Better Health: Smart Health Commentary Better Health (TM): smart health commentary

Article Comments

Health And The Value Of Open-Mindedness

Three recent sto­ries lead me to my open­ing topic for the year: The value of open-mindedness. This char­ac­ter­is­tic — a state of recep­tive­ness to new ideas — affects how we per­ceive and process infor­ma­tion. It’s a qual­ity I look for in my doc­tors, and which I admire espe­cially in older people.

Piece #1 — On the brain’s matu­rity, flex­i­bil­ity and “cog­ni­tive fitness”

For the first piece, I’ll note a Dec 31 op-ed piece that appeared in the New York Times: This Year, Change Your Mind, by Dr. Oliver Sacks, the neu­rol­o­gist and author. In this thought­ful essay, he con­sid­ers the adult brain’s “mys­te­ri­ous and extra­or­di­nary” power to adapt and grow: “I have seen hun­dreds of patients with var­i­ous deficits — strokes, Parkinson’s and even demen­tia — learn to do things in new ways, whether con­sciously or uncon­sciously, to work around those deficits.”

With appro­pri­ate and very-real respect, I ques­tion Sacks’ objec­tiv­ity on this sub­ject — he’s referred some of the most out­stand­ing (i.e. excep­tional) neu­ro­log­i­cal cases in the world. And so it may be that his care­ful reports are per­fectly valid but not rep­re­sen­ta­tive; for most of us, the adult brain’s capac­ity to estab­lish new cir­cuitry for lan­guage learn­ing or music appre­ci­a­tion may be lim­ited. What his sto­ries do show is that unimag­in­ably strange things hap­pen in our brains, at least occa­sion­ally. And maybe we should just accept that and take notes (as he does so care­fully), and keep an open mind.

Finally, he writes:

…all of us can find ways to stim­u­late our brains to grow, in the com­ing year and those to fol­low. Just as phys­i­cal activ­ity is essen­tial to main­tain­ing a healthy body, chal­leng­ing one’s brain, keep­ing it active, engaged, flex­i­ble and play­ful, is not only fun. It is essen­tial to cog­ni­tive fitness.

I’m inspired by the notion of keep­ing a fluid, active mind. It’s not easy to keep abreast of new data, and to read the lit­er­a­ture crit­i­cally. While some peo­ple become more with­drawn in adult­hood, rest­ing on com­fort­able rou­tines and reli­able sources, I choose the oppo­site: read­ing blogs, scan­ning Twit­ter, check­ing out lec­tures on YouTube, watch­ing new TV shows, lis­ten­ing to my kids and stu­dents.

Paper #2 — On an incred­i­ble effect of known placebos

Another curi­ous Decem­ber story, Place­bos with­out Decep­tion: A Ran­dom­ized Con­trolled Trial in Irri­ta­ble Bowel Syn­drome, appeared in the strictly on-line jour­nal PLosONE. The arti­cle is per­haps more defin­i­tive, as it is more puz­zling: the inves­ti­ga­tors observed that when peo­ple with irri­ta­ble bowel syn­drome (IBS) took placebo drugs in a clin­i­cal trial, even though they knew they were receiv­ing a placebo and not real med­ica­tion, they felt sig­nif­i­cantly bet­ter than those patients who didn’t receive the open-label, placebo treatment.

As a reader and sci­en­tist, I can­not under­stand this obser­va­tion except to say most likely it’s an exper­i­men­tal fluke. But the study’s sta­tis­tics were strong, and the trends inter­nally con­sis­tent, ren­der­ing it likely that what the inves­ti­ga­tors reported could be repro­duced. The patients’ symp­toms are highly sub­jec­tive in IBS, although they can be debil­i­tat­ing and costly. My con­clu­sion, try­ing to be open-minded about a result that seems improb­a­ble if not impos­si­ble, is that maybe there are things we don’t really under­stand about how “med­i­cine” affects humans.

The eth­i­cal impli­ca­tions of this find­ing — that “place­bos work” — are inter­est­ing, if it’s true (which I wouldn’t con­clude based on this one study reported in PLoS, or any­where). For now what I’d say is the results are intrigu­ing. I’m curi­ous to see if these results are repro­duced, and how the eth­i­cal impli­ca­tions will be ironed out in our mod­ern med­ical community.

Story #3 – On the ques­tion­able effects of echinacea

The third arti­cle, pub­lished in the Dec 21 Annals of Inter­nal Med­i­cine, con­sid­ers the poten­tial of echi­nacea in treat­ing the com­mon cold. The results of a 4-armed, ran­dom­ized study involv­ing 719 patients with symp­toms of an acute res­pi­ra­tory infec­tion (“a cold”) were incon­clu­sive, at best. A skep­tic might say of the trial, spon­sored by the National Cen­ter for Com­pli­men­tary and Alter­na­tive Med­i­cine (NCCAM), that it proves once and for all that echi­nacea is ther­a­peu­ti­cally use­less. Another reader, per­haps versed in the flower-derived substance’s pur­ported effects in other and ear­lier cul­tures, might charge that the inves­ti­ga­tors chose the wrong prepa­ra­tion, derived from roots of the E. angus­ti­fo­lia and E. Pur­purea species, or that the researchers picked the wrong dose to observe an effect of the drug on the dura­tion and inten­sity and bio­log­i­cal effects of a com­mon cold.

