Given that AARP baby-boomers who were there for the birth of rock n’ roll have bought the i-Pod craze hook line and sinker, will this be an accident waiting to happen?
By: Ringo Bones
Yep, it’s true. During the 1970’s and 1980’s it was microwave ovens, now the magnetic headphones of i-Pods might be endangering users with implanted heart pace makers. And given that this Holiday Season where baby-boomers who had recently become AARP members might be getting / receiving their first or umpteenth i-Pod players should be careful about using magnetic headphones of their i-Pods.
Cardiologists across America had recently warned that the fairly powerful magnets of the headphones used in personal stereos / Walkman / i-Pods can interfere with proper heart pacemaker function and also that of defibrillator-type implants. This is especially true when fairly powerful magnets are placed squarely on the pacemaker. Given that the inductive coils of implanted pacemakers that deliver live-saving jolts of electricity to the heart are very susceptible to external magnetic fields, placing a magnet of sufficient power squarely on a pacemaker could interfere with the device’s intended function. Either the voltage level delivered by the pacemaker could go dangerously too high or too low. Though cardiologists had warned of microwave oven radiation of heart pacemaker recipients during the 1980’s, they seem to overlook the dangers of hand-held police radar which operate at the K-Band - i.e. microwave oven frequencies.
Though the normal placement of headphones for normal listening – on the ears – is quite far enough from the usual pacemaker location, keeping magnets away from one’s pacemaker could be more than just a “mere” precautionary measure. Doctors have not yet warned patients with pacemakers who reposition their loudspeakers, given that those have more powerful magnets touching squarely at their chest area. To be safe, people with pacemakers should avoid devices with strong magnetic fields when possible. This prudent practice could make our aging baby-boomers rocking for the foreseeable future.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Friday, November 21, 2008
A New Era in Transplant Medicine and Tissue Engineering
A recently performed medical procedure performed by Spanish doctors successfully replaced a damaged trachea. Will the “Holy Grail” of tissue engineering – replacing whole organs – be that much closer?
By: Vanessa Uy
Doctors in Spain recently replaced one of the windpipes or trachea of 30-year-old Claudia Castillo after a bout with tuberculosis damaged the organ. What made the procedure unique is that the donated trachea came from a non-genetically compatible donor. Plus, the new procedure made the use of post-operative anti-rejection drugs unnecessary by making the donated organ acquire an all-out total histocompatibility with the recipient.
The uniqueness of this new medical procedure involves the use of the recipient’s own stem cells to make the donated organ rejection-proof, even if it came from a non-compatible donor. The new procedure involved a trachea obtained from a recently deceased organ donor. The donated trachea is then cleansed of the donor’s own genetic material until all that is left is just a collagen scaffold of a trachea. The next step involved infusing the donated trachea collagen scaffold with Claudia Castillo’s own stem cells to make the donated trachea both immunologically and genetically compatible – total histocompatibility - with her own body.
This cutting-edge medical procedure was made possible due to a collaboration of three doctors from Spain, Britain, and Italy. At present, this new medical procedure is still prohibitively expensive to be done on a routine basis. But the success of this particular trial serves as a proof of concept that stem-cell therapy works in increasing transplanted organ’s histocompatibility with their recipients and is now more than a mere laboratory curiosity.
Even though this newfangled medical procedure is seen by everyone as the newest and latest in medical science, it can trace it’s roots back to more than 40 years of laboratory research. Back in 1965, Marshall R. Urist of the University of California at Los Angeles probably kicked-off the science of tissue engineering – creating semi-synthetic living organs that can be used as human replacement parts – by demonstrating that new bony tissue would form in test animals that received implants of powdered bone. Fast forward to 2006, a team of American doctors successfully “created” a human bladder by growing the organ out of stem cells - which can be very useful in treating urinary incontinence of the elderly and bladder reflux in children without the need of post-operative anti-rejection drugs and their negative side-effects.
Before receiving the life-saving tracheal transplant, Claudia Castillo was often out of breath due to her tuberculosis damaged left trachea, if left untreated, her left might become disease becoming withered and then die off. The new procedure that gave Claudia Castillo the genetically compatible trachea really did suit her particular case. If she had undergone a “conventional” tracheal transplant procedure, it might have necessitated the use of anti-rejection medication. Anti-rejection medication would have been the last thing she needs because these drugs are notorious for wrecking havoc with the human immune system. Thus making her susceptible with diseases that attack people with weakened immune systems like tuberculosis, which was the root cause of Claudia Castillo’s problem in the first place. Worse still, she might contract pneumonia, which often happens to patients taking anti-rejection medication. But thanks to this new medical procedure, those worries are behind her or the next patient who undergoes this procedure. This truly is the new era of transplant medicine and tissue engineering. The next step now is to make the procedure much cheaper than what it current costs so that more people that badly needed it can avail of this particular procedure without going bankrupt.
