2015-06-24

Edible Health- Our New Column in Edible Cleveland

Edible Health
Our New Column in Edible Cleveland

We are pleased to announce that the extraordinary magazine, Edible Cleveland, had invited Dr. Lavin to write a regular column, Edible Health, starting with their current issue, Summer 2015.

www.ediblecleveland.com

Edible Cleveland is our region's premiere magazine about eating well, eating locally in a gorgeous, celebratory style.   It is one of over 50 regional magazines that make up the Edible Communities publishing juggernaut.   Edible Communities is the world's largest publisher of information about local food resources. They print over 5 million issues a year across the US and Canada which are read by more than 5 million readers.  We are very fortunate to have Edible Cleveland, an Edible Communities publication, highlighting the extraordinary offerings of our local region in such a spectacular presentation.  Many thanks to the Publisher Noelle Celeste and Jon Benedict, the Editor, for assembling the impressive group of writers, illustrators, and photographers and making this phenomenal publication available to all of us.  

And so we are so grateful that Edible Cleveland, after careful consideration of health care experts in our region, selected Dr. Lavin to be their medical writer.   In the column Edible Health, exciting topics relating to health and eating will be explored and presented in a compelling format.

The magazine is published every season, so 4 issues a year.  You can pick up a free copy at Mitchell's Ice Cream and other outlets, or go to www.ediblecleveland.com to subscribe at a very reasonable cost, or to peruse their abundant online resources, including back issues.

Our first column is all about how the speed at which we eat can determine if we will be thin or overweight.  Compelling research from Stockholm presents evidence that eating rapidly can increase your waistline, while eating too slowly can actually lead to being too thin.  Details are in our inaugural column.  This fall, the Edible Health will present the fascinating story of why we chew, when we develop this demanding instinct, and how it impacts our lives.

So, once again, many thanks to Edible Cleveland for the opportunity to be part of this incredible publication.   We will be a distribution site for issues, but do go online as well.  We hope you enjoy our column and this great magazine.

To your health,
Dr. Arthur Lavin




*Disclaimer* The comments contained in this electronic source of information do not constitute and are not designed to imply that they constitute any form of individual medical advice. The information provided is purely for informational purposes only and not relevant to any person's particular medical condition or situation. If you have any medical concerns about yourself or your family please contact your physician immediately. In order to provide our patients the best uninfluenced information that science has to offer,we do not accept samples of drugs, advertising tchotchkes, money, food, or any item from outside vendors.

2015-06-22

Getting Thinner- It's all about our Food, Exercise has a much smaller role

Getting Thinner- It's all about our Food, 
exercise has a much smaller role

On June 15, 2015, The New York Times published a review of many years of study on the question: what helps us lose weight more- eating less or exercising more?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/upshot/to-lose-weight-eating-less-is-far-more-important-than-exercising-more.html

As many who have discussed this question in our practice already know, diet trumps exercise, to a surprisingly great degree.

The key benefits of exercise all rest in helping any organ in our body work better.  People who are physically active experience better function of their lungs, their heart, their bones, and their brains.  They tend to live longer.  But they do not tend to be thinner.

One's weight is determined far more by what one eats than how much one moves.  That is because our bodies are so efficient.  It takes very few calories to move our body around, even quite a bit.

One of my favorite illustrations of this amazing fact has to do with the comparison between the energy it takes to run a full marathon compared to the energy in a common hamburger sold.

It turns out the energy burned to run a full marathon actually equals the energy in a Big Mac from McDonald's.

Imagine that, you could run to the point of utter exhaustion, over 20 miles, and if you eat a Big Mac afterwords, it is as if you did not eat anything or run at all, it comes out as a zero change in energy status.  Incredible.

Many years ago, the PBS science show NOVA did a piece on a group of 20 or so older adults, none of whom had exercised at all for many, many years.  Over a one year period, the study got all of these volunteers up to running at least 5 miles a day, and capped the year by running a full marathon.  Of all these people whose level of exercise increased so very dramatically, only one lost any weight during the year.  That would be the one person who took the opportunity to change what she ate, she was the only one of those running at least 5 miles a day, and training for a marathon, to lose any weight.

So, I hope you find the article interesting.  The level of evidence on this point is now quite convincing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/upshot/to-lose-weight-eating-less-is-far-more-important-than-exercising-more.html

Which means, if you want to lose weight, or if you are growing would like to gain weight more slowly, then drink only water (not juice, milk, or soda), limit snacks to only fruits and vegetables, and eat smaller portions.

