Current Events in May 2017

It's an alarming statistic. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports deaths from Alzheimer's disease surged 55% from 1999 to 2014.

So, what exactly are we to take from that, given that estimates of future Alzheimer's cases are also rising, since the aging population is growing at a fast pace?

The CDC lists several reasons for the sharp rise in deaths. First, the aging population is growing. The first Baby Boomers turn 70 years-old this year, and each year after another group of Boomers passes the 65 year-old mark, a milestone for the development of Alzheimer's.

People are also living longer, meaning they aren't dying from other diseases. Alzheimer's is a fatal form of dementia, and if someone lives long enough, their chance of developing it -- and dying from it -- increases.

Attributed to other causes

In recent years, doctors have done a better job of diagnosing Alzheimer's. In the past, it is possible people died from Alzheimer's but their deaths were attributed to other causes.

So it doesn't necessarily mean more people are developing the disease than they otherwise would, there are simply more people now who are at risk.

Dr. Anne Schuchat, CDC's acting director, says there's another statistic that should stand out. The number of people with Alzheimer's who died at home jumped from 14% to 25% over the same period. That means caregivers -- primarily a spouse or child -- is bearing a heavy burden.

Burden on caregivers

"As the number of older Americans with Alzheimer's disease rises, more family members are taking on the emotionally and physically challenging role of caregiver than ever before," Schuchat said. "These families need and deserve our support."

Christopher Taylor, Ph.D., lead author of the study, says caregiving becomes even more important in the latter stages of the disease.

"Caregivers and patients can benefit from programs that include education about Alzheimer's disease, how to take care of themselves and their loved one, and case management to lessen the burden of care," he said. "Supportive interventions can lessen the burden for caregivers and improve the quality of care for people with Alzheimer's disease."

Early intervention and diagnosis may also slow development of the disease. People 65 and over should be aware of symptoms such as memory loss, difficulties with problem solving, or misplacing objects. The CDC says an early diagnosis can allow patients and their families to better prepare for medical and caregiving needs at all stages of the disease.

A New Jersey Congressman would like to energize the federal agencies he thinks should be doing more about the problem of fires and explosions caused by lithium-ion batteries.

The problem is not exactly new. The batteries have been causing problems for years, in hoverboards, laptops, smartphones, e-cigarettes and other gadgets, and Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-N.J.) says the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) should do something about it.

In a letter to the heads of each agency, Pallone is asking for a briefing to find out what, if anything, is being done. He notes that both agencies made an initial effort but that not much appears to have happened since then. 

Known fire risks

“For at least a decade, the known fire risks associated with lithium-ion batteries has resulted in countless Americans suffering from burns and disfigurements,” Pallone wrote. “It is a welcome start that CPSC has directed staff to address battery hazards, and that FDA has conducted a public workshop to explore the dangers of e-cigarette batteries. But work at both of your agencies has only just begun to address known battery safety problems that have harmed consumers. The federal government – through CPSC, FDA, and other agencies – must take even more decisive action with regard to the batteries themselves.”

Specifically, Pallone asked:

• What are CPSC and FDA doing to collect data on the number of incidences of dangerous battery safety failures, such as fires or explosions?
• What research has staff at CPSC and FDA done to inform policy actions, such as a consumer product safety rule or other safety standards?
• What are CPSC and FDA doing to coordinate with each other and with other federal agencies?
• Do CPSC and FDA have adequate resources to address battery safety problems in consumer devices?

Pallone is the ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. His letter went to CPSC Acting Chairman Ann Marie Buerkle and FDA Commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb.

Now President Trump is miffed at the Germans. He is quoted as telling European trade officials that Germany is selling too many cars in the United States, upsetting the balance of trade.

"The Germans are bad, very bad," Trump told EU officials in a closed-door meeting, according to a report in the German newspaper Der Spiegel. "Look at the millions of cars that they sell in the U.S. Terrible. We're going to stop that."

The German daily Süddeutsche Zeitung said many EU officials were appalled by how little the Americans appeared to know about trade policy. The guests from Washington seemed not to be aware that EU member states only negotiate trade treaties as a bloc, not as individual nations. 

No Chevrolets in Germany

The German car issue has been bugging Trump for quite awhile. In January, he told the newspaper Bild that he wanted to hit BMW with a 35 percent import duty for selling so many cars to American consumers. 

