Lung Cancer Screening is Underutilized

Dr. Jinai Huo of the University of Florida (Go Gators!) presented data to Reuters Health that primary care physicians are under-utilizing the technology available to screen for lung cancer. This is a particularly sore topic to me because my associate and I always screened smokers and heavy past smokers for lung cancer with an annual chest x-ray until the United States Preventive Task Force issued guidelines that it didn’t save lives and was not cost effective.  They said, it cost $200,000 in normal x-rays to find one cancer early and it was deemed not worth it.

We actually sold our chest x-ray unit, let go our certified radiology technician and cancelled a contract with radiologists to read our films because insurers stopped paying for chest x-rays after the USPTF ruling.  Twenty years later that same group said “woops” an error was made. The statistical analysis on that study was done incorrectly and actually screening does save lives and is cost effective.

Today we have the fast low dose CT scanner to screen for lung cancer and screening does save lives according to the data.  Who should be screened?

Current smokers or those who have quit smoking within the last 15 years who are 55 to 77 years old and have a smoking history of 30 packs or more per year (one pack per day for 30 years or 2 packs a day for fifteen years).  Screening should be done on individuals in good health so if a lesion is found they are considered well enough to undergo diagnostic tests and treatment.

Screening is also recommended in those individuals over 50 years old with a twenty (20) pack year smoking history and a family history of lung cancer or lung disease or occupational exposure to items associated with causing cancer such as radon.

I inquire about smoking at each visit and have been fortunate in that few of our patients still smoke so we spend less time on counseling for smoking cessation.  If you fall into one of the screening groups mentioned in this article, and have not been screened, please notify us so we can arrange for the testing which will be a low dose chest CT scan.

Vitamin D Supplements Do Not Reduce Falls, Fractures or Improve Bone Density

Much has been written about the benefits of supplementing Vitamin D in patients. The World Health Organization sets its normal blood level at 20 while in North America it is listed at over 30. Under normal circumstances when your skin is exposed to sunlight your kidneys produce adequate amounts of Vitamin D.

Over the last few years low vitamin D levels have been associated with acute illness and flare-ups of chronic illness. The Vitamin D level is now the most ordered test in the Medicare system and at extraordinary expense. Supplementing Vitamin D has become a major industry unto itself.

The October 4th edition of the Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology contained an article written by New Zealand researchers that looked at 81 randomized research trials containing almost 54 thousand participants. “In the pooled analyses, researchers found that Vitamin D Supplementation did not reduce total fracture, hip fracture, or falls – even in trials in which participants took doses greater than 800 IU per day.” Vitamin D supplementation did not improve bone mineral density at any site studied (lumbar spine, hip, femoral neck, forearm or total body).

They concluded that there is little justification for the use of Vitamin D Supplements to maintain or improve musculoskeletal health, and clinical guidelines should reflect these findings.

Does Curcumin Use Help with Cognitive Dysfunction?

Recently, more and more patients have been adding curcumin or turmeric to their cooking to help with their memory. Curcumin is a metabolite of Turmeric and has been available in health food stores for years.

A study a few years back on Alzheimer’s patients published by J. Ringman and Associates showed no benefit in slowing the development of symptoms and no improvement in symptoms when supplied with curcumin. When they looked closely at their study, and analyzed the participant’s blood, they found that curcumin was not absorbed and never really entered the bloodstream.

Last month a study was published in the American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry by Dr. Gary Small and colleagues. They looked at 40 patients with mild memory complaints aged 50 – 90.  Some were administered a placebo and others were administered nanoparticles of curcumin in a product called “Theracumin”. The participants were randomized and blinded to the product they were testing. The study designers felt the nanoparticles would be absorbed better than other products and would actually test whether this substance was helpful or not. At 18 months, memory improved in patients taking the nanoparticles of curcumin and they had less amyloid deposition in areas it usually found relating to Alzheimers Disease.

Robert Isaacson MD, the director of the Alzheimer’s Prevention Clinic at Weil Cornell Medicine and New York- Presbyterian, has been suggesting his patients cook with curcumin for years. Until the development of the Theracumin nanoparticles, cooking with curcumin was the best way to have it absorbed after ingestion. There is now some evidence to suggest that curcumin, in this specific nanoparticle form, may play a role in both the risk reduction and potential therapeutic management of Alzheimers Disease.

Fish, Fish Oils and Cardiovascular Disease

Years ago the scientific researcher responsible for the promotion of fish oils as an antioxidant and protector against vascular disease recommended we all eat two fleshy fish meals of cold water fish a week. He continued to endorse this dietary addition and included canned tuna fish and canned salmon in the types of fish that produced this positive effect.

Over the years I heard him lecture at a large annual medical conference held in Broward County and he fretted about the growth of the supplement industry encouraging taking fish oils rather than eating fish. He worried about the warnings against eating all fish to women of child bearing age because of the fear of heavy metal contamination and knew that the fish oils and omega 3 Fatty Acids played a developmental role in a growing fetus and child.

I then attended lectures, in particular one sponsored by the Cleveland Clinic, during which they promoted Krill oil as the chosen form of fish oil supplements because it remained liquid and viscous at body temperature of 98.6 while others solidified. I listened to this debate only to hear the father of the science speak again and this time advocate that one or two fleshy fish meals a month was adequate to obtain the protective effect of Omega 3 Fatty acids. He felt that the supplements did not actually provide a protective effect as eating real fish did. Since I love to eat fresh fish I had no problem with this message but others are not comfortable buying and preparing fish at home or eating it at a restaurant. Supplements to them were the answer.