To your health,
Dr. Arthur Lavin



*Disclaimer* The comments contained in this electronic source of information do not constitute and are not designed to imply that they constitute any form of individual medical advice. The information provided is purely for informational purposes only and not relevant to any person's particular medical condition or situation. If you have any medical concerns about yourself or your family please contact your physician immediately. In order to provide our patients the best uninfluenced information that science has to offer,we do not accept samples of drugs, advertising tchotchkes, money, food, or any item from outside vendors.

2015-06-11

The Live Immunizations- Why They do Not Need Boosters but Still Need more than One Dose

The Difference between a Live and Dead Immunizations:
One Needs Boosters, the Other May Not

A lot of colleges are now requiring entering students to have 2 chickenpox vaccines, and this has led to many questions about why some vaccines require regular repeat dosages (boosters), why some don't.  This essay is a bit technical, but explains why this is so.

It turns out that not all immunizations are the same sort of immunization.

One aspect that all immunizations share is that they present the body with the illusion that it is being infected with a germ, the body responds by creating its defenses, and as along as those defenses remain in place, the real germ is kept from creating a real infection.  For example, the polio immunization tricks the body into thinking a real polio infection is happening.  The body's response leaves the body fully defended from real polio germs, and if they come by, cannot cause polio.

So, all immunizations use this approach and strategy, but some are living, and some are not, and that can impact on how many doses you need to create and maintain the protection.

Non-Living Immunizations
Nearly all immunizations routinely used for American children are not live, but made out of non-living materials derived from a once alive germ.  These include the very familiar immunizations for diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis (the DTaP for young kids and TDaP for older people), all the meningitis shots, the HPV vaccines, the polio vaccine, and hepatitis A and B.

The key property of non-living, or dead immunizations, is that the body does not totally believe that a real infection has taken place.  Most of the defenses that allow us to survive and triumph over an infection take place after immunization with inert material, but not all.  So after getting an immunization with non-living material, you are protected, but the protection wanes, and after some period of time, disappears.   So, if after you are born you get one tetanus shot, you will have protection against tetanus for 2 months, but that's it.

The other property of non-living immunizations, is that if you repeat the dose, the time the protection lasts gets longer.  Taking the tetanus example, if you get one shot every two months for a total of 3 tetanus shots, you will be protected for one year, and after a fourth dose at the end of that year long interval, you will be protected for 7 years!

So almost all non-living immunizations require an initial series of immunizations, to keep protection in place, and to lengthen how long you are protected between repeat doses.  But even once you achieve protection for 10 or more years, one typically sees protection weaken.  That is why all of these types of immunizations typically require boosters, or repeat dosages over long periods of time.

Three exceptions to this rule are the Hepatitis A and B, and HPV immunizations, which do not require boosters over time.

Living Immunizations
There are not many living immunizations, and they all are for diseases whose germs are viruses.

There are very, very few live immunizations containing live bacteria.

The reason for both these facts has to do with the central challenge of a live immunization.   How do you put a live germ in someone and avoid causing the infection?

No one has figured out how to weaken a bacteria to the point it won't make you ill, but still keep it live enough to provide immunity.

But that has been figured out for a variety of viruses.  It turns out you can grow viruses in a way that renders them very, very weak, but still capable of reproducing a few times in your body before dying off.   This allows for some immunizations to deliver a very, very weak form of the germ, so weak you don't get ill, but still alive enough to really convince the body it is experiencing a real infection.

If the body thinks a very real infection has occurred, then it goes all the way in defending against it and creates mechanisms to produce protection for the rest of the person's life.  This is called life-long immunity, and is typically the result of live immunizations.

The first live immunization was for smallpox, and was achieved by a very clever, and very simple trick.   It was noted that milkmaids who got cowpox never got smallpox, so by giving cowpox to everyone, smallpox was eradicated.  The Latin word for cowpox is vaccinia, and to give someone cowpox was to vaccinate them, the source of the word vaccine and vaccination.  Technically to vaccinate someone only refers to preventing smallpox, which is why I use the word immunization.

The permanent protection against smallpox via vaccination was so effective that smallpox has been eliminated as a disease from the entire planet for over 40 years.

