Tag Archives: health and health care (by demographic group)

Health

Complications during pregnancy linked to a higher risk of heart disease, study finds

Leave a comment



CNN
 — 

Five major pregnancy complications are strong lifelong risk factors for ischemic heart disease, a new study finds, with the greatest risk coming in the decade after delivery.

Ischemic heart disease refers to heart problems, including heart attack, caused by narrowed or dysfunctional blood vessels that reduce blood and oxygen flow to the heart.

Gestational diabetes and preeclampsia increased the risk of ischemic heart disease in the study by 54% and 30%, respectively, while other high blood pressure disorders during pregnancy doubled the risk. Delivering a baby early – before 37 weeks – or delivering a baby with a low birth weight were associated with a 72% and 10% increased risk, respectively.

The study, published in Wednesday in the BMJ, followed a cohort of more than 2 million women in Sweden with no history of heart disease who gave birth to single live infants between 1973 and 2015.

Roughly 30% of the women had at least one adverse pregnancy outcome. Those who had multiple adverse outcomes – whether in the same or different pregnancies – showed further increased risk of ischemic heart disease.

“These pregnancy outcomes are early signals for future risk of heart disease and can help identify high-risk women earlier and enable earlier interventions to improve their long-term outcomes and help prevent the development of heart disease in these women,” said Dr. Casey Crump, an author of the study and professor of family medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.

Heart disease is the leading cause of death among women in the United States and accounts for 1 in 5 female deaths, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This research adds to mounting evidence that pregnancy provides important information about a woman’s cardiovascular health.

“What happens to a woman during pregnancy is almost like a stress test or a marker for her future cardiovascular risk after pregnancy. And unfortunately, a lot of women don’t get told this by anybody,” said CNN Medical Correspondent Dr. Tara Narula, an associate professor of cardiology and the associate director of the Women’s Heart Program at Lenox Hill Hospital. She was not involved in the new study.

Although it’s not completely clear why, experts say the normal changes that occur during pregnancy may unmask underlying health issues in some women with certain risk factors.

Experiencing an adverse pregnancy outcome – even temporarily – could result in changes to blood vessels and the heart that may persist or progress after delivery, increasing a woman’s risk for cardiovascular disease.

This heightened risk is a particular concern for women in the US, experts say, where the maternal mortality rate is several times higher than in other high-income countries.

“There’s been a change in the birthing population. US women are getting pregnant at a later age, and they have already accrued maybe one or two cardiovascular risk factors. Perhaps there are other stressors in life – depression, stress, isolation, obesity – lots of different things that are impacting women in the US,” said Dr. Garima Sharma, associate professor of cardiology and director of the Cardio-Obstetrics Program at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, who also was not involved in the new study.

Pregnancy complications are carefully monitored during pregnancy, but there is little evaluation of and education about the effects on cardiovascular health after delivery for women, experts say.

“And so they have their delivery, they’ve had maybe preeclampsia or gestational diabetes, and nobody really follows up with them. They are not told that, in fact, they are at increased risk,” Narula said.

Gestational diabetes is a marker not only for increased risk of diabetes but also for general cardiovascular disease. Preeclampsia and eclampsia are markers for hypertension risk as well as general cardiovascular risks.

Narula, a cardiologist who specializes in caring for women, regularly considers adverse pregnancy outcomes when evaluating patients and emphasizes the continued need for this.

“The classic risk calculator that we use doesn’t have anything in there for pregnancy complications, but you know, it should for women, and hopefully someday, they will start to take that into account,” she said.

The American Heart Association recommends that all health care professionals take a detailed history of pregnancy complications when assessing a woman’s heart disease risk, but this is not consistently done in clinical practice, especially in primary care, where most women are seen, Crump says.

“Raising awareness of these findings among physicians as well as women hopefully will enable more of these women to be screened early and hopefully improve their long-term outcomes,” he said.

Roughly 1 in 3 women will have an adverse pregnancy outcome. Experts say that improving your health before getting pregnant can help avoid these issues.

“Reducing your risk should start preconception, and so getting your body and yourself into the healthiest state possible before you ever even get pregnant is really the first step,” Narula said.

This includes achieving and maintaining a healthy body weight with a good diet and regular exercise, controlling high blood pressure and diabetes, quitting smoking and managing stress.

Taking action after pregnancy is equally important, as research has estimated that only 30% to 80% of women have a postpartum checkup 6 to 8 weeks after delivery.

“Making sure that these women actually are appropriately followed after their delivery and that there is a warm handoff between [obstetrics] and [maternal-fetal medicine] to their primary care doctors or preventive cardiologists who can then talk about optimizing cardiovascular risks and reduction of these risk factors post-pregnancy in the postpartum time frame is crucial,” Sharma said.

Experts hope that increased patient and provider awareness of the connection between pregnancy and heart health will keep birth from being a cause of death.

“Cardiovascular disease is preventable. It’s a leading cause of maternal mortality, but it doesn’t have to be. If we do a better job at screening patients before they get pregnant, if we do a better job of treating them during pregnancy and postpartum, we can improve women’s outcomes,” Narula said. “It’s a tragedy to bring a new life into the world, and then the mother suffers some horrible complication and/or death that could have been prevented.”

Read original article here

Health

Ultraprocessed foods linked to ovarian and other cancer deaths, study finds

Leave a comment

Editor’s Note: Sign up for CNN’s Eat, But Better: Mediterranean Style. Our eight-part guide shows you a delicious expert-backed eating lifestyle that will boost your health for life.



CNN
 — 

Eating more ultraprocessed foods raises the risk of developing and dying from cancer, especially ovarian cancer, according to a new study of over 197,000 people in the United Kingdom, over half of whom were women.

Overly processed foods include prepackaged soups, sauces, frozen pizza and ready-to-eat meals, as well as hot dogs, sausages, french fries, sodas, store-bought cookies, cakes, candies, doughnuts, ice cream and many more.

“Ultra-processed foods are produced with industrially derived ingredients and often use food additives to adjust colour, flavour, consistency, texture, or extend shelf life,” said first author Dr. Kiara Chang, a National Institute for Health and Care Research fellow at Imperial College London’s School of Public Health, in a statement.

“Our bodies may not react the same way to these ultra-processed ingredients and additives as they do to fresh and nutritious minimally processed foods,” Chang said.

