Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Better to Be Fat and Fit Than Skinny and Unfit

Stuart Bradford

Published: August 18, 2008

Often, a visit to the doctor’s office starts with a weigh-in. But is a person’s weight really a reliable indicator of overall health?

Skip to next paragraph

Well

Weight alone isn't the health villain it once was. Join the discussion.

Go to Well »

RSS Feed

Increasingly, medical research is showing that it isn’t. Despite concerns about an obesity epidemic, there is growing evidence that our obsession about weight as a primary measure of health may be misguided.

Last week a report in The Archives of Internal Medicine compared weight and cardiovascular risk factors among a representative sample of more than 5,400 adults. The data suggest that half of overweight people and one-third of obese people are “metabolically healthy.” That means that despite their excess pounds, many overweight and obese adults have healthy levels of “good” cholesterol, blood pressure, blood glucose and other risks for heart disease.

At the same time, about one out of four slim people — those who fall into the “healthy” weight range — actually have at least two cardiovascular risk factors typically associated with obesity, the study showed.

To be sure, being overweight or obese is linked with numerous health problems, and even in the most recent research, obese people were more likely to have two or more cardiovascular risk factors than slim people. But researchers say it is the proportion of overweight and obese people who are metabolically healthy that is so surprising.

“We use ‘overweight’ almost indiscriminately sometimes,” said MaryFran Sowers, a co-author of the study and professor of epidemiology at the University of Michigan. “But there is lots of individual variation within that, and we need to be cognizant of that as we think about what our health messages should be.”

The data follow a report last fall from researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Cancer Institute showing that overweight people appear to have longer life expectancies than so-called normal weight adults.

But many people resist the notion that people who are overweight or obese can be healthy. Several prominent health researchers have criticized the findings from the C.D.C. researchers as misleading, noting that mortality statistics don’t reflect the poor quality of life and suffering obesity can cause. And on the Internet, various blog posters, including readers of the Times’s Well blog, have argued that the data are deceptive, masking the fact that far more overweight and obese people are at higher cardiovascular risk than thin people.

Part of the problem may be our skewed perception of what it means to be overweight. Typically, a person is judged to be of normal weight based on body mass index, or B.M.I., which measures weight relative to height. A normal B.M.I. ranges from 18.5 to 25. Once B.M.I. reaches 25, a person is viewed as overweight. Thirty or higher is considered obese.

“People get confused by the words and the mental image they get,” said Katherine Flegal, senior research scientist at the C.D.C.’s National Center for Health Statistics. “People may think, ‘How could it be that a person who is so huge wouldn’t have health problems?’ But people with B.M.I.’s of 25 are pretty unremarkable.”

Several studies from researchers at the Cooper Institute in Dallas have shown that fitness — determined by how a person performs on a treadmill — is a far better indicator of health than body mass index. In several studies, the researchers have shown that people who are fat but can still keep up on treadmill tests have much lower heart risk than people who are slim and unfit.

In December, a study in The Journal of the American Medical Association looked at death rates among 2,600 adults 60 and older over 12 years. Notably, death rates among the overweight, those with a B.M.I. of 25 to 30, were slightly lower than in normal weight adults. Death rates were highest among those with a B.M.I. of 35 or more.

But the most striking finding was that fitness level, regardless of body mass index, was the strongest predictor of mortality risk. Those with the lowest level of fitness, as measured on treadmill tests, were four times as likely to die during the 12-year study than those with the highest level of fitness. Even those who had just a minimal level of fitness had half the risk of dying compared with those who were least fit.

During the test, the treadmill moved at a brisk walking pace as the grade increased each minute. In the study, it didn’t take much to qualify as fit. For men, it meant staying on the treadmill at least 8 minutes; for women, 5.5 minutes. The people who fell below those levels, whether fat or thin, were at highest risk.

The results were adjusted to control for age, smoking and underlying heart problems and still showed that fitness, not weight, was most important in predicting mortality risk.

Stephen Blair, a co-author of the study and a professor at the Arnold School of Public Health at the University of South Carolina, said the lesson he took from the study was that instead of focusing only on weight loss, doctors should be talking to all patients about the value of physical activity, regardless of body size.

