June 5th, 2009 by Steve Novella, M.D. in Better Health Network
Tags: Hospitalizations, Influenza, Pediatrics, Safety, Vaccines
No Comments »
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) currently recommends that children 6 month to 18 years old receive an annual flu vaccine. There are two types of flu vaccines used in the US: a live attenuated virus (LAIV) and a trivalent inactivated virus (TIV) vaccine. Both are safe and effective – while efficacy varies from year to year, they are 70-90% effective in healthy adults. Efficacy is young children appears to be slightly less, about 66%.
There remains, however, many sub-questions about the flu vaccines and by the time researchers have thoroughly explored them vaccine technology is likely to have progressed, and therefore any new vaccines will have to be tested all over again.
One of those sub-questions about vaccine safety and efficacy is the net effect of the flu vaccine in children with asthma. Some have raised concerns that the vaccine may exacerbate asthma, a 1-2% increased wheezing and 3% increased hospitalizations have been reported, although so far the bulk of the data suggests that both types of flu vaccines are safe in children with asthma. There is evidence to suggest that the LAIV may be superior to the TIV in children, particularly with asthma.
A new study, presented but not published, further explores the safety and efficacy of the TIV in children. Study author, Avni Joshi, M.D., of the Mayo Clinic, reports:
“The concerns that vaccination maybe associated with asthma exacerbations have been disproved with multiple studies in the past, but the vaccine’s effectiveness has not been well-established. This study was aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of the TIV in children overall, as well as the children with asthma, to prevent influenza-related hospitalization.”
The study is a retrospective study of 263 children who presented to the Mayo clinic with laboratory confirmed influenza. They found that children who had recieved the TIV vaccine had a 3 times greater risk of hospitalization than those who were not vaccinated. These results raise concerns about the safety and effectiveness of the TIV in children with asthma.
Dr. Joshi concludes:
“While these findings do raise questions about the efficacy of the vaccine, they do not in fact implicate it as a cause of hospitalizations. More studies are needed to assess not only the immunogenicity, but also the efficacy of different influenza vaccines in asthmatic subjects.”
That may seem like a curious conclusion given the results of this study, but it is accurate. The key to understanding the implications of this study is that it is retrospective. That means it looks at children who have the flu and then looks back to see who was vaccinated and who wasn’t. This in turn means that children were not randomized to either be vaccinated or not, and this opens the door to any number of variables that cannot be controlled for in the study.
The authors did look as obvious factors, such as severity of asthma and insurance status, and found that they did not correlate with risk of being hospitalized. But what other factors might there be? The flu vaccine is optional, which means that parents decide whether or not to vaccinate their children, perhaps with advice from their pediatrician. It is likely that sicker or more frail children are more likely to get vaccinated. It is also likely that children who had a bad reaction to the flu in the past are more likely to get vaccinated. The flu vaccine is recommended especially for those who are at high risk for complications if they get the flu.
Therefore while this study raises important questions, it is not designed to answer them definitively. A prospective trial is required for that, and that is what Joshi means by “more studies are needed.” In general, retrospective studies are useful to find correlations and generate hypothesis, but are not capable of determining causation – there are simply too many variables that are not controlled for.
As expected, the anti-vaccinationists have already jumped on this study and misinterpreted its significance. They did not recognize its retrospective nature nor put it into the context of existing research on the safety and efficacy of the flu vaccines.
Clinical trials are complex, and there are many types that each have their own strengths and weaknesses. Often, many independent lines of basic science and clinical evidence need to be brought together to form a reliable conclusion about a specific intervention. That is the essence of science-based medicine. Individual studies typically only provide a tiny slice of information, but are often presented to the public as if they are definitive. This creates a constant background noise of misinformation about medical questions.
It also provides a rich source of data from which to cherry pick, allowing proponents to support almost any notion by shopping from the vast store of often conflicting medical research. This reinforces the need to look thoroughly at the totality of scientific evidence on any claim or question.
When that is done on the question of the flu vaccines, it is clear that both types of vaccines are safe and effective. However, there is also much room for improvement in the vaccine technology itself, as well as evidence-based recommendations for who, exactly, should get which type of vaccine.
This current study adds incrementally to our knowledge on this question, and suggests questions for future research. It is not the kind of evidence, however, that should lead to changes in the current recommendations.
*This blog post was originally published at Science-Based Medicine*
June 5th, 2009 by MotherJonesRN in Better Health Network
Tags: Interns, Internship, Medical Residency, Nursing, Residents, Tips, Training
No Comments »
I wrote this post a long time ago when I first started blogging. I’m recycling the post because this information bears repeating. I’ve been seeing some behavior lately that is inappropriate, and I’m telling you this stuff for your own good. Please, never roll your eyes at a nurse who is old enough to be your mother. She may be going through menopause, and it could be the last thing that you ever do. Just sayin.’ Don’t make waves at the nurses station.
I worked as a neurosurgical nurse many years ago at a teaching hospital in the Midwest, and twice a year a new crop of interns descended upon our unit. It was the best show in town. The spectacle began with the chief of neurosurgery, Dr. Holier Than Thou, strutting on to the unit with his entourage marching behind him. He stood before the crowd in his impeccable white lab coat, telling everyone within earshot of his importance, and how he held the power of life and death in his hands. I would sit at the nurses station and snicker at the biannual parade, and remembered my first day in the hospital as a nursing student. Two interns had asked me to go into a patient’s room to get a set vitals signs. They didn’t tell me that the patient was cold, stone dead. I walked into the patient’s room, saw the dearly departed, and calmly walked back to the nurses station to find the interns laughing their fannies off. I told them they were going to make damn good doctors one day, but first they had to learn what rigor mortis looked like. Nonetheless, because every new group of interns looked like lambs being lead to slaughter, I pitied them, and I gave them information to use as a survival guide. These are the rules I taught them about working with nurses.
