Home / All Post

Tuesday, 30 June 2015

Princess Health and Know the signs of a heart attack and don't ignore or dismiss them; quick action can be the difference between life and death.Princessiccia

Add Comment
Many people who have a heart attack initially ignore the symptoms or dismiss them. For the best chance of survival and preserving heart function, you should not ignore these symptoms, and should get help quickly.

Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the U.S. and Kentucky. Nationwide, it causes about one in four deaths. The age-adjusted death rate from heart disease in Kentucky is 208.2 per 100,000 per year, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Below are some questions and answers about the symptoms and treatment of heart attacks and narrowed aortic valves, as reported by Gina Kolata for the New York Times.
How do you know if you are having a heart attack? Most people feel pain, pressure or squeezing in their chest and about one-third of people have symptoms in addition to or instead of chest pain that include abdominal pain, heavy sweating, back pain, neck and jaw pain, nausea and vomiting, Kolata reports. WebMD adds pain that radiates down one arm, indigestion or a choking feeling, extreme weakness, anxiety or shortness of breath, and rapid or irregular heartbeats to the list.

How can you decide if symptoms other than chest pain are actually from a heart attack? If your symptoms come on suddenly, or if they worsen over a period of hours or days, call 911 and get to an emergency room. "The best time to treat a heart attack is within one to two hours of the first onset of symptoms," says WebMD. "Waiting longer increases the damage to your heart and reduces your chances of survival."

Do women have different symptoms than men? "Probably not," Dr. Mary Norine Walsh, vice president of the American College of Cardiology, told Kolata. Walsh noted that women, however, are more likely to delay seeking treatment and doctors are more likely to dismiss their symptoms, especially if the woman is younger.

The American Heart Association says women often attribute signs of a heart attack to the flu, acid reflux or the normal aging process, even though it is the number one killer of women. It also noted that symptoms in women can be subtler, like shortness of breath, upper back pressure that feels like squeezing, lightheadedness or actually fainting.

What should you do if you are having heart attack symptoms? Call 911 for an ambulance to take you to the emergency room immediately. Do not drive yourself and do not have a friend or family member drive you unless you have no other choice. Kolata notes that paramedics are trained to treat heart attacks and are less likely to get stuck in traffic.

How can you find out if your local hospital is able to treat heart attacks quickly? Don't waste time fighting with your paramedic when you are having a heart attack, they will know the best place to take you, Kolata writes.

That being said, some hospitals are faster than others in treating heart attacks, but the time to research this information is before you are in the throws of a heart attack, Kolata writes. To find out this information, she suggest you ask each hospital what its "door to balloon time" is, which will tell you how long it takes the hospital to open a blocked coronary artery with a balloon after you arrive at the emergency room. If they don't have this information, ask if they take certain steps to speed up treatment. For example ask: Do paramedics transmit a patient's electrocardiogram to the hospital en route?; Does the ER doctor read the EKG and send out a single call to summon the cardiology team?; And are the team members on call required to be within 30 minutes of the hospital?

What are the symptoms of a severely narrowed aortic valve? There are three classic symptoms of this disease of aging: shortness of breath, a feeling of heaviness and pain in the chest, and fainting, according to cardiologists. They also noted that these symptoms are often mistakenly attributed to the normal process of aging.

How can a doctor know if symptoms are caused by a narrowed aortic valve? The doctor will listen  for a heart murmur in the patient�s chest and can order an echocardiogram, which will reveal the narrowed artery and the extent of the damage.

Should everyone with a severely narrowed artery have it replaced? Not everyone should undergo treatment, Kolata reports, so ask your doctor if you are a good candidate. The latest treatment is a transcatheter aortic valve replacement, or TAVR, which allows doctors to replace valves without doing open-heart surgery. High risk patients who would have been considered at too great a risk of dying from open-heart surgery have a chance to have a valve replacement, but sometimes elderly patients whose health is compromised are not good candidates.

Sunday, 28 June 2015

Princess Health and More dental patients using ERs, showing lack of dental coverage, shortage of dentists and the stepchild status of oral health.Princessiccia

Add Comment
More patients are going to hospital emergency rooms for dental care, illustrating how oral health remains the stepchild of the health system despite health-care reform.

