2016年3月19日星期六

Fighting Macular Degeneration

Q. Are there any new treatments in the pipeline for age-relatedmacular degeneration?
A. Current treatments for the so-called wet form of macular degeneration, involving injections inside the eye, are already “very effective” compared with laser treatments, which were used before intravitreal injections, said Dr. Ronald C. Gentile, the surgeon director at the New York Eye and Ear Infirmary of Mount Sinai.
But several ways to improve their results are in the works, he said.
The shots deliver drugs that fight a substance called vascular endothelial growth factor, and thus shrink the growth of what amounts to an abnormal blood vessel harming the retina. A major hurdle now involves the frequency and cost of the needed treatments.
Once the drug is inside the eye, the effects wear off and a new injection is needed, Dr. Gentile said. The shots are also less effective in some patients. Even when they work well, some people need a shot as often as every four weeks, while some can wait two or three months. If both eyes are affected and the period of effectiveness is short, doctor visits can be very frequent, so drugs that last longer in the eyeball are being pursued.
Researchers are working on slow-release medications as well as a delivery system that acts like a tiny pump in the eye, with a tank that can be refilled every six months.
There is also a new drug target: a substance called platelet-derived growth factor that causes abnormal vessel growth as well. Combination drug treatments may be more effective against macular degeneration, Dr. Gentile said.
The so-called dry form of macular degeneration, which often underlies the wet form, is harder to fight, he said, and although advances are being made, current antioxidant treatments with vitamins and minerals do not to improve vision; they just prevent it from worsening.
“There has been a lot of hype on using stem cells,” Dr. Gentile said, but added that more research was needed. Some vaunted treatments outside regular channels could be potentially harmful as well as expensive, he said.
“Such work needs to be done in clinical trials by real scientists,” he said.

2016年3月17日星期四

Air pollution not just bad for your lungs

Reuters Health - Exposure to air pollution for just a month or two may still be enough to increase the risk of developing diabetes, especially for obese people, a recent U.S. study suggests.
Researchers studied more than 1,000 Mexican-Americans living in southern California and found short-term exposure to contaminated air was linked to an increased risk of high cholesterol and impaired processing of blood sugar – risk factors for diabetes.
Scientists aren’t exactly sure how air pollution might lead to diabetes.
It’s possible that air pollution causes inflammation in the body, which triggers a chain reaction that makes it harder for people to process blood sugar, said senior study author Dr. Frank Gilliland, director of the Southern California Environmental Health Sciences Center and researcher at the Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles.
Some previous research has linked air pollution from traffic and other sources to an increased risk of type 2, or adult-onset, diabetes, which happens when the body can't properly use or make enough of the hormone insulin to convert blood sugar into energy. But few tests have been done in humans, the researchers note in the journal Diabetes Care.
For the current study, Gilliland and colleagues examined concentrations of ozone, an unstable form of oxygen produced when various types of traffic and industrial pollution react with sunlight; nitrogen dioxide, a byproduct of fossil fuel combustion that can contribute to smog; and so-called PM 2.5, a mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets smaller than 2.5 micrometers in diameter that can include dust, dirt, soot and smoke.
All of these pollutants have been found to damage lungs and some PM 2.5 particles are small enough to enter the bloodstream, where they have been linked to increased risk of heart disease and stroke.
All of the participants in the current study completed questionnaires on their dietary and exercise habits, and they also had lab tests to measure levels of cholesterol and sugars in their blood.
The researchers also looked at what’s known as insulin resistance, the body’s failure to respond to the hormone, which is a hallmark of diabetes. Participants were around 35 years old on average and typically overweight or obese. Many of them lived in low-income neighborhoods and lacked any education beyond high school.
In addition, they all either had diabetes during pregnancy or were related to a woman who did.
Even with this diabetes family history, people exposed to higher levels of overall air pollution had greater levels of insulin resistance, more sugars in their blood and higher cholesterol.
Weight and body fat percentage explained a significant portion of the connection.
Researchers did not find a connection between levels of traffic-related nitrogen dioxide from freeways and risk factors for diabetes. However, PM 2.5 exposure was significantly associated with diabetes risk factors, with an effect equivalent to that of obesity, the authors note.
Among the study’s limitations is that researchers lacked data on how long people lived at their current address, which made it impossible to assess lifetime exposure to air pollution.
Even so, the findings suggest people who live in cities and other areas with poor air quality should take precautions, said Michael Jerrett, director of the Center for Occupational and Environmental Health at the University of California, Los Angeles.
Among other things, people could try to limit outdoor exercise during peak commute hours to lower exposure to traffic fumes and try not to run or ride a bike along a major highway, said Jerrett, who wasn’t involved in the study.
Indoors, people should use what’s known as a high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter on furnaces or air conditioning units, or buy stand-alone units for bedrooms, Jerrett said. These mechanical filters force air through a fine mesh that can trap harmful pollutants, but there’s a limit to how much individuals can do, he said.

