Publisher Health

Published31 minutes agoShareclose panelShare pageCopy linkAbout sharingImage source, Getty ImagesBy Alex SmithBBC NewsVitamin D deficiency, depression and diabetes are among a number of health issues that increase the risk of young-onset dementia, a major study suggests.The condition – which around 70,000 people in the UK are thought to be living with – is when symptoms of dementia develop before the age of 65.The study challenges the notion that genetics are the sole cause of the condition, researchers have said.Targeting the factors they identified could help reduce the risk, they added.A list of 15 factors – which is similar to that for late-onset dementia – includes alcohol abuse, stroke, social isolation and hearing impairment.Those with a higher formal education were seen to be at less of a risk.The study “breaks new ground” and could “herald a new era” for interventions to reduce new cases, said Dr Janice Ranson, one of the study’s authors.The most common feature of dementia is memory loss, but other symptoms include changes in behaviour, and becoming lost in familiar places.Young-onset dementia is where dementia develops before the age of 65 and, as of 2022, there are thought to be around 70,000 people currently living with the condition in the UK.The study, conducted by scientists from the UK and the Netherlands, is the “largest and most robust study of its kind ever conducted”, one of it’s authors, Professor David Llewellyn, has said.It looked at data from over 350,000 under-65s from across the UK.Prof Llewellyn said there was still much to learn but the study “reveals that we may be able to take action to reduce risk of this debilitating condition”.”This pioneering study shines important and much-needed light on factors that can influence the risk of young-onset dementia.”Dr Stevie Hendriks, a researcher at Maastricht University in the Netherlands, said: “Young-onset dementia has a very serious impact, because the people affected usually still have a job, children and a busy life.”The cause is often assumed to be genetic, but for many people we don’t actually know exactly what the cause is. This is why we also wanted to investigate other risk factors in this study.”Meanwhile Dr Leah Mursaleen, the head of clinical research at Alzheimer’s Research UK – which co-funded the study – said the results started to fill “an important gap in our knowledge”.”We’re witnessing a transformation in understanding of dementia risk and, potentially, how to reduce it on both an individual and societal level,” she said.The study was published in the Jama Neurology journal.

A new study shows an increase in the rate of inpatient complications, including infections and falls, though patients were no more likely to die.The rate of serious medical complications increased in hospitals after they were purchased by private equity investment firms, according to a major study of the effects of such acquisitions on patient care in recent years.The study, published in JAMA on Tuesday, found that, in the three years after a private equity fund bought a hospital, adverse events including surgical infections and bed sores rose by 25 percent among Medicare patients when compared with similar hospitals that were not bought by such investors. The researchers reported a nearly 38 percent increase in central line infections, a dangerous kind of infection that medical authorities say should never happen, and a 27 percent increase in falls by patients while staying in the hospital.“We were not surprised there was a signal,” said Dr. Sneha Kannan, a health care researcher and physician at the division of pulmonary and critical care at Massachusetts General Hospital, who was the paper’s lead author. “I will say we were surprised at how strong it was.”Although the researchers found a significant rise in medical errors, they also saw a slight decrease (of nearly 5 percent) in the rate of patients who died during their hospital stay. The researchers believe other changes, like a shift toward healthier patients admitted to the hospitals, could explain that decline. And by 30 days after patients were discharged, there was no significant difference in the death rates between hospitals.Other researchers who reviewed the study said that while it didn’t provide a complete picture of private equity’s effects, it did raise important questions about the quality of care in hospitals that had been taken over by private equity owners.“This is a big deal because it’s the first piece of data that I think pretty strongly suggests that there is a quality problem when private equity takes over,” said Dr. Ashish Jha, the dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, who has also studied hospital safety extensively.Over the last two decades, private equity firms have become major players in health care, purchasing not just hospitals but also a growing number of nursing homes, physician practices and home health care companies. The firms pool money from institutional investors and individuals to form investment funds, often buying hospitals and other entities through high levels of debt, with an eye to reselling them in a few years. A separate recent study suggested the firms were consolidating physician groups in certain local markets, potentially leading to higher prices.So far, these firms own a small share of hospitals in the United States, though the numbers are hard to measure because the transactions are not always public.Several media reports have shown that some of the acquired hospitals have been forced to close because of financial distress, and some have come under regulatory scrutiny for quality problems. But such examples are not necessarily typical.