"An analysis of the most recent federal data by the American Dental Association shows dental ER visits doubled from 1.1 million in 2000 to 2.2 million in 2012, or one visit every 15 seconds, Laura Ungar reports for The Courier-Journal and USA Today.

Christopher Smith of Jeffersonville, Ind., had a dental
infection that put him in a Louisville hospital for a
week. (Courier-Journal photo by Sam Upshaw Jr.)
"This is something I deal with daily," Dr. George Kushner, director of the oral and maxillofacial surgery program at the University of Louisville, told Ungar. "People still die from their teeth in the U.S."

A longstanding federal law requires ERs to treat patients regardless of their ability to pay. "Although they often provide little more than painkillers and antibiotics to dental patients, the visits cost more than three times as much as a routine dental visit, averaging $749 if the patient isn't hospitalized � and costing the U.S. health care system $1.6 billion a year," Ungar reports.

Private dental insurance is not common. "Just over a third of working-age adults nationally, and 64 percent of seniors, lacked dental coverage of any kind in 2012, meaning they had to pay for everything out of pocket," Ungar writes. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act "requires health plans to cover dental services for children but not adults," and "Medicare generally doesn't cover dental care at all," she notes.

In Kentucky, the expansion of Medicaid under Obamacare has increased dental visits in the program by 37 percent, but it offers "only a short list of dental services," such as extractions, which patients often choose instead of restorative work, for which they would have to pay.

Another big issue is that many dentists don't accept Medicaid, which pays them only 41 percent of private reimbursement, Ungar reports. Also, Kentucky has a shortage of dentists. "A 2013 workforce study by Deloitte Consulting found the state needs 612 more to meet demand," Ungar notes.

More dentists would encourage more preventive treatment, which dentists say would save a lot of money. "If we were going to the dentist more often, we could avoid a lot of this," Dr. Ruchi Sahota, a California dentist and consumer adviser for the ADA, told Ungar. "Prevention is priceless."

Fewer than 60 percent of Kentuckians saw a dentist in 2013, making their dental-visit frequency 43rd in the nation, according to the Kentucky Health Issues Poll.
Princess Health and CDC says state spends less than 8% of what it should on preventing use of tobacco; companies spend 13 times as much.Princessiccia

Princess Health and CDC says state spends less than 8% of what it should on preventing use of tobacco; companies spend 13 times as much.Princessiccia

Add Comment
Kentucky spends only 7.6 percent of what it should spend on preventing the use of tobacco, the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says in its latest annual report on the subject.

The state spent $4.33 million on tobacco-control programs in 2011, the year covered by the report. The CDC said spending of $57.2 million was called for, since 29 percent of Kentuckians smoked that year. Tobacco-related illnesses are estimated to cost Kentuckians $3.3 billion a year.

South Carolina and Texas, which spent 6.5 percent and 7 percent of the recommended amounts, were also singled out for criticism by the CDC. Nationally, states spend less than 18 percent of what they should, $3.7 billion, in the agency's view. "Only Alaska and North Dakota funded programs at the CDC-recommended levels, $10.7 million and $9.3 million, respectively," Samantha Ehlinger of McClatchy Newspapers reports.
Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2015/06/25/3918046/cdc-says-kentucky-isnt-spending.html#storylink=cpy

"States that made larger investments in tobacco prevention and control have seen larger declines in cigarettes sales than the United States as a whole, and the prevalence of smoking has declined faster as spending for tobacco control programs has increased," the CDC report said. "Evidence suggests that funding tobacco prevention and control efforts at the levels recommended . . . could achieve larger and more rapid reductions in tobacco use and associated morbidity and mortality."

In contrast to the state spending of $658 million on tobacco control, tobacco companies spent more than 13 times as much on advertising and promotion in 2011: $8.8 billion, or $24 million per day, the report noted.

"During the same period, more than 3,200 youth younger than 18 years of age smoked their first cigarette and another 2,100 youth and young adults who are occasional smokers progressed to become daily smokers," the report said. "If current rates continue, 5.6 million Americans younger than 18 years of age who are alive today are projected to die prematurely from smoking-related disease. However, the tobacco-use epidemic can be markedly reduced by implementing interventions that are known to work."

