By Miriam Falco
CNN Medical News Managing Editor

20 years ago today, the Berlin Wall began to come down. I vividly remember standing in the CNN newsroom with tears rolling down my cheeks, watching images of people crawling on top of the wall. It was something I never imagined I would see, having spent the first half of my life growing up in West Berlin. Now a lot has happened in the past two decades – on both sides of the pond. But one of the things that sticks in my mind as a person, as the journalist in me continues to cover health reform in the U.S., is that growing up as a child in West Germany, I always had health insurance. Now it wasn't the upper-echelon, "you'll get a private room in the hospital" kind of coverage. But if my siblings or I were sick, we went to the doctor – it was as simple as that. Not so in the United States, where over 45 million Americans lack any kind of health insurance and many million more may be covered, but are one major illness away from bankruptcy.

The reunification of Germany didn't come cheap and the German government is facing fiscal crises too, including a health care system that is going broke. But as the years have gone by my friends in Deutschland who needed treatment for cancer or multiple sclerosis or the common cold – got it, no matter if they had a job or not. Now the U.S. Senate has been tossed the health reform hot potato, after the House of Representatives narrowly passed its health care bill this weekend. We’ll see what happens next.

Do you think every American has a right to health coverage? Or does the ongoing political battle cause your eyes to glaze over? Tell us what you think.

Editor's Note: Medical news is a popular but sensitive subject rooted in science. We receive many comments on this blog each day; not all are posted. Our hope is that much will be learned from the sharing of useful information and personal experiences based on the medical and health topics of the blog. We encourage you to focus your comments on those medical and health topics and we appreciate your input. Thank you for your participation.

By Miriam Falco
CNN Medical Managing Editor

For all the (legitimate) talk about the new H1N1 influenza virus, it's worth a reminder that this new flu strain is not all we have to worry about as fall turns into winter (except for Colorado, which evidently has winter now).

There's also something called "RSV." As a medical reporter, I've come across this term a few times. As a new mom of a 6-month-old, I've paid a little more attention and did some research. RSV, or respiratory syncytial virus, can cause upper- and lower-respiratory infections.
The symptoms include runny nose, dry cough, low-grade fever, sore throat, mild headache and general discomfort. But in severe cases, it can cause bronchiolitis (infection of the tiny airways in the lungs) and pneumonia. According to the Mayo Clinic, severe symptoms include "high fever, severe cough, wheezing - a high-pitched noise that's usually heard on breathing out (exhaling), difficulty breathing, and bluish color of the skin due to lack of oxygen. "

RSV is so common that virtually every child will be infected before his or her second birthday. Fortunately, only a small percentage of infants develop severe illness. Luckily for my little guy, he's apparently no longer in the highest risk group, since most children hospitalized for RSV infection are younger than 6 months of age, according to the CDC. However, a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in February suggests that among children 5 and younger, RSV infection is responsible for approximately 1of every 334 hospitalizations, 1 of every 38 visits to an emergency department, and 1 of every 13 visits to a primary care office each year in the United States.

Older people and adults with underlying illness can also be affected, but young children are at highest risk. One way to limit the risk to your child is to require folks to wash their hands before picking up your baby. Kissing can also spread RSV.

On August 30, the CDC stopped counting only H1N1 hospitalizations and deaths and started counting all hospitalizations for H1N1 and pneumonia; the new numbers will probably include cases of RSV too.

Consider this your reminder that in addition to H1N1 or swine flu, there are other viruses that lurk around. So if you or your children or parents get sick, it's not automatically always swine flu.

Have you had an experience with RSV that you can share with others?

By Miriam Falco
CNN Medical News Managing Editor

The U.S. Department of Agriculture symbolically slapped the news media on the hand Thursday for perpetuating the term "swine" flu in reports about the new H1N1 strain of influenza that's spreading across the world.