The next live immunization created was for polio.  We are nearing the extinction of polio.  Across the entire world in 2015, so far, only 26 cases of polio have occurred- 24 in Pakistan and 2 in Afghanistan.   The virus is thought to still be alive in Nigeria as well.  But that's it.  India is now polio free for 3 years.   The eradication of polio is close enough the US switched to the non-live form of polio immunization many years ago, so it is not a live vaccine in the US.

The three live viral immunizations we use routinely in Advanced Pediatrics are:  the MMR, the varicella, and the influenza immunizations.

MMR
The MMR is the only form of immunization available in the US to prevent the infection measles.  MMR stands for measles, mumps, and rubella.  The MMR contains a very weakened version of all three of these viruses.  Once placed in the body, each of these viruses replicate for a few cycles, die and are completely eliminated from the body.   But, if the immunization works, if the body creates a response to these viruses, that leaves the body permanently protected.

For measles, the MMR works at least 95% of the time.  That means if 100 people get 1 dose of the MMR, then 95 will not be able to get measles for the rest of their lives.   For any individual that is pretty good level of protection, but in large groups, such as colleges, that still leaves about 1 in 20 able to sustain an epidemic.  Hence the recommendation that everyone get two MMR's.  The second dose may provoke permanent protection in some of the 5% who did not respond to the first dose.

So the second dose of the MMR is not a booster, it is simply a second chance to have a response.

We support the two dose strategy, it has worked well. Populations that have two doses of MMR do not have measles.  Those that do not, do have measles.

I will also mention that the allegation that MMR can cause autism has been definitively disproven, and the intensity of belief in this idea has weakened dramatically in the last year or so.

Varicella or Chickenpox Immunization
Varicella is the Latin word for chickenpox, and zoster is the Greek word for shingles.

Varicella in Latin means little pox, since chickenpox is a lesser pox than smallpox.  Zoster in Greek means belt, since the rash of shingles is often in a belt-like pattern.

The same virus causes chickenpox and shingles:  Herpes varicella-zoster.  This is no surprise since shingles is simply the recurrence of chickenpox.  The way it works is that if you get a case of chickenpox, the virus goes dormant in cells along your spinal cord the rest of your life.  You won't get chickenpox again, but your own dormant chickenpox virus can re-activate and erupt down a nerve fiber from the spinal cord, appearing in a patch on the surface of the skin at the end of that nerve, hence the patch (shingle) or belt-like (zoster) of the rash.

The varicella or chickenpox (same thing) immunization is a live virus, and contains a very, very weak version of the living Herpes varicella-zoster virus.   One dose of this immunization renders nearly everyone permanently immune to severe chickenpox.   If you've had only one dose and get exposed to a case of chickenpox, you have a 10% chance of developing chickenpox, but essentially all such cases are incredibly mild, with 1-10 red dots, and perhaps not even contagious.   So, one dose nearly eliminates all chance of serious chickenpox disease permanently.

Since that protection is permanent like other live immunizations, there is no need for a booster.

But, a second dose is desirable to further reduce the chance of developing any chickenpox illness, even very mild, and thereby stopping the spread.

We support the recommendation that all children have two varicella or chickenpox immunizations prior to Kindergarten.  For older youth and young adults who got their varicella or chickenpox immunization when it once was a one shot routine, the rationale for getting a second makes sense but is not urgent.   Staying with one is a reasonable choice, and exposes the person to only the 10% risk of very mild cases of chickenpox.

The flu mist, or nasal influenza immunization

The third routine live immunization we recommend is the influenza immunization.   It is the only nasal immunization we routinely offer.  It works because the influenza virus naturally lives in the nose and so can do its work by nasal administration quite well.

If you have followed the difference between live and non-live immunizations, you might wonder, why is a live immunization like the nasal flu immunization given every year if live vaccines last all one's life and do not require boosters?

That would be a great question, and if you asked it you would be right, if you get a nasal flu immunization, your protected against those subtypes of influenza virus for life.

The problem is that the subtypes change every year, so last year's lifelong protection does nothing to protect against this year's viruses.

Not routinely used live vaccines
There are three other live immunizations that we do not use routinely that should be mentioned:
1.  Polio- as noted above, live polio immunization is not used in the US, only the non-live version.
2.  Typhoid- the oral typhoid immunization is used for those traveling outside of the US/Canada/Western Europe/Israel/New Zealand/Japan areas.   This is the only live bacterial immunization we use in the office.  It works because the typhoid germ naturally infects the gut, so it can be weakened to avoid causing illness and still administered orally and offer protection.
3.  Rotavirus- this live oral immunization is also for a germ that infects the gut.  We do not recommend its use for three reasons.  First, the illness it prevents is harmless in the overwhelming majority of children in the US.  Second, the immunization is associated with a small but measurable increase in the risk of causing intestinal obstruction.  Third, the widespread use of this immunization has caused the number of rotavirus infections to go down, but another cause of viral stomach flu has taken its place, the noravirus, so this immunization program has had little impact on the chance of a child getting the stomach flu.

