Statin Use Increases Cataract Risk
Early this
year, the FDA issued a new requirement for statin drug makers. Drug information
flyers must now warn patients that statins increase risk of high blood sugar
and type 2 diabetes.
One word... Overdue! Evidence of this link goes back at least to 2010. But no matter. The warning is there now.
But what's missing? Guidance.
Neither the FDA nor any medical organization has stepped up to offer guidance for type 2 diabetics who are already taking statins.
So what should those patients do?
Well, to me it's very clear. In fact, I wouldn't have thought it could get any clearer. But it has. Because a new study reveals a devastating vision risk for diabetic statin users.
Here's an interesting detail about your vision. The lens membrane on your eyes requires cholesterol to maintain lens transparency.
HUH! So if you LOWER cholesterol, guess what happens? For years, doctors have been aware of the link between statin use and cataract risk.
A new Canadian study confirms the risk -- with an unexpected bombshell.
In this large study of nearly 6,400 subjects, statin users increased cataract risk by 50%. But the risk in diabetics was considerably higher... More than 85%!
Only one thing could make this worse... Cataracts in diabetic statin users progressed at a faster rate than in those who didn't use statins.
In an article about this study, one doctor called the results "interesting," but not "alarmist."
Well, thanks so much for your insight, doctor. I think we can assume you're NOT a diabetic on statins.
Diabetics are already at greater risk of cataracts and glaucoma. And diabetic retinopathy is the leading cause of blindness in adults. So the LAST thing a diabetic needs, is a daily pill that puts vision health in serious jeopardy.
The worst of it is that many diabetics don't need statins at all. But because diabetes increases heart disease risk, many doctors prescribe statins to their diabetic patients, no matter what their cholesterol status might be.
That's because too many doctors simply think of statins as a magical heart disease preventive. It's insane!
It's long past time for medical mainstreamers to remove their blindfolds and see statins for what they are... Far more trouble than good.
One word... Overdue! Evidence of this link goes back at least to 2010. But no matter. The warning is there now.
But what's missing? Guidance.
Neither the FDA nor any medical organization has stepped up to offer guidance for type 2 diabetics who are already taking statins.
So what should those patients do?
Well, to me it's very clear. In fact, I wouldn't have thought it could get any clearer. But it has. Because a new study reveals a devastating vision risk for diabetic statin users.
Here's an interesting detail about your vision. The lens membrane on your eyes requires cholesterol to maintain lens transparency.
HUH! So if you LOWER cholesterol, guess what happens? For years, doctors have been aware of the link between statin use and cataract risk.
A new Canadian study confirms the risk -- with an unexpected bombshell.
In this large study of nearly 6,400 subjects, statin users increased cataract risk by 50%. But the risk in diabetics was considerably higher... More than 85%!
Only one thing could make this worse... Cataracts in diabetic statin users progressed at a faster rate than in those who didn't use statins.
In an article about this study, one doctor called the results "interesting," but not "alarmist."
Well, thanks so much for your insight, doctor. I think we can assume you're NOT a diabetic on statins.
Diabetics are already at greater risk of cataracts and glaucoma. And diabetic retinopathy is the leading cause of blindness in adults. So the LAST thing a diabetic needs, is a daily pill that puts vision health in serious jeopardy.
The worst of it is that many diabetics don't need statins at all. But because diabetes increases heart disease risk, many doctors prescribe statins to their diabetic patients, no matter what their cholesterol status might be.
That's because too many doctors simply think of statins as a magical heart disease preventive. It's insane!
It's long past time for medical mainstreamers to remove their blindfolds and see statins for what they are... Far more trouble than good.
Recently we heard about low LDL cholesterol and increased risk of cataracts.
But that's not the only risk associated with low LDL.
Years ago, the Framingham heart study linked low total cholesterol with increased heart risks. That's right. LOW cholesterol was a problem. Not a solution.
More recently, an analysis of the Honolulu Heart Program produced similar results. Researchers were dumbfounded. They wrote, "We have been unable to explain our results."
They found that "long-term persistence of low cholesterol actually increases risk of death" in older people. And: "The earlier that patients start to have lower cholesterol concentrations, the greater the risk of death."
Of course, these studies don't make headlines. Obviously! They don't fit the mainstream mindset that casts cholesterol as a villain.
But that's not the only risk associated with low LDL.
Years ago, the Framingham heart study linked low total cholesterol with increased heart risks. That's right. LOW cholesterol was a problem. Not a solution.