“The private equity industry plays an essential role in providing local hospitals with the capital they need to improve patient care, expand access and drive innovation,” said Drew Maloney, the chief executive of the American Investment Council, a trade group for the industry. “This research doesn’t reflect private equity’s full record of strengthening health care across the country.”The industry has recently come under scrutiny. This month the Senate Budget Committee began a bipartisan investigation into private equity ownership of hospitals. And bills from several Democrats in Congress have pushed for more public reporting of private equity deals in health care, and for broader reforms on ways the firms can acquire companies and earn profits.“They are preventable adverse events that everyone thinks shouldn’t happen in hospitals,” one analyst said.Monica Jorge for The New York TimesSeveral studies have examined private equity firms’ financial effects on hospitals. The new paper, which examines 51 hospitals between 2009 and 2019, provides new evidence that those changes may result in more dangerous conditions for patients. The researchers, who also include Dr. Zirui Song from Harvard and Joseph Dov Bruch from the University of Chicago, received funding from Arnold Ventures, a group that supports a wide array of health care research and has been critical of the private equity industry.Previous research found that patients were less likely to die after visiting a private equity-backed hospital. But the researchers said they wanted to focus their study on specific measures like medical errors that more directly reflected the care in a hospital instead of patient deaths, which are more likely to be influenced by the health status of the patients entering the hospital.The researchers examined a range of errors that Medicare tracks and that Medicare encourages hospitals to minimize. Hospitals with high levels of some of these problems — like central line infections — must pay financial penalties to the government. Though not all of the errors happened often enough to be measured with precision, and the complications occurred rarely overall, all of the eight individual measures studied in the paper worsened in the hospitals purchased by private equity funds.Rates of these complications have generally been declining for about 15 years, as hospitals have worked to reduce them and as best practices for avoiding them have become more widespread.“They are preventable adverse events that everyone thinks shouldn’t happen in hospitals,” said Dr. David Blumenthal, the former president of the Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit health care research group, who reviewed the study.Some private equity owners may be overly eager to cut costs, leading to a decline in the quality of care, he said. “It’s about the style of investing,” he said. “It’s about the aggressiveness and short-time-frame profits and returns on investment that are sought.” In the cases where they do not pursue this strategy, private equity can be positive, Dr. Blumenthal added: “It brings capital. It brings innovation.”The researchers said the most likely explanation for the increased errors was fewer hospital employees, an effect that has been measured in other studies of private equity. “Reductions in staffing after acquisition could explain all of these findings,” Dr. Song said.But this paper did not directly measure staffing levels in the hospitals it examined.Dr. Song has advocated more government oversight of private equity firms in health care. But several scholars who have studied the firms said that while the new paper raises serious concerns, it still leaves some important questions unanswered for policymakers.“This should make us lean forward and pay attention to what’s happening,” said Zack Cooper, a professor of economics at Yale, who has examined the industry. “It shouldn’t cause us to introduce wholesale policies yet.”Vivian Ho, a professor of economics at Rice, was a coauthor on a paper that documented reductions in staffing after the firms bought hospitals, including small cuts to nursing. Professor Ho noted that it’s hard to be sure whether the reductions were the result of the change in leadership, or ownership by a private equity firm specifically, but she said the results were alarming enough that she was eager to see more evidence.“I’m willing to believe that it is because of the staffing issues,” she said. “You just combine that with the anecdotal reports of what is going on in some of these hospitals, and it is a consistent story.”

One thing I love about editing the Ask Well column is the camaraderie of it. Every week we answer a health question: Why am I so congested all the time? (I’ve wondered that too!) Why does my sleep get worse as I age? (I’m right there with you.) Is my coffee habit in need of an intervention? (Pour me another while we figure it out.)When I survey our inbox, I’m amazed at what comes in — questions that cover the joys, agonies, confusions and vulnerabilities of being a person. And luckily for us all, we get to seek out the answers.Here are 10 of the most popular health questions of 2023.1. Is it bad to wash your hair every day?The answer depends on your hair texture, how oily it is, whether it’s color-treated and more.