In a written statement and during two telebriefings, the USDA reminded reporters that since last Spring they have “consistently asked that the media stop calling this ‘novel’ pandemic virus ‘swine flu.’”

So what's the big deal? Health officials say the H1N1 virus more closely resembles the pandemic Spanish flu of 1918 than a swine flu. The USDA says struggling pork farmers are being hurt in a big way when the virus is called “swine flu.” USDA officials stress that “ you cannot get infected with 2009 pandemic virus from eating pork or pork products."

"Each time the media uses the phrase ‘swine flu’ a hog farmer, their workers and their families suffer,” says USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack in a statement posted on the USDA Web site. “It is simply not fair or correct to associate the 2009 pandemic H1N1 influenza with hogs, an animal that does not play a role in the ongoing transmission of the pandemic strain."

USDA officials point out that China is not importing U.S. pork because of the erroneous belief that eating pork is tied to the spread of this new type of flu.

I am a member of the news media and I have used both H1N1 and “swine flu” in my stories because some people know the virus only as “swine flu,” which is what it was originally labeled.

So how did the confusion start?

Back in the spring, when we first heard about "swine" flu, it was given that name because initial tests showed it resembled some known viruses that have circulated in pigs. However, the CDC explains on its Web site, "…further study has shown that this new virus is very different from what normally circulates in North American pigs." The agency explains that this new H1N1 virus has genetic material from viruses found in European and Asian pigs, as well as genes from birds and humans. Plus, USDA officials point out that this is a human virus because it was first detected in humans. They say there are no reports of H1N1 circulating in any swine herds here in the United States. They acknowledge that Canada, Australia and Argentina have found H1N1 in a few pigs. And Deputy Agriculture Secretary Dr. Kathleen Merrigan says she wouldn’t be surprised if the H1N1 virus does eventually surface in U.S. pig herds. But she stresses that pigs infected with the virus would not be sent to market.

Health officials keep reminding us that the best way to avoid getting sick with this new H1N1 flu virus is to take the following precautions:
- Wash your hands frequently.
- Cough into a tissue or your sleeve, not into your hand.
- Get a regular seasonal flu shot now, and the H1N1 flu vaccine when it becomes available, allowing the highest risk groups to get their shots first.

And please don't call it swine flu.

Editor's Note: Medical news is a popular but sensitive subject rooted in science. We receive many comments on this blog each day; not all are posted. Our hope is that much will be learned from the sharing of useful information and personal experiences based on the medical and health topics of the blog. We encourage you to focus your comments on those medical and health topics and we appreciate your input. Thank you for your participation.

By Miriam Falco
CNN Medical Managing Editor

When H1N1, better known as swine flu, first appeared in April, I saw a lot of video of people wearing face masks. Video from Mexico showed people wearing surgical masks in their effort to protect themselves from this new type of flu. But I also remember when we covered SARS and the H5N1 bird flu, we made a point that those often loose-fitting surgical masks don't protect you from getting sick. (I'm talking about in a non-hospital setting) That's because people usually aren't wearing them properly.

I remember one particular bit of video showing a man crossing the street with the mask covering only his mouth, not his nose. The firmer, more industrial strength N-95 masks are much more effective. But they are hard to wear for a long time because they can make breathing difficult. So I was surprised to see the latest CDC guidelines do recommend face masks in certain settings.

I asked a few experts about this, including the CDC's main point person for the H1N1, Dr. Anne Schuchat, who is the director of the CDC's National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. She told me that in certain settings, particularly if it's difficult to separate sick people from those who are healthy, wearing a mask can help reduce the amount of virus being spread by blocking some of the virus-carrying droplets that can float through the air. As I look at the guidelines on the CDC Web site, I see some other plausible situations, where face masks are recommended. For instance, when you're sharing common spaces with another family member or when you're breastfeeding.