For the CDC's latest comprehensive report on tobacco use in Kentucky, with data from 2012, click here. For county-by-county figures on adults smoking in Kentucky in 2011-13, click here.

Friday, 26 June 2015

Princess Health and Study finds that one dose of HPV vaccine that targets only cervical cancer is as effective as three doses, now recommended.Princessiccia

Add Comment
By Melissa Patrick
Kentucky Health News

A study has found that one dose of the human papillomavirus vaccine Cervarix appears to be as effective in preventing HPV infections that lead to cervical cancer as do three doses, the recommended course of vaccination. Only 25 percent of Kentucky adolescent women initiate the vaccination, and fewer than one in nine of those who do get three does, according to the Kentucky Cancer Consortium.

"Many women around the world and in the U.S. don't get the full three doses that are recommended, so this is promising news," said Elisia Cohen, an associate professor of communication at the University of Kentucky, who does extensive research on community strategies to improve adolescent and adult vaccinations. However, she cautioned that the drug Cervarix is "only 1 percent of the U.S. market" and that the findings from this study do not apply to Gardasil, the drug most commonly used in the U.S.

Dr. Diane Harper of the University of Louisville, one of the researchers, said in a news release, �Kentucky is one of the states that has not had a program in place to make Cervarix available to all of its citizens, and has very low three-dose completion rates of Gardasil.�

Most health departments and physicians choose Gardasil over Cervarix because it protects against four strains of HPV: two strains that cause 70 percent of all cervical cancers and two strains that cause genital warts and oral and anal cancers, concerns for males as well as females. Cervarix only protects against the two strains that cause cervical cancer. "Generally, the thinking is that protection against four strains is better that two," Cohen said.

She said Gardasil 9, which will protect against 90 percent of HPV strains that cause cervical cancer as well as pre-invasive cervical cancer lesions, has just been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and is going through its labeling process, and will be recommended for both boys and girls.

HPV is the most common sexually transmitted infection in the U.S., affecting an estimated 79 million individuals, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The study, published in The Lancet Oncology, analyzed data from two large trials of Cervarix. In the trials, women were randomly chosen to receive three doses of Cervarix or a control vaccine. All of the women were evaluated, regardless of how many doses of the vaccine they received, for the effectiveness of the vaccine for a period of four years. The analysis found that the protection from one dose was similar to that achieved by three doses of the vaccine.

�Knowing that Cervarix offers protection in one dose reassures public health agencies that they are not wasting money when most of their vaccines are given to those who never complete the three-dose series,� the researchers wrote.

The CDC recommends HPV vaccination for girls 11 and 12 years old, and catch-up vaccination for females from 13 to 26. The second dose should be given one to two months after the first injection; the third dose should be administered six months after the first dose.
Princess Health and How Institutional Conflicts of Interest Exacerbate the Anechoic Effect - the Example of ASCO Fearing "Biting the Hand that Feeds You". Princessiccia

Princess Health and How Institutional Conflicts of Interest Exacerbate the Anechoic Effect - the Example of ASCO Fearing "Biting the Hand that Feeds You". Princessiccia

Add Comment
As we recently discussed (here, here, here and here), in May, 2015, the New England Journal of Medicine, arguably the world's foremost medical journal, published an editorial and a three-part commentary arguing that current concerns about the effects of financial conflicts of interest (COI) on health care are overblown(1-4).  On June 1, the Wall Street Journal published a report on the 2015 meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) that provided a vivid example of why these concerns should not be dismissed.

Questioning Drug Prices at the ASCO Meeting

The main issue in the article was:

In a sign of growing frustration with rising drug prices, a prominent cancer specialist on Sunday sharply criticized the costs of new cancer treatments in a high-profile speech at one of the largest annual medical meetings in the U.S.

'These drugs cost too much,' Leonard Saltz, chief of gastrointestinal oncology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, said in a speech heard by thousands of doctors here for the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The notion that health care prices are high and are rising continuously in the US should hardly be novel for regular Health Care Renewal readers.  We have been writing about it for a while, starting in 2005.

