inadequate access to high-quality health care means they get diagnosed less, or maybe poorer parents are less attentive, or less educated about psychiatric matters. Rich parents are single-mindedly invested in their children's success, while over-involved upper-class moms and dads need to label every hormonal swing with a new disorder. These pop-psychological explanations make sense, but they're not true — they describe an imagined set of facts.
Here's the data: The National Health Interview Survey from 2011–12 found that children between the ages of six and 17 from families under the poverty line were significantly more likely to be prescribed psychiatric medication than any other economic group. The same study found that children on Medicaid were 50 percent more likely to get a prescription than those with private insurance. An analysis of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) diagnoses among kids between the ages of five and 17 between 1998 and 2009 found rates rose twice as fast for working-class and poor kids. A measurable class gap has emerged among children when it comes to mental health.
More …
https://psmag.com/misunderstanding-medicated-kids-525cb14cf01c#.rx15hgk83
Commentators posit a variety of logical, common-sense explanations: Maybe poorer kids having inadequate access to high-quality health care means they get diagnosed less, or maybe poorer parents are less attentive, or less educated about psychiatric matters. Rich parents are single-mindedly invested in their children's success, while over-involved upper-class moms and dads need to label every hormonal swing with a new disorder. These pop-psychological explanations make sense, but they're not true — they describe an imagined set of facts.
Here's the data: The National Health Interview Survey from 2011–12 found that children between the ages of six and 17 from families under the poverty line were significantly more likely to be prescribed psychiatric medication than any other economic group. The same study found that children on Medicaid were 50 percent more likely to get a prescription than those with private insurance. An analysis of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) diagnoses among kids between the ages of five and 17 between 1998 and 2009 found rates rose twice as fast for working-class and poor kids. A measurable class gap has emerged among children when it comes to mental health.
More …
https://psmag.com/misunderstanding-medicated-kids-525cb14cf01c#.rx15hgk83
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)