“Air pollution is an involuntary risk factor,” Jerrett said. “We all breathe the air, and this should create a stronger incentive for government to take action to reduce emissions that lead to air pollution.”

2016年3月14日星期一

Are Heavy Drinkers Alcoholics?

The term “alcohol use disorders” refers to a spectrum of disorders, and it’s rare that two people’s drinking behaviors and the harms caused by their drinking will be defined in exactly the same way. “Heavy drinking” is an especially ambiguous term because it can refer to binge drinking, or it can reference a chronic drinking problem – or some may use it interchangeably with “alcoholic.” But are all heavy drinkers alcoholics? And are all alcoholics heavy drinkers?

What Is A Standard Drink?

In the United States, one "standard" drink contains roughly 14 grams of pure alcohol. In UK, One unit is 10 ml of pure alcohol. New UK government guidelines state that the alcohol limit for men and women is the same. Both should not regularly drink more than 14 units per week to keep health risks from drinking alcohol low.If you do drink up to 14 units a week, it's best to spread these evenly across a few days and to have at least two drink-free days a week.

Heavy Drinking

Almost all alcoholics do drink heavily, but not all heavy drinkers are alcoholics. Binge drinkers, for example, are defined by the practice of drinking more than four (for women) or five (for men) drinks in about a two-hour period. On average, about one in six American report binge drinking, and those who say that they binge drink ingest an average of eight drinks per binge about four times per month, according to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Despite the fact that so many Americans indulge in the behavior regularly, it is far from healthy. Binge drinking is associated with such issues as unintentional and intentional injuries, a range of cardiovascular disorders, liver disease and neurological damage.

Chronic drinking is defined by drinkers who drink more than the recommended one (for women) or two (for men) drinks a day, or more than seven (for women) or 14 (for men) drinks in a week, according to the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA). How this shakes out in terms of daily drinking – whether it’s drinking three drinks at lunch every day during the week or drinking cocktails plus a bottle of wine at dinner – adds up to drinking that is harmful to the drinker’s health, and potentially puts their safety and the safety of others at risk.

Alcoholism

According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), alcoholism is defined by:

Tolerance: The need to drink more and more in order to feel a buzz or get drunk is one of the hallmarks of alcoholism.
Physical dependence: After tolerance develops, many drinkers find that when they are without a certain amount of alcohol in their systems, they go into detox characterized by withdrawal symptoms.
Cravings: Additionally, when without alcohol, many drinkers crave alcohol and cannot stop thinking about getting a drink until they have one in their hands.

Compulsive drinking: Alcoholics are unable to stop drinking once they start. It’s almost impossible to have just one.

