CLOSE
Medical Compass

by -
0 1147

With warmer weather upon us, we now have long, sunny days, better moods and, of course, the beach.

However, longer sun exposure does increase the risk of skin cancer. Melanoma is the most serious skin cancer, but fortunately it is not the most common. Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) are more prevalent, in that order. Here, we will focus on these two types.

The incidences of these skin cancers are very difficult to pin down because they are not reported as readily.

However, most of us either know someone who has had these types of skin cancers or have had them ourselves. There were roughly 3.5 million nonmelanoma skin cancer treatments in the U.S. in 2006, with the number of treatments increasing 77 percent from 1992 to 2006 (1). SCC and BCC outcomes diverge, with the former having a higher risk of metastases compared to the latter, which tends to grow much slower (2).

These skin cancers may present in different ways. BCC may have a bump that is pearly, waxy, light-colored or pink or flesh-colored or brown. It may bleed, ooze and crust, but may not heal, and can be sunken in the middle (3). SCC has the appearance of a growing nodule. It may also be scaly or crusty and may have flat reddish patches. It may be a sore that also may not heal. It is found on sun-exposed areas, more commonly the forehead, hands, lower lip and nose (3). Interestingly, SCC develops over years of gradual UV sun exposure, while BCC develops more like melanoma through intense multiple sporadic burns (4).

The more well-known risks for these types of skin cancer include sun exposure (UV radiation), light skin, age, ethnicity and tanning beds (2). But there are other risk factors, such as manicures.

There are also ways to reduce risk with sunscreen reapplied every two hours, depending on what you are doing, but also NSAIDs (non-steroidal anti-inflammatories) and even vitamin B3.

Let’s look at the research.

BEYOND SKIN CANCER
Though nonmelanoma skin cancers (NMSCs) have far less potential to be deadly, compared to melanoma, there are other risks associated with them. In the CLUE II cohort study of over 19,000 participants, results show something very disturbing: A personal history of NMSC can lead to other types of cancer throughout the body (5). The increased risk of another type of cancer beyond NMSC is 103 percent in those with BCC and 97 percent in those with SCC, both compared to those who did not have a personal history of NMSC.

TANNING BEDS — NO SURPRISE
We know that tanning beds may be a cause for concern. Now the FDA has changed the classification of tanning beds from low to moderate risk and requires a warning that they should not be used by those under age 18 (6). The catch is that this does not have teeth; if tanning salons ignore the new rules, there is no punishment.

However, in a newly published prospective (forward-looking) study, results show that people’s responses to warnings depended on how the warnings were framed (7). Compared to the text-only FDA warning requirement, graphic warnings that emphasized the risks of skin cancer were more likely to help people stop using tanning beds, whereas graphic warnings that demonstrated the positive benefits of not using these devices had no effects. So you may have to scare the daylights out of those in their teens and early twenties.

MANICURE RISK, REALLY?
I am told women love manicures. Manicures cannot possibly be dangerous, right? Not so fast. It is not the actual manicure itself, but rather the drying process that poses a risk. In a recent prospective study, results show that drying lamps used after a manicure may increase the risk of DNA damage to the skin, which could lead to skin cancer, though the risk is small per visit (8). There were a lot of variables. The shortest number of visits to increase the risk of skin cancer was eight, but the intensity of the UVA irradiance varied considerably in 17 different salons. The median number of months it took to have carcinogenic potential with exposure was around 35, or roughly three years. The authors recommend either gloves or suntan lotion when using these devices, although both seem to be somewhat impractical with wet nails. It’s best to let your nails dry naturally.

VITAMIN B3 TO THE RESCUE
Many vitamins tend to disappoint when it comes to prevention. Well, hold on to your hat. This may not be the case for vitamin B3. In the recent Australian ONTRAC study, the results show that vitamin B3 reduced the risk of developing NMSC by 23 percent, compared to those who took a placebo (9). Even better was the fact that SCC was reduced by 30 percent.

The most interesting part about this study is that these results were in high-risk individuals who had a personal history of NMSC. The participants were given B3 (nicotinamide 500 mg) twice daily for one year.

After the patients discontinued taking B3, the benefits dissipated within six months. The study was on the small side, including 386 patients with two or more skin cancer lesions in the last five years, with a mean of eight lesions. The side effects were minimal and did not include the flushing (usually neck and facial redness) or headaches seen with higher levels of niacin, another derivative. The caveat is that this study was done in Australia, which has more intense sunlight. We need to repeat the study in the U.S. Nicotinamide is not expensive, and it has few side effects.

NSAIDs AS BENEFICIAL?
Results have been mixed previously in terms of NSAIDs and skin cancer prevention. However, a recent meta-analysis (nine studies of varying quality, with six studies considered higher quality) showed that especially nonaspirin NSAIDs reduced the risk of SCC by 15 percent compared to those who did not use them (10).

DIET — THE GOOD AND THE BAD
In terms of diet studies, there have been mixed positive and neutral results, especially when it comes to low-fat diets. These are notoriously difficult to run because the low-fat group rarely remains low fat.

However, in a prospective dietary study, results showed that effects on skin cancer varied depending on the foods. For those who were in the highest tertile of meat and fat consumption, compared to those in the lowest tertile, there was a threefold increased risk of a squamous cell cancer in those who had a personal history of SCC (11). But what is even more interesting is that those who were in the highest tertile of vegetable consumption, especially green leafy vegetables, experienced a 54 percent reduction in skin cancer, compared to those in the lowest consumption tertile.

Thus, know that there are modifiable risk factors that reduce the risk of non-melanoma skin cancer and don’t negatively impact your enjoyment of summer. There may be easy solutions to help prevent recurrent skin cancer, as well, that involve both medication and lifestyle modifications.

REFERENCES:
(1) Arch Dermatol. 2010;146(3):283. (2) uptodate.com. (3) nih.gov. (4) Br J Cancer. 2006;94(5):743. (5) J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100(17):1215-1222. (6) federalregister.gov. (7) Am J Public Health. Online June 11, 2015. (8) JAMA Dermatol. 2014;150(7):775-776. (9) ASCO 2015 Annual Meeting: Abstract 9000. (10) J Invest Dermatol. 2015;135(4):975-983. (11) Am J Clin Nutr. 2007;85(5):1401.

Dr. Dunaief is a speaker, author and local lifestyle medicine physician focusing on the integration of medicine, nutrition, fitness and stress management. For further information, go to the website www.medicalcompassmd.com and/or consult your personal physician.

by -
0 1172

Longer days are here again, and you can feel the jubilance of people coming out of hibernation after a long, hard winter. Summer weather will be here before you know it, and millions will be heading to the beaches.

What could possibly be wrong with this picture? With all these benefits, you need to be cognizant of cutaneous (skin) melanoma. It is small in frequency, compared to basal cell and squamous cell carcinomas, responsible for only about 5 percent of skin cancers; however, it is much more deadly.

STATISTICS
Unfortunately, melanoma is on the rise. Over the last 40 years from 1970 to 2009, its incidence has increased by 800 percent in young women and by 400 percent in young men (1). These were patients diagnosed for the first time between 18 and 39 years old. Overall, the risk is greater in men, with 1 in 37 afflicted by this disease in his lifetime. The rate among women is 1 in 56. It is predicted that in 2014, there will have been over 76,000 cases, with over 12 percent resulting in death (2).
Melanoma risk involves genetic and environmental factors. These include sun exposure that is intense but intermittent, tanning beds, UVA radiation used for the treatment of psoriasis, the number of nevi (moles), Parkinson’s disease, prostate cancer, family history and personal history. Many of these risk factors are modifiable (3).

