Watch the slideshow.
URL: http://www.speakingtree.in/slideshow/non-medical-ways-to-quit-smoking
Day: 09/16/2015
How your brain decides blame and punishment, and how it can be changed
- Juries in criminal cases typically decide if someone is guilty, then a judge determines a suitable level of punishment. New research confirms that these two separate assessments of guilt and punishment — though related — are calculated in different parts of the brain. In fact, researchers have found that they can disrupt and change one decision without affecting the other.
Human brain (stock image). The researchers in this study used repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) on a specific area of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex to briefly alter activity in this brain region and consequently change the amount of punishment a person doled out.
Juries in criminal cases typically decide if someone is guilty, then a judge determines a suitable level of punishment. New research confirms that these two separate assessments of guilt and punishment — though related — are calculated in different parts of the brain. In fact, researchers found that they can disrupt and change one decision without affecting the other.
New work by researchers at Vanderbilt University and Harvard University confirms that a specific area of the brain, the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, is crucial to punishment decisions. Researchers predicted and found that by altering brain activity in this brain area, they could change how subjects punished hypothetical defendants without changing the amount of blame placed on the defendants.
“We were able to significantly change the chain of decision-making and reduce punishment for crimes without affecting blameworthiness,” said René Marois, professor and chair of psychology at Vanderbilt and co-principal author of the study. “This strengthens evidence that the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex integrates information from other parts of the brain to determine punishment and shows a clear neural dissociation between punishment decisions and moral responsibility judgements.”
The research titled “From Blame to Punishment: Disrupting Prefrontal Cortex Activity Reveals Norm Enforcement Mechanisms” was published on Sept. 17 in the journal Neuron.
The Experiment
The researchers used repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) on a specific area of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex to briefly alter activity in this brain region and consequently change the amount of punishment a person doled out.
“Many studies show the integrative function of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in relatively simple cognitive tasks, and we believe that this relatively basic process forms the foundation for far more complex forms of behavior and decision-making, such as norm enforcement,” said lead author Joshua Buckholtz, now an assistant professor of psychology at Harvard.
The researchers conducted experiments with 66 volunteer men and women. Participants were asked to make punishment and blameworthiness decisions in a series of scenarios in which a suspect committed a crime. The scenarios varied by harm caused (ranging from property loss to grievous injury and death) and how culpable the suspect was for the act (fully responsible or not, due to mitigating circumstances.) Half of the subjects received active rTMS while the other half of the subjects received a sham or placebo version of rTMS.
Level of Harm
Across all participants and all trials, both culpability and level of harm were significant predictors of the amount of punishment the subjects deemed appropriate. But subjects receiving active rTMS chose significantly lower punishments for fully culpable suspects than did those subjects receiving sham rTMS, particularly in scenarios that resulted in low to moderate harm. Additional analyses suggested that the effect was due to impaired integration of signals for harm and culpability.
“Temporarily disrupting the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex function appears to alter how people use information about harm and culpability to render these decisions. In other words punishment requires that people balance these two influences, and the rTMS manipulation interfered with this balance, especially under conditions in which these factors are dissonant, such as when the intent is clear but the harm outcome is mild,” said Buckholtz.
Implications
The research team’s main goal in this work is to expand the knowledge of how the brain assesses and then integrates information relevant to guilt and punishment decisions. It will also advance the burgeoning interdisciplinary study of law and neuroscience.
“This research gives us deeper insights into how people make decisions relevant to law, and particularly how different parts of the brain contribute to decisions about crime and punishment. We hope that these insights will help to build a foundation for better understanding, and perhaps one day better combatting, decision-making biases in the legal system,” said co-author Owen Jones, professor of law and biological sciences at Vanderbilt and director of the MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Law and Neuroscience.
The Baby’s Smile and Its Impact on the Mother
Your baby’s smile fills your heart with joy and affection. There is nothing more beautiful than seeing your own baby giggling with joy. But is that a smile of joy? Find out what your baby’s smiles mean and what impact they have on the mothers.
Your baby’s smile can be interpreted differently with every baby separately and this mainly has to do with the relationship between the mother and the baby and with the communication between the two. There is a unique relationship which is set between the mother ad the baby and this relationship starts even before the birth itself. However, it manifests itself even more once the baby is born.