However, people who eat more ultra-processed foods also tend to “drink more fizzy drinks and less tea and coffee, as well as less vegetables and other foods associated with a healthy dietary pattern,” said Duane Mellor, a registered dietitian and senior teaching fellow at Aston Medical School in Birmingham, UK, in an email.

“This could mean that it may not be an effect specifically of the ultra-processed foods themselves, but instead reflect the impact of a lower intake of healthier food,” said Mellor, who was not involved in the study.

The study, published Tuesday in the journal eClinicalMedicine, looked at the association between eating ultraprocessed foods and 34 different types of cancer over a 10-year period.

Researchers examined information on the eating habits of 197,426 people who were part of the UK Biobank, a large biomedical database and research resource that followed residents from 2006 to 2010.

The amount of ultraprocessed foods consumed by people in the study ranged from a low of 9.1% to a high of 41.4% of their diet, the study found.

Eating patterns were then compared with medical records that listed both diagnoses and deaths from cancer.

Each 10% increase in ultraprocessed food consumption was associated with a 2% increase in developing any cancer, and a 19% increased risk for being diagnosed with ovarian cancer, according to a statement issued by Imperial College London.

Deaths from cancers also increased, the study found. For each additional 10% increase in ultraprocessed food consumption, the risk of dying from any cancer increased by 6%, while the risk of dying from ovarian cancer rose by 30%, according to the statement.

“These associations persisted after adjustment for a range of socio-demographic, smoking status, physical activity, and key dietary factors,” the authors wrote.

When it comes to death from cancer among women, ovarian cancer is ranked fifth, “accounting for more deaths than any other cancer of the female reproductive system,” noted the American Cancer Society.

“The findings add to previous studies showing an association between a greater proportion of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) in the diet and a higher risk of obesity, heart attacks, stroke, and type 2 diabetes,” said Simon Steenson, a nutrition scientist at the British Nutrition Foundation, a charity partially supported by food producers and manufacturers. Steenson was not involved in the new study.

“However, an important limitation of these previous studies and the new analysis published today is that the findings are observational and so do not provide evidence of a clear causal link between UPFs and cancer, or the risk of other diseases,” Steenson said in an email.

People who ate the most ultraprocessed foods “were younger and less likely to have a family history of cancer,” Chang and her colleagues wrote.

High consumers of ultraprocessed foods were less likely to do physical activity and more likely to be classified as obese. These people were also likely to have lower household incomes and education and live in the most underprivileged communities, the study found.

“This study adds to the growing evidence that ultra-processed foods are likely to negatively impact our health including our risk for cancer,” said Dr. Eszter Vamos, the study’s lead author and a clinical senior lecturer at Imperial College London’s School of Public Health in a statement.

This latest research is not the first to show an association between a high intake of ultraprocessed foods and cancer.

A 2022 study examined the diets of over 200,000 men and women in the United States for up to 28 years and found a link between ultraprocessed foods and colorectal cancer — the third most diagnosed cancer in the United States — in men, but not women.

And there are “literally hundreds of studies (that) link ultraprocessed foods to obesity, cancer, cardiovascular disease, and overall mortality,” Marion Nestle, the Paulette Goddard professor emerita of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University told CNN previously.

While the new UK-based study cannot prove causation, only an association, “other available evidence shows that reducing ultra-processed foods in our diet could provide important health benefits,” Vamos said.

“Further research is needed to confirm these findings and understand the best public health strategies to reduce the widespread presence and harms of ultra-processed foods in our diet,” she added.

Read original article here

Health

Infant screen time could impact academic success, study says

Leave a comment



CNN
 — 

Letting infants watch tablets and TV may be impairing their academic achievement and emotional well-being later on, according to a new study.

Researchers found that increased use of screen time during infancy was associated with poorer executive functioning once the child was 9 years old, according to the study published Monday in the journal JAMA Pediatrics.

Executive functioning skills are mental processes that “enable us to plan, focus attention, remember instructions, and juggle multiple tasks successfully,” according to the Harvard University Center on the Developing Child.

Those executive functioning skills are important for higher-level cognition, such as emotional regulation, learning, academic achievement and mental health, according to the study. They influence our success socially, academically, professionally and in how we care for ourselves, said Dr. Erika Chiappini, assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore.

“Though these cognitive processes naturally develop from infancy through adulthood, they are also impacted by the experiences that we have and when we have them in our development,” said Chiappini, who was not involved in the study, in an email.

The results support recommendations from the American Academy of Pediatrics, which discourages all screen time before 18 months old, with the exception of video chatting, said Dr. Joyce Harrison, associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. Harrison was not involved in the research.

The study looked at data from Growing Up in Singapore Towards healthy Outcomes, or GUSTO, which surveyed women from all socioeconomic backgrounds during their first trimester of pregnancy. The sample was made up of 437 children who underwent electroencephalography (EEG) scans, which are used to look at the neural pathways of cognitive functions in the brain, at age 1, 18 months and 9 years old.

The parents reported each child’s screen time, and researchers found there was an association between screen time in infancy and attention and executive function at 9 years old, according to the study.

Further research needs to be done, however, to determine if the screen time caused the impairments in executive function or if there are other factors in the child’s environment that predispose them to both more screen time and poorer executive functioning, the study noted.

In a learning-packed time like infancy, one of the big problems with screen use is that young children aren’t learning much from them, according to AAP.

“There is no substitute for adult interaction, modeling and teaching,” Harrison said.

Babies have a hard time interpreting information presented in two dimensions, such as on screens, and have trouble distinguishing fantasy from reality, Chiappini said.

“Babies and kids are also social learners and very much benefit from the back-and-forth interaction with others (adults and kids) which is hard to achieve with screens,” Chiappini said via email.

When it comes to emotional regulation, infants and toddlers can learn from their caregivers when they model self-control or help to label emotions and appropriate expressions, she added.

For example, you can give a young child options for what they can do when they are mad, like taking a break or breathing deeply instead of inappropriate behaviors like hitting, Harrison said.

Talking about emotions can be too abstract for preschool-age kids, and in those cases using color zones to talk about emotions can be helpful, said Dr. Jenny Radesky, a developmental behavioral pediatrician and associate professor of pediatrics at Michigan Medicine C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital. Radesky was not involved in the research.

