April 24th, 2008 by Dr. Val Jones in Expert Interviews
Tags: Chronic Disease, Finance
2 Comments »
Here it is… the long anticipated interview about chronic disease with Dr. Richard Carmona, 17th Surgeon General of the United States. I asked him 5 key questions and will split the Q&A into 5 posts. Enjoy!
Dr. Val: What do you say to those who argue that disease prevention is critical for quality of life, but does not ultimately reduce costs?
Dr. Carmona: The real value of prevention is best captured by some of the simpler interventions that have little or no cost to implement, such as smoking cessation. The returns on these prevention strategies are huge, and the only “cost” is in educating people to change their behaviors. Another great example is childhood vaccination – it costs pennies per child but protects them from polio and other deadly diseases.
In the recent past there have been a number of editorials where learned individuals have cited examples such as the cost of treating hyperlipidemia in the population at large. For every heart attack that lipid-lowering drugs prevent, it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to provide the drugs to the population with high cholesterol. I guess if you’re the one with the heart attack it is worth it. But not withstanding that issue, I think the argument is a misapplication of the concept of prevention.
If you look at prevention in the appropriate light, you can make the business case for it. Health itself and quality of life are priceless things. We need to provide the right drug for the right person at the right time. But better yet, lifestyle interventions like physical activity and healthy eating behaviors can eliminate the need for many medications.
The real issue here is how to attain optimal health and wellness through appropriately vetted prevention strategies that will reduce the cost of care while improving the quality and quantity of life. That is the challenge we have before us and I’m working to answer as chairperson of the Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease.
***
The Surgeon General series: see what else Dr. Carmona has to say about…
Obesity is America’s #1 Health Concern
Consumer Directed Healthcare and Health Literacy
Complementary and Alternative Medicine
Preventing Chronic DiseaseThis post originally appeared on Dr. Val’s blog at RevolutionHealth.com.
April 23rd, 2008 by Dr. Val Jones in Expert Interviews, News
Tags: Cancer, Medicare, News, Oncology, Radiology, Research, Technology
5 Comments »
Imagine that you were diagnosed with cancer, and were told that you had one of two treatment options: 1) you could receive a one time dose of a medicine that will go directly to the tumor cells and kill them only, having very few noticeable side effects or 2) you could undergo months of exposure to toxic chemicals that will kill the tumor cells and many other healthy cells as well, resulting in hair loss, bowel damage, nausea, and vomiting. Which would you choose?
Unfortunately, choice number one may no longer be an option for lymphoma patients due to government funding cutbacks, and the development of such treatments for other cancers is in jeopardy as well.
Radioimmunotherapy (RIT) is a relatively new approach to cancer treatment, new enough that the government is having difficulty categorizing it correctly. (RIT involves targeting cancer cells with special antibodies that carry tiny, lethal radiation doses to individual cells.) In fact, drugs like Bexxar and Zevalin have been misclassified by CMS as “supplies” rather than medications, and so the reimbursement allowed doesn’t come close to covering the cost of the therapy. Although there are many new targeted therapies under development, investors are worried that the drugs will never be used in patient care because the country’s number one payer (Medicare) is unwilling to cover their costs. Other health insurers often follow the government’s lead when it comes to treatment coverage policies. If no one will pay for the cost of the drug, then ultimately no one can afford to make it available.
Similar funding problems are beginning to limit access to diagnostic nuclear imaging modalities like PET scans, PET CT, cardiac SPECT scans, and bone scans. Reimbursement levels that do not cover the cost of the imaging drugs means that facilities cannot afford to offer these diagnostic technologies to patients, and centers are slowly reducing the number of tests they offer. Nuclear imaging studies are often critical in diagnosing heart problems, infections, and early detection of cancer. Senator Arlen Specter had his cancer recurrence diagnosed at the very earliest stages thanks to PET scanning technology. Early treatment offers him the best possible prognosis, but he is in a dwindling group of people who have access to this imaging modality.
I spoke with Dr. Peter Conti, professor of radiology at the University of Southern California, and former president of the Society of Nuclear Medicine, from Spain this week – as he is attending the 6th International Workshop for Nuclear Oncology, a lymphoma conference where the crisis in reimbursement for targeted cancer therapies is being discussed, along with exciting advances in treating patients with lymphoma. The two different RIT drugs (Bexxar and Zevalin) for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma are in jeopardy of not being available to Medicare patients due to proposed cuts in reimbursement. Recent plans to cut payment for these drugs have been halted by a temporary moratorium from Senator Kennedy. Here’s what Dr. Conti had to say:
“Let’s face it, lymphoma is not as high profile as other cancers such as breast, colon, or prostate. However, we’ve found a fantastic treatment option for it, and there are implications for the more common cancers, but that treatment option is being denied to lymphoma patients because facilities cannot cover the costs of offering it. I’d like the entire cancer community to rise up in support of lymphoma patients so that Congress will tell Medicare to fix the funding problem. If this doesn’t happen, it’s only a matter of time until novel RIT treatments are no longer an option and we’ll be stuck in the dark ages of non-specific chemotherapy and radiation treatments that harm the good cells with the bad. Personalized, targeted therapy is the future – and we’re missing the opportunity to further develop these novel therapies due to budget cuts.”