Bottom Lines

  1. Immunizations all work by getting the body to think a harmless version of a germ has caused a real infection, to lead to real protection from the real thing.
  2. Immunizations always contain the germ, in some the germ is not alive, in others it is.
  3. Non-living immunizations tend to offer protection that weakens over time, and so boosters are necessary to remain protected.
  4. Living immunizations tend to offer life-long protection, so boosters are not necessary, but more than one dose could be useful to improve the chance the immunization works, or to respond to a virus that changes type yearly.
  5. Details on living immunizations that we recommend are noted above.
To your health,
Dr. Arthur Lavin









*Disclaimer* The comments contained in this electronic source of information do not constitute and are not designed to imply that they constitute any form of individual medical advice. The information provided is purely for informational purposes only and not relevant to any person's particular medical condition or situation. If you have any medical concerns about yourself or your family please contact your physician immediately. In order to provide our patients the best uninfluenced information that science has to offer,we do not accept samples of drugs, advertising tchotchkes, money, food, or any item from outside vendors.

2015-06-10

Congratulations to Dr. Julie Hertzer and Dr. Arthur Lavin for Top Doctor Award

Congratulations to Dr. Julie Hertzer and Dr. Arthur Lavin
Selected as Top Pediatricians for 2015

The Consumer Research Council of America (CRCA) has awarded the designation of Top Pediatrician in America to Dr. Julie Hertzer and Dr. Arthur Lavin in their national lists for 2015!

Our main concern, of course, remains being available to help you and your children, but it is very nice to be recognized.

So, we are sharing this bit of good news, along with our deepest gratitude for the trust you place in us.

Advanced Pediatrics







*Disclaimer* The comments contained in this electronic source of information do not constitute and are not designed to imply that they constitute any form of individual medical advice. The information provided is purely for informational purposes only and not relevant to any person's particular medical condition or situation. If you have any medical concerns about yourself or your family please contact your physician immediately. In order to provide our patients the best uninfluenced information that science has to offer,we do not accept samples of drugs, advertising tchotchkes, money, food, or any item from outside vendors.

2015-05-29

Recent and Fascinating Reserach on Parenting

Neuroscience Meets Parenting:
A Fascinating Look at the Latest Findings on Parenting


On May 27, 2015, the Charlie Rose show on PBS aired a fantastic review of the latest neuroscience of parenting.

This episode is part of an ongoing set of panel discussions covering some of the most interesting work on the mind over the last few years.   It is on the Charlie Rose show, but the entire set of panel discussions is co-hosted by Nobel Laureate Dr. Eric Kandel, one of the world's leading neuroscientists and a classical psychoanalyst.   

I am a very big fan of Dr. Kandel.  He is truly a genius, but very humanistic and caring.  I can also highly recommend two books of his I have read.  In Search of Memory is a magnificent tour of the neuroscience of memory and his ground-breaking discoveries on how memory physically occurs.   And, the Age of Insight is one of my favorites, a truly incredible review of turn-of-century Vienna where the most fascinating topics were all about medical discoveries, and how that helped define the birth of modern art.

On this panel discussion, Dr. Kandel hosts a team of superstar researchers from Harvard, Columbia, and such schools.  There is also a pediatrician who talks about his own personal experience of paternal post-partum depression.   

The findings presented, research discussed, and experiences shared touch on many of the central concerns and experiences all parents share or have concerns about.

The big themes of the discussion include the following:
  1. How does attachment work?  How does the brain lead parents to connect to their baby?
  2. What happens when attachment does not work?  What goes wrong inside the baby's brain and outside in the baby's life?
  3. Can troubles with attachment be reversed later in life?
  4. What is post-partum depression?  How often does it happen?  How often does it happen to fathers?  What can be done about it?
  5. Is there a point at which improvements in parenting offer no further benefit to the child, or are we all in the position of feeling we should have done more?
Attachment
Attachment is the core of all parenting, and it is just what the word means in plain English, the extent to which a parent feels connected to their baby, and the baby feels connected to the parent.   In this program, we find just how dramatically attachment makes a difference.  Without it, a baby's brain will actually have dramatically less electrical activity and will grow to be physically much smaller.