By: Vanessa Uy
Doctors in Spain recently replaced one of the windpipes or trachea of 30-year-old Claudia Castillo after a bout with tuberculosis damaged the organ. What made the procedure unique is that the donated trachea came from a non-genetically compatible donor. Plus, the new procedure made the use of post-operative anti-rejection drugs unnecessary by making the donated organ acquire an all-out total histocompatibility with the recipient.
The uniqueness of this new medical procedure involves the use of the recipient’s own stem cells to make the donated organ rejection-proof, even if it came from a non-compatible donor. The new procedure involved a trachea obtained from a recently deceased organ donor. The donated trachea is then cleansed of the donor’s own genetic material until all that is left is just a collagen scaffold of a trachea. The next step involved infusing the donated trachea collagen scaffold with Claudia Castillo’s own stem cells to make the donated trachea both immunologically and genetically compatible – total histocompatibility - with her own body.
This cutting-edge medical procedure was made possible due to a collaboration of three doctors from Spain, Britain, and Italy. At present, this new medical procedure is still prohibitively expensive to be done on a routine basis. But the success of this particular trial serves as a proof of concept that stem-cell therapy works in increasing transplanted organ’s histocompatibility with their recipients and is now more than a mere laboratory curiosity.
Even though this newfangled medical procedure is seen by everyone as the newest and latest in medical science, it can trace it’s roots back to more than 40 years of laboratory research. Back in 1965, Marshall R. Urist of the University of California at Los Angeles probably kicked-off the science of tissue engineering – creating semi-synthetic living organs that can be used as human replacement parts – by demonstrating that new bony tissue would form in test animals that received implants of powdered bone. Fast forward to 2006, a team of American doctors successfully “created” a human bladder by growing the organ out of stem cells - which can be very useful in treating urinary incontinence of the elderly and bladder reflux in children without the need of post-operative anti-rejection drugs and their negative side-effects.
Before receiving the life-saving tracheal transplant, Claudia Castillo was often out of breath due to her tuberculosis damaged left trachea, if left untreated, her left might become disease becoming withered and then die off. The new procedure that gave Claudia Castillo the genetically compatible trachea really did suit her particular case. If she had undergone a “conventional” tracheal transplant procedure, it might have necessitated the use of anti-rejection medication. Anti-rejection medication would have been the last thing she needs because these drugs are notorious for wrecking havoc with the human immune system. Thus making her susceptible with diseases that attack people with weakened immune systems like tuberculosis, which was the root cause of Claudia Castillo’s problem in the first place. Worse still, she might contract pneumonia, which often happens to patients taking anti-rejection medication. But thanks to this new medical procedure, those worries are behind her or the next patient who undergoes this procedure. This truly is the new era of transplant medicine and tissue engineering. The next step now is to make the procedure much cheaper than what it current costs so that more people that badly needed it can avail of this particular procedure without going bankrupt.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Cervical Cancer Vaccine Innovation: Still a Long Way to Go?
With one of this years Nobel Prize for Medicine’s recipient had worked for over thirty years on the virus that causes cervical cancer, will a cure be not that far behind?
By: Vanessa Uy
German-born Harald Zur Hausen became one of the recipients of the 2008 Nobel Prize for Medicine on his work on the human papilloma virus or HPV as the cause of cervical cancer. His work on the relation of HPV and cervical cancer dates back to the 1970’s. During the 1990’s, Harald Zur Hausen obtained proof on the role of the human papilloma virus in causing cervical cancer.
The Nobel assembly focused their attention on the way Harald Zur Hausen “went against current dogma” when he found that some variants of the human papilloma virus, or HPV, caused cervical cancer. He realized that genetic material like DNA of some HPV variants or species could be detected in cervical cancer tumors. Harald Zur Hausen then uncovered a family of HPV types, which only some of them cause cancer.
Cervical cancer is a form of cancer that affects women usually of childbearing age. Its tumors develop in the cervix, the entrance between the vagina and the uterus. It was only when Harald Zur Hausen’s work passed peer review scrutiny that the medical community reached the consensus that cervical cancer is caused by some variants of the human papilloma virus or HPV.
According to the work of Munoz N. et al as published in the New England Journal of Medicine published in 2003, there are more than 200 variants or types of HPV and at least 30 of these cause cervical cancer. This particular study showed that the cancer causing variants of HPV caused 99.7% of cervical cancer cases. Globally, HPV variants designated as types 16, 18, 45, and 31 account for 80% of the cases of cervical cancer.
On an incidence basis, cervical cancer is the second most common form of cancer affecting women worldwide, with half a million women diagnosed annually. Latest studies estimates that up to 50 to 80% of women will acquire an HPV infection during their lifetime. Usually via persistent infection of the cancer causing variants of HPV resulting in pre-cancerous lesions and cervical cancer.