The smile is the first step towards the baby’s attempt to define their own sensations and senses, to admit and recognize what they feel, to create their own identity. This is one of the first ways of expressing themselves and of expressing their state of comfort. You, as a mother, know if it is an expression of joy, of satisfaction or of love. How do you know that? This is your sixth sense, which is the maternal instinct. After the first six or eight weeks, your baby’s smile is no longer a reflex, but a reaction to the things that make them feel good, such as their mother’s voice, her caresses and even her face. It is even said that the baby’s smile is a proof of affection and of love towards the mother.
In the Navajo culture, the baby is a gift brought by nature, a gift which must be respected. The event which sets their name and place in the society is actually the ceremony of their first smile. This event involves the baby always being under the strict supervision of their parents. Also, he is always protected in the stroller or in the bouncer until they smile for the first time. This is what marks the baby’s birth as a social being and this special ceremony celebrates their first smile.
The first smile is a very important moment for the mother because it represents the way the baby develops a relationship with their mother, the way they recognize her existence, her presence, a way of expressing what they feel and give. Seeing your baby smile is definitely a very good feeling, but it is also a stimulus for the brain, activating the dopamine, a substance which is responsible with activating the pleasure centres in your brain. Thus, a smile is also a reward for the mother, for everything she does and for bringing up the baby. This proves that mothers are biologically designed to care for their babies and to care for everyone in general. It has been demonstrated that a baby’s smile can make you feel better and that it resembles the state you have when you are on drugs. The baby’s smile activates those nervous centres in the mother’s brain which are characteristic and activated in a person who is constantly on drugs.
Tadpole Endoscope makes Detection of Cancer Easier.
The new Tadpole Endoscope (TE) created by engineers from the Institute of Precision Engineering at the Chinese University of Hong Kong can be a solution for the current techniques and instruments employed to look for cancer.
Traditional endoscopes come with an arrangement of lense, a flexible tool and modern devices such as camera, but are difficult to control and quite expensive. This new device which is practically non-invasive can be simply swallowed like a large pill and then remotely guided around inside the patient’s stomach by a doctor. It has a 3D printed cover for electronics, a video camera and a soft tail for movement and direction. The driven tail of the Tadpole Endoscope is most appealing. After initial check up of the patient using this, the doctor just leaves it inside and the peristaltic motion of the stomach will push it lower the GI tract. The sensor pad attached to the person can continue to capture and record subsequent images which the doctors can then keep adding to the notes after patient is discharged.
The Internet Can’t Replace Real Human Interaction.
A Rosh Hashana reminder of the power of sacred spaces
Watching people assemble for services on Rosh Hashana, I was struck anew by a powerful reality of houses of worship: They remain that rare place in American society where people of different ages sit together in common cause. Yes, people gather at a sports arena or concert, but that is to watch, not to participate. Besides, the baby in the stroller and the 93-year-old are not usually found at the same concert. In a world where community is increasingly difficult, and atomization is becoming the norm, Prayer is a moment of togetherness.
Sociologist Robert Putnam famously wrote about the shrinking of social capital more than a decade ago. Observing that bowling leagues declined as more and more people chose to bowl alone, he cast his eye about society and saw the fragmentation in almost every sphere of public life. Political parties are less attractive, social clubs and groups less cohesive and prevalent. Now more than ever in history we can function autonomously, sitting at home, watching TV, getting our news from the Internet, paying our bills online, and ordering up everything from food to books to videos to lawn furniture, all without moving from one spot.
Not so if you attend a Synagogue or Church or Mosque. Many houses of worship now stream their services, yet they are still designed as places for people to come and join together. The inevitable frictions and joys of human contact are central to prayer. Each year after the holidays I receive letters of complaint about people who were talking, disturbing those who sat near them. But I get far more letters of appreciation as people renew acquaintances, see children grow from year to year, feel the mysterious, sad tug of realizing that certain faces are no longer there, and remembering that a video screen cannot match the anxious thrill and warm spark of human contact.
An old Jewish story has it that two men, Schwartz and Goldberg, were walking to the synagogue. A neighbor, spotting them traveling together, stops and asks: “Hey Goldberg, I understand why you are going to synagogue—you are a believer. But Schwartz, you aren’t religious. Why are you going?” And Schwartz answers, “Goldberg goes to talk to God. I go to talk to Goldberg.”
I long ago learned that most people do not come to the synagogue for doctrine. They come for one another. In the hallway encounters, in the catching up—yes, even in the gossip—there is the tie of community that runs deep in our nature.