PRESENTATION
Fortunately, melanoma is mostly preventable. What should you look for to detect melanoma at its earliest stages? In medicine, we use the mnemonic “ABCDE” to recall key factors to look for when examining moles. This stands for asymmetric borders (change in shape); border irregularities; color change; diameter increase (size change); and evolution or enlargement of diameter, color or symptoms, such as inflammation, bleeding and crustiness (4). Asymmetry, color and diameter are most important, according to guidelines developed in England (5).
It is important to look over your skin completely, not just partially, and have a dermatologist screen for potential melanoma. Screening skin for melanomas has shown a six-times greater chance of detecting them. Skin areas exposed to the sun have the highest probability of developing the disease. Men are more likely to have melanoma tumors on the back, while women are more likely to have melanoma on the lower legs, but they can develop anywhere (6).
In addition, most important to the physician, especially the dermatologist, is the thickness of melanoma. This may determine its probability to metastasize. In a recent retrospective (backward-looking) study, the results suggest that melanoma of >0.75 mm needs to not only be excised, or removed, but also have the sentinel lymph node (the closest node) biopsied to determine risk of metastases (7). A positive sentinel node biopsy occurred in 6.23 percent of those with thickness >0.75 mm, which was significantly greater than in those with thinner melanomas. When the sentinel node biopsy is positive, there is a greater than twofold increase in the risk of metastases. On the plus side, having a negative sentinel node helps relieve the stress and anxiety that the melanoma tumor has spread.

PREVENTION
The two most valuable types of prevention are clothing and sunscreen. Let’s look at these in more detail.

Clothing
Clothing can play a key role in reducing melanoma risk. The rating system for clothing protection is the ultraviolet protection factor (UPF). The Skin Cancer Foundation provides a list of which laundry additives, clothing and cosmetics protect against the sun (8). Clothing that has a UPF rating between 15 and 24 is considered good, 25 and 39 is very good, and 40 and 50 is excellent. The ratings assess tightness of weave, color (the darker the better), type of yarn, finishing, response to moisture, stretch and condition. The most important of these is the weave tightness (9).
Interestingly, the New York Times wrote about how major companies are producing sun protective clothing lines that are fashionable and lighter in weight. The article is entitled “Fashionable Options Reshape Sun-Protective Clothing,” published on July 17, 2013 (10).

Sunscreen
We have always known that sunscreen is valuable. But just how effective is it? In an Australian prospective (forward-looking) study, those who were instructed to use sun protective factor (SPF) 16 sunscreen lotion on a daily basis had significantly fewer incidences of melanoma compared to the control group members, who used their own sunscreen and were allowed to apply it at their discretion (11). The number of melanomas in the treatment group was half that of the control group’s over a 10-year period. But even more significant was a 73 percent reduction in the risk of advanced-stage melanoma in the treatment group. Daily application of sunscreen was critical.
The recommendation after this study and others like it is that an SPF of 15 should be used daily by those who are consistently exposed to the sun and/or are at high risk for melanoma according to the American Academy of Dermatology (12). The amount used per application should be about one ounce. However, since people don’t use as much sunscreen as they should, the academy recommends an SPF of 30 or higher. Note that SPF 30 is not double the protection of SPF 15. The UVB protection of SPFs 15, 30 and 50 are 93, 97 and 98 percent, respectively.
The problem is that SPF is a number that registers mostly the blocking of UVB but not so much the blocking of UVA1 or UVA2 rays. However, 95 percent of the sun’s rays that reach sea level are UVA. So what to do?
Sunscreens come in a variety of UV filters, which are either organic filters (chemical sunscreens) or inorganic filters (physical sunscreens). The FDA now requires broad-spectrum sunscreens pass a test showing they block both UVB and UVA radiation. Broad-spectrum sunscreens must be at least SPF 15 to decrease the risk of skin cancer and prevent premature skin aging caused by the sun. Anything over the level of SPF 50 should be referred to as 50+ (3).
The FDA also has done away with the term “waterproof.” Instead, sunscreens can be either water resistant or very water resistant, if they provide 40 and 80 minutes of protection, respectively. This means you should reapply sunscreen if you are out in the sun for more than 80 minutes, even with the most protective sunscreen (3). Look for sunscreens that have zinc oxide, avobenezene or titanium oxide; these are the only ones that provide UVA1 protection, in addition to UVA2 and UVB protection.
In conclusion, to reduce the risk of melanoma, proper clothing with tight weaving and/or sunscreen should be used. The best sunscreens are broad spectrum, as defined by the FDA, and should contain zinc oxide, avobenezene or titanium oxide to make sure the formulation not only blocks UVA2 but also UVA1 rays. It is best to reapply sunscreen every 40 to 80 minutes, depending on its rating. We can reduce the risk of melanoma occurrence significantly with these very simple steps.

REFERENCES:
(1) Mayo Clin Proc. 2012; 87(4): 328–334. (2) CA Cancer J Clin. 2014;64(1):9. (3) uptodate.com. (4) JAMA. 2004;292(22):2771. (5) Br J Dermatol. 1994;130(1):48. (6) Langley, RG et al. Clinical characteristics. In: Cutaneous melanoma, Quality Medical Publishing, Inc, St. Louis, 1998, p. 81. (7) J Clin Oncol. 201;31(35):4385-4386. (8) skincancer.org. (9) Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed. 2007;23(6):264. (10) nytimes.com. (11) J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(3):257. (12) aad.org.

Dr. Dunaief is a speaker, author and local lifestyle medicine physician focusing on the integration of medicine, nutrition, fitness and stress management. For further information, go to the website www.medicalcompassmd.com and/or consult your personal physician.

by -
0 2579

It is very interesting that the amount of coverage by the lay press concerning thyroid nodules does not reflect the number of people who actually have them. In other words, more than 50 percent of people have thyroid nodules detectable by high resolution ultrasound (1); however, when I searched the New York Times website, the last time it wrote about them was in 2010.

Regardless, you can understand how coverage should be more in the forefront. Fortunately, most nodules are benign. A small percent, 4 to 6.5 percent, are malignant, and the number varies depending on the study (2). Thyroid nodules are being diagnosed more often incidentally on radiologic exams, such as CT scans of the chest, MRI scans, PET scans and ultrasounds of the carotid arteries in the neck (3).

There is a conundrum of what to do with a thyroid nodule, especially when it is found incidentally. It depends on the size. If it is over one centimeter, usually it is biopsied by fine needle aspiration (FNA) (4). This is the cutoff point for asymptomatic nodules found with a radiologic exam. Most are asymptomatic. However, if there are symptoms, these might include difficulty swallowing, difficulty breathing, hoarseness, pain in the lower portion of the neck and a goiter (5).

FNA biopsy is becoming more common. In a recent study evaluating several databases, there was a greater than 100 percent increase in thyroid FNAs performed over a five-year period from 2006 to 2011 (6). This resulted in a 31 percent increase in thyroidectomies, surgeries to remove the thyroid partially or completely.

However, the number of thyroid cancers diagnosed with the surgery did not rise in this same period. To make matters even more confusing, from 2001 to 2013, the number of thyroid cancers increased by 200 percent.

The study authors call for a need for more detailed guidelines, which are lacking for thyroid nodules.

Though the number of cancers diagnosed has increased, the mortality rate has remained relatively stable over several decades at about 1,500 patients per year (7). Thyroid nodules in this study were least likely to be cancerous when the initial diagnosis was by incidental radiologic exam.

DIFFERENTIATING WHEN FINE NEEDLE ASPIRATION RESULTS ARE INDETERMINATE
As much as 25 percent of FNA biopsies are indeterminate. We are going to look at two modalities to differentiate between benign and malignant thyroid nodules when FNA results are equivocal: a PET scan and a molecular genetics test. A meta-analysis (a group of six studies) of PET scan results showed that it was least effective in resolving an unclear FNA biopsy. The PET scan was able to rule out patients who did not have malignancies significantly but did not do a good job of identifying those who did have cancer (8).

On the other hand, a recent molecular-based test was able to potentially determine whether an indeterminate thyroid nodule by FNA was malignant or benign (9). This test was a combination of microRNA gene expression classifier with the genetic mutation panel. I know the test combination sounds confusing, but the important takeaway is that it was more effective than previous molecular tests in clarifying whether a patient had a benign or cancerous nodule.

Unlike in the PET scan study above, the researchers were able to not only rule out the majority of malignancies but also to rule them in. It was not perfect, but the percent of negative predictive value (ruled out) was 94 percent, and the positive predictive value (ruled in) was 74 percent. The combination test improved the predictive results of previous molecular tests by 65 to 69 percent. This is important to help decide whether or not the patient needs surgery to remove at least part of the thyroid. The trial used hospital-based patients, but follow-up studies need to include community-based practices.