The bad news is that human papilloma virus infection can be easily transmitted via skin-to-skin genital contact and one could become infected with the HPV virus without “normal” / “conventional” sexual intercourse. Infected men carry the HPV virus on the skin of their genitalia and yet they don’t succumb to the virus’ cancer-causing effects. Using condoms may reduce the risk but are by no means foolproof. Women who are sexually active – this means of childbearing age in a “civilized society” – are at risk of exposure to HPV variants that cause cervical cancer.
The Pap smear is currently the most important screening method that has been proven to be very good in early detection of cervical cancer. By taking a sample of cervical cells, a pathologist prepares them on a slide for microscopic examination. The microscopic examination by the pathologist determines whether the cell sample looks normal or abnormal. The earlier the pre-cancerous changes in the cervix are detected, the more positive will be the prognosis for a recovery.
The frequency of Pap smears usually varies with a woman’s age. A good point to start would be about 3 years after the start of regular sexual activity. Ideally, women should get a Pap Smear every year until the age of 30. After 30, women who have had 3 consecutive normal results on their annual Pap Smear can be re-screened every 2 to 3 years. Screening may be done if the woman has abnormal vaginal bleeding, pain, sores, or itching.
Since Harald Zur Hausen’s study of the link between human papilloma virus and cervical cancer, newer screening methods and treatments for the disease had been devised. Cervical cancer can now be detected via HPV DNA test to check for the presence of cancer-causing variants of HPV, which many doctors and gynecologists had praised for its accuracy. The development of a vaccine against cancer-causing strains of HPV has fostered a great hope in the fight against cervical cancer. Though Harald Zur Hausen says that more needs to be done since currently available HPV vaccines do not have a broad enough spectrum to combat all strains of cervical cancer-causing HPV.
By: Vanessa Uy
German-born Harald Zur Hausen became one of the recipients of the 2008 Nobel Prize for Medicine on his work on the human papilloma virus or HPV as the cause of cervical cancer. His work on the relation of HPV and cervical cancer dates back to the 1970’s. During the 1990’s, Harald Zur Hausen obtained proof on the role of the human papilloma virus in causing cervical cancer.
The Nobel assembly focused their attention on the way Harald Zur Hausen “went against current dogma” when he found that some variants of the human papilloma virus, or HPV, caused cervical cancer. He realized that genetic material like DNA of some HPV variants or species could be detected in cervical cancer tumors. Harald Zur Hausen then uncovered a family of HPV types, which only some of them cause cancer.
Cervical cancer is a form of cancer that affects women usually of childbearing age. Its tumors develop in the cervix, the entrance between the vagina and the uterus. It was only when Harald Zur Hausen’s work passed peer review scrutiny that the medical community reached the consensus that cervical cancer is caused by some variants of the human papilloma virus or HPV.
According to the work of Munoz N. et al as published in the New England Journal of Medicine published in 2003, there are more than 200 variants or types of HPV and at least 30 of these cause cervical cancer. This particular study showed that the cancer causing variants of HPV caused 99.7% of cervical cancer cases. Globally, HPV variants designated as types 16, 18, 45, and 31 account for 80% of the cases of cervical cancer.
On an incidence basis, cervical cancer is the second most common form of cancer affecting women worldwide, with half a million women diagnosed annually. Latest studies estimates that up to 50 to 80% of women will acquire an HPV infection during their lifetime. Usually via persistent infection of the cancer causing variants of HPV resulting in pre-cancerous lesions and cervical cancer.
The bad news is that human papilloma virus infection can be easily transmitted via skin-to-skin genital contact and one could become infected with the HPV virus without “normal” / “conventional” sexual intercourse. Infected men carry the HPV virus on the skin of their genitalia and yet they don’t succumb to the virus’ cancer-causing effects. Using condoms may reduce the risk but are by no means foolproof. Women who are sexually active – this means of childbearing age in a “civilized society” – are at risk of exposure to HPV variants that cause cervical cancer.
The Pap smear is currently the most important screening method that has been proven to be very good in early detection of cervical cancer. By taking a sample of cervical cells, a pathologist prepares them on a slide for microscopic examination. The microscopic examination by the pathologist determines whether the cell sample looks normal or abnormal. The earlier the pre-cancerous changes in the cervix are detected, the more positive will be the prognosis for a recovery.
The frequency of Pap smears usually varies with a woman’s age. A good point to start would be about 3 years after the start of regular sexual activity. Ideally, women should get a Pap Smear every year until the age of 30. After 30, women who have had 3 consecutive normal results on their annual Pap Smear can be re-screened every 2 to 3 years. Screening may be done if the woman has abnormal vaginal bleeding, pain, sores, or itching.
