Keep Moving for Cardiovascular Benefits

We keep extolling the benefits and virtues of regular exercise and fitness. Some research studies have documented the intensity and duration of exercise programs with cardiovascular events and mortality. Those who do more and are fitter apparently do much better which surprises few of us.

It comes down to the “which came first the chicken or egg “question?  Are people genetically able to exercise at a high level living longer and healthier because they exercise at a high intensity and duration or vice versa?

It is quite comforting to read the recent study in JAMA by Andrea LaCroix, PhD, MPH and colleagues from the University of California, San Diego that shows the benefits of even modest movement and exercise.  The study was conducted under the umbrella of the Women’s Health Initiative and put pedometers and accelerometers on women to measure activity during waking hours.  Light physical activity was defined as less than 3 metabolic equivalents (Walking one mile in about 22 minutes expends about 3 Metabolic Equivalents of Activity).  They noted that for each hour per day increment in light activity there was a 14% lower risk of Coronary Heart Disease and 8% lower risk of cardiovascular disease.

The researchers evaluated 5,861 women with a mean age of 78.5 years. Average follow-up spanned 3.5 years with study members having 570 cardiovascular disease events and 143 coronary heart disease events. The study group was diverse with there being 48.8% Caucasian women, 33.5 % Black women and 17.6% Hispanic women.

The study’s results and message was clear. Keep moving. Even modest exercise is beneficial in reducing heart attack and stroke risk.

Advertisements

Free Choice of Physicians & Fee for Service Medicine Ending?

The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission is a panel of financial, economic and health policy advisors created by Congress to advise CMS (Center for Medicare Services) and Congress how to pay physicians, health care providers and facilities for services rendered. According to an online article on MedPage they are close to eliminating fee for service payments for health care. CMS has encouraged alternative delivery methods for years. For the most part this has resulted in hospital and health care systems buying up and employing doctors, mid-level providers being substituted for more highly trained doctors and these alternative systems covering care only with their panel of providers and diagnostic and treatment centers.

However, publicized figures have shown these Medicare alternative products actually cost more per patient per year than traditional Medicare. This particular article claimed a 1-2% savings.

We all see the ads for Medicare Advantage plans which, in addition to no co-pay and no deductible, provide for dental care, vision care, eye care and exercise and gym memberships. Apparently 50% of the Medicare population is now enrolled in such a program.

As a 69 year old individual paying into the Medicare system for the last 55 years I see the benefits and cost savings for seniors when they are healthy. What happens however, when you become ill? Clearly the Centers of Excellence for many of the ailments seniors contract are geographically and contractually outside the narrow networks and panels these private insurance companies run and the Accountable Care Organization run plans provide.

If I do not have coverage for the Mayo Clinic or MD Anderson Cancer Center or the Cleveland Clinic or Dana Farber Cancer Center or Johns Hopkins Medical Center then have I wasted 55 years of payments? Do I really want a nurse practitioner in south Florida directing my care off a protocol list of contracted providers or do I want a clinician who sees a dozen cases of this disease per week calling the shots?

I prefer the latter but may not have a choice but to pay out of pocket if MEDPACs recommendations are accepted by CMS and Congress and become law.

Eggs and Diabetes – New Information

Diabetes has been known as a risk factor for cardiovascular diseases for years. Egg consumption was discouraged by experts.   Our perception of eggs as they relate to diabetes and heart disease may have to be reconsidered based on a study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in May 2015

The Kuopio Ischemic Heart Disease Risk Factor Study enrolled 2,332 men, aged 42 -60 years old, and followed them for more than nineteen years.  Four hundred thirty-two participants developed Type 2 Diabetes.  Men who ate the most eggs demonstrated a 38% lower risk of developing Type 2 Diabetes in this study.  Higher egg intake was associated with lower levels of fasting plasma glucose and serum C – reactive protein.

The researchers published a follow up paper in the Journal of Molecular Nutrition and Food Research this year and came up with similar results stating that “moderate egg consumption of eggs can be part of a healthy dietary pattern for preventive action against Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.” Their definition of moderate was an average of one egg or less per day.

This is preliminary data involving eggs will be discussed and battled over for years to come. What is important is that once again a modest intake of a protein in moderation is probably not deleterious as previously thought.

When dealing with diabetes, lifestyle issues such as weight control, smoking status, alcohol intake, regular exercise and simple carbohydrate intake are far more important issues to address than egg consumption in moderation.  This topic was reviewed in the latest online publication of Medscape Medical News. 

Artificial Sweeteners and Your Health

An article published in the online version of Primary Care brings up the issue of whether artificial sweeteners are a positive, helping people lose weight, or is there more to the story. Editor David Rakel MD, FAAFP discusses a recent article in the neurologic journal STROKE showing an association between the number of artificially sweetened beverages consumed per day and the onset of a stroke. This relationship was seen only with artificially sweetened beverages not with sugar sweetened beverages.

Dr Rakel goes on to discuss the ongoing public health concern of consuming nonnutritive sweeteners and its effects on weight gain and insulin resistance. Recent studies known as observational studies have linked high consumption of beverages with nonnutritive sweeteners with weight gain, increased visceral adiposity and a 22 % higher incidence of diabetes despite consuming less energy.

The reasons for consuming fewer calories but gaining weight are considered to be many. Sweet tasting compounds including NNS activate sweet “taste receptors” that were once thought to be only located in the mouth but are now known to be throughout the body. This activation results in release of insulin. The continued release of insulin by the pancreas, without energy producing calories present to be metabolized, may lead to insulin resistance. Insulin resistance involves insulin being released in response to food being consumed but is becoming ineffective in moving sugar into the cell where it can be metabolized into energy.