The key attachment that makes the baby's mind grow and fire away is emotional, not cognitive.   That means playing and touching and laughing together makes all the difference in the world.  It is loving and playing that literally turns the baby's mind on to grow and develop.   

Strictly speaking, if one could present purely factual material to a newborn and infant it appears it would have little impact on stimulating the brain to develop.   Of course, in the normal course of presenting cognitive materials, we almost always connect it to emotion.  Who can read their baby Goodnight Moon without being tender and cuddly?

But the point here is that play trumps teaching.  It is truly the playful loving way we all have with our children that their minds require in order to grow and function.

What Happens if Attachment does not Happen?
Let me preface their findings by making clear that attachment almost always happens in a family.  It takes a true catastrophe to keep it from taking place.   The research done to answer this question required finding orphanages in ravished lands where infants got little or no attention.

With that in mind, the research finds that when a baby has no emotional input from a loving adult, their brain's electricity literally nearly stops firing.   Further, the number of nerve cells in their brain fails to increase and the number of connections between nerve cells in their brains fail to grow at anywhere the normal rate.

This is very striking.  Love and play are required to make the human (and animal) brain actually fire electrical signals and grow.   For humans left to complete neglect, IQ's can drop to the level of 50, or barely half of normal intelligence, a level of serious mental impairment.

Can Troubles with Attachment be Reversed Later in Life?
Yes, the researchers found that if a child impaired by no attachment in infancy receives loving care and playfulness even later in childhood, their brains regain normal electrical activity and intelligence zooms upward.

Post-Partum Depression
Somewhere on the order of 9-16% of all women who deliver experience the difficult experience of post-partum depression.   The research presented on this phenomenon were also deeply compelling.  There appears to be a direct link between the extremely dramatic shifts in hormone levels and mood.   This should provide some comfort as it proves that the profound sadness of post-partum depression is purely a physical event and has nothing to do with how the mother (or father) truly feels about their beloved baby.

A pediatrician described in moving and articulate terms his experience of paternal post-partum depression.
Also encouraging was the benefit of treatment and the good chance of reversing this experience with therapy and treatment.

Here is a very useful link for further information about post-partum depression:  http://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/depression/postpartum.aspx

The key insight on this subject was that the parent struck by this physical event must face the challenge of feeling badly about feeling badly, otherwise the help that makes such a difference will not be within reach.

Is there a Ceiling to Attachment, to Love from Parents?
This was one of the most fascinating findings discussed.

It turns out the answer is yes.   That is, after engaging with your newborn, infant, child with loving playfulness, and the ability to attend to their emotions and respond in a way that suggests to them that your are indeed aware and caring of their emotions, there is no benefit to doing this at greater and greater levels.

Basics of love, play, and being responsive turn out to do all that can be done to promote our children's well-being.

Once a parent is loving, caring and responsive to even basic degrees, no parent should worry about feeling that their infant or child is on the edge of not getting enough love, or that if only the parent did more, their child's brain would be that much better.  This has been measured and it turns out extra, extra love and attention does nothing more than the basics.

I found this a powerful finding because it supports the whole concept that a healthy, thriving, happy child deserves parents taking pleasure in their child, rather than parents worried that the good things they do are not enough, or that their child is at risk.

BOTTOM LINES

1.  This link will bring you to a truly outstanding show reviewing some of the latest research on the neuroscience of parenting.  http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2015-05-27/charlie-rose-brain-series-3-episode-2-05-27-

2.  The host of this discussion is one of the world's leading and most thoughtful neuroscientists, Nobel Laureate Dr. Eric Kandel.

3.   Attachment is necessary for a newborn and infant's brain literally to work and to grow.   

4.  Successful attachment simply requires an adult (doesn't even have to be the parent) to love the child, to love being with them, to play with them, and to be responsive to their emotions over time.   Once a basic level of loving, responsive play is achieved, there is not much further gained from more of it.  

5.  Post-partum depression affects about one in 6-10 women who deliver, but also some new fathers.  It is a physical event that turns emotions towards profound sadness and distance.   As physical changes can cause the depression, physical treatments can reverse it.   The key to the terrible experience of post-partum depression is for the person experiencing moving beyond the guilt of bad feeling towards the hope of recovery and treatment.