“Why is it such a stretch of the imagination,” he said, “to consider that someone overweight or obese might actually be healthy and fit?”

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Need a Knee Replaced? Check Your ZIP Code.

Treatments

Published: June 11, 2007

WHY does health care for the average Medicare patient cost nearly twice as much a year in New Jersey, at $8,076, as it does in Hawaii, at $4,529?

The differences are one example of perplexing geographic variations in medical expenses and quality. And in a study that has important implications for the nation’s $2 trillion health care tab, researchers have found that more intensive and expensive care does not necessarily mean better outcomes. In fact, the opposite may be true.

The Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care, a research group that studies variations and costs in medical care, sums it up like this: Geography is destiny. It means that your chances of undergoing certain surgical procedures, visiting the doctor often or even dying in a hospital or at home are related to where you live.

For example, Medicare patients living in Rhode Island undergo knee replacements at a rate of 5 in 1,000 people. In Nebraska, the number rises to 10 in 1,000. Female Medicare enrollees who receive a diagnosis of breast cancer have nearly seven times the chance of having a mastectomy in South Dakota, where the rate is 2 in 1,000, as they do in Vermont, where the rate is .3 in 1,000.

In another comparison, the Dartmouth group, a project of the college’s medical school, analyzed the costs and type of care patients receive in their last six months of life. Those in Oregon spend an average of eight days in the hospital while those in New York spend 35 days. In Oregon, the patient is seen by an average of 14 doctors during that period. In New York, 35 doctors see the patient.

In the last two years of life, the average Oregon patient costs $25,500, and the New York patient, $38,300.

Such differences cannot be explained by rates of illness or cost-of-living deviations. In some cases, drastic variations in Medicare treatment and costs occur even within states. There are almost twice as many hip replacements in Palo Alto as there are in San Francisco, for example. Such variations happen among the country’s top academic medical centers.

Some differences involve choices. Does a patient prefer to live with the pain and inconvenience of a bad knee, or undergo a knee replacement? It depends on personal preference and the advice that doctors give about risks versus rewards. Does a woman with breast cancer elect mastectomy or lumpectomy?

But much of the deviation appears to be caused by what experts call “supply sensitive care,” meaning the number of doctor visits and hospitalizations expand to the system’s capacity. Higher-spending areas have more hospital beds per person and more highly specialized physicians.

In communities with surplus hospital beds, research shows, patients do not necessarily get more elective surgery, but they have more hospital stays, more frequent doctor’s visits and are more likely to be referred to specialists.

Dr. Elliott S. Fisher, who studies health care economics and is a member of the Dartmouth research group, said that part of the problem was the way doctors and hospitals were paid.

“In a payment system that rewards everybody for staying busy, every bit of capacity you have, whether it’s the number of specialists or the number of intensive care beds or the M.R.I. scanner, has to stay fully occupied because they bought them already and they have to keep paying for them,” Dr. Fisher said in a telephone interview.

He told a Medicare Payment Advisory Commission panel last year: “If you’re lying down and spending time in the hospital and seeing more specialists, you also get more tests and minor procedures because that’s what we do when you’re in there.”

Paradoxically, the Dartmouth research, which confirms some similar studies, shows that patients in high-cost areas are not necessarily getting better care. Dr. Fisher said that he and his colleagues found higher mortality rates in higher-spending regions.

“When physicians describe the quality of care, they say the quality of care is worse in the higher-spending regions,” Dr. Fisher told the panel.

Among disturbing findings, Dr. Fisher said, are that tremendous gains in heart attack survival rates during the last 20 years have been smallest in high-spending regions.

One reason is that the risks of being hospitalized, including infections and medical errors, can outweigh the benefits. But the adage about “too many cooks” could also play a role.

“What we hypothesize is happening is that as the complexity of the system increases, it becomes less and less clear who is the responsible physician,” Dr. Fisher said.

Extra care without better outcomes translates into waste in the health care system. Some experts say that waste accounts for as much as if not more than 30 percent of the national spending on health care. Such spending now totals 16 percent of the gross domestic product.

Dr. Fisher said that the spending differences from one area to another are mostly related to discretionary decisions in gray areas, like uncertainty about the proper treatment.

