Guest guest Posted August 24, 2005 Report Share Posted August 24, 2005 " HSI - Jenny Thompson " <HSIResearch HSI e-Alert - Reality Double Check Wed, 24 Aug 2005 07:00:00 -0400 HSI e-Alert - Reality Double Check Health Sciences Institute e-Alert **************************************************** August 24, 2005 Dear Reader, My husband came running into the living room to see what was the matter. Apparently I had let out a yelp loud enough to give him the impression that the couch had burst into flames or something. I was in distress all right. But there was no need for fire extinguishers or a 911 call. I'd been watching ABC's World News Tonight when anchor Charles Gibson began a segment that he characterized as " a reality check. " (Insert yelp here.) Sorry, Charlie. Time for a double check on that " reality. " ----------- Nurses in pain ----------- ABC's " reality check " concerned a study just published in the American Heart Association (AHA) journal Hypertension. We'll take a quick look at the study and then get back to ABC in a moment. A team from Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH) at Harvard University analyzed data from the first and second Nurses' Health Studies. Using information from questionnaires, the researchers gathered data on hypertension and painkiller use in more than 5,000 women, ages 51-77 in the first study and ages 34-53 in the second study. None of the women had hypertension at the outset of either study. Results showed that aspirin intake had no association with the development of hypertension. But other painkillers didn't fare as well: * Women in the older age group who used an average of 400 mg of ibuprofen per day had an 80 percent increased risk of hypertension compared to women who didn't use ibuprofen. * Women in the younger group who used 400 mg of ibuprofen per day had a 60 percent increased risk of hypertension * Women in either group who took an average of 500 mg or more of acetaminophen daily were twice as likely to develop hypertension compared to women who didn't use the drug In the published study, the authors write: " Because acetaminophen and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are commonly used, they may contribute to the high prevalence of hypertension in the United States. " ----------- Follow the money ----------- In many e-Alerts I've taken studies to task when their designs were obviously flawed or the conclusions clearly biased. And basically that's all ABC did with the BWH study. Or that's how it appears on the surface. What made me yelp was this: I've never seen ABC take apart a study and criticize the design. In just the past month we've seen vitamin E and echinacea treated unfairly by flawed research that was widely reported. But in both those cases ABC just got in line with the rest of the mainstream press and reported only the negative results, not the glaring flaws. So why did ABC pick this study for a grilling? Well, there could be all sorts of reasons. But, hmmm, let's see, the possibility that comes to mind most readily is the fact that the network receives millions of dollars in advertising revenues from the makers of acetaminophen and ibuprofen products. Just a thought. ----------- Reality...checked ----------- Here's how the ABC piece went. Reporter John McKenzie stated that, " Many doctors today were unusually critical of this latest research, and they worried about the fear it could trigger. " Well heaven FORBID there should be any fear of these painkillers which have been PROVEN to cause gastrointestinal problems along with kidney and liver damage when taken in excess. But fears about vitamin E, which is safe and has been shown to promote heart health? Hey, no problem there. But who were these " many doctors " ? And in what context were they voicing their concerns? Did the doctors call a press conference? Or did an industry advocacy group issue a statement? Did the doctors contact ABC? Or did ABC contact the doctors? Mr. McKenzie doesn't say. He just refers to " many doctors. " And then quotes two. Here are the flaws in the BWH study, according to the doctor duo: * Researchers didn't measure the subjects' blood pressure, they relied on subjects to report on any diagnosis of hypertension * Researchers didn't count the pills subjects were taking - again they relied on the subjects to report painkiller intake * There was no follow up to see if the amount or type of painkillers taken at the beginning of the study changed by the end of the study * The study didn't rule out other potential causes of hypertension These are valid points, although a couple of them are fairly weak. For instance, if a nurse says she's been diagnosed with high blood pressure, well c'mon, she's a NURSE! She would know. What Mr. McKenzie doesn't note is that the researchers are well aware that their findings are not the last word on the question of a painkiller/hypertension link. In an AHA press release about the study, lead author, John Phillip Forman, M.D., states that more research is needed to confirm the findings, and adds, " It is important to emphasize that our study is not proof that these drugs will raise blood pressure in all women. Rather, women and their doctors should use caution when using these drugs. " That seems like a reasonable conclusion: Be cautious. Talk to your doctor. The ABC report, on the other hand, ends on this note: " The doctors told ABC News there's no reason for people to change how they're using these pain pills, at least not based on this study. " So if you're a middle-aged woman who's taking acetaminophen or ibuprofen daily, should you ignore this study and make no change in your painkiller use? Or should you be cautious and talk to your doctor? One of those suggestions is clearly flawed. **************************************************** ....and another thing " A cigar has a fire at one end and a fool at the other. " That's how journalist and newspaper editor Horace Greeley expressed his distaste for cigar smoking. In the rough and tumble newsrooms of the 19th Century, he was probably exposed to quite a bit of second hand smoke from nickel cigars and hand-rolled cigarettes. He may have never imagined that he was probably doing as much " smoking " as his stogie-loving and cigarette-smoking peers. Studies have revealed this general timeline of how second hand smoke affects the heart: * 5 minutes: The aorta begins to stiffen * 30 minutes: The blood begins to become " sticky " with activated blood platelets; damage to the artery linings begins; blood vessel dilation is reduced * 2 hours: Heart rhythm may become disturbed By some estimates, an eight-hour shift spent working in a smoky environment has the same effect on the cardiovascular system as smoking an entire pack of cigarettes. So in effect, a nonsmoker who spends day after day in such an environment is essentially a smoker. It's called " passive " smoking, but it's smoking nonetheless, and carries an equal risk of cancer, asthma, and heart attack that endangers everyday smokers. Fortunately, nonsmokers exposed to second hand smoke may get some cardiovascular protection with an adequate intake of vitamin C. Previous research suggests that lung cancer and cardiovascular problems triggered by passive smoking are associated with an increase in oxidative stress. A 2003 study from the University of California, Berkeley (UC), examined the effects of vitamin C and other nutrients on oxidative stress in 67 middle-aged nonsmokers who were regularly exposed to second hand smoke. Split into three groups, the subjects were given either 500 mg of vitamin C daily; a mix of vitamin C, E, and alpha-lipoic acid; or a placebo. After two months, researchers found that, compared to the placebo group, the vitamin C group showed a decrease in oxidative stress of more than 11 percent, and the nutrient mix group of almost 13 percent. Can an 11, 12, or 13 percent reduction in oxidative stress protect you from a heart attack triggered by passive smoking? The answer to that would depend on many variables. But any margin of safety is welcome when the heart is exposed to the dangers of second-hand smoke. To Your Good Health, Jenny Thompson **************************************************** Sources: " Non-Narcotic Analgesic Dose and Risk of Incident Hypertension in US Women " Hypertension, Published online before print, 8/15/05, hyper.ahajournals.org " Doctors Question Hypertension-Painkillers Link " John McKenzie, ABC News, 8/16/05, abcnews.go.com " Most Popular Painkillers Linked to High Blood Pressure in Women " American Heart Association press release, 8/17/05, medicalnewstoday.com " Vitamin C Supplementation Decreases Oxidative Stress biomarker f2-Isoprostanes in Plasma of Nonsmokers Exposed to Environmental Tobacco Smoke " Nutrition and Cancer, 2003; 45(2), 176-84, ncbi.nlm.nih.gov " Vitamin C to Counter Passive Smoking Damage " NutraIngredients.com, 8/6/03, nutraingredients.com ************************ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.