Sleep Apnea Increases Risk of Cancer

Obstructive sleep apnea has been getting accused of causing all sorts of medical problems including hypertension, stroke, heart disease, heart attacks, peripheral vascular disease, etc. We can also add cancer now.

According to Australian researchers, moderate to severe sleep apnea increases the risk of cancer by 2.5 times and death from cancer by 3.4 times. They also reported that sleep apnea increases risk of death (any cause) by 4.2x and stroke by 3.7x.

This conclusion was reached evaluating 397 subjects with obstructive sleep apnea with 20 years follow-up. Of course, further study is needed to confirm these findings.

If sleep apnea is suspected, the first step is to get a sleep study. Surgical options can also be considered which may encompass UPPP, base of tongue reduction, etc.

Source:
Sleep Apnea and 20-Year Follow-Up for All-Cause Mortality, Stroke, and Cancer Incidence and Mortality in the Busselton Health Study Cohort. Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine 2014;10(4):355-362.

Read More

Mouthwash May Increase Risk of Oral Cancer

Drinking alcoholic beverages is known to increase risk of oral cancer. It is now suspected that using mouthwash containing alcohol (i.e., original Listerine) may also increase risk for oral cancer.

When it comes to drinking alcoholic beverages like beer, individuals who consume 50 or more grams of alcohol per day (approximately 3.5 or more drinks per day) have at least a two to three times greater risk of developing oral cancer than nondrinkers. Moreover, the risk of cancer is substantially even higher among individuals who consume this amount of alcohol and also use tobacco.

What people may not realize is that some popular over-the-counter mouthwashes ALSO contain alcohol... quite a bit of it with some containing up to 27% of volume. Alcohol is added to provide flavor and "bite." For example, Listerine contains alcohol concentrations of 21.6% in the flavored product and 26.9% in the original gold Listerine Antiseptic.

Whether alcohol is introduced into the mouth via beer or mouthwash, carcinogenic risk is present.

According to one preliminary research, the risk of developing oral cancer from mouthwash containing alcohol is almost 5 times higher than those who do not. Subsequent small studies have not supported this cancer risk, but in 2014, research performed on 3,956 patients did find an independent increased risk of cancer if alcohol-containing mouthwash was used 3 or more times a day.

It is hypothesized that alcohol content in mouthwashes allows for carcinogens to penetrate into the mouth lining increasing cancer risk.

Given the possible increased risk of oral cancer, it may be worthwhile to avoid mouthwashes containing alcohol, especially given there are plenty of alcohol-free mouthwashes commercially sold.




References:
The role of alcohol in oral carcinogenesis with particular reference to alcohol-containing mouthwashes. Aust Dent J. 2008 Dec;53(4):302-5. doi: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2008.00070.x.

Carcinogenicity of alcoholic beverages Exit Disclaimer. Lancet Oncology 2007;8(4):292-293.

Interaction between tobacco and alcohol use and the risk of head and neck cancer: pooled analysis in the International Head and Neck Cancer Epidemiology Consortium. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention 2009;18(2):541-550.

Oral health, dental care and mouthwash associated with upper aerodigestive tract cancer risk in Europe: The ARCAGE study. Oral Oncol. 2014 Mar 26. pii: S1368-8375(14)00065-7. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2014.03.001

Read More

Should Risk of Death Always be Part of the Surgical Consent?

Ever since reports of alleged medical negligence came up in the case of 13 years old Jahi McMath who suffered cardiac arrest and subsequent brain death after a "routine" tonsillectomy that occurred Dec 9, 2013, the question has come up whether risk of death should become part of every single surgical procedure's informed consent no matter how rare that risk might be.

It also brings up the question whether patients would want to hear every single possible conceivable risk that may occur (which could ALWAYS include some infinitesimal risk of death) with even simple surgical procedure like ear tube placement for chronic ear infections.

[Disclaimer... I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.]

From the physician's perspective, Duke surgeons have thought about this quandary and here were their suggestions of what is considered "reasonable" when it comes to risk of death and the consent process:

• When the risk of death is so low as to be unexpected and highly improbable, including it as part of the consent may actually be misleading (may cause a patient not to pursue a needed surgical procedure due to unreasonable concern for a remote risk of death)
• When the risk of death is felt to be “high enough” to disclose, then this adverse outcome should be discussed among the risks, and the patient must be informed.
• How high should the risk of death be before one would want to include it as part of the consent process? This risk could be any chance at all to about 0.1% risk as a reasonable threshold.

From the patient's perspective, when it at least comes to anesthesia risks with children (which also has a remote risk of death), researchers were able to provide some numbers when it comes to consent:

• 87% of parents wanted to know the risk of death as a result of anesthesia. 13% did not.
• 68% of parents knew that risk of death was "extremely rare." 19% believed that risk of death occurs "once in a while," and 13% thought there was "no chance."
• 74% of parents wanted to know "all possible risks," 24% wanted to know only "those that are likely to occur," and 2% wanted to know only about those that would "result in significant injury."
• Mothers were more likely to want to hear all possible risks, whereas fathers were more likely to want to know only about those that are likely to occur.

Although media reports stated that Jahi underwent a "routine" tonsillectomy, that was actually not true. She underwent a UPPP surgery which is much more aggressive throat surgery than tonsillectomy alone. The reported risk of death with UPPP is around 0.2%. As such, disclosure of possible low risk of death would have been not unreasonable.

The risk of death for routine tonsillectomy is somewhere between 0.003% to 0.01%.

Just for comparison, the risk of dying from driving a car for over 50 years is 1.1% and annual risk of death from smoking 10 cigarettes per day is 0.5%. [Link] Note that these "mundane" risks of driving and smoking are higher than the risk of death associated with tonsillectomy or UPPP.