IS A NEGATIVE FINE NEEDLE ASPIRATION DEFINITIVE?
We know that FNA is the gold standard for determining whether patients have malignant or benign thyroid nodules. However, a negative result on FNA is not always definitive for a benign thyroid nodule. When this occurs, it is referred to as a false negative result. In a recent retrospective (looking back at events) study, from the Longitudinal Health Insurance Database in Taiwan, 62 percent of thyroid nodules that were cancerous were diagnosed with one biopsy and 82 percent were found within the year after that biopsy (10). However, about 17 percent of patients needed more than two FNA biopsies, and 19 percent were diagnosed after one year with cancerous thyroid nodules.

THE POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANCE OF CALCIFICATION ON ULTRASOUND
Microcalcifications in the nodule can be detected on ultrasound. The significance of this may be that patients with microcalcifications are more likely to have malignant thyroid nodules than those without them, according to a small prospective study involving 170 patients (11). This does not mean necessarily that a patient has malignancy with calcifications, but there is a higher risk. The results demonstrated that more than half of the malignant thyroid nodules, 61 percent, had microcalcifications.

THE GOOD NEWS
As I mentioned above, most thyroid nodules are benign. The results of a recent study go even further, showing that most asymptomatic benign nodules do not progress in size significantly after five years (12).

This was a prospective (forward-looking) study involving 992 patients with between one and four benign thyroid nodules diagnosed cytologically (by looking at the cells) or by ultrasound. The factors that did contribute to growth of about 11 percent of the nodules were age (<45 years old had more growth than >60 years old), multiple nodules, greater nodule volume at baseline and being male.

The authors’ suggestion is that the current paradigm might be altered and that after the follow-up scan, the next ultrasound scan might be five years later instead of three years. However, they did discover thyroid cancer in 0.3 percent after five years.

In considering risk factors, it’s important to note that those who had a normal thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) were less likely to have a malignant thyroid nodule than those who had a high TSH, implying hypothyroidism. There was an almost 30 percent prevalence of cancer in the nodule if the TSH was greater than >5.5 mU/L (13).

The bottom line is that there is an urgent need for new guidelines regarding thyroid nodules. Fortunately, most nodules are benign and asymptomatic, but the number of cancerous nodules found is growing. We are getting better at diagnosing nodules. Why the death rate remains the same year over year for decades may have to do with the slow rate at which most thyroid cancers progress, especially two of the most common forms, follicular and papillary.

REFERENCES:
(1) AACE 2013 Abstract 1048. (2) Thyroid. 2005;15(7):708. (3) uptodate.com. (4) AACE 2013 Abstract 1048. (5) thyroid.org. (6) AAES 2013 Annual Meeting. Abstract 36. (7) AACE 2013 Abstract 1048. (8) Cancer. 2011;117(20):4582-4594. (9) J Clin Endocrinol Metab. Online May 12, 2015. (10) PLoS One. 2015;10(5):e0127354. (11) Head Neck. 2008 Sep;30(9):1206-1210. (12) JAMA. 2015;313(9):926-935. (13) J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2006;91(11):4295.

Dr. Dunaief is a speaker, author and local lifestyle medicine physician focusing on the integration of medicine, nutrition, fitness and stress management. For further information, go to the website www.medicalcompassmd.com and/or consult your personal physician.

by -
0 1742

Triglycerides is a term that most of us recognize. This substance is part of the lipid (cholesterol) profile. However, this may be the extent of our understanding. Compared to the other substances, HDL (“good” cholesterol) and LDL (“bad” cholesterol), triglycerides are not covered much in the lay press and medical research tends to be less robust than for the other components. If I were to use a baseball analogy, triglycerides are the Mets, who get far less attention than their crosstown rivals, the Yankees.

But are triglycerides any less important? It is unclear whether a high triglyceride level is a biomarker for cardiovascular disease – heart disease and stroke – or an independent risk in its own right (1) (2). This debate has been going on for over 30 years. However, this does not mean it is any less important.

What are triglycerides? The most rudimentary explanation is that they are a kind of fat in the blood. Alcohol, sugars and excess calorie consumption may be converted into triglycerides.

Risk factors for high triglycerides include obesity, smoking, a high carbohydrate diet, uncontrolled diabetes, hypothyroidism (underactive thyroid), cirrhosis (liver disease), excessive alcohol consumption and some medications (3).

What levels are normal and what are considered elevated? According to the American Heart Association, optimal levels are <100 mg/dL; however, less than 150 mg/dL is considered within normal range. Borderline triglycerides are 150-199 mg/dL, high levels are 200-499 mg/dL and very high are >500 mg/dL (3).

While medicines that focus on triglycerides, fibrates and niacin, have the ability to lower them significantly, it is questionable whether this reduction results in clinical benefits, like reducing the risk of cardiovascular events. The ACCORD Study, a randomized controlled trial, questioned the effectiveness of medication; when these therapies were added to statins in type 2 diabetes patients, they did not further reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease and events (4). Instead, it seems that lifestyle modifications may be the best way to control triglyceride levels.

Let’s look at the evidence.

EXERCISE – TIMING AND INTENSITY
If you need a reason to exercise, here is really good one. I frequently see questions pertaining to optimal exercise timing and intensity. Most of the answers are vague, and the research is not specific. However, hold on to your hats, because a recent study may give the timing and intensity answer, at least in terms of triglycerides.

Study results showed that walking a modest distance with alacrity and light weight training approximately an hour after eating (postprandial) reduced triglyceride levels by 72 percent (5). However, if patients did the same workout prior to eating, then postprandial triglycerides were reduced by 25 percent. This is still good, but not as impressive. Participants walked a modest distance of just over one mile (2 kilometers). This was a small pilot study of 10 young healthy adults for a very short duration. The results are intriguing nonetheless, since there are few data that give specifics on optimal amount and timing of exercise.

EXERCISE TRUMPS CALORIE RESTRICTION
There is good news for those who want to lower their triglycerides: calorie restriction may not the best answer. In other words, you don’t have to torture yourself by cutting calories down to some ridiculously low level to get an effect. We probably should be looking at exercise and carbohydrate intake instead.

In a well-controlled trial, results showed that those who walked and maintained 60 percent of their maximum heart rate, which is a modest level, showed an almost one-third reduction in triglycerides compared to the control group (maintain caloric intake and no exercise expenditure) (6). Those who restricted their calorie intake saw no difference compared to the control. This was a small study of 11 young adult women.Thus, calorie restriction was trumped by exercise as a way to potentially reduce triglyceride levels.

CARBOHYDRATE REDUCTION, NOT CALORIE RESTRICTION
In addition, when calorie restriction was compared to carbohydrate reduction, results showed that carbohydrate reduction was more effective at lowering triglycerides (7). In this small but well-designed study, patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease were randomized to either a lower calorie (1200-1500 kcal/day) or lower carbohydrate (20 g/day) diet. Both groups significantly reduced triglycerides, but the lower carbohydrate group reduced triglycerides by 55 percent versus 28 percent for the lower calorie group. The reason for this difference may have to do with oxidation in the liver and the body as a whole. Both groups lost similar amounts of weight, so weight could not be considered a confounding or complicating factor. However, the weakness of this study was its duration of only two weeks.

FASTING VERSUS NONFASTING BLOOD TESTS
The paradigm has been that, when cholesterol levels are drawn, fasting levels provide a more accurate reading. Except this may not be true.

In a new analysis, fasting may not be necessary when it comes to cholesterol levels. NHANES III data suggests that nonfasting and fasting levels yield similar results related to all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality risk. The LDL levels were similarly predictive regardless of whether a patient had fasted or not. The researchers used 4,299 pairs of fasting and nonfasting cholesterol levels. The duration of follow-up was strong, with a mean of 14 years (8).

Why is this relevant? Triglycerides are an intricate part of a cholesterol profile. With regards to stroke risk assessment, nonfasting triglycerides possibly may be more valuable than fasting. In a study involving 13,596 participants, results showed that, as nonfasting triglycerides rose, the risk of stroke also rose significantly (9).

Compared to those who had levels below 89 mg/dL (the control), those with 89-176 mg/dL had a 1.3-fold increased risk of cardiovascular events, whereas those within the range of 177-265 mg/dL had a twofold increase, and women in the highest group (>443 mg/dL) had an almost fourfold increase. The results were similar for men, but not quite as robust at the higher end with a threefold increase.