"If you go down Fifth Avenue everyone has a Mercedes-Benz in front of his house," he told Bild, while lamenting the lack of Chevrolets in Germany, apparently unaware that General Motors does not offer the brand there.

The German automakers have so far not responded in detail, although BMW CEO Harald Krueger noted earlier that BMW's biggest plant worldwide is in Spartanburg, S.C. BMW is the biggest net exporter from the United States, he said.

Volkswagen has a large plant in Chattanooga, Tenn., and Mercedes-Benz has plants in Alabama and South Carolina. 

John Morrell and Co., of Cincinnati, Ohio, is recalling approximately 210,606 pounds of Nathan's and Beef Master ready-to-eat hot dogs. 

The products may be contaminated with pieces of metal. 

There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions or injury due to consumption of these products. 

The following items produced on January 26, 2017, are being recalled:

• 14 oz. sealed film packages containing “Nathan’s SKINLESS 8 BEEF FRANKS,” with a Use By date of Aug. 19, 2017.
• 16 oz. sealed film packages containing “Curtis BEEF MASTER Beef Franks,” with a Use By date of June 15, 2017.

The recalled products, bearing establishment number “EST. 296” on the side of the package, were shipped to retail locations nationwide.

What to do

Customers who purchased the recalled products are should not consume them, but throw them away or return them to the place of purchase.

Consumers with questions about the recall may call 1 (877) 933-4625.

When medical authorities last year celebrated test results confirming the success of a new Ebola vaccine, the doctors who work on the front lines of the world’s poorest countries warned that the arrangement behind the vaccine’s development must never happen again.

In 2010, the Public Health Agency of Canada granted a small, Iowa-based pharmaceutical company called NewLink Genetics an exclusive patent to develop a vaccine against Ebola, the deadly, highly contagious fever that first erupted in central Africa in 1976.

Government health agencies here and elsewhere will grant a single corporation an exclusive patent to prevent or cure a disease that otherwise might go ignored. The thinking behind these public-private partnerships is that they give corporations an incentive to find cures for rare, unprofitable diseases. But the reality is often something different. 

Under the Ebola deal, NewLink paid $205,00 for the exclusive right to build on research conducted by Canada’s government scientists, who had already found that the Recombinant vesicular stomatitis virus–Zaire Ebola virus, or the VSV-EBOV vaccine for short–could be "highly effective" at preventing the deadly fever.

Nowhere to be seen

But three years later, when a new, devastating Ebola epidemic suddenly emerged in West Africa, the VSV-EBOV vaccine was nowhere to be seen. NewLink genetics had not so much as began Phase I clinical trials. In a race against time, Canada’s public health agency allowed a different company to work on the vaccine that year and then donated 800 vials they had created to the World Health Organization. Finally, as the outbreak ravaged West Africa, Merck & Co. purchased the rights from NewLink in November 2014 and acted quickly to roll out the vaccine. 

By 2015, Canadian scientists were able to administer VSV-EBOV to 5,800 people in Guinea. Research published late last year confirmed that VSV-EBOV is effective. But for the estimated 11,000 people who had already died and the doctors who treated them while NewLink dithered, the vaccine came far too late. 

The story “shows how the Canadian government’s exclusive licensing was unnecessary and tragically delayed urgently needed innovation,” Doctors Without Borders wrote to the United States government in January. “If at least Phase I clinical trials had been conducted prior to the most recent outbreak, the vaccine could have been deployed during the emergency and potentially helped save lives.”

Citing the Ebola example, Doctors Without Borders is now trying to convince the United States Army to back away from a deal that gives French pharmaceutical corporation Sanofi the exclusive patent to develop a vaccine against the Zika virus. “Based on our experience, leaving these decisions exclusively to a pharmaceutical company may not lead to appropriate public health outcomes,” Doctors Without Borders writes.

Some lawmakers object

A group of Congressional Democrats and Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) have already been outspoken about their objections to the Army’s proposal. They argue that granting Sanofi an exclusive deal and limiting the competition isn’t necessary to encourage innovation in this case, because pharmaceutical executives have already described the dollar signs in their eyes at the thought of a blockbuster Zika cure.