We first posted about high drug prices in July, 2005, with the example of BilDil.  This was a brand-name combination drug that included two compounds that were already cheaply available in generic form, advertised as a uniquely convenient therapy for congestive heart failure.  We were aghast that the price of the combination drug might be $5.40 - $10.80 a day (in 2005 dollars), over three times the cost of the two drugs in generic form.

But only a few days later we noted that three cancer costs had yearly costs in the five figures, and one, Erbitux, cost as much as $100,000.  Most amazingly we noted that Thalidomid was priced at $25,000  a year.  Yet it was just the infamous thalidomide, the drug initially marketed as a tranquilizer that caused severe birth defects after it was initially sold in Europe.  The drug was still available in generic form in South America for about seven cents a pill.

Since then, the ridiculously high prices of many tests and treatments, but most notably new drugs and devices, has been so widely covered our discussion has been limited to special cases.   For example, consider just a few headlines from April to May, 2015.

How Much Would You Pay for an Old Drug? If You Have MS, a Fortune (Bloomberg)

Pharmaceutical Companies Buy Rivals' Drugs, Then Jack Up the Prices (WSJ)

How Marketing Exclusivity Led to Higher Drug Costs and Questionable Benefits (WSJ)

Runaway Drug Prices (NY Times)


Drug Prices as a Taboo Topic

However, despite this wide attention to the problem, the speech at ASCO was notable.  Back to the WSJ...

Dr. Saltz�s speech was unusual because it was made at the meeting�s plenary session, where the field�s most significant scientific research is presented and which all meeting participants are expected to attend. An estimated 25,000 doctors and scientists attended this year�s meeting.


One would think that the high price of drugs, especially cancer drugs, would be a fit subject for discussion at a plenary session of ASCO, however,

It is unprecedented for plenary speeches, which typically address scientific and medical issues, to substantially take on the topic of drug costs, said Alan Venook, a professor of medicine at the University of California San Francisco who planned the meeting�s scientific session and invited Dr. Saltz to speak.

The prominent venue for the speech was also unusual because, like many medical meetings, ASCO is sponsored by pharmaceutical companies and often focuses on highlighting advancements in drug development, said Dr. Venook. He said discussing drug prices there is 'uncomfortable' because it could be seen as 'biting the hand that feeds you.'

Doctors are also reluctant to antagonize the drug industry because they need pharmaceutical firms to invest in developing new medicines for patients, he said.

'It�s a tough balancing act for ASCO where the meeting is largely funded by pharma,' Dr. Venook said in an interview. 'You can�t have a [plenary] talk trashing pharma, but you can have a talk by a respected person questioning it.'

So because pharma gives ASCO a lot of money, at best, only the most distinguished ASCO members can gently question pharma, but cannot criticize, much less "trash" the source of their mammon.


This is thus a succinct example of why financial conflicts of interest in medicine and health care can be bad.  The incredibly high prices of cancer drugs should be a fit topic for discussion at a meeting run by a society of medical oncologists.  But those in charge of the meeting and the society are afraid to initiate such a discussion, and even more afraid of appearing to criticize the companies that charge these prices, because the society has become dependent on money from these very same companies.  So this is further an example of how conflicts of interest can create the anechoic effect - the notion that certain topics in medicine and health care are taboo, because discussing them might trouble the powers that be, and particularly the moneyed interests that now dominate medicine and health care. 

In a succinct response to the NEJM series (1-4) soft pedaling concerns about conflicts of interest, the British Medical Journal ran a commentary by a former NEJM national correspondent, and two former NEJM editors.(5)  It stated,

The NEJM has now sought to reinterpret and downplay the importance of conflicts of interest in medicine by publishing articles that show little understanding of the meaning of the term. The concern is not whether physicians and researchers who receive industry money have been bought by the drug companies, as Drazen writes, or whether members of guideline panels or advisory committees to the US Food and Drug Administration with ties to industry make recommendations that are motivated by a desire for financial gain, as Rosenbaum writes. The essential issue is that it is impossible for editors and readers to know one way or the other.

In this case, we seem not to be talking about the possibility that health care professionals "have been bought by the drug companies,"  but how drug companies essentially "buying" a professional organization has apparently heretofore prevented medical professionals from discussing a vital issue that could have major effects on patients.

