Judy Foreman

Nationally Sindicated Fitness, Health, and Medicine Columnist

  • HOME
  • Books
  • BIO
  • BLOG
  • COLUMNS
  • Q&A
  • PRESS
  • CONTACT

Column Search

Column Categories

  • General Medicine
  • Women's issues
    • Breast Cancer
    • Hormone replacement
  • Cancer
  • Alternative Medicine
  • Nutrition
  • Exercise/Fitness
  • Heart Disease
  • Aging
  • Pain
  • Dental
  • Allergies
  • Mental Health
    • Depression
    • Alcohol
    • Loneliness/Loss
    • Sleep Problems
    • Anxiety

A `big bad ugly disease’

August 4, 1997 by Judy Foreman

As incidence of diabetes rises, a major effort is launched to head off costly and debilitating illness

Chances are, you think of diabetes as a problem of sheer bad luck — either you get it or you don’t.

But preliminary studies have suggested that, far from being inevitable, diabetes may actually be preventable, even if you’re among the 21 million Americans at higher-than-normal risk. 

Now, a major study under way at two hospitals in Boston and 23 others across the country is trying to determine whether an aggressive program of diet and exercise or drug therapy can prevent or at least delay diabetes in people most at risk.

And that’s not only a hypothesis. It’s also the fervent hope of people like Maureen Oliver, 32, of Norwood, who works at the Center for Blood Research in Boston and who became worried about her own health when her sister, 33, was diagnosed with Type II diabetes last year.

Oliver is among 4,000 people nationwide expected to participate in the five-year study, and so far, she says, the perks of being a human guinea pig are worth all the prodding and poking.

“They are watching your health so much more closely” than normal doctors do, Oliver says of researchers at the Joslin Diabetes Center. “My sister probably had this for a year without knowing it. . . I’d rather know right away” if diabetes develops.

Diabetes, which comes in two types, is one of the most debilitating of all medical problems.

Type I is an autoimmune disease that must be treated by daily injections of insulin and often strikes children and young adults; Type II, which constitutes 95 percent of all cases and can be treated with insulin, other drugs or diet and exercise, may have several causes and often begins later in life.

If diabetes really can be prevented much of the time, the payoff would be enormous, for individuals and the world.

In this country alone, diabetes is an epidemic affecting one of 10 adults, says Dr. David M. Nathan, director of the diabetes center at Massachusetts General Hospital and the leader of the national prevention study.

“Once it develops, it is difficult to treat, and it is the major cause of blindness, kidney failure and limb amputations. It also raises the risk of heart disease, stroke and peripheral blood vessel disease two- to seven-fold,” he says.

Worldwide, diabetes rates are also soaring, and the main reason is that people aren’t eating right or exercising enough, says Dr. Richard C. Eastman, who runs the diabetes program at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, sponsor of the study.

And the costs, both human and economic, are staggering.

Diabetes is now “the most expensive disease in the country,” says Dr. Gerald Bernstein, a New York City diabetes specialist and president-elect of the American Diabetes Association. With all its complications, it costs the nation $138 billion a year, 15 percent of the health care bill.

Yet while the government spends $5-$10 on research for every $100 spent on patient care for other major diseases, it invests only about 25 cents for every $100 spent on diabetes care, says Bernstein.

That low priority is hard to fathom, say diabetes specialists, given that there are an estimated 8 million diagnosed diabetics in America and another 8 million who are unaware they have the disease.

Those numbers are expected to rise as Americans continue packing on pounds — obesity is a risk factor — and as Baby Boomers age.

If you are genetically predisposed, “it may take only 10 to 15 pounds of weight gain” to become diabetic, says Dr. Om Ganda, a senior physician at the Joslin who is working on the prevention study with Dr. Edward S. Horton, the study’s lead researcher at the Joslin.

And the number of diabetics may also rise because diabetes specialists recently lowered the threshold score on the fasting blood sugar tests that are used to detect diabetes, from 140 milligrams per deciliter of blood to 126 mg. People with normal blood sugar usually score less than 110 if they have not eaten for eight hours.

The reason doctors are so concerned about diabetes is that it interferes at such a basic level with metabolism. In a healthy person, blood sugar is maintained at a relatively constant level because the body secretes insulin from the pancreas in the right amounts to make sure that sugar gets into muscle and other cells that need it for fuel.

But in Type I, which can be inherited and is caused by a misguided attack by the body’s own antibodies against the insulin-producing cells in the pancreas, a person winds up making little or no insulin.

In Type II diabetes, the pancreas still makes insulin, but over time, the body becomes “resistant” to its effects. Some people become resistant through genetic predisposition but others acquire the resistance as a result of being overweight. As resistance develops, the pancreas tries harder and harder to make enough insulin, but eventually it can’t keep up with the demand, and blood sugar rises to dangerous levels.

Diabetes can be “so big, so bad and so ugly” that if it is not detected early, says Nathan, damage to the eyes, kidneys and other organs can happen before treatment begins.

That is the logic behind the new study, “the first of its kind ever done at this magnitude,” says Ganda.

People who want to join the study are first screened for blood sugar levels. In the screening test, if your blood sugar is between 80 to 140, you are then given a “glucose tolerance” test — a sugary drink that, within two hours, may raise your blood sugar dramatically.

If your blood sugar soars to between 140 and 199, you have “impaired glucose tolerance,” which means that you, like 21 million other Americans, have roughly a 50 percent chance of developing diabetes over time.

Other risk factors include being overweight, being over 40, having a family history of diabetes, belonging to an ethnic group that is at higher risk (including African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, Asian-Americans, Pacific Islanders and Native Americans) and having a history of diabetes during pregnancy.

Clinical symptoms such as feeling tired or sick, unusual thirst, weight loss, blurred vision, frequent infections or slow healing of sores may also be warning signs.

If you are accepted into the study, you are then randomly assigned to one of four groups. The first group gets an intensive diet and exercise program, with the goal of losing at least 7 percent of body weight by eating fewer calories than usual and burning up 700 calories a week more through exercise.

The other three groups all get one of three daily medication regimens, though neither participants nor doctors know who is getting placebo (a dummy drug), metformin (Glucophage, a drug that lowers blood sugar by decreasing the amount of sugar made in the liver), or troglitazone (Rezulin, a newer drug that improves the body’s sensitivity to insulin in people with Type II diabetes.

Those who participate in the study, of course, are most likely to reap the direct benefits of diabetes prevention.

But the very existence of the study, researchers hope, will also remind people who don’t participate that there may be a lot they can do to prevent diabetes, such as eating a good diet and exercising regularly.

This summer, the American Diabetes Association also recommended that everyone 45 and older get a baseline diabetes screening, with follow up tests every three years for people at normal risk, and every year for those at higher risk.

And for those, like Oliver, who do volunteer? The benefits of “really good health care” — free — as a participant in the study far outweigh the downside. “I’d recommend joining,” she says, if you are at all worried about getting diabetes.

SIDEBAR 1.

DIABETES IN AMERICA

PLEASE SEE MICROFILM FOR CHART DATA

GLOBE STAFF CHART

SIDEBAR 2.

To learn more

If you are interested in joining the diabetes prevention study, call:

– 1-800-339-6482, to join at either the Joslin Diabetes Center or Massachusetts General Hospital.

– 1-888-DPP-JOIN (1-888-377-5646), outside New England.

To read more about diabetes, try:

– “Diabetes — The Most Comprehensive, Up to Date Information Available to Help You,” by Dr. David M. Nathan with John F. Lauerman.

– “The Joslin Guide to Diabetes,” by Dr. Richard S. Beaser, with Joan V.C. Hill.

Latex allergies can cause misery

July 28, 1997 by Judy Foreman

Lise C. Borel, now 42, had been happily practicing dentistry for 10 years when she began noticing welts on her neck whenever she touched herself after removing her latex gloves.

Several weeks later, she suddenly found she couldn’t breathe within three minutes of donning her gloves.”I turned incredibly red. I was feeling very odd,” she recalls. A partner recognized that she was having a severe allergic reaction, gave her oxygen and a shot of antihistamine.

She revived and went to an allergist, who told her to use an inhaler and antihistamines and to keep an “EpiPen” handy to give herself adrenalin shots if it happened again.

It did, repeatedly, until even minimal contact with latex would send Borel into potentially fatal anaphylactic shock.

Her troubles are severe, but even less dramatic reactions to latex have become a growing problem, and not just among health care workers.

Natural rubber latex, made from the rubber tree Hevea brasiliensis, is used in 40,000 products – including 300 medical items – from anesthesia masks to automobile tires, balloons to blood pressure cuffs, condoms to catheters to diaphragms.

Although latex has been around for 50 years, concern about allergic reactions to the plant proteins in this natural, milky substance didn’t surface until 1979, with the first published report of a reaction to latex gloves in England.

Then in 1987, with fear of AIDS soaring, the US Centers for Disease Control recommended “universal precautions” for all health workers – using masks and gloves all the time to lessen the risk of infection. In 1992, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration stepped in, requiring employers to provide gloves and take other measures to protect employees against blood-borne organisms.

Although no one said latex was the only way to protect against disease, it quickly became the top choice. Before 1987, Americans used two billion pairs of gloves a year for medical purposes, says Thomas Tillotson, a New Hampshire glove manufacturer. Today, the figure is up to nine billion pairs,says Tillotson, who heads the latex task force of the Health Industry Manufacturers Association.

In addition to greater use of latex, some manufacturers may have changed the way they process the natural rubber, leaving more allergy-producing proteins in the finished goods, says Dr. Edward Petsonk, chief of the clinical section at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

And many of the gloves are now made overseas, where it’s tougher for American customers to monitor manufacturing, although gloves labelled for surgical or patient exam use are spot checked by the Food and Drug Administration.

Latex products have undoubtedly saved some lives, but they began threatening others. In 1989, the FDA investigated reports of patients going into shock during barium enemas. In all, 16 people died from allergies to latex in enema tips, which were taken off the market seven years ago.

