A study of children between the ages of 11 and 17 has revealed that suicide risk increases with the number of changes in residence.

To reach this conclusion, Ping Qin and colleagues from the University of Aarhus used data from Danish population registries to identify 120,000 children born in Denmark between 1978 and 1995.

Using other sources, they subsequently determined  that 4,160 of these people attempted suicide during adolescence. Seventy-nine completed the act.

The scientists then used logistic regression to demonstrate the increased risk of attempted and completed suicide associated with changes in home address. The more frequently the kids moved, the higher was the suicide risk.

Subjects that moved more than 3 times had twice the risk of suicidal behavior as those that stayed put throughout their early years. Those who moved more than 10 times experienced a four-fold bump in such risk.

The finding was not affected by year of birth, birth order, birthplace, age when the move took place, gender, presence of 2 parents, or parental age at birth.

“It’s understandable that a lot of moves increase people’s risk for suicide,” Nadine Kaslow, the chief psychologist at Emory University told ABC news. “Moving is all about losing things.”

But Kaslow cautioned that moving might be a marker for problems rather than the proximate cause of suicidal behavior. “There could be all sorts of other family stressors that are associated with moves,” she reasoned.

The write-up appears in Archives of General Psychiatry.

“It is always good to involve children in the process, motivating their participation in all decisions, plans and practical work,” wrote the authors.

Kaslow recommended having the children visit their new home and, after the move, their old one. But she added the vast majority of children do adjust. “Some kids are at increased risk, but many…do just fine,” she told ABC News.

A prospective clinical trial of the diabetes drug Avandia has failed to clear the air regarding the blockbuster’s potential to raise cardiac risk.

GlaxoSmithKline, the drug’s maker had hoped that the so-called Record trial would quell concerns that have dogged Avandia since 2007, when a report suggested it was associated with an increased risk of heart attacks compared with other diabetes drugs.

Avandia’s annual sales fell 55% to $1.29 billion since that report surfaced.

On the surface, the Glaxo-funded trial looked promising. Newcastle University’s Philip Home and colleagues reported in last week’s Lancet that people taking Avandia did not experience increased hospitalization rates or cardiovascular mortality compared with those taking other diabetes drugs.

Home’s position on the matter, as reported by the Wall Street Journal, was that Record provided “a robust assessment of [Avandia's] cardiovascular safety.”
 
But in an accompanying editorial, Ravi Retnakaran and Bernard Zinman of Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto said “definitive conclusions” about the drugs cardiovascular risk “remain elusive” because of the study’s methodological problems.

The cardiovascular event rate observed in Record was lower than expected, they said. That meant it wasn’t possible to reach firm conclusions.

The low event rate might have been caused by the coincident use of cholesterol-lowering statins in the Avandia group, or by the unexpectedly high patient drop-out rate from the study, which may have been prompted by safety concerns about Avandia that arose during the trial.

Roughly 45% of the subjects dropped out of the study before it concluded.

Amid the controversy, David Robbins, a professor of medicine at Kansas found a common denominator everyone could agree with. Avandia certainly did not improve cardiovascular outcomes, he reasoned to the Journal. “What we really want in diabetes is…drugs that are reducing cardiovascular events.”