6.  Overall, the program offers a fascinating discussion of just how good parenting helps a child's mind function and grow.  And, very importantly, that once good parenting is happening, parents can relax with the knowledge that neuroscience finds that is all that is needed, there are not benefits to every increasing levels of play and responsiveness.

I hope you enjoy this program as much as I did.

To your health,
Dr. Lavin 










*Disclaimer* The comments contained in this electronic source of information do not constitute and are not designed to imply that they constitute any form of individual medical advice. The information provided is purely for informational purposes only and not relevant to any person's particular medical condition or situation. If you have any medical concerns about yourself or your family please contact your physician immediately. In order to provide our patients the best uninfluenced information that science has to offer,we do not accept samples of drugs, advertising tchotchkes, money, food, or any item from outside vendors.

2015-05-21

A Routine Immunization Turns out to Prevent Childhood Leukemia!

A Routine Immunization Turns Out
to Prevent Childhood Leukemia!

Most surprises about medical treatments are bad, so when a good surprise emerges, it is cause for real celebration.

It turns out the children who get the Hib immunization reduce their chances of developing the most common form of childhood leukemia by 20%!

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/05/20/scientists-unravel-how-a-vaccine-reduces-risk-of-a-cancer/?ref=health&_r=0

http://www.nature.com/ni/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ni.3160.html

Hib is an abbreviation for a very nasty germ- Hemophilus influenza type b.  Hib once caused many cases of deadly meningitis (bacterial infection of the brain and spinal cord) in young children, as well as bacterial pneumonia, very serious deep skin infections, and the dreaded epiglottitis (a serious bacterial infection of the valve between your esophagus and airway- the epiglottis).

The Hib immunization has essentially eliminated the chance of an immunized child getting these dangerous infections from the Hib germ.   The Hib immunization provides protection as young as 6-8 weeks of age if the immunization is given then.   The recommended schedule is to have it at 2, 4, 6, and 15 or 18 months of age.   That leaves a child fully protected starting at 2 months of age and throughout the vulnerable period of early childhood.   Once you are over 4 years of age, the risk of these infections from Hib becomes quite remote.

At Advanced Pediatrics, we combine the Hib immunization with the polio and DTaP immunization in an immunization called Pentacel at 2, 4, and 6 months of age.  The 15 or 18 month old dose is given with the DTaP.

Now, how does a shot for meningitis prevent leukemia?
The evidence is now established that if a child develops a serious Hib infection during infancy or early childhood, it activates two genes leading to an increased chance of developing leukemia.

The Hib immunization prevents activation of these two genes, and then really does reduce the chance of a child developing leukemia.

Bottom Line
1.  Hib is a bacteria that causes deadly infections.
2.  The Hib immunization prevents infection from these infections.
3.  Children who get their Hib vaccine in early childhood reduce their chance of developing leukemia by 20%!
4.  In the ongoing discussion of immunizations, this news it truly extraordinary.  It is a tremendous gift that we have a very simple intervention that can actually reduce the chances of developing something as serious as leukemia.


To your health,
Dr. Arthur Lavin



*Disclaimer* The comments contained in this electronic source of information do not constitute and are not designed to imply that they constitute any form of individual medical advice. The information provided is purely for informational purposes only and not relevant to any person's particular medical condition or situation. If you have any medical concerns about yourself or your family please contact your physician immediately. In order to provide our patients the best uninfluenced information that science has to offer,we do not accept samples of drugs, advertising tchotchkes, money, food, or any item from outside vendors.

2015-05-19

When Being Right Can Still be Wrong- The Curious Impact of Overdiagnosis

When Being Right Can Still be Wrong- 
The Curious Impact of Overdiagnosis

There is a very curious aspect to the process of diagnosis.  It's called overdiagnosis, but it should be called causing more harm than good.   Overdiagnosis is defined as correctly identifying a problem or disease is present, but finding this out provides no benefit to the person, and may cause harm.

This is not misdiagnosis where one is told they have a condition when in fact they do not have that condition.   And, it is not the same as overtreatment where excess medication is prescribed or excess procedures are done whether the diagnosis is correct or not.  (Coon, et al, Overdiagnosis: How Our Compulsion for Diagnosis May be Harming Our Children, Pediatrics, Nov. 2014, pp. 1013-1023)

The problem of overdiagnosis is mostly discussed when it comes to some very prominent illnesses seen in adults, in particular three common cancers, prostrate, breast, and thyroid; but, is seen in a variety of pediatric conditions, some rare, but some common, as noted in the Pediatrics reference above.