The Dartmouth group’s leader, Dr. John E. Wennberg, began studying such variations in the 1970s while directing a federally financed program in Vermont that analyzed services in state hospitals. He found that rates of common procedures — tonsillectomies, hysterectomies and prostatectomies — varied a lot from town to town.

In Morrisville, for example, Dr. Wennberg found that 63 percent of children under 16 had undergone a tonsillectomy, compared with 7 percent 70 miles away in Middlebury. He found that five doctors in Morrisville were responsible for the deviation. While antibiotics were widely used to treat infections elsewhere, the Morrisville doctors were relying on old methods.

The group’s Web site, dartmouthatlas.org, contains detailed analysis of procedures paid for by Medicare nationwide, as well as interactive graphs. People can use the site to find rates of spending and procedures at their local hospitals.

What is the solution to these problems? One answer involves an increase in primary-care doctors. Research indicates that costs go up and quality declines with increased physician specialization. Dr. Fisher notes that New Jersey, the highest-cost state, has a specialty-oriented approach. He thinks coordination could be the answer.

“I really do believe strongly that we need to foster the development of large physician groups or hospital physician organizations that can be accountable for the quality and cost of care,” he said. “Most of the serious deficiencies in the U.S. health care system are in lack of coordination and fragmentation.”

Policy makers are seeking ways to increase financial incentives for becoming a family doctor, internist or pediatrician, possibly by raising the payments doctors receive for evaluating and managing patients or creating a new reimbursement category for coordinating care.

The average family physician nationwide currently makes $126,000 a year, while the average specialist earns $297,000 a year.

“If you can be a dermatologist and have no night calls and make an average of $290,000 a year, then why go into family medicine?” asked Dr. John G. Scott, an assistant professor of family medicine at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School.

Dr. Scott sums up the situation in New Jersey with a personal anecdote. When he moved there from Arkansas and told an acquaintance he was a family doctor, she responded, “We don’t have those in New Jersey.”

Hoping Two Drugs Carry a Side Effect: Longer Life


Southern Illinois University School of Medicine

COUNTING CALORIES For a longevity study, this mouse is on a restricted diet.

Published: July 22, 2008

BOSTON, Mass. — One day last month, clad in white plastic garments from head to toe, Dr. David Sinclair showed a visitor around his germ-free mouse room here at Harvard Medical School.

Skip to next paragraph
CJ Gunther for The New York Times

IN THE LAB Dr. David Sinclair is trying to develop drugs to extend health, and life.

The mice, subjects in studies of health and longevity, are kept in wire baskets under intensive nursing care. A mouse gym holds a miniature exercise machine that tests the rodents’ ability to balance on a rotating bar. In a nearby water maze, mice must recall visual cues to swim to safety on a hidden platform, a test of their powers of memory. Those that forget their lessons are rescued as they start to submerge and humanely dried out under a heat lamp, Dr. Sinclair assured his visitor.

Dr. Sinclair is a co-founder of Sirtris, a company that itself has been swimming in uncharted waters as it works to develop drugs that may extend the human life span. But it seemed to have found a safe platform last month when it was bought last month by the pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline for $720 million.

Sirtris has two drugs in clinical trials. One is being tested against Type 2 diabetes, one of the many diseases of aging that the company’s scientists hope the drugs will avert. With success against just one such disease, the impact on health “could be possibly transformational,” said Dr. Patrick Vallance, head of drug discovery at GlaxoSmithKline.

The new drugs are called sirtuin activators, meaning that they activate an enzyme called sirtuin. The basic theory is that all or most species have an ancient strategy for riding out famines: switch resources from reproduction to tissue maintenance. A healthy diet but with 30 percent fewer calories than usual triggers this reaction in mice and is the one intervention that reliably increases their life span. The mice seem to live longer because they are somehow protected from the usual diseases that kill them.

But most people cannot keep to a diet with a 30 percent cut in calories, so a drug that could activate the famine reflex might be highly desirable. Dr. Leonard Guarente, an M.I.T. biologist who founded the field of sirtuin biology, thinks the famine reflex is mediated through the sirtuin enzymes. Dr. Sinclair, his former student, discovered that sirtuins could be activated by drugs. The most potent activator that emerged from his screens was resveratrol, a natural substance found in red wine, though in amounts probably too low to be significant for health.