There is additional belief that supplying sweetness without calories may result in disturbances to appetite regulation and communication within the body about when we are full. Products such as aspartame, saccharin and sucralose have been found to have negative effect on the intestinal bacteria or microbiome potentially having an effect on glucose tolerance and metabolism.

We see artificial sweeteners on tables in every setting. Aspartame produces a sweetening effect 200x sugar. Saccharin produces a sweetening effect 500x sugar. Sucralose is 600x sugar sweetening and Advantame 20,000x sweeter.

A teaspoon of sugar only contains 16 calories. Portion control of products made with real sugar may be the safest and healthiest way to eat sweets as the holiday season approaches. A level teaspoon of sugar in your coffee or tea may be far healthier for you than that packet of artificial sweetener.

Continuity of Care with a Primary Care Doctor Lowers Costs and Hospitalizations

The Annals of Family Medicine published an article that compared the health costs and hospitalization rates of patients who had a primary care doctor, and saw that physician regularly, as compared to individuals who did not. The study used Medicare data from 1,448,952 patients obtaining care from 6,551 primary care physicians.

Upon analyzing the data, the researchers discovered that those individuals who saw a primary care physician regularly and had a primary care physician who “assumed ongoing responsibility for the patient, with continuity framing the personal nature of medical care” the patient’s cost of care per year was 14.1% lower and hospitalization rate 16.1% lower than individuals who did not have primary care continuity.

In an editorial piece accompanying the study, David Rakel, MD FAAFP, noted that in 2016 America spent $3.3 trillion on healthcare. If you extrapolate out the benefits of a continuous therapeutic relationship with a primary care medical doctor the result would be a cost savings of $462 billion.

The message is clear. Find yourself a primary care physician and establish a professional relationship. If you find the care is attentive and compassionate stick with that physician. It will save you money and may save your life.

Statin Related Muscle Pain and Coenzyme Q 10

Statins are used to lower cholesterol levels in an effort to reduce the risk of developing cardiovascular disease. They are used after a patient has exhausted lifestyle changes such as changing their diet to a low cholesterol diet, exercising regularly and losing weight without their cholesterol dropping to levels that are considered acceptable to reduce your risk of vascular events.

Patients starting on statins often complain of muscles aches, pains and slow recovery of muscle pain after exercising. In a few individuals the muscle pain, inflammation and damage becomes severe. One of the known, but little understood, negative side effects of statin medications are the lowering of your Coenzyme Q 10 level. CoQ10 works at the subcellular level in energy producing factories called mitochondria. Statin drugs, which inhibit the enzyme HMG-CoA Reductase lower cholesterol while also lowering CoQ10 levels by 16-54 % based on the study reporting these changes.

The November 16, 2018 edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association published a review article by David Rakel, MD and associates that suggested that supplementing your diet with CoQ 10 would reduce muscle aches and pains while on statin therapy. Twelve studies were reviewed and the use of CoQ10 was associated with less muscle pain, weakness, tiredness and cramps compared to placebo. The studies used daily doses of 100 to 600 mg with 200 mg being the most effective dosage. Finding the correct dosage is important because the product is expensive with forty 200 mg tablets selling for about $25.

Since CoQ10 is fat soluble, you are best purchasing formulations that are combined with fat in a gel to promote absorption. As with all supplements, which are considered foods not drugs , it is best if they are UPS Labs certified to insure the dosage in the product is the same as listed on the label and that it contains no unexpected impurities.

Patient Safety and the Joint Commission

Two of my local hospitals just invested $3 – $4 million dollars in preparation for an inspection of the facilities by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals (JCAHO). The cost of the inspection runs in the $10 million dollar range after the preparation costs. The inspection is a high stress situation for the administration because if you fail, or lose your accreditation, the private insurers will void their contract with you and you won’t get paid for the work done.

Medicare through the Center for Medicare Services (CMS) is preferential to JCAHO so much so that they perform 80% of the inspections of hospitals in America. When JCAHO was initially formed it was in response to poor care in small private hospitals in non-urban nonacademic centers. They cleaned that up.

The current version uses up a great deal of money, creating a legion of hospital administrators running around with clipboards and computer tablets without making any meaningful dent in mistakes and outcome results. In a recent study published in the British Medical Journal the outcomes and re-admissions rate for the same problem within 30 days of discharge were compared at hospitals which rely on state surveys of quality and safety as opposed to the JCAHO ten million dollar survey. They found that there was no statistically significant difference.

In a related report hosted by the journal Health Affairs, a review of the 1999 report of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine entitled, “To Err is Human, Building a Safer Health System” was discussed. That controversial report claimed that 44,000 to 98,000 deaths per year occur due to medical errors. They discussed the work of Linda Aiken, PhD, RN, professor and director of the Center for Health Outcomes and Policy Research at the University of Pennsylvania. Her research looked at safety at 535 hospitals in four large states between 2005 and 2016. She called the results disappointing noting improvement based on suggestions in the 1999 report in only 21% of the hospitals surveyed and worsening in 7%. Most of her work involved the staffing and role of nurses which is critical to the quality of the care an institution provides.

Staffing or the ratio of patients cared for per nurse per shift is a critical component of safe patient care. Once a nurse on a non-critical care unit is asked to care for more than four patients the time spent at the bedside nursing diminishes. You cannot recognize problems, complications or changes in your patient’s condition if you are not spending time with them.

It seems to me as a clinician caring for patients in the outpatient and inpatient setting for 40 years that the more time nurses get to spend with patients the better the patients do. Maybe it’s time for government to separate the insurer’s ability to pay hospitals and JCAHO accreditation. Maybe the millions of dollars spent per inspection would be better spent on hiring more nurses per shift plus giving them the clerical and technical support they need to spend more time and care for their patients?