Month: September 2021

As if stubbornly high rates of COVID-19 aren’t giving us enough to worry about, welcome to cold and flu season!

Yes, colds and influenza, two well-known upper respiratory infections, will soon be on the rise. Last year we saw remarkably low rates of flu. Many experts don’t think we’ll be so lucky this year.

Think zinc?

A new analysis reviewing available research suggests that over-the-counter zinc supplements could be one way to make cold and flu season a bit easier. Of course, this isn’t the first study to look into zinc as an antiviral remedy, including for COVID-19. But the results of past research have been mixed at best: some studies find modest benefit, others find no benefit, and the quality of the research has been low. Also, some people experience bothersome side effects from zinc, such as upset stomach, nausea, and in some cases, loss of the sense of smell.

What did the study say?

Published in November 2021 in BMJ Open, the study looks at zinc for preventing or treating colds and flulike illness. The researchers reviewed more than 1,300 previous studies and narrowed the analysis down to 28 well-designed trials, which included more than 5,000 study subjects. Here’s what they found:

For preventing colds and flu-like illness:

• Compared with placebo, zinc supplements or nasal spray zinc are associated with fewer upper respiratory infections. The estimated effect was modest: about one infection was prevented for every 20 people using zinc. The strength of the evidence for these findings is considered low.
• A few studies suggest preventive effects were largest for reducing severe symptoms, such as fever and flulike illness. It’s worth noting that the studies didn’t confirm whether participants had flu infections.
• Small studies of intentional exposure to cold virus found that zinc did not prevent colds.

For treating colds and flulike illness:

• Compared with placebo, those who took zinc had symptoms go away about two days sooner. The study estimated that of 100 people with upper respiratory infections, an extra 19 people would have completely recovered by day seven due to zinc treatment. The strength of the evidence for these findings is considered low.
• Some measures of symptom severity were lower for those treated with zinc (versus placebo): on day three of the infection, those taking zinc had milder symptoms. Further, there was an 87% lower risk of severe symptoms among those taking zinc. However, the daily average symptom severity was similar between those taking zinc and those taking placebo. The data quality and certainty of these findings were low to moderate.

What else to consider before stocking up on zinc

While these findings suggest promise in the ability of zinc to prevent or temper cold and flulike illness, here are other points to consider:

• Side effects. Side effects occurred more often in those taking zinc (versus placebo), including nausea and mouth or nose irritation. Fortunately, none were serious. But they might be bothersome enough for some people to stop using zinc.
• Cost. Zinc supplements are generally inexpensive. A daily dose of zinc lozenges for a month may cost less than $2/month (though I also found certain brands for sale online for as much as $75/month).
• Zinc deficiency. Study subjects either had normal zinc levels or were otherwise considered unlikely to be zinc deficient. There’s a big difference between taking a zinc supplement to prevent or treat respiratory infections and taking it because your body lacks enough of the mineral. Zinc deficiency is more likely among people with poor nutrition or digestive conditions that interfere with mineral absorption; they require supplementation to avoid serious complications such as impaired immune function and poor wound healing.
• Different doses or types. Additional research is needed to determine the best way to take zinc.
• COVID-19. None of the studies in this analysis assessed the impact of zinc supplements on SARS-CoV-2, so these conclusions do not apply to COVID-19.

You know the drill

Perhaps this new analysis will convince you to take zinc this winter. Or perhaps you’re still skeptical. Either way, don’t forget tried and true preventive measures and treatments during cold and flu season, including these:

• Get a flu shot
• Wash your hands frequently
• Avoid contact, maintain physical distance, and wear a mask around people who are sick
• Get plenty of sleep
• Choose a healthy diet.

If you do get sick:

• Stay home if possible
• Wear a mask if you can’t avoid contact with others
• Drink plenty of fluids
• Take over-the-counter cold and flu remedies to reduce symptoms
• Contact your doctor if you have symptoms of the flu; early treatment can shorten the duration of the illness. In addition, other conditions (especially COVID-19) should be ruled out.