Calm and content can be green; worried or agitated can be yellow; and upset or angry can be red, using graphics or images of faces to help kids match what they’re feeling with their color zone. To reinforce it, adults can talk about their own emotions in terms of colors in front of their kids, Radesky said in a CNN previous article.

Parents and children can go through the colors together and come up with calming tools for the different zones, she added.

To strengthen those executive function skills, Harrison says it’s important to provide structured engagement where a child can work through solving problems to the extent that they can at their developmental level — instead of having problems solved for them.

And yet, sometimes parents just need to get the laundry done or attend a work meeting, and screens can feel like an effective distraction.

For very young children, it’s probably still best to avoid screen time, Harrison emphasized.

Instead, try to involve the child in house chores, she said.

“Give your toddler some clothes to fold alongside you while you are trying to get laundry done or keep your infant safely in a position where you can make frequent eye contact while you are engaged your chore,” Harrison said via email.

For older preschoolers, save up your screen time to use strategically, she said.

“For example, their one hour of screen time can be reserved for a time when you have an important video meeting to attend,” Harrison said.

And there is some content that can help teach emotional regulation when your tank is empty. Finding media that is aimed at speaking to children directly about emotions — like Daniel Tiger or Elmo Belly Breathing — can be like a meditation instead of distraction, Radesky previously told CNN.

And you can make screen time works better by engaging your child while they watch, Chiappini said. Ask questions like “what is that character feeling?” and “what could they do to help their friend?” she added.

Raising children is a complex and sometimes overwhelming task, and no caregiver can give their child everything they want to all the time, Radesky said.

Read original article here

Business

FDA vaccine advisers vote to harmonize Covid-19 vaccines in the United States

Leave a comment



CNN
 — 

A panel of independent experts that advises the US Food and Drug Administration on its vaccine decisions voted unanimously Thursday to update all Covid-19 vaccines so they contain the same ingredients as the two-strain shots that are now used as booster doses.

The vote means young children and others who haven’t been vaccinated may soon be eligible to receive two-strain vaccines that more closely match the circulating viruses as their primary series.

The FDA must sign off on the committee’s recommendation, which it is likely to do, before it goes into effect.

Currently, the US offers two types of Covid-19 vaccines. The first shots people get – also called the primary series – contain a single set of instructions that teach the immune system to fight off the original version of the virus, which emerged in 2019.

This index strain is no longer circulating. It was overrun months ago by an ever-evolving parade of new variants.

Last year, in consultation with its advisers, the FDA decided that it was time to update the vaccines. These two-strain, or bivalent, shots contain two sets of instructions; one set reminds the immune system about the original version of the coronavirus, and the second set teaches the immune system to recognize and fight off Omicron’s BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants, which emerged in the US last year.

People who have had their primary series – nearly 70% of all Americans – were advised to get the new two-strain booster late last year in an effort to upgrade their protection against the latest variants.

The advisory committee heard testimony and data suggesting that the complexity of having two types of Covid-19 vaccines and schedules for different age groups may be one of the reasons for low vaccine uptake in the US.

Currently, only about two-thirds of Americans have had the full primary series of shots. Only 15% of the population has gotten an updated bivalent booster.

Data presented to the committee shows that Covid-19 hospitalizations have been rising for children under the age of 2 over the past year, as Omicron and its many subvariants have circulated. Only 5% of this age group, which is eligible for Covid-19 vaccination at 6 months of age, has been fully vaccinated. Ninety percent of children under the age of 4 are still unvaccinated.

“The most concerning data point that I saw this whole day was that extremely low vaccination coverage in 6 months to 2 years of age and also 2 years to 4 years of age,” said Dr. Amanda Cohn, director of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Division of Birth Defects and Infant Disorders. “We have to do much, much better.”

Cohn says that having a single vaccine against Covid-19 in the US for both primary and booster doses would go a long way toward making the process less complicated and would help get more children vaccinated.

Others feel that convenience is important but also stressed that data supported the switch.

“This isn’t only a convenience thing, to increase the number of people who are vaccinated, which I agree with my colleagues is extremely important for all the evidence that was related, but I also think moving towards the strains that are circulating is very important, so I would also say the science supports this move,” said Dr. Hayley Gans, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Stanford University.

Many others on the committee were similarly satisfied after seeing new data on the vaccine effectiveness of the bivalent boosters, which are cutting the risk of getting sick, being hospitalized or dying from a Covid-19 infection.

“I’m totally convinced that the bivalent vaccine is beneficial as a primary series and as a booster series. Furthermore, the updated vaccine safety data are really encouraging so far,” said Dr. David Kim, director of the the US Department of Health and Human Services’ National Vaccine Program, in public discussion after the vote.

Thursday’s vote is part of a larger plan by the FDA to simplify and improve the way Covid-19 vaccines are given in the US.

The agency has proposed a plan to convene its vaccine advisers – called the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, or VRBPAC – each year in May or June to assess whether the instructions in the Covid-19 vaccines should be changed to more closely match circulating strains of the virus.

The time frame was chosen to give manufacturers about three months to redesign their shots and get new doses to pharmacies in time for fall.

“The object, of course – before anyone says anything – is not to chase variants. None of us think that’s realistic,” said Jerry Weir, director of the Division of Viral Products in the FDA’s Office of Vaccines Research and Review.

“But I think our experience so far, with the bivalent vaccines that we have, does indicate that we can continue to make improvements to the vaccine, and that would be the goal of these meetings,” Weir said.

In discussions after the vote, committee members were supportive of this plan but pointed out many of the things we still don’t understand about Covid-19 and vaccination that are likely to complicate the task of updating the vaccines.

For example, we now seem to have Covid-19 surges in the summer as well as the winter, noted Dr. Michael Nelson, an allergist and immunologist at the University of Virginia. Are the surges related? And if so, is fall the best time to being a vaccination campaign?

The CDC’s Dr. Jefferson Jones said that with only three years of experience with the virus, it’s really too early to understand its seasonality.

Other important questions related to the durability of the mRNA vaccines and whether other platforms might offer longer protection.