The Sirtris drug being tested in diabetic patients is a special formulation of resveratrol that delivers a bloodstream dose five times as high as the chemical alone. This drug, called SRT501, has passed safety tests and, at least in small-scale trials, has reduced the patients’ glucose levels.

The other drug is a small synthetic chemical that is a thousand times as potent as resveratrol in activating sirtuin and can be given at a much smaller dose. Safety tests in people have just started, with no adverse effects so far.

The hope is that activating sirtuins in people would, like a calorically restricted diet in mice, avert degenerative diseases of aging like diabetes, heart disease, cancer and Alzheimer’s. There is no Food and Drug Administration category for longevity drugs, so if the company is to submit a drug for approval, it needs to be for a specific disease.

Nonetheless, longevity is what has motivated the researchers and what makes the drugs potentially so appealing.

Dr. Christoph Westphal, the chief executive of Sirtris, said of the potential of the drugs, “I think that if we are right, this could extend life span by 5 or 10 percent.” He added that his goal was to develop drugs against specific diseases, with the extension of life being “almost a side effect of our medicine.”

Sirtris was founded in 2004 after Dr. Westphal, then working at a Boston venture capital firm, approached Dr. Sinclair. Because of widespread interest in the sirtuin activation idea, Dr. Westphal had little difficulty raising money and recruiting distinguished scientists to Sirtris’s advisory board.

He later decided to sell the company to GlaxoSmithKline, he said, because it was getting harder to raise money and clinical trials could proceed faster with the larger company’s resources. Sirtris was acquired at an 84 percent premium, better than the 50 percent at which most companies are bought, Dr. Westphal said.

The impact of Sirtris’s drugs, if successful, could extend beyond the drug industry. Dr. Guarente believes that many people might start taking them in middle age, though after having started a family because they may suppress fertility.

Mice on the drugs generally remain healthy right until the end of their lives and then just drop dead.“If they work in people that way, one would look to an extension of health span, with an extension of life as a possible side effect,” Dr. Guarente said. “It would necessitate changing ideas about when people retire and when they stop paying into the system.”

GlaxoSmithKline could put SRT501, its resveratrol formulation, on the market right away, selling it as a natural compound and nutritional pharmaceutical that does not require approval by the F.D.A. “We haven’t made any decisions, but that clearly is an option,” Dr. Vallance said.

If GlaxoSmithKline decides instead to seek F.D.A. approval, it will need to prove that resveratrol is safe in the large doses required for efficacy. Resveratrol seems to exert many influences on the body, some of which are not exerted through sirtuin. “None of us should be naïve enough to think resveratrol won’t have multiple effects, including some you don’t want,” Dr. Vallance said.

GlaxoSmithKline’s purchase of Sirtris has pushed the optimism of sirtuin researchers and others to new heights. “We are all holding our breath,” said Dr. Huber Warner, editor of the Journals of Gerontology. But the success of the drugs is far from assured.

Most potential drugs fail to make it past clinical trials, and the same may prove true for Sirtris’s candidates. The sirtuin-activating chemicals the company has designed could turn out to be toxic. Another uncertainty is that the underlying science is still in flux and debate rages among academic researchers over many details of how caloric restriction works.

Some biologists think that sirtuin is not the only mediator of the famine reflex, and that resveratrol may not work through sirtuin at all in exerting its beneficial effects on mice. “There are data both for and against that hypothesis, though that doesn’t dissuade one from pursuing it as a potential benefit,” said Dr. Thomas Rando, who studies aging in stem cells at Stanford University.

In initial tests in mice, resveratrol has doubled muscular endurance, lowered the bad form of cholesterol, protected against various bad effects of a high-fat diet and suppressed colon cancer. New reports are confirming some of these benefits, but others are ambiguous or puzzling.

According to a study published on July 3 in the journal Cell Metabolism by Dr. Sinclair and Dr. Rafael de Cabo of the National Institute on Aging, resveratrol given to aging mice reduced their cataracts, strengthened their bones, improved coordination and enhanced their health in several other ways. Yet despite their better health, the mice lived no longer than usual.