In the end, there is no set policy about when risk of death should be discussed. This disclosure has been left up to individual surgeons who use their professional judgement when that risk becomes large enough to merit discussion as part of the informed consent.

What do you think?


References:
Parental knowledge and attitudes toward discussing the risk of death from anesthesia. Anesth Analg. 1993 Aug;77(2):256-60.

Surgery and the D-Word: Approaching the Topic of Death and Dying with Surgical Patients. J Palliative Care Med 2:108. doi:10.4172/2165-7386.1000108

Risk perception and communication: recent developments and implications for anaesthesia. Anaesthesia 2001;56:745-55.

Risk language and dialects. BMJ 1997;315:939-42.

Safety of Adult Tonsillectomy: A Population-Level Analysis of 5968 Patients. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2014 Jan 30. doi: 10.1001/jamaoto.2013.6215.

Read More

Do Reflux Medications Increase Risk of Esophageal and Throat Cancer?

Image by Steven Fruitsmakk from Wikipedia

Over the last 30 years, the incidence of esophageal cancer has been steadily rising in spite of increased use of reflux medications. In fact, one can almost say that there is an inverse relationship between risk of esophageal cancer and reflux medication usage.

BUT, it is also a foregone conclusion that reflux increases the risk of esophageal and throat cancer too. So, why would there be an increased incidence of esophageal cancer when reflux is being better "controlled" now more than ever with medical acid suppression?

The answer might be bile... the substance made in the liver and secreted into the small intestine via the gallbladder. Bile is what helps the body digest dietary fat.

But when bile not uncommonly refluxes into the esophagus... bad things may happen, especially when acid production has been suppressed by reflux medications.

Disclaimer... The following is hypothetical and unproven.

Bile, if it happens to be in the esophagus or throat, is more destructive to the mucosal lining when acid is suppressed.

Bile salts/acids have fairly complicated acid-base properties, but an over-simplified explanation for the purpose of this blog is as follows.

Bile in a chemically unconjugated state has a pKa of 7. When such bile is in an acid environment (pH less than 6), it is insoluble and relatively harmless. However, when unconjugated bile enters a relatively alkaline environment (pH greater than 6), it becomes water soluble and "active" in its ability to damage mucosal linings.

As such, when acid suppression is induced by medications like zantac and prilosec, yes... the acid is suppressed but by the very fact that it raises the stomach and distal esophageal pH to a relative alkaline state, any bile that may be present now becomes activated and causes potentially just as much damage as acid.

And that's why over a prolonged period of time repeated bile exposure in a relative alkaline environment may explain why esophageal cancer incidence seems to be increasing as the use of acid reflux medications has increased.

Proof?

Regardless of the "how," does taking reflux medications actually increase risk of cancer???

In one study (2011), patients taking proton pump inhibitors were 61.3% to 81.5% more likely to develop esophageal pre-cancerous lesions or frank cancer (adenocarcinoma).

In another study published in the summer of 2013, it was found that patients with reflux were found to have a 78% increased risk of developing throat cancer. What researchers also found was that taking antacids for reflux (but NOT proton pump inhibitors or H2 blockers) seemed to protect against the development of throat cancer by 41% in patients with frequent heartburn.

To reiterate, antacids reduced risk of throat cancer... but NOT proton pump inhibitors like prilosec and H2 blockers like zantac.

Why? Because antacids work transiently to neutralize acid, but not suppress acid production whereas proton pump inhibitors and H2 blockers actually suppress acid production for a prolonged period of time.

The transient nature of acid neutralizers like TUMS allow for acid to still be produced thereby theoretically preventing bile from becoming soluble and damaging.

Prediction

So which is worse for you? Acid reflux or bile reflux? I'm not sure... but personally, I predict that once additional studies are performed that may ultimately strengthen the relationship between bile reflux and mucosal injury that may lead to cancer formation, reflux medications may go out-of-favor along with a class-action lawsuit. That's a big if... I might end up being completely wrong.

Of course, that may be the reason why drug companies specify that such reflux medications should not be used longer than 2 months and prescribing information stress "short-term" treatment rather than long-term.

More Confusion

We can also throw more mud into this messy predicament... Pepsin, which is a stomach enzyme that breaks down proteins, can also damage esophageal and laryngeal mucosa. However, it is most active in an acidic environment. Once pH levels rise above 6.5, pepsin becomes inactivated. At pH 8.0, it becomes irreversibly inactivated.

As such, acid and pepsin cause damage in an acidic environment. Taking reflux medications to eliminate the acid creates an alkaline environment.

However, an alkaline environment than activates bile which can also cause damage.

Treatment

So what to do?

Ideally, given this no-win situation, the best way to treat reflux would be to keep bile where it is supposed to be (in the small intestine) and acid/pepsin in the stomach where it is supposed to be.

As such, I suspect that even more emphasis will be placed on lifestyle/dietary changes for reflux control. Medication-wise, use of antacids and barrier-type medications like alginate will become the main way of treating reflux long-term while medications that suppress acid will be prescribed only for short-term treatment spans.

Surgical management of reflux will become much more accepted and popular for patients who suffer from bad reflux to try and restore proper anatomical compartmentalization of bile, acid, and pepsin. Surgical management will include LINX, TIF, Nissen, etc. (more info)

At the very least, certainly caution should be present when placing a patient on long-term acid suppression with medications like prilosec and zantac, especially when such medications are already known to cause a whole host of other problems including bone fractures, clostridium difficile infections,  and malabsorption of vitamins and minerals. (more info)

Special thanks to Dr. Kevin Gillian who assisted in writing this blog.


References:
Bile Acid. Wikipedia

Gastroesophageal reflux disease symptom severity, proton pump inhibitor use, and esophageal carcinogenesis. Arch Surg. 2011 Jul;146(7):851-8. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.2011.174.