Since Harald Zur Hausen’s study of the link between human papilloma virus and cervical cancer, newer screening methods and treatments for the disease had been devised. Cervical cancer can now be detected via HPV DNA test to check for the presence of cancer-causing variants of HPV, which many doctors and gynecologists had praised for its accuracy. The development of a vaccine against cancer-causing strains of HPV has fostered a great hope in the fight against cervical cancer. Though Harald Zur Hausen says that more needs to be done since currently available HPV vaccines do not have a broad enough spectrum to combat all strains of cervical cancer-causing HPV.
Monday, September 8, 2008
A Healthcare Plan for Cord Blood Storage: Not Economically Viable?
Umbilical cord blood is probably the most ethical source of stem cells for medical research and therapeutic use. Some healthcare providers have been flirting with a scheme to store one for a fee. Another unnecessary medical expense?
By: Vanessa Uy
Stymied by the ethical row over the extraction of stem cells from early trimester aborted fetuses, medical science has started to search them from other sources. Recently, the medical community has found out that umbilical cord blood can be a viable source of stem cells. After learning from this discovery, many healthcare providers from around the world had offered their services – for a fee of course – to cryogenically store your newly born baby’s umbilical cord blood for up to 20 years. The procedure usually involves cryogenically cooling the umbilical cord blood to be stored with liquid nitrogen for later use as a source of therapeutic stem cells. Does this procedure remind you of something?
In Phoenix, Arizona a company called ALCOR became rich – but mostly famous - during the 1980’s by offering a “medical procedure” of storing someone’s recently diseased loved one cryogenically for “posterity”. Posterity is somewhat open to interpretation on what the company hopes to accomplish. It truly means sometime in the far-off future when medical science advance to a level were it is possible to revive and eventually cure what caused this certain person to die of in the first place. And by the way, ALCOR charges 300,000 dollars for a whole body cryogenic storage and 100,000 dollars for cryogenically storing just the head since according to them a new body can be cloned. This was in “when Ronald Reagan was still leader of the free world “ US dollars by the way. Given that majority in the medical community – until now – has doubts about ALCOR ‘s fiscal and medico-legal practicality of the services they are offering, should we be storing our newly born baby’s cord blood cryogenically for possible future use?
Given the relatively small volume of umbilical cord blood that would be stored, it would be way cheaper to store it cryogenically for 20 or so years compared to storing a recently deceased person after being prepped-up for cryogenic storage for an indefinite period of time (possibly for centuries?). And given that advances in stem cell therapy has been unnecessarily hampered by the politics surrounding its ethical implications. Medical research into stem cell therapy has been incrementally advancing in the past few years despite the challenges of demagoguery and petty political lobbying. The expense of storing umbilical cord blood for possible future use could certainly be a worthwhile investment.
Despite of the possible advantages, cryogenically storing umbilical cord blood for possible future use still has a sizable number of detractors in the medical community. Expert in the medical field has doubts whether the most common application of this stem cell resource – childhood leukemia therapy – is a good use of this very limited resource. It is already well known that a child’s own previously stored umbilical cord blood can’t be used for leukemia treatment because this form of blood cancer has a very high rate of reoccurrence. The previously stored umbilical cord blood would just simply provide temporary – albeit somewhat pricey – relief. But who knows what future developments might bring. And also there is a likely possibility that a number of children will be “lucky” enough not to be afflicted with diseases that necessitates the use of their previously stored umbilical cord blood for treatment.
Whether the practice is a waste of money or a very wise investment for the future, it Is ultimately up to the customer whether the services provided by certain healthcare companies to cryogenically store their newly born baby’s umbilical cord blood really is worth it. The most likely problems that would likely come up with regards to this issue is that not enough customers who avail themselves of this service didn’t get an informed enough consent in justifying their decision.
By: Vanessa Uy
Stymied by the ethical row over the extraction of stem cells from early trimester aborted fetuses, medical science has started to search them from other sources. Recently, the medical community has found out that umbilical cord blood can be a viable source of stem cells. After learning from this discovery, many healthcare providers from around the world had offered their services – for a fee of course – to cryogenically store your newly born baby’s umbilical cord blood for up to 20 years. The procedure usually involves cryogenically cooling the umbilical cord blood to be stored with liquid nitrogen for later use as a source of therapeutic stem cells. Does this procedure remind you of something?
In Phoenix, Arizona a company called ALCOR became rich – but mostly famous - during the 1980’s by offering a “medical procedure” of storing someone’s recently diseased loved one cryogenically for “posterity”. Posterity is somewhat open to interpretation on what the company hopes to accomplish. It truly means sometime in the far-off future when medical science advance to a level were it is possible to revive and eventually cure what caused this certain person to die of in the first place. And by the way, ALCOR charges 300,000 dollars for a whole body cryogenic storage and 100,000 dollars for cryogenically storing just the head since according to them a new body can be cloned. This was in “when Ronald Reagan was still leader of the free world “ US dollars by the way. Given that majority in the medical community – until now – has doubts about ALCOR ‘s fiscal and medico-legal practicality of the services they are offering, should we be storing our newly born baby’s cord blood cryogenically for possible future use?