I reached out to the current president of the Society of Nuclear Medicine, Dr. Alexander J. McEwan, for comment:
“Molecular imaging offers critical tools for the early detection, diagnosis and treatment of many life-threatening diseases, including cancer. SNM recommends that CMS establishes appropriate reimbursement for all forms of nuclear and molecular imaging and radioisotope therapies at levels that allow optimum access and improved outcomes for all patients.”
Denial of RIT to lymphoma patients may be the first sign of a new trend limiting the development of high tech therapeutic innovations. Will America’s research engine run out of gas before we figure out how to treat cancer without side effects? Should we buy one more tank to get us over the crest of the targeted therapy hill? This is a judgment call that affects all of us at a time of great need and limited resources. What’s your take?This post originally appeared on Dr. Val’s blog at RevolutionHealth.com.
April 7th, 2008 by Dr. Val Jones in Expert Interviews
Tags: Celiac Disease, Gastroenterology, News, Podcast, Research
5 Comments »
Celiac disease (also known as celiac sprue) is an autoimmune intestinal disorder that affects millions of Americans, but is often misdiagnosed and misunderstood. I interviewed Revolution Health’s gastroenterologist, Dr. Brian Fennerty, to help set the record straight. I highly recommend that you listen in to the entire conversation here, but I’ve captured the highlights in written form below.
Dr. Val: What is celiac disease?
Celiac disease is a genetically determined sensitivity to gluten, which is a protein component of wheat and other cereal grains. Some people think of it as an allergy to gluten, but it’s not a true allergy because it causes symptoms through a different biological pathway. Allergies respond to anti-histamines (and involve IgE antibodies released by eosinophils and mast cells) whereas gluten sensitivity involves IgA and IgG antibodies (released by different types of cells called lymphocytes) and do not respond to anti-histamine treatments. So the treatment for celiac disease is largely avoidance of gluten containing foods rather than directly treating the immune response.
Dr. Val: Is celiac disease under-recognized by physicians?
About 1-2% of adult Americans actually have a gene for celiac disease. However, many people with the gene don’t have symptoms. And there are others who don’t have the gene who do have celiac disease. This makes celiac disease both common, and commonly misdiagnosed.
Dr. Val: Why do some people with celiac disease have symptoms and others don’t?
That’s the million dollar question. It’s probably due to the relative vigorousness of their immunological response to gluten, and how much of their bowel is involved. Symptoms of celiac disease can range from a severe gluten intolerance in a child who stops eating (due to pain and bloating) and ceases to grow due to malnourishment, to an elderly person who has no intestinal symptoms whatsoever but is found to be iron-deficient on a screening exam – which leads eventually to the diagnosis of celiac disease.
Dr. Val: How do you diagnose celiac disease?
Doctors often misunderstand how best to diagnose this disease, and because of that patients are often misled. Nowadays we screen for celiac disease with a blood test called “tissue trans-glutaminase” (TTG) to determine whether or not this enzyme is present in an abnormal form (which is the case in patients with celiac disease). However the test has an 80% sensitivity, which means that 80% of the people who have celiac disease test positive with the TTG test, but 20% of the people who test positive do NOT have celiac disease. When only 1 or 2% of the population has the disease, a positive test is given so frequently that most people who test positive don’t actually have the disease. A negative test, on the other hand, is more helpful to exclude the diagnosis of celiac disease. So anyone with a positive celiac blood test should assume that they don’t have celiac disease until it has been confirmed with a duodenal biopsy.
Dr. Val: How invasive is a biopsy for celiac disease? Are there risks involved?
The biopsy involves an upper endoscopy (NOT a colonoscopy) so there is no bowel prep requirement so it’s much more comfortable. The biopsy itself is very shallow, so there’s no risk for bleeding. The only risks are those associated with a regular endoscopy. It is a sedated exam, so you may lose time from work, but it’s not painful or as involved as a colonoscopy.
Dr. Val: Could you still miss celiac disease on a biopsy?
It’s possible though quite unlikely. The test is very accurate, but there are some mild cases of celiac disease where the part of the bowel that we biopsy is not involved in the disease process and may not be visible under the microscope. If the disease is still strongly suspected in someone with a negative biopsy, a second biopsy can be done with a longer scope (called an enteroscope) to get a sample of tissue from farther down in the small intestine. A second option would be for the patient to swallow a camera capsule so that we can take photos of the bowel wall to see if there are changes in the lining of the intestine suggestive of celiac disease. A third option is to try a gluten-free diet and see if the patient’s symptoms improve.