Gastric Reflux Is an Independent Risk Factor for Laryngopharyngeal Carcinoma. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention. Published Online First May 23, 2013; doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-13-0183

The otolaryngologic manifestations of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD): a clinical investigation of 225 patients using ambulatory 24-hour pH monitoring and an experimental investigation of the role of acid and pepsin in the development of laryngeal injury. Laryngoscope. 1991 Apr;101(4 Pt 2 Suppl 53):1-78.

Bile reflux gastritis and Barrett's oesophagus: further evidence of a role for duodenogastro-oesophageal reflux? Gut 2001 Sep;49(3):359-63.

Acid and bile reflux in erosive reflux disease, non-erosive reflux disease and Barrett's esophagus. Hepatogastroenterology. 55 (82-83), 442-7.

The role of bile acids in the neoplastic progression of Barrett's esophagus - a short representative overview. Z Gastroenterol. 50 (9), 1028-34.

Read More

What are the Risks for Throat Cancer? (Humor)

Check out this info-advertisement photographed by Twitter user @durf showing the risks of throat cancer.

I truly think the American public is a bit smarter than this... though not perhaps in Ann Arbor, MI where this ad most likely got published (I suspect AATA is the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority). jk...

Read More

Popular Nasal Decongestants Associated with Birth Defects

Researchers have discovered that there is a very small, but significant association between birth defects and use of nasal decongestants in the first trimester of pregnancy. Unfortunately, decongestants (ie sudafed, afrin, etc) are also one of the most popular medications purchased over-the-counter to treat symptoms of nasal congestion, runny nose, and allergies.

In particular, three strong associations were found:

• Phenylephrine and endocardial cushion defects
• Phenylpropanolamine and ear defects
• Phenylpropanolamine and pyloric stenosis

Although these associations were related to ORAL decongestant use and first trimester intake, it was also found that intra-nasal decongestant use during the first trimester was associated with pyloric stenosis and tracheo-esophageal fistula.

Taken in summary, it is perhaps ideal that women in their first trimester of pregnancy avoid decongestant use due to a possible association between birth defects and medication usage. This association accounts for a VERY small percentage increase in birth defects and as such more study is needed.

For example, the baseline prevalence of endocardial cushion defect is 0.34 per 1,000 live births. Phenylephrine exposure increases this risk 8-fold resulting in 2.7 per 1,000 live births. That's an overall increased risk of only 0.27%.

Keep in mind that all these over-the-counter products contain a decongestant ingredient:

• Afrin
• Sudafed
• Tylenol Cold Multi-Symptom Nighttime
• Alka-Seltzer Plus Cold
• Delsym Night Time Multi-Symptom
• Tylenol Cold Multi-Symptom Severe
• Tylenol Cold & Flu Severe
• Vicks Dayquil Cold & Flu Relief
• Benadryl Allergy Plus Sinus Headache
• Theraflu Warming Relief Nighttime Severe Cold & Cough
• Vicks Nyquil Sinus
• Acutrim
• Dexatrim
• Afrin
• Zicam
etc, etc, etc

So what is a pregnant woman to do if her nose gets all stuffed up and wants to avoid decongestant medications to eliminate any possible risk of birth defects? Click here for some suggestions.

Source:
Use of Decongestants During Pregnancy and the Risk of Birth Defects. Am. J. Epidemiol. (2013) doi: 10.1093/aje/kws427

Read More

OSA is a Risk for Sudden Cardiac Death

Mayo Clinic researchers have determined that not only does OSA (obstructive sleep apnea) lead to increased risk of stroke, cardiac arrest, hypertension, vascular disease, etc but it can also increase the risk of sudden cardiac death, usually due to a fatal cardiac arrhythmia. This conclusion was reached after tracking thousands of men and women with sleep apnea for up to 15 years of whom 142 had sudden cardiac deaths or arrests who were resuscitated.

These sudden cardiac arrests occurred mainly at night, 60 years of age or older, with AHI scores of 20 or greater, and having low blood levels of oxygen. When oxygen saturation was 78% or less, the risk of sudden cardiac arrest increased by 80%. Normal oxygen saturation is 95-100%.

Unfortunately, the study failed to address whether those who used a CPAP machine (continuous positive airway pressure) or underwent surgical intervention to correct the OSA had a reduced risk of sudden cardiac death.

Such surgical intervention to treat OSA include UPPP and base of tongue reduction. Sedated endoscopy may be required to determine where the obstruction occurs anatomically before deciding on a surgical course of action.

Source:
Sleep Apnea May Boost Risk of Sudden Cardiac Death. WebMD 6/11/13

Reference:
Obstructive Sleep Apnea and the Risk of Sudden Cardiac Death: A Longitudinal Study of 10,701 Adults. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;():. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2013.04.080

Read More

Taking Too Much Vitamins May Even Cause Cancer

Image by David Richfield from Wikipedia

Too much of anything can be harmful... even vitamins which people seem to consider benign regardless of how much is taken. In fact, taking regular large doses of vitamins  (greater than 150% of what is recommended per day) actually INCREASES the risk of cancer.

To be clear, vitamins and supplements are great, but only when taking the recommended daily amount in a normal, healthy individual. Supplements may be necessary only if there's a deficiency, but not when you are a healthy individual.

The New York Times wrote a nice expose regarding this issue along with why the FDA doesn't say anything about it (vitamin lobbyists passed a law in 1976 prohibiting the FDA from saying anything).

So, let's take a look at the studies mentioned in the NYT documenting the adverse affects of too much vitamins:

The effect of vitamin E and beta carotene on the incidence of lung cancer and other cancers in male smokers. The Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta Carotene Cancer Prevention Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1994 Apr 14;330(15):1029-35.