“We can’t keep doing what we’re doing,” said Dr. Bruce Gellin, chief of global public health strategy at the Rockefeller Foundation. “It’s been articulated in every one of these meetings despite how good these vaccines are. We need better vaccines.”

The committee also encouraged both government and industry scientists to provide a fuller picture of how vaccination and infection affect immunity.

One of the main ways researchers measure the effectiveness of the vaccines is by looking at how much they increase front-line defenders called neutralizing antibodies.

Neutralizing antibodies are like firefighters that rush to the scene of an infection to contain it and put it out. They’re great in a crisis, but they tend to diminish in numbers over time if they’re not needed. Other components of the immune system like B-cells and T-cells hang on to the memory of a virus and stand ready to respond if the body encounters it again.

Scientists don’t understand much about how well Covid-19 vaccination boosts these responses and how long that protection lasts.

Another puzzle will be how to pick the strains that are in the vaccines.

The process of selecting strains for influenza vaccines is a global effort that relies on surveillance data from other countries. This works because influenza strains tend to become dominant and sweep around the world. But Covid-19 strains haven’t worked in quite the same way. Some that have driven large waves in other countries have barely made it into the US variant mix.

“Going forward, it is still challenging. Variants don’t sweep across the world quite as uniform, like they seem to with influenza,” the FDA’s Weir said. “But our primary responsibility is what’s best for the US market, and that’s where our focus will be.”

Eventually, the FDA hopes that Americans would be able to get an updated Covid-19 shot once a year, the same way they do for the flu. People who are unlikely to have an adequate response to a single dose of the vaccine – such as the elderly or those with a weakened immune system – may need more doses, as would people who are getting Covid-19 vaccines for the first time.

At Thursday’s meeting, the advisory committee also heard more about a safety signal flagged by a government surveillance system called the Vaccine Safety Datalink.

The CDC and the FDA reported January 13 that this system, which relies on health records from a network of large hospital systems in the US, had detected a potential safety issue with Pfizer’s bivalent boosters.

In this database, people 65 and older who got a Pfizer bivalent booster were slightly more likely to have a stroke caused by a blood clot within three weeks of their vaccination than people who had gotten a bivalent booster but were 22 to 42 days after their shot.

After a thorough review of other vaccine safety data in the US and in other countries that use Pfizer bivalent boosters, the agencies concluded that the stroke risk was probably a statistical fluke and said no changes to vaccination schedules were recommended.

At Thursday’s meeting, Dr. Nicola Klein, a senior research scientist with Kaiser Permanente of Northern California, explained how they found the signal.

The researchers compared people who’d gotten a vaccine within the past three weeks against people who were 22 to 42 days away from their shots because this helps eliminate bias in the data.

When they looked to see how many people had strokes around the time of their vaccination, they found an imbalance in the data.

Of 550,000 people over 65 who’d received a Pfizer bivalent booster, 130 had a stroke caused by a blood clot within three weeks of vaccination, compared with 92 people in the group farther out from their shots.

The researchers spotted the signal the week of November 27, and it continued for about seven weeks. The signal has diminished over time, falling from an almost two-fold risk in November to a 47% risk in early January, Klein said. In the past few days, it hasn’t been showing up at all.

Klein said they didn’t see the signal in any of the other age groups or with the group that got Moderna boosters. They also didn’t see a difference when they compared Pfizer-boosted seniors with those who were eligible for a bivalent booster but hadn’t gotten one.

Further analyses have suggested that the signal might be happening not because people who are within three weeks of a Pfizer booster are having more strokes, but because people who are within 22 to 42 days of their Pfizer boosters are actually having fewer strokes.

Overall, Klein said, they were seeing fewer strokes than expected in this population over that period of time, suggesting a statistical fluke.

Another interesting thing that popped out of this data, however, was a possible association between strokes and high-dose flu vaccination. Seniors who got both shots on the same day and were within three weeks of those shots had twice the rate of stroke compared with those who were 22 to 42 days away from their shots.

What’s more, Klein said, the researchers didn’t see the same association between stroke and time since vaccination in people who didn’t get their flu vaccine on the same day.

The total number of strokes in the population of people who got flu shots and Covid-19 boosters on the same day is small, however, which makes the association a shaky one.

“I don’t think that the evidence are sufficient to conclude that there’s an association there,” said Dr. Tom Shimabukuro, director of the CDC’s Immunization Safety Office.

Nonetheless, Richard Forshee, deputy director of the FDA’s Office of Biostatistics and Pharmacovigilance, said the FDA is planning to look at these safety questions further using data collected by Medicare.

The FDA confirmed that the agency is taking a closer look.

“The purpose of the study is 1) to evaluate the preliminary ischemic stroke signal reported by CDC using an independent data set and more robust epidemiological methods; and 2) to evaluate whether there is an elevated risk of ischemic stroke with the COVID-19 bivalent vaccine if it is given on the same day as a high-dose or adjuvanted seasonal influenza vaccine,” a spokesperson said in a statement.

The FDA did not give a time frame for when these studies might have results.

Read original article here

Health

Decreasing rates of childhood immunization are a major concern. Our medical analyst explains why

Leave a comment



CNN
 — 

Vaccine rates for measles, polio, diphtheria and other diseases are decreasing among US children, according to a new study from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The rate of immunizations for required vaccines among kindergarten students declined from 95% to approximately 94% during the 2020-21 school year. It dropped further — to 93% — in the 2021-22 school year.

That’s still a high number, so why is this drop in immunization significant? What accounts for the decline? What might be the consequences if these numbers drop further? If parents are unsure about vaccinating their kids, what should they do? And what can be done on a policy level to increase immunization numbers?

To help us with these questions, I spoke with CNN Medical Analyst Dr. Leana Wen, an emergency physician, public health expert and professor of health policy and management at the George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health. She is also author of “Lifelines: A Doctor’s Journey in the Fight for Public Health.”

CNN: Why is it a problem that childhood immunization rates are declining?

Dr. Leana Wen: The reduction of vaccine-preventable diseases is one of the greatest public health success stories in the last 100 years.

The polio vaccine was introduced in the United States in 1955, for example. In the four years prior, there were an average of over 16,000 cases of paralytic polio and nearly 2,000 deaths from polio each year across the US. Widespread use of the polio vaccine had led to the eradication of polio in the country by 1979, according to the CDC, sparing thousands of deaths and lifelong disability among children each year.

