June 28th, 2010 by admin

Looking in from the outside, it’s easy to imagine the scientific method working well to allow our knowledge to improve steadily. But, more often than not, the results may have several possible interpretations, and sometimes, there’s doubt about whether the results have been fixed to give the maximum advantage to the manufacturer of the drug under test. Sadly, there’s a serious lack of independent research producing unambiguous results. Against this background, we have the results of a trial into the use of a drug to prevent men from developing prostate cancer. A group of men were gathered together. They had either tested positive for Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA) or they had a positive biopsy confirming a growth. Over a four year period, these men were given either a drug or a placebo with there being 23% fewer confirmed cases of cancer in the drug group. On the face of it, this sounds like really encouraging news. All the more so because, a similar study with a different drug claimed a 25% reduction in the number of confirmed cancers. If drugs can prevent the development of prostate cancer, this reduces the need for surgery and the risk to erectile function. Obviously, removing the need for surgeons to start cutting away the soft tissues around the groin, enables men to maintain their sexual activity levels.

Unfortunately, both studies are controversial because they were either run by or funded by the manufacturers. Once manufacturers are involved in the design and supervision of the research, there’s a conflict of interests. There will be direct financial benefits if the drug on trial is shown as safe and effective. Millions of research and development money will be lost if drugs are found ineffective or actively dangerous. The more recent study was “supported” by the manufacturer and four of the scientists were employed by the manufacturer. Other members of the team were paid for consultancy or lectures. Not surprisingly, both studies are being used to encourage doctors to prescribe both drugs for tumor prevention. In fact, neither drug has FDA approval for this use. A doctor would be going “off label”, i.e. experimenting on you.

The two problems with this area of research are simply put. There’s reasonably good evidence that both these drugs reduce the size of benign growths. Thus, whatever might have developed in the test group could have been benign and nothing to worry about. Secondly, the link between higher levels of PSA and the growth of tumors is not yet confirmed. Indeed, the fact that PSA levels fall does not remove the danger of a growth and men who think otherwise may go undiagnosed until the cancer is far advanced. Read the rest of this entry »

June 28th, 2010 by admin

There’s new research from the University of California that states the problems surrounding older people and their sleep, while offering few solutions. This is a somewhat sad trend when it comes to research affecting the aging members of our society. When people are younger and more energetic, they will contribute to the growth and development of the American way of life. Equally important is their personal earning capacity. To maintain their quality of life, they will often pay the medical profession well. Those who are older have less to contribute and, while some do have money, there’s less that can be done to improve the quality of life when bodies have aged. Although Sarah Palin was exaggerating the threat of “death panels” to drum up opposition to reform, we have a comparable effect already in the rationing of research into the health problems of the old, and in the poor quality of healthcare services in the geriatric sector. People do have shorter lives in the US than in many other countries around the world.

According to the research, about half the seniors in the US complain of difficulty in sleeping. It’s suggested that lack of sleep increases the risk of illness and early death. The question, therefore, is why seniors do find sleep more difficult. The answers are not directly related to age as such, but to the facts that older people are more prone to diseases and disorders, use more medications which have insomnia as a side effect, and find their circadian rhythms disrupted. Unfortunately, the research also finds the healthcare service is not sympathetic to these problems and fails to properly diagnose sleep disorders or give the appropriate treatment (including simply adjusting the dosages in medications probably contributing to the sleep disorder). At present, there’s no financial incentive for hospitals and clinics to divert resources to treat these problems. Although seniors can use their own savings to go to professional sleep laboratories for overnight assessment with a polysomnogram, the necessary follow-up treatments through counseling and cognitive behavioral therapy is often neglected because it’s not considered cost-effective. Necessary dentistry or, where appropriate, surgery is a one-off cost and preferred where appropriate. But, for the most part, seniors are left to fend for themselves. Read the rest of this entry »