The benefit of nonfasting is that it is more realistic and, according to the authors, also involves remnants of VLDL and chylomicrons, other components of the cholesterol profile that interact with triglycerides and may affect the inner part (endothelium) of the arteries.

What have we learned? Triglycerides need to be discussed, just as we review HDL and LDL levels regularly. Elevated triglycerides may result in heart disease or stroke. The higher the levels, the more likely there will be increased risk of mortality – both all-cause and cardiovascular. Therefore, we ideally should reduce levels to less than 100 mg/dL.

Lifestyle modifications using carbohydrate restriction and modest levels of exercise after a meal may be the way to go to the best results, though the studies are small and need more research. Nonfasting levels may be as important as fasting levels when it comes to triglycerides and the cholesterol profile as a whole; they potentially give a more realistic view of cardiovascular risk, since we don’t live in a vacuum and fast all day.

REFERENCES:
(1) Circulation. 2011;123:2292-2333. (2) N Engl J Med. 1980;302:1383–1389. (3) nlm.nih.gov. (4) N Engl J Med. 2010;362:1563-1574. (5) Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2013;45(2):245-252. (6) Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2013;45(3):455-461. (7) Am J Clin Nutr. 2011;93(5):1048-1052. (8) Circulation Online. 2014 July 11. (9) JAMA 2008;300:2142-2152.

Dr. Dunaief is a speaker, author and local lifestyle medicine physician focusing on the integration of medicine, nutrition, fitness and stress management. For further information, go to the website www.medicalcompassmd.com and/or consult your personal physician.

by -
0 1114

After a harsh winter, we pine for a mild and wonderful spring. The days get longer, trees and flowers bud and bloom, and grass becomes lush and green. It seems like heaven. But for people who suffer from seasonal allergic rhinitis, hay fever, seasonal allergies or whatever you would like to call it, life can be less than perfect. In fact, it can be downright miserable. You probably can rate an allergy season with your own built-in personal barometer, the sneeze factor. How many times are you, your friends or your colleagues sneezing?

Approximately 18 million adult Americans have had a diagnosis of seasonal allergies within the past year, about 7.5 percent of the population, and an additional 6.6 million children have this disorder, or about 9 percent, according to the Centers for Disease Control (1). Sadly, considering the number of people it affects, only a paltry amount of research has been published.

The triggers for allergies are diverse. They include pollen from leafy trees and shrubs, the lush grass and the beautiful flowering plants and weeds, with majority from ragweed (mostly in the fall), as well as fungus (summer and fall) (2).

What sparks allergies within the body? A chain reaction occurs in seasonal allergy sufferers. When the allergens (pollen in this case), which are foreign substances, interact with immunoglobulin E (IgE), antibodies that are part of our immune system, it causes mast cells in the body’s tissues to degrade and release inflammatory mediators. These include histamines, leukotrienes and eosinophils in those who are susceptible. In other words, it is an allergic inflammatory response. The revved up immune system then responds with sneezing; red, itchy and watery eyes; scratchy throat; congestion; sinus headaches; postnasal drip; runny nose; diminished taste and smell; and even coughing (3). Basically, it emulates a cold, but without the virus. If symptoms last more than 10 days and are recurrent, then it is more than likely you have allergies.

Risk factors for seasonal allergies are tied most strongly to family history and to having other personal allergies, such as eczema or food allergies, but also may include cigarette exposure, being male and, possibly, diet (4). If allergic rhinitis is not properly treated, complications such as ear infections, sinusitis, irritated throat, insomnia, chronic fatigue, headaches and even asthma can result (5).

To treat allergic rhinitis, there is a host of medications from classes including intranasal glucocorticoids (steroids), oral antihistamines, allergy shots, decongestants, antihistamine and decongestant eye drops, and leukotriene modifiers (second-line only). Let’s look at the evidence.

The best way to treat allergy attacks is to prevent them, but this is an arduous process that can mean closing yourself out from the enjoyment of spring by literally closing the windows, using the air-conditioning, and using recycling vents in your car.

The recent guidelines for treating seasonal allergic rhinitis with medications suggest that intranasal corticosteroids (steroids) should be used when quality of life is affected. If there is itchiness and sneezing, then second generation oral antihistamines may be appropriate (6). Three well-known inhaled steroids that do not require a prescription are Nasonex (mometasone), Nasocort (triamcinolone) and Flonase (fluticasone propionate). There does not seem to be a significant difference among them (7). While inhaled steroids are probably most effective in treating and preventing symptoms, they need to be used every day.

Oral antihistamines, on the other hand, can be taken on an as-needed basis. Second-generation antihistamines have less sleepiness as a side effect than first-generation antihistamines. They include loratadine (Claritin), cetirizine (Zyrtec), and fexofenadine (Allegra).

SURPRISINGLY GOOD NEWS
Seasonal allergic rhinitis may actually be beneficial for longevity. In a recent study involving more 200,000 participants, results showed that those who had allergies had a 25 percent reduction in the risk of heart attacks, a 19 percent reduction in strokes, and a whopping 49 percent reduction in mortality (8). Remember two things: this is an observational trial, which means that it is not the best of trials, and don’t wish allergies on yourself. The reason for this effect may be at least partially attributable to the type of white blood cell expressed in the immune system. In other words, type 2 T helper (Th2) lymphocytes (white blood cells) are elevated with allergies instead of type 1 T helper (Th1) lymphocytes. Why is this important? Th2 is known to decrease cardiovascular disease, while Th1 is known to possibly increase cardiovascular disease. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about asthma, where cardiovascular events are increased by 36 percent.

ALTERNATIVES
Butterbur (Petasites hybridus), an herb, may not just be for migraines. There are several small studies that indicate their efficacy in treating hay fever. In fact, in one study, results show that butterbur was as effective as cetirizine (Zyrtec) in treating this disorder (9). This was a small, randomized, controlled trial involving 131 patients.

In another randomized, controlled trial, results showed that high dose butterbur — 1 tablet given three times a day — was significantly more effective than placebo (10). The side-effects were similar in the placebo group and the butterbur group. The researchers used butterbur Ze339 (carbon dioxide extract from the leaves of Petasites hybridus L., 8 mg. petasines per tablet) in the trial. The authors concluded that butterbur would be potentially useful for intermittent allergic rhinitis. The duration of treatment for this study was two weeks.

Still another study, this one a post-marketing study done as a follow-up to the previous study, showed that with butterbur Ze 339, symptoms improved in 90 percent of patients with allergic rhinitis (11). Interestingly, anti-allergic medications were coadministered in about half of the patient population, with no additional benefit over butterbur alone. There were 580 patients in this study, and the duration was 2 weeks.

Gastrointestinal upset occurred as the most common side effect in 3.8 percent of the population.

The caveats to the use of butterbur are several. First, the studies were short in duration. Second, the leaf extract used in these studies was free of pyrrolizidine alkaloids (PAs); this is very important, since PAs may not be safe. Third, the dose was well-measured, which may not be the case with over-the-counter extracts. Fourth, you need to ask about interactions with prescription medications.

DIET
While there are no significant studies on diet, there is one review of literature that suggests that a plant-based diet may reduce symptoms of allergies, specifically rhinoconjunctivitis, affecting the nose and eyes, as well as eczema and asthma. This is according to the International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood study in 13- to 14-year-old teens (12). In my clinical practice, I have seen patients who suffer from seasonal allergies improve and even reverse the course of allergies over time with a vegetable-rich, plant-based diet.

While allergies can be miserable, there are a significant number of over-the-counter and prescription options to help to reduce symptoms. Diet may play a role in the disease process by reducing inflammation, though there are no formal studies. There does seem to be promise with some herbs, especially butterbur. However, alternative supplements and herbs lack large, randomized clinical trials with long durations. Always consult your doctor before starting any supplements, herbs or over-the-counter medications.

REFERENCES
(1) CDC.gov. (2) acaai.org/allergies/types/pollen-allergy. (3) Allergy Clin Immunol. 2003;112(6):1021-31. (4) umm.edu. (5) J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2010;125(1):16-29. (6) Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. online February 2, 2015. (7) Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2003;129(1):16. (8) AAAAI 2014: Abstract 811. (9) BMJ 2002;324:144. (10) Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2004;130(12):1381-1386. (11) Adv Ther. 2006;23(2):373-84. (12) Eur Respir J. 2001;17(3):436-43.

