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.
Monday, September 8, 2008
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.
Friday, June 13, 2008
The Hidden Dangers of ADHD
Despite the studies being done on this disorder over the years, majority still harbor the perception that ADHD only affects kids and is an untreatable form of insanity. Even the rich multinational drug companies are part of the problem. Suffer the children?
By: Vanessa Uy
Basing on the scientific studies on the disorder – as opposed to politically charged demagoguery and prevailing speculation – ADHD or Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder is a treatable non-contagious mental disorder that impair one’s concentration and ability to control behavior. This disorder affects 4 percent of American adults and 3 to 7 percent of American children according to the American Psychiatric Association. Though treatable by a number of therapeutic regimens developed over the years, it is in the method of treatment where ADHD now gets its controversy du jour.
From time to time, everyone has had trouble sitting still or managing time, or completing an assigned task. But the behavior of persons suffering from ADHD goes beyond occasional fidgeting, disorganization and procrastination. For them, performing tasks can be so hard that it interferes with their ability to function effectively – and efficiently – at work, at home, at school, and it even affects their social life in a negative way.
A diagnostic manual compiled by the American Psychiatric Association identifies three types of ADHD: inattentive, hyperactive-impulsive, and combined. A person with inattentive ADHD, previously known as Attention Deficit Disorder or ADD has trouble focusing on activities, organizing and finishing tasks and following instructions. Children with hyperactive-impulsive ADHD are in constant motion, dashing around, touching everything in sight, and jumping on and off furniture. They often blurt out inappropriate comments, don’t wait their turn, show excessively intense emotions, or hurt others when upset. Hyperactive and impulsive adults feel restless, are constantly “on the go” and try to do multiple tasks at once. They are often perceived as not thinking before they act or speak. Individuals with the combined form of ADHD show symptoms of both inattention and hyperactivity.
Experts – even at present – still continue to debate whether children can expect to outgrow the symptoms of ADHD by the time they reach adulthood. Behavioral modification therapy via psychotherapist’s counseling is the safest form of treatment due to the fact that it doesn’t involve the use of pharmaceuticals. While the pharmaceutical industry and a large number of doctors question the level of effectiveness of psychological methods used in treating ADHD.
Majority of existing ADHD therapies, especially ones involving amphetamine-like drugs such as methylphenidate hydrochloride (Ritalin) and atomoxetine hydrochloride (Strattera). Scientific research studies done in the previous years by major drug companies that manufacture Ritalin and Strattera have shown that sudden death from heart attacks does occur in children suffering from ADHD while prescribed by the two drugs mentioned earlier. But it occurred with such rarity that the link between the anti-ADHD drugs and heart attacks are yet to be proven.
Just to be on the safe side, the US Food and Drug Administration has just recently approved in the middle of April 2008 a new therapeutic regimen for ADHD. The FDA advised doctors to prescribe Beta-Blockers together with reduced Ritalin and Strattera dose to reduce the dangers of heart attacks and other cardiovascular problems. Especially now in America where childhood obesity is on the rise. Amphetamine-like drugs that are used to treat ADHD can unnecessarily strain our cardiovascular system.
These risks were proven by the fact that Rock Stars who used to take cocaine and amphetamines on a regular basis are putting themselves at risk of suffering cardiovascular problems at a relatively young age. Even after quitting, these “Rock Stars” still need regular check-ups by their physicians for early detection of any heart problems and other cardiovascular complications. Though not often mentioned, the additional financial burden involved since only a few school kids have Rock Star budgets. Maybe parents should ask about ADHD therapies that don’t involve medications with harmful side effects.
By: Vanessa Uy
Basing on the scientific studies on the disorder – as opposed to politically charged demagoguery and prevailing speculation – ADHD or Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder is a treatable non-contagious mental disorder that impair one’s concentration and ability to control behavior. This disorder affects 4 percent of American adults and 3 to 7 percent of American children according to the American Psychiatric Association. Though treatable by a number of therapeutic regimens developed over the years, it is in the method of treatment where ADHD now gets its controversy du jour.
From time to time, everyone has had trouble sitting still or managing time, or completing an assigned task. But the behavior of persons suffering from ADHD goes beyond occasional fidgeting, disorganization and procrastination. For them, performing tasks can be so hard that it interferes with their ability to function effectively – and efficiently – at work, at home, at school, and it even affects their social life in a negative way.
A diagnostic manual compiled by the American Psychiatric Association identifies three types of ADHD: inattentive, hyperactive-impulsive, and combined. A person with inattentive ADHD, previously known as Attention Deficit Disorder or ADD has trouble focusing on activities, organizing and finishing tasks and following instructions. Children with hyperactive-impulsive ADHD are in constant motion, dashing around, touching everything in sight, and jumping on and off furniture. They often blurt out inappropriate comments, don’t wait their turn, show excessively intense emotions, or hurt others when upset. Hyperactive and impulsive adults feel restless, are constantly “on the go” and try to do multiple tasks at once. They are often perceived as not thinking before they act or speak. Individuals with the combined form of ADHD show symptoms of both inattention and hyperactivity.