"Unexpectedly, we observed a higher incidence of lung cancer among the men who received beta carotene than among those who did not (change in incidence, 18 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, 3 to 36 percent)... more deaths from hemorrhagic stroke were observed among the men who received this supplement than among those who did not. Total mortality was 8 percent higher (95 percent confidence interval, 1 to 16 percent) among the participants who received beta carotene than among those who did not, primarily because there were more deaths from lung cancer and ischemic heart disease."

Effects of a combination of beta carotene and vitamin A on lung cancer and cardiovascular disease. N Engl J Med. 1996 May 2;334(18):1150-5.

"After an average of four years of supplementation, the combination of beta carotene and vitamin A had no benefit and may have had an adverse effect on the incidence of lung cancer and on the risk of death from lung cancer, cardiovascular disease."

Meta-analysis: high-dosage vitamin E supplementation may increase all-cause mortality. Ann Intern Med. 2005 Jan 4;142(1):37-46. Epub 2004 Nov 10.

A dose-response analysis showed a statistically significant relationship between vitamin E dosage and all-cause mortality, with increased risk of dosages greater than 150 IU/d.

Antioxidant supplements for preventing gastrointestinal cancers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004 Oct 18;(4):CD004183.

We could not find evidence that antioxidant supplements prevent gastrointestinal cancers. On the contrary, they seem to increase overall mortality.

Antioxidant supplements for prevention of mortality in healthy participants and patients with various diseases. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Mar 14;3:CD007176. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007176.pub2.

We found no evidence to support antioxidant supplements for primary or secondary prevention. Beta-carotene and vitamin E seem to increase mortality, and so may higher doses of vitamin A. Antioxidant supplements need to be considered as medicinal products and should undergo sufficient evaluation before marketing.

There are many more studies that show the adverse affects of taking mega-vitamins as well as additional studies that show that taking mega-vitamins makes absolutely no difference. Of course, with any medical issue, there are also studies that support the consumption of mega-vitamins, but the studies are not as rigorous nor as conclusive.

What to do?

I would suggest taking a regular multi-vitamin daily which contains enough vitamins to supplement any deficiencies that may occur from insufficient dietary intake... Otherwise, additional vitamin supplementation is not necessary unless a known deficiency is present.

Read More

Dangerous Tongue Patch Procedure for Weight Loss

Image from Wikipedia

There is a clinic in Beverly Hills who has been offering a risky "tongue patch" procedure in order to achieve weight loss of about 30 pounds in a single month. Although this clinic is currently the only one providing this "service" in the United States, it has been performed in Venezuela for quite some time.

In essence, a mesh made of marlex typically used for hernia repair is surgically sutured to the back area of the tongue and left in place for up to one month. While in place, this postage-stamp sized patch causes extreme discomfort if not pain whenever eating leading to a decrease in food ingestion and therefore weight loss. This non-FDA approved procedure is paired with a 800 calorie liquid diet.

In a normal swallow, the back of the tongue is required to help propel food down into the throat. With a patch in place, this step of the swallow becomes disrupted. Watch video to see how swallowing works here.

Does the concept work? In theory yes via starvation (hurts too much to swallow)...

Are there problems with it?

Absolutely and may even be considered highly unethical.

This procedure is associated with substantial risk including difficulty talking (you do need a tongue that moves well to enunciate words), infection, swelling, tissue overgrowth, and potential to dislodge leading to possible airway obstruction.

Why would somebody even consider this procedure? Well, if diet and exercise just doesn't work and financially, a desperate patient can't afford gastric lap band or bypass surgery... that's why some patients have pursued it.

Source:
Tongue Patch Surgery: Risky Weight Loss Procedure Draws Criticism. Yahoo News 6/5/13

Read More

Reflux Increases Risk of Throat Cancer by 78%

Brown University researchers found that frequent heartburn was an independent risk factor for not only esophageal cancer but also cancer of the throat and vocal cords. This conclusion was based on a large population study involving 631 patients with throat cancer and 1,234 without throat cancer as a control group.

The study group also did not heavily smoke, drink, or have HPV (other independent risk factors for throat cancer).

Individuals with frequent heartburn were found to have a 78% increased risk of developing throat cancer. What researchers also found was that taking antacids for reflux (but not proton pump inhibitors or H2 blockers) seemed to protect against the development of throat cancer by 41% in patients with frequent heartburn.

The explanation for how reflux can cause throat cancer is similar to how it can also cause esophageal cancer. With repetitive mucosal injury by gastric juices to the delicate lining of the throat, there is a cycle of healing and injury that may eventually trigger cancer development. Patients with reflux that reaches the throat level have a condition called LPR or laryngopharyngeal reflux. Although symptoms may be similar to the more common GERD, it is not unusual for patients to experience only throat symptoms without the heartburn. Such atypical symptoms include:

• Chronic cough
• Phlegmy throat
• Chronic throat clearing
• Vocal cord dysfunction
• Globus pharyngeus

It is also notable that it takes far less reflux episodes in the throat region compared to the esophagus in order to trigger mucosal damage... it takes fewer than THREE episodes per WEEK! [link]

In any case, more research is needed to determine at what point cancer risk increases in individuals with LPR, what type of reflux (acid?, non-acid?, pepsin?, bile?) triggers cancer concern, to what degree of reflux prevention is required to protect against cancer development.

Also more needs to be done to figure out why antacids help reduce cancer risk, but not other types of reflux medications.

References:
Gastric Reflux Is an Independent Risk Factor for Laryngopharyngeal Carcinoma. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention. Published Online First May 23, 2013; doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-13-0183

The otolaryngologic manifestations of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD): a clinical investigation of 225 patients using ambulatory 24-hour pH monitoring and an experimental investigation of the role of acid and pepsin in the development of laryngeal injury. Laryngoscope. 1991 Apr;101(4 Pt 2 Suppl 53):1-78.