Dr. Val: Is there any new research or potential therapies for celiac disease?
Because this is an immunologic disorder (where the intestine’s immune system is reacting abnormally to a normal dietary constituent and causing inflammation) we can try to control the inflammatory response. In the past we tried very potent immunomodulators like chemotherapy, or anti-inflammatories used in other auto-immune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis or Crohn’s disease. However, these are very strong medications with many unwanted side-effects. There are targeted therapies being developed that will help to block the gluten response without exposing the patient to the potent general anti-inflammatory properties of chemotherapy-type agents, but we don’t know yet if this approach will be successful.
Dr. Val: What’s your advice for patients with celiac disease?
I have three pieces of advice that I generally give my patients with celiac disease:
1. Become as informed as possible about your disease. Websites such as the Celiac Sprue Association and NFCA are excellent sources of trustworthy information. At the same time, the Internet is an extremely dangerous place for celiac patients because there are a lot of websites that are not science-based, but driven by marketers who are trying to sell products to patients. So the patient has to learn to filter the information they’re getting off the Internet.
2. Consult with a dietician or nutritionist who understands celiac disease. Not all dieticians are skilled at counseling people with gluten sensitivity, so be sure to find one who has expertise in this area. A good dietician or nutritionist is the most important part of the healthcare team for a patient with celiac disease.
3. Make sure your diagnosis is accurate. There are many tens of thousands of people walking around with a diagnosis of celiac disease who do not have it. If you’ve been diagnosed on the basis of a blood test alone, and your symptoms don’t correlate perfectly with gluten sensitivity, you need to question that diagnosis.
Dr. Val: Do people with celiac disease have higher risks for other gastrointestinal disorders?
Yes. Celiac disease is associated with diabetes, so people with celiac disease should be screened for diabetes. Some people believe that patients with celiac disease are at higher risk for irritable bowel syndrome, though it’s unclear if that’s because of overlapping symptoms and not an actual increase in IBS. Patients with celiac disease are at higher risk for iron and calcium deficiencies (due to absorption problems in the intestinal lining) which can lead to anemia and osteoporosis. There is also a higher risk of small bowel lymphoma, which is a very rare form of cancer. A celiac patient’s risk (like anyone’s risk) of breast cancer or prostate cancer, of course, are far higher than the very small (but increased) risk of intestinal lymphoma.
So there you have it folks, all you ever needed to know about celiac disease. I’m going to be participating Washington DC’s Gluten Free Cooking Spree this Friday, April 11th. I’m teamed up with the chef from Cafe Atlantico to create a gluten free meal that’s going to be out-of-this world delicious. If you’re local, I hope I see you there!This post originally appeared on Dr. Val’s blog at RevolutionHealth.com.
March 28th, 2008 by Dr. Val Jones in Expert Interviews
Tags: Cancer, Dermatology, Parenting
3 Comments »
Tanning salons are a $2 billion dollar industry in the U.S., and their bottom line has been damaged by the medical community’s warnings about the link between UV (ultraviolet) exposure and skin cancer. Recent studies have found that some Americans may have too little Vitamin D in their diets, and since the body can synthesize this vitamin when exposed to sunlight, the tanning industry is campaigning for the potential health benefits of UV exposure. Vitamin D helps to keep bones strong, and may provide protection from osteoporosis, hypertension, cancer, and several autoimmune diseases.
Now, in the interest of full disclosure – I did use tanning salons in my late teens and early 20’s. I knew it could be harmful, but (like a moth to a flame?) couldn’t resist the sweet lure of changing my “glow in the dark” skin to a light shade of cream (no melanin is no melanin, friends). So, I was more than curious to get an insider perspective on the tanning industry vs. medical professionals battle. I turned to a dermatologist whom I respect immensely: Revolution Health expert, Dr. Stephen Stone. I asked him the following questions:
1. Does exposure to ultraviolet light have health benefits?
Other than for treatment of disease (psoriasis for one, atopic eczema, cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, for example), the only known benefit is the production of Vitamin D in the skin – and adequate vitamin D can be obtained from food and supplements without the danger of UV exposure – and even in the worst climates, the sun is an adequate source of Vitamin D without resorting to tanning beds.
2. What amount of sun exposure is currently recommended?
There is no “recommended daily allowance” for sun exposure, and 15 – 20 min a day of unprotected sun on the arms (not total body) will allow peak production of vitamin D.
3. Are there alternatives for good health?
UV is not needed at all for “good health.”