Even Sanofi acknowledges this much. “It’s important to note that dozens of other companies, many with funding from the US government, are also developing Zika vaccine candidates, some using similar approaches, others using other novel technologies,” Sanofi spokesman Ashleigh Koss writes to ConsumerAffairs. She says that winning the license from the United States government does not hinder competitors from selling a Zika vaccine in the United States that is “based on alternative technologies.” 

But front-line doctors and the objecting lawmakers do not want any potential Zika cure, be it Sanofi's or a competitor's “alternative technology,” to belong in the hands of one company. “In order to ensure that the investment made by taxpayers was worthwhile, it is critical that we ensure the vaccine to prevent against the Zika virus is accessible to anyone who requires it,” a small group of Democratic lawmakers wrote to the Army earlier this year.

At the very least, the Democrats who protested asked that the Army demand Sanofi set its Zika vaccine at a price that is affordable. But Sanofi has rejected even that request. In late April, the Department of Defense ignored the concerns and announced that it planned to grant Sanofi an exclusive, royalty-bearing license, though the details are still being finalized and critics are quickly filing appeals. 

Sanofi says taxpayers will get royalties

Stat News reported last Wednesday that Sanofi has declined to agree to price controls on its Zika vaccine. “It is unacceptable that Sanofi has rejected the Army’s request for fair pricing,” the office of Senator Bernie Sanders told Stat News in a statement. “American taxpayers have already spent more than $1 billion on Zika research and prevention efforts,” an amount that includes a $43 million grant that Congress approved to fund Sanofi’s vaccine specifically. 

On May 10, Republican Louisiana Governor Robert Speer joined the fray of concerned politicians. In letter to the Army, Speer described his state’s vulnerability to tropical diseases such as Zika, and the necessity for an affordable vaccine. “A decision to give one company, Sanofi, a monopoly, without any constraints on the price of the vaccine, could cripple state budgets and threaten public health in the event of local Zika transmission,” Speer wrote. He noted that up to 540,000 Louisiana residents are currently on Medicaid. 

Sanofi argues that it is "premature" for people to discuss the price of the Zika vaccine. “At this time, it is premature to consider or predict Zika vaccine pricing at this early stage of development,” Sanofi spokesman Ashleigh Koss writes to ConsumerAffairs. “In fact, the Phase 2 trials won’t even start until early 2018.”

But what about the taxpayers who gave Sanofi $43 million to fund the research into its vaccine, and are likely to hand over another reported $130 million? Sanofi suggests that American taxpayers will recover their investment because Sanofi might to give the United States government some royalties and “milestone payments” if the vaccine is licensed and “successful."

“Historically under the terms a licensing agreement, Sanofi would provide WRAIR [Walter Reed Army Institute of Research] with milestone payments, and if successful, royalties too if a vaccine candidate is licensed. The US government and taxpayers recover their investment,” Koss writes to ConsumerAffairs. 

Sanofi does not specify how much those royalties and milestone payments would be, should Sanofi even commit to pay them. "The details of a potential licensing agreement are still being discussed, and as noted earlier these discussions continue to be ongoing," Koss says.

NewLink still made millions off Ebola

Pharmaceutical companies can make millions off of exclusive licenses, even when they do not actually help administer the vaccine or save any lives. During the Ebola outbreak, NewLink actually profited enormously after their product reportedly sat on shelves for years. As panic over the Ebola virus spread through 2014, NewLink was able its exclusive rights to Merck for tens of millions more than they had paid the Canadian government. 

“This wasted opportunity and failure to advance the vaccine’s development nevertheless netted NewLink more than $63.5M profit when they sold the rights to pharmaceutical company Merck during the most critical phase of the outbreak,” Doctors Without Borders wrote to the United States Army. A more competitive license would have encouraged NewLink and other companies to work faster to develop the vaccine, the group argues.  

“A non-exclusive license could have allowed the Canadian government, either prior to or during the outbreak, to take more decisive action to encourage or require the timely testing and development of the vaccine.” Doctors without Borders similarly pressed the United States to consider a non-exclusive license for the Zika vaccine. 

Through a spokesman, NewLink declined to comment on their role in potentially hindering the introduction of VSV-EBOV. 

The next few weeks may be filled with an increasing number of moving vans on the nation's highways. This time of year is prime time for moving, since many families like to wait until school is out, and get settled in before it starts up again.