Dr. Dunaief is a speaker, author and local lifestyle medicine physician focusing on the integration of medicine, nutrition, fitness and stress management. For further information, go to the website www.medicalcompassmd.com and/or consult your personal physician.

by -
0 1202

Weight loss should be a rather simple concept.  It should be solely dependent on energy balance: the energy (kilocalories) we take in minus the energy (kilocalories) we burn should result in weight loss if we burn more calories than we consume. However, it is much more complicated. Frankly, there are numerous factors that contribute to whether people who want to or need to lose weight can.

The factors that contribute to weight loss may depend on stress levels, as I noted in my previous article, “Ways to counter chronic stress.” High stress levels can contribute to metabolic risk factors such as central obesity with the release of cortisol, the stress hormone. (1)  Therefore, hormones contribute.

Another factor in losing weight may have to do with our motivators.  We will investigate this further. And we need successful weight management, especially when approximately 70 percent of the American population is overweight or obese and more than one-third is obese. (2)

Recently, obesity in and of itself was proclaimed a disease by the American Medical Association. Even if you don’t agree with this statement, excess weight has consequences, including chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, osteoarthritis and a host of others, including autoimmune diseases.  Weight has an impact on all-cause mortality and longevity.

It is hotly debated as to which approach is best for weight loss.  Is it lifestyle change with diet and exercise, medical management with weight loss drugs, surgical procedures, or even supplements? The data show that, while medication and surgery may have their places, they are not replacements for lifestyle modifications; these modifications are needed no matter what route is followed.

But, the debate continues as to which diet is best. We would hope patients would not only achieve weight loss, but also overall health.

Let’s look at the evidence.

LOW-CARBOHYDRATE DIETS VS. LOW-FAT DIETS
Is a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet a fad?  It may depend on diet composition.  In a newly published study of a randomized controlled trial (RCT), the gold standard of studies, results showed that a low-carbohydrate diet was significantly better at reducing weight than low-fat diet, by a mean difference of 3.5 kg lost (7.7 lbs.), even though calories were similar and exercise did not change. (3)
The authors also note that the low-carbohydrate diet reduced cardiovascular disease risk factors in the lipid (cholesterol) profile, such as decreasing triglycerides (mean difference 14.1 mg/dl) and increasing HDL (good cholesterol). Patients lost 1.5 percent more body fat on the low-carbohydrate diet, and there was a significant reduction in inflammation biomarker, C-reactive protein (CRP). There was also a reduction in the 10-year Framingham risk score. However, there was no change in LDL (bad cholesterol) levels or in truncal obesity in either group. This study was 12 months in duration with 148 participants, predominantly women, with a mean age of 47, none of whom had cardiovascular disease or diabetes, but all of whom were obese or morbidly obese (BMI 30-45 kg/m2).
Although there were changes in biomarkers, there was a dearth of cardiovascular disease clinical endpoints.  This begs the question; does a low-carbohydrate diet really reduce the risk of developing cardiovascular disease (CVD) or its subsequent complications?  The authors indicated this was a weakness since it was not investigated.
Digging deeper into the diets used, it’s interesting to note that the low-fat diet was remarkably similar to the standard American diet; it allowed 30 percent fat, only 5 percent less than the 35 percent baseline for the same group.  In addition, it replaced the fat with mostly refined carbohydrates, including only 15 to 16 g/day of fiber.
The low-carbohydrate diet participants took in an average of 100 fewer calories per day than participants on the low-fat diet, so it’s no surprise that they lost a few more pounds over a year’s time.
Patients in both groups were encouraged to eat mostly unsaturated fats, such as fish, nuts, avocado and olive oil.
As David Katz, M.D., founding director of Yale University’s Prevention Research Center noted, this study was more of a comparison of low-carbohydrate diet to a high-carbohydrate diet than a comparison of a low-carbohydrate diet to a low-fat diet. (4)
Another study actually showed that a Mediterranean diet, higher in fats with nuts or olive oil, compared to a low-fat diet showed a significant reduction in cardiovascular events- clinical endpoints not just biomarkers. (5)  However, both of these studies suffer from the same deficiency: comparing a low-carbohydrate diet to a low-fat diet that’s not really low-fat.

DIET COMPARISONS
Interestingly, in a meta-analysis (a group of 48 RCTs), the results showed that whether a low-carbohydrate diet (including the Atkins diet) or a low-fat diet (including the Ornish plant-based diet), the results showed similar amount of weight loss compared to no intervention at all. (6)  Both diet types resulted in about 8 kgs. (17.6 lbs.) of weight loss at six months versus no change in diet.  However, this meta-analysis did not make it clear whether results included body composition changes or weight loss alone.
In an accompanying editorial discussing the above meta-analysis, the author points out that it is unclear whether a low-carbohydrate/high animal protein diet might result in adverse effects on the kidneys, loss of calcium from the bones, or other potential deleterious health risks.  The author goes on to say that for overall health and longevity and not just weight loss, micronutrients may be the most important factor, which are in nutrient-dense foods.
A recent Seventh-day Adventist trial would attest to this emphasis on a micronutrient-rich, plant-based diet with limited animal protein.  It resulted in significantly greater longevity compared to a macronutrient-rich animal protein diet. (7)

PSYCHE
Finally, the type of motivator is important in whatever our endeavors.  Weight loss goals are no exception.  Let me elaborate.  A recently published study followed West Point cadets from school to many years after graduation and noted who reached their goals. (8)  The researchers found that internal motivators and instrumental (external) motivators were very important.  The soldiers who had an internal motivator, such as wanting to be a good soldier, were more successful than those who focused on instrumental motivators, such as wanting to become a general.   Those who had both internal and instrumental motivators were not as successful as those with internal motivators alone.  In other words, having internal motivators led to an instrumental consequence of advancing their careers.
When it comes to health, an instrumental motivator, such weight loss, may be far less effective than focusing on an internal motivator, such as increasing energy or decreasing pain, which ultimately could lead to an instrumental consequence of weight loss.
There is no question that dietary changes are most important to achieving sustained weight loss. However, we need to get our psyches in line for change. Hopefully, when we choose to improve our health, we don’t just focus on weight as a measure of success.  Weight loss goals by themselves tend to lead us astray and to disappoint, for they are external motivators.  Focus on improving your health by making lifestyle modifications.  This tends to result in a successful instrumental consequence.

REFERENCES
(1) Psychoneuroendocrinol. online 2014 April 12.  (2) JAMA 2012;307:491–497.  (3) Ann Intern Med. 2014;161(5):309-318.  (4) Huffington Post. Sept 2, 2014.  (5) N Engl J Med. 2014 Feb 27;370(9):886.  (6) JAMA. 2014;312(9):923-933.  (7) JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173:1230-1238.  (8) Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014;111(30):10990-5.

Dr. Dunaief is a speaker, author and local lifestyle medicine physician focusing on the integration of medicine, nutrition, fitness and stress management. For further information, go to the website www.medicalcompassmd.com and/or consult your personal physician.

by -
0 1228

Hypertension (high blood pressure) deserves a substantial amount of attention. There are currently about 76 million people with high blood pressure in the U.S. Put another way, one in three adults have this disorder (1). If that isn’t scary enough, the newest statistic from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is that the number of people dying from complications of hypertension increased by 23 percent from 2000 to 2013 (2). Until these abysmal statistics change for the better, pay attention!

And talk about scary, it turns out that fear of the boogie man should take a back seat to high blood pressure during nighttime sleeping hours. This is when the probability of complications, such as cardiovascular events and mortality, may have their highest incidence.

Unfortunately, as adults, it does not matter what age or what sex you are; we are all at increased risk of complications from high blood pressure, even isolated systolic (top number) blood pressure, which means without having the diastolic (bottom number) elevated as well.

Fortunately, hypertension is highly modifiable in terms of reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease and mortality (3). At least some of the risk factors are probably familiar to you. These include being significantly overweight and obese (BMI >27.5 kg/m2), smoking, poor diet, lack of exercise, family history, age, increased sodium, depression, low vitamin D, diabetes and too much alcohol (4).