“Minimally this calls into question one pillar of the GSK investment,” said Dr. Ronald Evans, a leading expert on hormonal responses at the Salk Institute. Dr. Evans said that sirtuin research was promising but unproved, and that he did not agree that sirtuin was the probable mediator of the famine reflex, a concern that “calls into question the second pillar of the GSK investment.”

The frontiers of science are often turbulent, and it can take years for clarity to emerge from confusion. Dr. Westphal said the decision to ignore the academic debate about exactly how resveratrol may work was one of two principal reasons for Sirtris’s quick success. The other was to focus the company’s limited resources on developing just two drugs.

The researchers at Sirtris are no strangers to skepticism. Dr. Guarente and Dr. Sinclair were ridiculed when they first started looking for longevity genes more than 15 years ago, because aging was then considered to be an intractable problem. His colleagues, Dr. Guarente said, “thought I was nuts.”

Dr. Sinclair, when he first arrived as a young postdoctoral student in Dr. Guarente’s lab to work on longevity, was downcast to learn of the other students’ severe doubts. “The view even in Lenny’s lab was that this problem was going nowhere, it was a house of cards that would fall down any month now.” He called his parents in Australia to tell them he may have made a big mistake. But the research led eventually to the discovery of the sirtuinlike proteins and their role in extending the life span of yeast, worms and flies.

He and Dr. Guarente developed the sirtuin field with the hope of increasing longevity. But because of Sirtris’s focus on developing drugs that have the F.D.A.’s approval for specific diseases, both are being less explicit about their hopes of reversing aging. “There’s a much greater chance of a drug that can treat disease than of extending life span,” Dr. Sinclair said.

“I’m becoming more boring in my old age,” he added apologetically.

GlaxoSmithKline’s press releases refer to the sirtuins as “enzymes that the company believes control the aging process.” But Dr. Vallance is more guarded, saying aging is too hard to measure. The goal is not the extension of human life span; rather, “The prolongation of health is the aim,” Dr. Vallance said.

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

You Name It, and Exercise Helps It

New York Times
April 29, 2008
Personal Health

You Name It, and Exercise Helps It

Randi considers the Y.M.C.A. her lifeline, especially the pool. Randi weighs more than 300 pounds and has borderline diabetes, but she controls her blood sugar and keeps her bright outlook on life by swimming every day for about 45 minutes.

Randi overcame any self-consciousness about her weight for the sake of her health, and those who swim with her and share the open locker room are proud of her. If only the millions of others beset with chronic health problems recognized the inestimable value to their physical and emotional well-being of regular physical exercise.

“The single thing that comes close to a magic bullet, in terms of its strong and universal benefits, is exercise,” Frank Hu, epidemiologist at the Harvard School of Public Health, said in the Harvard Magazine.

I have written often about the protective roles of exercise. It can lower the risk of heart attack, stroke, hypertension, diabetes, obesity, depression, dementia, osteoporosis, gallstones, diverticulitis, falls, erectile dysfunction, peripheral vascular disease and 12 kinds of cancer.

But what if you already have one of these conditions? Or an ailment like rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease, congestive heart failure or osteoarthritis? How can you exercise if you’re always tired or in pain or have trouble breathing? Can exercise really help?

You bet it can. Marilyn Moffat, a professor of physical therapy at New York University and co-author with Carole B. Lewis of “Age-Defying Fitness” (Peachtree, 2006), conducts workshops for physical therapists around the country and abroad, demonstrating how people with chronic health problems can improve their health and quality of life by learning how to exercise safely.

Up and Moving

“The data show that regular moderate exercise increases your ability to battle the effects of disease,” Dr. Moffat said in an interview. “It has a positive effect on both physical and mental well-being. The goal is to do as much physical activity as your body lets you do, and rest when you need to rest.”

In years past, doctors were afraid to let heart patients exercise. When my father had a heart attack in 1968, he was kept sedentary for six weeks. Now, heart attack patients are in bed barely half a day before they are up and moving, Dr. Moffat said.

The core of cardiac rehab is a progressive exercise program to increase the ability of the heart to pump oxygen- and nutrient-rich blood more effectively throughout the body. The outcome is better endurance, greater ability to enjoy life and decreased mortality.