More recently, an analysis of the Honolulu Heart Program produced similar results. Researchers were dumbfounded. They wrote, "We have been unable to explain our results."
They found that "long-term persistence of low cholesterol actually increases risk of death" in older people. And: "The earlier that patients start to have lower cholesterol concentrations, the greater the risk of death."
Of course, these studies don't make headlines. Obviously! They don't fit the mainstream mindset that casts cholesterol as a villain.
Are CT Scans Worth The Risk?
It's pretty amazing when you think about it. With just a few button pushes, a radiologist can produce a multidimensional view of your heart -- a remarkably accurate diagnosis tool.
But if you don't have any clear symptoms of artery problems or heart disease, is it reasonable to use a CT scan as a precaution?
Last year we heard about a Johns Hopkins study that compared outcomes in about 1,000 people who received a scan, and 1,000 who didn't. A year and a half after the scans, subjects in the CT scan group had been given more heart procedures, more follow-up tests, and more medications (primarily statins and aspirin) than subjects who didn't get scanned.
And what was the benefit of all that extra treatment?
Nothing.
Rates of heart attacks, heart disease deaths and other cardiac events were the same in both groups.
Obviously, if there's no clear heart risk, there's no reason to scan. And yet, the overuse of CT scans is fairly common. And here's the scandal that's quietly flying under the radar: In many cases, this overuse is not driven by concern for patients, it's driven by profits.
Imagine if your doctor told you he needed to take 700 X-rays of your chest.
Even the most timid, trusting patient would probably speak up with two questions:
1) Are 700 X-rays really necessary?
2) Won't that expose me to a dangerous amount of radiation?
The answers, of course, are 1) No, and 2) Absolutely!
But if your doctor approached it another way and just told you he needed to do a double CT scan of your chest -- one using an iodine contrast to examine blood flow and one scan without the iodine -- you might simply go along with the plan. After all, he's the doctor. He knows best.
That's exactly what's happening with thousands of patients every year.
Now here's the disturbing reality:
* A double CT scan is almost never necessary (the rate of double scans compared to single scans at major university teaching hospitals is about one percent)
* Medicare pays out millions of dollars every year to cover unnecessary second scans
* Two CT scans deliver the same amount of radiation as 700 standard chest X-rays
* Exposing patients to that level of radiation is very dangerous, but doing it unnecessarily is wildly unethical
In recent years, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has taken steps to alert hospitals, radiologists, and doctors to the high rates of unnecessary double CT scans.
Some hospitals that were previously out of control have brought their double scan rates down to the level of five percent or lower, which is where they should be. But according to the New York Times, a number of hospitals continue to have rates as high as 80 percent. And in 2009, more than 200 hospitals used double scans on at least 30 percent of Medicare outpatients.
Judging from the Times article, these hospitals aren't held accountable in any way. Apparently the only repercussion is a poor report from the annual CMS review, which stings just a little bit less than a mild slap on the wrist.
As is so often the case, we can't wait for Health and Human Services or some other oversight organization to step in and take control. Please forward this e-mail to anyone you know who relies on Medicare and has cardiovascular problems that might require a CT scan.
And most importantly, never be afraid to ask detailed questions about any medical procedure or test that seems odd or fishy. Trust your intuition and get answers before agreeing to anything -- especially if radiation is involved.
It's pretty amazing when you think about it. With just a few button pushes, a radiologist can produce a multidimensional view of your heart -- a remarkably accurate diagnosis tool.
But if you don't have any clear symptoms of artery problems or heart disease, is it reasonable to use a CT scan as a precaution?
Last year we heard about a Johns Hopkins study that compared outcomes in about 1,000 people who received a scan, and 1,000 who didn't. A year and a half after the scans, subjects in the CT scan group had been given more heart procedures, more follow-up tests, and more medications (primarily statins and aspirin) than subjects who didn't get scanned.
And what was the benefit of all that extra treatment?
Nothing.
Rates of heart attacks, heart disease deaths and other cardiac events were the same in both groups.
Obviously, if there's no clear heart risk, there's no reason to scan. And yet, the overuse of CT scans is fairly common. And here's the scandal that's quietly flying under the radar: In many cases, this overuse is not driven by concern for patients, it's driven by profits.
Imagine if your doctor told you he needed to take 700 X-rays of your chest.
Even the most timid, trusting patient would probably speak up with two questions:
1) Are 700 X-rays really necessary?
2) Won't that expose me to a dangerous amount of radiation?
The answers, of course, are 1) No, and 2) Absolutely!