There are two kinds of moves -- the kind you do yourself and the kind you call in professional movers to do. The first kind you normally do only when you're young and you don't have a lot of stuff. The latter can be expensive and complicated, so careful planning is necessary.

Moving companies are often highly regulated. Not necessarily a bad thing, but the rules and policies might be different from one state to another, since lots of the regulations are at the state level.

Interstate movers are regulated at the federal level by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), part of the Transportation Department. Because you are trusting all your worldly possessions to a mover and agreeing to write a pretty big check, the FMCSA suggests you research your mover carefully.

Protect Your Move

It has set up a special website called Protect Your Move with information and advice. The website connects consumers to a database where they can review interstate moving companies by state or by name and check out the company's on-road safety performance records. The various state consumer protection agencies can also update state contact information for consumers who have questions about household goods movers.

You can also check out movers on review sites like this one. See the ConsumerAffairs Moving Buyers Guidefor reviews and more information. 

"Congress has focused important attention on the problem of rogue movers through hearings and funding of a consumer outreach program," FMCSA says on its website. "This attention has helped create the first partnership between federal, state and local officials, and the moving industry itself."

Among the things to watch out for are movers who will provide an estimate over the phone without ever looking at the items to be moved or who will load your stuff, then demand more money to deliver it to its destination.

Four documents

When moving across state lines, you need to be familiar with four documents:

• Estimate: a description, in writing, of all charges for services the mover will perform. Make sure the estimate is signed by the mover.
• Order for service: a list of everything the mover will do and when it will do it.
• Bill of lading: this is the contract between you and the mover and a receipt for your belongings. You should be given a partially completed copy of the bill of lading before the mover leaves with your stuff.
• Inventory list: this is is the receipt showing each item you shipped and its condition.

Do-it-yourself moves are simpler, but a lot more work. You can obtain box trucks from rental agencies like U-Haul, Budget, Penske, and others. But you're responsible for packing up everything and getting it on the truck.

These truck rental companies generally provide a truck for either a one-way move or a round trip, meaning you return it to the location where you got it. Rates may be structured by the day or mileage, or a combination of the two.

It's important to reserve your truck well in advance, especially if you live in a college town. The weekends before and after school ends usually book well in advance.

A hybrid of a professional and do-it-yourself move is the moving container, provided by companies like Pods and Smartbox. A large moving container is delivered to your location and you load it yourself.

When you're finished, the company picks it up and takes it to your new location, where you unload it.

See the ConsumerAffairs Moving Buyers Guide​for reviews and a "wizard" that will help you find the mover that's best for you.  

Previous studies have shown how important sleep is to all consumers’ health, but now researchers are saying it is especially important if you have risk factors for heart disease.

Researchers working with the American Heart Association recently found that these individuals were twice as likely to die of heart disease or stroke when compared to consumers without heart disease risk factors if they didn’t get more than six hours of sleep per 24 hours. The study is the first to examine how sleep duration impacted risk of death when it came to heart disease risk factors.

"If you have several heart disease risk factors, taking care of your sleep and consulting with a clinician if you have insufficient sleep is important if you want to lower your risk of death from heart disease or stroke," said study lead author Dr. Julio Fernandez-Mendoza.

Higher mortality rates

The study analyzed 1,344 randomly selected participants who agreed to spend one night in a sleep laboratory and then follow up with researchers on health conditions over a number of years.

After the one-night session, the researchers found that 39.2% of participants had at least three risk factors that classified them as having metabolic syndrome – a disorder made up of a cluster of conditions that in this case included a body mass index (BMI) over 30 and elevated cholesterol, blood pressure, fasting blood sugar, and triglyceride levels.

In the subsequent follow-up period of 16.6 years, the researchers say that 22% of the participants died; however, they said that sleep duration played a major factor in death rates among participants that exhibited signs of metabolic syndrome.

Findings showed that metabolic syndrome patients who got less than 6 hours of sleep in the lab were 2.1 times more likely to die from heart disease or stroke, while those with metabolic syndrome who got more than 6 hours of sleep were only 1.49 times more likely to die from these events. Further, the results indicated that patients with metabolic syndrome who got less than six hours of sleep were nearly twice as likely to die from any cause when compared to those who didn’t have metabolic syndrome.

