May 28th, 2009 by Paul Auerbach, M.D. in Better Health Network
2 Comments »
Outdoor enthusiasts are often stricken with infections for which they might be prescribed antibiotics in the class known as fluoroquinolones, one common member of which is ciprofloxacin (Cipro). They should be aware that a fairly well accepted complication of taking a fluoroquinolone for more than a few days is development of tendinitis leading to tendon rupture, notably of the Achilles tendon. The risk is such that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires the makers of such drugs as ciprofloxacin and levofloxacin (Levaquin) to publish a black box warning on the packages alerting users to potentially serious side effects. The full list of drugs affected by the warning include ciprofloxacin (marketed as Cipro and generic ciprofloxacin); ciprofloxacin extended release (marketed as Cipro XR and Proquin XR); gemifloxacin (marketed as Factive); levofloxacin (marketed as Levaquin); moxifloxacin (marketed as Avelox); norfloxacin (marketed as Noroxin); and ofloxacin (marketed as Floxin and generic ofloxacin). As new fluoroquinolones appear on the market, they will undoubtedly be included in the warning program. The warning does not apply to eye and ear drops – only to medications taken orally or by injection.
Many patients and health care professionals are not aware of this risk, which is very real, having been officially reported in literally hundreds of patients. Although the drugs are phenomenal in terms of their ability to fight certain bacterial infections, users should be aware of this possible side effect, so that they can discontinue taking the culprit medication and switch to an alternative antibiotic(s) if need be. If tendon pain develops (typically about a week after initiation of therapy) when a person is taking a fluoroquinolone antibiotic, that is the time to make the switch. Simultaneously, anyone affected should diminish or avoid exercise and cease stressing the affected area until such time as the situation is resolved, as would be determined by decreased pain and other signs of inflammation. Most patients can be expected to recover within 10 weeks after discontinuing the antibiotic, but it may take longer.
Fluoroquinolones are widely used to treat infections in adults. They are not commonly prescribed for children because of a risk for eroding cartilage; however, if the medical necessity is important, they can be used in young individuals. The tendon rupture problem is therefore largely a problem of adults, and typically affects the Achilles tendon, with onset of symptoms within the first few weeks after the initiation of antibiotic therapy. Other tendons, including those of the upper extremity, may be involved. It is perhaps the large forces placed upon the Achilles tendon that makes it so prominent in this particular medical situation. Furthermore, the risk of fluoroquinolone-associated tendinitis and tendon rupture appears to be greater in persons older than 60 years of age, in those taking corticosteroid drugs (“steroids”), and in kidney, heart, and lung transplant recipients.
This post, Fluroquinolone Antibiotics and Tendon Rupture, was originally published on
Healthine.com by Paul Auerbach, M.D..
May 26th, 2009 by admin in Better Health Network, Quackery Exposed
No Comments »
By Dr. John Snyder of the Science Based Medicine Blog
I recently saw a 14 year old girl in my office with a 2 day history of severe abdominal cramps, bloody diarrhea, and fever. Her mother had similar symptoms as did several other members of her household and some family friends. After considerable discomfort, everyone recovered within a few days. The child’s stool culture grew a bacterium called Campylobacter.
Campylobacter is a nasty little pathogen which causes illness like that seen in my patient, but can also cause more severe disease. It is found commonly in both wild and domestic animals. But where did all these friends and family members get their campylobacter infections? Why, from their friendly farmer, of course!
My patient’s family and friends had taken a weekend pilgrimage to a family-run farm in Buck’s County, Pennsylvania. They saw farm animals and a working farm. And they all drank raw milk. Why raw milk? Because, as they were told and led to believe, raw milk is better. Better tasting and better for you.
In 1862, the french chemist Louis Pasteur discovered that heating wine to just below its boiling point could prevent spoilage. Now this process (known as pasteurization) is used to reduce the number of dangerous infectious organisms in many products, prolonging shelf life and preventing serious illness and death. But a growing trend toward more natural foods and eating habits has led to an interest in unpasteurized foods such as milk and cheese. In addition to superior taste, many claim that raw milk products provide health benefits not found in the adulterated versions. Claims made about the “good bacteria” (like Lactobacillus) conquering the “bad” bacteria (like Campylobacter, Salmonella, and E. coli) in raw milk are pure fantasy. Some even claim that the drinking of mass-produced, pasteurized milk has resulted in an increase in allergies, heart disease, cancer, and a variety of other diseases. Again, this lacks any scientific credibility.