Many of the measures recommended for cold and flu season overlap with those recommended to prevent or treat COVID-19.

The bottom line

Colds and flulike illnesses afflict millions every winter. You might feel as though it’s inevitable you’ll be among them. But you may be able to spare yourself the misery by following some simple, safe, and common-sense measures. As evidence mounts in its favor, perhaps these measures should include zinc.

As for me, I remain steadfastly on the fence. But it wouldn’t take much — perhaps one more large, well-designed, randomized controlled trial — to push me onto the zinc bandwagon.

Ever read a headline that catches your eye but then found the story itself disappointing? Or worse, did you feel that the dramatic headline was utterly misleading? Yeah, me too.

The impact of a well-crafted headline can be big. We often skim the headlines, then decide whether or not to read on.

Previously, I’ve written about how media coverage of drug research can mislead or confuse. Here I’m zooming in on health headlines, which can be equally deceptive. Watch for these pitfalls.

Overstated study findings

• Were humans studied? If a study finds that a drug is safe and effective for an important disease, that’s big news. But what if all of the study subjects were mice? Leaving out this important detail from the headline exaggerates the study’s importance.
• Too much drama. Dramatic terms such as “breakthrough” or “groundbreaking” are common in headlines about medical research. Yet true breakthroughs are quite rare. That’s the nature of science: knowledge tends to accumulate slowly, with each finding building a bit on what came before.
• Going too far. Headlines often make a leap of faith when summarizing a study’s findings. For example, if researchers identify a new type of cell in the blood that increases when a disease is worsening, they may speculate that treatments to reduce those cells might control the disease. “Researchers discover new approach to treatment!” blares the headline. Sure, that could happen someday (see below), but it’s an overstatement when the study wasn’t even assessing treatment.

• Overlooking the most important outcome. Rather than examining how a treatment affects heart disease, let’s say, studies may assess how it affects a risk factor for it. A good example is cholesterol. It’s great if a drug lowers cholesterol, but much better if it lowers the rate of cardiovascular disease and deaths. Headlines rarely capture the important difference between a “proxy measure” (such as a risk factor) and the most important outcome (such as rates of death).

Faulty logic

• A link for illness is not the same as a cause of illness. The distinction between “causation” and an “association” is important. Observational studies can determine whether there is a link (association) between two health issues, such as a link between a symptom (like a headache) and a disease (like stomach ulcers). But that doesn’t mean one actually caused the other. Imagine an observational study that compared thousands of headache sufferers with thousands of people who rarely had headaches. If more people in the frequent headache group also had more stomach ulcers, the headline might boldly declare “Headaches cause ulcers!” A more likely explanation is that people with a lot of headaches are taking aspirin, ibuprofen, and related drugs, which are known causes of ulcers.

Hazy on key details

• Someday isn’t today. Studies of new drugs or devices may be heralded as life-changing for people or practice-changing for doctors. Yet, a closer look often reveals that the new treatment is years away from reaching the market — or it may never get approved at all.
• A work in progress. “Preliminary” is the missing word in many headlines. Studies presented at medical conferences but not yet published in a peer-reviewed medical journal offer preliminary insights. This research, while promising at the time, may ultimately be a scientific dead end.
• Is it a study, a press release, or an ad? It’s hard to tell with some headlines. Press releases or advertisements typically present a positive spin on new findings or treatments. We expect news stories to be more balanced.

One story, many headlines

Here’s a great example of overhyped headlines. A 2021 study presented findings about a pacemaker that treats abnormal heart rhythms for a period of time and then dissolves. Amazing, right? For people who need a pacemaker only temporarily, a dissolving pacemaker could allow them to avoid a surgical procedure to remove it once it was no longer needed.

Three headlines covering this research spun the story this way:

Coming Soon: An Implanted Pacemaker That Dissolves Away After Use

Could people one day get pacemakers that dissolve into the body?