1) Nurses deserve respect. We are with the patients twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, while doctors are only able to see patients a few minutes a day. Smart interns forge alliances with the nursing staff, and understand that nurses can save their butts when something goes wrong with one of their patients.
2) Don’t take the last piece of pizza in the nurses lounge unless you are invited to do so. Nurses are territorial about food.
3) Nurses do not tolerate interns with a budding God complex. Nurses have no problem calling arrogant interns every hour on the hour for Tylenol orders, especially at night. Arrogance breeds contempt.
4) Don’t be stupid. If you want to complain about nursing care, be careful when you approach a nurse who is working the last half of a double shift. Refer to rule #3.
5) Nurses are your friends. We want to see you succeed, and if we like you, we will make sure that Dr. Holier Than Thou doesn’t find out that you order Demerol 1000 mg, instead of 100 mg, IM q 4 hours PRN because you were dead on your feet after being on call for three days in a row.
*This blog post was originally published at Nurse Ratched's Place*
June 5th, 2009 by KevinMD in Better Health Network
Tags: Fracture, Knife, Nail Gun, Radiology, Skull, X-ray
No Comments »
A bizarrely morbid slide show of radiology images showing various patients impaled by foreign objects.
If you need more reasons to be wary of nail guns, fishing spears, keys, or knives, look no further.
*This blog post was originally published at KevinMD.com*
June 4th, 2009 by Nancy Brown, Ph.D. in Better Health Network
Tags: Health Information, Pediatrics, Psychiatry, Psychology, sex, teens, Texting
No Comments »
As if we needed any more indications that the sexuality education we teach in schools might not be working, the latest place for teens to find answers to their questions is via cell phone.
In spite of web sites that allow teens to ask anonymous questions like We’re Talking Teen Health and Go Ask Alice!, teens are still looking for answers to immediate sexuality-related questions, and texting them is the newest way to get answers.
In California, teens can text their sexuality questions to ISIS by texting the word ‘hookup’ to the phone number 365247 which will allow them to sign up for weekly health tips. Each tip contains a prompt to text the word ‘clinic’ plus a zip code to get contact information for two local clinics.
In North Carolina, they can text questions to The Birds and Bees Text Line. Both services provide non-judgmental and medically accurate information within 24 hours to teens with questions.
Neither site provides medical advice, only information from an adult and encouragement to seek medical care. The important part is that these services are another place teens can reach out to adults for information and support.
I worry a little bit about what happens when teens admit they were raped, or are being sexually abused – what do the adults receiving this information do – and are they responsible for reporting what they learn to the authorities, but I guess that is a abridge we cross when we come to it.
For now, I am happy there are more adults willing to provide the information teens need to make good decisions, get medical care, and protect themselves. As always, parents would be the best source of sexuality information, but they might need their own texting site for their questions!
This post, Reaching Adults – Teens Text Questions About Sex, was originally published on
Healthine.com by Nancy Brown, Ph.D..
June 4th, 2009 by EvanFalchukJD in Better Health Network
Tags: Finance, Healthcare Costs, Healthcare reform, Prevention, Preventive Health
No Comments »
Preventable disease is a terrible burden, made all the more tragic by the fact that it can be avoided.
Policymakers in Washington take this a step further, claiming that we can save huge amounts of money by systematic programs to prevent disease and encourage wellness. The document explaining the Republicans’ new “Patient Choice Act” says that wellness and disease prevention can save trillions of dollars (.pdf). President Obama seems to agree, saying these programs like these can create “serious savings” that represent “huge amounts of money in the long term.”
There’s one problem: study after study says it’s not true.
Earlier this year, the prestigious journal Health Affairs published a study on this topic. The author reviewed the results of nearly 600 studies (abstract at link, full article requires subscription) on the cost-effectiveness of various prevention programs. The findings are overwhelming – less than 20% of these programs saved money, while more than 80% actually added more to medical costs than they saved. How can this be?
It isn’t that complicated when you think about it. Take high blood pressure. If every American with high blood pressure took blood pressure medication, we would have lower rates of heart disease and stroke, and of course, eliminate the costs associated with those avoided conditions. But as the study points out:
the accumulated costs of treating hypertension are nonetheless greater than the savings, because many people, not all of whom would ever suffer heart disease or stroke, must take medication for many years.
Studies have shown similar results for other chronic diseases, like diabetes and asthma. There is also important data showing that even screening programs for cervical, breast and colon cancer cost more than they save.
Does this mean we shouldn’t do these things? Of course not. For each life that is touched by avoiding a chronic disease, finding a tumor early on, staying out of the hospital, there is enormous value. But the value is not financial. It’s something we do because it’s right, and it’s inherently good. There are no formulas to measure this.
Health care is very expensive, and the burden of that cost affects us all. But to talk seriously about this problem we need to confront an inconvenient truth: there is more to health care than just dollars and cents.
*This blog post was originally published at See First Blog*
