Skip to content

Category: Uncategorized

Published on Leave a comment on Loneliness Is a Health Risk

Loneliness or social isolation is a health risk that can increase the risk of chronic illness and premature death. Why?  Loneliness leads to fight-or-flight stress signaling, which can ultimately affect the production of white blood cells. Essentially, lonely people had a less effective immune response and more inflammation than non-lonely people. The study was part of the Chicago Health, Aging, and Social Relations Study (CHASRS) and followed 144 people over 10 years. From Science Daily:

Loneliness triggers cellular changes that can cause illness, study shows

Loneliness is more than a feeling: For older adults, perceived social isolation is a major health risk that can increase the risk of premature death by 14 percent.

Now a team of researchers, including U Chicago psychologist and leading loneliness expert John Cacioppo, has released a study shedding new light on how loneliness triggers physiological responses that can ultimately make us sick. The paper.... shows that loneliness leads to fight-or-flight stress signaling, which can ultimately affect the production of white blood cells. The study examined loneliness in both humans and rhesus macaques, a highly social primate species.

Previous research from this group had identified a link between loneliness and a phenomenon they called "conserved transcriptional response to adversity" or CTRA. This response is characterized by an increased expression of genes involved in inflammation and a decreased expression of genes involved in antiviral responses. Essentially, lonely people had a less effective immune response and more inflammation than non-lonely people.

For the current study, the team examined gene expression in leukocytes, cells of the immune system that are involved in protecting the body against bacteria and viruses. As expected, the leukocytes of lonely humans and macaques showed the effects of CTRA--an increased expression of genes involved in inflammation and a decreased expression of genes involved in antiviral responses. But the study also revealed several important new pieces of information about loneliness' effect on the body.

Next, the team investigated the cellular processes linking social experience to CTRA gene expression in rhesus macaque monkeys at the California National Primate Research Center, which had been behaviorally classified as high in perceived social isolation. Like the lonely humans, the "lonely like" monkeys showed higher CTRA activity. They also showed higher levels of the fight-or-flight neurotransmitter, norepinephrine.

Previous research has found that norepinephrine can stimulate blood stem cells in bone marrow to make more of a particular kind of immune cell--an immature monocyte that shows high levels of inflammatory gene expression and low levels of antiviral gene expression. Both lonely humans and "lonely like" monkeys showed higher levels of monocytes in their blood.

Taken together, these findings support a mechanistic model in which loneliness results in fight-or-flight stress signaling, which increases the production of immature monocytes, leading to up-regulation of inflammatory genes and impaired anti-viral responses. The "danger signals" activated in the brain by loneliness ultimately affect the production of white blood cells. The resulting shift in monocyte output may both propagate loneliness and contribute to its associated health risks.

Published on Leave a comment on Brains of Teen Football Players Don’t Fully Heal During the Off Season

This past week there was discussion of the number of high school football players that die annually while playing football (at least 5). But the bigger risk - because it involves so many players - is the damage to brains that occurs from concussions and from just being hit in football. The response from football enthusiasts is that there are safeguards now - that football players don't play after a concussion until they "heal" (show no obvious symptoms). But do they really heal? And much of the damage is from repeated hits, without having a concussion (sub-concussive blows or hits), what about the damage from that?

This study found that repeated head hits in football can cause changes in brain chemistry and metabolism, even in high school players not diagnosed with concussions. And even after the lengthy off-season (somewhere between two and five months after the season has ended)—the majority of players are still showing that they had not fully recovered. The researchers also made it clear that 2 weeks is not enough time to heal from a concussion. Scary long-term implications - what is happening to brains that never truly heal from past seasons as the players start playing in the next season? From Futurity:

High School Football: Teen Brains Don't Heal During Offseason

Brain scans of high school football players taken before, during, and after the season raise concerns they don’t fully recover from repeated head hits. The researchers used an imaging technique called proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy (1H MRS) to study the brains of 25 high school football players and compared them to the brains of teenagers involved in non-contact sports. The findings suggest repeated head hits in football can cause changes in brain chemistry and metabolism, even in players not diagnosed with concussions. 

“We are seeing damage not just to neurons, but also to the vasculature and glial cells in the brain,” says Eric Nauman, professor of mechanical engineering, basic medical sciences, and biomedical engineering at Purdue University. “I was particularly disturbed that when you get to the offseason—we are looking somewhere between two and five months after the season has ended—the majority of players are still showing that they had not fully recovered.”