Given the relatively small volume of umbilical cord blood that would be stored, it would be way cheaper to store it cryogenically for 20 or so years compared to storing a recently deceased person after being prepped-up for cryogenic storage for an indefinite period of time (possibly for centuries?). And given that advances in stem cell therapy has been unnecessarily hampered by the politics surrounding its ethical implications. Medical research into stem cell therapy has been incrementally advancing in the past few years despite the challenges of demagoguery and petty political lobbying. The expense of storing umbilical cord blood for possible future use could certainly be a worthwhile investment.
Despite of the possible advantages, cryogenically storing umbilical cord blood for possible future use still has a sizable number of detractors in the medical community. Expert in the medical field has doubts whether the most common application of this stem cell resource – childhood leukemia therapy – is a good use of this very limited resource. It is already well known that a child’s own previously stored umbilical cord blood can’t be used for leukemia treatment because this form of blood cancer has a very high rate of reoccurrence. The previously stored umbilical cord blood would just simply provide temporary – albeit somewhat pricey – relief. But who knows what future developments might bring. And also there is a likely possibility that a number of children will be “lucky” enough not to be afflicted with diseases that necessitates the use of their previously stored umbilical cord blood for treatment.
Whether the practice is a waste of money or a very wise investment for the future, it Is ultimately up to the customer whether the services provided by certain healthcare companies to cryogenically store their newly born baby’s umbilical cord blood really is worth it. The most likely problems that would likely come up with regards to this issue is that not enough customers who avail themselves of this service didn’t get an informed enough consent in justifying their decision.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Gender Selection Diet
A somewhat controversial finding on how women can now choose the gender of their unborn child with increased certainty by watching the amount of food they eat during conception. Eating into a brave new world?
By: Vanessa Uy
When I first heard this recent finding in a health and wellness section of a news broadcast, my first thoughts were, Isn’t this a social rather than a health issue? Given that the research’s findings might benefit both mother and child not just physiologically but psychologically as well, who am I to argue. The findings of this particular research currently implies that women who eat a “healthy” diet – i.e. a higher than their average intake of calories diet – around the time of conception especially a high cereal diet during breakfast increases their chances of having a boy / male child by 50%. (50%!? The last time I heard there were only two genders, a boy and a girl. Is this what they mean by “convoluted statistics”? Its always 50-50, or do they mean more likely to be a boy). The PR representative of the study was Fiona Mathews of Exeter University who delivered the study’s latest findings to the press back in April of 2008.
This research is more than just a recondite abstraction of an academic study on the factors that affect gender determination. This particular research study is inherently made more understandable to the layman due to the “diet factor” of the study. The “dearth” of the number of male / boy children being born in the Industrial West in the past 30 years might be due to women of childbearing age being “persuaded” to consume fewer and fewer calories due to the dictates of contemporary fashion. Add to that an increasingly hectic lifestyle were most women of childbearing age are more often than not chose to skip breakfast just to avoid job tardiness – i.e. being late for work.
Even though this study is first and foremost a health issue, the ramifications have an overwhelming bearing on our contemporary society. Western cultures – or is that most “living cultures” on the planet – has an overwhelming preference for a male heir. The title “Man of the House” still carries power and prestige in the present like it did 5,000 or so years ago. Imagine if the first few wives of King Henry VIII knew something bout this, history would have been written much more differently. Maybe the research data / results of this study will prove very invaluable in countries with a de facto One-Child-Policy. Are you familiar with the title “Man of the house”? It just goes to show that Western Society is a chauvinistic society, at times even misogynic.
By: Vanessa Uy
When I first heard this recent finding in a health and wellness section of a news broadcast, my first thoughts were, Isn’t this a social rather than a health issue? Given that the research’s findings might benefit both mother and child not just physiologically but psychologically as well, who am I to argue. The findings of this particular research currently implies that women who eat a “healthy” diet – i.e. a higher than their average intake of calories diet – around the time of conception especially a high cereal diet during breakfast increases their chances of having a boy / male child by 50%. (50%!? The last time I heard there were only two genders, a boy and a girl. Is this what they mean by “convoluted statistics”? Its always 50-50, or do they mean more likely to be a boy). The PR representative of the study was Fiona Mathews of Exeter University who delivered the study’s latest findings to the press back in April of 2008.
This research is more than just a recondite abstraction of an academic study on the factors that affect gender determination. This particular research study is inherently made more understandable to the layman due to the “diet factor” of the study. The “dearth” of the number of male / boy children being born in the Industrial West in the past 30 years might be due to women of childbearing age being “persuaded” to consume fewer and fewer calories due to the dictates of contemporary fashion. Add to that an increasingly hectic lifestyle were most women of childbearing age are more often than not chose to skip breakfast just to avoid job tardiness – i.e. being late for work.