4. What evidence is there that exposure to tanning beds increases the risk of skin cancers?
The US dept of HHS and FDA officially classify UV as a “known carcinogen” and there are numerous articles supporting this: Gandini et al., Meta-analysis of risk factors for cutaneous melanoma, European Journal of Cancer, Westerdahl et al., Risk of cutaneous malignant melanoma in relation to use of sunbeds, British Journal of Cancer (2000), Karagas et al., Use of tanning devices and risk of basal and squamous cell cancers, Journal of the NCI (2002).
5. How would you describe that risk?
Significant.
6. What do you think of the recent ad campaign sponsored by the tanning industry?
Same as I think of cigarette ads!
7. What is your take-home message to patients about tanning salons?
If the cancer doesn’t get you, think of the wrinkles! We focus on cancer, because that’s life and death, but no one can deny that the UV causes premature aging and wrinkles.
So there you have it, folks. Indoor and outdoor tanning are both harmful to your skin. Whether or not you get cancer, wrinkles are a sure result of excessive exposure to UV radiation (with a little help from our friend, gravity). So I’m going to keep up with my sunscreen (see Dr. Benabio’s blog post), get a skin check annually, and accept myself as the tanless wonder that I am. Or maybe I should create a pale people support group? Any joiners?This post originally appeared on Dr. Val’s blog at RevolutionHealth.com.
March 25th, 2008 by Dr. Val Jones in Expert Interviews
Tags: Fitness, Hospitals, News, Research, Weight Loss, Women's Health
5 Comments »
Women in their 40’s are at an advantage when it comes to weight control and fitness. How so? I asked three of my favorite medical experts to explain what it means to be fit and forty, and how you can get there.
Myth-busting With Dr. Dickerson
Dr. Val: I know that many women in their 40’s complain of having gained weight. What causes that weight gain? Is it inevitable?
Dr. Dickerson: Many women don’t gain weight in their 40’s so it’s certainly not inevitable. There are a few common misconceptions about weight gain and aging that I’d like to address.
First, hormone supplements don’t cause weight gain – menopause, in general, with or without hormones, is associated with about a 10 pound gain. This often starts in perimenopause so it could occur as early as the 40’s.
Second, lean muscle mass decreases slowly from mid-30’s probably until menopause when it decreases more steeply. So women in their 40’s don’t experience too large a change in their metabolism.
Third, the weight that women have in their 40’s is often about how many babies they have had. Data show us that women retain about 10 pounds per pregnancy. Weight begins to shift as the perimenopause era begins – more towards the abdomen and the hips and thighs.
And finally, weight gain is not due to hormonal or metabolic changes, but may be more about emotional eating. Women often experience the empty nest syndrome in their late 40’s and change their eating habits to constant “snacking” – they tend not to count these calories when adding things up
Dr. Vivian Dickerson, Past President of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Medical Director, women’s health programs and care, Hoag Hospital, Newport Beach, CA.
Increasing physical activity is the key to success
Dr. Val: How can women in their 40’s counteract potential weight gain? What’s the most effective strategy to stay trim and fit?
Dr. Hall: While it is true that body remodeling and loss of muscle mass probably starts in the late 30’s it is almost completely a matter of now much physical activity is taking place. Much of the perceived change in body image, (gravity-dependent “sagging”) is also accentuated with decreased muscle tone in the sedentary woman. Weight gain, on the other hand is quite related to caloric intake. It is greatly modulated by the degree of physical activity as well.
My general feeling is that most diets do not work, and the older you are, the truer that is. After age 40 women cannot consistently lose weight and keep it off without a plan of regular physical activity (aerobic) plus some resistance work (weights, bands) to improve body tone.
Dr. Bill Hall, Past President of the American College of Physicians and Director of the Center for Healthy Aging, Rochester, NY.
The 40’s: no better time to get trim and fit
Dr. Val: Do women in their 40’s have an advantage in losing weight?
Dr. Dansinger: Your 40’s are a great time to take lifestyle changes to new heights. Whether for weight loss, or prevention of diabetes or other related medical problems, many women who struggled in their 20’s and 30’s finally find success in their 40’s. For many women at this age, previously insurmountable logistical barriers such as raising preschool age children, or inflexible work schedules, often improve somewhat. Such expertise in schedule-juggling, when combined with a renewed commitment toward preventing health problems, often gives such ambitious women the strength and experience to finally achieve consistency with an effective exercise and healthy eating routine that produces long-lasting results.
Although the metabolism slows gradually throughout adulthood, the effectiveness of lifestyle changes for health improvements remains strong throughout life, and may actually become most beneficial as we grow older. Gaining muscle and bone strength through weight-lifting type exercise may help a woman in her 40’s reduce the risk of muscle and bone loss that typically affected women of her mother’s generation.
Dr. Michael Dansinger, Lifestyle Medicine Physician/Researcher, Tufts Medical Center, Boston. Nutrition and fitness advisor to NBC’s Biggest Loser.This post originally appeared on Dr. Val’s blog at RevolutionHealth.com.