The 1H MRS data provide details about the blood flow, metabolism, and chemistry of neurons and glial cells important for brain function. The data also revealed a “hypermetabolic response” during the preseason, as though the brain was trying to heal connections impaired from the previous season. “We found that in the preseason for the football players in our study, one part of the brain would be associating with about 100 other regions, which is much higher than the controls,” says Thomas Talavage,  professor of electrical and computer engineering and biomedical engineering and co-director of the Purdue MRI Facility.

“The brain is pretty amazing at covering up a lot of changes. Some of these kids have no outward symptoms, but we can see their brains have rewired themselves to skip around the parts that are affected.”

One of the research papers shows that knowing a player’s history of specific types of hits to the head makes it possible to accurately predict “deviant brain metabolism,” suggesting that sub-concussive blows can produce biochemical changes and potentially lead to neurological problems, which indicates a correlation between players taking the heaviest hits and brain chemistry changes.

The data shows that the neurons in the motor cortex region in the brains of football players produced about 50 percent less of the neurotransmitter glutamine compared to controls. “We are finding that the more hits you take, the more you change your brain chemistry, the more you change your brain’s ability to move blood to the right locations,” Nauman says.

“Recent proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy studies argue that the recommended two-week window of rest is insufficient for full metabolic recovery after concussion,” Nauman says. “Those returning to play prior to full recovery could incur a second concussion with symptoms and metabolic changes more lasting than the first.”

Published on Leave a comment on Breast Milk and Preserving Sight In Preemies

Another excellent reason to breastfeed premature infants - to increase the odds of preventing retinopathy of prematurity (ROP), which is the reason preemies can go blind. It occurs when blood vessels in the retinas of premature infants start to grow out of control. If the abnormal growth continues, the retinas detach, and this can cause blindness.

Sadly, an ROP epidemic occurred in the 1940s and early 1950s when hospital nurseries began using excessively high levels of oxygen in incubators to save the lives of premature infants. During this time, ROP was the leading cause of blindness in children in the US. In 1954, scientists funded by the National Institutes of Health determined that the relatively high levels of oxygen routinely given to premature infants at that time were an important risk factor, and that reducing the level of oxygen given to premature babies reduced the incidence of ROP.

Nowadays ROP is a leading cause of childhood blindness in developed countries. A large US study found that in extremely preterm infants with a gestational age of 22 to 28 weeks, the incidence of ROP was 59% (96% at 22 weeks and 32% at 28 weeks). ROP is considered a  multifactorial disease, and risk factors such as prematurity, low birth weight, oxygen therapy, and oxidative stress have been associated with its development.

This recent study was a meta-analysis of five studies (of 2208 pre-term infants), and it found that the overall incidence of ROP was reduced among infants fed human breast milk compared with those fed formula. The best results in preventing severe ROP was in babies fed exclusively breast milk (up to 90% reduction) or mainly human breast milk feeding. It is thought that breast milk may protect against the development of ROP because of its antioxidant and immune-protective properties.  Note that studies involving donor milk were not included because past studies did not find any advantage for donor milk over formula. This may be possibly related to loss of the breast milk microbes (breast milk normally contains up to 700 species of bacteria) during processing (pasteurizing/heat treatment of milk for 30 minutes) and storage of donor milk. From NPR:

Mother's Milk May Help Prevent Blindness In Preemies

If Stevie Wonder had been born three decades later, we might never have gotten "Superstition" and "Isn't She Lovely" — but the musician might never have gone blind, either. Born premature, Wonder developed retinopathy of prematurity, an eye disease that afflicts more than half of babies born before 30 weeks of gestation.Though treatments were developed in the 1980s, about 400 to 600 U.S. children and 50,000 children worldwide still go blind every year from the condition. Now a study suggests that number could be slashed by more than half if all those preemies received their mothers' milk.

The study, actually a combined analysis of five studies from 2001 through 2013, found that preemies receiving human milk from their mothers had 46 to 90 percent lower odds of retinopathy of prematurity (ROP), depending on how much milk they received and how severe the ROP was. The studies were observational, so they cannot show that breast milk directly caused the lower risk.