Of course, antihypertensive (blood pressure) medications treat this disorder. In addition, there are nonpharmacological approaches that have benefits. These include lifestyle modifications with diet, exercise and potentially supplements. There was a question on the game show “Jeopardy” that read: “You can treat it with diet and lifestyle changes as well as drugs: HBP.” The answer was, “What is high blood pressure?” We made the big time!

RISK FACTORS MATTER, BUT NOT EQUALLY:
In a recent study, the results showed that those with poor diets had 2.19 times increased risk of developing high blood pressure. This was the greatest contributor to developing this disorder (5). Another risk factor with a significant impact was being at least modestly overweight (BMI >27.5 kg/m2) at 1.87 times increased risk. This surprisingly, albeit slightly, trumped cigarette smoking at 1.83 times increased risk. Interestingly, weekly binge drinking at 1.87 times increased risk was equivalent to being overweight. This study was observational and involved 2,763 participants. The moral is that a freewheeling lifestyle can have a detrimental impact on blood pressure and cause at least stage 1 hypertension (systolic between 140 and 159 mmHg and/or diastolic between 90 and 99 mmHg).

HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE DOESN’T DISCRIMINATE:
One of the most feared complications of hypertension is cardiovascular disease because it can result in death. In a recent study, isolated systolic hypertension was shown to increase the risk of cardiovascular disease and death in both young and middle-aged men and women between 18 and 49 years old, compared to those who had optimal blood pressure (6). The effect was greatest in women, with a 55 percent increased risk in cardiovascular disease and 112 percent increased risk in heart disease death. High blood pressure has complications associated with it, regardless of onset age. Though this study was observational, which is not the best, it was very large and had a 31-year duration.

NIGHTMARES THAT MAY BE REAL:
Measuring blood pressure in the clinic can be useful. However, in a recent meta-analysis (involving nine studies from Europe, South America and Asia), the results showed that high blood pressure measured at nighttime was potentially a better predictor of myocardial infarctions (heart attacks) and strokes, compared to daytime and clinic readings. (7). For every 10 mmHg rise in nighttime systolic blood pressure, there was a corresponding 25 percent increase in cardiovascular events. This was a large meta-analysis that utilized studies that were at least one year in duration. Does this mean that nighttime readings are superior in predicting risk? Not necessarily, but the results are interesting. The nighttime readings were made using 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure measurements (ABPM).
There is something referred to as masked uncontrolled hypertension (MUCH) that may increase the risk of cardiovascular events in the nighttime. MUCH occurs in those who are well-controlled during clinic readings for blood pressure; however, their nocturnal blood pressure is uncontrolled. In the Spanish Society of Hypertension ABPM Registry, MUCH was most commonly seen during nocturnal hours (8). Thus, the authors suggest that ABPM may be a better way to monitor those who have higher risk factors for MUCH, such as those whose pressure is borderline in the clinic and those who are smokers, obese or have diabetes.
Previously, a study suggested that taking at least one antihypertensive medication at night may be more effective than taking them all in the morning (9). Those who took one or more blood pressure medications at night saw a two-thirds reduction in cardiovascular event risk. Now we can potentially see why. These were patients who had chronic kidney disease (CKD). Generally, 85 to 95 percent of those with CKD have hypertension.

DIETARY TIDBITS:
Diet plays a role in controlling high blood pressure. In a recent study, blueberry powder (22 grams) daily equivalent to one cup of fresh blueberries reduced systolic blood pressure by a respectable 7 mmHg and diastolic blood pressure by 5 mmHg over 2 months (10). This is not bad, especially since the patients were prehypertensive, not hypertensive, at baseline, with a mean systolic blood pressure of 138 mmHg. This is a modest amount of fruit with a significant impact, demonstrating exciting results in a small, preliminary, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial. Blueberries increase a substance called nitric oxide, which helps blood vessels relax, reducing blood pressure.
The results of another study showed that girls who consumed higher levels of potassium-rich foods had a significant reduction in both systolic and diastolic blood pressure (11). The highest group consumed at least 2,400 mg of potassium daily, whereas the lowest group consumed less than 1,800 mg. The girls were 9 and 10 years old and were followed for a 10-year duration. Though the absolute change was not large, the baseline blood pressure was already optimal for both groups, so it is impressive to see a significant change.
In conclusion, nighttime can be scary for high blood pressure and its cardiovascular complications, but lifestyle modifications, such as taking antihypertensive medications at night and making dietary changes, can have a big impact in altering these serious risks.

REFERENCES
(1) Natl Health Stat Report 2011. (2) CDC.gov. (3) Diabetes Care 2011;34 Suppl 2:S308-12. (4) uptodate.com. (5) BMC Fam Pract 2015;16(26). (6) J Am Coll Cardiol 2015;65(4):327-35. (7) J Am Coll Cardiol 2015;65(4):327-35. (8) Eur Heart J 2015;35(46):3304-12. (9) J Am Soc Nephrol 2011 Dec;22(12):2313-21. (10) J Acad Nutr Diet 2015;115(3):369-77. (11) JAMA Pediatr online April 27, 2015.

Dr. Dunaief is a speaker, author and local lifestyle medicine physician focusing on the integration of medicine, nutrition, fitness and stress management. For further information, go to the website www.medicalcompassmd.com and/or consult your personal physician.

by -
0 1135

Whether or not we want to live to be a centenarian, most of us want to live the healthiest life possible with the fewest chronic diseases, medications, and impediments to daily life.

While exercise is one component of lifestyle modification, diet is an essential part, as well. The most surprising result, at least to me, is that it is unclear how much sodium we should consume. But before you start putting salt on your food, know that the research agrees about too much sodium being dangerous. What that number is, however, varies. What we do know is that the average sodium intake in the U.S. is 3.4 grams (1). This is greater than recommendations from the American Heart Association, which has the strictest guideline of <1,500 mg daily for most Americans; however, the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) 2015 recommends <2,400 mg per day (2). The consensus is that we consume too much sodium, period!

Did you get question 3 on the quiz correct? Well, microwaving, contrary to prevailing thought, is not necessarily the enemy. It depends on which compounds in the foods we are testing.

It is most important to realize that healthy eating is not about individual nutrients, but rather about diet as a whole. DGAC emphasizes the importance of a nutrient-rich diet with a focus on fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, whole grains, fish and low or nonfat dairy. In addition, it recommends minimal red meat, especially processed meats, and minimal processed sugars and refined grains (3).

Let’s look at the evidence.

IS SODIUM THE VILLIAN?
Of course not! We all need sodium. However, some in the medical community would argue that “moderate” amounts of between 3 and 6 grams a day are okay. I am specifically referencing an article written by Dr. Aaron Carroll in the New York Times, “Simple Rules for Healthy Eating.” It was one of the most popular articles recently. While he does have good suggestions, with a disclaimer that these are only his opinions, I disagree with his third point regarding salts and fats. He believes that salt can be used in “moderation”; seasoning your food with it is fine.
In the article, he references a large observational study, the PURE study. Its results suggest that a high urinary excretion of sodium, >7 grams per day, correlated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality compared to 4 to 5.99 grams per day (4). But surprisingly, those who had a urinary excretion of <3 grams per day of sodium also had an increased risk of all-cause mortality. This study had over 100,000 participants, but there were significant weaknesses. For one, the researchers estimated the 24-hour sodium urine excretion because they only had one snapshot sample. Also, there was only one urine sample taken during the study, so it is not clear whether the participants increased or decreased their sodium excretion during the study.
Finally, urinary excretion of sodium does not necessarily correlate with sodium intake (5). It is considered a standard measurement, but it is still an indirect marker.
In another article, “Behind the Dietary Guidelines, Better Science,” Dr. Carroll argues that low sodium could potentially be dangerous. Here, he uses a study with heart failure patients (6). The results show that those heart failure patients who were in the lowest sodium intake group had more hospitalizations than those in the modest sodium intake group. However, those in the lowest group also had hyponatremia (reduction in blood levels of sodium) due to significantly reduced sodium intake. This most likely is the major contributor to the hospitalizations. On the surface, it looks like a good study, but once you analyze the data, it is not.
In fact, there are studies showing that lowering sodium has significantly positive effects. In one, lowering the sodium in pre-hypertension patients reduced the risk of cardiovascular events, including heart attacks, strokes and cardiovascular death, by 30 percent (7).