“While it may seem that getting the scalp squeaky clean and without any oils is optimal,” said Dr. Murad Alam, a dermatologist at Northwestern University, “keep in mind that the scalp is a living part of your body, and not a dinner plate in your dishwasher.” Here’s how to tell if a daily scrub will do more damage than good.2. Is arthritis avoidable?Pain, stiffness and swelling of the joints are common complaints for older adults — and they can be the first sign of a dreaded diagnosis: arthritis. This umbrella term describes more than 100 conditions that cause inflammation in the joints. But it doesn’t have to be an inevitable result of aging. Here are some steps you can take to reduce your risk.3. I drink alcohol. What can I do about the damage?It’s becoming clearer and clearer that even a little alcohol is bad for you — with links to cancer, cardiovascular issues and liver disease. While there’s no magic antidote to erase the harmful effects of a wild night out, there are some measures you can take to boost your health if you enjoy the occasional cocktail.4. Can a nap make up for a bad night of sleep?Maybe you stayed up too late doomscrolling, or you whipped your sheets into a tornado replaying an uncomfortable conversation. Either way, you’re wondering: Will a midday nap make up for those precious hours of lost shut-eye? The answer is complicated, we found. Here’s what naps can — and can’t — do for your health.5. Why am I so congested all the time?So you wake up every morning all stuffed up and you want to know what’s going on. Is it that cold you (and everyone else) seems to have? The anatomy of your nose? Allergies? Chronic congestion is tricky to treat, experts say, because any number of things could be causing it. But there are some ways to find relief.6. What should I eat or drink when I have a cold?If that stuffiness is indeed caused by a cold, turn to foods and drinks that are hydrating, nourishing and comforting (hello, chicken noodle soup!). Here’s a look at how nutrition can help fight your infection, along with what foods and drinks to avoid.7. Why does it become harder to sleep as I age?As a flagrant tosser and turner, I’ve noticed that the older I get, the less likely I am to wake up refreshed. It turns out there are medical reasons for that: An aging brain, certain health conditions, hormones and lifestyle changes could all be the cause. The good news is that sleepless nights are not a fate you have to live with.8. Why do I get constipated when I travel?Any activity that interrupts your regular eating or sleeping schedule risks backing you up. Dehydration, immobility, changing time zones and an altered diet are typically to blame. Here’s how to get things running a little more smoothly when you’re out and about.9. Do I really need all those skin care products?If you spend any time on the personal-care side of social media, you’ll see video after video of influencers dousing themselves in an entire medicine cabinet’s worth of products. But simpler is often better when it comes to taking care of your face. Here’s what dermatologists say you actually need.10. How much coffee is too much coffee?Raise your hand if you’re drinking coffee while reading this. Keep it raised if you’re on your second (or third or fourth) cup of the day. Coffee contains thousands of chemical compounds that may be linked to good health. But it’s also a major source of caffeine, which in excess can cause issues like jitteriness, anxiousness, nausea and trouble sleeping. While experts say that dangerous side effects from coffee-drinking are rare, it’s still possible to overdo it. Here’s how to know if you’ve poured yourself too much.Have more questions for our health journalists? Ask Well.

The sobriety challenge can offer a mental and physical reset, and the chance to adopt healthier habits.Dry January sounds like a simple proposition: No alcohol. For 31 days. And some enthusiasts jump in without much planning — perhaps even hungover after a rowdy New Year’s Eve.There is no data suggesting that those folks won’t be able to abstain from drinking, said Dr. David Wolinsky, an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences with Johns Hopkins Medicine, who specializes in addiction. But starting the month with a few strategies in your back pocket — and with a clear sense of your goals — may help you get the most out of the challenge.“Most of the benefits of Dry January are probably going to be related to the intention with which you go into Dry January,” Dr. Wolinsky said. The challenge isn’t a stand-in for treatment for people with alcohol use disorder, he stressed, but those who are looking to get a fresh start to the year may benefit from the mental and physical reset it can offer, and the opportunity to adopt new habits. For instance, a 2016 study found that six months after Dry January ended, participants were drinking less than they were before.We spoke to Dr. Wolinsky and other experts about some strategies for a successful month.Tell people about your plan.One of the simplest steps is to spread the word among friends and family that you intend to take the month off, said Casey McGuire Davidson, a sobriety coach and host of “The Hello Someday Podcast,” which focuses on “sober-curious” topics.Research has shown that accountability can play a critical role in helping habits stick, and you might find a friend or partner to join you, Ms. Davidson suggested. Even if you don’t, you may be surprised by how encouraging people are of your goal (though she said you should share it only with people you trust).“Dry January gives people a period of time when they can stop drinking with community and support,” she said, “without a lot of questions.” Ms. Davidson also recommended reading books that may help you evaluate your relationship with alcohol, or listening to sobriety podcasts.Identify your triggers.Habits tend to be cued by certain environments or situations, explained Wendy Wood, a professor of psychology and business at the University of Southern California and the author of “Good Habits, Bad Habits: The Science of Making Positive Changes That Stick.”For instance, “you have a toothbrush ‘habit,’” she said. “You put your toothbrush in a certain place. You brush your teeth usually at about the same time in the morning in that place.” Dr. Wood said that for many people, drinking habits are shaped in a similar way.