Of the infants who develop ROP, most recover and develop well without treatment, but about 10 percent develop severe ROP, increasing their risk of blindness, Chiang said. About half of those infants need treatment, which will prevent blindness in 80 to 90 percent of them.

The new research analyzed the outcomes of 2,208 preterm infants based on whether they received exclusive human milk, any human milk, mainly human milk (more than 50 percent), exclusive formula, any formula or mainly formula. The study did not include donor milk, so all the milk was the mother's pumped or hand-expressed breast milk.

Infants who exclusively received breast milk had 89 percent reduced odds of severe ROP compared to infants who received any formula. Infants who received a mixture of breast milk and formula had roughly half the odds of developing severe ROP compared to infants exclusively receiving formula. The analysis included a very large older study that had found no reduced risk for ROP from breast milk, but most infants in that study received less than 20 percent breast milk.

Until the 1940s and 1950s, ROP did not exist because infants born prematurely rarely survived, Chiang said. As doctors learned to how to keep these tiny babies, usually little more than 3 pounds at birth, alive, they discovered that the blood vessels in their retinas would often start to grow out of control. If the abnormal growth continued, their retinas detached, causing blindness.

The cause of ROP isn't entirely understood, but scientists believe oxidative stress can stimulate the abnormal growth of the blood vessels. Providing preemies with oxygen is often key to their survival, but that oxygen exposure might lead to ROP, according to Jianguo Zhou, a neonatologist in Shanghai, and lead author of the study.

1

Published on 1 Comment on Problems With Scented Candles

 Several people have recently asked me whether scented candles have any health effects. The answer is a big YES - they have many negative health effects, and so do other scented products such as air fresheners and dryer sheets (e,g, Bounce). All of them contain fragrances and other chemicals - all from petrochemicals (which means they are chemical products derived from petroleum). And yes - all 3 products are totally unnecessary, so ditch them for better health. View all of them as sources of indoor air pollution.

Most of the candles on the market are made with paraffin wax, derived from petroleum, and scented with synthetic fragrances, also derived from petroleum. Synthetic fragrances typically also contain phthalates that can interfere with your hormone system (endocrine disruptors).

In one study scientists at the South Carolina State University lit several brands of candles made of paraffin – the most common and inexpensive candle wax – as well as soy candles (thus vegetable based) and burned them for 5 to 6 hours in a chamber. All of the candles were unscented and undyed. They found that the paraffin candle smoke emits varying levels of pollutants, including benzene, toluene and ketones, as well as hydrocarbon chemicals called alkanes and alkenes, which are components of gasoline. They have been linked to cancer, asthma and birth defects. None of the vegetable-based soy candles produced toxic chemicals. From SC State University:  Frequent use of certain candles produces unwanted chemicals

Researchers point out that the emissions from burning an occasional paraffin candle will not likely cause health problems - it's the frequent lighting of scented paraffin candles in indoor rooms, and inhaling the pollutants in the air that may cause health problems, or as Dr. Massoudi of S. Carolina State University stated: "could contribute to the development of health risks like cancer, common allergies and even asthma."

Scented candles are known to release various volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including both pleasant aromas and toxic components both before lighting (unlit) and when lit. When lit, the "highest emission concentration" was of formaldehyde. By simply touching the candles, one absorbs chemicals through the skin.

Safe candle alternatives are beeswax candles and unscented soy candles. These do not emit toxic chemicals when burned. However, all burning candles emit soot, which is ultrafine, lung-damaging particulate matter that's capable of penetrating deep into the lungs.

From Huffington Post: The Big Problem With Scented Candles

Scented candles are one of the easiest and most effective ways to mask unpleasant odors in your home....But one of the main problems with scented candles is the scent itself. According to Anne Steinemann, an environmental pollutants expert who is a professor of civil engineering and the chair of sustainable cities at the University of Melbourne, certain candles may emit numerous types of potentially hazardous chemicals, such as benzene and toluene. They can cause damage to the brain, lung and central nervous system, as well as cause developmental difficulties.

"I have heard from numerous people who have asthma that they can’t even go into a store if the store sells scented candles, even if they aren’t being burned," Steinemann added. "They emit so much fragrance that they can trigger asthma attacks and even migraines."