Even though this study is first and foremost a health issue, the ramifications have an overwhelming bearing on our contemporary society. Western cultures – or is that most “living cultures” on the planet – has an overwhelming preference for a male heir. The title “Man of the House” still carries power and prestige in the present like it did 5,000 or so years ago. Imagine if the first few wives of King Henry VIII knew something bout this, history would have been written much more differently. Maybe the research data / results of this study will prove very invaluable in countries with a de facto One-Child-Policy. Are you familiar with the title “Man of the house”? It just goes to show that Western Society is a chauvinistic society, at times even misogynic.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Abiraterone: The Best Hope for Prostate Cancer?
Touted as the most significant development in the field of prostate cancer therapy in 70 years, will abiraterone finally end the scourge of prostate cancer?
By: Ringo Bones
As the results of the early stage trials were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, abiraterone instantly gained rave reviews as the miracle drug to treat prostate cancer. The mainstream media immediately pounced on the story during the middle of July 2008, hailing the drug as the most significant development in the field of prostate cancer therapy in 70 years. Despite the promising results during its early trials, abiraterone might have rightfully earned its bragging rights. Given that in the history of prostate cancer research shows that on a worldwide basis, almost a third of men diagnosed with the disease die from it.
Prostate cancer usually affects men who have reached their fifties, and the risk increases the older they get. To detect or examine suspected prostate cancer cases, the doctor usually starts with a prostate specific antigen or PSA bloodwork then a biopsy when a check up shows positive indicators for the disease. At present, only early detection guarantees recovery in most prostate cancer cases.
The male hormone testosterone – even though it performs a vital function in the male anatomy – stimulates prostate cancer tumors to grow. Current therapeutic methods used to cure prostate cancer usually involve stopping the body making testosterone. This method can slow down the growth of preexisting tumors, or even shrink it. Most of the testosterone in the male anatomy is made by the testes but a significant – though small amount – is synthesized by other tissues in the body, including the cancer itself. To synthesize or create testosterone, the body needs an enzyme called cytochrome P17, usually referred to as CYP17 in the research’s “White Paper”.
Abiraterone, whose chemical name is abiraterone acetate, also known as CB7630 works differently in comparison to other current hormone treatments for prostate cancer. Abiraterone acetate has a broad-spectrum effect in blocking the enzyme CYP17, thus preventing the testes and other tissues in the body from synthesizing testosterone. Abiraterone has just been recently used on clinical trials as an experimental treatment for prostate cancer. These early clinical trials focused on men with advanced prostate cancer whose previous treatments no longer works and also men with advanced prostate cancer that has spread or metastasized beyond the prostate gland.
Results of the phase 1 trial have recently been published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. During the abiraterone trials, 80% of the men had a fall in their levels of prostate specific antigen (PSA) in their blood accompanied by tumor shrinkage. A fall in PSA levels usually that the number of cancerous cells had gone down. Some of the men who were suffering from chronic pain resulting from their prostate cancer tumors were able to take much lower doses of painkillers, a sure sign of improvement. PSA level reduction lasted from just over two months in some men while on other subjects, level reductions lasted for 18 months.
Side effects were generally mild but are reminiscent of patients under hormone replacement therapy. These include a change in the levels of sodium and potassium in the blood, a build-up of fluid in the ankles / joint edema, a rise in blood pressure, headaches, loss of appetite, fatigue, and hot flushes.
Phase 2 trials are currently being carried out but the results are yet to be published. It focused on the men whose previous hormone therapy no longer works. These men were given abiraterone and when the abiraterone no longer worked, they were then given a steroid called dexamethasone. The early results were announced in June 2008, and because they looked promising, were hailed by the media as the greatest advance in prostate cancer research. Men who were taking abiraterone alone – most of them – show a fall in their PSA levels. A sure sign of the treatment stopped the cancer from growing or developing. In 50% of the men with tumors could be measured on the scan, the cancer shrank or didn’t grow further. The PSA levels were cut in half in almost 70% of the men taking part in the clinical trials even though the PSA levels of the men taking part rose again after 7 months. Despite the promising results, abiraterone is currently only available to men who will take part in a clinical trial.
Based on early tentative results, the latest abiraterone trial participants must be screened as a precaution. Because the drug changes the levels of sodium and potassium in the blood and raises blood pressure, men with a history of heart disease and high-blood pressure are not allowed to participate in abiraterone trials. So do men who had undergone treatment using a drug called ketoconazole, have history of liver disease or currently have another type of cancer and /or secondary cancer in the brain. Experts say that all hormone-based therapy to cure prostate cancer – including abiraterone – carries the risk of impotence, urinary tract problems and incontinence.