Treatment for Alcohol Use Disorders

One of the major differences between alcoholism and heavy drinking is the need for treatment. Most alcoholics will benefit most from an inpatient alcohol rehabilitation program that offers medical detox and long-term follow-up care in therapeutic treatment. Heavy drinkers, on the other hand, may need different types of alcohol treatment services depending upon:

Their ability to moderate their alcohol intake or stop drinking on their own

The nature of the consequences they experience due to the choices they make while drinking

Whether or not they are also living with co-occurring mental health issues

If they ever get behind the wheel after drinking or hurt others when under the influence

2016年3月9日星期三

New Procedure Allows Kidney Transplants From Any Donor

In the anguishing wait for a new kidney, tens of thousands of patients on waiting lists may never find a match because their immune systems will reject almost any transplanted organ. Now, in a large national study that experts are calling revolutionary, researchers have found a way to get them the desperately needed procedure.
In the new study, published Wednesday in The New England Journal of Medicine, doctors successfully altered patients’ immune systems to allow them to accept kidneys from incompatible donors. Significantly more of those patients were still alive after eight years than patients who had remained on waiting lists or received a kidney transplanted from a deceased donor.
The method, known as desensitization, “has the potential to save many lives,” said Dr. Jeffery Berns, a kidney specialist at the University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman School of Medicine and the president of the National Kidney Foundation.
It could slash the wait times for thousands of people and for some, like Clint Smith, a 56-year-old lawyer in New Orleans, mean the difference between receiving a transplant and spending the rest of their lives on dialysis.
The procedure, Mr. Smith said, “changed my life.”
Researchers estimate about half of the 100,000 people in the United States on waiting lists for a kidney transplant have antibodies that will attack a transplanted organ, and about 20 percent are so sensitive that finding a compatible organ is all but impossible. In addition, said Dr. Dorry Segev, the lead author of the new study and a transplant surgeon at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, an unknown number of people with kidney failure simply give up on the waiting lists after learning that their bodies would reject just about any organ. Instead, they resign themselves to dialysis, a difficult and draining procedure that can pretty much take over a person’s life.
Desensitization involves first filtering the antibodies out of a patient’s blood. The patient is then given an infusion of other antibodies to provide some protection while the immune system regenerates its own antibodies. For some reason — exactly why is not known — the person’s regenerated antibodies are less likely to attack the new organ, Dr. Segev said. But if the person’s regenerated natural antibodies are still a concern, the patient is treated with drugs that destroy any white blood cells that might make antibodies that would attack the new kidney.
The process is expensive, costing $30,000, and uses drugs not approved for this purpose. The transplant costs about $100,000. But kidney specialists argue that desensitization is cheaper in the long run than dialysis, which costs $70,000 a year for life.
Although by far the biggest use of desensitization would be for kidney transplants, the process might be suitable for living-donor transplants of livers and lungs, researchers said. The liver is less sensitive to antibodies so there is less need for desensitization, “but it’s certainly possible if there are known incompatibilities,” Dr. Segev said. With lungs, he said, desensitization “is theoretically possible,” although he said he was not aware of anyone doing it yet.
In the new study, 1,025 patients at 22 medical centers who had an incompatible donor were compared to an equal number of patients who remained on waiting lists for an organ or who had an organ from a deceased but compatible donor. After eight years, 76.5 percent of those who received an incompatible kidney were still alive, compared with 62.9 percent who remained on the waiting list or received a deceased donor kidney and 43.9 percent who remained on the waiting list but never got a transplant.
The desensitization procedure takes time — for some patients as long as two weeks — and is performed before the transplant operation, so patients must have a living donor. It is not known how many have someone willing to donate a kidney, but doctors say they often see situations in which a relative or even a friend is willing to donate but is incompatible.
“Often patients are told that their living donor is incompatible, so they are stuck on waiting lists,” for a deceased donor, Dr. Segev said.
In recent years, an option called a kidney exchange has helped some in this situation. Patients who have incompatible living donors can swap donors with someone whose donor may be compatible with them. Often, there are chains of patient-donor pairs leading to a compatible organ swap.
That process can be successful, said Dr. Krista L. Lentine, the medical director of the living donation program at the Saint Louis Center for Transplantation, but patients often still cannot find a compatible organ because they have antibodies that would reject almost every kidney. In those cases, “desensitization may be the only realistic option for receiving a transplant,” said Dr. Lentine, who was not involved with the study.
Dr. Jeffrey Campsen, a transplant surgeon at the University of Utah Health Sciences Center who also was not a study investigator, said his group focused on exchanges and had been fairly successful. But he also comes across patients whose donors do not want to participate. “There is a hurdle if the donor and patient have an emotional bond,” he said.
The new data showing the success of desensitization “lets people get behind it,” Dr. Campsen said, adding, “I do think it is something we would consider.”
Mr. Smith, the New Orleans patient who went through desensitization, had progressive kidney disease that slowly scarred his kidneys until, in 2004, they stopped functioning. His sister-in-law, Allison Sutton, donated a kidney to him, and he had a transplant, but after six and a half years, it failed. He went on dialysis, spending four days a week hooked up to dialysis machines for hours. It was keeping him alive, he told his friends, but it was not a life.
Then a nurse suggested that he ask Johns Hopkins about its desensitization study. “I was like, whatever I could do,” he said. He discovered that he qualified for the study. But he needed a donor.
One day, his wife, Sheryl Smith, was talking on the phone to a college friend, Angela Watkins, who lives in Augusta, Ga., and mentioned that Mr. Smith was praying for a donor. Mrs. Watkins’s husband, David Watkins, a judge in state court, had been friends with Mr. Smith in college and the two wives, also college friends, had kept in touch over the years.
Mrs. Watkins told her husband about the conversation, and they asked themselves if they should offer to donate.
“We talked and researched and prayed,” Judge Watkins said. Finally, he said, they came to a conclusion. “We have a moral obligation to at least see if we would qualify.” And he thought that he should be the one to go first. If he did not qualify, his wife could be tested.
Mr. Smith warned his old friend that donating was an enormous undertaking. “He said, ‘You can’t grasp what you are doing.’ I heard him but it didn’t register,” Judge Watkins said. “I told him, ‘I have something you need, so what’s the big deal?’ ”
Of course, it was a big deal. Although Judge Watkins had prepared by getting himself in top physical shape, it still took about six months to recover from the operation.
That was four years ago, and Mr. Smith’s new kidney is still functioning and he is back to his active life, forever grateful to his friend.
“Every night.” he says, “during my nightly prayers with my wife, I thank God for bringing David and Allison to me and for giving me the gift of life.
”But for David giving me this gift, I would still be in that dialysis chair.”