I also asked Dr. Manoj Jain, an infectious disease expert and adjunct professor at Emory University. I thought he had a pretty good explanation: "The masks are helpful because it makes us more conscious of where our hands are going and we are less likely to put our hands on our nose and mouth. Because that's how the virus gets into your system and can make you sick." He also says wearing a mask can make you more conscious about washing your hands and could ultimately lead to behavior change.

A small study this month in the Annals of Internal Medicine found that if people who had seasonal flu and their families wore surgical face masks and washed their hands in the first 36 hours of symptoms, healthy family members got less seasonal flu. Researchers think the principle would hold true for H1N1 too.

Of course, you don't have to wear a mask. Health officials remind us daily that there are simple ways to protect yourself from the flu and reduce spreading it if you have it already. Cough into a tissue or into your sleeve, not your hands. Wash your hands frequently – even if you cough into your sleeve - because the virus may have lurked on a surface you touched. Get a flu shot – both for the regular flu and for H1N1 when it becomes available. And if you do get sick, stay home, so you don't make other people sick. Other tips can be found at www.flu.gov.

Will you wear a mask? Are you taking special precautions to protect yourself from H1N1? Are you concerned?

Editor's Note: Medical news is a popular but sensitive subject rooted in science. We receive many comments on this blog each day; not all are posted. Our hope is that much will be learned from the sharing of useful information and personal experiences based on the medical and health topics of the blog. We encourage you to focus your comments on those medical and health topics and we appreciate your input. Thank you for your participation.

By Miriam Falco
CNN Medical News Managing Editor

Expectant parents have a lot to think about as the birth of their child approaches. Parenting classes can provide tips on a variety of topics including breathing techniques to help get through labor, breastfeeding and how to place your baby in the bassinet or crib to avoid sudden infant death syndrome. SIDS is the leading cause of death among babies age 1 month to 1 year. According to the National Institutes of Health, most of these unexplained deaths occur between the ages of 2 and 4 months.

The exact cause is not known, but experts believe that the how a baby sleeps can play a big role in preventing a baby from dying. Having the baby sleep on his or her back is the No. 1 recommendation. Keeping the baby's bed free of anything that might suffocate him or her is also very important, which is why the American Academy of Pediatrics has the following guideline:

"Keep soft objects and loose bedding out of the crib: Soft objects such as pillows, quilts, comforters, sheepskins, stuffed toys, and other soft objects should be kept out of an infant's sleeping environment." The group also says that if bumper pads are used, they should be “thin, firm, well secured, and not pillow-like.” Further, the academy says, “loose bedding such as blankets and sheets may be hazardous."

Now a new study finds that would-be parents are getting a mixed message, at least from some ads and photos in popular magazines. According to this study, researchers looked at nearly 400 pictures in 28 popular magazines. Among photos that were used in advertising and articles, researchers found only 36 pictures depicting children in a safe sleeping position.

Most of the images pictured infant sleep environments that did not reflect AAP guidelines to prevent SIDS.

It reminded me of some of the images I saw surfing the Web as I was looking to outfit my baby’s nursery and put things on my registry for my shower.

I saw bedding sets with thick bumpers and blankets, which was confusing to me because I thought the only thing that's supposed to be in my baby's bed is the firm mattress, a sheet and him. My confusion seems to mirror what the researchers of this new study found. They found that "messages in the media are inconsistent with health care messages, create confusion and misinformation...and may lead inadvertently to unsafe practices."

Have you seen images of babies wrapped in blankets and/or placed in super-soft bedding? Would images like this influence how you put your baby to sleep?

Editor's Note: Medical news is a popular but sensitive subject rooted in science. We receive many comments on this blog each day; not all are posted. Our hope is that much will be learned from the sharing of useful information and personal experiences based on the medical and health topics of the blog. We encourage you to focus your comments on those medical and health topics and we appreciate your input. Thank you for your participation.