The measles vaccine was licensed in the US in 1963. In the four years before that, there were an average of over 500,000 cases and over 430 measles-associated deaths each year. By 1998, there were just 89 cases recorded — and no measles-associated deaths.

These vaccines are very safe and extremely effective. The polio vaccine, for example, is over 99% effective at preventing paralytic polio. The measles vaccine is 97% effective at preventing infection.

We can do this same analysis for other diseases for which there are routine childhood immunizations.

It’s very concerning that rates of immunization are declining for vaccines that have long been used to prevent disease and reduce death. That means more children are at risk for severe illness — illness that could be averted if they were immunized. Moreover, if the proportion of unvaccinated individuals increases in a community, this also puts others at risk. That includes babies too young to be vaccinated or people for whom the vaccines don’t protect as well — for example, patients on chemotherapy for cancer.

CNN: What accounts for the decline in vaccination numbers?

Wen: There are probably many factors. First, there has been substantial disruption to the US health care system during the Covid-19 pandemic. Many children missed routine visits to the pediatrician during which they would have received vaccines due to pandemic restrictions. In addition, some community health services offered also became disrupted as local health departments focused on Covid-19 services.

Second, disruption to schooling has also played a role. Vaccination requirements are often checked prior to the start of the school year. When schools stopped in-person instruction, that led to some families falling behind on their immunizations.

Third, misinformation and disinformation around Covid-19 vaccines may have seeded doubt in other vaccines. Vaccine hesitancy and misinformation were already major public health concerns before the coronavirus emerged, but the pandemic has exacerbated the issues.

According to a December survey published by the Kaiser Family Foundation, more than one in three American parents said vaccinating children against measles, mumps, and rubella shouldn’t be a requirement for them to attend public schools, even if that may create health risks for others. This was a substantial increase from 2019, when a similar poll from the Pew Research Center found only 23% of parents opposed school vaccine requirements.

CNN: What are some consequences if immunization rates drop further?

Wen: If immunization rates drop further, we could see more widespread outbreaks. Diseases that were virtually eliminated in the US could reemerge, and more people can become severely ill and suffer lasting consequences or even die.

We are already seeing some consequences: Last summer, there was a confirmed case of paralytic polio in an unvaccinated adult in New York. It’s devastating that a disease like polio has been identified again in the US, since we have an extremely effective vaccine to prevent it.

There is an active measles outbreak in Ohio. As of January 17, 85 cases have been reported. Most of the cases involved unvaccinated children, and at least 34 have been hospitalized.

CNN: If parents are unsure of vaccinating their kids, what should they do?

Wen: As parents, we generally trust pediatricians with our children’s health. We consult pediatricians if our kids are diagnosed with asthma and diabetes, or if they have new worrisome symptoms of another illness. We should also consult our pediatricians about childhood immunizations; parents and caregivers with specific questions or concerns should address them.

The national association of pediatricians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, “strongly recommends on-time routine immunization of all children and adolescents according to the Recommended Immunization Schedules for Children and Adolescents.”

CNN: What can be done to increase immunization numbers?

Wen: There needs to be a concerted educational campaign to address why vaccination against measles, mumps, rubella, chickenpox, polio and so forth is so crucial. One of the reasons for vaccine hesitancy, in my experience, is that these diseases have been rarely seen in recent years. Many people who are parents now didn’t experience the devastation of these diseases growing up, so may not realize how terrible it would be for them to return.

Specific interventions should be targeted at the community level. In some places, low immunization levels may be due to access. Vaccination drives at schools, parks, shopping centers, and other places where families gather can help increase numbers. In other places, the low uptake may be because of vaccine hesitancy and misinformation. There will need to be different strategies implemented in that situation.

Overall, increasing immunization rates for vaccine-preventable childhood diseases needs to be a national imperative. I can’t underscore how tragic it would be for kids to suffer the harms of diseases that could be entirely prevented with safe, effective and readily available vaccines that have been routinely given for decades.

Read original article here

Health

When young children test positive for Covid-19 and another respiratory virus, their illness is much more severe, a new study suggests

Leave a comment



CNN
 — 

When Covid-19 patients younger than 5 also test positive for another respiratory virus, they tend to become sicker and develop more severe disease, a new study suggests.

Among hospitalized children younger than 5, testing positive for both Covid-19 and another respiratory virus at the same time is associated with about twice the odds of severe respiratory illness than those who tested negative for other viruses, according to the study published Wednesday in the journal Pediatrics.

The study comes amid a harsh season of respiratory viruses, including RSV, flu, Covid-19 and other viruses that overwhelmed children’s hospitals. The findings demonstrate the impact respiratory viruses have on pediatric hospitals and how “continued surveillance” of circulating Covid-19 and other illnesses can help predict future surges in hospitalizations, wrote the researchers, from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and various universities and health departments across the United States.

Caring for young children with overlapping respiratory illnesses was something Jenevieve Silva has experienced firsthand throughout the Covid-19 pandemic.

“The height of the illnesses was from September through mid-November, when our household just could not catch a break,” she said.

The mother of eight, based in San Jose, California, said that her toddler-age twin boys “have been battered by viruses” since they started preschool in May 2021.

Last October, Silva’s twins tested positive for Covid-19 and then developed what their pediatrician suspected was another respiratory viral infection, possibly respiratory syncytial virus or RSV, around the same time.

“Based on what the pediatrician told us, she said ‘I highly believe that they had these overlapping viruses,’” Silva said, adding that the boys’ symptoms included shortness of breath, cough, fatigue, and fever, with one twin having a 105-degree fever for four days straight.

Warm baths and massaging Vicks VapoRub onto their backs and chest helped ease their pain, but watching her boys battle these respiratory illnesses was “brutal,” Silva said.

“They had just looked so frail – they looked sick, like something deeper than just back-to-back viruses,” she said. “It was hell. I mean, it was really bad.”

The boys have recovered and are currently “doing great” and have gained healthy weight, Silva said, but she worries that they developed asthma following their illnesses.

Ever since October, when they had the overlapping viruses, “the doctor has now said it seems like that might have triggered asthma in them. And so now, ever since then, when they get a cold, they have asthma symptoms – violent episodes of coughing, sometimes throwing up,” Silva said.