Suspicions deepened in the early 1990s when nine children at a Milwaukee hospital went into shock after anesthesia had begun but before the first surgical incision was made. The culprit was the latex in anesthesia equipment and intravenous catheters.

Today, the FDA has tallied at least 1,700 cases of latex allergic reactions and 17 deaths. But Borel, who quit dentistry to run a support group called Elastic, Inc., says this understates the problem, based on data she obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request.

Indeed, half of people with spina bifida, a congential defect of the spinal canal, or with congenital urinary problems, have allergies attributed to the numerous medical procedures they must undergo that involve latex products, according to the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology.

There are also more than 100 latex lawsuits in state and federal courts. The federal cases are now consolidated into a multi-district litigation in Philadelphia, says Jami Oliver, a lawyer with Clark, Perdue, Roberts & Scott in Columbus, Ohio.

Other studies estimate that 1-to-6 six percent of the general population and 8-to-12 percent of health care workers have been “sensitized” to latex, says Dr. Marshall Plout, chief of the allergic mechanisms section at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Sensitization means the body has antibodies to latex proteins, notes Dr. B. Lauren Charous, chairman of the latex allergy committee of the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology.A fullblown allergic response often affects the skin and other organs, producing hives, swelling, asthma and, in extreme cases, anaphylatic shock.

Prompted by the growing concern, the occupational safety institute last month issued an alert urging employers and workers to switch to non-latex gloves for activities, like food handling, that do not involve contact with infectious materials.

When latex is a must, NIOSH recommended powder-free, lower-protein latex products. The powder, used to make gloves easier to put on, can latch onto latex proteins and aerosolize them.

Some hospitals, including Brigham and Women’s in Boston, have now gone latex-safe. But avoiding latex completely – the only real protection for people who are allergic – requires enormous commitment and vigilance, for both institutions and individuals.

If you are allergic, you have to avoid not only the latex in everything from balloons to condoms, but often bananas, kiwis, avocados and chestnuts as well, because proteins in these fruits and vegetables are similar to those in latex.

But it’s avoiding the products themselves that is hardest.

When one 39-year old banker from a Boston suburb discovered she was allergic to the condoms she and her husband used, she felt “overwhelmed, because of the extent of lifestyle changes.

“Many things are not labelled,” she adds, although the FDA is now considering requiring a warning on all latex products.

“It’s a nightmare,” says Rosemarie Pinheiro, a 33-year old Norton manicurist who got hives from her son’s toys. “I have to avoid everything with latex – that’s basically everything.”

And some health care workers, like Borel and Taunton nurse Maureen Iannoni, 41, have had to give up their jobs to survive.

Iannoni can no longer work in a hospital and uses non-latex products when she sees patients in their homes. The prospect of surgery was terrifying, because the hospital had to use a special protocol so she would not come in contact with latex.

Borel’s war with latex has been even tougher, she recalled recently from a hospital bed near her home in West Chester, Penn., where she was being treated for heart damage caused by asthma, which has plagued her since her first allergy attack.

After that first reaction, she went on vacation, she says. “I just felt wonderful. I felt my problems were done.” But on her first day back at work, she went into shock. Her office mates called 911 and the paramedics rushed to her aid, whipping on latex gloves and spewing powder everywhere.

She wound up in the hospital, but then went back to work and avoided using latex.  But she went into shock again because her co-workers were still using powdered gloves.

While she stayed home, her partners then “de-latexed” the office, deep-cleaning carpets and scouring the ventilation system. Borel returned, went into shock again and spent a week in intensive care. That was the end of her dentistry career.

Today, things are changing, slowly. Tillotson, of the industry task force, estimates that non-powdered, reduced-latex gloves now comprise 25 to 30 percent of the market.

And although some medical centers like the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota have found that switching to latex-safe alternatives can save money, others find that costs go up. When allergist Dr. Donald Accetta of Taunton, head of the Massachusetts Allergy Society, made the switch, “the price doubled,” he says.

Still, there is a growing array of nonlatex products available. Some gloves for patient exams are now made of vinyl or PVC (polyvinyl chloride), nitrile or other synthetics, including synthetic rubber.

For surgical gloves, which must stretch, synthetic neoprene is also an option, as are some synthetic rubber gloves. The US Department of Agriculture is also exploring natural latex from a plant called guayule (pronounced “why-YOU-lee”) that grows in the southwest and seems not to trigger the same allergies as the traditional latex.

The FDA says that for protecting intact skin, both natural rubber latex and non-latex gloves are effective.

For condoms, which must protect more delicate mucous membranes, the CDC still recommends latex, noting that the AIDS virus can get through the pores of animal skin condoms.

For people allergic to latex, the FDA has approved condoms made from synthetics like polyurethane and Tactylon. Lab studies show these materials block viruses, but studies in people have not yet been completed.

Says Borel: “Don’t use latex if something else will do. If and when you do need latex gloves, use the kind that’s powder-free, with low latex proteins.”

LATEX REACTIONS CAN VARY

Latex allergy sometimes causes only a poison-ivy like rash 12-to-36 hours after contact. This reaction is not life-threatening.

Life-threatening reactions usually occur in people who are already sensitized to latex proteins. With the next exposure, these people may develop itching, redness, swelling, sneezing and wheezing, trouble breathing and anaphylactic shock, a marked drop in blood pressure.

The greatest danger often occurs when latex proteins are inhaled or come in contact with mucous membranes in the lips, nose, rectum or vagina, or during surgery.

For more information on latex allergies, you may call:

  • Allergy and Asthma Foundation of America, New England Chapter, 617-965-7771 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              617-965-7771      end_of_the_skype_highlighting or 800-7-ASTHMA begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              800-7-ASTHMA      end_of_the_skype_highlighting (1-800-727-8462 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              1-800-727-8462      end_of_the_skype_highlighting).

  • Latex Allergy News, 860-482-6869 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              860-482-6869      end_of_the_skype_highlighting.

  • Elastic, Inc. 610-436-4801 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              610-436-4801      end_of_the_skype_highlighting. (In Massachusetts, 508-824-4094 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              508-824-4094      end_of_the_skype_highlighting.) Elastic (Education for Latex Allergy Support Team and Information Coalition – a independent nonprofit group.

  • Alert (Allergy to Latex Education and Resource Team), 888-97-ALERT begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              888-97-ALERT      end_of_the_skype_highlighting or 888-972-5378 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              888-972-5378      end_of_the_skype_highlighting. Alert accepts funding from manufacturers of low allergen, non-powdered latex products.

  • For a copy of the latex alert by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, call 800-35-NIOSH begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              800-35-NIOSH      end_of_the_skype_highlighting.

So, you’re stuck in sleep-loss hell

July 14, 1997 by Judy Foreman

Doctors say it may not ruin your life but it can make your life miserable,

For years now, Allan Rechtschaffen, a psychology professor emeritus at the University of Chicago, has been watching what happens when he totally deprives rats of sleep.

He takes a plastic disc with a divider in the middle and puts one rat on each side. Both rats get plenty of food, and one rat — the lucky one — also gets to sleep whenever it wants.

But every time the other rat dozes off, the disc starts to spin slowly, forcing both rats to jump up and walk forward to keep from falling into a shallow pool of water.

The result? After two or three weeks of total sleep deprivation — probably the equivalent of 8 to 12 weeks for humans — the sleepless rats all die.

During their downward spiral, their body temperature goes up, they develop skin lesions and food intake doubles. They show no changes in immune function.

“We don’t know what the rats die of,” says Rechtschaffen, but “sleep seems to be almost as important for an organism as food.”

Intuitively, that seems obvious. And researchers have documented some very real consequences of sleep loss, which affects not only America’s 30 to 60 million chronic insomniacs but millions of others who are just too busy to sleep or have a medical problem like sleep apnea or restless leg syndrome.

Sleep apnea, which affects at least 2 percent of women and 4 percent of men and can trigger potentially serious cardiovascular problems, causes a person to wake up repeatedly to breathe. Restless leg syndrome and involuntary jerking of the legs during sleep can also make it hard to fall and stay asleep.

Yet the surprising thing about all this research is that while more than 1,000 studies show that a bad night’s sleep — or a string of them — can lead to decreased intellectual function, mood and performance, there’s little evidence so far that sleep loss has direct health consequences.

Except, of course, if you count the 1,500 deaths and 76,000 injuries a year from driver fatigue, accidents that happen when the brain is vulnerable to “intrusions of microsleep episodes,” says Dr. Charles Czeisler, chief of circadian and sleep disorders medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital.

Still, overall there is “no solid evidence that sleep loss leads to long-term medical problems,” says Gregg Jacobs, an insomnia specialist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

It does cause “psychological suffering,” says psychiatrist William C. Dement, director of the Stanford Sleep Research Center and Sleep Disorders Clinic. “But we can’t say, yes, if you don’t treat your insomnia you are going to die.”

To be sure, insomniacs are “more likely to report poor health,” notes Cynthia Dorsey, director of McLean Hospital’s sleep disorders center, but it’s not clear which comes first.

Twenty years ago, researchers found that people who slept more than nine hours or less than six a night had a higher death rate than those whose sleep was closer to the seven or eight hours that most people need. But this was a correlation, not documented cause and effect.

Recently, there has been new evidence — about a dozen studies — suggesting that immune function may change with sleep loss, but whether this translates into a health risk is also unknown.

Several years ago, Dr. Michael Irwin , a professor of psychiatry at the University of California at San Diego, published a study of 23 middle-aged male volunteers who were awakened at 3 a.m., making them miss about four hours’ sleep.

Irwin found that this modest sleep loss was correlated with a a drop in the activity of natural killer cells, a type of immune cell. But this bounced back fully after a good night’s sleep.

In another study this year, Irwin deprived 42 middle-aged men of sleep in the early part of the night and found decreases in several immune measures, including a substance called Il-2. It was not clear when these measures began to bounce back.

But other studies — and there are still too few for a definitive conclusions — suggest a different picture.