FATS
In “Simple Rules for Healthy Eating,” Dr. Carroll also writes about fats, claiming that butter should be used as needed. However, the study he uses to substantiate this concerns replacing butter with high amounts of carbohydrates or other potentially unhealthy fats, such as omega-6 fatty acids only, not foods that contain good fats such as omega-3s (8). This is a flawed comparison since the substitutes are no better than saturated fats.

EXERCISE
Though some of us would like it to be true that exercise allows us to eat with impunity, it is a myth. In a recent editorial, the author mentions that obesity and disease are caused more by poor diet and that exercise, while substantial to overall health, cannot overcome this effect (9). The author goes on to say that the type of calorie is important; 150 calories of sugar increase the risk of type 2 diabetes by 11 times more than 150 calories of fats or protein. Even more horrifying is that 4 in 10 normal-weight individuals will be afflicted by high cholesterol, high blood pressure, cardiovascular disease and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Just because you are thin does not mean you’re healthy or “fit.” Poor diet has more negative effects than smoking, sedentary behavior and drinking combined. Thus, exercise alone may not be able to compensate for unhealthy diet.

MICROWAVE
The theory has been that microwaves destroy valuable nutrients. However, is that always the case for vegetable-rich, plant-based foods? According to the Harvard Health Letter of Jan. 2, 2015, cooking vegetables for a shorter amount of time with less water helps them retain their phytochemical nutrients better. Microwaving fits this parameter. In a study testing this theory with cruciferous vegetables, results showed that microwaved foods retain a significant amount of glucosinolates (nutrients), holding their own when compared to boiling and steaming (10). However, each method lost a substantial amount of vitamin C. There are a number of critics of microwaves though. Who is right? We cannot be sure, but food content is more critical than the type of cooking preparation, with some exceptions.
The bottom line is that we should focus on a vegetable-rich, plant-based diet with proportions that vary based on an individual’s goals and health status. The extremes should be avoided. We don’t want extreme exercise or extremes in different nutrients such as fats, protein and carbohydrates. In fact, low sugar is not good either; fruits contain plenty of sugars. We should not aim to eliminate a nutrient from our diet. Preparation of these foods in terms of cooking techniques is less important, except, of course, for charring animal protein and deep frying.

REFERENCES
(1) CDC.gov. (2) Heart.org; health.gov. (3) health.gov. (4) N Engl J Med 2014;371:612-623. (5) Hypertension 1980;2:695-699. (6) Clin Sci 2008;114:221-230. (7) BMJ 2007;334(7599):885. (8) Open Heart 2014;1(1):e000032. (9) Br J Sports Med online April 22, 2015. (10) J Agric Food Chem 2010;58(7),4310-4321.

Dr. Dunaief is a speaker, author and local lifestyle medicine physician focusing on the integration of medicine, nutrition, fitness and stress management. For further information, go to the website www.medicalcompassmd.com and/or consult your personal physician.

by -
0 1343

By David Dunaief

We know that inflammation is a critical part of many chronic diseases. Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is no exception. With RA, inflammation is rampant throughout the body and contributes to painful joints, most commonly concentrating bilaterally in the smaller joints of the body, including the metacarpals and proximal interphalangeal joints of the hand, as well as the wrists and elbows. With time, this disease can greatly diminish our ability to function, interfering with our activities of daily living. The most basic of chores, such as opening a jar, can become a major hindrance.

In addition, RA can cause extra-articular, a fancy way of saying outside the joints, manifestations and complications. These can involve the skin, eyes, lungs, heart, kidneys, nervous system and blood vessels. This is where it gets a bit dicier. With increased complications comes an increased risk of premature mortality (1).

Four out of 10 RA patients will experience complications in at least one organ. Those who have more severe disease in their joints are also at greater risk for these extra-articular manifestations. Thus, those who are markedly seropositive for the disease, showing elevated biomarkers like rheumatoid factor (RF), are at greatest risk (2). They have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease events, such as heart attacks and pulmonary disease. Fatigue is also increased, but the cause is not well understood. We will look more closely at these complications.

Are there treatments that may increase or decrease these complications? It is a very good question, because some of the very medications used to treat RA also may increase risk for extra-articular complications, while other drugs may reduce the risks of complications. We will try to sort this out, as well. The drugs used to treat RA are disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), including methotrexate; TNF inhibitors, such as Enbrel (etanercept); oral corticosteroids; and NSAIDs (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs).

It is also important to note that there are modifiable risk factors. We will focus on two of these, weight and sugar. Let’s look at the evidence.

CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE BURDEN
We know that cardiovascular disease is very common in this country for the population at large. However, the risk is even higher for RA patients; these patients are at a 50 percent higher risk of cardiovascular mortality than those without RA (3). The hypothesis is that the inflammation is responsible for the RA-cardiovascular disease connection (4). Thus, oxidative stress, cholesterol levels, endothelial dysfunction and high biomarkers for inflammation, such as ESR (erythrocyte sedimentation rate) and CRP (C-reactive protein), play roles in fostering cardiovascular disease in RA patients (5).

THE YING AND YANG OF MEDICATIONS
Although drugs such as DMARDS (including methotrexate and TNF inhibitors, Enbrel, Remicade, Humira), NSAIDs (such as celecoxib) and corticosteroids are all used in the treatment of RA, some of these drugs increase cardiovascular events and others decrease them. In meta-analysis (a group of 28 studies), the results showed that DMARDS reduced the risk of cardiovascular events by up to 30 percent, while NSAIDs and corticosteroids increased the risk (6). The oral steroids had the highest risk of heart complications, approximately a 50 percent rise in risk. This may be one reason rheumatologists encourage their RA patients to discontinue oral steroid treatments as quickly as possible.
In an observational study, the results reaffirm that corticosteroids increased the risk of a heart attack in RA patients, this time by 68 percent (7). The study involved over 8,000 patients with a follow-up of nine years. Interestingly, there was a dose-response curve. In other words, the results also showed that for every 5 mg increase in dosage, there was a corresponding 14 percent increase in heart attack risk.

BAFFLING DISEASE COMPLICATION
Most complications seem to have a logical connection to the original disease. Well, it was a surprise to researchers when the results of the Nurses’ Health Study showed that those with RA were at increased risk of cardiovascular disease and of respiratory disease (8). In fact, the risk of dying from respiratory disease was 106 percent higher in the women with RA compared to those without, and the risk was even higher in women who were seropositive (had elevated levels of rheumatoid factor). The authors surmise that seropositive patients have greater risk of death from respiratory disease because they have increased RA severity compared to seronegative patients. The study followed approximately 120,000 women for a 34-year duration.

WHY AM I SO TIRED?
While we have tactics for treating joint inflammation, we have yet to figure out how to treat the fatigue associated with RA. In a recently published Dutch study, the results showed that while the inflammation improved significantly, fatigue only changed minimally (9). The consequences of fatigue can have a negative impact on both the mental and physical qualities of life. There were 626 patients involved in this study for eight years of follow-up data. This study involved two-thirds women, which is significant; women in this and in previous studies tended to score fatigue as more of a problem.

LIFESTYLES OF THE MORE PAINFUL AND DEBILITATING
We all want a piece of the American dream. To some that means eating like kings of past times. Well, it turns out that body mass index plays a role in the likelihood of developing RA. According to the Nurses’ Health Study, those who are overweight or obese and are ages 55 and younger have an increased risk of RA, 45 percent and 65 percent, respectively (10). There is higher risk with increased weight because fat has pro-inflammatory factors, such as adipokines, that may contribute to the increased risk. Weight did not influence whether they became seropositive or seronegative RA patients.
With a vegetable-rich, plant-based diet you can reduce inflammation and thus reduce the risk of RA by 61 percent (11). In my clinical practice, I have seen numerous patients able to reduce their seropositive loads to normal or near-normal levels by following this type of diet.