First-ever transient pacemaker harmlessly dissolves in body

But that dissolving pacemaker had never been tried in living humans — an important fact! To test the dissolving pacemaker, the researchers had performed open-heart surgery in rats and dogs, and lab experiments on heart tissue removed from mice, rabbits, and deceased humans.

The first headline demonstrates the pitfall of overpromising on the findings of preliminary research: yes, a dissolving pacemaker might someday be routine in humans, but it’s unlikely to be “coming soon.” And when a headline says “harmlessly dissolves in body,” we might reasonably think this refers to a livinghuman body. Not so.

The bottom line

Why are we constantly bombarded with misleading headlines? A major reason is that headlines attract attention, clicks, reads, subscriptions, and influence essential to media sites. Some writers and editors lean into hype, knowing it attracts more attention. Others may not be trained to read or present medical news carefully enough.

In a world full of misleading health news headlines, here’s my advice: be skeptical. Consider the source and read past the headline before buying in. And if your go-to media often serves up misleading headlines, consider changing channels or crossing that news source off your list.

In the US, breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in women, and the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths. Each year, an estimated 270,000 women — and a far smaller number of men — are diagnosed with it. When caught in early stages, it’s usually highly treatable.

A promising new form of targeted treatment may expand options available to some women with early-stage breast cancer linked to specific genetic glitches. (Early-stage cancers have not spread to distant organs or tissues in the body.)

The BRCA gene: What does it do?

You may have heard the term BRCA (BReast CAncer) genes, which refers to BRCA1 and BRCA2genes. Normally, BRCA genes help repair damage to our DNA (genetic code) that occurs regularly in cells throughout the human body.

Inherited BRCA mutations are abnormal changes in these genes that are passed on from a parent to a child. When a person has a BRCA mutation, their body cannot repair routine DNA damage to cells as easily. This accumulating damage to cells may help pave a path leading to cancer. Having a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation — or both — puts a person at higher risk for cancer of the breast, ovaries, prostate, or pancreas; or for melanoma. A person’s risk for breast cancer can also be affected by other gene mutations and other factors.

Overall, just 3% to 5% of all women with breast cancer have mutations in BRCAgenes. However, BRCA mutations occur more often in certain groups of people, such as those with triple negative breast cancer (TNBC), Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry, a strong family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer, and younger women with breast cancer.

Inherited BRCA mutations and breast cancer types

Certain types of breast cancer are commonly found in women with BRCA gene mutations.

• Estrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative cancer: Women with a BRCA2 mutation usually develop ER+/HER2- breast cancer — that is, cancer cells that are fueled by the hormone estrogen but not by a protein known as HER2 (human epidermal growth factor 2).
• Triple negative breast cancer: Women with a BRCA1 mutation tend to develop triple negative breast cancer (ER-/PR-/HER2-) — that is, cancer cells that aren’t fueled by the hormones estrogen and progesterone, or by HER2.

Knowing what encourages different types of breast cancer to grow helps scientists develop new treatments, and helps doctors choose available treatments to slow or stop tumor growth. Often this involves a combination of treatments.

A new medicine aimed at early-stage BRCA-related breast cancers

The OlympiA trial enrolled women with early-stage breast cancer and inherited BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations. All were at high risk for breast cancer recurrence despite standard treatments.

Study participants had received standard therapies for breast cancer:

• surgery (a mastectomy or lumpectomy)
• chemotherapy (given either before or after surgery)
• possibly radiation
• possibly hormone-blocking treatment known as endocrine therapy.

They were randomly assigned to take pills twice a day containing olaparib or a placebo (sugar pills) for one year.

Olaparib belongs to a class of medicines called PARP inhibitors. PARP (poly adenosine diphosphate-ribose polymerase) is an enzyme that normally helps repair DNA damage. Blocking this enzyme in BRCA-mutated cancer cells causes the cells to die from increased DNA damage.

Results from this study were published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Women who received olaparib were less likely to have breast cancer recur or metastasize (spread to distant organs or tissues) than women taking placebo. Follow-up at an average of two and a half years showed that slightly more than 85% of women who had received olaparib were alive and did not have a cancer recurrence, or a new second cancer, compared with 77% of women treated with placebo.

Further, the researchers estimated that at three years:

• The likelihood that cancer would not spread to distant organs or tissues was nearly 88% with olaparib, compared to 80% with placebo.
• The likelihood of survival was 92% for the olaparib-treated group and 88% for the placebo group.

The side effects of olaparib include low white cell count, low red cell count, and tiredness. The chances of developing these were low.

The bottom line

Olaparib is already approved by the FDA to treat BRCA-related cancers of the ovaries, pancreas, or prostate, and metastatic breast cancer. FDA approval for early-stage breast cancer that is BRCA-related is expected soon based on this study. These findings suggest taking olaparib for a year after completing standard treatment could be a good option for women who have early-stage breast cancer and an inherited BRCA gene mutation who are at high risk for cancer recurrence and, possibly, its spread.

Follow me on Twitter @NeelamDesai_MD

Berries and watermelon in the summer, kale and beets in the winter. The recipe for anti-inflammatory foods to enjoy can change with the seasons.

Your heart, your brain, and even your joints can benefit from a steady diet of these nutritious foods, and scientists think that their effects on inflammation may be one reason why.

Inflammation: How it helps and harms the body

Inflammation is part of your body’s healing mechanism — the reason why your knee swelled and turned red when you injured it. But this inflammatory repair process can sometimes go awry, lasting too long and harming instead of helping. When inflammation is caused by an ongoing problem, it can contribute to health problems. Over time, inflammation stemming from chronic stress, obesity, or an autoimmune disorder may potentially trigger conditions such as arthritis, heart disease, or cancer. It may also harm the brain. Researchers have found a link between higher levels of inflammation inside the brain and an elevated risk for cognitive decline and impairment. Regularly adding anti-inflammatory foods to your diet may help to switch off this process.

Three diets that emphasize anti-inflammatory patterns

Research hasn’t looked specifically at the anti-inflammatory benefits of eating foods that are in season. “But it’s generally accepted that eating what’s in season is likely to be fresher and obviously there are other benefits, including those for the environment,” says Natalie McCormick, a research fellow in medicine at Harvard Medical School. Eating foods that are in season may also help your grocery bill.

When it comes to anti-inflammatory foods, the goal should be to incorporate as many as you can into your overall diet. “Our emphasis now is on eating patterns, because it seems that interactions between foods and their combinations have a greater effect than individual foods,” says McCormick.

Three diets in particular, she says, contain the right mix of elements: The Mediterranean diet, the DASH diet, and the Alternative Healthy Eating Index. These diets are similar in that they put the emphasis on foods that are also known to be anti-inflammatory, such as colorful fruits and vegetables, whole grains, legumes, and healthy fats such as olive oil and nut butters. But just as importantly, these diets also eliminate foods — such as highly processed snacks, red meat, and sugary drinks — that can increase levels of inflammatory markers inside the body, including a substance called C-reactive protein.

Mixing and matching different foods from these diets can help you tailor an anti-inflammatory approach that fits your personal tastes, as can choosing the freshest in-season offerings. Whole grains, legumes, and heart-healthy oils can be year-round staples, but mix and match your fruits and vegetables for more variety. Below are some great options by season.

Winter anti-inflammatory superstars

In the cold winter months, think green. Many green leafy vegetables star during this season, including kale, collard greens, and swiss chard. Root vegetables like beets are another great and hardy winter option. Reach for sweet potatoes and turnips. Other options to try are kiwi fruit, brussels sprouts, lemons, oranges, and pineapple.

Spring anti-inflammatory superstars

When the spring months arrive, look for asparagus, apricots, avocados, rhubarb, carrots, mushrooms, and celery, as well as fresh herbs.