The decline in attendance at churches and synagogues is sad for those of us who care for religion, of course. But it is also sad to see the waning of one of the last great institutions that brings people together. Yes, the synagogue is full of problems and politics, but that is just another way of saying it is full of people. Here is a place that welcomes us, sublime and sinful as we are, and asks us to share together with others who are no better and no worse. The Internet will be humming when you get home. The news will be ready at a moment’s notice. In the meantime, you will have interacted with other human beings, and perhaps, had a moment to encounter God.
Air pollution kills 3.3 million worldwide, may double: study
Air pollution is killing 3.3 million people a year worldwide, according to a new study that includes this surprise: Farming plays a large role in smog and soot deaths in industrial nations.
Scientists in Germany, Cyprus, Saudi Arabia and Harvard University calculated the most detailed estimates yet of the toll of air pollution, looking at what caused it. The study also projects that if trends don’t change, the yearly death total will double to about 6.6 million a year by 2050.
The study, published Wednesday in the journal Nature, used health statistics and computer models. About three quarters of the deaths are from strokes and heart attacks, said lead author Jos Lelieveld at the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Germany.
The findings are similar to other less detailed pollution death estimates, outside experts said.
“About 6 percent of all global deaths each occur prematurely due to exposure to ambient air pollution. This number is higher than most experts would have expected, say, 10 years ago,” said Jason West, a University of North Carolina environmental sciences professor who wasn’t part of the study but praised it.
Air pollution kills more than HIV and malaria combined, Lelieveld said.
With nearly 1.4 million deaths a year, China has the most air pollution fatalities, followed by India with 645,000 and Pakistan with 110,000.
The United States, with 54,905 deaths in 2010 from soot and smog, ranks seventh highest for air pollution deaths. What’s unusual is that the study says that agriculture caused 16,221 of those deaths, second only to 16,929 deaths blamed on power plants.
In the U.S. Northeast, all of Europe, Russia, Japan and South Korea, agriculture is the No. 1 cause of the soot and smog deaths, according to the study. Worldwide, agriculture is the No. 2 cause with 664,100 deaths, behind the more than 1 million deaths from in-home heating and cooking done with wood and other biofuels in developing world.
The problem with farms is ammonia from fertilizer and animal waste, Lelieveld said. That ammonia then combines with sulfates from coal-fired power plants and nitrates from car exhaust to form the soot particles that are the big air pollution killers, he said. In London, for example, the pollution from traffic takes time to be converted into soot, and then it is mixed with ammonia and transported downwind to the next city, he said.
“We were very surprised, but in the end it makes sense,” Lelieveld said. He said the scientists had assumed that traffic and power plants would be the biggest cause of deadly soot and smog.
Agricultural emissions are becoming increasingly important but are not regulated, said Allen Robinson, an engineering professor at Carnegie Mellon University, who wasn’t part of the study but praised it.
Ammonia air pollution from farms can be reduced “at relatively low costs,” Robinson said. “Maybe this will help bring more attention to the issue.”
In the central United States, the main cause of soot and smog premature deaths is power plants; in much of the West, it’s traffic emissions.
Jason West and other outside scientists did dispute the study’s projections that deaths would double by 2050. That’s based on no change in air pollution. West and others said it’s likely that some places, such as China, will dramatically cut their air pollution by 2050.
And Lelieveld said that if the world reduces a different air pollutant—carbon dioxide, the main gas causing global warming—soot and smog levels will be reduced as well, in a “win-win situation in both directions.”
Study identifies how key brain region orchestrates punishment decisions
It’s a question most attorneys wish they could answer: How and why do judges and juries arrive at their decisions?
The answer, Joshua Buckholtz said, may lie in the way our brains are wired.
A new study co-authored by Buckholtz, an Assistant Professor of Psychology, René Marois, professor and chair of psychology at Vanderbilt and colleagues, explains how a brain region called the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex(or DLPFC) coordinates third party punishment decisions of the type made by judges and juries. The study is described in a September 16 paper in Neuron.
“Third party punishment is the cornerstone of all modern systems of justice, and this study suggests that our ability to make these type of decisions originates in a very basic form of information processing that is not specific to social decision-making at all,” Buckholtz said. “we think that this low-level, domain-general process of information integration forms a foundation for bootstrapping higher order cognitive and social processes.”
For Buckholtz and Marois, the new paper represents the culmination of more than seven years of work.