Researchers at South Carolina State University tested both petroleum-based paraffin wax candles and vegetable-based candles that were non-scented, non-pigmented and free of dyes. Their 2009 report concluded that while the vegetable-based candles didn't produce any potentially harmful pollutants, the paraffin candles "released unwanted chemicals into the air," said chemistry professor Ruhullah Massoudi in a statement.

It may be shocking to think that your favorite candles could potentially be bad for you, and made worse by added fragrances. Steinemann said for some people, the effects are "immediate, acute and severe," while others may not realize they are being effected until they gradually develop health issues.

Though the risk to you may be small, there are alternatives. Steinemann suggests going the unscented route, avoiding "even those with essential oils, as they can potentially have hazardous chemicals," she said. "It's almost like air fresheners with the fragrance just sitting there ... permeating surfaces in the room."

Published on Leave a comment on American Academy of Pediatrics: End Routine Antibiotic Use in Animals

The American Academy of Pediatrics released a new report that the overuse of antibiotics in animals poses a real health risk to children. Giving routine antibiotics to animals leads to antibiotic resistant bacteria  - which means that antibiotics may not work when given to people. Most of the antibiotics sold in the U.S. each year - 80 percent- are used in animals that people than eat. The great majority of antibiotics given to animals are the same ones given to humans.The main way to ensure that the meat that you are purchasing is antibiotic-free is to buy meat labeled organic. And to buy organic dairy products (milk, butter, cheese, cream). Note that the reason routine use of antibiotics in animals has not been stopped so far in the USA is due to agriculture industry lobbying. From Medical Xpress:

Pediatricians' group urges cuts in antibiotic use in livestock

Overuse of antibiotics in farm animals poses a real health risk to children, the American Academy of Pediatrics warns in a new report.This common practice is already contributing to bacterial resistance to medicines and affecting doctors' ability to treat life-threatening infections in kids, according to the paper published online Nov. 16 in the journal Pediatrics.

"The connection between production uses of antibiotics in the agricultural sector to antibiotic resistance is alarming," said Victoria Richards, an associate professor of medical sciences at the Quinnipiac University School of Medicine in Hamden, Conn. She believes the danger is "not only for infants and children but other vulnerable populations, such as the pregnant and the older individuals."

As the academy explained in its warning, antibiotics are often added to the feed of healthy livestock to boost growth, increase feed efficiency or prevent disease. However, the practice can also make antibiotics ineffective when they are needed to treat infections in people. Some examples of emerging antibiotic germs include methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), C.difficile, and highly resistant strains of the tuberculosis bacterium. Each year, more than 2 million Americans develop antibiotic-resistant infections and more than 23,000 die from these infections, the academy said. And in 2013, the highest incidence of such infections was among children younger than 5, federal government statistics show. 

"Children can be exposed to multiple-drug resistant bacteria, which are extremely difficult to treat if they cause an infection, through contact with animals given antibiotics and through consuming the meat of those animals," report author Dr. Jerome Paulson, immediate past chair of the academy's executive committee of the Council on Environmental Health, said in an academy news release."Like humans, farm animals should receive appropriate antibiotics for bacterial infections," he said. "However, the indiscriminate use of antibiotics without a prescription or the input of a veterinarian puts the health of children at risk."

Spaeth noted that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as well as the World Health Organization, have both called for a curbing of antibiotic use in animals. But the authors of the new report expressed concern over resistance from the agriculture and farming industry to such measures.

Published on Leave a comment on Which Mosquito Repellents Work?

People spend a lot of effort trying to repel mosquitos  - because the bites are so annoying and because they spread serious diseases. New research looking at different mosquito repellents - both DEET and non-Deet ("natural") products - had interesting results. What was once thought effective in repelling mosquitoes doesn't work at all (vitamin B patch), and what was thought attractive to mosquitoes may actually repel them (floral scents), and the "natural" alternatives may or may not work. Also - the species of mosquito is important (they tested Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus), for they found that there was some variation among the 2 species in what they were attracted to or repelled by. Best choices for protection lasting at least 2 hours: DEET repellants, Cutter lemon eucalyptus insect repellent, and Victoria's Secret Bombshell. Best protection lasting 4 hours: DEET repellants, and Cutter lemon eucalyptus insect repellent. This last non-DEET product contained lemon-eucalyptus oil containing p-menthane-3,8-diol. Of course there was an untreated control (an attractive to mosquitoes volunteer's bare hand) in the study for comparison purposes.