Experts – even at present – still continue to debate whether children can expect to outgrow the symptoms of ADHD by the time they reach adulthood. Behavioral modification therapy via psychotherapist’s counseling is the safest form of treatment due to the fact that it doesn’t involve the use of pharmaceuticals. While the pharmaceutical industry and a large number of doctors question the level of effectiveness of psychological methods used in treating ADHD.
Majority of existing ADHD therapies, especially ones involving amphetamine-like drugs such as methylphenidate hydrochloride (Ritalin) and atomoxetine hydrochloride (Strattera). Scientific research studies done in the previous years by major drug companies that manufacture Ritalin and Strattera have shown that sudden death from heart attacks does occur in children suffering from ADHD while prescribed by the two drugs mentioned earlier. But it occurred with such rarity that the link between the anti-ADHD drugs and heart attacks are yet to be proven.
Just to be on the safe side, the US Food and Drug Administration has just recently approved in the middle of April 2008 a new therapeutic regimen for ADHD. The FDA advised doctors to prescribe Beta-Blockers together with reduced Ritalin and Strattera dose to reduce the dangers of heart attacks and other cardiovascular problems. Especially now in America where childhood obesity is on the rise. Amphetamine-like drugs that are used to treat ADHD can unnecessarily strain our cardiovascular system.
These risks were proven by the fact that Rock Stars who used to take cocaine and amphetamines on a regular basis are putting themselves at risk of suffering cardiovascular problems at a relatively young age. Even after quitting, these “Rock Stars” still need regular check-ups by their physicians for early detection of any heart problems and other cardiovascular complications. Though not often mentioned, the additional financial burden involved since only a few school kids have Rock Star budgets. Maybe parents should ask about ADHD therapies that don’t involve medications with harmful side effects.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Vytorin: Desperately Seeking Effectiveness?
One of the latest generation of cholesterol-lowering drugs that raised much controversy when a leading medical journal questioned the drugs effectiveness. Is Vytorin any better than older cholesterol-lowering drugs like Lipitor?
By: Vanessa Uy
Ever since that damning editorial by the New England Journal of Medicine came out questioning the effectiveness of Vytorin in reducing plaque build up which might lead to heart attack later. It not only shocked the medical community, but also to thousands of patients who were prescribed by their doctors to take the drug. Others in the medical community also questioned the wisdom of promoting and prescribing Vytorin even though there are older and therefore much cheaper drugs - like Lipitor for example – are still very effective in their cholesterol-lowering role. But before we condemn Vytorin, let’s examine first what’s going for it.
Vytorin is a cholesterol-lowering drug and is composed by a combination of two drugs, namely simvastatin (Zocor) and ezetimibe (Zetia). When Vytorin is prescribed, it is used along with a special diet and an exercise regimen to lower the amount of fatty material in the blood. Namely triglycerides and low density lipoproteins (LDL) sometimes called “bad cholesterol” because it will build up into fatty plaque deposits that increases the body’s risk of heart attacks. The two components Vytorin works in a different way to lower the levels of fat in the blood. Normally, our liver produces most of the cholesterol that we need to maintain a healthy balance. Cholesterol in the right amount is vital in the proper maintenance of our nervous system. One of Vytorin’s components simvastatin works by interrupting the process of the liver’s cholesterol production, the other one ezetimibe, works by reducing the amount of dietary bad cholesterol that can be absorbed by the intestines.
Vytorin should only be prescribed if diet, exercise, and weight loss fail to bring down the patient’s cholesterol levels under control. The doctor may prescribe Vytorin if the patient’s risk factors for coronary heart disease is high and when the patient’s cholesterol level is above 130 mg / dL. The drug is also prescribed to patients whose cholesterol levels are above 190 mg / dL, even if their risk factors for coronary heart disease are low.
A disadvantage of Vytorin is that quite a number of the population shows allergic reactions to the two main components of the drug, namely simvastatin (Zocor) and ezetimibe (Zetia). The precautions of taking the drug are quite numerous. Pregnant and lactating women are not allowed to take Vytorin because it might affect the child’s nervous system development. Patients with impaired liver function should not be allowed to take Vytorin because the drug will further tax their compromised liver. Though Vytorin should not be taken when the patient had recently or will about to drink alcoholic beverages. Even seemingly innocuous drinks - such as grapefruit juice – can have an adverse interaction with the drug. Vytorin can cause breakdown of the muscle tissue that can lead to serious kidney damage and even death from kidney failure.