By Miriam Falco
CNN Medical News managing editor

Last October, I blogged about why health officials say pregnant women need to get a flu shot. (Full Story) Reporting on the need to get vaccinated against the influenza virus is something medical reporters do every year. Why in October? Because that's when the vaccine is usually available and when flu season is right around the corner. Why pregnant women? Well, as I learned last year, if a pregnant woman gets the flu, it could lead to serious complications including pneumonia, dehydration and hospitalization. Because pregnancy changes a woman's immune system, she can get a lot sicker than women who aren't pregnant. She can even die from it.

What was even more alarming was learning that the flu can also lead to preterm labor and fetal demise, according to one of the top flu experts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr. Carolyn Bridges. The CDC also found that less than 14 percent of pregnant women between the ages of 18 and 44 actually got a flu shot during the 2006-2007 flu season. I was pregnant last October. After speaking to health officials and several moms who had experienced the flu and told me they’d never been so sick before, I decided that for me, avoiding the risks to me and my unborn child was worth getting a flu shot. Apparently it worked because I didn't get sick.

But now it's August, not October. So why are we thinking about the flu already? Because of the new strain, H1N1. Health officials are now saying that pregnant women not only need to get a seasonal flu shot, but they also should be vaccinated against this new, 2009 H1N1 pandemic flu, better known as the "swine flu" (even though pigs have nothing to do with it) - once the vaccine has been tested and deemed safe.

Last week, the CDC's point person for this new strain of flu virus, Dr. Anne Schuchat, told reporters that pregnant women are “disproportionately” affected by this virus and that they have a fourfold increase of being hospitalized compared with the general population.

The H1N1 virus is causing worse complications and severe infections in pregnant women, Schuchat said.

A study published in the medical journal The Lancet found that pregnant women are more likely to die from this virus and that vaccinating them is one important step to prevent such serious complications.

Health officials told reporters this week that once the H1N1 vaccine is proven safe and becomes available, those in the high priority groups will have to get two H1N1 flu shots – three weeks apart, in order to get full immunity. Those high priority groups include not only pregnant women, but also household contacts of children under 6 months of age (because those children can't get the vaccine); children and young adults age 6 months to 24 years; health care workers and emergency medical personnel; and non-elderly adults with pre-existing medical conditions. It will take two weeks after the second flu shot to build up to full immunity, which means the whole process to protect yourself from H1N1 takes a total of five weeks. Since this new flu vaccine isn't expected to roll out until mid-October, health officials don't expect the population to be protected until the end of December.

Given the experience earlier this spring, where swine flu rapidly spread in some schools and colleges and other places with lots of people in close quarters, health officials are bracing for a big uptick in people getting sick as the regular flu and the new H1N1 flu viruses spread during the cold weather months.

So this year, I once again am pondering what to do. This time it's a lot more difficult because come October, my little son will be just old enough to fall into the priority "six months to 24 years-old" category. Should he get two brand new flu shots plus a seasonal flu shot? It's not an easy decision. Fortunately, I still have a little time to think this over.

How about you? Are you pregnant? Will you get seasonal and H1N1 flu shots when available? Are you a parent of a newborn or infant and are you planning vaccinations for yourself or your child?

Editor’s Note: Medical news is a popular but sensitive subject rooted in science. We receive many comments on this blog each day; not all are posted. Our hope is that much will be learned from the sharing of useful information and personal experiences based on the medical and health topics of the blog. We encourage you to focus your comments on those medical and health topics and we appreciate your input. Thank you for your participation.

By Miriam Falco
CNN Medical News Managing Editor

About 20 years ago, when I was barely out of college and a struggling journalist, I developed a horrible sore throat. I didn't have a regular doctor, so I had my throat examined in a small clinic in a strip mall. The doctor figured I had strep throat, but the test came back negative. Still, she prescribed antibiotics and sent me on my way. The next morning, I woke up with little red dots all over my body, so I went back to the clinic. The same doc looked at me, said I had hives, harrumpfed that I was allergic to penicillin and gave me a prescription for a different antibiotic. The sore throat eventually went away, but every time since that I've gone to a doctor or dentist and I’ve listed penicillin as one of my allergies. Still, I always wondered if I really had an allergy; I took penicillin frequently during my childhood and never had an allergic reaction.