“We were able to significantly change the chain of decision-making and reduce punishment for crimes without affecting blameworthiness,” said Marois, co-senior author of the study. “This strengthens evidence that the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex integrates information from other parts of the brain to determine punishment and shows a clear neural dissociation between punishment decisions and moral responsibility judgments.”
While still a grad student at Vanderbilt, Buckholtz and Marois published the first-ever study of the neural mechanisms that underlie such third-party punishment decisions, and continued to explore those mechanisms in later studies.
But while those earlier papers showed that dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activity was correlated with punishment behavior, they weren’t able to pin down a causal role, or explain exactly what DLPFC did to support these decisions.
“It wasn’t entirely clear – was this region corresponding to an evaluation of the mental state, or blameworthiness, of the perpetrator, or was it performing some other function? Was it assessing causal responsibility in a more general sense?” Buckholtz said. “In this paper, we tried to develop a way to selectively map the role of this region to a more specific process and exclude alternative hypotheses.”
To do that, Buckholtz, Marois and colleagues turned to transcranial magnetic stimulation, or TMS, a non-invasive technique which uses powerful electromagnets to reversibly interrupt brain information processing.
As part of the study, Buckholtz and colleagues asked volunteers to read a series of scenarios that described a protagonist committing crimes ranging from simple theft to rape and murder. Each varied by how morally responsible the perpetrator was for their actions and the degree of harm they caused.
In separate sessions, participants then estimated perpetrators’ level of blameworthiness for each crime, and decided how much punishment they should face while researchers stimulated the DLPFC using TMS.
“What we show is that when you disrupt DLPFC activity, it doesn’t change the way they evaluate blameworthiness, but it does reduce the punishments they assign to morally responsible agents” Buckholtz said.
The team was able to confirm those findings using functional MRI, and additionally were able to show that the DLPFC was only sensitive to moral responsibility when making punishment (but not blameworthiness) decisions. This supported the idea that DLPFC was not simply registering the causal responsibility of an action. Still, it didn’t answer what DLPFC was actually doing during punishment decisions.
“There had been some suggestion by others that DLPFC was important for inhibiting self-interested responses during punishment. That idea wasn’t consistent with our prior data, which led us to propose a different model,” Buckholtz said. “What this region is really good at – and it’s good at it regardless of the type of decision being made – is integrating information. In particular, punishment decisions require an integration of the culpability of a perpetrator for a wrongful act with the amount of harm they actually caused by the act.” In a previous study led by co-author Michael Treadway, now at Emory University, the authors showed that other brain regions are principally responsible for representing culpability and harm, and these areas pass this information to prefrontal cortex when it comes time to actually make a decision.
Using statistical models, the team showed that, under normal conditions, the impact of a perpetrator’s culpability on punishment decisions is negatively correlated with the impact of information about the amount of harm they caused.
“You can think of it as a zero sum game,” Marois said. “The more you’re focused on the harm someone causes, the less you’re going to focus on how culpable they are, and the more you’re focused on their culpability, the less you focus on the harm.”
Disrupting DLPFC function, however, upends that balance.
“It makes people rely more heavily on harm information and less heavily on culpability information,” Buckholtz explained. “Given the fact that, overall, TMS reduces punishment, that seemed counterintuitive to us at first.
“When we looked at the type of crimes this was affecting, we found it was mostly mid-range harms, like property crime and assaults,” he continued. “In such cases, the harm is relatively mild, but the person committing the crime had the intent to do much worse.”
As an example, Buckholtz cited the case of an assault that results in a broken arm. If you focus on the perpetrator’s culpability, it’s easy to imagine that they intended to do much more damage. In such an instance, focusing on the intent will lead to higher punishment than if one gives more weight to the actual amount of harm (which was minimal).
The finding that a short dose of magnetic stimulation changes punishment decisions is sure to be of interest to those in the legal field. Not so fast, says Buckholtz. “Any suggestion that there are real world applications for this work is wildly overblown. The magnitude of the TMS effect is quite modest, and our experiment does not replicate the conditions under which people make decisions in trial courts. The value of this study is in revealing basic
New catalyst yields more accurate PSA test: Peroxidase mimic improves sensitivity of PSA test 100-fold .
- Chemists have developed a catalyst that improves the sensitivity of the standard PSA test over 100-fold. The catalyst is made of palladium nanocubes coated with iridium.
A new catalyst that improves the sensitivity of the standard PSA test more than 100-fold, pictured above, is made of palladium nanocubes coated with iridium.