Following the Money

In case there is any question about the money involved and its sources, one only needs to go to some publicly available in formation supplied by ASCO (mostly because of reporting requirements imposed on all US non-profit organizations of a certain size).  

The latest (2014) annual report from ASCO reveals that the organization only gets 16.1% of its revenue from member dues.  Thus a ostensible membership organization gets only about a sixth of its funding from members' dues.

Yet the organization has become quite wealthy.  Its most recent (2013) US Internal Revenue Service 990 Form reveals that it owns over $55 million in real estate, and has over $104 million in investments (presumably as an endowment.)  The organizations' leaders are also doing very well. Its CEO, Allen Lichter MD, got $804,775 in total compensation in 2012.  Eleven other managers, of which three are health care professionals (one MD, one RN, one PharmD), got at least $220,000 in total compensation.  Five of them got more than $300,000. 

The source of all that money seems mainly to be pharmaceutical and other health care corporations that sell goods and services for cancer care.  US non-profit organizations are not forced by law to reveal the details of their financial support.  However, the ASCO annual report does list 23 pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, and one for-profit cancer hospital chain as contributing at least $1 million each in total to the non-profit over time.  The report lists 37 pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical device companies as current corporate donors, and also 10 other for-profit health care related corporations as current corporate donors.

In addition to these apparently marked institutional conflicts of interest, ASCO leaders may have their own individual conflicts of interest.  I do not have the resources to search all relationships affecting meeting organizers and ASCO officers and trustees, and the organization does not post conflicts of interest affecting its leadership and governance in a prominent place. However, Dr Alan Venook, who confessed to his discomfort about inviting a talk that might be perceived as biting the hand that feeds the finances of ASCO, is or has been on advisory boards for Thershold Pharmaceuticals,  Mirna Therapeutics, and GlobeImmune.  For a 2014 presentation, he gave the following disclosures: "Research support from Genentech/Roche, BMS, Lilly, Novartis; H. Lenz: Consulting, advisory boards and research support from Genentech/Roche, BMS and Merck."  Furthermore, the current chair of the ASCO Board of Directors, Julie M Vose, MD, is also on the Medical Advisory Board of EmergingMed Inc, and the Clinical Advisory Board of Bullet Biotechnology.

Summary

The New England Journal of Medicine recently launched a counter-attack against the "pharmascolds" who are allegedly slowing the pace of medical progress by their excessive and puritanical concerns about financial conflicts of interest.  Yet the arguments that COIs could be bad for health care are logical, and based on at least some reasonably good evidence.  (See the article by Steinbrook et al in the BMJ mentioned above[4], the accompanying BMJ editorial[5] just to start and then the 2009 Institute of Medicine report.)

Moreover, we have encountered a lot of vivid cases suggesting that conflicts of interest can have adverse influences on health care.  In this most recent one, we see at least one prominent if conflicted organizational insider admitting that institutional, and perhaps individual conflicts of interest have made discussion of at least one big health care and health care policy topic taboo.  This seems to corroborate our previous discussion that the anechoic effect - that certain topics in health care are taboo - may be generated by conflicts of interest of the people who ought to discuss them, or of those to whom those people may have to answer.

True health care reform requires full disclosure of conflicts of interest for honesty's sake, and marked reduction of conflicts affecting those who make health care decisions on behalf of individual patients, and health care policy decisions that affect patients' and the public's health.  If we allow conflicts of interest to continue, we will have difficulty even discussing the most severe problems affecting health care, because those generating the topics are benefiting from the circumstances that enable such problems.

ADDENDUM (1 July, 2015) - This post was republished on 28 June, 2015, on the Naked Capitalism blog. 

ADDENDUM (20 July, 2015 ) - This post was republished on July 12, 2015 in OpenHealth News.