Read More

Snoring is Bad for the Heart? Not so fast...

This past week, media has both aired and published a story regarding new research that suggests snoring WITHOUT obstructive sleep apnea may lead to potential increased risk of heart disease as well as stroke.

Apparently, researchers in Michigan examined the data of 913 patients between the ages of 18 and 50 who had undergone a sleep study between 2006 and 2012. None had been diagnosed with sleep apnea, but did have significant snoring. These patients underwent an ultrasound that measured the thickness of the carotid artery inner lining. The thicker the inner lining of the carotid artery, the higher the risk for carotid artery disease and stroke.

The researchers found that in their patient population, the carotid arteries were thicker in snorers than in non-snorers. In fact, these abnormal changes were comparable to smokers, diabetics, and patients with hypertension.

Unfortunately, their findings have not yet been published (though submitted to the journal Laryngoscope), but was presented at the Combined Sections Meeting of the Triological Society in Scottsdale, Arizona held between January 24-26, 2013.

However, this is not the first study to show a link between snoring and heart disease. Hungarian researchers in 2008 reported that loud snorers were at significantly higher risk for stroke and heart disease in their study population of 12,642 subjects.

Contradictory Research: Snoring is NOT Bad for the Heart

Now, before every snorer goes into a panic regarding the fact that they snore, even if there are no problems with obstructive sleep apnea confirmed on sleep study, consider this...

Australian researchers published findings in 2012 that snoring did NOT increase risk for heart disease and mortality regardless of whether the patient suffered from sleep apnea or not. Their population study group consisted of 380 subjects.

What's Going On?

Admittedly, the burden of epidemiological evidence does suggest a link between snoring alone and potential increased risks for stroke and heart disease. But the very factors that predispose to snoring are also associated with other diseases that confound a conclusive relationship. Such other confounding factors include obesity, hypertension, diet, age, smoking, and alcohol consumption. When ignoring snoring-related health issues, there are numerous other confounding factors including periodontal disease, personality, stress, sedentary lifestyle, etc.

A study I would like to see to help clear the confusion regarding the risk of snoring would be to examine a large population of subjects who snore, but who are all skinny, non-smokers, non-alcohol drinkers, not diabetic, do not have high blood pressure, eat a balanced healthy diet, do not have a type A personality, good teeth, exercise daily, and lead a relatively stress-free life.

Any takers???

Assuming Snoring DOES Lead to Elevated Risk

The simplistic reason this may occur is due to acoustic and vibrational trauma that gets transmitted from the airway to the carotid arteries located nearby in the neck. Such snore-induced vibrational trauma leads to micro-injury to the inner lining of the carotid artery leading to thickening.

With thickening, the carotid arteries in essence become more narrow leading to increased risk of stroke.

Such vascular injury can also lead to increased levels of catecholamines that can lead to similar changes elsewhere in the body including the heart.

Of course, there are more complex variables at play which requires more complex answers, but that's beyond the scope of this blog.

Treatment

Snoring is unfortunately a complex problem to fix and does require some testing to fully evaluate and treat successfully. Such tests include fiberoptic laryngoscopy, sleep study and sedated endoscopy.


Source:
Snoring May Be as Bad as Smoking for Your Heart. Medical Daily 1/24/13

References:
Cardiovascular Disease and Health-Care Utilization in Snorers: a Population Survey. Sleep 2008 Mar;31(3):411-6.

Snoring Is Not Associated With All-Cause Mortality, Incident Cardiovascular Disease, or Stroke in the Busselton Health Study. Sleep. 2012 Sep 1;35(9):1235-40. doi: 10.5665/sleep.2076.

Read More

Parkinson's Disease Diagnosed by Salivary Gland Biopsy

Taken from Wikipedia

Currently, diagnosing Parkinson's Disease (a degenerative neurological disorder) is hard, usually a clinical exam and assessment of symptoms by a neurologist with at best about an 80% accuracy rate. There is no "test" per se that can diagnose Parkinson's Disease... until possibly now.

According to a study released in advance of its presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, which will be held from March 16 to 23 in San Diego, Mayo Clinic researchers have determined a submandibular gland biopsy can offer 82% certainty whether a living patient has Parkinson's Disease or not. What is so special about this particular gland located under the jawline?

In patients with Parkinson's Disease, an uniquely abnormal protein called alpha-synuclein protein can be found.

In order to "biopsy" the submandibular gland which produces saliva, it does require a head and neck surgeon given the gland's location under the jawline. Beyond the usual risks of bleeding and infection present with any type of surgery, additional risks with this biopsy include:

• Permanent lip paralysis as the nerve that goes to the lower lip is located right over this gland.
• Permanent tongue paralysis as the nerve that moves the tongue is located right under this gland.
• Permanent numbness of the mouth floor as the nerve that provides sensation in this location is also located right under the gland.

Also, there are questions that need to be answered before this test is available more widely including:

How early in the Parkinson's Disease will this protein accumulate in the submandibular gland? If there is an "accumulation" time period, when is the best time to do the biopsy than?

Does the biopsy require a bloc of tissue or can a needle biopsy be sufficient (thereby reducing some of the surgical risks)?

Will insurance pay for this procedure?

Also, when is the paper going to be published regarding these results and can others replicate these findings? Here's the presentation abstract...

Source:
New saliva gland test may better diagnose patients with Parkinson's. FoxNews 1/11/13

Salivary Gland Biopsy as a Diagnostic Test for Parkinson's Disease. AAN 65th Annual Meeting Abstract

Read More

Coffee Reduces Risk of Death from Oral Cancer

In a prior blog, I mentioned that researchers found that regular coffee drinkers who drank more than four cups of coffee a day had a 39 percent decreased risk of two types of head and neck cancer: oral cavity and pharynx cancers. In the study published in the Journal of Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, they found however, that coffee did not decrease the risk of laryngeal cancer. Read a CNN report on this here.