With this growing interest in unpasteurized dairy products has come an increase in the rate of food-born infections. The federal government developed the Grade ‘A’ Pasteurized Milk Ordinance in 1924, providing a set of guidelines for the safe processing and handling of milk products. Although all 50 states have voluntarily adopted these guidelines, the FDA has no oversight jurisdiction. It is up to individual states to determine their own safety protocols and enforcement strategies. While selling raw milk is currently illegal in 26 states, those with a will have found a way to skirt the law to get their fix of the real deal.
My patient was a victim of a recent outbreak in Pennsylvania, but similar outbreaks of infectious disease due to unpasteurized milk products are a recurring headache for public health officials. Between 1973 and 1993 there was an average of 2.3 milk born disease outbreaks per year. That number increased to 5.2 per year between 1993 and 2006. Whatever the numbers are, there is no question that the increasing consumption of raw milk is a genuine threat to public health.
The health claims made for raw milk, and against its pasteurized cousin, are being heavily pushed by a small but passionate contingent one might refer to as “food guardians.” These are people who espouse a return to the good old agrarian days of wholesome, farm-raised foods, free from man-made chemicals and mass-market processing. Some of these ideals are highly respectable and healthful responses to the ways in which society has dealt with the need to push products to a mass market at profit. For example, the use of pesticides, animal hormones and antibiotics, and farm run-off can have deleterious environmental and human health consequences. However, many of the health claims that are made about products like raw milk are not supported by scientific evidence, and lack scientific plausibility. Despite this lack of evidence, however, the allure of raw milk products is clearly on the rise.
Beyond the obvious public health consequences of this trend lies the problem of an increasing public credulousness when it comes to pseudoscientific claims. This is similar to the trend we are seeing regarding concerns about the dangers of vaccines and excessive fears concerning certain potential environmental hazards.
Unscientific and outright fraudulent claims about the health benefits (as well as the hidden dangers) of a variety of foods is on the rise. And bogus or unsupported nutrition claims are big business. From the immune boosting and weight loss powers of the acai berry, to the cancer protective effects of vitamins, nutrition pseudoscience is all the rage. While raw milk will never have quite the celebrity cache of these “super foods”, it is promoted with the same lofty yet empty claims, and provides the added bonus of infectious diarrhea.
On a recent visit to a local high-end wine shop, I came face-to-face with the ease with which people fall prey to the marketing of food pseudoscience. A woman was examining a bottle of wine when the store keeper approached to offer help. She told her a little about the wine and then said, “And all of their wines are biodynamic.” To this, the shopper exclaimed “Oh wow, that’s great.” She bought the wine, likely without having a clue what the term “biodynamic” even means. Biodynamic farming is a mixture of Gaia-like principles (the earth is a living organism) and organic practices, with a smattering of mysticism, alchemy, and astrology. In essence, a smorgasbord of pseudoscientific farming practices perfect for the current culture of armchair environmentalism and the new found heal-thy-self mantra of the well-to-do. While the motivating factors and socioeconomic status may differ between those drinking biodynamic wine and those drinking raw milk, both are relying on false beliefs and unsupported claims in making their choices to consume these products.
As a lover of cheese, I appreciate that there are those whose refined palates favor the delicacy of unpasteurized, aged cheeses so prevalent in other countries. But to stretch this taste preference to include health benefits unsupported by science and even common sense is not just misguided, it can be dangerous. Dangerous because it increases the risk of infectious disease, but also because it perpetuates a credulous perspective that adds to the ongoing erosion of our appreciation and acceptance of science.
*This blog post was originally published at Science-Based Medicine*
May 12th, 2009 by Nancy Brown, Ph.D. in Better Health Network
No Comments »
Last year the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced that there were 40 percent more new HIV infections each year than was previously believed. And yet, a new (2009) survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation has found that Americans, even those in the high risk groups for HIV, are worrying less about HIV/AIDS. How can this be?
The survey suggests that:
- Fewer Americans consider HIV an urgent health problem.
- Only 17 percent of people aged 18-29 (those traditionally the most sexually active) reported that they were personally very concerned about becoming infected with HIV.
- In spite of HIV rates being seven times higher among African Americans, personal concern about HIV has decreased in this population.
- More than half of people aged 18-29 have not been tested for HIV, in spite of the fact that the CDC now recommends HIV testing for all adults.
The survey also found that misinformation and stigma about people living with HIV still exist.
- Although 44 percent of the 2,554 adults surveyed reported that they would be comfortable with a coworker who had HIV, 51 percent would be uncomfortable having their food prepared by someone who was HIV positive.
- One-third of the people surveyed incorrectly believed that HIV could be transmitted by sharing a glass of water; touching a toilet seat; or swimming in a pool with an HIV positive person.