I’ve never tried echi­nacea and have no finan­cial or other par­tic­u­lar inter­est in this com­pound. But hav­ing read the arti­cle a few times, I’m dis­ap­pointed, even unset­tled by the results. After so many stud­ies, many of which are ref­er­enced in the Annals paper, and now this costly, NIH-sponsored find­ing of what’s essen­tially no effect, it’s hard to say that echi­nacea is help­ful to any­one. At the same time, I don’t think there’s suf­fi­cient infor­ma­tion to say that it doesn’t work in pre­vent­ing or reduc­ing the inten­sity of an upper res­pi­ra­tory tract infec­tion, or that it doesn’t work in some indi­vid­u­als who have symp­toms like a runny nose and sore throat.

Accord­ing to the ACP Internist (where I am a contributor):

…The study’s lead author, Bruce Bar­rett, MD, PhD, told USA Today that echinacea’s sup­port­ers would prob­a­bly con­sider the find­ings pos­i­tive but that those who oppose it for the com­mon cold would con­sider the study “the nail in the cof­fin.” The direc­tor of the study’s pri­mary fund­ing source, the National Cen­ter for Com­ple­men­tary and Alter­na­tive Med­i­cine, told USA Today that the cen­ter doesn’t plan to sup­port future sim­i­lar research, since exist­ing data make clear that Echinacea’s ben­e­fit for the com­mon cold, if any, is “very modest.”

Still, we don’t know if echi­nacea might work bet­ter as a tea pre­pared from dried roots or some­how oth­er­wise ingested by peo­ple who are sick, as opposed to the pill com­pound that was given to par­tic­i­pants in the Annals study, or if an extract com­pounded from a dif­fer­ent com­bi­na­tion of Echi­nacea flower species might do the trick.

So if a doctor is open-minded and her patient wants to try tak­ing echi­nacea tea for a blos­som­ing cold, she might tell the patient that there’s not much evi­dence based on pub­lished tri­als of the herb, and that in fact so far the echi­nacea data aren’t sup­port­ive of a mean­ing­ful effect in any patient group. At the same time, there’s prob­a­bly lit­tle risk of try­ing echi­nacea, in that it seems to have few unto­ward effects. And the patient and physi­cian might then observe what hap­pens, and draw lim­ited if any con­clu­sions based on that person’s indi­vid­ual, n=1 expe­ri­ence with echinacea.

A closed-minded doc­tor might tell her patient that echi­nacea isn’t worth try­ing, in any form. In her mind, she con­sid­ers the sub­stance is a sort of nat­ural or home-remedy that has no role in mod­ern med­i­cine. She might even feel it’s a waste of her time to dis­cuss the alter­na­tive treat­ment with her patient, and per­ceive the patient as being unco­op­er­a­tive if he or she tries tak­ing it against her advice.

Patients’ atti­tudes vary, as do their doc­tors, and given a choice of physi­cians patients prob­a­bly choose doc­tors whose per­sonal philoso­phies roughly align with their own.

For now what I’ll say is this: I respect it when a doc­tor admits uncer­tainty, and is will­ing to try some­thing of low cost and low tox­i­c­ity, for which the evi­dence is thus-far unclear. (Of course, if we extend this argu­ment to a dis­cus­sion of more costly and poten­tially toxic drugs — like new can­cer treat­ments, we’d need to weigh more care­fully the poten­tial harms of a treat­ment against the unproved ben­e­fit.) In prin­ci­ple, though, I like the approach of an open-minded doc­tor, who rec­og­nizes the lim­i­ta­tions of pub­lished data, and is will­ing to explore an unproved approach to a prob­lem in a way that’s trans­par­ent: as long as the doc­tor doesn’t sell the echi­nacea, and is hon­est with the patient about the lack of evi­dence to sup­port its use, it seems okay.

How much bet­ter it is to approach infor­ma­tion with an open mind, to take it in and con­tem­plate its ram­i­fi­ca­tions, than to sim­ply say “no, that’s impos­si­ble.” As far as my doc­tors are con­cerned, I hope that’s their atti­tude, too.

*This blog post was originally published at Medical Lessons*


You may also like these posts

Read comments »


Comments are closed.

Return to article »

Latest Interviews

IDEA Labs: Medical Students Take The Lead In Healthcare Innovation

It’s no secret that doctors are disappointed with the way that the U.S. healthcare system is evolving. Most feel helpless about improving their work conditions or solving technical problems in patient care. Fortunately one young medical student was undeterred by the mountain of disappointment carried by his senior clinician mentors…

Read more »

How To Be A Successful Patient: Young Doctors Offer Some Advice

I am proud to be a part of the American Resident Project an initiative that promotes the writing of medical students residents and new physicians as they explore ideas for transforming American health care delivery. I recently had the opportunity to interview three of the writing fellows about how to…

Read more »

See all interviews »

Latest Cartoon

See all cartoons »

Latest Book Reviews

Book Review: Is Empathy Learned By Faking It Till It’s Real?

I m often asked to do book reviews on my blog and I rarely agree to them. This is because it takes me a long time to read a book and then if I don t enjoy it I figure the author would rather me remain silent than publish my…

Read more »

The Spirit Of The Place: Samuel Shem’s New Book May Depress You

When I was in medical school I read Samuel Shem s House Of God as a right of passage. At the time I found it to be a cynical yet eerily accurate portrayal of the underbelly of academic medicine. I gained comfort from its gallows humor and it made me…

Read more »

Eat To Save Your Life: Another Half-True Diet Book

I am hesitant to review diet books because they are so often a tangled mess of fact and fiction. Teasing out their truth from falsehood is about as exhausting as delousing a long-haired elementary school student. However after being approached by the authors’ PR agency with the promise of a…

Read more »

See all book reviews »