I came across a recent study published in the Annals of Emergency Medicine that said 80 to 90 percent of people who report being allergic to penicillin are really not.

This new study sought to determine how many patients who came into an Emergency Department (ED) and said they are allergic to penicillin really were allergic. Using two back-to-back skin tests, doctors in the ED at the University of Cincinnati tested 150 patients who reported having a penicillin allergy. 91 percent of these patients tested negative for the allergy.

For Dr. Joseph Moellman, an associate professor at the University of Cincinnati Department of Emergency Medicine, who conducted this study, finding out that taking the additional 30 minutes to conduct these two tests has several important implications. "We see a lot of patients with pneumonia, with sepsis, for which penicillin is a great drug...It's also a lot cheaper." Moellman says the average cost saving is $71. So if, for example, a pneumonia patient is in the hospital for a week, and possibly needs antibiotics every six hours – significant savings can add up very quickly. Plus, using penicillin where it's known to work allows doctors to save the few newer antibiotics we have for illnesses that have become resistant to penicillin.

"This is good information," says Dr. Clifford Bassett, an allergy expert and spokesperson for the American Academy for Allergy, Asthma and Immunology. "The fact that the test is fast and inexpensive is helpful." But he did point out that there has been a shortage of proper testing agents for penicillin. Once these testing agents become more widely available again, Bassett says that this test could be done in other settings too, not just in an emergency room, but also in a regular doctor's practice.

He adds that some previous research suggests that some people who genuinely were allergic to penicillin could lose their allergy if they don't come in contact with this drug for 10 years or more.

Of course neither doctor could explain whether I really am allergic to penicillin. But Moellman explained that sometimes a virus itself can cause hives, and Bassett told me that usually it takes more than 24 hours for a penicillin allergy to become evident. I, for one, plan to get tested to determine whether I truly am allergic to penicillin.

Have you been told you're allergic to penicillin? Would you consider getting tested?

Editor's Note: Medical news is a popular but sensitive subject rooted in science. We receive many comments on this blog each day; not all are posted. Our hope is that much will be learned from the sharing of useful information and personal experiences based on the medical and health topics of the blog. We encourage you to focus your comments on those medical and health topics and we appreciate your input. Thank you for your participation.

By Miriam Falco
CNN Medical Managing Editor

In a study published this week in the Annals of Internal Medicine, Canadian researchers found that colonoscopies, the procedure used by doctors to examine the colon for abnormalities and growths, is useful for finding cancer or pre-cancerous growths in the left side of the colon, but not so useful at finding them in the right side of the colon.

Now I’ve done a lot of stories on colon cancer and colonoscopies, but left and right sides of the colon haven’t come up that often.

Researchers think that colonoscopies may not detect as many cancers in the right, or “ascending” part of the colon because it’s the farthest region to reach with the probe, making it difficult to access.

But when I first read the study I wondered what people will think when they read the study results? Possibly that colonoscopies don’t work?

And the story headlines confirm my hunch:

“Colonoscopy Screenings May Not Be That Accurate”
“Colonoscopies Prevent Fewer Cancer Deaths Than Thought in Study”
“Colonoscopy saves lives, but study finds flaws”
“Colonoscopies miss many cancers, study finds”

It’s important to understand that colonoscopies are a screening tool, meant to detect the earliest signs of cancer. Having the screening at the recommended age of 50 can locate and remove pre-cancerous polyps, preventing the development of cancer. But, like other screening tools, the procedure isn’t perfect.