SUGAR, SUGAR!
At this point, we know that sugar is bad for us. But just how bad is it? When it comes to RA, results of the Nurses’ Health Study showed that sugary sodas increased the risk of developing seropositive disease by 63 percent (12). In subset data of those over age 55, the risk was even higher, 164 percent. This study involved over 100,000 women followed for 18 years.

THE JUST PLAIN WEIRD – INFECTION FOR THE BETTER
Every so often we come across the surprising and the interesting. I would call it a Ripley’s Believe It or Not moment. In a recent study, those who had urinary tract infections, gastroenteritis or genital infections were less likely to develop RA than those who did not (13). The study did not indicate a time period or potential reasons for this decreased risk. However, I don’t think I want an infection to avoid another disease. When it comes to RA, prevention with diet is your best ally. Barring that, disease-modifying anti-rheumatic medications are important for keeping inflammation and its progression in check. However, oral steroids and NSAIDs should generally be reserved for short-term use. Before considering changing any medications, discuss it with your physician.

REFERENCES
(1) J Rheumatol 2002;29(1):62. (2) uptodate.com. (3) Ann Rheum Dis 2010;69:325–31. (4) Rheumatology 2014;53(12):2143-2154. (5) Arthritis Res Ther 2011;13:R131. (6) Ann Rheum Dis 2015;74(3):480-489. (7) Rheumatology 2013;52:68-75. (8) ACR 2014: Abstract 818. (9) RMD Open 2015.  (10) Ann Rheum Dis. 2014;73(11):1914-1922. (11) Am J Clin Nutr 1999;70(6),1077–1082. (12) Am J Clin Nutr 2014;100(3):959-67. (13) Ann Rheum Dis 2015;74:904-907.

Dr. Dunaief is a speaker, author and local lifestyle medicine physician focusing on the integration of medicine, nutrition, fitness and stress management.  For further information, go to the website www.medicalcompassmd.com and/or consult your personal physician.

by -
0 1594

By David Dunaief

Now that spring has sprung, the pace of life tends become more hectic. Although some stress is valuable to help motivate us and keep our minds sharp, high levels of constant stress can have detrimental effects on the body.
It is very likely that there is a mind-body connection when it comes to stress. In other words, it may start in the mind, but it can lead to acute or chronic disease promotion. Stress can also play a role with your emotions, causing irritability and outbursts of anger, and possibly leading to depression and anxiety. Stress symptoms are hard to distinguish from other disorders but can include stiff neck, headaches, stomach upset and difficulty sleeping. Stress may also be associated with cardiovascular disease, with an increased susceptibility to infection from viruses causing the common cold and with cognitive decline and Alzheimer’s (1).
A stress steroid hormone called cortisol is released from the adrenal glands and can have beneficial effects in small bursts. We need cortisol in order to survive. Some of cortisol’s functions include raising the glucose (sugar) levels when they are low and helping reduce inflammation and stress levels (2). However, when cortisol gets out of hand, higher chronic levels may cause inflammation, leading to disorders such as cardiovascular disease, as recent research suggests. Let’s look at the evidence.

Inflammation
Inflammation may be a significant contributor to more than 80 percent of chronic diseases, so it should be no surprise that inflammation is an important factor with stress. In a recent meta-analysis (a group of two observational studies), high levels of C-reactive protein, a biomarker for inflammation, were associated with increased psychological stress (3).
What is the importance of CRP? It may be related to heart disease and heart attacks. This study involved over 73,000 adults who had their CRP levels tested. The research went further to suggest that increased levels of CRP may result in more stress and also depression. With CRP higher than 3.0 there was a greater than twofold increase depression risk. The researchers suggest that CRP may heighten stress and depression risk by increasing levels of different proinflammatory cytokines, inflammatory communicators among cells (4).
In one recent study, results suggested that stress may influence and increase the number of hematopoietic stem cells (those that develop of all forms of blood cells), resulting in specifically an increase in inflammatory white blood cells (5). The researchers suggest that this may lead to these white blood cells accumulating in atherosclerotic plaques in the arteries, which ultimately could potentially increase the risk of heart attacks and strokes. Chronic stress overactivates the sympathetic nervous system — our “fight or flight” response — which may alter the bone marrow where the stem cells are found. This research is preliminary and needs well-controlled trials to confirm these results.

Infection
Stress may increase the risk of colds and infection. Cortisol over the short term is important to help suppress the symptoms of colds, such as sneezing, cough and fever. These are visible signs of the immune system’s infection-fighting response. However, the body may become resistant to the effects of cortisol, similar to how a type 2 diabetes patient becomes resistant to insulin. In one study of 296 healthy individuals, participants who had stressful events and were then exposed to viruses had a higher probability of catching a cold. It turns out that these individuals also had resistance to the effects of cortisol. This is important because those who were resistant to cortisol had more cold symptoms and more proinflammatory cytokines (6).

Cortisol
When we measure cortisol levels, we tend to test the saliva or the blood. However, these laboratory findings only give one point in time. Thus, when trying to determine if raised cortisol may increase cardiovascular risk, the results are mixed. However, in a recent study, measuring cortisol levels from scalp hair was far more effective (7). The reason for this is that scalp hair grows slowly, and therefore it may contain three months’ worth of cortisol levels. The study showed that those in the highest quartile of cortisol levels were at a three-times increased risk of developing diabetes and/or heart disease compared to those in the lowest quartile. This study involved older patients between the ages of 65 and 85.

Lifestyle and the Cellular Level
Lifestyle plays an important role in stress at the cellular level, specifically at the level of the telomere, which determines cell survival. The telomeres are to cells as the plastic tips are to shoelaces; they prevent them from falling apart. The longer the telomere, the slower the cell ages and the longer it survives. In a recent study, those women who followed a healthy lifestyle — one standard deviation over the average lifestyle — were able to withstand life stressors better since they had longer telomeres (8).
This healthy lifestyle included regular exercise, a healthy diet and a sufficient amount of sleep. On the other hand, the researchers indicated that those who had poor lifestyle habits lost substantially more telomere length than the healthy lifestyle group. The study followed women 50 to 65 years old over a one-year period.
In another study, chronic stress and poor diet (high sugar and high fat) together increased metabolic risks, such as insulin resistance, oxidative stress and central obesity, more than a low-stress group eating a similar diet (9). The high-stress group was caregivers, specifically those caring for a spouse or parent with dementia. Thus, it is especially important to eat a healthy diet when under stress.
Interestingly, in terms of sleep, the Evolution of Pathways to Insomnia Cohort study shows that those who deal with stressful events directly are more likely to have good sleep quality. Using medication, alcohol or, most surprisingly, distractors to address stress all resulted in insomnia after being followed for one year (10). Cognitive intrusions or repeat thoughts about the stressor also resulted in insomnia.
Psychologists and other health care providers sometimes suggest distraction from a stressful event, such as television watching or other activities, according to the researchers. However, this study suggests that this may not help avert chronic insomnia induced by a stressful event. The most important message from this study is that how a person reacts and deals with a stressors may determine whether they suffer from insomnia.

Constant stress is something that needs to be recognized. If not addressed, it can lead to suppressed immune response or increased levels of inflammation. CRP is an example of an inflammatory biomarker that may actually increase stress. In order to address chronic stress and lower CRP, it is important to adopt a healthy lifestyle that includes sleep, exercise and diet modifications. A good lifestyle may be protective against cell aging when exposed to stressors.

References:
(1) Curr Top Behav Neurosci. 2014 Aug. 29. (2) Am J Physiol. 1991;260(6 Part 1):E927-E932. (3) JAMA Psychiatry. 2013;70:176-184. (4) Chest. 2000;118:503-508. (5) Nat Med. 2014;20:754-758. (6) Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012;109:5995-5999. (7) J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2013;98:2078-2083. (8) Mol Psychiatry Online. 2014 July 29. (9) Psychoneuroendocrinol Online. 2014 April 12. (10) Sleep. 2014;37:1199-1208.

Dr. Dunaief is a speaker, author and local lifestyle medicine physician focusing on the integration of medicine, nutrition, fitness and stress management.  For further information, go to the website www.medicalcompassmd.com and/or consult your personal physician.

Prev1...495051...64Next Page 50 of 64
TBR News Media is your local news and entertainment website.
We provide you with the latest breaking news and information for your community.
Contact us: [email protected]

Most Viewed

©