Any doctor who is familiar with cholesterol-lowering drugs could conclude that the precautions in taking and prescribing Vytorin is somewhat similar to other common cholesterol-lowering medication like Lipitor (atorvastatin calcium). But should the patient suffer through these unfortunate side effects even if current medical research had shown that Vytorin is no more – even less – effective in lowering cholesterol when compared to older drugs like Lipitor? Maybe we should be campaigning for more awareness of healthier diets and lifestyles at the school level, rather than treating the effects of obesity and high cholesterol via a magic pill. This would drastically reduce the burden of our health care infrastructure.
By: Vanessa Uy
Ever since that damning editorial by the New England Journal of Medicine came out questioning the effectiveness of Vytorin in reducing plaque build up which might lead to heart attack later. It not only shocked the medical community, but also to thousands of patients who were prescribed by their doctors to take the drug. Others in the medical community also questioned the wisdom of promoting and prescribing Vytorin even though there are older and therefore much cheaper drugs - like Lipitor for example – are still very effective in their cholesterol-lowering role. But before we condemn Vytorin, let’s examine first what’s going for it.
Vytorin is a cholesterol-lowering drug and is composed by a combination of two drugs, namely simvastatin (Zocor) and ezetimibe (Zetia). When Vytorin is prescribed, it is used along with a special diet and an exercise regimen to lower the amount of fatty material in the blood. Namely triglycerides and low density lipoproteins (LDL) sometimes called “bad cholesterol” because it will build up into fatty plaque deposits that increases the body’s risk of heart attacks. The two components Vytorin works in a different way to lower the levels of fat in the blood. Normally, our liver produces most of the cholesterol that we need to maintain a healthy balance. Cholesterol in the right amount is vital in the proper maintenance of our nervous system. One of Vytorin’s components simvastatin works by interrupting the process of the liver’s cholesterol production, the other one ezetimibe, works by reducing the amount of dietary bad cholesterol that can be absorbed by the intestines.
Vytorin should only be prescribed if diet, exercise, and weight loss fail to bring down the patient’s cholesterol levels under control. The doctor may prescribe Vytorin if the patient’s risk factors for coronary heart disease is high and when the patient’s cholesterol level is above 130 mg / dL. The drug is also prescribed to patients whose cholesterol levels are above 190 mg / dL, even if their risk factors for coronary heart disease are low.
A disadvantage of Vytorin is that quite a number of the population shows allergic reactions to the two main components of the drug, namely simvastatin (Zocor) and ezetimibe (Zetia). The precautions of taking the drug are quite numerous. Pregnant and lactating women are not allowed to take Vytorin because it might affect the child’s nervous system development. Patients with impaired liver function should not be allowed to take Vytorin because the drug will further tax their compromised liver. Though Vytorin should not be taken when the patient had recently or will about to drink alcoholic beverages. Even seemingly innocuous drinks - such as grapefruit juice – can have an adverse interaction with the drug. Vytorin can cause breakdown of the muscle tissue that can lead to serious kidney damage and even death from kidney failure.
Any doctor who is familiar with cholesterol-lowering drugs could conclude that the precautions in taking and prescribing Vytorin is somewhat similar to other common cholesterol-lowering medication like Lipitor (atorvastatin calcium). But should the patient suffer through these unfortunate side effects even if current medical research had shown that Vytorin is no more – even less – effective in lowering cholesterol when compared to older drugs like Lipitor? Maybe we should be campaigning for more awareness of healthier diets and lifestyles at the school level, rather than treating the effects of obesity and high cholesterol via a magic pill. This would drastically reduce the burden of our health care infrastructure.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Caffeine – A health Supplement?
Ever since coffee was touted as a health tonic because it contains beneficial antioxidants, every government approved health supplement manufacturer has been jumping on the bandwagon. But should everyone beware of caffeine’s possible risks?
By: Vanessa Uy
From caffeine containing wake-up pills to cellulite removal cremes, it seems like this primary component of our morning coffee has become the health tonic du jour almost overnight. Apart from the somewhat still disputed claims of the health benefits of anti-oxidants found in our age-old drinks like coffee and tea, caffeine’s effects for boosting our metabolism is well-known – as is its dangers to our cardiovascular system when taken in high doses. Nonetheless, caffeine made possible the efficient running of the North American Space Command’s Cheyenne Mountain complex. And it has performed these and other thankless tasks despite the miserly praise.
The cosmetic arm of the healthcare industry has been exploiting caffeine’s ability to improve our skin’s aesthetics by adding it to various topical creams ranging from spray-on tans to cellulite removal cream. Though its effectiveness ranges from the just noticeable to marketing on a yet-to-be-understood-human-physiological-function. But first, let’s briefly examine the rational behind these caffeine-containing products.
Cellulite elimination creams exploit on our skin’s ability to absorb caffeine through our skin, increasing our metabolic rate. Thus allowing us to burn excess fat with somewhat increased ease. Cellulite elimination creams work but only in conjunction with an exercise regime. Though losing weight by this means can increase the workload of your liver and lymphatic system, not to mention your own heart rate.