However, while EcoSmart organic insect repellent  worked for 4 hours for Ae. albopictus mosquitoes, it only worked for the first few minutes for Ae. aegypti mosquitoes (so don't buy this product). For years people thought that Avon Skin So Soft worked well as a repellent - well, forget it- not good at all. Other products that did not work: a mosquito skin patch (vitamin B), and Cutter natural insect repellent. These results showed that DEET-free products containing citronella or geraniol did not work. See the original study for the result lists for 10 products for both species of mosquitoes. From Popular Science:

VICTORIA’S SECRET PERFUME WARDS OFF MOSQUITOES, STUDY FINDS

Because mosquitoes carry diseases like malaria and dengue fever, and irritate us, humans do a lot to avoid them. In most places people have to fend for themselves against the pests by sleeping under mosquito nets or using repellant. A number of new repellant formulas have hit the market in recent years, many with questionable efficacy. Researchers at New Mexico State University decided to compare the effectiveness of different repellants and perfumes, according to a study published recently in the Journal of Insect Science.

The Y-shaped tube used in the study.  Rodriguez et al, Journal of Insect Science, 2015

The researchers tested eight commercially available repellents, two fragrances, and a vitamin B patch that reportedly keeps the mosquitoes at bay, on two different species of disease-carrying mosquitoes. To test the efficacy of each, the researchers put a mosquito at the long end of a Y-shaped plastic tube. One of the researchers who is particularly attractive to mosquitoes placed her two hands at the ends of both forked tubes—one hand was untreated, the other treated with the chemical being tested. If the mosquito avoided the tube with the treated hand by staying still or moving towards the untreated hand, the researchers determined that the repellent worked.

The researchers found that, among repellents, those that contained the tried-and-true ingredient DEET were most effective in warding off the mosquitoes. A few others, such as Cutter Lemon Eucalyptus Insect Repellent, worked almost as well, while most of them (including the vitamin patch) didn’t make any difference.

While those findings weren’t unexpected, the researchers were surprised to find that Avon Skin So Soft Bath Oil repelled the mosquitoes for about two hours. Another fragrance, Victoria’s Secret Bombshell perfume, also repelled the mosquitoes and lasted even longer.

That overturned the previous understanding about how mosquitoes interpret scents. “There was some previous literature that said fruity, floral scents attracted mosquitoes, and to not wear those,” said Stacy Rodriguez, a research assistant involved in the study, said in a statement. “It was interesting to see that the mosquitoes weren’t actually attracted to the person that was wearing the Victoria’s Secret perfume – they were repelled by it.”

Published on Leave a comment on Garlic Eating Men Smell More Attractive?

This study found that men who eat a lot of garlic (4 cloves in raw or capsule form) had a "more attractive" body odor to women. This is body odor, which is different than breath odor. Since this study was done in Prague (capital of the Czech Republic), one wonders about cultural biases - is this a group that normally enjoys garlicky foods? What would women who never ate foods containing garlic think about the body odor? The researchers gave an evolutionary explanation, but...first this study needs to be replicated in a group that doesn't normally eat garlic. At any rate, the study results should give reassurance to those men who enjoy eating garlic - it's attractive to women! From Medical Xpress:

Research finds men who eat garlic smell more attractive

The beneficial health properties of garlic are well known, but researchers at the University of Stirling and Charles University in Prague have uncovered another less well known and surprising property – that the body odour of men who eat garlic is attractive to women. In a study of 42 men – who each were asked to eat raw garlic, garlic capsules, or no garlic – their body odour was perceived to be 'significantly more attractive' when they had eaten garlic in bulb and capsule form than when they hadn't eaten it.

For the study, 82 women were asked to sniff the odour samples and judge them on their pleasantness, attractiveness, masculinity and intensity. Researchers found the unexpected positive effect was only achieved once the men were eating a substantial amount of garlic. When the men ate 6g of garlic, equivalent to two cloves, with bread and cheese, there was no difference in the ratings between then and when they simply ate the bread and cheese on its own. 

But when the dosage was doubled to 12g, or four cloves, the men were reported to smell more attractive than when they hadn't eaten it. In the final experiment, when the men consumed the same amount of garlic, but in capsule form, their body odour was also perceived as more attractive.