The same goes for patients with congestive heart failure. “Heart failure patients as old as 91 can increase their oxygen consumption significantly,” Dr. Moffat said.

Aerobic exercise lowers blood pressure in people with hypertension, and it improves peripheral circulation in people who develop cramping leg pains when they walk — a condition called intermittent claudication. The treatment for it, in fact, is to walk a little farther each day.

In people who have had transient ischemic attacks, or ministrokes, “gradually increasing exercise improves blood flow to the brain and may diminish the risk of a full-blown stroke,” Dr. Moffat said. And aerobic and strength exercises have been shown to improve endurance, walking speed and the ability to perform tasks of daily living up to six years after a stroke.

As Randi knows, moderate exercise cuts the risk of developing diabetes. And for those with diabetes, exercise improves glucose tolerance — less medication is needed to control blood sugar — and reduces the risk of life-threatening complications.

Perhaps the most immediate benefits are reaped by people with joint and neuromuscular disorders. Without exercise, those at risk of osteoarthritis become crippled by stiff, deteriorated joints. But exercise that increases strength and aerobic capacity can reduce pain, depression and anxiety and improve function, balance and quality of life.

Likewise for people with rheumatoid arthritis. “The less they do, the worse things get,” Dr. Moffat said. “The more their joints move, the better.”

Monday, March 10, 2008

Prescription drugs found in drinking water across U.S.

(AP) -- A vast array of pharmaceuticals -- including antibiotics, anti-convulsants, mood stabilizers and sex hormones -- have been found in the drinking water supplies of at least 41 million Americans, an Associated Press investigation shows.

art.philly.tap.ap.jpg

Officials in Philadelphia say testing there discovered 56 pharmaceuticals or byproducts in treated drinking water.

To be sure, the concentrations of these pharmaceuticals are tiny, measured in quantities of parts per billion or trillion, far below the levels of a medical dose. Also, utilities insist their water is safe.

But the presence of so many prescription drugs -- and over-the-counter medicines like acetaminophen and ibuprofen -- in so much of our drinking water is heightening worries among scientists of long-term consequences to human health.

In the course of a five-month inquiry, the AP discovered that drugs have been detected in the drinking water supplies of 24 major metropolitan areas -- from Southern California to Northern New Jersey, from Detroit, Michigan, to Louisville, Kentucky. Map: See the cities where drugs were found in drinking water »

Water providers rarely disclose results of pharmaceutical screenings, unless pressed, the AP found. For example, the head of a group representing major California suppliers said the public "doesn't know how to interpret the information" and might be unduly alarmed.

How do the drugs get into the water?

People take pills. Their bodies absorb some of the medication, but the rest of it passes through and is flushed down the toilet. The wastewater is treated before it is discharged into reservoirs, rivers or lakes. Then, some of the water is cleansed again at drinking water treatment plants and piped to consumers. But most treatments do not remove all drug residue.

And while researchers do not yet understand the exact risks from decades of persistent exposure to random combinations of low levels of pharmaceuticals, recent studies -- which have gone virtually unnoticed by the general public -- have found alarming effects on human cells and wildlife.

A 'growing concern'

"We recognize it is a growing concern and we're taking it very seriously," said Benjamin H. Grumbles, assistant administrator for water at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Members of the AP National Investigative Team reviewed hundreds of scientific reports, analyzed federal drinking water databases, visited environmental study sites and treatment plants and interviewed more than 230 officials, academics and scientists.

They also surveyed the nation's 50 largest cities and a dozen other major water providers, as well as smaller community water providers in all 50 states.

Here are some of the key test results obtained by the AP:

• Officials in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, said testing there discovered 56 pharmaceuticals or byproducts in treated drinking water, including medicines for pain, infection, high cholesterol, asthma, epilepsy, mental illness and heart problems. Sixty-three pharmaceuticals or byproducts were found in the city's watersheds.

• Anti-epileptic and anti-anxiety medications were detected in a portion of the treated drinking water for 18.5 million people in Southern California.

• Researchers at the U.S. Geological Survey analyzed a Passaic Valley Water Commission drinking water treatment plant, which serves 850,000 people in Northern New Jersey, and found a metabolized angina medicine and the mood-stabilizing carbamazepine in drinking water.