2016年3月7日星期一

Being 'out of shape' ups diabetes risk regardless of weight

Reuters Health - For adolescents, low cardiorespiratory fitness and poor muscle strength increase their risk for type 2 diabetes later in life, regardless of body weight, according to a study of young men in Sweden.
“Not only were both low aerobic and muscular fitness linked with a higher long-term risk of diabetes, but this was true even among those with normal body mass index,” said lead author Dr. Casey Crump of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City.
These risk factors had a synergistic effect. In other words, the combination of low aerobic and muscular fitness increased diabetes risk more than the sum of the two individual risks, Crump told Reuters Health by email.
The researchers used data on more than one million 18-year-old military conscripts in Sweden between 1969 and 1997, without a history of diabetes.
The researchers followed these men until 2012, identifying type 2 diabetes diagnoses using national hospital and outpatient registries.
About 2%, or 34,000 men, were diagnosed with diabetes during follow-up, which lasted into middle age for most. Half were diagnosed after age 46.
Those who were least fit as 18-year olds were three times more likely to be diagnosed with diabetes than those with better measures of aerobic capacity and strength, even for young men with a healthy body mass index, as reported in the Annals of Internal Medicine, March 7.
“This study showed that fitness traits were important for the prediction of future diabetes at any body weight so it should not be ignored,” said Peter T. Katzmarzyk of Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, who wrote an editorial accompanying the study.
But “every study uses a different definition of ‘fitness’ and it is not really possible to come up with a single number that can define fitness level, especially given the known difference across ages and between men and women,” he told Reuters Health by email.
Activity level and genetics are major determinants of physical fitness, but activity level is the most important modifiable factor, Crump said.
“More studies will be needed that measure physical fitness as well as diet and BMI at other time points across the lifespan to examine age windows of susceptibility to these factors in relation to diabetes,” he said.
These should include women and other populations, he said.
“Young people should maintain regular exercise and both aerobic and muscular fitness, and avoid barriers to this such as screen time,” Crump said.

Current guidelines recommend 60 minutes of exercise daily, most of which should be aerobic activity, but should also include muscle-strengthening activities at least three days per week, he said, but only about half of U.S. children and youth meet these guidelines.

2016年3月3日星期四

每周攝400毫升酒精者高危 嗜酒可致髖關節壞死

本港越來越多人接受髖關節置換手術,由2010年至2015年期間醫管局一共做了450宗手術,較前5年增加25%。港大醫學院矯形及創傷外科學系名譽導師陳偉鈞表示,逾五成男性患者是因酒精引發髖關節缺血性壞死,女士則以突發性缺血性壞死成因較多,可能只是男性嗜酒者較多有關。酒精主要令骨細胞及骨髓細胞脹大壞死,股骨微絲血管閉塞,最後令髖關節因無血到而壞死。
記者:伍雅謙

陳偉鈞指出,本港接受髖關節置換手術的患者,約四成人是因缺血性壞死所致,年齡由55至65歲,數字與其他亞洲地區相若。歐美人士則多為無法尋找原因的原發性退化性關節炎。他稱,早期的缺血性壞死可能全無症狀,患者及後才慢慢感到痛楚,關節活動一長便疼痛,以髖關節及大腿前側位置為主,最後痛楚持續至影響髖關節活動甚至行走。

相等於約21杯紅酒

缺血性壞死是因骨骼內的血管閉塞,骨內壓上升,影響股骨供血,最後骨骼出現壞死,變得軟身及脆弱,嚴重會有骨頭下陷、變形及退化。他指,缺血性壞死成因甚多,逾五成男性患者因酒精所致,酒精可令骨細胞及骨髓細胞脹大及增肥,導致細胞壞死,股骨微絲血管閉塞,最後便出現缺血性壞死。
他稱,本港有嗜酒習慣者多為男性,只有4.4%女性患者是因酒精導致缺血性壞死。惟他提醒,曾有研究顯示,女士因體形較小,身體含水量較低,若與男士飲用相同份量的酒精,血液的酒精濃度會較男士高,或更易患上髖關節缺血性壞死。他引述美國有研究指,每周飲用逾400毫升純酒精(酒精含量100%)人士,較滴酒不沾者,患上缺血性壞死髖關節炎的風險多12倍。若以酒精含量12.5%、每杯150毫升的紅酒計算,每周飲21杯即達上述風險;若以40%含量的威士忌,每杯45毫升,即每周飲22杯也有缺血性壞死危險。飲酒越多風險越大。

人工關節可用10年

他提到,一旦出現缺血性壞死,初期症狀可以止痛藥及物理治療控制病情,肥胖患者則需減磅,部份人可接受股骨頭減壓手術或植骨手術等,以增加血液供應,但若出現髖關節退化,則只能做髖關節置換手術。
該學系名譽臨床助理教授陳秉強指,現時人工髖關節可使用10至15年,患者接受手術後可與常人無異,也毋須害怕人工關節會磨蝕而減少運動。
惟他提醒,人工關節始終不及自身股骨,平日應避免飲用酒精,切勿胡亂服類固醇止痛藥,當感到痛楚應盡快求醫,及早診斷除可減低發病誘因,也可選擇其他手術如植骨等保留股骨頭,以減低接受髖關節置換手術的機會。