Lack of sleep becoming a bigger problem

The researchers believe these findings indicate how closely tied sleep duration and mortality risk is for patients with heart disease risk factors. The findings are especially important, they say, because recent research has suggested that more and more Americans are reporting difficulties sleeping or are foregoing sleep in favor of social and leisure activities.

"Future clinical trials are needed to determine whether lengthening sleep, in combination with lowering blood pressure and glucose, improves the prognosis of people with the metabolic syndrome" said Fernandez-Mendoza.

The full study has been published in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

Over-the-counter drugs aren't always what they claim, according to a $33 million dollar settlement between Johnson & Johnson and a coalition of states. The states said the company used deceptive practices to market its drugs, including ones intended for children.

The 42 states and the District of Columbia argued that Johnson & Johnson's McNeil-PPC, Inc., claimed the drugs complied with federally mandated current Good Manufacturing Practices (“cGMP”). However, an investigation conducted by the FDA and Attorneys General across the country revealed that a number of McNeil manufacturing facilities and the medications they produced did not meet the national cGMP standards.

The investigation’s findings resulted in the recall of several adulterated McNeil drugs that were initially introduced to the market in batches. The recalled medication included Tylenol, Motrin, Benadryl, St. Joseph Aspirin, Sudafed, Pepcid, Mylanta, Rolaids, Zyrtec, and Zyrtec Eye Drops—several of which are indicated for pediatric use.   

“This is common sense: over-the-counter drugs, especially those used to treat children, must be manufactured in accordance with federally mandated standards,” said New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman. 

In addition to the 42-state case, the company has agreed to pay New York State a total of $1.3 million.

Schneiderman said McNeil violated state consumer protection laws by misrepresenting the cGMP compliance and the quality of their OTC drugs, as well as falsely reporting that these OTC drugs had sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, quantities, or qualities that they did not possess.

The following states participated in the settlement: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

Nearly 15 years ago, health officials set the minimum protein requirement for healthy adults at 0.80 grams per kilogram of body weight, but recent research shows that this recommended dietary allowance (RDA) doesn’t go far enough for seniors and the critically ill.

In a recent study, lead author Stuart Phillips of McMaster University says that the current RDA, which can be found on the nutrition labels of all food products, is too low to help these consumers maintain needed muscle mass.

"A big disservice is being done. The prescribed 0.8 g/kg/day just isn't enough protein for the elderly and people with a clinical condition. This shouldn't be communicated as what is 'allowed' or even 'recommended' to eat," he said.

More protein needed

RDA standards are currently established by the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Medicine, and are meant to meet the requirements of 97.5% of healthy individuals over the age of 19.

However, Phillips says that these standards are woefully out of date and don’t take into account the current protein needs of the elderly or critically ill. In his review, the Canadian researcher says that not enough attention is paid to milk-based proteins and certain amino acids like leucine, both of which help build muscle proteins.

He argues that the nutrients from these sources would especially help critically ill patients who are prone to losing lean body mass and points to the need for further clinical trials to prove their importance. "I think it's clear we need some longer-term clinical trials with older people on higher protein intakes. These trials need to consist of around 400 -- 500 people," he said.

Planning for protein

While the current standards are too low by Phillips' standards, he says that further research could go a long way towards changing policies that would help consumers in need of more protein. In his own diet, he says that considering protein intake is important, but not at the expense of other macronutrients.

"I enjoy a variety of foods, and the only thing I specifically focus on is limiting my intake of sugar and refined carbohydrates. But of course, given the benefits of proteins, they are a big part of what I think about when planning my meals," he said.

The full study has been published in Frontiers in Nutrition.

Not too many years ago, everyone assumed that diesel engines poured out more harmful pollutants than gas-powered cars. Then, along came the supposed "clean diesel" that automakers assured us was cleaner, more efficient, etc.

Those promises are sounding a bit hollow these days, now that Volkswagen has agreed to pay billions for using illegal software to skate through emission tests and other automakers are facing challenges to their claims.

The latest automaker facing scrutiny is General Motors, accused in a class action lawsuit of using so-called "defeat devices" in its trucks. The suit was filed today on behalf of more than 705,000 owners of 2011 to 2016 GM Duramax diesel trucks, according to a Bloomberg report. 

The suit claims the trucks emit two to five times the legal limit of pollutants when being driven normally. When being tested, the alleged defeat device kicks in, allowing the trucks to pass emission exams, the suit claims.

Fiat Chrysler is facing similar charges in a lawsuit filed earlier this week by the U.S. Justice Department. Other automakers are being investigated in Europe and elsewhere. GM had no immediate comment.

Still behind bars

A former Volkswagen executive, meanwhile, remains in prison awaiting trial on charges that he helped engineer the Volkswagen emissions fraud conspiracy.

The Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati on Wednesday affirmed a district judge's order keeping Oliver Schmidt behind bars in Michigan amid concerns he would flee the country if released on a $1.6 million bond.

Schmidt, a German citizen, formerly headed headed Volkswagen's environment and engineering office in Auburn Hills, Mich. He was arrested in January at Miami International Airport. Other German executives have fled the U.S. and prosecutors have argued that Schmidt should remain in prison because he represents an extreme flight risk. He faces up to 169 years in prison.

Besides the physical and emotional toll a disease like cancer takes, there is also the financial toll. For example, some drugs used to treat cancer are extremely expensive. For patients, there is definitely a financial aspect to managing their disease.

Now, researchers at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center are producing evidence that many women with early-stage breast cancer are getting treatment that may be a waste of money.

Specifically, they say patients often receive advanced imaging and other tests that provide little, if any medical benefit. In fact, they say these procedures could have harmful effects, and it's likely they will make the treatment more expensive.

Guidelines not being followed

Study leader Dr. Gary Lyman, a breast cancer oncologist, says current guidelines recommend against routine surveillance testing for patients in the early stage of breast cancer, but they're frequently performed anyway.

Lyman says the guidelines were drawn up to help patients and doctors make the best decisions, based on the best medical evidence. The guidelines specifically recommend against the routine use of advanced imaging scans and costly blood tests to track tumor markers.

That's because there have been several studies that have shown the patient gets no benefit, and there's a strong likelihood of false-positive results that can lead to unnecessary procedures, such as radiation treatment.

Message not getting through

But the Hutchinson researchers say the message isn't getting through. Their review of records in more than 2,000 early-stage breast cancer cases found that 37% percent received tumor-marker tests during the post-treatment surveillance period. On average, there were 2.8 tests per patient.

While there are obvious health concerns, Lyman said these patients faced costs higher than the patients who didn't get the extra tests and procedures.

"We believe one of the best ways we can help patients reduce their financial burden is for us to reinforce the message with oncologists that these tests have been shown to provide no benefit for this particular group of patients,” said Lyman.

Lyman and the research team will present the findings early next month at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting in Chicago.

The cost of treating breast cancer varies by the stage, with the lowest costs during early stages. An analysis of treatment costs by the National Institutes of Health placed average costs, in the first 24 months after diagnosis, at $72,000 for early-stage breast cancer.

Last year, demand for fitness trackers exploded as consumers rushed to stores and online sites to purchase the devices. But while many of them may be great for counting steps and monitoring your heart rate, a new study shows that they aren’t all that accurate when it comes to tracking the number of calories you burn.

Researchers from Stanford University analyzed data from seven of the most popular commercial devices and found that they varied widely in how accurate they were at assessing the number of calories users burned. However, even the best device was off by an average of 27%.

“The heart rate measurements performed far better than we expected, but the energy expenditure measures were way off the mark. The magnitude of just how bad they were surprised me,” said senior author Euan Ashley.

Inaccurate measurements

The study analyzed data from 60 participants who wore a fitness tracker while using a treadmill or stationary bicycle. The measurements on each of the fitness trackers – which included the Apple Watch, Basis Peak, Fitbit Surge, Microsoft Band, Mio Alpha 2, PulseOn, and Samsung Gear S2 – were then compared to measurements obtained from FDA-approved medical devices.

The results showed that all devices were pretty accurate when it came to measuring heart rate, with the average error coming in at or under 5.1%. However, the measurements for calories burned, or energy expenditure (EE), were far off the mark. The most accurate device, the Apple Watch, had an average error of 27% for this metric, while the least accurate device, the Samsung Gear S2, was off by an average of 93%.

While the researchers were unable to determine the exact reason for the devices’ inaccuracies, they theorize that it likely has something to do with trying to fit one algorithm to a wide range of people.