In the past, prostate cancer awareness was usually spearheaded when someone famous overcame the disease helped only by the existing treatment regimen of the period. Back in November 1987, then US President Ronald Reagan underwent transurethral prostate surgery because of benign prostatic hypertropy, thus causing a flurry of prostate cancer awareness. In the entertainment world, Bill “The Fox” Foster emcee of Comedy Central’s “The Man Show” died of prostate cancer in May 10, 2000. His family asks that we (The Man Show fans) honor his memory by urging male viewers to get their prostates examined regularly by their doctor. Many opined that with early detection, Bill “The Fox” Foster’s death could have been prevented.
By: Ringo Bones
As the results of the early stage trials were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, abiraterone instantly gained rave reviews as the miracle drug to treat prostate cancer. The mainstream media immediately pounced on the story during the middle of July 2008, hailing the drug as the most significant development in the field of prostate cancer therapy in 70 years. Despite the promising results during its early trials, abiraterone might have rightfully earned its bragging rights. Given that in the history of prostate cancer research shows that on a worldwide basis, almost a third of men diagnosed with the disease die from it.
Prostate cancer usually affects men who have reached their fifties, and the risk increases the older they get. To detect or examine suspected prostate cancer cases, the doctor usually starts with a prostate specific antigen or PSA bloodwork then a biopsy when a check up shows positive indicators for the disease. At present, only early detection guarantees recovery in most prostate cancer cases.
The male hormone testosterone – even though it performs a vital function in the male anatomy – stimulates prostate cancer tumors to grow. Current therapeutic methods used to cure prostate cancer usually involve stopping the body making testosterone. This method can slow down the growth of preexisting tumors, or even shrink it. Most of the testosterone in the male anatomy is made by the testes but a significant – though small amount – is synthesized by other tissues in the body, including the cancer itself. To synthesize or create testosterone, the body needs an enzyme called cytochrome P17, usually referred to as CYP17 in the research’s “White Paper”.
Abiraterone, whose chemical name is abiraterone acetate, also known as CB7630 works differently in comparison to other current hormone treatments for prostate cancer. Abiraterone acetate has a broad-spectrum effect in blocking the enzyme CYP17, thus preventing the testes and other tissues in the body from synthesizing testosterone. Abiraterone has just been recently used on clinical trials as an experimental treatment for prostate cancer. These early clinical trials focused on men with advanced prostate cancer whose previous treatments no longer works and also men with advanced prostate cancer that has spread or metastasized beyond the prostate gland.
Results of the phase 1 trial have recently been published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. During the abiraterone trials, 80% of the men had a fall in their levels of prostate specific antigen (PSA) in their blood accompanied by tumor shrinkage. A fall in PSA levels usually that the number of cancerous cells had gone down. Some of the men who were suffering from chronic pain resulting from their prostate cancer tumors were able to take much lower doses of painkillers, a sure sign of improvement. PSA level reduction lasted from just over two months in some men while on other subjects, level reductions lasted for 18 months.
Side effects were generally mild but are reminiscent of patients under hormone replacement therapy. These include a change in the levels of sodium and potassium in the blood, a build-up of fluid in the ankles / joint edema, a rise in blood pressure, headaches, loss of appetite, fatigue, and hot flushes.
Phase 2 trials are currently being carried out but the results are yet to be published. It focused on the men whose previous hormone therapy no longer works. These men were given abiraterone and when the abiraterone no longer worked, they were then given a steroid called dexamethasone. The early results were announced in June 2008, and because they looked promising, were hailed by the media as the greatest advance in prostate cancer research. Men who were taking abiraterone alone – most of them – show a fall in their PSA levels. A sure sign of the treatment stopped the cancer from growing or developing. In 50% of the men with tumors could be measured on the scan, the cancer shrank or didn’t grow further. The PSA levels were cut in half in almost 70% of the men taking part in the clinical trials even though the PSA levels of the men taking part rose again after 7 months. Despite the promising results, abiraterone is currently only available to men who will take part in a clinical trial.
Based on early tentative results, the latest abiraterone trial participants must be screened as a precaution. Because the drug changes the levels of sodium and potassium in the blood and raises blood pressure, men with a history of heart disease and high-blood pressure are not allowed to participate in abiraterone trials. So do men who had undergone treatment using a drug called ketoconazole, have history of liver disease or currently have another type of cancer and /or secondary cancer in the brain. Experts say that all hormone-based therapy to cure prostate cancer – including abiraterone – carries the risk of impotence, urinary tract problems and incontinence.
In the past, prostate cancer awareness was usually spearheaded when someone famous overcame the disease helped only by the existing treatment regimen of the period. Back in November 1987, then US President Ronald Reagan underwent transurethral prostate surgery because of benign prostatic hypertropy, thus causing a flurry of prostate cancer awareness. In the entertainment world, Bill “The Fox” Foster emcee of Comedy Central’s “The Man Show” died of prostate cancer in May 10, 2000. His family asks that we (The Man Show fans) honor his memory by urging male viewers to get their prostates examined regularly by their doctor. Many opined that with early detection, Bill “The Fox” Foster’s death could have been prevented.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Acetaminophen: Over the Counter Danger?