In a more recent study (Dec 2012), researchers have found that not only does coffee reduce risk of cancer, but that consuming more than four cups of caffeinated coffee per day was associated with a 49 percent lower risk of oral/pharyngeal cancer death relative to no/occasional coffee intake.

Coffee contains over 1,000 different chemical compounds, including cancer-fighting antioxidants, and it’s those antioxidants that may provide a “plausible explanation” for reducing the cancer risk as well as cancer death.

However, patients should not take this study as an excuse to increase their coffee intake specifically to counteract known cancer-causing behaviors including smoking, drinking alcohol, and chewing tobacco.

Reference:
Coffee and Tea Intake and Risk of Head and Neck Cancer: Pooled Analysis in the International Head and Neck Cancer Epidemiology Consortium. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2010 Jul;19(7):1723-36. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-10-0191. Epub 2010 Jun 22.

Coffee, Tea, and Fatal Oral/Pharyngeal Cancer in a Large Prospective US Cohort. American Journal of Epidemiology, 2012 DOI: 10.1093/aje/kws222

Read More

Is Social Media Bad for Doctors?

I was recently asked to participate as a speaker in a panel discussion on social media next year in Canada and while preparing my thoughts on this subject, I was pondering several big questions regarding the why and pitfalls of social media for healthcare professionals.

There's the obvious "WHY" a physician should participate in social media.

But perhaps even a more basic concern for a physician deciding whether to pursue social media or not is whether it may even be a bad idea.

Beyond the obvious medico-legal issues regarding private medical information (HIPAA, HITECH, etc, etc), there is perhaps an underlying fear of having their online persona hijacked by negative publicity, whether warranted or not.

In essence, as Sensei Marketing pointed out succinctly in a blog post, could social media actually create bad customers or in our case, patients???

It happened to McDonalds when their hashtag #McDStories was hijacked by a mob of angry trolls as well as real customers with negative stories.

Sensei Marketing's belief in the evils of social media was summarized quite simply:

"people deep down are bullies or at the very least indifferent to bullying."

Assuming the general populace, which includes patients, are all bullies deep down, social media allows for (borrowing from Sensei Marketing):

• No Guilt - Easy to condemn or accuse
• The Mob - If lots of people are doing it, it just makes it that much easier for an individual to justify doing it too.
• Anonymity - Being unidentifiable allows for those who ordinarily would have exercised restraint, to vocalize (or type) without fear.
• No Accountability - With anonymity, there is no repercussion or punishment 
• Streisand Effect - If an individual (or doctor) tries to combat a negative rating or comment, it just brings more attention to it. More on this effect as it pertains to physicians here.

There are already numerous doctor rating websites where patients are encouraged to critique their doctor. Doctor rating sites are also universally reviled by physicians for one reason or another.

Could social media be just another further extension of doctor rating websites, except now the physician is doing it to himself inviting another avenue for public ridicule or even attack?

The answer is yes...

BUT, a physician should not avoid social media for fear of risk. In fact, a physician should pursue social media not just for (free) marketing or informational purposes, but also to control risk! I also have a more optimistic view of human nature (we are NOT all bullies deep down).

Unlike doctor rating websites where a physician has little recourse to combat negative comments justified or not, social media CAN be controlled, shaped, and monitored by the physician.

Bullying or negative comments will occur online whether a physician likes it or not. Whether through a doctor rating website or not. Whether there is a social media presence or not.

As such, the absence of a social media presence may in fact promote physician brand negativity given there is no public competing positive voice... namely, your own.

Furthermore, even if you are a wonderful doctor without a bad word anywhere online, in this day and age... an absent presence is increasingly becoming interpreted by the public as a negative, especially when a google search, which takes into account social media presence, often decides who a patient ultimately decides to see.


Source:
Is Social Media Bad For Business? Forbes 11/11/12

Social Media is Creating Bad Customers. Sensei Marketing

Read More

Cheerleading A Dangerous Sport from an ENT Perspective

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) published its first policy statement regarding cheerleading due to the increasing rate of injuries found in this increasingly competitive sport.

Who knew that although the overall risk of injury is lower than other sports, it has one of the highest rates of catastrophic injuries including closed-head injury, skull fractures, cervical spine injuries, paralysis, and even death.

After all, cheerleaders do not wear protective gear and safety is utterly dependent on external factors such as spotters and floor protection.

From an ENT perspective of a solo private practice, cheerleading is one of the leading causes of facial fractures in a student population.

Such fractures include nasal bone and orbital blow-out fractures sustained from elbows and other flying limbs.

Although AAP made 12 recommendation to make this sport safer, I was going to suggest that all cheerleaders should wear face-guards to minimize risk of facial trauma.

Here's one called Mueller Nose Guard. Available for purchase on Amazon.com.

Reference:
Cheerleading Injuries: Epidemiology and Recommendations for Prevention. Pediatrics 2012;130:966-971.

Read More

Why Are Some Patients Sensitive to Narcotics and Others are Not?

Blame cytochrome P450 2D6, also known as CYP2D6.

Found in the liver, it is responsible for metabolizing drugs including many narcotics.

It also determines how "sensitive" a patient is to these drugs.

For example, codeine is not bioactive until it is metabolized by CYP2D6 into morphine, the bioactive form that helps with pain.

As such, how "sensitive" a patient is to codeine is determined by how active their CYP2D6 is. The more active, the more quickly codeine is converted into morphine. The less active it is, the less morphine is created and the less pain control a patient will have when taking codeine as prescribed.