In fact, some measurements of immune function actually go up with sleep loss, says David Dinges , director of the experimental psychiatry unit at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, a researcher who says he has “sleep-deprived more people than anyone else.”

In a 1994 study of 20 adults deprived of sleep for 64 hours, Dinges found an increase in white blood cells and natural killer cell activity, a measure of immune response.

At least in the sleep lab, he says, where researchers go to great pains to keep people in a good mood, sleep deprivation seems to be linked to “an increase in immunological defense,” though the overall picture of immune effects is far from clear.

What is clear, researchers agree, is that sleepless people are not happy campers — or as good thinkers as usual.

“Sleep deprivation has a clear impact on physical performance, cognitive performance and mood,” says Dr. David White, director of the sleep disorders program at Brigham and Women’s and past president of the American Sleep Disorders Association, a professional organization.

But lousy mood can be the cause as well as the effect of lousy sleep. “Nobody knows if depression causes insomnia or vice versa — it’s very circular,” says Dinges.

Anxiety, too, can be part of a vicious circle because “secondary anxiety” can leave people “freaked” about their loss of sleep, says Dr. John Winkelman, associate director of the sleep disorders service at the Brigham.

Making mood worse after a bad night, or several, is the all-too-keen awareness that you may be having more trouble than usual remembering things or processing information, although motivation — such as trying to keep your job — may offset this.

Still, there’s no question that if you have a bunch of bad nights in a row, you build up a significant “sleep debt,” which means working memory may fail, reaction time slows and it becomes harder to pay attention.

Yet this is the devil with which growing numbers of us live — whether we’re insomniacs or just don’t take the time to rest. As a nation, we’re getting 20 percent less sleep than our forebears did a century ago, according to the National Commission on Sleep Disorders Research.

And we’re clearly paying the price. A Gallup survey this year showed that a third of us have significant daytime sleepiness, which can be dangerous as well as unpleasant. A Harris survey, also done this year, found that 70 percent of people acknowledge that their concentration is poor or fair when they’re sleep deprived.

So what should you do if you’re stuck in sleep-loss hell?

For openers, if you’re sleeping only four or five hours a night because you’re too busy or working too hard or socializing too late, put yourself to bed and get more sleep.

If you’ve got a stubborn case of insomnia, tell your doctor. You may have an underlying problem with anxiety or depression; treating these problems can lead to greatly improved sleep.

That goes for sleep apnea, too. Many people deny they have trouble breathing during sleep for the obvious reason that they’re too groggy to remember. But apnea is both serious and treatable, so if your spouse says your snoring is terrible, take it seriously.

Restless leg problems, too, are treatable, usually with medications.

And if you’ve got chronic insomnia?

Despite their bad reputation, sleeping pills may be an answer for some people. A relatively new short-acting one called Ambien appears to cause less dependence than the older, longer-acting benzodiazepines in vogue 10 years ago.

Many people also swear by nonprescription potions like melatonin, which is sold as a dietary supplement, although the scientific jury on that is still out.

But the best long-term solution for many people is to change behavior and attitude, which means sticking to a regular sleep-wake schedule and trying not to worry about sleep loss.

“The main problem with insomnia is people worry about their sleep,” says Peter Hauri, author of the bestseller, “No More Sleepless Nights.” If you worry that sleep loss will wreck your health, “you’ll try even harder to sleep and sleep even less.”

So there’s another tidbit to remember as you toss and turn.

“The most astonishing thing,” says Dinges, is that one or two good nights’ sleep “has a marked effect in reversing nearly all of the physiological and brain and immune function changes induced by sleep deprivation.”

SIDEBAR:

For a better night’s sleep.

If you’re struggling with sleep, tell your doctor. If he or she can’t help, you can probably find a sleep specialist to diagnose and treat your problem at almost any major hospital.

You can also practice habits designed to help your sleep:

  • Don’t try too hard to sleep. It can make things worse.
  • Don’t drink alcohol or water, or smoke cigarettes near bedtime; don’t drink caffeinated beverages after midafternoon.
  • Exercise may help, although the data on this are mixed. But don’t exercise within three hours of bedtime.
  • Schedule “worry time” in the early evening, then wind down.
  • Restrict time in bed to seven or eight hours. Spending too much time in bed not sleeping can make it harder to sleep.
  • Get up at the same time every day, even on weekends.
  • Don’t let bed become a negative emotional cue. Stay in bed only when you’re relaxed. If you can’t sleep, get up and do something relaxing until you feel drowsy.

Home tests useful, but some caveats

July 7, 1997 by Judy Foreman

For decades, home pregnancy tests have allowed the worried and the hopeful to find out – in private – whether a baby is on the way.

For years, people with diabetes have been able to monitor blood sugar levels, with increasingly sophisticated test kits, and adjust their insulin accordingly.

You can test yourself at home to see if you’ve ovulated, to learn if there’s hidden blood in your stool or urine, or to see if you have a urinary tract infection, high cholesterol or soaring blood pressure.

You can even, thanks to a recent decision by the US Food and Drug Administration, monitor how fast your blood clots – a potentially huge boon to the 1.5 million people who take blood-thinning drugs for heart rhythm disturbances and other problems.

Because of ever-improving technology and consumer demand, the home test industry is now a $ 1 billion a year business that’s growing at 12 to 13 percent a year, according to two market research firms, the Freedonia Group, Inc. in Cleveland and Frost & Sullivan in Mountain View, Calif.

The question is, is all this self-monitoring a good idea?

The answer, perhaps surprisingly, is a cautious yes – with some important caveats.

Used correctly, home testing can save endless trips to the doctor to monitor an ongoing problem. It can also save money – most kits range from a few dollars to $ 150 – and help you feel in better control of your own health. And you can often catch little problems, like a worrisome trend in clotting time or blood sugar levels, before they become big ones.

“If you are in a relationship with a health care provider and have a clear indication for how to use a test, this stuff can be superb,” says Dr. Gary Horowitz, director of clinical chemistry at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

On the other hand, virtually all tests have pitfalls, especially the kind that you interpret yourself. You may get “false negatives” that show you’re fine when you’re not, and “false positives,” showing the opposite.

And if you’re an amateur at the art of test interpretation, you may needlessly worried about a seemingly “bad” result – like low blood sugar upon awakening, which is normal – or falsely reassured when you should seek professional help.

That said, many home tests do vastly more good than harm.

Home monitoring “has revolutionized the care of people with diabetes, making it possible for people to be much more pro-active in taking care of themselves minute to minute,” says Dr. Edward Horton, vice president and director of clincal research at the Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston.

Taking frequent finger-stick tests to measure blood sugar levels and then eating or taking insulin to keep those levels within a safe range has enabled many diabetics to avoid complications such as damage to the retina, kidneys and nerves, according to a 10-year, multi-center study completed in 1993.

And noninvasive glucose tests are in the pipeline, including a yet-to-be-approved infrared device that eliminates the need to draw blood from a finger, according to the Health Industry Manufacturers Association.

Better technology has also made home blood pressure kits more reliable, says Dr. Michael Weber chairman of the department of medicine at Brookdale University Hospital in Brooklyn, N.Y.

Until a couple of years ago, he says, home blood pressure kits were often inaccurate. In fact, the American Heart Association still does not take a position on the kits for either blood pressure or cholesterol.

But some doctors feel the kits are helpful. “You can depend on those numbers,” says Weber, though he warns that those who monitor their own blood pressure should never alter their medication dosage without checking with a doctor.

Dr. Irene Gavras, a hypertension specialist at the Boston University School of Medicine, emphatically agrees, adding that you should not use the kits to diagnose yourself but only to monitor a problem already diagnosed by a doctor. And you should have a health care professional check your home blood pressure kit for accuracy before you use it.

Home cholesterol testing, on the other hand, may be not wise.

“I’m against checking it at home for many reasons,” says Gavras, noting that the kits use a tiny drop of blood from the finger and provide only one number: total cholesterol.

“This is essentially useless,” she says, because you need to know your levels of “good” and “bad” cholesterol and triglycerides, or fat molecules, as well.

If you find your cholesterol is higher than the desirable 200 milligrams per deciliter or less, you may panic, even if you have lots of good cholesterol. Or your home test may show your overall cholesterol is fine, even though you have too much bad cholesterol.

Being your own doctor can be risky also because you may miss a problem you’re not worried about.

“You may think your major risk is heart disease. So you measure your cholesterol and find it’s normal. But what you’ve got on your back is a melanoma that no one sees,” says Horowitz. “Or if you’re having trouble getting pregnant, you may spend months using an ovulation detection kit when the problem lies elsewhere.”

And testing for some diseases, like HIV, can be upsetting.  In part because of this, the FDA has not allowed HIV home test kits on the market, although it has approved two kits that allow patients to draw blood, which they then send to established labs for testing.

(About 10 days ago, however, one of those kits, Confide HIV, made by Johnson & Johnson, was taken off the market because of the lack of demand.)

Even the straightforward pregnancy test is not always as simple as it seems, says Dr. Joseph Pinzone, a research fellow in medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital.

If it’s positive, you need to see a health care provider to get pre-natal care. But if it’s negative and you’ve missed some menstrual periods, you need to see a doctor anyway to find out why. On the other hand, many people like the convenience of finding out on their own and then making a doctor’s appointment.

Dr. Steven Gutman, director of the division of clinical laboratory devices at the FDA, says that all the kits now on the market had to pass two hurdles prior to approval: They were shown to work in the hands of the average consumer and the benefits of home testing outweigh the risks.

Sometimes, as with two new prothrombin tests that measure how fast blood clots in people on anti-clotting medication, the FDA approves a home test with a condition: Patients need a doctor’s prescription to get it.

This ensures that patients learn to use the test properly and that a doctor helps interpret the results, and it lessens the chances that a patient will change the dosage of medication, says Gutman. Taking too much of a blood-thinner like Coumadin can lead to serious bleeding; taking too little can lead to dangerous blood clots.

“No test is perfect,” says Gutman. “If you have a health problem that you’re worried about, it doesn’t matter if you test positive. If it’s bothering you, go see a doctor.”

