Friday, July 29, 2016

Supplements Can Make You Sick






Dietary supplements are not regulated the same way as medications. This lack of oversight puts consumers' health at risk.

Consumer Reports / Jeneen Interlandi / July 27, 2016 / Additional reporting by Laurie Tarkan and Rachel Rabkin Peachman

Calvin Jimmy Lee-White was tiny. He was born on Oct. 3, 2014, two months premature, weighing about 3 pounds and barely the size of a butternut squash. There are standards of care for treating infants that fragile, and as an attorney for the baby’s family later acknowledged, doctors at Yale-New Haven Hospital in Connecticut followed them. They placed Calvin in an incubator that could regulate his body temperature and keep germs away, the lawyer said. And they administered surfactant drugs, which help promote crucial lung development in premature infants. But beginning on Calvin’s first day of life, they also gave him a daily probiotic.

Probiotics are powders, liquids, or pills made up of live bacteria thought to help maintain the body’s natural balance of gut microorganisms. Some neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) have been giving them to preemies in recent years based on evidence that they can help ward off deadly intestinal disease.

Some doctors are concerned about that trend. Because probiotics can be classified as dietary supplements, they don’t have to be held to the same regulatory standards as prescription or even over-the-counter drugs. Manufacturers don’t have to secure Food and Drug Administration approval to sell their products, and their facilities aren’t policed the same way as pharmaceutical companies.

But the NICU at Yale-New Haven chose what looked to be a safe product. It was made by a large, seemingly reputable company, marketed specifically for infants and children, and available at drugstores across the country.

Calvin struggled anyway. His abdomen developed bulges, and surgery revealed that his intestines were overrun by a rare fungus. The infection spread quickly from his gut to his blood vessels, where it caused multiple blockages, and then into his aorta, where it caused a clot.

On Oct. 11, at just 8 days old, baby Calvin died. Government officials then launched a mournful investigation. Where did the fungus come from? And how did it get into this premature baby’s tiny body?

Unproven Treatments
The answer is that the probiotic was contaminated. The FDA tested unopened containers from the same batch of probiotic given to Calvin and discovered the same fungus that had infected his intestines. Certain lots of the product—ABC Dophilus Powder, made by the supplement manufacturer Solgar—were recalled from pharmacies and drugstores across the U.S.

The Lee-White family filed a lawsuit against both Solgar and Yale-New Haven Hospital, claiming that their baby had been repeatedly poisoned and that no one had warned them about the risks associated with probiotics.

“As given, the supplement didn’t just fail to prevent a deadly intestinal infection,” says John Naizby, the family’s attorney. “The supplement actually caused a deadly intestinal infection.” Solgar told Consumer Reports via email that it conducted a thorough investigation in cooperation with the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and found no contaminants at any point in its own supply chain. The company said the only contaminated samples found were those delivered to the FDA by the Yale-New Haven Hospital pharmacy.

The hospital declined to comment for this article. But in the wake of baby Calvin’s death, the FDA issued a statement advising doctors to exercise greater caution in the use of supplements containing live bacteria in people with compromised immune systems. Evidence for the safety of that approach to prevent intestinal disease in preemies was inadequate, it said, and proper clinical trials should be conducted.

The problem stretches well beyond one tainted probiotic. Dietary supplements—vitamins, minerals, herbs, botanicals, and a growing list of other “natural” substances—have migrated from the vitamin aisle into the mainstream medical establishment. Hospitals are not only including supplements in their formularies (their lists of approved medication), they’re also opening their own specialty supplement shops on-site and online. Some doctors are doing the same. According to a Gallup survey of 200 physicians, 94 percent now recommend vitamins or minerals to some of their patients; 45 percent have recommended herbal supplements as well. And 7 percent are not only recommending supplements but actually selling them in their offices.

Consumers are buying those products in droves. According to the Nutrition Business Journal, supplement sales have increased by 81 percent in the past decade. The uptick is easy to understand: Supplements are easier to get than prescription drugs, and they carry the aura of being more natural and thus safer. Their labels often promise to address health issues for which there are few easy solutions. Want a smaller waistline? There’s garcinia cambogia for that. Bigger muscles? Try creatine. Better sex? Yohimbe. How about giving your brain a boost? Omega-3 fatty acids. Or your energy level? Ginseng.

It’s tough to say what portion of those products pose a risk to consumers. A 2013 report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that from 2008 through 2011, the FDA received 6,307 reports of health problems from dietary supplements, including 92 deaths, hundreds of life-threatening conditions, and more than 1,000 serious injuries or illnesses. The GAO suggests that due to underreporting, the real number of incidents may be far greater.