“I can’t be the only mom dealing with virus after virus,” she said, adding that for other parents out there, she has a message of hope: “Be patient. Listen to your doctor.”

The new study included data on 4,372 children who were hospitalized with Covid-19. Among those who were tested for other respiratory viruses, 21% had a codetection, meaning another respiratory virus was also detected in their test results. The data came from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Covid-19 hospitalization surveillance network called COVID-NET, with data from across 14 states.

The researchers noted that they focused on codetection, not coinfection, since testing wouldn’t necessarily show that a child was actively infected with both viruses just because they test positive.

Overall, “this study found that respiratory virus codetections were rare in the first year of the pandemic, RSV and rhinovirus or enterovirus codetections increased during the Delta-predominant period and influenza codetections were infrequent throughout the first 2 years of the pandemic,” the researchers wrote in their study.

The data also showed that children with codetections were more likely to be younger than 5, receive increased oxygen support, and be admitted to the intensive care unit. No significant associations were seen among children 5 and older.

Specifically for children younger than 2, testing positive for respiratory syncytial virus or RSV while having Covid-19 was significantly associated with severe illness.

More research is needed on the precise impact that two respiratory viruses can simultaneously have on the body, said Dr. William Schaffner, a professor in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Vanderbilt University Medical Center and medical director of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases, who was not involved in the new study.

“But we do think that being attacked by two viruses, particularly if you are less than five years of age, it’s been clearly demonstrated by this study, it does tend to make your illness more severe, more likely to be prolonged in the hospital, more likely to be in the pediatric intensive care unit,” Schaffner said. “And so clearly, having your lungs and your throat and your body – generally your immune system – attacked by two viruses simultaneously, understandably might make some young children more severely ill.”

Dr. Asuncion Mejias, associate professor of pediatric infectious diseases at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, said hospitalized children she has treated for Covid-19 and codetections of other respiratory viruses often require increased oxygen support and treatment in the intensive care unit.

“Covid is a very proinflammatory virus, so it really weakens your immune response,” said Mejias. “And when you haven’t recovered yet, and you get a second hit, in this case, RSV or rhinovirus, you develop a more severe disease.”

Overall, Schaffner said that these new study findings are more reason why it remains important to make sure children are up to date on their Covid-19 vaccinations as well as vaccinated against the flu.

Mejias agreed, emphasizing the importance of safe practices to prevent the spread of viruses to children too young to be vaccinated.

“The pandemic taught us how contagious these viruses are,” Mejias said about respiratory pathogens.

“If somebody is sick, try to avoid contact,” she said. “These viruses are not only transmitted by saliva and secretions but by hands. It can survive in your hands for more than 30 minutes. So if you touch your mouth and then touch a little baby, the baby can self inoculate the virus and become infected. So washing hands and all these measures are very important.”

Read original article here

Health

Large new review underscores the risks of Covid-19 during pregnancy

Leave a comment



CNN
 — 

Pregnant women and their developing babies are at higher risk for severe outcomes if they get Covid-19, and now a large, international review is helping to underscore how devastating those risks can be.

The study draws on data from 12 studies from as many countries—including the United States. Altogether, the studies included more than 13,000 pregnant women—about 2,000 who had a confirmed or probable case of Covid-19. The health outcomes for these women and their babies were compared to about 11,000 pregnancies where the mother tested negative for Covid-19 or antibodies to it at the time of their deliveries.

Across the studies about 3% of pregnant women with Covid-19 needed intensive care, and about 4% needed any kind of critical care, but this was far higher than the numbers of pregnant women who needed that kind of care outside of a Covid-19 infection.

Compared to pregnant individuals who weren’t infected, those who got Covid-19 were nearly 4 times more likely to be admitted to an intensive care unit. They were 15 times more likely to be ventilated and were 7 times more likely to die. They also had higher risks for pre-eclampisa, blood clots, and problems caused by high blood pressure. Babies born to moms who had Covid-19 were at higher risk for preterm birth and low birth weights.

Previous studies have suggested that Covid-19 may increase the risk of stillbirth, but this study didn’t find that same link.

Still, the findings paint a clear picture that shows the risks of pregnancy are amplified by Covid-19 infections.

“It’s very clear and even it’s consistent, you know, whether we’re talking about Sweden where we have really generally great pregnancy outcomes to other countries that you know, have bigger problems with maternal morbidity and mortality, that having COVID and pregnancy increases risk for both mom and baby,” said lead study author Emily Smith, who is an assistant professor of global health at George Washington University.

The study has some caveats that may limit how applicable the findings are to pregnant individuals in the Omicron era.

First, the studies were conducted relatively early in the pandemic, at a time when most people were still unvaccinated and uninfected. That means people in the study were likely at higher risk not just because they were pregnant, but also because they were immunologically naïve to the virus—they didn’t have any pre-existing immunity to help them fight off their infections.

Since then, many pregnant individuals have gotten vaccinated, or had Covid-19 or both. As of the first week of January, about 72% of pregnant people in the U.S. have had their primary series of Covid-19 vaccines, and about 95% of Americans are estimated to have had Covid-19 at least once, or been vaccinated against it, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That means it’s likely they have some immune memory against the virus that may help protect against severe outcomes.

That immune memory appears to fade over time, however. CDC data show just 19% of pregnant women have had an updated booster, meaning many people may not have as much protection against the virus as they think they do.

Lead study author Emily Smith, who is an assistant professor of global health at George Washington University, says the study results reflect the risk of Covid-19 and pregnancy in unvaccinated people.

Unfortunately, Smith says, many countries still don’t have clear guidelines advising vaccination during pregnancy. And there are some parts of the world, such as China, that still have substantial proportions of their population who’ve never been been infected.

For people who are trying to weigh the risks and benefits of Covid-19 vaccination during pregnancy, Smith says this study helps tip the scales firmly on the side of vaccination.

“It’s worth it to protect yourself in pregnancy,” Smith said.

She says this study didn’t look at the benefits of vaccination in pregnancy, but other studies have, showing big decreases in the risk of stillbirth, preterm birth and severe disease or death for mom.

“And so that’s kind of the complementary story,” said Smith.