Tips for using home test kits

  1. Read the label carefully. The FDA requires the makers of home test kits to write labels that anyone with an 8th grade education can understand. But well-written labels do no good if you don’t read them.
  2. Be precise. If the test involves careful timing, use a stopwatch or clock with a second hand.
  3. Keep accurate records of your results.
  4. If you have questions, don’t hesitate to call the “800” number listed on many home kits.
  5. Don’t use a home test result to change a medication or dosage unless your doctor has said it’s okay. (Many diabetics have been taught how to adjust their doses of insulin.)
  6. Don’t try to diagnose yourself with a home kit. The kits are useful for monitoring a condition you and your doctor know you have. But diagnosis is often trickier than monitoring, so call your doctor if you are worried about your health.
  7. If you buy a home blood pressure kit, take it to your doctor for an accuracy check. And before you buy a kit, make sure the store will give you a refund if it is not working properly. Make sure it’s calibrated right, something medical supply stores often do. And to avoid getting anxious about each tiny fluctuation, don’t use a kit more often than your doctor suggests. Inexpensive kits – about $ 30 – with which you listen through a stethoscope to the sound of your blood flowing, can often be just as good as more expensive electronic kits.
  8. Don’t use home cholesterol kits unless your doctor suggests it. It’s better to get a full “blood lipid profile” that includes measures of good and bad cholesterol and triglycerides from a health care provider. Once you have this, your doctor may want you to monitor total cholesterol at home.
  9. Remember that home test kits are a complement to an ongoing relationship with a doctor, not a substitute for it.
  10. And if a home test comes out negative but you still have symptoms? You guessed it – call the doctor.

 

Cutting through the baloney in high-protein diets

June 30, 1997 by Judy Foreman

High-protein diets, America’s latest food fad, are like an overstuffed deli sandwich – some healthy nuggets here and there surrounded by a fair amount of unhealthful baloney.

That, at least, is the view of mainstream nutritionists, many of whom feel that Americans hooked on books like “The Zone,” by Barry Sears, “Protein Power,” by Drs. Michael and Mary Dan Eades, and “Dr. Atkins’ New Diet Revolution” are being fed a mixture of truths, half-truths and totally unproven assertions.

For years, nutritionists have urged us to eat less fat and more complex carbohydrates so that we’ll have fewer heart attacks and be generally more slim, healthy and vigorous.

That’s still a basically sound message. But somewhere along the line, it’s been twisted by some into a license to eat unlimited amounts of pasta and potatoes, with obvious results at the waistline.

But there’s a less obvious result of this love affair with carbo, too, a feeling on the part of many that “carbohydrates have failed them,” says Larry Lindner, executive editor of the monthly Tufts University Health & Nutrition Letter.

For that reason, he says, many people are hungry for any self-appointed guru who seems to have a better message.

The trouble is, switching from a carbo-heavy diet to one loaded with protein is not necessarily better. In fact, some parts of the high-protein message are not only unsupported by any scientific evidence but may even be dangerous.

To sort out what’s valid and what’s not, we consulted nine leading nutritionists, as well as the Harvard Health Letter of January 1997 and the Tufts nutrition letter of May 1996.

Their consensus is that at least some high-protein diets are based on a number of myths. Such as:

Myth No. 1. Americans do not eat enough protein.

This is unlikely, except for frail old people, poor people who do not get enough calories every day, and perhaps some elite athletes who put huge demands on their bodies.

Sears acknowledges that most Americans “probably consume adequate protein in the course of a day, but not at every meal.” But in the next breath he contends that because people have been told to shun fat, which often comes in the same foods as protein, many people on diets are protein-deficient.

A Swampscott biochemist, Sears runs a biotech company called Eicotech, Inc. He is not a nutritionist and complains that real nutritionists “have no command of the literature.” He recommends reducing carbohydrates to 40 percent of calories, boosting protein to 30 percent and keeping fat at the level of 30 percent or less that nutritionists suggest.

Men, he says, need 100 grams of protein a day, and women, 75, on average. To get that, you’d have to eat 14 ounces of steak or a 10-ounce steak plus three servings of milk, yogurt or cheese every day if you’re a man and 10 ounces of steak or a 6-ounce steak plus three dairy servings if you’re a woman.

By contrast, the US Department of Agriculture and the American Dietetic Association recommend diets that provide 15 percent of calories from protein, 55 to 60 percent from carbohydrate and up to 30 percent from fat.

This translates to about 75 grams a day of protein for men and 65 for women, says Dr. George Blackburn, medical director of the center for the study of nutrition and medicine at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. To get this, you’d need to eat 6 ounces of steak or the equivalent for a man, or 4 ounces of steak or the equivalent for a woman.  And unlike Sears, Blackburn and other nutritionists advocate getting lots of protein from grains and vegetables like beans and lentils.

The bottom line is that if you eat enough calories – 2,000 a day for women, 2,500 for men – you’re almost certainly getting plenty of protein because many foods contain a mix of all three basic macronutrients: fat, carbohydrate and protein.

Myth No. 2. Eating too many carbohydrates leads to hyperinsulinemia – chronically high levels of insulin.

This is one of those half-truths. The idea, according to the high-protein gurus, is that eating tons of carbo makes the body pump out too much insulin, the hormone that helps transport glucose from carbohydrate breakdown into cells for energy.

Because insulin does increase trigylcerides (the fat molecules that wind up as plaque on artery walls) and lowers HDL, or “good cholesterol,” the high-protein gurus contend that too much insulin is the cause of many health troubles.

This notion contains “just enough of a kernel of truth to mislead people,” says Dr. Dean Ornish, president of the Medical Research Institute in Sausalito, Calif., who adds that none of the high-protein advocates has “published a single study in any peer reviewed journal about anything, much less the benefits of their recommendations.”

Dr. Walter Willett, a nutritionist at the Harvard School of Public Health, agrees with Sears on some of the basic biochemistry.

“On that note, he is right. There has been this false idea perpetrated by nutritionists that you can load up on as many carbohydrates as you want and that it’s good for you. That’s not true,” Willett says.

But insulin does not, as protein gurus say, promote storage of glucose as fat, provided you burn more calories than you eat.

Nor is it true, as the “warning” on Sears’ book jacket says, that you should avoid fruits like bananas, cranberries and orange juice. While no one recommends a diet full of simple carbohydrates – sugar and pasta – nutritionists do advocate eating complex carbohydrates, including grains and fruits, in part because they provoke a nice, gradual secretion of insulin.

Dr. Gerald Reaven, emeritus professor of medicine at Stanford University School of Medicine, an insulin specialist, dismisses Sears point blank: “Nothing he says is right.”

In general, nutritionists say, you build up too much insulin if you are insulin-resistant – if your cells no longer respond to normal levels of insulin and your body makes more to compensate. But this condition affects only about 15 percent of the population and usually develops if you eat too many calories overall, not simply too many carbohydrates.

In short, insulin is not the monster hormone it’s portrayed to be, and without it you’d wind up with diabetes.

Myth No. 3. People are overweight because they are hyperinsulinemic.

Wrong. People are overweight because they eat too much and exercise too little, says dietician Chris Rosenbloom of the American Dietetic Association. There is no evidence that hyperinsulinemia causes people to be overweight and plenty of evidence that being overweight increases your risk of hyperinsulemia.

Myth No. 4. Carbohydrate is the enemy.

Not true, provided you don’t take in more calories than you expend. Among other things, carbohydrate is crucial for production of the brain chemical serotonin, which is necessary for mood maintenance and sleep.

Myth No. 5. Eating protein will not raise insulin.

Wrong. It’s true that carbohydrates raise insulin most dramatically, but protein can raise it, too. (Fat does not.) In reality, most foods are a mix of all three, so insulin goes up – as it should – after a meal.

Myth No. 6. Excess protein is not stored as fat.

Not true. Excess calories from any food are stored as fat.

Myth No. 7. A fat calorie is different from a protein calorie and from a carbohydrate calorie.

Wrong. A calorie is a calorie.

Myth No. 8. High-protein diets work because people change what they eat.

Not likely. If a high-protein diet works for you, it’s probably because you’re consuming fewer calories by passing up excess carbohydrates. On a high-protein diet, a woman may take in 1,300 calories a day and a man, 1,700 – far below what most people eat.

Myth No. 9. Ketosis is good for you.

Wrong. Ketosis is the state achieved if you are starving or eating almost no carbohydrate, but lots of protein and fat. The body then burns dietary fats and proteins for energy.

In their book, the Eades say ketosis is “not at all” dangerous unless you’re diabetic. In Dr. Robert Atkins’ book, he says ketosis as an “extremely desirable state to be in.”

This is misleading. Ketosis is a sign that the blood is becoming too acidic. To combat this, the body then takes calcium from the bones, which raises the risk of osteoporosis. In fact, the Nurses’ Health Study showed that women on higher protein diets had a higher risk of bone fractures. Ketosis can also damage the kidneys, cause bad breath and trigger irregular heart rhythms that can cause sudden death.

Myth No. 10. Don’t worry about fats, which often, as in a juicy steak, are present in foods that contain lots of protein.

This gets tricky. Nutritionists say we should get at most 30 percent of calories from fat, and Ornish pegs it at 10 percent. But the real issue is what kind of fat you eat, and you can eat a lot if it’s unsaturated stuff like olive or canola oil.

The basic problem is, if you want to reduce carbohydrates, you have to raise either fats or proteins, says Willet. “And I think it’s safer to raise fat, as long as it’s the right type.”

Instead of pushing protein up to 30 percent of calories, he says, you can allow unsaturated fats to comprise 40 percent of your diet. The result is the Mediterranean diet, one of the world’s most healthful, with 30 to 40 percent fat, 20 percent protein, and the rest carbohydrate.

There’s one final reason to take a dim view of some high-protein diets: They can get a little weird.

Although in conversation Sears insists he is just advocating the kind of balanced diet that everybody’s grandmother used to recommend, in his book, he suggests snacks like a half cup of Haagen-Dazs ice cream with four ounces of turkey as a chaser.