“Understanding where it is that you typically drink, who you’re with, what you drink, and disrupting those cues — disrupting the context in some way — is really critical to changing habits,” she said.It may help to jot down observations throughout the month, Dr. Wolinsky said, recommending three columns: What was the situation in which you wanted to drink? What were your thoughts about drinking? And what did you do instead?Find friction points.Building extra time or effort into an activity that is typically seamless for you — such as pouring a glass of wine when you walk through the door after a long day at work — greatly reduces the likelihood of engaging in that behavior, Dr. Wood said. Something as simple as moving your wine glasses to the back of the cupboard can create just enough friction to help you achieve your goal of abstaining.Similarly, Ms. Davidson recommended removing all alcohol from your home before Jan. 1, or at least your favorite drinks.“I was a red wine girl,” she said. When she took a break from drinking — a break that has lasted eight years — Ms. Davidson told her husband: “I can’t have any in the house. If it’s sitting on the counter, there’s no way I’m not going to pour myself a glass.”Make a plan for self-care.All of the experts recommended thinking about what you will do during moments when you would otherwise be drinking. So, instead of mixing a cocktail to relax before bed (which can disrupt sleep anyhow), you might try deep breathing or brewing a cup of tea. It may take some trial and error to find satisfying alternatives.“Give yourself grace” in the coming weeks, said Khadi Oluwatoyin, founder of the Sober Black Girls Club. Make time for rest to the extent you are able. And don’t take on too many New Year’s resolutions, she suggested; for instance, doing Dry January while adopting a new diet may be a recipe for failure. Some people slip up simply because they are hungry, Ms. Oluwatoyin said: “Go get something to eat!”Ms. Davidson recommends rewarding yourself, either at the end of each day or the end of the week. Fun activities or indulgences can help the month feel like less of a slog.“This is a period of experimentation and curiosity,” she said. “Instead of going to a bar, can you get a pedicure or massage on Friday night? Or get takeout sushi and plan a movie night with friends or your partner?” These “tiny shifts” can give you something to look forward to.

In a wide-ranging interview, Dr. Monica M. Bertagnolli, the director of the National Institutes of Health, discussed drug patents, trust in science and her own experience as a cancer patient.When Dr. Monica M. Bertagnolli moved into the director’s suite at the National Institutes of Health, she brought with her a single piece of art, a lithograph created by the granddaughter of a cancer patient she once treated. It depicts an abstract geometric female figure and the organs she lost to cancer. Its title: “We Are Not What You Have Taken: A Response to Cancer.”The image speaks to Dr. Bertagnolli, a cancer surgeon who previously led the National Cancer Institute and is a breast-cancer survivor herself.After being nominated by President Biden in the spring and winning Senate confirmation last month, she became the 17th director of the N.I.H., which has a budget of more than $47 billion and occupies a sprawling campus in Bethesda, Md. She is only the second woman to lead the biomedical research agency on a permanent basis.Several weeks into her tenure, The New York Times visited Dr. Bertagnolli at her office in Building 1, a stately brick structure where President Franklin D. Roosevelt dedicated the Bethesda campus in 1938. This interview has been edited and condensed.You’ve been here a few weeks. What are your observations?The research laboratories that get funded out of here are amazing for fundamental science. We need to continue all of that work. But what we’ve had challenges with is really being able to go with our research deeply into clinics at every community where people are treated and cared for.I think we’ve done really well in our major academic medical centers. But if we’re going to really do clinical research in a way that achieves the results we need, we need everybody to have a chance to participate. It sounds like you want more participation in clinical trials from people in rural areas, and you want to infuse the data that we have into the treatment that they get.Exactly.I can’t help but ask if that is informed by your growing up on a ranch in rural Wyoming.Sure. Because I understood that health care delivery was just different for the people I grew up with. From my ranch house to a paved road was 18 miles. And from the ranch house when I was growing up to the next landline for a telephone was about 50 miles.You had a telephone, though?No, we didn’t. Not at the ranch in the summertime. When school would start, my mom would move with the kids down to town. We had a house in town as well. And we’d go back and forth to the ranch on the weekends. We had a telephone in town.Activists are pressing the N.I.H. to use so-called march-in rights to lay claim to patents on drugs developed with tax dollars, as a way of lowering prices. Are you open to that?Absolutely. It’s part of my authorities as N.I.H. director. But I have to really be certain that if march-in rights are ever used, that the result is the intended one — meaning people get better access, because that’s really the goal. We want every single person to have access to the benefits of biomedical research. (After this interview, the Biden administration issued a proposed framework to guide the use of march-in rights by the agency.)The N.I.H. has come under scrutiny for funding gain-of-function research — including in Wuhan, China — that some experts think is dangerous and could lead to the next pandemic. Are you reviewing that kind of research and do you plan to make any changes?The gain-of-function research that you’re specifically referring to is modifications that are done of potential pandemic pathogens, right? What if we can develop a vaccine way before we ever have to see a new virus that’s going to be another Covid-19 virus? That would be a huge benefit. But if we’re going to do that kind of research, we have to make sure that the risks are absolutely minimized and always be mindful that the benefits justify the risks.The White House is weighing recommendations from the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity for improving oversight. Where does that stand?To be fair, I don’t know yet. But it’s a huge priority for all of us, and I will be a very active participant, because oversight is critical for that kind of research.The Pew Research Center recently put out a poll showing that Americans’ trust in science has continued to decline — and more so among Republicans than Democrats. Does that worry you?Very much so. Everything we are trying to do in science is about getting better care to people. It’s absolutely impossible to deliver better care to treat people without trust.But I’m thinking of trust, writ large, in institutions like the N.I.H. We’re seeing Republicans on Capitol Hill be critical of the N.I.H. What can you do to bridge that partisan gap and restore Americans’ faith in the institution?Be very transparent, very honest in what we know and what we don’t know. Think about what we’ve all just been through as a nation — the trauma we’ve all been through. It’s ridiculous to think we’re not going to come through a trauma like that without some real consequences. But I also think that we can use it as an opportunity to really build trust in science, because I do believe that science has helped us cycle out of the dark days of this pandemic.You’ve been a patient, and you’ve talked about that. How are you feeling? Can you talk about your status?I am a cancer survivor. I think we all have to be humble in the face of a cancer diagnosis. So my chance of living the rest of my life free from cancer is very, very high. That’s the good news. And the point that I make to everyone when asked about this is that all of the evidence that guided my care came from N.I.H.-funded research.I would be remiss if I didn’t ask you about being only the second woman out of 17 directors. I walked down this hallway and I saw a lot of portraits of men. How does that affect your thinking about the role that you inhabit?I’m very glad to see women getting opportunities to show what women can do. If you look down that hallway, for all those years, there were really talented, capable women out there, too. They just didn’t have the chance.

A new study indicates that severity of amyloid deposition in the brain — not just age — may be key to determining who will benefit from new anti-amyloid therapies to delay the progression of Alzheimer’s disease.
University of Pittsburgh clinicians and scientists report that the accumulation of toxic amyloid beta clumps that signal Alzheimer’s disease pathology accelerates in old age but the baseline amyloid burden and the overall brain health going into this acceleration are more powerful predictors of who is most likely to progress to Alzheimer’s. The paper was published today in Neurology, the medical journal of the American Academy of Neurology.
“Understanding the complexity of the increased amyloid accumulation, when individuals are cognitively normal, is critical for improved implementation of dementia treatments,” said corresponding author Oscar Lopez, M.D., professor of neurology at Pitt and chief of cognitive and behavioral neurology at UPMC.
The presence and the overall quantity and distribution of amyloid beta, or A-beta, clumps in the brain are some of the most common neuropathologies associated with Alzheimer’s. Yet, while people who are 80 and older have the highest prevalence of Alzheimer’s-associated dementias, most studies that measured A-beta burden in the brain using imaging techniques have focused on younger populations. As such, the connection between A-beta and dementia in the oldest of the old have remained unclear.
Lopez and his colleagues set to change that by examining the relationship between A-beta deposition and new cases of dementia in 94 elderly individuals who were cognitively unimpaired when the study launched. Participants were enrolled in the study at a mean age of 85 and followed for 11 years or until their passing, receiving at least two PET-scans over the course of the study. The rate of amyloid deposition in the brain of these individuals was compared with a younger group from the Australian Imaging, Biomarker, and Lifestyle (AIBL) study.
Researchers observed a steady increase in A-beta accumulation in all participants over time, independent of their A-beta status at the beginning of the study. But this accumulation was significantly faster in patients in their 80s and older compared to participants in their late 60s, explaining the higher prevalence of A-beta in the oldest olds.
In the end, very few participants developed dementia without having A-beta deposits in the brain. Importantly, individuals whose brain scans were positive for amyloid at the beginning of the study developed dementia two years earlier than those who were amyloid-negative.

Researchers also found that the short-term change in A-beta alone over a period of 1.8 years could not predict future risk of dementia. By contrast, the severity of baseline A-beta burden, along with other markers of brain damage defined by the presence of white matter lesions (a marker of small vessel disease) and decrease in gray matter thickness in the brain cortex (a marker of neurodegeneration) were the strongest predictors of risk, indicating that an active pathological process was already in place when the study began.