Say you’ve been diagnosed with prostate cancer, the second-leading cause of cancer death in men. You opt for surgery to remove your prostate. Three months later, a prostate surface antigen (PSA) test shows no prostate cells in your body. Everyone rejoices.
Until 18 months later, when another PSA test reveals that now prostate cells have reappeared. What happened?
The first PSA test yielded what’s known as a false negative result. It did not detect the handful of cells that remained after surgery and later multiplied. Now a chemist at Michigan Technological University has made a discovery that could, among other things, slash the numbers of false negatives in PSA tests.
Xiaohu Xia and his team, including researchers from Louisiana State University and the University of Texas at Dallas, have developed a new catalyst that could make lab tests like the PSA much more sensitive. And it may even speed up reactions that neutralize toxic industrial chemicals before they enter lakes and streams.
A paper on the research, “Pd-Ir Core-Shell Nanocubes: A Type of Highly Efficient and Versatile Peroxidase Mimic,” was published online Sept. 3 inACS Nano. In addition to Xia, the coauthors are graduate students Jingtuo Zhang, Jiabin Liu and Haihang Ye and undergraduate Erin McKenzie of Michigan Tech; Moon J. Kim and Ning Lu of the University of Texas at Dallas; and Ye Xu and Kushal Ghale of Louisiana State University. The LSU team conducted theoretical calculations, and the UT Dallas team contributed high-resolution electron microscopy images.
Their new catalyst mimics the action of similar biochemicals found in nature, called peroxidases. “In animals and plants, these peroxidases are important– for example, they get rid of hydrogen peroxide, which is harmful to the organism,” said Xia, an assistant professor of chemistry at Michigan Tech. In medicine, peroxidases have become powerful tools for accelerating chemical reactions in diagnostic tests; a peroxidase found in the horseradish root is commonly used in the standard PSA test.
However, these natural peroxidases have drawbacks. They can be difficult to extract and purify. “And, they are made of protein, which isn’t very stable,” Xia explained. “At high temperatures, they cook, like meat.”
“Moreover, their efficiency is just fair,” he added. “We wanted to develop a mimic peroxidase that was substantially more efficient than the natural peroxidase, which would lead to a more-sensitive PSA test.”
Their new catalyst, made from nanoscale cubes of palladium coated with a few layers of iridium atoms, does just that. PSA tests Xia’s team conducted using the palladium-iridium catalyst were 110 times more sensitive than tests completed with the conventional peroxidase.
“After surgery, it’s vital to detect a tiny amount of prostate antigen, because otherwise you can get a false negative and perhaps delay treatment for cancer,” said Xia. “Our ultimate goal is to further refine our system for use in clinical diagnostic laboratories.”
Xia hopes that his mimic peroxidase will someday save lives through earlier detection of cancer and other maladies. He also plans to explore other applications, including how it compares with horseradish peroxidase in other catalytic reactions: breaking down toxic industrial-waste products like phenols into harmless substances.
Finally, the team wants to better understand why its palladium-iridium catalyst works so well. “We know the iridium coating is the key,” Xia said. “We think it makes the surface sticky, so the chemical reagents bind to it better.”
Reading this on your phone and about to go to bed? This is what it’s doing to your brain
MOST of us check our phones just before going to bed to make sure we haven’t missed out on important messages.
But the habit is having a huge impact on what happens in our head as we enter the world of nod.
Website Business Insider UK asked Dr Daniel Siegel to run some analysis on the effect and he found some alarming things.
FDA Approves Spiriva Respimat (Tiotropium) for the Maintenance Treatment of Asthma in Adults and Adolescents
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. today announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Spiriva Respimat for the long-term, once-daily, prescription maintenance treatment of asthma in people ages 12 and older. Spiriva Respimat is not a treatment for sudden asthma symptoms.
Asthma, which affects more than 22 million people in the U.S., can cause a patient’s airways to become inflamed and tighten, making it hard to breathe. Despite currently available treatments, many patients continue to experience asthma symptoms, which can have a negative impact on their ability to perform daily activities. One survey found 55 percent of people with asthma taking at least one treatment still experienced symptoms.
The approval of Spiriva Respimat establishes a new class of asthma medication known as long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs). Spiriva Respimat is steroid-free and works differently than a long-acting beta2 agonist (LABA). When asthma symptoms persist despite taking a daily maintenance treatment, adding Spiriva Respimat may help people breathe better and reduce attacks (also known as exacerbations).