Caffeine containing shampoos – though pricey – has steadily gained widespread acceptance due to user’s positive testimonials. Caffeine containing shampoos can make your hair grow back and is the most commonly prescribed cure against hormonally induced baldness. Since too much testosterone – especially in men – is the leading cause of baldness, women with hormonal imbalances – though rarely - are also affected, thus the market for these shampoos are not restricted by gender. But the science backing up this product is somewhat misleading. Caffeine containing shampoos’ positive laboratory results are due to the product being tested on hair culture, not on the actual scalps of human test subjects. Nevertheless, the skin improving benefits of topically applied caffeine is retained despite the product’s being on the knife-edge of being to costly compared to the much-touted yet marginal benefits.
Caffeine containing pills works – no ifs and buts – but consult first with your General Practitioner before using such products if you have a preexisting heart or other cardiovascular condition. Heavily featured in ads since the end of World War II as wake-up pills and weight loss pills, caffeine containing pills should be used with caution since they contain as much caffeine as ten cups of coffee, some even more. Also, if you’re daily diet includes chocolate, tea and coffee. Caffeine containing pills certainly are not a good idea.
Caffeine certainly has benefits for our health and well being. Latest research shows that moderate amounts can stave off heart attacks, strokes, and other coronary afflictions. Also, caffeine improves our skin appearance, improves our alertness, and lets face it without it, our now industrialized labor-intensive civilization will grind to a halt without it. But, in my personal experience, caffeine is better taken via our regular cup of coffee. Not only that it is less expensive compared to other alternatives, but its more effective – albeit slower acting – compared to the competition. And coffee drinking provides the much-needed job security of coffee growers were the majority of which resides in the more economically depressed parts of our planet.
By: Vanessa Uy
From caffeine containing wake-up pills to cellulite removal cremes, it seems like this primary component of our morning coffee has become the health tonic du jour almost overnight. Apart from the somewhat still disputed claims of the health benefits of anti-oxidants found in our age-old drinks like coffee and tea, caffeine’s effects for boosting our metabolism is well-known – as is its dangers to our cardiovascular system when taken in high doses. Nonetheless, caffeine made possible the efficient running of the North American Space Command’s Cheyenne Mountain complex. And it has performed these and other thankless tasks despite the miserly praise.
The cosmetic arm of the healthcare industry has been exploiting caffeine’s ability to improve our skin’s aesthetics by adding it to various topical creams ranging from spray-on tans to cellulite removal cream. Though its effectiveness ranges from the just noticeable to marketing on a yet-to-be-understood-human-physiological-function. But first, let’s briefly examine the rational behind these caffeine-containing products.
Cellulite elimination creams exploit on our skin’s ability to absorb caffeine through our skin, increasing our metabolic rate. Thus allowing us to burn excess fat with somewhat increased ease. Cellulite elimination creams work but only in conjunction with an exercise regime. Though losing weight by this means can increase the workload of your liver and lymphatic system, not to mention your own heart rate.
Caffeine containing shampoos – though pricey – has steadily gained widespread acceptance due to user’s positive testimonials. Caffeine containing shampoos can make your hair grow back and is the most commonly prescribed cure against hormonally induced baldness. Since too much testosterone – especially in men – is the leading cause of baldness, women with hormonal imbalances – though rarely - are also affected, thus the market for these shampoos are not restricted by gender. But the science backing up this product is somewhat misleading. Caffeine containing shampoos’ positive laboratory results are due to the product being tested on hair culture, not on the actual scalps of human test subjects. Nevertheless, the skin improving benefits of topically applied caffeine is retained despite the product’s being on the knife-edge of being to costly compared to the much-touted yet marginal benefits.
Caffeine containing pills works – no ifs and buts – but consult first with your General Practitioner before using such products if you have a preexisting heart or other cardiovascular condition. Heavily featured in ads since the end of World War II as wake-up pills and weight loss pills, caffeine containing pills should be used with caution since they contain as much caffeine as ten cups of coffee, some even more. Also, if you’re daily diet includes chocolate, tea and coffee. Caffeine containing pills certainly are not a good idea.
Caffeine certainly has benefits for our health and well being. Latest research shows that moderate amounts can stave off heart attacks, strokes, and other coronary afflictions. Also, caffeine improves our skin appearance, improves our alertness, and lets face it without it, our now industrialized labor-intensive civilization will grind to a halt without it. But, in my personal experience, caffeine is better taken via our regular cup of coffee. Not only that it is less expensive compared to other alternatives, but its more effective – albeit slower acting – compared to the competition. And coffee drinking provides the much-needed job security of coffee growers were the majority of which resides in the more economically depressed parts of our planet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