Dr. Justin Lappen, division director of Maternal Fetal Medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, praised the study and said its findings reinforce and advance previous research, which has found that Covid-19 markedly increases the risk of severe outcomes for mom and baby. He wasn’t involved in the study.

He says the findings highlight the importance of preventing and treating Covid-19 in pregnant women.

Therapies that are indicated or otherwise recommended should not be withheld specifically due to pregnancy or breastfeeding, Lappen wrote in an email to CNN.

The study is published in the journal BMJ Global Health.

Read original article here

Health

US cancer death rate drops 33% since 1991, partly due to advances in treatment, early detection and less smoking, new report says

Leave a comment



CNN
 — 

The rate of people dying from cancer in the United States has continuously declined over the past three decades, according to a new report from the American Cancer Society.

The US cancer death rate has fallen 33% since 1991, which corresponds to an estimated 3.8 million deaths averted, according to the report, published Thursday in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. The rate of lives lost to cancer continued to shrink in the most recent year for which data is available, between 2019 and 2020, by 1.5%.

The 33% decline in cancer mortality is “truly formidable,” said Karen Knudsen, chief executive officer of the American Cancer Society.

The report attributes this steady progress to improvements in cancer treatment, drops in smoking and increases in early detection.

“New revelations for prevention, for early detection and for treatment have resulted in true, meaningful gains in many of the 200 diseases that we call cancer,” Knudsen said.

In their report, researchers from the American Cancer Society also pointed to HPV vaccinations as connected to reductions in cancer deaths. HPV, or human papillomavirus, infections can cause cervical cancer and other cancer types, and vaccination has been linked with a decrease in new cervical cancer cases.

Among women in their early 20s, there was a 65% drop in cervical cancer rates from 2012 through 2019, “which totally follows the time when HPV vaccines were put into use,” said Dr. William Dahut, the society’s chief scientific officer.

“There are other cancers that are HPV-related – whether that’s head and neck cancers or anal cancers – so there’s optimism this will have importance beyond this,” he said.

The lifetime probability of being diagnosed with any invasive cancer is estimated to be 40.9% for men and 39.1% for women in the US, according to the new report.

The report also includes projections for 2023, estimating that there could be nearly 2 million new cancer cases – the equivalent of about 5,000 cases a day – and more than 600,000 cancer deaths in the United States this year.

During the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic, many people skipped regular medical exams, and some doctors have seen a rise in advanced cancer cases in the wake of pandemic-delayed screenings and treatment.

The American Cancer Society researchers were not able to track “that reduction in screening that we know we all observed across the country during the pandemic,” Knudsen said. “This time next year, I believe our report will give some initial insight into what the impact was in the pandemic of cancer incidence and cancer mortality.”

The new report includes data from national programs and registries, including those at the National Cancer Institute, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries.

Data showed that the US cancer death rate rose during most of the 20th century, largely due to an increase in lung cancer deaths related to smoking. Then, as smoking rates fell and improvements in early detection and treatments for some cancers increased, there was a decline in the cancer death rate from its peak in 1991.

Since then, the pace of the decline has slowly accelerated.

The new report found that the five-year relative survival rate for all cancers combined has increased from 49% for diagnoses in the mid-1970s to 68% for diagnoses during 2012-18.

The cancer types that now have the highest survival rates are thyroid at 98%, prostate at 97%, testis at 95% and melanoma at 94%, according to the report.

Current survival rates are lowest for cancers of the pancreas, at 12%.

The finding about a decreasing cancer death rate shows “the continuation of good news,” said Dr. Otis Brawley, an oncology professor at Johns Hopkins University who was not involved in the research.

“The biggest reason for the decline that started in 1991 was the prevalence of smoking in the United States started going down in 1965,” said Brawley, a former chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society.

“That’s the reason why we started having a decline in 1991, and that decline has continued because the prevalence of people smoking in the United States has continued to go down,” he said. “Now, in certain diseases, our ability to treat has improved, and there are some people who are not dying because of treatment.”

Although the death rate for cancer has been on a steady decline, the new report also highlights that new cases of breast, uterine and prostate cancer have been “of concern” and rising in the United States.

Incidence rates of breast cancer in women have been increasing by about 0.5% per year since the mid-2000s, according to the report.

Uterine corpus cancer incidence has gone up about 1% per year since the mid-2000s among women 50 and older and nearly 2% per year since at least the mid-1990s in younger women.

The prostate cancer incidence rate rose 3% per year from 2014 through 2019, after two decades of decline.

Knudsen called prostate cancer “an outlier” since its previous decline in incidence has reversed, appearing to be driven by diagnoses of advanced disease.

On Thursday, the American Cancer Society announced the launch of the Impact initiative, geared toward improving prostate cancer incidence and death rates by funding new research programs and expanding support for patients, among other efforts.

“Unfortunately, prostate cancer remains the number one most frequently diagnosed malignancy amongst men in this country, with almost 290,000 men expected to be diagnosed with prostate cancer this year,” Knudsen said. Cancer diagnosed when it is confined to the prostate has a five-year survival rate of “upwards of 99%,” she said, but for metastatic prostate cancer, there is no durable cure.

“Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death for men in this country,” she said. “What we’re reporting is not only an increase in the incidence of prostate cancer across all demographics but a 5% year-over-year increase in diagnosis of men with more advanced disease. So we are not catching these cancers early when we have an opportunity to cure men of prostate cancer.”

Breast, uterine and prostate cancers also have a wide racial disparity, in which communities of color have higher death rates and lower survival rates.

In 2020, the risk of overall cancer death was 12% higher in Black people compared with White people, according to the new report.

“Not every individual or every family is affected equally,” Knudsen said.

For instance, “Black men unfortunately have a 70% increase in incidence of prostate cancer compared to White men and a two- to four-fold increase in prostate cancer mortality as related to any other ethnic and racial group in the United States,” she said.

The data in the new report demonstrates “important and consistent” advances against cancer, Dr. Ernest Hawk, vice president of cancer prevention and population sciences at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, said in an email.

“Cancer is preventable in many instances and detectable at an early stage with better outcomes in many others. When necessary, treatments are improving in both their efficacy and safety. That’s all great news,” Hawk wrote.