“Our findings are consistent with studies showing that the amyloid accumulation in the brain takes decades to develop, and occurs in the context of other brain pathologies, specifically small vessel disease,” said Lopez, who also directs Pitt’s Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center. “Whether there is a vascular process that occurs in parallel to the A-beta deposition could not be examined in this study. However, understanding of the timing of the presence of these pathologies will be critical for the implementation of future primary prevention therapies.”
Additional authors of this research include Victor Villemagne, M.D., YueFang Chan, Ph.D., Anne Cohen, Ph.D., William Klunk, M.D., Chester Mathis, Ph.D., Tharick Pascoal, M.D., Milos Ikonomovic, M.D., Beth Snitz, Ph.D., Brian Lopresti, Ph.D., Ilyas Kamboh, Ph.D., and Howard Aizenstein, M.D., all from Pitt.
This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health and the Office of Dietary Supplements (grant U01 AT000162), and the National Institute on Aging (grants P30 AG066468, P01 AG025204, and RF1 AG052525).

Published24 minutes agoShareclose panelShare pageCopy linkAbout sharingImage source, Stuart Woodward/BBCEvery year, a small number of people decide to donate a kidney to a stranger.Last year, about 1,000 people in the UK gave a kidney to a family member or friend, while 83 donated one to somebody they did not know. Teacher Laura Maisey, 38, from Chelmsford, is one of these so-called altruistic kidney donors.Here, in her own words, she explained why giving away one of her organs changed her life.’I was wondering if you’d like one of my kidneys’Image source, Laura MaiseyI started thinking about how I could help other people when I ran from Rome to London, in September 2016. During that journey, which took me 73 days, I received so much kindness from strangers and I wanted to return the favour. My running friend Alice told me that she was donating her kidney to a stranger the following year. You can survive with just one so she didn’t see any reason not to donate the other. That made total sense to me.People kept saying it was a crazy thing to do, or that it was too dangerous, or that they would be too scared. Not everyone’s brains work like mine, I realised, so not many people must be doing this, which made me more determined to help.Image source, Getty ImagesHowever, I moved to Italy for 18 months so I put the idea aside. Just before I was due to return, my diabetic cousin’s kidneys began to fail. I couldn’t help her because she needed both a kidney and a pancreas from a deceased donor. I knew I wanted to make someone better, like my cousin, who received a successful transplant, and I wanted to thank the world.After coming back to live in the UK, I had to go to London for something and found myself near Guy’s and St Thomas’ hospital, where my friend Alice had donated her kidney all that time ago. I walked through the main doors and headed to the kidney department. “I was wondering if you’d like one of my kidneys,” I said to the receptionist.Three months and lots of tests later, I was approved to donate. I’m vegan, I hardly drink and I’m fairly active so I was sure my little kidney could do a good job for someone. But Covid struck and my plans were kicked to the curb. All elective surgery was cancelled. I waited until September 2020 and contacted the hospital, and luckily the kidney donor programme was starting up again. ‘I was so happy to know a stranger had been for a wee’Image source, David AltabevA few months later, I got a phone call to say a match had been found and my operation would be in January. I can honestly say I was so excited. The only wobble I had was when they said I would have to isolate with my partner for Christmas Day to make sure I didn’t catch Covid. My dad messaged me the night before the surgery to say he was scared for me and didn’t want me to do it, but my mind was made up. It’s a weird concept going in to hospital for doctors to make you intentionally ill but I couldn’t wait.The morning arrived and the surgeons came to my room to check I still wanted to do it. It was the most certain “yes” I have ever said in my life. On the way down to the operating theatre I was totally buzzing. My kidney physically left my body at midday and started its journey to its recipient.I was told the next morning that my kidney had transplanted well, the recipient was urinating successfully and all the numbers that represent good kidney function were looking as they should. I have never been so happy to know that a stranger had been for a wee! Image source, Richard Tilney-BassettI was in hospital for three days, sat on the sofa for one more, then got back to normal life. I know some people have a longer recovery but I felt fine again really quickly. A month later the hospital got an email from Stuart, the person who received my kidney. “Hi, I’m the guy who has got your kidney,” it said. You are told that whoever you donate to might not get in contact, so I wasn’t expecting to hear from him but I was so happy that he was doing so well. We wrote a lot and got to know each other, I was fascinated to hear all about his life. My husband and I went down to meet him in Folkestone, where he was living with his wife, and we went for a swim in the sea and drank Champagne. We got on so well, it was incredible. I would have been happy for anyone to get my kidney, but it was the cherry on the top that it went to the nicest person and now we are good friends.In October, I ran the York marathon and Stuart came to support me and he met my dad, who now