References

  1.Drazen JM.  Revisiting the commercial-academic interface.  N Eng J Med 2015; ; 372:1853-1854. Link here.
2. Rosenbaum L.  Reconnecting the dots - reinterpreting industry-physician relations.  N Eng J Med 2015; 372:1860-1864.  Link here.
3. Rosenbaum L. Understanding bias - the case for careful study.  N Engl J Med 2015;  372:1959-1963.  Link here.
4.  Rosenbaum L.  Beyond moral outrage - weighing the trade-offs of COI regulation. N Engl J Med 2015; 372: 2064-2068.  Link here.
5. Steinbrook R, Kassirer JP, Angell M.  Justifying conflicts of interest in medical journals: a very bad idea.  Brit Med J 2015; 350: h2942.  Link here. 
6. Loder E. Revisiting the commercial-academic interface in medical journals.  Brit Med J 2015; 350: h2957.  Link here.
Princess Health and Study outlines historical barriers to tobacco prevention in Kentucky and other tobacco-growing states.Princessiccia

Princess Health and Study outlines historical barriers to tobacco prevention in Kentucky and other tobacco-growing states.Princessiccia

Add Comment
A University of Kentucky College of Nursing study published in The Milbank Quarterly has shown that five major tobacco-growing states�Kentucky, North Carolina, Virginia, South Carolina and Tennessee�fall behind the rest of the states in enacting laws to reduce tobacco use.

Tobacco and the diseases it causes affect those five states more than others across the nation, and tobacco is the leading cause of preventable death in the U.S. Those states also have fewer smoke-free laws and lower tobacco taxes, which are two evidence-based policies that help reduce tobacco use, write the authors, Amanda Fallin and Stanton A. Glantz.

The researchers used five case studies chronicling the history of tobacco-control policy "based on public records, key informant interviews, media articles and previously secret internal tobacco industry documents available in the Legacy Tobacco Documents Library," they write.

They found that beginning in the late 1960s, tobacco companies focused on creating a pro-tobacco culture to block tobacco-control policies. However, since 2003, tobacco-growing states have seen passage of more state ad local smoking bans, partly because the alliance between tobacco companies and the tobacco farmers dissolved and hospitality organizations stopped objecting to such bans. National Cancer Institute research projects also built infrastructure that led to tobacco-control coalitions. "Although tobacco production has dramatically fallen in these states, pro-tobacco sentiment still hinders tobacco-control policies in the major tobacco-growing states," the researchers write.

To continue the progress, health advocates need to teach the public as well as policymakers about "the changing reality in the tobacco-growing states, notably the great reduction in the number of tobacco farmers as well as in the volume of tobacco produced," Fallin and Glantz write. Kentucky once had about 50,000 tobacco farmers; today it has about 5,000, and production is dominated by large farmers. The study is behind a paywall; to read its abstract, click here.

Princess Health and Half again as many Kentucky newborns were hospitalized for drug dependency last year as the year before.Princessiccia

Add Comment
Mother Samantha Adams and her newborn Leopoldo Bautista,
10 days old, spend quality time inside the Louisville Norton
Healthcare child care center for children experiencing drug
withdrawal. (Photo by Alton Strupp, The Courier-Journal)
Increasing drug abuse drove up hospitalizations of drug-dependent newborns in Kentucky by 48 percent last year, to 1,409 from 955 in 2013. "The latest numbers represent a 50-fold increase from only 28 hospitalizations in 2000," reports Laura Ungar of The Courier-Journal.

"The seemingly never-ending increase every year is so frustrating to see," Van Ingram, executive director of the state Office of Drug Control Policy, told Ungar. "It's a horrible thing to spend the first days of your life in agony."

"These infants are born into suffering," Ungar writes. "They cry piercingly and often. They suffer vomiting, diarrhea, feeding difficulties, low-grade fevers, seizures � and even respiratory distress if they're born prematurely."

Drug-dependent newborns are becoming more common nationwide, Ungar notes, but "Vanderbilt University researchers publishing in the Journal of Perinatology [a subspecialty of obstetrics concerned with the care of the fetus and complicated, high-risk pregnancies] say rates are highest in a region encompassing Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama and Kentucky."

While the increase is blamed mostly on illegal drug use, the Vanderbilt study found that 28 percent of pregnant Medicaid recipients in Tennessee filled at least one painkiller prescription, Ungar writes: "Legitimate use not only raises the risk of having a drug-dependent baby, it can sometimes lead to abuse and addiction."

While Medicaid now pays for behavioral-health and substance-abuse treatment, "Drug treatment for pregnant women is sorely lacking," Ungar reports. In Kentucky, only 71 of the 286 treatment facilities listed by the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration treat pregnant women. 
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)