As an analgesic that can be bought over the counter with ease – even without prescription, does the general public know the inherent dangers posed by acetaminophen / paracetamol medication?
By: Vanessa Uy
Despite the medication’s widespread use, most of the general public remain oblivious when it comes to the inherent health risk posed by apparently harmless over the counter analgesics like acetaminophen - also known as paracetamol. Even though most of these analgesics have warnings clearly posted on their box that these medications can cause liver failure in high doses, incidences of acetaminophen overdoses still occur.
Persons taking high doses of acetaminophen – especially those not overseen by a qualified physician – often run the risk of liver damage and / or impaired liver function. The liver can be overwhelmed in metabolizing high doses of acetaminophen / paracetamol. Young children are especially at risk. The established recommended dose of acetaminophen is around 50 milligrams per kilogram of body weight per day. While the upper limit maximum dosage – usually administered in special cases – is 3 to 4 grams (3,000 to 4,000 milligrams) per day even though this amount can be harmful to a statistically significant portion of the population. Susceptibility to liver damage by high doses of acetaminophen is not just limited to overweight persons – as previous studies suggest – but also on healthy individuals as well. Even though precautions about taking paracetamol / acetaminophen is clearly posted in the medication’s packaging, why then there are still incidences of individuals overdosing on this specific drug?
The still common incidence of overdosing on acetaminophen is largely blamed on medical professionals prescribing the drug for pain in which the drug has shown only marginal effectiveness like pre and post operative dental work – i.e. toothache. Given acetaminophen’s somewhat marginal effectiveness in relieving such maladies the patient often resort to taking the drug in doses far beyond their doctor or dentist’s recommended dose just to relieve existing pain.
Even though acetaminophen is primarily utilized to decrease fever by a hypothalamic effect leading to sweating and vasodilation the drug can also cause analgesia (pain relief) by inhibiting Central Nervous System prostaglandin synthesis; however, due to minimal effects on peripheral prostaglandin synthesis, acetaminophen has no anti-inflammatory or uricosuric effects. Unlike aspirin, which this particular drug was designed to replace, acetaminophen does not cause any anticoagulant effect or ulceration of the gastrointestinal tract. But compared to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs like Bextra and Vioxx which has gained widespread press notoriety due to it’s unforeseen side-effects, acetaminophen / paracetamol is still magnitudes safer compared to those drugs. Yet a degree of prudence still needs to be exercised in taking supposedly safe medication because the old adage still holds true today that the difference between a medicine and a poison is in the dosage.
By: Vanessa Uy
Despite the medication’s widespread use, most of the general public remain oblivious when it comes to the inherent health risk posed by apparently harmless over the counter analgesics like acetaminophen - also known as paracetamol. Even though most of these analgesics have warnings clearly posted on their box that these medications can cause liver failure in high doses, incidences of acetaminophen overdoses still occur.
Persons taking high doses of acetaminophen – especially those not overseen by a qualified physician – often run the risk of liver damage and / or impaired liver function. The liver can be overwhelmed in metabolizing high doses of acetaminophen / paracetamol. Young children are especially at risk. The established recommended dose of acetaminophen is around 50 milligrams per kilogram of body weight per day. While the upper limit maximum dosage – usually administered in special cases – is 3 to 4 grams (3,000 to 4,000 milligrams) per day even though this amount can be harmful to a statistically significant portion of the population. Susceptibility to liver damage by high doses of acetaminophen is not just limited to overweight persons – as previous studies suggest – but also on healthy individuals as well. Even though precautions about taking paracetamol / acetaminophen is clearly posted in the medication’s packaging, why then there are still incidences of individuals overdosing on this specific drug?
The still common incidence of overdosing on acetaminophen is largely blamed on medical professionals prescribing the drug for pain in which the drug has shown only marginal effectiveness like pre and post operative dental work – i.e. toothache. Given acetaminophen’s somewhat marginal effectiveness in relieving such maladies the patient often resort to taking the drug in doses far beyond their doctor or dentist’s recommended dose just to relieve existing pain.
Even though acetaminophen is primarily utilized to decrease fever by a hypothalamic effect leading to sweating and vasodilation the drug can also cause analgesia (pain relief) by inhibiting Central Nervous System prostaglandin synthesis; however, due to minimal effects on peripheral prostaglandin synthesis, acetaminophen has no anti-inflammatory or uricosuric effects. Unlike aspirin, which this particular drug was designed to replace, acetaminophen does not cause any anticoagulant effect or ulceration of the gastrointestinal tract. But compared to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs like Bextra and Vioxx which has gained widespread press notoriety due to it’s unforeseen side-effects, acetaminophen / paracetamol is still magnitudes safer compared to those drugs. Yet a degree of prudence still needs to be exercised in taking supposedly safe medication because the old adage still holds true today that the difference between a medicine and a poison is in the dosage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