“In my clinical experience, some patients with uncontrolled asthma, despite treatment, continue to experience symptoms, which can include coughing, wheezing, waking at night or shortness of breath,” said Dr. William Busse, Professor of Medicine, Division of Allergy, Pulmonary and Critical Care, at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health. “For patients who continue to experience these symptoms, Spiriva Respimat is a once-daily maintenance treatment that has been shown to provide additional bronchodilation to help patients breathe better and reduce asthma attacks.”
The FDA approved Spiriva Respimat based on efficacy and safety data from a comprehensive clinical trial program, including 12 trials of approximately 5,000 adults and adolescents with mild, moderate and severe symptomatic asthma on at least an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS). Data from this clinical program showed that the addition of Spiriva Respimat significantly improved lung function, as measured by forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1 AUC0-3hr and trough FEV1) and reduced exacerbations for asthma patients, compared to placebo. An asthma exacerbation was defined as a progressive increase in asthma symptoms* or a decrease in a patient’s best morning peak expiratory flow (PEF) that required treatment with systemic steroids for at least three days.
The safety profile of Spiriva Respimat in asthma was demonstrated across the clinical trial program. The most common side effects (>2% incidence in the placebo-controlled trials with treatment durations between 12 and 52 weeks) were sore throat, sinus infections, bronchitis, and headache in adults.
Spiriva Respimat is now approved at two different doses. For asthma, the FDA approved a once-daily dose of 2.5 µg (delivered in 2 puffs of 1.25 µg each). Spiriva Respimat is also approved for the maintenance treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) as a once-daily dose of 5 µg (delivered in 2 puffs of 2.5 µg each) for the maintenance treatment of COPD. Both doses for Spiriva Respimat should be taken as 2 puffs once daily.
Tiotropium, the active ingredient in Spiriva, has been used for more than 10 years as a maintenance treatment for COPD and has extensive clinical experience with over 40 million patient-years.
“For nearly a century, Boehringer Ingelheim has been dedicated to discovering medicines for serious respiratory diseases, such as asthma,” said Sabine Luik MD, senior vice president, Medicine & Regulatory Affairs, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. “As an industry leader in respiratory, it is our goal to develop new medicines that help address unmet needs. This FDA approval enhances asthma therapy by providing healthcare providers and patients with a new class of treatment to consider.”
*Shortness of breath, cough, wheezing, chest tightness or some combination of these symptoms
About the Respimat Inhaler
The Respimat is the platform inhaler for the Boehringer Ingelheim respiratory therapies. Respimat is the only inhaler that actively delivers a slow-moving mist that helps patients inhale the medication.
The Respimat inhaler delivers medication independent of inspiratory effort. As with all inhaled drugs, the actual amount of drug delivered to the lung may depend on patient factors, such as coordination between actuation of the inhaler and inspiration through the delivery system. The duration of inhalation should be at least as long as the spray duration (1.5 seconds).
About Spiriva Respimat in COPD
This FDA approval for asthma is the second indication for Spiriva Respimat, which is already approved for the long-term, once-daily maintenance treatment of bronchospasm associated with COPD, including chronic bronchitis and emphysema and to reduce exacerbations in COPD patients. Spiriva Respimat is not indicated for the relief of acute bronchospasm.
Indications
Spiriva Respimat, 2.5 µg, is a prescription medicine used once daily (a maintenance medicine) to control symptoms of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) by relaxing your airways and keeping them open. COPD includes chronic bronchitis and emphysema. Spiriva Respimat also reduces the likelihood of COPD flare-ups (COPD exacerbations).
Spiriva Respimat, 1.25 µg, is a long-term, once-daily, prescription maintenance treatment of asthma for people 12 years and older.
Spiriva Respimat is not a treatment for sudden symptoms of asthma or COPD.
About Asthma
More than 22 million people in the U.S. have asthma. Asthma is a chronic disease and in the U.S., many patients taking currently available asthma treatments continue to experience symptoms. In a web-based survey of 1,812 asthma patients, 55 percent of patients taking asthma treatment still remained uncontrolled.
When a person with asthma comes into contact with an asthma trigger (e.g., infections, pollen, smoke), their airways can become inflamed, swollen and constricted and excess mucus is produced. These reactions can cause the airways to become narrower and irritated, making it difficult to breathe. People suffering from asthma experience recurrent episodes of wheezing, breathlessness, chest tightness and coughing. Asthma attacks occur when symptoms become more intense or frequent.
ARYAN'S BLOG 