Steve Kopecky, M.D. examined the question in an article published in JAMA Cardiology this week. He looked at 77,917 high risk individuals already diagnosed with coronary artery disease and vascular disease who were taking supplements to prevent a second event. His study concluded that taking these omega 3 supplements had no effect on the prevention of recurrent cardiovascular events. The study did not discuss primary prevention for those who have not yet had a vascular illness or event.

Once again it seems that eating fish in moderation, like most anything, is the best choice. I will continue to eat my fresh fish meals one or two times per week, not necessarily for the health benefit but because I enjoy eating fresh fish.

I advise those worried about preventing primary or secondary heart and vascular disease to find a form of fish they can enjoy if they want this benefit. If you really wish to reduce your risk of a cardiovascular event; I suggest you stop smoking, control your blood pressure and lipid profile, stay active and eat those fresh fish meals.

Vitamin D in Senior Citizens: How Much is Enough?

Vitamin D levels are the most popular blood test being billed to CMS Medicare and private insurers. The World Health Organization considers 20 ng/ml to be a normal level of 25-hydroxyvitamin D which contrasts with 30ng/ml in the USA. Vitamin D is made by the kidney when our limbs get exposed to sufficient sun light. It is low in severe and chronic states. Supplementing Vitamin D does not improve the illness except possibly in multiple sclerosis but can return the serum level to normal.

Experts in fall prevention hoped that supplying adequate vitamin D will preserve muscle function and reduce falling. About one in three elderly experience a fall annually with one fracture per five falls. In the USA this amounts to 250,000 hospital admissions for hip fracture each year. The research hope was that by raising the Vitamin D level to 30 we would reduce falls and fractures.  Unfortunately individuals 70 years or older who took 2000IU of Vitamin D a day or 60,000units per month, had more falls and a higher risk of falls than seniors who had lower serum levels and less supplementation. Their muscle function improved with higher dose vitamin D but so did the falls.

The Institute of Medicine, an independent US advisory panel advises taking 800 IU per day or 24,000 IU per month with a goal of a serum level of 21-30 and less frequent Vitamin D level monitoring.

Fish Oils in Osteoarthritis – Low Dose vs. High Dose

Using the common sense approach that if a little bit is good then more is better in the treatment of “rheumatism” Catherine Hill, M.D., of the University of Adelaide in Australia and colleagues looked at the effect of taking low dose fish oil supplements versus high dose fish oil supplements. When one looks at the adult population of Australia, one third of them take fish oil supplements and had within a month of this study. The typical dose is one ml of fish oil per day. Experts say the dose for anti-inflammatory effect for arthritis is considerably higher at 2.7 gram or 10 ml per day. Dr Hill’s theory was that high dose fish oil for symptomatic and structural outcomes in people with knee osteoarthritis was better.

She enrolled 202 symptomatic patients in a double blind study. High dose group patients received 4.5 g EPA/HPA per day. The low dose group were given a blended of fish oil containing 0.45 g EPA /DHA per day in combination with Sunola oil. Both supplements were flavored with citrus oil.

All patients received a baseline MRI of the knee at inception of the study and at two years. The patients mean age was 61 years and body mass index was 29kg/meter squared. Both groups showed x-ray evidence of arthritis in the knee at inception and both groups were allowed to take non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medications and acetaminophen for arthritic pain during the course of the study.

At two years there was no difference in the MRI findings or cartilage volume loss between the high dose and low dose groups. Each group took similar amounts of NSAIDs and acetaminophen for pain on a regular basis. The high dose had no benefit over the low dose.

The researchers concluded that there was no benefit in their study to high dose versus low dose fish oil supplementation for arthritis. They reasoned that since patients in the study were permitted to take additional fish oils on their own during the study this may have altered the findings. The researchers additionally had little control over how much fish the participants ate.

In reviewing the data it seems to indicate that fish oil played a minor role in slowing down arthritis in the knee joint. Low dosage had as good of an effect as high dosage but the studies lack of a true control group who did not take fish oil at all made the conclusions hard to accept.

I will suggest to my patients that they continue to eat two fleshy fish meals per week to get their fish oils for arthritis and cardiovascular protection, rather than purchasing and taking low dose or high dose fish oil supplements.

Brown Fat Injections Reverse Weight Gain in Obese Mice

Overweight, Belly, ManThere is hope for those of us battling weight gain and obesity. An article appeared this week in the journal Endocrinology discussing the research of Wanzhu Jin, PhD, of the Chinese Academy of Sciences involving weight loss and reversal of Type I diabetes. Researchers are well aware of the different types of lipid or fat in all mammals. Brown fat or brown adipose tissue has been felt to have protective effects against weight gain, lipid abnormalities and glucose metabolism problems.

Dr Jin, used mice that were genetically engineered to be overweight or fat. He injected them with a quantity of Brown Adipose Tissue (BAT) and these mice lost weight and improved their glucose metabolism into the non-diabetic range. The success in weight loss and sugar control was felt to be due to the BAT increasing the energy expenditure of the genetically altered mice. The sugar control occurred through similar mechanisms and was unrelated to the production of insulin or insulin metabolism. Dr Jin’s team of researchers felt that the transplanted brown adipose tissue activated and enhanced the BAT already present in these obese mice allowing it to produce the weight loss and improvement in glucose and lipid metabolism. Their research seemed to hint that brown adipose tissue actually acted as an endocrine gland like the pancreas or adrenal gland or thyroid gland, secreting substances that improved metabolism of obese mice.

Dr Jin’s work will provide an incentive for human researchers to look at brown adipose tissue and its modulation and enhancement as a way to control human obesity and diabetic epidemic in the future.