“However, it’s well past time for us to take health inequities seriously and make them a much greater national priority. Inequities in cancer risks, cancer care and cancer outcomes are intolerable, and we should not be complacent with these regular reminders of avoidable inequities,” he said. “With deliberate and devoted effort, I believe we can eliminate these disparities and make even greater progress to end cancer.”

Read original article here

Health

Updated childhood obesity treatment guidelines include medications, surgery for some young people

Leave a comment



CNN
 — 

Updated American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines for treatment of obesity urge prompt use of behavior therapy and lifestyle changes, and say surgery and medications should be used for some young people.

The guidelines, published Monday in the journal Pediatrics, are the first comprehensive update to the academy’s obesity treatment guidelines in 15 years. They provide guidance for treatment of children as young as 2 and through the teen years.

The guidelines acknowledge that obesity is complex, and tied to access to nutritious foods and health care, among other factors.

Treatment for younger children should focus on behavior and lifestyle treatment for the entire family, including nutrition support and increased physical activity. For children 12 and older, use of weight loss medications is appropriate, in addition to health behavior therapy and lifestyle treatment, AAP says. Teens 13 and older with severe obesity should be evaluated for surgery, according to the guidelines.

“There is no evidence that ‘watchful waiting’ or delayed treatment is appropriate for children with obesity,” Dr. Sandra Hassink, an author of the guideline and vice chair of AAP’s Clinical Practice Guideline Subcommittee on Obesity, said in a statement. “The goal is to help patients make changes in lifestyle, behaviors or environment in a way that is sustainable and involves families in decision-making at every step of the way.”

For children and teens, overweight is defined as a body mass index at or above the 85th percentile and below the 95th percentile; obesity is defined as a BMI at or above the 95th percentile.

Myles Faith, a psychologist at the State University of New York at Buffalo who studies childhood eating behaviors and obesity, praised the new report both for acknowledging that the causes of childhood obesity are complex and that its treatments must be a team effort.

“It’s not one cause for all kids,” he says. “There’s not been this kind of report to say that there are more options and that we shouldn’t automatically discount the possibility of medication, that we shouldn’t discount the role of surgery. For some families, it might be something to consider,” said Faith, who was not involved in the creation of the guidelines.

The new guidelines do not discuss obesity prevention; it will be addressed in another AAP policy statement to come, it says.

“These are the most comprehensive, patient-centered guidelines we have had that address overweight and obesity within childhood,” Dr. Rebecca Carter, pediatrician at the University of Maryland Children’s Hospital and assistant professor at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, said in an email Monday.

“New to these recommendations are several new medication management strategies that have proven very successful in the treatment of obesity as a chronic disease for adults, and are now being recommended for use in children and adolescents,” Carter said. “This is a major step in allowing overweight and obesity to be considered as the chronic diseases that they are.”

She added that the recommendations also are a “major step forward” in helping both parents and medical teams “take ownership” over a child’s long-term health risks related to overweight and obesity.

“They give a variety of tools to help families feel empowered that there are ways to treat these medical conditions, and that there are nuanced causes for these conditions that go beyond easy solutions and certainly take our focus away from outdated or unhealthy dieting strategies,” Carter said.

The new guidelines are designed for health care providers, but Carter said parents should talk with their children’s doctor if there are concerns about weight, and discuss strategies to optimize health and monitor changes.

“It is also appropriate to do this in a child-focused manner, taking care not to stigmatize them or make them feel bad about their body, while empowering the child to feel they have the tools needed to keep their body healthy over time.”

The new guidelines are a “much-needed advancement” to align holistic care with current science, Dr. Jennifer Woo Baidal, assistant professor of pediatrics and director of the Pediatric Obesity Initiative at Columbia University in New York City, said in a separate email Monday.

“Uptake of the new guidelines will help reverse the epidemic of childhood obesity,” she said. “More work at policy levels will be needed to mitigate policies and practices that propagate racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities in obesity starting in early life. Although the guidelines support advocacy efforts of pediatricians, we as a society need to voice our support for healthful environments for the nation’s children.”

AAP says more than 14.4 million children and teens live with obesity. Children with overweight or obesity are at higher risk for asthma, sleep apnea, bone and joint problems, type 2 diabetes and heart disease, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Separate research, published last month in the American Diabetes Association journal Diabetes Care, suggests that the number of young people under age 20 with type 2 diabetes in the United States may increase nearly 675% by 2060 if current trends continue.

Last month, the CDC released updated growth charts that can be used to track children and teens with severe obesity.

Growth charts are standardized tools used by health care providers to track growth from infancy through adolescence. But as obesity and severe obesity became more prevalent in the last 40 years – more than 4.5 million children and teens had severe obesity in 2017-2018, the agency says – the charts hadn’t kept up.

The growth chart in use since 2000 is based on data from 1963 to 1980 and did not extend beyond the 97th percentile, the agency said. The newly extended percentiles incorporate more recent data and provide a way to monitor and visualize very high body mass index values.

The existing growth charts for children and adolescents without obesity will not change, the CDC said, while the extended growth chart will be useful for health care providers treating patients with severe childhood obesity.

“Prior to today’s release, the growth charts did not extend high enough to plot BMI for the increasing number of children with severe obesity. The new growth charts coupled with high-quality treatment can help optimize care for children with severe obesity,” Dr. Karen Hacker, director CDC’s National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, said in a statement. “Providers can work with families on a comprehensive care plan to address childhood obesity.

Read original article here

Entertainment

Sharon Osbourne reveals daughter Kelly has welcomed her first child

Leave a comment



CNN
 — 

Sharon Osbourne revealed that her daughter Kelly Osbourne has quietly welcomed a baby, her first, with her boyfriend, Sid Wilson.

Osbourne and the Slipknot DJ are new parents to a baby boy named Sidney, her mom announced during an appearance on Britain’s “The Talk” on Tuesday.

“So great, so great. She won’t let a picture go out of him, and I’m so proud of her,” Osbourne said of her daughter.

Kelly Osbourne first shared publicly she was pregnant last May with a sonogram pic on Instagram.

“I know that I have been very quiet these past few months so I thought I would share with you all as to why,” she wrote at the time. “I am over the moon to announce that I am going to be a Mumma.”

In November, she said on her Instagram Stories, “Okay, here we go,” with no other information.

The new baby makes five grandchildren for Ozzy Osbourne and Sharon.



Read original article here