Decrease of resistance to air flow with nasal strips as measured with the airflow perturbation device

BACKGROUND: Nasal strips are used by athletes, people who snore, and asthmatics to ease the burden of breathing. Although there are some published studies that demonstrate higher flow with nasal strips, none had directly measured the effect of the strips on nasal resistance using the airflow perturbation device (APD). The APD is an inexpensive instrument that can measure respiratory resistance based on changes in mouth pressure and rate of airflow. METHOD: This study tested forty-seven volunteers (14 men and 33 women), ranging in age from 17 to 51. Each volunteer was instructed to breathe normally into the APD using an oronasal mask with and without nasal strips. The APD measured respiratory resistance during inhalation, exhalation, and an average of the two. RESULTS: Results of a paired mean t-test comparing nasal strip against no nasal strip were statistically significant at the p = 0.05 level. The Breathe Right™ nasal dilator strips lowered nasal resistance by an average of 0.5 cm H(2)0/Lps from an average nasal resistance of 5.5 cm H(2)0/Lps. CONCLUSIONS: Nasal strips reduce nasal resistance when measured with the APD. The effect is equal during exhalation and during inhalation

Exercise Training in Pregnancy for obese women (ETIP): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

<p/> <p>Background</p> <p>Both maternal pre-pregnancy obesity and excessive gestational weight gain are increasing in prevalence and associated with a number of adverse pregnancy outcomes for both mother and child. Observational studies regarding physical activity in pregnancy have found reduced weight gain in active mothers, as well as reduced risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. There is however a lack of high quality, randomized controlled trials on the effects of regular exercise training in pregnancy, especially those with a pre-pregnancy body mass index (BMI) at or above 30 kg/m².</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We are conducting a randomised, controlled trial in Norway with two parallel arms; one intervention group and one control group. We will enroll 150 previously sedentary, pregnant women with a pre-pregnancy BMI at or above 30 kg/m². The intervention group will meet for organized exercise training three times per week, starting in gestation week 14 (range 12-16). The control group will get standard antenatal care. The main outcome measure will be weight gain from baseline to delivery. Among the secondary outcome measures are changes in exercise capacity, endothelial function, physical activity level, body composition, serum markers of cardiovascular risk, incontinence, lumbopelvic pain and cardiac function from baseline to gestation week 37 (range 36-38). Offspring outcome measures include anthropometric variables at birth, Apgar score, as well as serum markers of inflammation and metabolism in cord blood.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The results of this trial will provide knowledge about effects of regular exercise training in previously sedentary, obese pregnant women. If the program proves effective in reducing gestational weight gain and adverse pregnancy outcomes, such programs should be considered as part of routine pregnancy care for obese women.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov: <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01243554">NCT01243554</a></p

Systematic Review of Potential Health Risks Posed by Pharmaceutical, Occupational and Consumer Exposures to Metallic and Nanoscale Aluminum, Aluminum Oxides, Aluminum Hydroxide and Its Soluble Salts

Aluminum (Al) is a ubiquitous substance encountered both naturally (as the third most abundant element) and intentionally (used in water, foods, pharmaceuticals, and vaccines); it is also present in ambient and occupational airborne particulates. Existing data underscore the importance of Al physical and chemical forms in relation to its uptake, accumulation, and systemic bioavailability. The present review represents a systematic examination of the peer-reviewed literature on the adverse health effects of Al materials published since a previous critical evaluation compiled by Krewski et al. (2007). Challenges encountered in carrying out the present review reflected the experimental use of different physical and chemical Al forms, different routes of administration, and different target organs in relation to the magnitude, frequency, and duration of exposure. Wide variations in diet can result in Al intakes that are often higher than the World Health Organization provisional tolerable weekly intake (PTWI), which is based on studies with Al citrate. Comparing daily dietary Al exposures on the basis of “total Al”assumes that gastrointestinal bioavailability for all dietary Al forms is equivalent to that for Al citrate, an approach that requires validation. Current occupational exposure limits (OELs) for identical Al substances vary as much as 15-fold. The toxicity of different Al forms depends in large measure on their physical behavior and relative solubility in water. The toxicity of soluble Al forms depends upon the delivered dose of Al+ 3 to target tissues. Trivalent Al reacts with water to produce bidentate superoxide coordination spheres [Al(O2)(H2O4)+ 2 and Al(H2O)6 + 3] that after complexation with O2•−, generate Al superoxides [Al(O2•)](H2O5)]+ 2. Semireduced AlO2• radicals deplete mitochondrial Fe and promote generation of H2O2, O2 • − and OH•. Thus, it is the Al+ 3-induced formation of oxygen radicals that accounts for the oxidative damage that leads to intrinsic apoptosis. In contrast, the toxicity of the insoluble Al oxides depends primarily on their behavior as particulates. Aluminum has been held responsible for human morbidity and mortality, but there is no consistent and convincing evidence to associate the Al found in food and drinking water at the doses and chemical forms presently consumed by people living in North America and Western Europe with increased risk for Alzheimer\u27s disease (AD). Neither is there clear evidence to show use of Al-containing underarm antiperspirants or cosmetics increases the risk of AD or breast cancer. Metallic Al, its oxides, and common Al salts have not been shown to be either genotoxic or carcinogenic. Aluminum exposures during neonatal and pediatric parenteral nutrition (PN) can impair bone mineralization and delay neurological development. Adverse effects to vaccines with Al adjuvants have occurred; however, recent controlled trials found that the immunologic response to certain vaccines with Al adjuvants was no greater, and in some cases less than, that after identical vaccination without Al adjuvants. The scientific literature on the adverse health effects of Al is extensive. Health risk assessments for Al must take into account individual co-factors (e.g., age, renal function, diet, gastric pH). Conclusions from the current review point to the need for refinement of the PTWI, reduction of Al contamination in PN solutions, justification for routine addition of Al to vaccines, and harmonization of OELs for Al substances