The accompanying editorial suggests doctors may mislead patients into thinking that the screening reduces the risk of colorectal cancer death by 90 percent, when it’s closer to 60 or 70 percent. The American Cancer Society told me that they conservatively say colonoscopies reduce the risk for colorectal cancer by about 50 percent.

I spoke with Dr. Hal Sox, editor of the journal, to get clarity on the message they are trying to send. Sox said the message is not to discourage people from getting a colonoscopy, but to stress that it’s not a perfect screening tool. A clean colonoscopy doesn’t mean that people who have other symptoms, such as blood in the stool, shouldn’t have themselves checked by a doctor.

Colorectal cancer is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer and the third-leading cause of cancer death in both men and women in the United States. Getting screened and finding polyps or tumors early saves lives.

Have you had a colonoscopy? If not, why?

Editor's Note: Medical news is a popular but sensitive subject rooted in science. We receive many comments on this blog each day; not all are posted. Our hope is that much will be learned from the sharing of useful information and personal experiences based on the medical and health topics of the blog. We encourage you to focus your comments on those medical and health topics and we appreciate your input. Thank you for your participation.

By Miriam Falco
CNN Medical Managing Editor

A German hospital announced this week that a 42-year old American living in Berlin who did not want to be identified had come to them three years ago for treatment. It was determined that he had acute leukemia (blood cancer) and was HIV positive too.

After a bone marrow transplant, it appears that not only did the man’s cancer go away, so did the virus that causes AIDS.  This has been reported worldwide as a "cure" for AIDS. But even the doctors involved in this case say they don't know if they cured this man of HIV.  So what's all the fuss about? Should HIV patients be treated with a bone marrow transplant?

One of America’s top AIDS expert doesn’t think so. "This is interesting but not a practical application. It's not feasible and has extraordinarily limited practical application" long-time AIDS researcher and Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Dr. Anthony Fauci told CNN.  He and other researchers first learned of this case back in February. But this study of one patient has not yet been published or been reviewed by other AIDS experts. It didn't get much attention back then because of the many limitations it has.  Dr. Robert Gallo is one of the scientists who discovered HIV. "While this procedure might help a very small minority of people living with AIDS,” Gallo says, “it is by no means the answer to the world's HIV/AIDS pandemic."

Doctors first began treating the cancer with chemotherapy. They also gave him anti-retrovirals to contain the virus that causes AIDS. Doctors said at a press conference this week that the patient did go into remission, but eventually the cancer came back. The next step to treat the cancer was a bone marrow transplant, which is common for leukemia patients.

His doctors emphasized that without further treatment, without the bone marrow transplant, he would have died of cancer – not HIV or AIDS.

But the patient’s physician, Dr. Gero Huetter, wanted to combine the cancer treatment with something he had heard about in medical school 12 years ago. That’s when researchers found out that a certain genetic mutation prevents the virus from getting into a person’s cells. But to be resistant to HIV, one has to have inherited this mutation from both parents.

So when it came to looking for a bone marrow donor for his patient, Huetter decided to see if he could find a donor that not only was a marrow match for his patient, but one who also had these two copies of the genetic mutation to see if they would get the bonus of treating the HIV, while treating the more urgent need – cancer.

Here's where the German doctors admit they were very lucky. They told reporters they normally find one to five qualified donors for their patients in need of a transplant. In this case they found 80 donors. So they systematically tested each donor for the mutation and when they came to the 61st potential donor they hit the jackpot. Nearly two years after the bone marrow transplant, the patient is still in remission from his cancer and he doesn't seem to have any detectable HIV either.

This is probably why many newspaper headlines interpreted the success as being a cure.

However there are many caveats to this story.

1. Even though their tests do not show a presence of HIV in his system, doesn't mean it's not there. This virus is known for hiding well and popping up later. It's been seen before in patients taking anti-retroviral drugs. It is possible that if more sophisticated tests were used on this patient, they would detect the virus that is still in his body. So it's still not entirely clear that he is HIV-free.