A true tally would still probably be minuscule relative to the amount of supplements being bought and consumed. But there’s no reliable way to tell whether any given supplement is safe. And the fact remains that dietary supplements—which your doctor may recommend and may sit right alongside trusted over-the-counter medications or just across from the prescription drug counter—aren’t being regulated the same way as drugs.

“Not only are the advertised ingredients of some supplements potentially dangerous,” says Pieter Cohen, M.D., an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School who has studied supplements extensively and written many papers on the issue, “but because of the way they’re regulated, you often have no idea what you’re actually ingesting.”

Consumers Are in the Dark
Dietary supplements are subject to far less stringent regulations than over-the-counter and prescription medication. The FDA classifies them differently from drugs. So the companies that make and sell them aren’t required to prove that they’re safe for their intended use before selling them, or that they work as advertised, or even that their packages contain what the labels say they do.

And because of those lax policies, supplements that make their way into retail stores, doctors’ offices, and hospitals can pose a number of potential problems. They can be ineffective, contaminated with microbes or heavy metals, dangerously mislabeled, or intentionally spiked with illegal or prescription drugs. They can also cause harmful side effects by themselves and interact with prescription medication in ways that make those drugs less effective.

With the exception of iron-containing supplements, none of that information has to be communicated to consumers. Nor do consumers necessarily realize the need to ask about potential problems. According to a 2015 nationally representative Consumer Reports survey, almost half of American adults think that supplement makers test their products for efficacy, and more than half believe that manufacturers prove their products are safe before selling them.

“You see these products in drugstores or in doctors’ offices, and you assume they’re as tried and true as any other medication being sold at those places,” says Paul Offit, M.D., an infectious disease specialist at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, who has written a book about the supplement industry. “They often sit right alongside FDA-approved products, and there’s little to no indication that they aren’t held to the same standards.”

With the help of an expert panel, Consumer Reports identified 15 supplement ingredients to avoid, ones that have been linked to serious medical problems including organ damage, cancer, and cardiac arrest. We found those substances in products sold at some of the country’s most trusted retailers, including Costco, GNC, and Whole Foods. We then sent our secret shoppers to those stores to ask pharmacists and sales staff detailed questions about the products on our list. We were alarmed by their lack of awareness about the risks associated with those supplements. Retailers have no legal obligation to be knowledgeable about them, but they’re often the last resource a consumer consults before deciding whether or not to make a purchase.

Many Well-Known Hospitals Fail To Score 5 Stars In Medicare’s New Ratings


The federal government released its first overall hospital quality rating on Wednesday, slapping average or below average scores on many of the nation’s best-known hospitals while awarding top scores to dozens of unheralded ones.
By Jordan Rau / July 27, 2016

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services rated 3,617 hospitals on a one- to five-star scale, angering the hospital industry, which has been pressing the Obama administration and Congress to block the ratings. Hospitals argue the ratings will make places that treat the toughest cases look bad, but Medicare has held firm, saying that consumers need a simple way to objectively gauge quality.

Just 102 hospitals received the top rating of five stars, and few are those considered as the nation’s best by private ratings sources such as U.S. News & World Report or viewed as the most elite within the medical profession.

Medicare awarded five stars to relatively obscure hospitals and at least 40 hospitals that specialize in just a few types of surgery, such as knee replacements. There were more five-star hospitals in Lincoln, Neb., and La Jolla, Calif., than in New York City or Boston. Memorial Hermann Hospital System in Houston and Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., were two of the only nationally known hospitals getting five stars.







Medicare awarded the lowest rating of one star to 129 hospitals. Five hospitals in Washington, D.C., received just one star, including George Washington University Hospital and MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, both of which teach medical residents. Nine hospitals in Brooklyn, four hospitals in Las Vegas and three hospitals in Miami received only one star.

Some premiere medical centers received the second highest rating of four stars, including Stanford Health Care in California, Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, Duke University Hospital in Durham, N.C., New York-Presbyterian Hospital and NYU Langone Medical Center in Manhattan, the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, and Penn Presbyterian Medical Center in Philadelphia. 

In total, 927 hospitals received four stars.

Medicare gave its below average score of two-star ratings to 707 hospitals. They included the University of Virginia Medical Center in Charlottesville, Beth Israel Medical Center in Manhattan, North Shore University Hospital (now known as Northwell Health) in Manhasset, N.Y., Barnes-Jewish Hospital in St. Louis, Tufts Medical Center in Boston and MedStar Washington Hospital Center in D.C. Geisinger Medical Center in Danville, Pa., which is a favorite example for national health policy experts of a quality hospital, also received two stars.

Hospital Stars
Medicare has released for the first time star ratings for more than 3,600 hospitals around the country. The government says the ratings, which award between one and five stars to each hospital, will be useful to consumers trying to evaluate quality. More than 100 facilities received five stars, the highest rating, while 129 got only one star.
Nearly half the hospitals — 1,752 — received an average rating of three stars. Another 1,042 hospitals were not rated, including all hospitals in Maryland.