Craig Roberts, Professor of Psychology at the University of Stirling, said: "Our results indicate that garlic consumption may have positive effects on the pleasure derived from perceived body odour perhaps due to its health effects....Previous research indicates that many animal species use diet-associated cues to select mates in good physical condition. "As the health benefits of garlic consumption include antioxidant, immunostimulant, cardiovascular, bactericidal and anti-cancer effects, it is plausible that human odour preferences have been shaped by sexual selection.

The study concludes that body odour, in contrast to breath odour, is positively affected by garlic and that these two sources of odour should be strictly differentiated. As breath odour plays an important factor in intimate relationships further studies may be carried out.

Published on Leave a comment on One Course of Antibiotics And Your Microbes

New research found that one course of antibiotics (ciprofloxacin, clindamycin, amoxicillin or minocycline) had varying effects on the gut and saliva microbes, with ciprofloxacin having a negative and disruptive effect on gut microbiome diversity up to 12 months. While the microscopic communities living in the mouth rebound quickly, just one course of antibiotics can disrupt the gut microbiome for months - with amoxicillin the least and ciprofloxacin the most (up to a year).The researchers stressed that for these reasons "antibiotics should only be used when really, really necessary. Even a single antibiotic treatment in healthy individuals contributes to the risk of resistance development and leads to long-lasting detrimental shifts in the gut microbiome."

The scary part is that Americans typically take many courses of antibiotics throughout life. And people with conditions such as chronic sinusitis typically take many more than average. From Medical Xpress:

One course of antibiotics can affect diversity of microorganisms in the gut

A single course of antibiotics has enough strength to disrupt the normal makeup of microorganisms in the gut for as long as a year, potentially leading to antibiotic resistance, European researchers reported this week in mBio, an online open-access journal of the American Society for Microbiology. In a study of 66 healthy adults prescribed different antibiotics, the drugs were found to enrich genes associated with antibiotic resistance and to severely affect microbial diversity in the gut for months after exposure. By contrast, microorganisms in the saliva showed signs of recovery in as little as few weeks.

The microorganisms in study participants' feces were severely affected by most antibiotics for months, said lead study author Egija Zaura, PhD, an associate professor in oral microbial ecology at the Academic Centre for Dentistry in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. In particular, researchers saw a decline in the abundance of health-associated species that produce butyrate, a substance that inhibits inflammation, cancer formation and stress in the gut.

"My message would be that antibiotics should only be used when really, really necessary," Zaura said. "Even a single antibiotic treatment in healthy individuals contributes to the risk of resistance development and leads to long-lasting detrimental shifts in the gut microbiome."

It's not clear why the oral cavity returns to normal sooner than the gut, Zaura said, but it could be because the gut is exposed to a longer period of antibiotics. Another possibility, she said, is that the oral cavity is intrinsically more resilient toward stress because it is exposed to different stressors every day.

The investigators enrolled healthy adult volunteers from the United Kingdom and Sweden. Participants were randomly assigned to receive a full course of one of four antibiotics (ciprofloxacin, clindamycin, amoxicillin or minocycline) or a placebo. The researchers, who did not know which medication participants took, collected fecal and saliva samples from the participants at the start of the study; immediately after taking the study drugs; and one, two, four and 12 months after finishing the medications....

Researchers found that participants from the United Kingdom started the study with more antibiotic resistance than did the participants from Sweden, which could result from cultural differences. There has been a significant decline in antibiotic use in Sweden over the last two decades, Zaura said.

In addition, fecal microbiome diversity was significantly reduced for up to four months in participants taking clindamycin and up to 12 months in those taking ciprofloxacin, though those drugs only altered the oral cavity microbiome up to one week after drug exposure. Exposure to amoxicillin had no significant effect on microbiome diversity in either the gut or oral cavity but was associated with the greatest number of antibiotic-resistant genes.