Did you ever know a grandmother to suggest a snack like that?

Sources for story

The following nutritionists were interviewed for this column:

  • Dr. George Blackburn, medical director of the center for the study of nutrition and medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

  • Johanna Dwyer, director of the Frances Stern Nutrition Center at Tufts University.

  • Alice Lichtenstein, nutritional biochemist, Tufts University.

  • Larry Lindner, executive editor of the Tufts University Health & Nutrition Letter.

  • Dr. Dean Ornish, president of the Preventive Medicine Institute in Sausalito, Calif.

  • Dr. Gerald Reaven, professor of medicine (active emeritus) at Stanford University School of Medicine.

  • Chris Rosenbloom, registered dietician, spokesperson for the American Dietetic Association.

  • Dr. Walter Willett, professor of epidemiology and nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health.

  • Dr. Richard Wurtman, director of the clinical research center at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Chiropractic makes gains vs. skeptics

June 23, 1997 by Judy Foreman

Arthur Borneman, a 74-year-old Quincy man, had a pain in the neck. He tried painkillers, months of therapy at a rehab hospital, massage, exercise, even a dental specialist in case the problem was jaw pain. 

To his surprise, the dentist urged him to see a chiropractor, but Borneman said he “had no faith in chiropractors.”

Still, figuring he had nothing to lose, Borneman went to Barry Freedman, a Quincy chiropractor who practices with his daughter, Gabrielle. Four weeks after his first visit, Borneman says, “I am much better. I feel like living again.”

Joan Doody, 33, a nurse from Needham who hurt her back lifting patients, offers a similar testimonial after seeing Michael Frustaci, a chiropractor in Wellesley and Brookline who quickly “adjusted” her spine and sent her happily on her way.

Despite many such stories from satisfied clients and some evidence that “back-cracking,” or spinal manipulation, is safe and effective for some types of back pain, chiropractic therapy is one of the most contentious of the alternative medicine practices now sweeping America.

There are still major grudges between chiropractors and doctors, several years after the chiropractors won a 16-year court battle to get the American Medical Association to stop trying to eliminate the chiropractic competition by refusing to refer patients or accept patients referred by chiropractors.

And there’s heated debate within the profession as well. Some, like Frustaci, think chiropractors should stick to manipulating the spine to ease sore backs and other musculo-skeletal problems. This is both “highly effective,” he says, and precisely what chiropractors learn in their specialized, four-year training.

Others, like Freedman, say that even though though they do not have M.D.degrees, most chiropractors “look at themselves as primary-care providers.They can diagnose whether the patient can benefit from chiropractic and/or whether they need a consultation from another doctor.”

And chiropractors still face criticism from many quarters, including the California-based National Council Against Health Fraud whose president, William Jarvis, a health education specialist, puts his criticism bluntly:

Chiropractic “is so bizarre, so dangerous and so bad that even when you just tell the straightforward truth about it, people think you are exaggerating.”

Even defining the basic concept of chiropractic is up for grabs — the notion that “subluxations,” or tiny misalignments of spinal vertebrae, are real phenomena that show up on X-rays, cause virtually all disease and can be forced back into aligment with a thrust of the hands.

This belief began with the founder of the movement, Daniel David Palmer, an Iowa grocer who more than 100 years ago claimed to cure a man of hearing loss by manipulating his spine. This is highly unlikely because the nerves for hearing all lie within the skull.

Furthermore, chiropractors have never been able to show that subluxations even exist, says Jarvis. No one has been able to correlate back pain with specific spinal misalignments, and many people with back pain have perfectly normal spinal X-rays, while some with abnormal X-rays have no pain.

The debate over subluxations has been so heated that, over a decade ago, chiropractor Ron Slaughter and like-minded souls founded their own group, the National Association for Chiropractic Medicine, to renounce what Slaughter calls “the historical, philosophical hypothesis that subluxation is the cause of all disease, which it surely is not.

“Subluxation is a metaphysical disease. . .and consequently, chiropractic today is practically a religion.”

Yet for all that, there’s no denying its popularity.

Last year, 22 million Americans went to a chiropractor, according to the

American Chiropractic Association, and half of all HMOs, or health maintenance organizations, now include a chiropractic benefit. In fact, despite lingering animosity, some doctors now refer patients to chiropractors, and most health insurers now cover the service, which runs about $35 a visit.

That’s partly because some research suggests spinal manipulation — a forceful thrust on the backbone — may help.

At RAND, a nonprofit think tank in Santa Monica, Calif., medical sociologist Ian Coulter and others conducted two meta-analyses in which they pooled data from various studies on manipulation for pain in the lower back and the neck.

Manipulation is defined as moving a joint to the limit of its range of motion and is often characterized by a popping sound, caused by escaping gases in the joint. Mobilization is moving the joint within its range of motion.

Although chiropractors helped fund the RAND study, the researchers focused on manipulation itself, not on who does it. In practice, chiropractors do the most spinal manipulations, but osteopaths (whose training is similar to that of M.D.s), physical therapists and others do, too.

The first RAND report, which became part of a 1994 report by the government’s Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, found positive but “not overwhelming” evidence that manipulation eases acute low back pain, says Coulter. There was was too little evidence to draw conclusions on chronic low back pain.

In a second report last year, the RAND team found that manipulation and mobilization both work for acute neck pain, though, again, the evidence on chronic pain was inconclusive. More recently, a Quebec study on whiplash and related injuries found that manipulation does seem to help with neck pain.

The RAND research also suggests that spinal manipulation is safe, says Coulter, with a “very low complication rate” — one in every one to two million adjustments.

Dr. Scott Haldeman, a chiropractor who is also a clinical neurologist at the University of California at Irvine Medical Center, concurs.

Haldeman acknowledges there is a small risk of stroke after manipulation because sudden twisting — even a quick turn of the head while driving or tipping the head back for a beauty salon shampoo — can injure arteries inside the vertebrae.

But this is “extraordinarily rare,” he says, and others note that it probably happens only to people who have a rare, hard to diagnose, anatomical abnormality. Still, Jarvis notes that over the years there have been reports of more than 100 strokes after spinal manipulation, and one recent California study, he says, found 56 strokes related to manipulation in just two years.

But Coulter says his team looked hard for examples of manipulation-related strokes and found very few.

It may also be dangerous to have any kind of manipulation too often, because ligaments along the spine may get stretched too far. And you should be wary of spinal manipulation if you have a suspected fracture, rheumatoid arthritis, severe osteoporosis, a bleeding disorder and any spinal infection or inflammation.

It’s still an open question whether chiropractic treatment, even with very gentle pressure, is appropriate for children.

Some say no, but Haldeman, whose father was a chiropractor, says he had his first adjustment “when I was a baby” and adds that he “treated my kids when they were young.”

In the end, it’s an individual decision whether to try chiropractic and if so, with whom. If you choose it, though, one rule of thumb is to steer clear of a chiropractor who says you need endless treatments.

In most cases, says Frustaci, people “don’t need more than six manipulations for any given episode of pain.” In fact, most bouts of back pain go away on their own in about four weeks.

You should also be skeptical of a chiropractor who tries to sell you vitamins, as some do, notes Haldeman.

And while Jerome McAndrews, spokesman for theAmerican Chiropractic Association, insists chiropractors “are trained in the full scope of diagnosis to the level of a general family practitioner,” others advise taking medical problems that are not obviously related to the spine to a physician.

Frustaci makes no bones about chiropractic’s limits: “My wife is a physician. There’s things I know I have no clue about, that my training doesn’t even come close to.”

You might also question a chiropractor who seems too eager to take X-rays.Although Medicare insists on X-rays to prove that “subluxation” is present, Frustaci says, this is odd, given the ongoing debate on whether subluxation even exists.

It is also a red flag if your practitioner has so much faith in chiropractic

that he or she advises you not to have your kids immunized against common childhood diseases.

As with so many other things, Jarvis says, it’s a case of “buyer beware.”

 

Dealt a bad hand, black males can beat the odds

June 16, 1997 by Judy Foreman

They were captured, marched to the coast, kept in pens, then chained in the holds of slave ships, often deprived of life’s basics: salt and water.

Many of them died.

Those who survived – the genetic ancestors of today’s African Americans – may have been the ones most able to conserve salt in their bodies, speculates Dr. Clarence Grim, a high blood pressure specialist at the Medical College of Wisconsin.

Today, in salt-rich America, the one-time advantage of what Grim calls this “unnatural selection” process has become a major disadvantage: a salt sensitivity that may partly account for American blacks’ dramatic tendency to develop high blood pressure.

Diet, as well as the stress of racism and poverty, may contribute as much, or more, than any controversial genetic factor. But the unarguable fact is that black men in America today are five times more likely to die from high blood pressure, or hypertension, than white men.

Among other things, this means they have more heart failure, more strokes and more severe kidney disease, says Dr. Rodman Starke, senior vice president for science and medicine at the American Heart Association.

But cardiovascular troubles are just one card in a deck that seems stubbornly stacked against black men’s survival. There is a lot that an individual can do to beat these unhealthy odds – but without that extra effort, they can be formidable indeed.

Black men, for instance, have more than their share of diabetes. They have a higher incidence of cancer than any other racial or ethnic group in America. Their risk of prostate cancer is particularly sobering: White men have a 1-in-11 lifetime risk; for black men, it’s 1-in-7, according to the American Cancer Society. That is the highest rate in the world, and nobody can explain why.

Violence and HIV infection, too, rob many black men of their shot at long life. Homicide is the leading cause of death for black men between 15 and 24 years old and the fourth leading cause for black men of all ages, according to the National Center for Health Statistics.

Murder isn’t even among the top 10 causes of death for white men, though suicide is. For black men of all ages, HIV infection is the third leading killer; for white men, it’s seventh.

But perhaps most telling is this: A male black born in 1995 had a life expectancy of only 65.2 years. A white male born that same year could expect to live 73.4 years.