Due to the wide variability in its expression in the liver among patient populations, there will be a correspondingly large variation in how sensitive patients are to such drugs depending on how active CYP2D6 is expressed in the liver.

Such variability accounts for normal, reduced, and non-existent CYP2D6 function in patients.

• Poor Metabolizers – These patients have little or no CYP2D6 function. (Codeine will provide poor pain control.)
• Intermediate Metabolizers – These patients metabolize drugs at a rate somewhere between the poor and extensive metabolizers. (Codeine will provide some pain control.)
• Extensive (Normal) Metabolizers – These patients have normal CYP2D6 function . (Codeine will provide safe and appropriate pain control.)
• Ultra-Rapid Metabolizers – These patients have multiple copies CYP2D6 and therefore greater-than-normal CYP2D6 function. (Codeine will provide dangerous levels of pain control.)

Additionally, certain genetic variations of CYP2D6 will result in normal, decreased, or no CYP2D6 function.

Additionally, certain medications can inhibit or induce CYP2D6 functionality [read more]. Most importantly to ENT surgeons, decadron which is a steroid commonly given during or after tonsillectomy surgery increases CYP2D6 function.

This CYP2D6 variability and in particular the existence of ultra-rapid metabolizers is the reason why narcotics are strongly discouraged in the pediatric population after surgery. There have been deaths associated with codeine due to respiratory depression in those patients who have a super-active CYP2D6 resulting in too-high morphine production. High morphine levels can potentially lead a patient to stop breathing which ultimately can lead to anoxic brain injury and even death.

There is ethnic variability with CYP2D6 functionality as well. Poor metabolizers are found in less than 10% of whites, asians, and blacks. However, Middle Eastern and North African populations have a relatively higher occurrence of ultra-rapid metabolizers.

References:

More codeine fatalities after tonsillectomy in North American children. Pediatrics. 2012 May;129(5):e1343-7. Epub 2012 Apr 9.

Preventing opioid-related deaths in children undergoing surgery. Pain Med. 2012 Jul;13(7):982-3; author reply 984. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2012.01419.x. Epub 2012 Jun 13.

Comparison of three CYP2D6 probe substrates and genotype in Ghanaians, Chinese and Caucasians. Pharmacogenetics. 1998 Aug;8(4):325-33.

Unique CYP2D6 activity distribution and genotype-phenotype discordance in black Americans. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2002 Jul;72(1):76-89.

Frequent occurrence of CYP2D6 gene duplication in Saudi Arabians. Pharmacogenetics. 1997 Jun;7(3):187-91.

Read More

Deaths Associated with Codeine Usage in Young Kids

For decades, surgeons have provided young children with prescriptions for pain control after tonsillectomy and/or adenoidectomy surgery, most commonly tylenol with codeine (otherwise known as tylenol #3). Millions upon millions of such prescriptions have been filled and taken without any problems, but there is now a growing concern that such narcotics may be causing more harm than good in a small percentage of kids and perhaps an even greater percentage where it absolutely does nothing. Furthermore, it has now become the subject of an FDA investigation.

Why the sudden concern?

There has been a small but increasing number of children who have suffered anoxic brain damage and even fatalities due to respiratory suppression associated with codeine use. This association was not figured out until recently as such unfortunate incidences were initially felt to be due to medication overdosage, poor care, and/or surgical error.

But now, it is felt that such adverse events were probably due to the administration of codeine itself.

What's going on?

All of the children who died following codeine administration had extra copies of the liver enzyme CYP2D6 which metabolizes codeine to its more potent form morphine [study]. Referred to as ultra-rapid metabolizers, these children metabolize codeine so rapidly to morphine that it leads to respiratory depression or arrest. Substituting codeine for hydrocodone, oxycodone, or other opioids is also unsafe as such narcotics are also metabolized by CYP2D6 and cause even more problems because the CYP2D6 metabolites of hydrocodone and oxycodone are even more potent than morphine. (Of course, on the flip side, there are patients who have minimal CYP2D6 functionality which leads to minimal if any pain relief with codeine.)

Although rare, there has been an increasing number of case reports describing children who have died after receiving codeine for post-operative pain, particularly after tonsillectomy. The most recent report published in 2012 documented the cases of three children who died after receiving standard treatment with tylenol with codeine after tonsillectomy between 2010 and 2011. However, these are only the known documented cases.

Given how rare, changing prescribing patterns may not be warranted... BUT...

What about the possibility that there may be numerous other cases which are not documented or close-calls? As we all know, for every documented case, there's probably numerous other undocumented cases.

To investigate this possibility, a close proxy would be to look at malpractice lawsuits after tonsillectomy. This report did just that looking closely at lawsuits stemming from tonsillectomy complications between 1984 and 2010 and found that the incidence of codeine-related deaths was much higher than the researchers expected. They found that 18 percent of death claims and 5 percent of injury claims resulted from the use of opioids, largely codeine. Indeed, after bleeding, opioid usage was the second most common cause of death in patients after tonsillectomy.

Additionally, death and anoxic brain injury claims associated with narcotic usage were associated with the greatest indemnity with a median payment of more than $900,000 per case.

Though likely impossible to do retrospectively, it would have been interesting to see whether all these children in these lawsuits had multiple CYP2D6 copies or not.

Alternatives to Narcotics

First, there is the question whether tylenol with codeine even helps with pain. Apparently not according to one study. In fact, children who took tylenol alone resumed a normal diet more quickly than kids who received codeine.

In fact, tylenol with codeine is associated with adverse side effects (nausea, dizziness, vomiting, etc) in up to 79% of children who take it [link].

Ibuprofen may also be given for pain control. Though ibuprofen theoretically can increase risk of bleeding due to its anti-platelet activity, numerous studies have not found this to be true.