Medicare based the star ratings on 64 individual measures that are published on its Hospital Compare website, including death and infection rates and patient reviews. Medicare noted that specialized and “cutting-edge care,” such as the latest techniques to battle cancer, are not reflected in the ratings.

Dr. Kate Goodrich, who oversees Medicare’s quality ratings, said in a statement that it has been using the same type of rating system for other medical facilities, such as nursing homes and dialysis centers, and found them useful to consumers and patients. Those ratings have shown, she said, “that publicly available data drives improvement, better reporting, and more open access to quality information for our Medicare beneficiaries.”

In a statement, Rick Pollack, president of the American Hospital Association, called the new ratings confusing for patients and families. “Health care consumers making critical decisions about their care cannot be expected to rely on a rating system that raises far more questions than answers,” he said. “We are especially troubled that the current ratings scheme unfairly penalizes teaching hospitals and those serving higher numbers of the poor.”

A sizable proportion of the nation’s major academic medical centers, which train doctors, scored poorly, according to a Kaiser Health News analysis. Out of 288 hospitals that teach significant numbers of residents, six in 10 received below-average scores, the analysis found. Teaching hospitals comprised one-third of the facilities receiving one-star. A number were in high poverty areas, including two in Newark, N.J., and three in Detroit.

“Hospitals cannot be rated like movies,” Dr. Darrell Kirch, president of the Association of American Medical Colleges, said in a statement. “We are extremely concerned about the potential consequences for patients that could result from portraying an overly simplistic picture of hospital quality with a star rating system that combines many complex factors and ignores the socio-demographic factors that have a real impact on health.”




TAGS: CMS, Hospitals

jrau@kff.org | @JordanRau

Tuesday, July 26, 2016

Should You Be Screened for Melanoma?








Should You Be Screened for Melanoma?

New skin-cancer-screening recommendations 
might have you confused

Consumer Reports / Julia Calderone  / July 26, 2016 / www.consumerreports.org

You might think that with all the concerns about melanoma, the benefits of having your skin checked every year by a doctor for skin cancer would be clear. But it isn't.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, an independent group that advises the government on public health issues, just released its latest analysis on skin cancer research.

After analyzing the abstracts and text of about 13,000 studies going back 20 years, they narrowed it down to 13 to include in the review. Their conclusion: There's not enough evidence to say that regular professional skin checks save lives, or to recommend for, or against, routine checks. That's the same conclusion the Task Force reached back in 2009, the last time it did a comprehensive review of the research.

Does that mean that you skip the exams? No. David C. Grossman, M.D., the vice chair of the Task Force and a senior investigator at the Group Health Research Institute Group Health in Seattle, says that in the absence of clear benefits (or harms), the decision depends largely on you and your doctor's assessments of your personal risk.

Our medical experts agree, and stress that the Task Force's review didn't look at people at high risk, or assess the benefits of seeing a dermatologist instead of a primary care provider. It also did not evaluate the effectiveness of self-examinations.

"The greater your risk of skin cancer, the more important regular skin checks, preferably by a dermatologist, becomes," says Jessica Krant, M.D., a clinical assistant professor of dermatology at SUNY Downstate Medical Center in Brooklyn, N.Y., and a member of Consumer Reports’ medical advisory board.

In addition, the Task Force's inconclusive take on professional skin cancer screenings underscores the importance of you taking an active role in preventing the cancer and catching it early. That means taking steps to avoid the UV radiation that can cause skin cancer, and also periodically checking your own skin, so you notice when worrisome changes appear.

Here why skin cancer is such a concern, and what you should consider as you determine when and how often you should have your skin checked.

Know Your Risks
The number of people developing and dying from melanoma has risen steadily for the last 30 years, according to the American Cancer Society. About 10,000 Americans each year now die of the disease, and some 76,000 are diagnosed with it. More than 5 million other people develop basal and squamous cell cancers, two of the more common but less deadly types of skin cancer.

Melanoma can appear suddenly and spread quickly, making it important to catch it early.

For that reason, our medical experts say it is important that you be aware of changes on your skin, and to contact your doctor if you see any worrisome shifts. A 2009 study in the journal Archives of Dermatology found that 44 percent of melanomas were discovered by patients. Look especially for skin lesions that are asymmetrical, have irregular or ragged borders, are multicolored, are larger than a pencil eraser in diameter, or are changing over time. Find out how to spot melanoma.

In addition, you should get a skin check, at least every year if you are at high risk of skin cancer, Krant says. Preferably, that doctor should be a dermatologist. Their advanced training makes them better able to identify worrisome lesions, which means that they are less likely to overlook dangerous melanomas and refer you to needless biopsies.

Factors that increase your risk of skin cancer include:
• a history of sunburns;
• fair skin, light eyes, or red or blond hair;
• a family history of melanoma; and
• a personal history of basal cell or squamous cell cancer.  
Even if you are at lower risk you should still periodically have your skin checked by a physician; consider asking for a referral to a dermatologist for the exam.

Prevention is Key
Not all skin cancers can be prevented by avoiding UV rays. Genetics play a strong role in the cancer, and you can develop the malignancy even on parts of the body that rarely see the sun.

Still, taking steps to avoid radiation can cut your risk of developing the disease. One simple step: Avoidindoor tanning. Experts estimate that it causes a 450,000 new skin cancer cases each year, of which 10,000 are melanomas.

It also pays to limit your exposure to the sun’s damaging rays. Spending less time directly in the sun, especially between 12 noon and 3 p.m. is one of the most important things you can do, Grossman says.

And when you are out in the sun, wear a broad-rimmed hat and protective clothing when you can, and use sunscreen all the time. Here's how to make sure you apply sunscreen correctly.

Thursday, July 21, 2016

Happy Birthday Laura

Happy birthday to my one and only daughter. We are thinking of you today and remembering all the great memories you gave us. I hold on to my belief that one day we will be together again.







Monday, July 18, 2016

Happy Birthday , Laura

Very sad day today. We heard that our friend's son passed away unexpectedly yesterday. I am so sorry that another mother has to experience the gut-wrenching pain of losing a child. The child's age doesn't make a bit of difference to a parent. Your children are always your children.

Laura would have turned 33 this Thursday. It has been 7 years, 8 months and 10 days since she left this earth and not a day goes by that I wish I could wake up and know that I can physically hug my daughter. 

I am grateful for all the signs that she has sent me through the years. Her latest one jut a few days ago. Keep them coming Laura. 

The grief never ever disappears. You learn to live with it because it is your reality and nothing will change that fact.  You do the best you can to grab onto your memories and share them with anyone who will listen. And you do your very best to create new memories with the people you love who are part of your life.  

I will be posting pictures of Laura this week in honor of my daughter's birth on July 21. 

Laura & Aunt  Georgeann

Laura & Aunt Jean

Laura & her brother

Laura & Aunt Rose

Laura & her baby

Me & my baby
More to come....

Friday, July 15, 2016

A New Way to Catch Zika





Women may also transmit the disease sexually, a new study finds
Consumer Reports / By Jeneen Interlandi / July 15, 2016

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has reported the first case of Zika involving female-to-male sexual transmission. A New York woman returning from a Zika-affected country (the report did not specify which country) passed the virus to her sexual partner.
Until now, all cases of sexually-transmitted Zika have involved men passing the disease to their sexual partners. Because the virus is known to live for months in semen, making infected men chronic carriers, the CDC advises men who have been infected with or exposed to Zika to wait at least six months before having unprotected sex, especially if their partner is or is hoping to become pregnant.
By contrast, women who may have been exposed to Zika are advised to wait just eight weeks before having unprotected sex because until now, the virus has not been detected in vaginal swabs and no cases of female sexual transmission have been documented.
Today's report, combined with one earlier this week in the Lancet Infectious Disease, may soon lead to changes in those guidelines. 
As the Lancet reported, the virus was also detected in the vaginal tract of a 27-year-old French woman, where it persisted for at least 11 days after it disappeared from her blood and urine. The report's authors say that they have not tested to see how infectious the vaginal virus might be, but their findings indicate that it’s at least possible for women to harbor Zika as men do. “Our findings raise the threat of a woman potentially becoming a chronic Zika virus carrier,” the authors wrote.
The CDC and others are working to answer a long list of questions about sexually transmitted Zika infection, including how long the virus can live in semen, how long in vaginal fluid, and whether sexually transmitted Zika presents a greater or lesser risk of birth defects than transmission via mosquito.
“We have been looking at our transmission guidelines,” says CDC spokesperson Candice Hoffman, “It’s possible that they may change in the next few weeks based on recent findings.”
In most people, Zika infection is asymptomatic and largely inconsequential. But in pregnant women, it can be devastating. The virus can cross the placenta, infect the unborn fetus, and cause a range of serious problems, including congenital microcephaly, and in some cases, miscarriage.
Both Florida and New York have seen more than 200 cases of travel-related Zika infection. And Texas, New Jersey, and other states have witnessed their first cases of Zika-related microcephaly, all among travelers recently returned from Zika-affected areas. So far, no cases have been reported from mosquito bites received in the continental U.S., but experts at the CDC and elsewhere say it’s only a matter of time until such locally acquired cases emerge.
Congress is heading into recess today, and so far has not passed a Zika funding bill.