- 18 percent believed there was a cure for HIV and 24 percent believed there was a vaccine available to prevent HIV.
This is scary stuff and suggests that families, parents, schools, and medical professionals have their work cut out for them – more HIV education, please!
This post, Why Aren’t We Worrying About HIV Anymore?, was originally published on
Healthine.com by Nancy Brown, Ph.D..
April 14th, 2009 by Dr. Val Jones in Book Reviews
2 Comments »
I recently met the author (Dr. Jill Grimes) of Seductive Delusions: How Everyday People Catch STDs at the AMA’s 29th Annual Medical Communications Conference in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Jill is a family physician in Austin, Texas, with a kind and down-to-earth demeanor. Jill is the type of doctor you like immediately – she makes you feel at ease because of her unpretentiousness.
Jill told me that she wrote Seductive Delusions out of sadness and frustration with her inability to protect young people from STDs. Jill saw new cases of sexually transmitted diseases in her patients every week, and wanted very badly to reverse this trend. No amount of counseling “after the fact” had a sufficient effect on new cases, so she decided to launch a preemptive strike: an educational book targeting those who never thought they could contract an STD.
Seductive Delusions uses a “case based learning” approach to educating readers about STDs. Each chapter begins with two true life stories about young people who succumb to STDs. Characters are based upon the lives of patients whom Jill has treated over the years, but stories are blended to protect anonymity. The story-telling format (followed by fact-based summaries) makes the content more entertaining and engaging to read. I doubt that a textbook could hold readers’ attention as effectively as Seductive Delusions does.
I chose to read Seductive Delusions cover-to-cover in 2 sittings, and such a concentrated dose of horror stories made me feel hesitant about ever having sex again. I can also say that there was one uncomfortable moment in an airplane (I read the book on the way back from Albuquerque) when the man sitting next to me glanced at the cover and gave me a very shifty look, and spent the rest of the flight leaning noticeably towards the seat on the opposite side.
That being said, I did enjoy the book. Jill’s characters have an innocent quality to them – like the cast from “Leave It To Beaver.” And I think that was exactly her point – you’d never expect the Cleaver family to be touched by STDs, and yet the truth is that they are succumbing to them in record numbers. Part of the danger of being one of those supposedly “low risk” individuals is that sufficient precautions against STDs are not taken due to a false sense of security.
I had assumed from the title of the book that “everyday people” would include a wider range of characters than were presented. I have been concerned about the reemergence of STDs, for example, in the retiree community in Florida, and thought that Seductive Delusions might touch on that unexpected risk group. However, the target demographic for the book is the late teen to thirty-something heterosexual male and female. I agree with Jill that there’s an educational gap there – but I would have enjoyed her casting a wider net.
The other potential short coming of the book is that the narratives describing how the various characters contracted an STD are so engaging that the reader is left disappointed at never hearing about the long-term outcomes for these individuals. I became emotionally invested in the story (for example) of how Evan contracted HIV from his very first girlfriend (a woman who had been with a man who used IV drugs prior to dating Evan). I felt as if I were there with Evan when he received the devastating news about being HIV positive, and then he drifted away from the pages of the book never to be heard from again. The lack of resolution left me with an uneasy feeling – probably the same feeling that Emergency Medicine physicians experience at the end of each shift.
Nonetheless, I would highly recommend this book to all sexually active young people. It is eye-opening and disturbing in the right sort of way. It’s the kind of book that will help people think twice before they become intimate with others, and take stock of the true health risks involved. I can only hope, along with Jill, that this book will reach the right eyeballs at the right time – and reduce the devastating spread of sexually transmitted diseases in America and beyond.
Outdoor enthusiasts are often stricken with infections for which they might be prescribed antibiotics in the class known as fluoroquinolones, one common member of which is ciprofloxacin (Cipro). They should be aware that a fairly well accepted complication of taking a fluoroquinolone for more than a few days is development of tendinitis leading to tendon rupture, notably of the Achilles tendon. The risk is such that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires the makers of such drugs as ciprofloxacin and levofloxacin (Levaquin) to publish a black box warning on the packages alerting users to potentially serious side effects. The full list of drugs affected by the warning include ciprofloxacin (marketed as Cipro and generic ciprofloxacin); ciprofloxacin extended release (marketed as Cipro XR and Proquin XR); gemifloxacin (marketed as Factive); levofloxacin (marketed as Levaquin); moxifloxacin (marketed as Avelox); norfloxacin (marketed as Noroxin); and ofloxacin (marketed as Floxin and generic ofloxacin). As new fluoroquinolones appear on the market, they will undoubtedly be included in the warning program. The warning does not apply to eye and ear drops – only to medications taken orally or by injection.