“Black men have the lowest life expectancy,” laments Dr. Kenneth Edelin, who runs the Roxbury Comprehensive Community Health Center in Boston and is associate dean for student and minority affairs at the Boston University School of Medicine.

“Staying healthy is a lifelong endeavor,” he adds, and a lot of it “has to do with diet and exercise.”

But many of the better health habits that have benefitted other Americans have not yet caught on among black men, says Dr. Louis Sullivan, former US secretary of health and human services and now head of Morehouse School of Medicine in Atlanta.

“The fitness movement is really middle class,” says Sullivan. “It has not been as successful in reaching low-income people.” Nor has the message to eat a lower fat diet, quit smoking and drink less alcohol.

“Black men smoke more than white men,” says Sullivan, and they get “more lung cancer, more emphysema, more bronchitis.”

And men of all colors still shy away from doctors more than they probably should – and more than women do.

“Women are in general much more tuned in to their bodies and more willing to admit vulnerabilities,” says Dr. Harvey B. Simon, editor of Harvard Men’s Health Watch, a consumer newsletter.

“In my practice, men come in with lists made out by their wives,” says Simon, adding that in health matters, the similarities between black and white men are greater than the differences.

That was partially borne out in a survey released last week by Men’s Health magazine and CNN. About a third of all men, black and white, had not seen a doctor in the preceding 12 months.

But by oversampling black men, the pollsters from Opinion Research Group in Princeton, N.J. did discover differences between black and white men’s attitudes toward health.

Blacks, for instance, were far more likely than whites to cite cost and lack of trust as reasons for not seeing doctors.

“There’s a hesitancy on the part of African American males to establish an ongoing relationship with a health care provider,” notes Dr. Warren Jones, an active duty military physician who is also an official of the American Academy of Family Physicians who deals with issues affecting minorities.

Beyond that, he says, many black men have jobs that make it hard to take time off from work to get to a doctor’s office.

Granted, many doctors no longer think an annual physical exam is a must. But certain things – like checking your blood pressure and discussing with a doctor whether to be screened for prostate cancer – are important, says Dr. Harold Sox, chairman of the department of medicine at Dartmouth Medical School and president-elect of the American College of Physicians.

Prostate screening is dicey for all men, because screening can lead to more testing, which is often followed by surgery and radiation that can lead to impotence and incontinence.

But doctors who treat black men, like Dr. Mark Drews, medical director of the Whittier Street Neighborhood Health Center in Roxbury, often recommend screening because prostate cancer is such a huge risk. Drews takes “the view that if we’re saving some people’s lives, it’s worth it.”

So is trying to get young black men into the habit of taking care of their health – and seeing health care providers regularly, says Dr. John Rich, an internist at Boston Medical Center who started a clinic there for young men.

Many young men “don’t recognize to what extent stress can make their lives unpleasant,” he says. “The reasons for stress are legitimate and real – safety and economic issues. But one of the benefits of connecting with a primary care doctor is that there are ways of dealing with stress that can improve your life.”

Unlike much of the rest of the population, Rich says, young men often want to gain weight “to get bigger.” So he uses that urge to teach them about good diet, safe ways to lift weights and how to take care of their bodies.

One who has taken Rich’s philosophy to heart is Christopher Pierce, 26, who works with a group called Boston Health Crew at Boston Medical Center to teach young men about health.

“With young black men, there’s a tough guy attitude,” says Pierce, who hopes to go to medical school and follow Rich’s example. “We try to help before they . . .get shot.” Young black men, he adds, “don’t realize health is everything.”

For all black men, health advocates say, there is an important message that doesn’t always get through: Health counts, and there are clear ways to enhance it.

For older black men, this may mean getting regular blood pressure checks, and taking medications to keep high blood pressure under control. For younger men, it may be learning about safe sex and conflict resolution skills to avoid violence.

Whatever your age, says military physician Jones, the key is “to get together with people that love you – your spouse, your kids, your significant other – to put together a list of health care concerns and take that list to a doctor.”

How you can help yourself

Health advocates offer the following health tips for black men who want to take charge of their own health:

  • For young men, consider a visit to the Young Men’s Health Clinic at Boston Medical Center, or call 617-534-5951. You can get free medical care if you need it, as well as advice on safe sex and substance abuse. Clinic workers also offer help on how to deal with violence, and tips on weight lifting, body building and healthy diets.
  • For older men, get your blood pressure checked regularly. Many neighborhood health centers offer free or low-cost testing. You can also be checked at some workplaces or your doctor’s office.
  • If you have high blood pressure, get it treated. There are lots of medications available; if one does not work for you or causes side effects, there are often other choices.
  • If you’re over 40, talk with your doctor about prostate cancer screening.
  • Limit salt intake to less than 2,000 milligrams a day, about three quarters of a teaspoon, especially if you have high blood pressure. Because 80 percent of salt intake is from prepared foods, read food labels carefully. A “Lunchables” snack, marketed for kids, is one of the most salt-rich products on the market, with almost 2,000 milligrams of salt.
  • Exercise regularly – at least 30 minutes per session, three to five times a week.
  • Limit intake of fats to less than 30 percent of calories.
  • Eat five servings a day of fruits and vegetables. (Orange juice counts.)
  • Find a doctor you like – whether you have insurance or are getting free care – and use that relationship to help deal with stresses in your life. Doctors can help you find ways – like meditation and counseling – to reduce stress.

Pets – the good, the bad and the bites

June 9, 1997 by Judy Foreman

Don’t let your dog lick the baby’s mouth. Don’t splash around in a pool of water where some critter may have just peed. And whatever you do, don’t pick an aggressive dog as a pal for your kids.

Beyond that – and a few other common sense things like washing your hands a lot – it’s fairly easy to live in domestic bliss, and health, with most pets, despite the more than 200 so-called zoonotic diseases, illnesses that animals can pass on to humans.

(It’s only fair to note that some diseases go the other way, from us to them. If you get the flu, for instance, your ferret – the yuppie pet of the 1990s – may, too.)

But for many people, especially parents of young kids, the big worry about sharing a home with animals is the risk of injury or disease that pets pose to people, not vice versa.

With nearly 60 percent of Americans households now owning pets – 60 million cats, 55 million dogs – the risk is real, though largely offset by the companionship that animals offer and the fact that many zoonotic diseases are treatable.

By far the biggest health problem with pets, says Dr. Ellie Goldstein, an infectious disease specialist at St. John’s Hospital and Medical Center in Santa Monica, Calif., is dog bites. They occur at the astounding rate of one every 40 seconds.

In 1994, that translated into roughly 4.7 million bites, says Dr. Jeffrey Sacks, an epidemiologist at the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That’s the most recent year for which the statistics have been compiled.

Most bites, of course, are minor, but 800,000 that year were serious enough to prompt people to seek medical care, Sacks says. In 1995 and 1996 alone, at least 25 people – 20 of them children – died from dog bite wounds. Half of the fatal attacks involved rottweilers.

Most people who suffer animal bites either know or own the animal, notes Goldstein, adding that many people are bitten on the hands while trying to separate two fighting dogs.

If a dog is rabid, of course, its bite can also transmit rabies – a viral infection that is fatal unless you are promptly vaccinated. You can also catch rabies from cats, raccoons, foxes, skunks, woodchucks and bats. And bats are the biggest culprits – though not too many people have them as pets.

Since 1980, 34 people in the United States have died from rabies, most of them from the types of rabies virus found in bats, says CDC epidemiologist James Childs. But most of these people did not remember being bitten by a bat or any other animal, so the exact chain of transmission is unknown.

Even when a dog bite isn’t fatal, serious infection can result because staphylococcus or streptococcus bacteria that normally live harmlessly on human skin get pushed deep into tissues, says Dr. Arnold Weinberg, head of the MIT Medical Department and a specialist in infections from animals.

But dog saliva contains more exotic bacteria, too, including Pasteurella multocida and Capnocytophaga, which, though treatable with antibiotics, can cause serious infections, especially in people whose immune systems are weakened.

Cat bites – which total 500,000 a year – can be even worse because cat saliva contains more Pasteurella. And because cats’ teeth are so sharp, a cat bite is essentially an injection of bacteria deep into tissues, even into bones and joints.

You can get Pasteurella from lions, too, though if you tangle with a lion, that’s likely to be the least of your problems.

Even cat scratches can be a problem. Cat scratch disease, caused by a bacterium called Bartonella hensalae, hits 22,000 people a year, says James Fox, director of comparative medicine at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The Bartonella bacteria, which live in the cat’s bloodstream, get picked up by blood-sucking fleas on the cat’s skin. The cat then scratches the fleas, which leaves “flea debris” (a euphemism for flea feces) on the cat’s claws. If the cat scratches you, you get an injection of this bacterium into your skin.

Fleas also spread the bacteria from cat to cat, a major problem since American’s 60 million pet cats often come in contact with the 60 million wild cats in cities and towns.

Fleas from cats and dogs can also jump off their four-footed hosts onto you, causing a characteristic pattern of bumps in a row that some doctors dub “breakfast, lunch and dinner.”

Usually, a flea bite, at least with New England fleas, results in little more than an itchy spot. But swallowing a flea – this gets a little gross – can be more serious.

If your dog licks its fleas then sticks its tongue near enough to your mouth, you can get the flea. And if the flea is harboring tapeworm larva, you get the tapeworm, too.

Even cuddling has its risks – you can get a treatable skin fungus called ringworm if your cat or dog is infected.

Don’t panic, though. Despite all this, keeping a pet has been shown many times to provide important psychological and social benefits to children and adults alike. There’s just a tiny bit more unpleasant reality to confront – the miseries you can acquire from animal droppings.

Salmonella and camplyobacter – bacteria that cause diarrheal diseases in people – are easily spread via cat and dog feces, especially from puppies and kittens that have been in pounds or pet stores.

Iguanas, another trendy pet, also contribute their fair share to the salmonella problem, as do snakes and, historically, small box turtles. In fact, the risk to kids of playing with box turtles and plunging their hands in their soiled water was serious enough to prompt federal officials more than a decade ago to ban interstate commerce in the turtles.