Given codeine helps minimally with pain and tylenol alone seems to provide adequate pain control, why even given narcotics, especially given the small but significant risk of death associated with this drug?

Pain Control Protocol

Based on all these findings, we feel that narcotics for pain control after tonsillectomy for kids under 7 years of age is not recommended.

Rather, the following protocol is what we will now be implementing:

Tylenol and Ibuprofen over-the-counter as needed to help with pain control. The dosing is weight-based and exact dosing for a given child can be found on the bottle. These medications can be given alternating between Tylenol and ibuprofen every 3-4 hours (Tylenol first, followed by ibuprofen 3-4 hours later, followed by Tylenol 3-4 hours after that, etc). A prescription for a single dose of steroids is also provided which is meant as a one-time dose that can be given anytime 3 days after surgery if the child suddenly seems to have significantly more pain that is not controlled with Tylenol and ibuprofen. Pain in this scenario is often due to inflamed tissues that can be quickly minimized with steroids.

Source:
FDA Drug Safety Communication: Codeine use in certain children after tonsillectomy and/or adenoidectomy may lead to rare, but life-threatening adverse events or death. FDA 8/15/12

Post-Operative Pain in Children Undergoing Tonsillectomy. ENT Today. Sept 2012.

FDA Investigates Codeine Safety After Children’s Deaths. ABC News. 8/15/12

References:
More codeine fatalities after tonsillectomy in North American children. Pediatrics. 2012 May;129(5):e1343-7. Epub 2012 Apr 9.

Preventing opioid-related deaths in children undergoing surgery. Pain Med. 2012 Jul;13(7):982-3; author reply 984. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2012.01419.x. Epub 2012 Jun 13.

Complications and legal outcomes of tonsillectomy malpractice claims. Laryngoscope. 2012 Jan;122(1):71-4. doi: 10.1002/lary.22438. Epub 2011 Nov 10.

Acetaminophen versus acetaminophen with codeine after pediatric tonsillectomy. Laryngoscope. 2000 Nov;110(11):1824-7.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and perioperative bleeding in paediatric tonsillectomy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005 Apr 18;(2):CD003591.

Read More

Pacifier Use Increases Risk of Ear Infections in Infants

There are many reasons why an infant may suffer from ear infections... parental smoking, not breast-feeding, daycare, etc.

However, what many parents may not realize is that pacifier use is also an additional well-known independent risk factor for causing ear infections as well.

Numerous studies have documented this association and depending on what study you look at, the risk can be quite significant.

Furthermore, the longer and more frequently the pacifier is used, the more ear infections a child can have.

As such, it is suggested that pacifiers should be used only during the first 10 months of life and only when need for sucking is strongest.

Of course, pacifier do have benefits including analgesic effects, shorter hospital stays for preterm infants, and a reduction in the risk of sudden infant death syndrome.

References:
A pacifier increases the risk of recurrent acute otitis media in children in day care centers. Pediatrics. 1995 Nov;96(5 Pt 1):884-8.

Pacifier as a risk factor for acute otitis media: A randomized, controlled trial of parental counseling. Pediatrics. 2000 Sep;106(3):483-8.

Is pacifier use a risk factor for acute otitis media? A dynamic cohort study. Fam Pract. 2008 Aug;25(4):233-6. Epub 2008 Jun 17.

Risks and benefits of pacifiers. Am Fam Physician. 2009 Apr 15;79(8):681-5.

Read More

Sheryl Crow Blames Brain Tumor on Cell Phone Use

On the inaugural episode of Katie Couric's new talk show Katie, Sheryl Crow described her history with a brain tumor called meningioma which was found in her right temporal lobe. This diagnosis was reported in a previous blog post.

Most interestingly, during the show, she blames the meningioma on excessive cell phone use years ago when she was on the phone for hours promoting her records using one of those archaic analog cell phones.

The relationship between cell phone use and brain tumors including benign tumors like meningioma has been discussed in prior blog posts.

Watch the interview here:

Read More

Allergies May Prevent Heart Attacks???

Research has been published suggesting an inverse relationship between serum IgE and heart attacks in the US population independent of coronary risk factors.

No kidding...

This conclusion was reached based analyzing 4002 participants between 2005-2006. They also detected that of the 7 "data-driven, prespecified allergen clusters," house dust mite was the only allergen cluster for which serum IgE is associated with reduced risk for heart attack.

For those wondering, serum IgE is a rough measure of how allergic a patient is generally speaking without any specification of what the patient may be allergic to. It is obtained by bloodwork (RAST or immunoCAP).

The higher the IgE levels, the more allergic a patient is generally speaking. However, one must keep in mind that it may still be possible to be allergic even if IgE is low or vice versa.

Also, although there appears to be a relationship between IgE and heart attacks, it is doubtful it reaches clinical significance for any given patient. Rather, such conclusions may apply to a general population. This study was also retrospective and as such, it would be nice if a new study now looked at a group of allergic patients and see how many suffer heart attacks in the future.

Such un-intuitive relationships just goes to show how complex the human body is where one thing doesn't cause one problem, but rather one thing may affect multiple different aspects of human health.

Now why would IgE and/or allergies in general influence heart attack risk?

Well heart attacks are due to vascular disease (blockage of the coronary artery). Vascular disease is thought to be influenced by how much inflammation is present in the body. The more inflammation present, the higher the risk of vascular disease which in turn increases heart attack rates.

One factor thought to influence the degree of inflammation present in the body is the immune system, and allergies is one part of the immune system.

As such, allergies could be a reflection of what the immune system is doing which in turn influences the degree of inflammation present in the body which in turn affects vascular disease which plays a role in heart attacks.

Reference:
Relation between objective measures of atopy and myocardial infarction in the United States. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. In Press Aug 27, 2012.

Read More