"My take on this is that it's very hard to train an algorithm that would be accurate across a wide variety of people because energy expenditure is variable based on someone's fitness level, height and weight, etc.,” said study author Anna Scherbina. She points out, however, that heart rate data was probably more accurate because it relies on direct measurements.

Upload your data

To pursue the issue further, the researchers have created a website where consumers can upload their fitness tracker data so that it can be analyzed for a larger study. They say that the next step will be to see how these devices perform out in the real world instead of just in a laboratory setting.

The full study has been published in the Journal of Personalized Medicine.

In states where they are allowed to, auto insurance companies look at customers' credit scores, taking them into account when setting rates.

While it might not seem fair, insurance companies point to correlations between low credit scores and high claims.

So given that insurance companies factor in your credit score, just how much money does that cost you when the premium bill arrives? Personal finance site NerdWallet crunched the numbers to find out.

The analysts looked at quotes for a 30 year-old driver with poor credit and compared the rates with an identical driver who had good credit.

If you have poor credit and happen to live in Michigan, you'll pay the most. The NerdWallet analysis found the rate disparity totaled $1,969 a year, or an extra $164 a month.

Second, third, and fourth on the list are Louisiana, Delaware, and Washington, DC, where drivers with poor credit all pay between $1,354 and $1,340 more per year than identical drivers with good credit. New Jersey drivers with poor credit pay an extra $1,204 per year in premiums.

Wyoming rate disparity is the lowest

Wyoming drivers with poor credit are punished the least. Their premiums average only $275 a year more than drivers with a good credit score.

Of course, drivers in California, Hawaii, and Massachusetts don't pay anything extra for a low credit score, since insurance companies are barred from using credit information to set rates in those states.

The NerdWallet analysis also came up with this interesting factoid: the average rate discrepancy between all states that adjust rates based on credit scores is $690 a year.

But the rate increase for drivers in any credit category who cause an accident resulting in a claim is $446 -- meaning insurance companies charge you more if they think you might cause an accident than if you actually cause one.

The takeaway from the study is this: it's important to shop around for car insurance because rates can vary widely. It's also important to improve your credit score.

The best way to do that is always pay your bills on time, every time. Also, keep credit card balances well below the credit limits.

Pier 1 Imports of Fort Worth, Texas, is recalling about 2,600 Temani ivory wicker chair, settee and ottoman collections sold in the U.S. and Canada.

The paint used on the wicker furniture can contain excessive levels of lead, which is a violation of the federal lead paint standard.

No incidents or injuries are reported.

This recall involves the Pier 1 Imports Temani collection, which includes a chair, settee and ottoman. They are ivory colored, made of rattan wicker, and were sold without a cushion.

The chair measures 29 inches wide, 29.5 inches deep and 35.5 inches high, the settee measures 51.5 inches wide, 29.5 inches deep and 35.5 inches high, and the ottoman measures 27 inches wide, 18 inches deep and 16 inches high.

The furniture has a Pier 1 Imports logo on the underside of each chair, settee and ottoman.

The recall involves only the ivory-colored Temani collection.

The furniture, manufactured in Indonesia, was sold exclusively at Pier 1 Imports stores nationwide and online at www.Pier1.com from March 2014, to April 2017, for between $140 and $560.

What to do

Consumers should stop using the recalled furniture immediately and return it to any Pier 1 Imports store for a full refund or a merchandise credit.

Consumers may contact Pier 1 Imports toll-free at 855-513-5140 from 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. (CT) Monday through Friday, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. (CT) Saturday, or 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. (CT) Sunday or online at www.Pier1.com and click on “Product Notes & Recalls” at the bottom of the page for more information.

Southeast Toyota Distributors (SET) is recalling 1,325 model year 2013-2017 Toyota Tundras and Sequoias accessorized with Southeast Toyota accessory 20-inch Rockstar wheels.

The Rockstar wheels, installed by SET or an SET dealer, has lugnuts that may crack and detach causing the wheels to separate from the vehicle, increasing the risk of a crash.

What to do

SET will notify owners, and dealers will install new replacement lugnuts, free of charge. The recall is expected to begin June 23, 2017.

Owners may contact SET customer service at 1-866-405-4226. SET's number for this recall is SET17A.