An Example from the Adult World
A lot of adults will develop a lump in their thyroid gland sometime in their life.  The advent of imaging has allowed us to detect many more such lumps and so the rate of them being removed has gone up dramatically.  Often these lumps will contain a few cells that fit the definition of cancer.  Some call these micro-cancers.  They almost never spread, and it appears if they were not detect, no harm would happen.  But because of the advent of imaging and biopsing, the incidence of thyroid cancer in the US has tripled.  In South Korea, every adult is screened with a thyroid ultrasound, so there the incidence of thyroid cancer has gone up 15-fold, and there thyroid cancer is now the #1 most common cancer.  But, both in the US and South Korea, the chance of dying from thyroid cancer has not dropped, at all.  

Think about that for a moment.   In two nations, millions of people have been screened for thyroid cancer, and many, many more people than before have had their thyroid cancer long before it has spread anywhere.   And yet, despite early detection, and early intervention, no benefit materialized.

Even worse, the fact that no lives were saved means that those thousands and thousands of people told they had cancer would have been fine not finding out.  The incidence of permanent complications from thyroid surgery in South Korea has gone up dramatically.

So, not only was no benefit delivered, but great harm has been done.

This is the essence of overdiagnosis.

A great summary of this example, and of this subject overall is found in the May 11,2015 essay by the great Dr. Atul Gawande, originally from Youngstown, but now a major leader in re-thinking medical care at Harvard Medical School:  http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/05/11/overkill-atul-gawande

How Overdiagnosis shows up in Children
The review cited above in Pediatrics lists 11 illnesses that children can experience in which significant overdiagnosis may be happening.   The conditions range from gallstones in adolescents (which often are seen on a scan but turn out to be harmless 95% of the time), to jaundice in the newborn period (very, very common, but typically harmless), to hypercholestrolemia (new screening guidelines for 9-11 year olds could commit 200,000 children to drug therapy for no clear proof that it will help them).

A striking example involves the diagnosis of low oxygen levels in babies with bad respiratory infections.   Since the invention of oxygen monitoring devices, the chance a baby with a bad cold will get admitted to the hospital and placed on oxygen pending the level returning to normal, has jumped dramatically.  But despite all the extra oxygen and hospital care, the chance of a bad outcome with a bad cold in infancy has not changed at all over the last decade or two.  Here is a case where getting the diagnosis (in this case, your oxygen level is low) is correct, but not helpful.

A common example includes food allergies.    There are three tests for food allergies- a skin test, a blood test, and a what-happens-if-you-eat-it test.  The only one that really matters is seeing what happens if you eat the food.  It turns out that blood testing finds antibodies in the blood that might lead to allergic reaction, but it turns out that antibodies to a food are found about 7 times more often than actual reactions occur.  So a blood test can give you a diagnosis of food allergy, and does in about 17% of children, but a true allergic reaction only occurs in 2.5% of children.


BOTTOM LINES

  1. Diagnosis is all about getting it right.  
  2. But errors lurk in so many directions- one can say you have an illness or condition when you do not, or one can have the illness but still not need any intervention.
  3. Overdiagnosis is the error of being correct that someone has a problem, but finding that out offers them no benefit, and may cause serious problems from the unnecessary intervention.
  4. The best protection against overdiagnosis, misdiagnosis, and overtreatment, is accuracy in the diagnostic process.  That requires tremendous vigilance to details on how medical care is given, to avoid both overdoing and underdoing a level of investigation.
At Advanced Pediatrics, we are committed to thinking very carefully about how to not only be accurate in making diagnoses, but making sure doing so will actually translate into real benefit.


To your health,
Dr. Arthur Lavin

One more reference is a great book on this subject by H. Gilbert Welch and his team at Dartmouth:
Over-Diagnosed, Making People Sick in the Pursuit of Health (2011, Beacon Press)




*Disclaimer* The comments contained in this electronic source of information do not constitute and are not designed to imply that they constitute any form of individual medical advice. The information provided is purely for informational purposes only and not relevant to any person's particular medical condition or situation. If you have any medical concerns about yourself or your family please contact your physician immediately. In order to provide our patients the best uninfluenced information that science has to offer,we do not accept samples of drugs, advertising tchotchkes, money, food, or any item from outside vendors.