completely understands why I gave my kidney away.It is easily the best thing that has ever happened to me and I can honestly say it has changed my life. There are very few times that you get the chance to make an actual difference to someone. At some point I’m not going to exist and the things I leave behind need to be positive. It feels important that I have left something good in the world.Image source, Getty ImagesStuart, who received Laura’s kidney, says:I was 43 when I received Laura’s kidney but I had known I would need a transplant from the age of 20, when I was diagnosed with polycystic kidney disease. I was very seriously ill before the operation and was about to go on dialysis. My kidney function is now very good, which is amazing really because I’m a big man and Laura is very slight, so her kidney is working very hard. Laura had to drink a lot of water before the operation so I was given this water-laden kidney. It is mind blowing to think that I urinated that out!I knew I wanted to write to Laura but I struggled to work out what to say. What Laura did for me was the most incredible and beautiful thing. There are no words to sum up how grateful I am.Laura is such a great human being, she didn’t want me to thank her, she was just trying to give back to the universe. We have this bond for life now and I am lucky to have her as a friend.As told to Charlie JonesFollow East of England news on Facebook, Instagram and X. Got a story? Email eastofenglandnews@bbc.co.uk or WhatsApp 0800 169 1830More on this storyOldest kidney donor celebrates 95th birthdayPublished18 OctoberFamily’s third child in need of kidney transplantPublished23 SeptemberWould you donate your kidney to a stranger?Published13 MayHow an economist helped thousands get a new kidneyPublished17 December 2019’I was part of a kidney swap chain’Published16 April 2019

Published38 minutes agoShareclose panelShare pageCopy linkAbout sharingImage source, RSABIA ewe dubbed “Britain’s loneliest sheep” before she was rescued from a remote cave has featured in a festive mental health awareness campaign.Now named Fiona, she has been pictured with “Are ewe OK?” and “#KeepTalking” placards by a charity which offers support to Scottish farmers.She attracted worldwide media attention after she was pictured stranded alone on a rugged shoreline in the Highlands.After her rescue last month she was rehomed at a farm park near Dumfries.Landward: The inside story of Fiona’s rescueFiona’s overgrown fleece was shorn and auctioned for charity, helping to raise, along with donations, about £11,000 for the Royal Scottish Agricultural Benevolent Institution (RSABI) and the Scottish SPCA. This video can not be playedTo play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.The three-year-old ewe has now been enlisted for RSABI’s Christmas #KeepTalking campaign to combat loneliness and the Scottish Association of Young Farmers Clubs’ mental health message Are Ewe OK?.Carol McLaren, chief executive of RSABI, said: “We know there can be a lot of loneliness in the farming community, particularly at this time of year.”The #KeepTalking campaign highlights how important it is for people to keep in touch and keep an eye out for anyone who could be feeling low or lonely. We know that just a little kindness can make a massive difference for someone who is struggling.”The sheep caught the imagination of the world’s media after kayaker Jill Turner photographed her at the foot of cliffs on the Moray Firth – and realised it was the same sheep she had spotted on an earlier trip. Image source, Animal RisingThe rocky shoreline and dangerous terrain made a rescue difficult but she was eventually hauled to the top of the cliffs by team of farmers led by Cammy Day, who is a regular on BBC’s Scotland Landward programme. She is now living at Dalscone Farm, a farm park and visitor attraction near Dumfries. Her rehoming was not without controversy – a group of animal rights activists who had been planning their own rescue claimed she could become distressed and exploited as a “spectacle” at a “petting zoo”. However, Dalscone Farm said she would have five months to settle in while the farm park was closed for winter, and she would be given her own pen while she was slowly introduced to other animals. Fiona’s rescuers said she had a very calm temperament and was in good health, albeit somewhat overweight after years of unfettered access to grazing. They named her Fiona after the partner of Shrek, the animated comedy character, because another renegade sheep with an overgrown fleece that was eventually rescued in New Zealand some years ago was named Shrek. He went on to achieve similar celebrity status, becoming the subject of children’s books, meeting the country’s prime minister and being immortalised with a bronze statue after his death in 2011 at the ripe old age of 16. More on this storyAll baa myself: Is this Britain’s loneliest sheep?Published27 OctoberLoneliest sheep in hiding after rehoming rowPublished5 November