Even good, old dirt in your gorgeous garden can spread infections, if neighborhood critters use it as a bathroom.

A major problem here is the droppings of cats and dogs, especially young animals, which may contain roundworm eggs called toxocara.

After two weeks in the soil, these become infective, says Dr. Leonard Marcus, a veterinarian and physician who is the liaison between the state medical and veterinary societies.

The roundworm parasite then migrates to different parts of the human body, causing disease which is hard to treat, though rarely fatal. In southern parts of the country, hookworm, also spread in contamined soil, is also a considerable problem.

Even pretty birds like parrots and parakeets cause their share of misery, notably a disease called psittacosis, caused by a chlamydia-like bacterium that lives in bird droppings. When the droppings dry out, the bacteria can become aerosolized, and you can inhale them while you’re cleaning the cage.

On the bright side, feline leukemia, a major problem for unvaccinated cats, does not spread to humans, nor does any other cancer seem to leap in either direction across the species barrier.

And you probably can’t catch ulcers from your cat, either.

Ulcers are usually caused by a bacterium called Helicobacter pylori. The bacterium has been found in one closed colony of cats and under experimental conditions has been shown to infect other cats. But so far, there is no evidence pet cats carry it, nor any evidence they transmit it to people, says Fox of MIT.

You might, however, be able to catch it from flies.

Dr. Peter Grubel, a medical resident at St. Elizabeth’s Medical Center in Boston, has shown that flies can pick up H. pylori from lab dishes and pass it in their feces. Whether people actually catch it from flies that have walked on infected human feces and then on food is not known but is certainly plausible, at least in the Third World, Grubel says.

But the bottom line, says Marcus, who has a private practice for two-footed, featherless creatures in West Newton, is that if you exercise common sense – and do a lot of handwashing – “the fun and benefits outweigh the risks of having pets.

“I strongly encourage people to own pets,” he says. “It’s an important part of regular living and a good experience.”

Previous “Health Sense” column are available through the Globe Online searchable archives at http://www.boston.com. Use the keyword columnists and then click on Judy Foreman’s name.

Some dos and don’ts

Doctors, veterinarians and federal disease control specialists offer the following tips for pet owners. For dog owners

  • Pick an appropriate dog. Dogs with histories of aggression are inappropriate in households with children.
  • If a child seems fearful about getting a dog, wait until the child is older.
  • Spay virtually all dogs to reduce aggressive tendencies. If your dog does get in a fight with another dog, use your feet or a stick – never your hands – to break up the fight.
  • Never leave a young child alone with any dog.
  • Don’t play aggressive games with the dog.
  • Teach children never to approach an unfamiliar dog and never to run away from a dog and scream. Rather, teach them to remain motionless if approached by an unfamiliar dog – the “be still like a tree” approach.
  • Teach children that if they are knocked over by a dog, to roll into a ball and lie still – “Be still like a log.”
  • Avoid direct eye contact with a dog; the dog may see this as a sign of your aggression.
  • Let a dog see and sniff you before you pet it.
  • Wash a dog bite wound immediately. Other tips
  • Wash your hands and your child’s after handling any animal feces, including after your daily pooper-scooper/dog walk routine.
  • Clean out the cat box at least every couple of days, preferably daily; try not to inhale the dust. Get someone else to clean the box if you have a weakened immune system or are pregnant. Cat droppings can contain toxoplasmosis, a protozoa that can lead to congenital defects in children and cause disease in immunosuppressed people.
  • Wash vegetables grown in soil that might be contaminated by animal feces.
  • Keep pets healthy – for their own sake and yours – by keeping regular veterinary appointments.
  • Call your veterinarian if your pet seems sick.
  • Be sensitive to a cat’s mood. When a cat says “no,” it really means it. Most cat bites occur if you try to snuggle with a reluctant cat.
  • If you or your child comes down with a disease that stumps your physician, mention any potentially infectious animal contact.
  • Respect your pet and interact appropriately.

 

Medical steroids raise risk of once-rare condition

May 26, 1997 by Judy Foreman

Louise Pace was a happy, 42-year-old commercial real estate boker in Florida when her body began going bananas.

Bruises popped up on her legs, so she went to her doctor, who suspected leukemia. It wasn’t, so the doctor suspected abuse.

When her monthly periods stopped and she developed hot flashes, mood swings and insomnia, her gynecologist said it was early menopause, gave her estrogen and told her to calm down.

A dermatologist said the purple marks on her chest were from sunbathing for too many years. Nobody seemed to know why she suddenly gained 40 pounds and became moon-faced. Or why her hair fell out everywhere, except on her face, where it sprouted.

“I cried every day when I looked in the mirror at my fat, ugly, balding self,” she recalls.

Desperate, she went to a psychiatrist who, she recalls, said she was obsessed with her body and gave her Prozac. She wrote suicide notes and called a college roommate to say goodbye.

That call saved her life, says Pace, now 51 and living in Boston. After four years and 15 doctors, it was the roommate, a medical editor, who got the diagnosis right: Cushing’s syndrome.

Spontaneous cases of Cushing’s, usually caused by tumors in the pituitary or adrenal glands, are rare – about 1,500 cases a year in adults and kids.

But thousands of others develop Cushing’s or some of its symptoms, not because of tumors like Pace’s but because they are taking prescribed steroid drugs such as prednisone.

Over the last five years, steroid prescriptions have grown steadily – to more than 30 million in 1996 alone, according to IMS America, a pharmaceutical market research firm.

And that “is a major problem,” says Dr. George Chrousos, chief of pediatric endocrinology at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, even though many doctors have learned to use steroid drugs better than in the past.

Steroid drugs – not to be confused with the anabolic steroids that some athletes use illegally – can be “lifesaving and hugely important in controlling many important diseases,” says Dr. Jerry Avorn, an internist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital who studies drugs and their side effects.

Because of their powerful anti-inflammatory action, they can help combat asthma, chronic lung disease, allergies, rheumatoid arthritis and other auto-immune diseases, certain cancers and rejection of transplanted organs.

But the cost of that benefit can be high.

Dr. David Orth, of Vanderbilt University in Nashville, estimates that 250,000 people a year develop Cushing’s from taking high doses of steroids for long periods. In fact, a person can develop Cushing’s symptoms from taking 20 milligrams of steroids a day for as little as three to six weeks, says Orth, one of a number of endocrinologists, or hormone specialists, who worry that steroids are being overprescribed.

Cushing’s syndrome, or hypercortisolism, occurs when the body’s tissues are exposed to too much of the hormone cortisol.

In a healthy person, cortisol is pumped out every day by the adrenal glands, which sit atop the kidneys. The pituitary gland, which lies just beneath the brain, sends the signal that triggers cortisol production, with the peak output occurring around 8 a.m. – as if nature were providing a jolt to get moving.

And at normal levels, 25 micrograms per deciliter of blood in the morning and about 5 micrograms at night, cortisol is essential to life. It helps regulate blood pressure, energy production, the ability to fight infections and respond to stress. It also seems to keep the immune system in check so that it doesn’t make antibodies that might attack the body’s own tissues. And it seems to balance the effects of insulin in breaking down sugar for energy and to regulate the metabolism of proteins, carbohydrates and fats.

In fact, if you have too little cortisol, you can wind up with Addison’s disease, which President John F. Kennedy had, a condition that can be fatal without hormone replacement.

But too much cortisol – whether produced naturally in the body or taken as steroids – is disastrous, too. It can cause sudden weight gain, especially in the trunk, a florid moon-like face, thin skin, mood changes, muscle weakness, purple stretch marks on the torso, high blood pressure, diabetes, a fatty “buffalo” hump on the neck, depression, and severe osteoporosis.

Left untreated, Cushing’s can be fatal.

In spontaneous Cushing’s, the usual culprit is a tumor in the pituitary gland that sends too many signals to the adrenals to make more cortisol. But tumors in the adrenal glands can also cause excess cortisol production, as can more rare tumors that occur in the lungs and elsewhere.

Whether Cushing’s is caused by tumors or steroids, one result is “severe osteoporosis with devastating consequences,” says Dr. Michael Holick, chief of endocrinology, nutrition and diabetes at Boston Medical Center. “Steroids have a direct effect on bones, causing severe bone wasting. The bones get so thin that a heavy cough can cause fracture of the ribcage.”

No one knows that better than Kathy Carbone, now 48 and a business manager in Richmond, Va., who had a pituitary tumor. Like Pace, Carbone was in her early 40s when the perplexing symptoms began. She spent four years and went to 12 physicians before her disease was diagnosed – also by a friend.

Though Carbone was a very fit aerobics instructor at the time, her bones became so weak she would wake up with spontaneous rib fractures. Her muscles, too, became weak: “If I squatted I would fall over.”

For people like Pace and Carbone whose Cushing’s is caused by tumors, the first step is getting a diagnosis, which includes a series of urine samples collected over 24 hours, then surgery to remove the tumor. But many pituitary tumors – which are usually benign – are so small they can be hard to find amid normal tissue.

For that reason, says Dr. Beverly M.K. Biller, an endocrinologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, it is crucial to find a neurosurgeon who has done “hundreds and hundreds” of the surgeries, usually a procedure called a transsphenoidal adenomectomy, in which the tumor is removed through the nose or an opening below the upper lip.

If you’re in a managed care health plan that requires you to go a specific neurosurgeon, she adds, you “are better off going outside the provider circle if that surgeon is not an expert.”

Like pituitary tumors, about half of adrenal tumors are also benign and can be removed surgically. In almost all cases, this cures the Cushing’s. A malignant adrenal tumor can also be removed surgically, but it must be followed by drugs to suppress cortisol produced by any pieces of the tumor that may have spread, and to curb the cancer.

As both Pace and Carbone can attest, removal of even a benign tumor is just the first step in a long recovery. If surgery cuts cortisol production to zero, the patient is left with a temporary form of Addison’s disease, which must be treated, paradoxically, with hormones, usually prednisone or hydrocortisone.