Summer anti-inflammatory superstars

Summer is prime time for many types of produce, and you’ll have lots of choices. Berries are a great anti-inflammatory option. Try different varieties of blueberries, blackberries, and strawberries. Go local with marionberries, huckleberries, gooseberries, and cloud berries, which grow in different parts of the US. Also reach for cherries, eggplant, zucchini, watermelon, green beans, honeydew melon, okra, peaches, and plums.

Fall anti-inflammatory superstars

Nothing says fall like a crisp, crunchy apple. But there are a host of other anti-inflammatory foods to try as well, such as cabbage, cauliflower, garlic, winter squash, parsnips, peas, ginger, and all types of lettuce.

Whenever possible, when you choose an anti-inflammatory food try to substitute it for a less healthy option. For example, trade a muffin for a fresh-berry fruit salad, or a plate of French fries for a baked sweet potato. Making small trades in your diet can add up to big health benefits over time.

If a screening test for prostate cancer produces an abnormal result, the next step is typically a biopsy. In the United States, this is almost always done by threading a biopsy needle into the prostate through the rectum. By watching on an ultrasound machine, doctors can see where the needle is going. Called a transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) biopsy, this procedure comes with a small but growing risk of infections that are in turn increasingly resistant to current antibiotics.

To minimize infection risk, doctors can also thread the biopsy needle through a patch of skin between the anus and scrotum called the perineum, thus bypassing rectal bacteria. These so-called transperineal (TP) biopsies offer a further advantage in that they provide better access to the tip (or apex) of the prostate, which is where 30% of cancers occur. However, they are also more painful for the patient. Until recently, they were done only in hospital operating rooms under general anesthesia.

Today, technical advances are making it possible for doctors to perform TP biopsies under local anesthesia in their own offices. And with this development, pressure to limit infections by adopting this approach is growing.

During a recent study, Harvard scientists looked at how the two methods compare in terms of cancer detection and complication rates. In all, 260 men were included in the study, each closely matched in terms of age, race, prostate-specific antigen levels, and other diagnostic findings. Half the men got TRUS biopsies and the other half got TP biopsies, and all the procedures were performed at a single medical practice between 2014 and 2020. Per standard clinical protocols, all the men in the TRUS group took prophylactic antibiotics to prepare. By contrast, just 43% of men in the TP group took antibiotics, in accordance with physician preferences.

Results showed minimal differences in the cancer detection rate, which was 62% in the TP group and 74% among men who got TRUS biopsies. But importantly, 15% of men with cancer in the TP group had apex tumors that the TRUS biopsies "may have missed," the study authors wrote.

More complications with the TP approach

As far as complications go, one man in the TRUS group developed an infection that was treated with multiple rounds of oral antibiotics. None of the TP-biopsied men got an infection, but eight of them had other complications: one had urinary blood clots that were treated in the hospital, two were catheterized for acute urinary retention, three were medically evaluated for dizziness, and two had temporary swelling of the scrotum.

Why were the TP noninfectious complication rates higher? That's not entirely clear. For various reasons, doctors wound up taking more prostate samples (called cores) on average from men in the TP group than they did from men in the TRUS group. The authors suggest if an equivalent number of cores had been taken from men in either group, then the complication rates might have been more similar. (In fact, larger comparative studies performed in hospital-based settings show no difference in complication rates when equal numbers of cores are obtained). But doctors in the current study also had more experience with TRUS biopsies, and that might also explain the discrepancy, the authors suggest. And as doctors in general become experienced with the TP method, complication rates might fall.

In an editorial comment, Dr. Marc Garnick, the Gorman Brothers Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, editor of the Harvard Health Publishing Annual Report on Prostate Diseases, and editor in chief of HarvardProstateKnowledge.org, acknowledged positive findings from the study, particularly a reduced need for antibiotics with the TP method, and the discovery of apex tumors TRUS biopsies could have missed. Garnick also highlighted a "steep learning curve" with TP biopsies, and how some of the noninfectious complications required hospital-based care. "The ability to perform TP biopsies in an office setting should enable future comparisons with TRUS to help answer whether this new TP technology has enduring value," he wrote.