Published2 hours agoShareclose panelShare pageCopy linkAbout sharingImage source, PA MediaBy Shivani Chaudhari and Storm NewtonBBC News and PA MediaA mum has saved her 21-month-old son’s life by donating part of her liver.Teddy Nicholls inherited a rare condition called neonatal hemochromatosis which can cause fatal liver failure in newborns without treatment. The donation from his mother Emma Nicholls, carried out at King’s College Hospital in London, is the second life-saving transplant Teddy has undergone. He received a transplant at 10 weeks from a deceased donor in 2022.In the most recent operation, surgeons used a technique known as a hitch-vein monosegment liver transplant.Epping boy inspires transplant campaign for 230 hospital dollsTeenage transplant patient clapped out of Cambridge hospitalTeen heart-lung transplant a UK first, says Royal Papworth HospitalThe procedure involved reducing the size of donated liver tissue to suit a baby’s body.The only alternative would be to wait for a deceased donor liver from another small baby, which the hospital said was “rare”.Image source, PA MediaMrs Nicholls was unable to donate when her son was 10 weeks old because she had only recently given birth.”I knew I wanted to do everything possible to help my son,” Mrs Nicholls said. “As a family we were so thankful to the donor and their family who saved Teddy’s life with his first organ transplant that I had no doubts about stepping in when needed.”Three weeks after the procedure, Teddy returned home to Cambridgeshire to enjoy Christmas with Mrs Nicholls, his father Greg and five-year-old brother Theo.”I am incredibly grateful to the whole hospital team from the theatres to the wards where we stayed; they’ve been fantastic looking after Teddy and I every step of the way,” Mrs Nicholls said.”Being home and reunited as a family in time for Christmas makes us feel so lucky and grateful to everyone at King’s College Hospital.”Dr Hector Vilca Melendez, consultant transplant surgeon at King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, said: “I’m delighted to see Teddy and Emma doing so well.”Thanks to his mother’s donation, Teddy has the opportunity to develop as would be normal for any child.”Follow East of England news on Facebook, Instagram and X. Got a story? Email eastofenglandnews@bbc.co.uk or WhatsApp 0800 169 1830More on this storyBoy needing transplant inspires dolls campaignPublished4 December’It was find a bone marrow donor match or die’Published26 SeptemberTeen heart-lung transplant a UK first, says hospitalPublished1 JuneRelated Internet LinksKing’s College Hospital NHS Foundation TrustThe BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.

Texas A&M University School of Public Health research on attitudes toward pet vaccination and how they may be linked with human vaccine hesitancy was the subject of a new study recently published in the journal Vaccine.
Simon Haeder, Ph.D., associate professor, analyzed data from an August 2023 survey of more than 2,000 dog and more than 1,400 cat owners to measure pet vaccination rates, perceptions of vaccines and support for pet vaccination requirements.
“Decreasing pet vaccination rates pose challenges to society for a number of reasons, including increased incidents of pet disease and death, increases in exposures for humans, the potential for further genetic adaptations of pathogens, as well as detrimental effects on veterinarians,” Haeder said. “Many individuals consider their pets as part of the family and increases in vaccine-preventable diseases may also affect the financial and emotional health of owners.”
The survey first asked respondents whether they owned a dog, a cat or both. Dog and cat owners were then surveyed about their pets’ vaccine status for five diseases each for dogs and cats. These included rabies for dogs and cats, canine parvovirus and canine distemper for dogs, and feline panleukopenia and feline Bordetella for cats. The respondents then responded with levels of support for vaccination requirements for each of the listed diseases. The survey also queried respondents about perceived safety, efficacy and importance of the various vaccines.
In addition to pet vaccine-specific questions, the survey asked respondents about their level of trust in scientists, support for human vaccination mandates for children, political ideology, religiosity, non-veterinary expenses and frequency of exposure of dogs to other dogs outside the household. Lastly, the survey measured perceptions of safety, efficacy and importance of human vaccines.
The survey found that an overwhelming majority of pet owners had vaccinated their dogs and cats against rabies, though cats were vaccinated less often than dogs. Other core vaccines had slightly lower, but still high uptake, while there appeared to be more hesitancy toward non-core vaccines. Core vaccines are generally recommended for all pets regardless of lifestyle.
Further analysis found that perceptions of importance, efficacy and safety of vaccines served as a reasonable predictor for vaccine hesitancy. Additionally, these perceptions show an association with attitudes toward vaccination requirements. Haeder’s analysis also found that pet owners without non-veterinary expenses such as boarding or training fees showed higher levels of vaccine hesitancy. Lastly, pet vaccination behaviors and perceptions appear to be less associated with political ideology than with human vaccines.
The findings of this study show a high level of confidence in vaccine safety, efficacy and importance for humans and pets. Additionally, the analysis found relations between vaccine hesitancy in humans and animals, with support for animal vaccine requirements being strongly associated with similar requirements for humans. This indicates the potential for spillover effects and the importance of further focus on vaccine hesitancy in humans and animals in research and public health efforts in the future.
“Concerns about growing hesitancy remain and should be taken seriously, for both pets and humans, before the United States falls below important thresholds to prevent major outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases,” Haeder said.