2. The chances of finding a bone marrow donor with two copies of this genetic mutation for everyone one of the 33 million people worldwide living with HIV or AIDS is not realistic because only one percent of Caucasians and zero percent of African Americans or Asians have this particular genetic mutation.

3. Bone marrow transplants are dangerous for patients. Before they can get the donated stem cells that will replace their own, they have to take strong chemotherapy to destroy their own bone marrow - leaving them without an immune system to fight off any disease - until the transplanted bone marrow can make new blood cells. Plus patients run the risk of rejecting the new cells, which means they have to take immune-suppressing drugs for the rest of their life.

4. Bone marrow transplants are very expensive and not an option for many people living with this disease around the world.

Both the doctors in Berlin and AIDS experts we've spoken with say this is a "proof of principle." "It's an interesting case for researchers," according to Dr. Rudolf Tauber, from the Charite hospital in Berlin, where the patient was treated. The hope is that this one case could lead to future treatments. Dr. Gallo says, "If patients living with HIV and AIDS have access and can adhere to today's retroviral therapy, many will live longer, healthier lives, perhaps full length lives."

Editor’s Note: Medical news is a popular but sensitive subject rooted in science. We receive many comments on this blog each day; not all are posted. Our hope is that much will be learned from the sharing of useful information and personal experiences based on the medical and health topics of the blog. We encourage you to focus your comments on those medical and health topics and we appreciate your input. Thank you for your participation.

by Miriam Falco
Managing Editor CNN Medical

A new study presented at a major heart conference over the weekend suggests that many of us who have good cholesterol numbers could help prevent heart disease by taking cholesterol-lowering drugs. Currently these drugs, known as statins, are prescribed only for people with existing heart problems and/or high bad cholesterol.

Could I be one of those candidates? Maybe I am, I don’t know. My cholesterol level is well below 200, which is what folks should aim for. But It’s been a couple of years since I last had my cholesterol checked, and I’m not sure how good my LDL, or “bad” cholesterol level is.

More important, people who participated in this study may have had optimal ‘bad” cholesterol levels, but they had high levels of “high-sensitivity C-reactive protein” or hsCRP, an indicator of inflammation in the body, which can contribute to the clogging of arteries. You may have had heard about CRP, but I for one have never had it tested.

Now, after folks read about this new research, they may be asking their doctors if they should get the test.

The men who particpated in this trial were 50 and older; the women were over age 60.

But as Dr. Elizabeth Nabel, director of the National Heart, Lung, Blood Institute, points out, adults at any age who are at "intermediate risk" for heart disease probably will want to talk to their doctor about having a 'high-sensitivity C-reactive protein or 'hsCRP" test.

How do you know if you are at intermediate risk?  Nabel suggests one way to determine your risk for heart disease is by checking the so-called "Framingham score," which estimates the risk of developing coronary heart disease within 10 years based on risk factors including age, gender, cholesterol levels, blood pressure and if you smoke.

By using a simple risk calculator, which can be found here, anyone can calculate his or her risk for heart attack and coronary death.

If your score suggests you have a 10-20 percent risk of having a heart attack within the next 10 years, you are at “intermediate” risk.

Dr. Paul Ridker, from Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts who is the lead researcher of this big study says there are two types of CRP tests – but only one tests for the high-sensitivity C-reactive protein. So patients who want to know if they should be taking statins even though they have good cholesterol levels, need to ask for an “hsCRP” blood test. The regular CRP test isn't sensitive enough to detect the risky inflammation in people with normal to good cholesterol levels.

Do you think you might get your hsCRP tested?

Editor’s Note: Medical news is a popular but sensitive subject rooted in science. We receive many comments on this blog each day; not all are posted. Our hope is that much will be learned from the sharing of useful information and personal experiences based on the medical and health topics of the blog. We encourage you to focus your comments on those medical and health topics and we appreciate your input. Thank you for your participation.