But if your doctor approached it another way and just told you he needed to do a double CT scan of your chest -- one using an iodine contrast to examine blood flow and one scan without the iodine -- you might simply go along with the plan. After all, he's the doctor. He knows best.
That's exactly what's happening with thousands of patients every year.
Now here's the disturbing reality:
* A double CT scan is almost never necessary (the rate of double scans compared to single scans at major university teaching hospitals is about one percent)
* Medicare pays out millions of dollars every year to cover unnecessary second scans
* Two CT scans deliver the same amount of radiation as 700 standard chest X-rays
* Exposing patients to that level of radiation is very dangerous, but doing it unnecessarily is wildly unethical
In recent years, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has taken steps to alert hospitals, radiologists, and doctors to the high rates of unnecessary double CT scans.
Some hospitals that were previously out of control have brought their double scan rates down to the level of five percent or lower, which is where they should be. But according to the New York Times, a number of hospitals continue to have rates as high as 80 percent. And in 2009, more than 200 hospitals used double scans on at least 30 percent of Medicare outpatients.
Judging from the Times article, these hospitals aren't held accountable in any way. Apparently the only repercussion is a poor report from the annual CMS review, which stings just a little bit less than a mild slap on the wrist.
As is so often the case, we can't wait for Health and Human Services or some other oversight organization to step in and take control. Please forward this e-mail to anyone you know who relies on Medicare and has cardiovascular problems that might require a CT scan.
And most importantly, never be afraid to ask detailed questions about any medical procedure or test that seems odd or fishy. Trust your intuition and get answers before agreeing to anything -- especially if radiation is involved.
CLA Shows Anti-Inflammatory Potential for Crohn’s
Patients
Daily supplements of conjugated
linoleic acid (CLA) may benefit intestinal health, suggests new data from a
study with Crohn’s disease.
Results of a pilot study involving
13 people with Crohn’s disease indicated that daily supplements with BASF’s
Tonalin®-branded CLA were associated with a suppression of pro-inflammatory
compounds, decreased disease activity and an improved quality of life.
Crohn’s disease is a chronic
relapsing immune-inflammatory disease involving the gastrointestinal tract. The
causes of the disease are largely unknown although there is increasing evidence
of interplay between genetic factors, environmental triggers and immune
dysregulation.
“CLA represents a promising new
supportive intervention for gut inflammation,” wrote researchers from Virginia
Tech, the University of North Carolina and Wake Forest University School of
Medicine in the journal Clinical Nutrition.
"This is in contrast with the
results of human clinical studies using omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids in
IBD that remain largely unimpressive. The present study has shed new
light on the clinical potential of this compound and provided insights on the
possible mechanisms of immune modulation targeted by CLA in the human system.”
The potential anti-inflammatory
benefits of CLA were highlighted earlier this year by Michael Pariza, PhD,
recognized as the founder of the modern field of CLA research.
CLA is a fatty acid naturally
present in ruminant meat and dairy products. Due to changes in the Western
diet, average intake of CLA has fallen; if the fat is removed from a dairy
product to make a low-fat version that will be acceptable to consumers, CLA is
removed along with it.
Thirteen patients with mild to moderate
disease activity were recruited to participate in this open label study and
supplemented with a daily dose of CLA of six grams (Tonalin) for 12 weeks.
Results showed that CLA
supplementation was associated with a suppression in levels of certain forms of
T cells in the blood, which are known to produce pro-inflammatory compounds.
Disease severity, as measured by the Crohn’s Disease Activity Index (CDAI), was
significantly improved, with a drop in CDAI from 245 to 187 over the 12 weeks.
“Dissatisfaction with current
traditional therapies, the chronicity of the disease and concern over side
effects have resulted in increased use of naturally occurring and potentially
safer compounds such as CLA,” explained the researchers.
“Accordingly, the incidence of
complementary and alternative medicine usage among IBD patients was estimated
to be 49.5%, but limited information is available regarding their mechanisms of
action, clinical efficacy and tolerability in humans with IBD. This is the
first study investigating the immune modulatory effects and potential clinical
efficacy of oral CLA supplementation in patients with Crohn’s disease.”
The researchers concluded that,
based on these results, “a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial
with several doses of CLA is warranted.”
Clinical Nutrition
31(5):721-727, 2012
Until next
time, stay healthy and happy
JD Roma
The information on this blog is provided for
educational purposes only. It is not a substitute for professional medical
care, and medical advice and services are not being offered. If you have, or
suspect you have, a health problem you should consult your physician
(preferably a Naturopath).
No comments:
Post a Comment