When Cushing’s is caused by steroids, not a tumor, there are also things you can do.

The most important is to talk to your doctor about reducing the dose. But never suddenly stop steroids on your own – you can go into adrenal failure and die. The goal is to taper off the steroids very slowly.

If you have asthma, chronic lung disease, or rheumatoid arthritis, you may need the steroids just to breathe or walk. Even so, Cushing’s specialists say, you may be able to reduce the dose. And some asthma patients can switch from oral steroids to the inhaled form, which is not absorbed as readily throughout the body.

If you have rheumatoid arthritis, you may be able to taper off some steroids by taking other medications, such as colloidal gold, Plaquenil, Feldene and methotrexate.

For osteoporosis, it may help to take 1,500 to 2,000 milligrams a day of calcium, and 400 International Units of vitamin D. You might also consider taking prescription drugs such as estrogen and Fosamax.

Another strategy is to take steroids only every other day, so you don’t suppress all your own cortisol production. And if you take steroids just once a day, take them at 8 a.m., when your body would normally be making cortisol.

Some day, there may be better drugs that damp down the inflammatory response without so many side effects.

Until then, if you have symptoms that stump your regular doctors, consider seeing a hormone specialist, says Michael Conn, president of the Bethesda, Md.-based Endocrine Society.

And if necesssary, figure things out yourself, says Carbone.

“Anyone who is hurting or seeking answers should take it upon themselves to read, to sit down with medical journals and look up your symptoms,” she says. “I would have been diagnosed far earlier if I had been creative enough to read up on my symptoms.”

To learn more

For more information, call:

  • Cushing’s Support and Research Foundation, Inc. 617-723-3674.
  • 1-800-HORMONE (1-800-467-6663), The Endocrine society.

 

Lyme disease: It’s frustrating, mystifying and very sneaky

May 19, 1997 by Judy Foreman

Lyme disease is one of the most insidious illnesses around.  It gets you while you’re doing something pleasant – like walking in the woods on a summer day.

The tick that carries it is so tiny – the size of the period at the end of this sentence – that you can barely see it. And seeing it is important, because if you pick it off with tweezers within 24 to 48 hours, chances are you won’t get sick.

Finally, the circular red rash that develops around the tick bite is easy to miss. Yet if you ignore it, or the fever, chills, headache and fatigue that will follow in the next few weeks, you may miss your best chance to stop the disease before it turns chronic – and causes trouble for years.

Like chronic fatigue syndrome or fibromyalgia, Lyme disease, especially the chronic form, has been so misunderstood that frustrated patients and mystified doctors have long been at odds. But following a conference of doctors and activists last month at the National Institutes of Health, the hostilities seem to be simmering down and the scientific controversies coming into sharper focus.

Both activists and researchers agree that preventing Lyme disease is both possible and critical. They also agree that no one really knows how many people have it – it’s both vastly underdiagnosed and, in some cases, wrongly diagnosed in people who don’t really have it.

The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta counted 16,197 new cases nationwide last year, up from roughly 12,000 the year before. In Massachusetts, there were 361 new cases last year, up from the roughly 150 to 250 a year in recent years. No particular “hot spots” are expected this year, but the disease is spreading slowly throughout the state. “Only a fraction of the true cases are identified and reported,” says Dr. Bela Matyas, medical director of the epidemiology or disease tracking program at the state Department of Public Health.

And reporting may actually be better in the Northeast than elsewhere. Lyme disease was discovered in Connecticut in the 1970s, and conditions in the New England region are ideal for the Lyme disease spirochete, the bacterium that lives in ticks.

The tick that spreads Lyme disease – and two other diseases called babesiosis and ehrlichiosis – has a complex life cycle. In the larval, stage, the tick lives on white-footed mice. The tick then molts, becomes a nymph, drops off the mouse and sits in low brush waiting for another animal to feed on.

It is at this stage that a tick bite is most infectious to humans. In its adult stage, the ticks live on deer. This means that large deer populations – like those on Nantucket, where residents and state officials last week held a hearing to consider culling herds – help keep the ticks’ life cycle humming. Adult ticks can also infect humans, but less readily.

It’s the diagnosis and treatment of Lyme disease that really gets complicated – and controversial.

Once the tell-tale rash is gone, for instance, it is difficult even to diagnose Lyme disease. CDC’s guidelines suggest using a lab test, called ELISA, to check for antibodies against the spirochete. But this test can be inconclusive, so a second more specific antibody test called a Western blot is often done.

But even this may not be decisive. It can take weeks for the body to make antibodies, so a newly infected person may test negative but still have the disease. And some people seem to have Lyme disease without any detectable antibody response.

Some doctors also use another test, called PCR, or polymerase chain reaction, to look for pieces of DNA from the spirochete itself. But if, as some suspect, the spirochete can hide inside nerve and immune cells, this could make it harder to detect by PCR.

For some people who never noticed a bite or rash, the first sign of acute infection is meningitis, an inflammation of the lining of the brain, or a type of facial paralysis called Bell’s palsy, or fainting due to heart block – an electrical malfunction caused when the spirochete infects the the heart.

Once acute Lyme disease is diagnosed, the usual remedy is 10 to 30 days of oral antibiotics – usually doxycycline or amoxicillin, says Dr. Allen Steere, chief of rheumatology and immunology at the New England Medical Center, although a newer drug called Ceftin can also work. (Doxycycline and other drugs in the tetracycline family also fight ehrlichiosis, but it takes a more complex antibiotic regimen to treat babesiosis.)

Even though antibiotics work most of the time, Karen Vanderhoof-Forschner, founder of the Connecticut-based Lyme Disease Foundation, worries because data from animal studies suggest that treatment does not always make infection go away.

And if the initial infection is not adequately treated, the bacteria can lurk in the joints and the nervous system, producing chronic Lyme disease – even years later.

In some people, the result is arthritis in the knee, in others, it’s a brain problem called encephalopathy which leads to memory impairment and irritability. Still others develop pain, numbness, and tingling in the hands and feet.

It’s still unclear whether these problems result chiefly from a flareup of a latent infection or, as may happen with arthritis, from an auto-immune attack in which the body attacks tissues harboring the spirochete.

“I think chronic Lyme disease is a persistent infection and that we haven’t figured out how to get rid of enough bacteria to cure people,” says Dr. Sam Donta, an infectious disease specialist at Boston Medical Center and the Boston Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

For chronic Lyme, Donta advocates longterm treatment – 6 months or more – with oral antibiotics such as tetracycline or an erythromycin-like drug that can kill bacteria inside cells.

“My advice is that if a patient starts to improve after two weeks, don’t stop. Keep going until he’s all better,” he says. Other specialists advocate longterm treatment with intravenous antibiotics, which may penetrate the nervous system better.

But all this is hotly debated. Steere, for instance, says, “Nowhere in the medical literature is there information to support the value of giving antibiotics for 10 months, and there is potential danger – such as allergic reactions, colitis or gall bladder problems.”

Rosalie Trevejo, a CDC veterinarian, agrees: “Treatment for over a year would be dangerous.”

Some answers may come from a $ 4.2 million study now getting under way at NEMC by Dr. Mark Klempner, who plans to follow 260 chronic Lyme disease patients, giving half of them 90 days of antibiotics and the other half a placebo.

Ideally, a vaccine could head off much of this misery, but that vaccine “fix” may not come as easily as once thought.

Two similar vaccines – one by Connaught Laboratories, Inc. and the other by SmithKline Beecham – have been tested in thousands of people and the results are now being analyzed, says Steere, the principal investigator of the SmithKline study.

But, he says, “There’s no vaccine ready for this season and I don’t yet know about next year.”

Others say the antigen, or marker, used in both these vaccines may not be the most effective one. A third company, MedImmune, Inc. is betting that a vaccine based on a different protein on the spirochete may work better, but it won’t even begin to be tested in people until next summer.

And some researchers worry that vaccines might reactivate infection in people who have had Lyme disease in the past. Donta has several recovered patients who were vaccinated and then “started to have symptoms after getting the vaccine, usually the booster. It makes you wonder whether the vaccine didn’t set something off.”

Other issues still simmer, too. Karen Vanderhoof-Forschner, who has had Lyme disease, believes her son caught it from her while she was pregnant. He died six years later.

But researchers are still unsure whether the Lyme spirochete can cross the placenta. So far, there’s some evidence in mice that it can, and three unconfirmed cases in people.

All of which means, says Vanderhoof-Forschner, that the best way to deal with Lyme disease is to prevent it.

Prevention is the key

Learn to look for the deer tick, Ixodes dammini, on your skin or clothing after walking in fields or woods. It looks like a dark speck about the size of the period at the end of this sentence.

  • If you can’t avoid areas where ticks thrive – woods, marshy areas, high grass and bush – wear long pants tucked into high socks and long-sleeved shirts. Wearing light colors make it easier to spot ticks that get on your clothes.
  • Insect repellants may also help. One called permethrin works, but you must apply this only to your clothing, not your skin. Standard repellants containing DEET (diethyltoluamide) are also effective and can be applied to the skin.
  • Because too much DEET can cause nerve damage, adults should not use it at concentrations higher than 30 to 35 percent; children should not use concentrations higher than 10 to 15 percent. Never put DEET on infants under age 1.
  • When you get home from a tick-infested area, shower or bathe and check yourself and your children carefully for ticks.
  • Remove ticks with a pair of tweezers within 24 to 48 hours.
  • If pets have been in tick-infested areas, check them, too, as well as areas where they sit or lie. Ticks can drop off from pets onto couches and rugs.

For more information:

If you are interested in enrolling in the New England Medical Center study of the treatment of chronic Lyme disease, call: 1-888-LYME-CTR. (1-888-5963-287)

  • Lyme Disease Foundation hotline 1-800-886-LYME (1-800-886-5963)
  • American Lyme Disease Foundation, Inc., 914-277-6970.

 

« Previous Page
Next Page »

Copyright © 2025 Judy Foreman