Gut bacteria. Credit: Med. Mic. Sciences Cardiff Univ, Wellcome Images

Published on Leave a comment on Nonprescription Cold Meds That Don’t Work

When suffering from cold symptoms or acute sinusitis, there are some products that work for nasal congestion, and thick phlegm and mucus. Mucinex works well for thick phlegm and mucus, and Sudafed containing pseudoephedrine works for nasal congestion. However, that Sudafed is behind the pharmacy counter, can only be bought in limited quantities, and one must show a driver's license and sign for it before getting any. There are also many other easily available nonprescription cold products containing phenylephrine. But this latest research shows clearly that products containing phenylephrine don't work at any dose. Bottom line: when buying a decongestant, get the stuff containing pseudoephedrine that is behind the pharmacy counter. From Forbes:

The Popular Over-The-Counter Cold Medicine That Science Says Doesn't Work

The market for over-the-counter cold medicines is worth $8 billion annually, with a hefty portion of that amount spent on drugs marketed as decongestants....According to University of Florida researchers, the oral decongestant phenylephrine simply doesn’t work at the FDA-approved amount found in popular non-prescription brands, and it may not even work at much higher doses. Their conclusions were presented in an editorial in The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice....

The study of 539 adults lasted one week and failed to find a dose of phenylephrine within the 10 mg to 40 mg range that was more effective than a placebo in relieving nasal congestion. The approved Food and Drug Administration (FDA) dose is 10 mg every four hours for “temporary relief of nasal congestion.” Consequently, the UF researchers are asking the FDA to remove oral phenylephrine from the market.

“We think the evidence supports that phenylephrine’s status as a safe and effective over-the-counter product should be changed,” said Randy Hatton, Pharm.D., a clinical professor of pharmacotherapy and translational research. “We are looking out for the consumer, and he or she needs to know that science says that oral phenylephrine does not work for the majority of people.”

Back before methamphetamine cooks started buying up non-prescription decongestants to brew crank, all of us were able to buy effective decongestants right off the store shelf without a problem. The active ingredient in those meds, coveted by meth smurfers and cold sufferers alike, was pseudoephedrine. But then federal legislation was enacted to restrict the sale of pseudoephedrine-containing products (Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005) and they were moved behind the pharmacy counter. You can still buy them, assuming you know they’re available, by presenting identification and signing a statement saying you’re not buying the drugs for nefarious purposes.

To fill the store-shelf void, drug companies substituted the already-FDA approved ingredient phenylephrine for pseudoephedrine. Several studies testing phenylephrine against a placebo produced results that question its effectiveness, and eventually the FDA started to at least listen to critics in the research community asking for greater scrutiny. The latest research adds a boldface exclamation point to the criticism. Whether the FDA will choose to act on the findings is another matter, but the science is there.

The number of brands containing phenylephrine are too many to list, but the majority of on-the-shelf oral decongestants list it as an active ingredient, including many multi-symptom products. Instead of buying products containing phenylephrine, the researchers suggest cold and allergy sufferers choose a pseudoephedrine product from behind the counter or nasal steroids for allergic rhinitis.

Published on Leave a comment on Exposure to Animals In First Year of Life and Lower Risk of Asthma

Labrador Retriever image Other studies have found this same association - that living with a dog or farm animal has health benefits such as lower risk of allergies and asthma. In a Swedish nationwide study looking at over a million children, the association between early exposure to dogs and farm animals and the risk of asthma was evaluated. All children born in Sweden from January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2010 were included. The researchers found that exposure to dogs and farm animals during the first year of life reduces the risk of asthma in children at age 6 years. From Science Daily:

Early contact with dogs linked to lower risk of asthma

A team of Swedish scientists have used national register information in more than one million Swedish children to study the association of early life contact with dogs and subsequent development of asthma. This question has been studied extensively previously, but conclusive findings have been lacking. The new study showed that children who grew up with dogs had about 15 percent less asthma than children without dogs.

A total of more than one million children were included in the researchers' study linking together nine different national data sources, including two dog ownership registers not previously used for medical research...."Earlier studies have shown that growing up on a farm reduces a child's risk of asthma to about half. We wanted to see if this relationship also was true also for children growing up with dogs in their homes. Our results confirmed the farming effect, and we also saw that children who grew up with dogs had about 15 percent less asthma than children without dogs.

"These kind of epidemiological studies look for associations in large populations but do not provide answers on whether and how animals could protect children from developing asthma. We know that children with established allergy to cats or dogs should avoid them, but our results also indicate that children who grow up with dogs have reduced risks of asthma later in life. Thanks to the population-based design, our results are generalizable to the Swedish population, and probably also to other European populations with similar culture regarding pet ownership and farming" says Catarina Almqvist Malmros, senior author on the study, Paediatrician at Astrid Lindgren Children's Hospital and Professor in Clinical epidemiology at Dept of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics at Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm.