среда, 13 апреля 2011 г.

Are Allergies and Depression Related?

Spring always brings a rash ofsneezing, sniffling and stuffy noses. But can seasonalallergiesbe psychologically harmful?

A wave of emerging research suggests that may be the case. While there’s no firm evidence that allergies causedepression, large studies show that allergy sufferers do seem to be at higher risk of depression.

Severe allergies can bringsleeplessness, headaches, fatigue and a general feeling of physical depletion, all of which can worsen mood. Studies have found thatallergic reactionsrelease compounds in the body calledcytokines, which play a role in inflammationandmay reduce levels of the hormone serotonin, which helps maintain feelings of well-being. And it’s well known that somecommon allergy medications, like corticosteroids, can cause anxiety and mood swings.

Several large studies have found that the risk of depression in people with severe allergies is about twice that of those without allergies. In 2008, researchers at theUniversity of Marylandreported thatthis link may help explain a widely established— but poorly understood— increase in suicides during the springevery year. Analyzing medical records, the authors found that in some patients, changes in allergy symptoms during low- and high-pollen seasons corresponded to changes in their depression and anxiety scores.

A Finnish population study in 2003 found a link between allergies and depression; however,women were much more likely to be affected. In 2000, a study oftwinsin Finland also showeda shared risk for depression and allergies, a result of genetic influences, the authors wrote.

THE BOTTOM LINE

Severe seasonal allergies may be a risk factor for depression.

ANAHAD O’CONNOR

scitimes@nytimes.com


Source

вторник, 12 апреля 2011 г.

Tonsillectomies Are Fitted for a New Century

It opened on East 62nd Street in February 1921, its mission to remove the tonsils andadenoidsof poor children on the East Side of Manhattan, thereby preventing sore throats and streptococcal infections and all their serious consequences in an era withoutantibiotics. Parents sawscarlet fever, named for its red, sandpapery rash, as a frightening and dangerous childhood illness; rheumaticfever, which sometimes followed strep, could seriously damage the heart.

But times have changed. Built on studies of throat infections and tonsillectomies,new guidelines from the American Academy of Otolaryngology, issued in January, suggesttonsillectomyfor recurrent sore throats only if frequent or severe.

At the same time, the academy now recommends that the operation be considered for children who have trouble breathing while they sleep.

The new guidelines reflect changes in clinical practice, and attempt to bring scientific evidence to bear on an operation at times popular to the point of ubiquity.

In the era of the Tonsil Hospital, pretty much all children got tonsillectomies. Consider“Cheaper by the Dozen”: The 1948 memoir about two efficiency experts and their 12 children happens to contain the single funniest tonsillectomy chapter in literature (granted, competition is limited).

Six of the children undergo tonsillectomies, performed by a doctor in an operating room rigged in the family home in Montclair, N.J. The father of the family still has his tonsils, and the doctor is“rewarded” for his cooperation by being allowed to remove them, too.

Leaving aside all the family dynamics, the chapter is notable for the matter-of-fact assumption that sooner or later, all tonsils need to be removed. And even after antibiotics were available, many if not most tonsils continued to be removed, through the 1950s and’60s.

“It was the single most common operation in the United States,” said Dr. Ellen Wald, a specialist in pediatric infectious disease who is chairwoman of thepediatricsdepartment at theUniversity of WisconsinSchool of Medicine and Public Health.

But which children really benefited from these operations, and which did not?“When I was in practice and first began to question this issue and was faced with the question of‘Should my child have a tonsillectomy or not?,’ I never knew the right answer,” said Dr. Jack L. Paradise, professor emeritus of pediatrics at theUniversity of PittsburghSchool of Medicine.

Dr. Paradise and his colleagues tried to provide an answer in a study, published in 1984, that looked atchildren with many well-documented episodes of throat infection(seven or more in the preceding year, for example). Those who got tonsillectomies had fewer infections in the first couple of years after surgery than those who didn’t, the researchers found. But the children who didn’t have surgery also had fewer and fewer infections as they got older.

Tonsillectomies were a reasonable option for children with severe, persistent throat infections, Dr. Paradise concluded. But so was watchful waiting.

Later, Dr. Paradisestudied children with fewer infectionsand concluded that the benefit of tonsillectomy was too“modest” to justify the risk, the pain and the cost of surgery in those children.

These days, many doctors are less likely to move to tonsillectomy for a smaller series of run-of-the-mill sore throats. I try to explain to parents that their children will grow out of these infections, and taking out their tonsils won’t necessarily do very much to expedite that process.

Yet at the same time, doctors are more willing to consider that children may need the operation if their tonsils obstruct the throat enough to affect breathing while they sleep.

Dr. Richard M. Rosenfeld, one of the authors of the new tonsillectomy guidelines and a professor of otolaryngology at SUNY Downstate Medical Center in Brooklyn, suggests that back when most children had their tonsils out, it was perhaps less common to see these sleep problems— what with all the tonsillectomies, there was“nobody breathing with a golf ball in the mouth.”

Now that more children are growing up with their tonsils intact, he said,“we created this new disease, sleep-disordered breathing.”

Some behavioral issues, including some attention problems, can be traced to a lack of deep, restful sleep. A child suffering from obstructivesleep apneawill not simply grow out of it, said Dr. Kasey Li, a surgeon atStanford University. Even if the tonsils do become less problematic atpuberty, as sometimes happens, the child’s development will have been affected.

For problems short of obstructive sleep apnea,“the advice to parents is, if you’re even the least bit unsure, don’t do it— it’s an elective surgery, don’t worry about it, you can always re-address it,” Dr. Rosenfeld said.“There’s very little harm to some watchful waiting till things sort themselves out.”

Parents should also know that in a significant number of children, the breathing problems— and everything that follows from disordered sleep— may persist even after the operation and need further treatment.

So the tonsillectomy, once routine, now requires a nuanced diagnosis. It may improve quality of life for some children, but there are limits to what it can accomplish— withsleep issuesand behavior problems, and with recurrent infections.

It’s a far cry from where we were in the first half of the 20th century, when philanthropists provided poor children with a dedicated facility for tonsil removal. The Tonsil Hospital closed in 1946.

“I’m on the Upper East Side at Cornell New York hospital, 10 blocks from where the original hospital was,"said Dr. Edward McCoul, an otolaryngologist whowrote about the hospitallast year in a medical journal.“I ask around, and basically no one I’ve mentioned it to has ever heard of it.”


Source

воскресенье, 10 апреля 2011 г.

A Sober-Living Center in Williamsburg, Brooklyn

“Did you hear what he said today?” one man in his 20s wearily asked another, who just shook his head.

Lots of people have been talking about Mr. Sheen, but perhaps not with the same insight as this group, all residents of Loft 107, a sober-living facility in an inconspicuous former warehouse in the heart of Brooklyn’s most self-consciously cool neighborhood.

Opened in 2009 by Joe Schrank, a 41-year-old social worker and longtime promoter of drug and alcohol recovery, the Loft, as it is known, is a high-end facility for people who have already gone through the isolation of rehabilitation and want an intermediate step back into their regular lives. For the duration of residents’ stay (there is a 30-day minimum, but some have remained for as long as a year), the Loft provides structure, community and random drug and alcohol testing to help keep recovering addicts on the wagon.

It’s also pretty plush.

Sprawling across three apartments on two floors that total 7,000 square feet, the light-filled space is furnished with sectional couches and club chairs from Restoration Hardware. Exposed brick walls are hung with framed Hatch Show Prints, rock-themed art and flat-screen TVs. The overall effect is of a spread in a shelter magazine or the set of a reality show.“It’s the‘Real Sober World,’ ” Mr. Schrank joked.

Wandering about were Churchill, a stately plump English bulldog, and Lucy, a sad-eyed Italian mastiff who barks at the slightest noise but tenderly nuzzles all visitors. In an open kitchen with restaurant-style appliances, daily meals prepared by Tina Campbell, a tough but kindly 56-year-old house manager, include homemade muffins in the morning and fried chicken or pasta for dinner, with fresh cakes andcookiesfor dessert. (Residents are reminded not to feed the dogs from the table.)

Hidden away from the communal spaces are 10 bedrooms. It costs $12,500 a month to occupy one alone; $8,500 to share with two others of the same sex. Each resident (the Loft can accommodate 17) is provided with a full-size bed dressed with a fluffy white duvet. The rooms are cleaned daily; towels are washed, folded and stacked, hotel-style, in the men’s and women’s bathrooms.

The Loft does not take insurance (there are no doctors or nurses on staff). And according to the New York State Office ofAlcoholismand Substance Abuse Services, sober-living facilities like the Loft need no license to operate. Residents must adhere to house rules, like leaving during the day to go to work or attend school or outpatient care (they are given aMetroCardand $20 cash for lunch), checking in with any of the five staff members— some of whom are also in recovery— daily by phone, attending two meetings a week, adhering to some form of physical fitness (there is ayogastudio in the building) and honoring a midnight curfew.

Beyond that, the residents’ time and movement are their own, no small gesture given that the Loft is a few doors down from two bars, and in a neighborhood where police found cocaine worth $1 million in November 2009.

MR. SCHRANK, himself a recovering alcoholic, has the soft features of a doctor in aNorman Rockwellpainting. He previously worked for three years at Promises, the rehabilitation center in Los Angeles and Malibu, Calif., that is best known for former residents likeBritney SpearsandLindsay Lohan.

“I kept thinking,‘Why do we have to send people to California or Arizona?’ ” he said.“Our lives are here.”

He characterized the recovery community in the West as“weirdly” nature-focused.“They’re much more upbeat than we are,” he said.“I think the byproduct of their upbeat energy is a real disingenuous, superficial reality that just doesn’t exist in New York. It doesn’t totally translate culturally. I’m attempting to take what’s good and translate it to an urban mentality.”

While after-care centers have sprouted up in rehab hubs like Minnesota (home of Hazelden, one of the country’s best-known drug and alcohol treatment centers), Southern California, Arizona and Florida, there are limited options in the New York City area.

But this is changing. Hazelden, a nonprofit group, has a 75-bed clinic in Chelsea and plans to open its own sober-living facility for college-age residents in TriBeCa this fall. Called Tribeca Twelve, it will house up to 30 people ages 18 to 29 in loft apartments featuring fireplaces, a roof deck and other amenities that Ann Bray, Hazelden’s vice president for strategic initiatives and general counsel, called“very, very cool,” like 12-foot ceilings and hardwood floors made of Brazilian cherry.

“We think this will be the hippest cool pad to hang out in,” Ms. Bray said. Tribeca Twelve will cost $5,500 a month, and Ms. Bray said that some residents may be able to cover part of the expense withstudent loans, since it will count as off-campus housing.

There is also the Addiction Institute of New York (formerly known as Smithers), which runs a 26-bed halfway house in Roosevelt Hospital on the West Side. On the lower end of the cost spectrum, Staten Island is home to a six-house 68-bed facility for men in recovery called Harrison House. A room costs from $350 to $550 a month; food— and frills— are not included. Like Loft 107, residents of Harrison House must follow house rules and submit to random urine tests. Unlike at the Loft, there are no high-end amenities. This is no accident, according to Michael Spence, the director of development and public relations for Harrison House and a certifiedsubstance abusecounselor.

“If it’s a very cushy-cushy place, it hinders a person’s ability to recover because it’s so comfortable,” he said, adding that if residents are“stripped down to nothing, they can build themselves up.”


Source

суббота, 9 апреля 2011 г.

Medicine on the Move

We got word this week thatestrogentherapy, which was bad, is good again. Possibly. In some cases.

This was not quite as confusing as the news last year thatcalciumsupplements, which used to be very good, are now possibly bad. Although maybe not. And the jury’s still out.

Or the recent federal study that suggested women be told to stop checking their breasts for lumps. Or the recommendations on when to get amammogram, which seem to fluctuate between every five years and every five minutes.

We certainly want everyone to keep doing studies. But it’s very difficult to be a civilian in the world of science.

“It’s very difficult to be a woman,” said Dr. Leslie Ford of theNational Cancer Institutewryly.

Back in the day, estrogen was prescribed only for women who were experiencing serious problems withmenopause. Then a 1966 book called“Feminine Forever” argued that estrogen therapy was good for almost every middle-aged female on the planet who wanted to avoid morphing into a crone. The idea grew in popularity even after evidence mounted that the author had been paid by an estrogen manufacturer.

“The mantra among gynecologists was: as soon as you got to be 49, almost automatically put women on estrogen. It was supposed to be a fountain of youth,” said Dr. Ford.

To reduce the danger ofuterine cancer, estrogen was mixed with progestin and the result was, among many other wonderful things, supposed to lower the risk of heart disease. Then a report from the Women’s Health Initiative, a long-running study by theNational Institutes of Health, found that it did no such thing. Also, it raised the risk ofbreast cancer.

“It’s been a real culture shift for gynecologists,” said Dr. Ford.

Now comes a new study— from the very same Women’s Health Initiative— that appears to show that for some women, estrogen alone may actually reduce the risk of breast cancer andheart attack. As long as you take it when you’re in your 50s.

“It’s‘Back to the Future,’” said Dr. Emily Jungheim ofWashington UniversitySchool of Medicine, who co-authored an editorial raising a red flag about the new report.

The new findings, which come with many qualifications, apply only to women who’ve had ahysterectomy. But that’s quite a population; about one-third of all American women have their uterus removed at some point in their lives.

You cannot contemplate this information for too long without asking whether the medical profession has a tendency to get carried away.

“There’s a pill for every ill,” said Dr. Sidney Wolfe, director of the Public Citizen Health Research Group and the co-author of“Worst Pills, Best Pills: A Consumer’s Guide to Avoiding Drug-Induced Death or Illness.”

He worries a lot about overmedication.“There’s just a massive overprescribing in this country,” he said.“Also elsewhere. France comes to mind.”

Finally, we have found some part of medicine in which our system is as efficient as France’s.

Americans should know by now that you can’t put a pill in your mouth without risk. Television is full of commercials for wonder drugs that will perk up your spirits, soothe yourallergiesor lower yourcholesterol, improving life altogether except in the cases where they lead to vivid dreams, suicidal thoughts,hair loss, stabbing pains or sudden death.

But it still feels as if we need to be on guard against medical overoptimism.“Doctors are far more knowledgeable about the benefits of drugs than the risks,” said Dr. Wolfe. There isn’t always much talk about the possible downside of drugs on which all the evidence is yet to come in, like many fertility treatments.

Dr. Wolfe believes that most doctors prefer writingprescriptionsto having lengthy discussions with their patients about things like long-term behavior modification therapy. My own theory is that they just tend to want to satisfy their patients. Let’s face it, few of us go to the doctor with hopes of getting advice on behavior modification. They’re medical practitioners, and their instinct is to solve your problems with medicine.

I once had a gynecologist who put me on estrogen therapy at age 49 when I had no medical complaints whatsoever, and I still remember how pleased he was to be giving me this wonderful drug that would stave off so many undesirable effects of aging.

I did get breast cancer, although it was not a major-league case. Obviously, I should have asked more questions. But I don’t blame the doctor, who seemed to have the best of intentions. Actually, I don’t blame anyone. Except maybe the guy who wrote that“Feminine Forever” book. 


Source

пятница, 8 апреля 2011 г.

Pear and Red Wine Sorbet - Recipes for Health

2 1/2 pounds ripepears(4 medium to large pears, like Bartlett pears)

1/2 cup sugar, preferably organic fair-trade

1 1/2 cups red wine

1 1/2 cups water

1 2- or 3-inch cinnamon stick

1/2 teaspoon vanilla extract

Pinch of freshly ground black pepper

2 tablespoons fresh lemon juice

1.Peel, core and quarter the pears. Place them in a medium saucepan with the sugar, red wine, water, cinnamon stick and vanilla extract. Bring to a boil, reduce the heat and simmer, uncovered, until the pears are soft and translucent. This will take 15 to 20 minutes if the pears are ripe and soft to begin with, or about 30 minutes if they’re somewhat hard. Add the pepper.

2.Using tongs, remove the pears to a bowl. Remove the cinnamon stick from the poaching liquid, and discard. Turn up the heat, and reduce until the mixture has the consistency of a thin syrup. (This step may be unnecessary, depending on how long you cooked the pears and how juicy they were.)

3.Place the pears, in batches, in a blender, or place all of them in a food processor fitted with the steel blade. Purée until smooth. Slowly add the poaching liquid and the lemon juice, and blend together. Transfer to a bowl, and chill. Meanwhile, place a 1-quart container in the freezer.

4.Freeze in anice creammaker following the manufacturer’s instructions. Transfer to the chilled container, and freeze for at least two hours before serving. If frozen solid, allow to soften in the refrigerator for 15 to 30 minutes.

Yield:One quart, serving six.

Advance preparation:This will keep for a couple of weeks in the freezer.

Nutritional information per serving:218calories; 0 gramssaturated fat; 0 grams polyunsaturated fat; 0 grams monounsaturated fat; 0 milligramscholesterol; 46 gramscarbohydrates; 5 gramsdietary fiber; 6 milligrams sodium; 1 gram protein

Martha Rose Shulmanis the author of"The Very Best of Recipes for Health."


Source

четверг, 7 апреля 2011 г.

A Medicare Plan That Exempts Too Many

Yet there is at least one big way in which the plan isn’t daring at all. It asks for a whole lot of sacrifice from everyone under the age of 55 and little from everyone 55 and over. RepresentativePaul Ryan, the Wisconsin Republican who wrote the plan, calls the budget deficit an“existential threat” to the United States. Then he absolves more than one-third of all adults from responsibility in dealing with that threat.

This decision doesn’t make him unique in Washington. There is nearly a bipartisan consensus that any cuts to Medicare andSocial Securityshould spare the baby boomers and the elderly. And, certainly, retirees or people on the verge of retirement shouldn’t have their benefits changed radically. But the consensus, like Mr. Ryan’s plan, goes too far.

The reason is partly political. Older people vote in larger numbers than younger adults. Children, of course, can’t vote at all. But beyond politics, Washington’s age bias depends on a basic misunderstanding of the budget— namely, that older people have already paid for their Medicare benefits.

They haven’t. For most Americans, Medicare resembles a giant welfare program. They receivefar morein government benefits than they ever pay in taxes and premiums. The gap for a typical household runs to several hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The Ryan plan would let anyone who turns 65 before 2022 continue to be part of this hugely popular welfare program. In fact, Mr. Ryan would scrap the common-sense attempts to slow costs in last year’s health bill, like thebaby stepsto base Medicare coverage decisions more on medical evidence. If you’re 55 or older, you get the same old Medicare, with its same soaring budget.

If you’re under 55, you are excluded. You will instead receive a government subsidy to buy private insurance, and the subsidy will probably not keep pace with future increases in health costs.

Beside violating basic notions of fairness, the grandfather clause has the potential to slow economic growth. Many of today’s 55- and 60-year-olds are going to be on Medicare for a long time. If the program doesn’t change, they will run up trillions of dollars in medical bills. That money won’t be available for education, early child care, scientific research or high-tech infrastructure— all of which can lift growth.

The United States already has a“particularly strong age bias” in its government spending,Julia B. Isaacsof theBrookings Institutionnoted ina recent analysisof affluent countries’ budgets. In the years ahead, spending on the elderly has the potential to rise higher still and to crowd out spending on the young.

Eugene Steuerle, a former Treasury official in both Democratic and Republican administrations, says simply,“We have a budget for a declining nation.”

Mr. Steuerle— along with his Urban Institute colleague Stephanie Rennane— has done some of the most careful work comparing Medicare taxes and benefits. They added up all the taxes people at different points on the income spectrum would pay over their working lives and then translated these amounts into a single sum, expressed in today’s dollars. Mr. Steuerle and Ms. Rennane likewise added up the value of Medicare benefits (net of premiums) that men and women could expect to receive.

Theirresults showthat no cohort of Americans, with the possible exception of the very affluent, pays enough Medicare taxes and premiums to cover their costs. The gap is growing over time, too.

Two married 66-year-olds with roughly average earnings over their lives will end up paying about $110,000 in dedicated Medicare taxes through the payroll tax, including the portion their employers pay. They can expect to receive about $340,000 in benefits. Two average-earning 56-year-olds will pay about $140,000 and get back about $430,000 in benefits.

Why? By law, Medicare taxes cover mainly hospital bills, not doctors’ bills or the cost of drugs. These costs instead must be covered by the general government revenue, but there isn’t enough of that revenue. Instead, the government is running deficits— which is to say, it’s borrowing money from individuals and foreign governments and promising that future taxpayers will pay it back.

Who are these future taxpayers who will kindly cover Medicare’s shortfall? The same ones who, under the Ryan plan, won’t have Medicare for themselves.

A fairer, more fiscally conservative plan would not postpone dealing with Medicare. It would leave in place the cost control measures in the health reform bill and go even further to reward the quality of care rather than the volume. Obviously, these steps would run some risk of restricting good treatments, too. But, remember, we’re facing“an existential threat.” We can’t limit ourselves to solutions without risks.

Next, the federal government would raise taxes. As countries have grown richer over time, they have historicallypaid higher taxes— to cover the costs of a strong military, good schools, comfortable retirements and other luxuries that the free market doesn’t provide.

Affluent Americans, in particular, can afford higher taxes. They have received far larger raises in recent decades than any other income group, and their tax rates havefallen far more. Yet Mr. Ryan would reduce them further.

Some health economists believe that a combination of higher taxes and more Medicare cost controls can solve the problem. Mr. Ryan does not. And his skepticism is healthy.

To him, the only way to reduce Medicare’s cost growth is to stop shielding people from the consequences of their decisions. If they want almost limitless medical treatments, they won’t be able to foist the bill on taxpayers, as they do now. They will instead have to buy a generous insurance plan, partly with their own money. The resulting market forces, Mr. Ryan argues, will eventually bring down costs and leave most people better off.

He may well be right that a solution along these lines is ultimately where health care needs to go. But it would be a lot easier to trust in the merits of his plan if he weren’t so busy promising 75 million Americans that they will never have to be a part of it.

E-mail: leonhardt@nytimes.com; twitter.com/DLeonhardt


Source