• A sex hormone was detected in the drinking water of San Francisco, California.

• The drinking water for Washington, D.C., and surrounding areas tested positive for six pharmaceuticals.

The situation is undoubtedly worse than suggested by the positive test results in the major population centers documented by the AP.

Testing not required

The federal government doesn't require any testing and hasn't set safety limits for drugs in water.

Of the 62 major water providers contacted, the drinking water for only 28 was tested. Among the 34 that haven't: Houston, Texas; Chicago, Illinois; Miami, Florida; Baltimore, Maryland; Phoenix, Arizona; Boston, Massachusetts; and New York City's Department of Environmental Protection, which delivers water to 9 million people.

Some providers screen for only one or two pharmaceuticals, leaving open the possibility that others are present.

The AP's investigation also indicates that watersheds, the natural sources of most of the nation's water supply, also are contaminated. Tests were conducted in the watersheds of 35 of the 62 major providers surveyed by the AP, and pharmaceuticals were detected in 28.

Yet officials in six of those 28 metropolitan areas said they did not go on to test their drinking water -- Fairfax, Virginia; Montgomery County in Maryland; Omaha, Nebraska; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; Santa Clara, California; and New York City.

The New York state health department and the USGS tested the source of the city's water, upstate. They found trace concentrations of heart medicine, infection fighters, estrogen, anti-convulsants, a mood stabilizer and a tranquilizer.

City water officials declined repeated requests for an interview. In a statement, they insisted that "New York City's drinking water continues to meet all federal and state regulations regarding drinking water quality in the watershed and the distribution system" -- regulations that do not address trace pharmaceuticals.

In several cases, officials at municipal or regional water providers told the AP that pharmaceuticals had not been detected, but the AP obtained the results of tests conducted by independent researchers that showed otherwise.

Of the 28 major metropolitan areas where tests were performed on drinking water supplies, only Albuquerque, New Mexico; Austin, Texas; and Virginia Beach, Virginia, said tests were negative. The drinking water in Dallas, Texas, has been tested, but officials are awaiting results. Arlington, Texas, acknowledged that traces of a pharmaceutical were detected in its drinking water but cited post-9/11 security concerns in refusing to identify the drug.

The AP also contacted 52 small water providers -- one in each state, and two each in Missouri and Texas -- that serve communities with populations around 25,000. All but one said their drinking water had not been screened for pharmaceuticals; officials in Emporia, Kansas, refused to answer AP's questions, also citing post-9/11 issues.

Rural, bottled water also unchecked

Rural consumers who draw water from their own wells aren't in the clear either, experts say.

Even users of bottled water and home filtration systems don't necessarily avoid exposure. Bottlers, some of which simply repackage tap water, do not typically treat or test for pharmaceuticals, according to the industry's main trade group. The same goes for the makers of home filtration systems.

Contamination is not confined to the United States. More than 100 different pharmaceuticals have been detected in lakes, rivers, reservoirs and streams throughout the world. Studies have detected pharmaceuticals in waters throughout Asia, Australia, Canada and Europe -- even in Swiss lakes and the North Sea.

In the United States, the problem isn't confined to surface waters. Pharmaceuticals also permeate aquifers deep underground, the source of 40 percent of the nation's water supply. Federal scientists who drew water in 24 states from aquifers near contaminant sources such as landfills and animal feed lots found minuscule levels of hormones, antibiotics and other drugs.

Perhaps it's because Americans have been taking drugs -- and flushing them unmetabolized or unused -- in growing amounts. Over the past five years, the number of U.S. drug prescriptions rose 12 percent to a record 3.7 billion, while nonprescription drug purchases held steady around 3.3 billion, according to IMS Health and The Nielsen Co.

Medications not all absorbed

"People think that if they take a medication, their body absorbs it and it disappears, but of course that's not the case," said EPA scientist Christian Daughton, one of the first to draw attention to the issue of pharmaceuticals in water in the United States.

Some drugs, including widely used cholesterol fighters, tranquilizers and anti-epileptic medications, resist modern drinking water and wastewater treatment processes. Plus, the EPA says there are no sewage treatment systems specifically engineered to remove pharmaceuticals.

Veterinary drugs also play a role. Pets are now treated for a wide range of ailments -- sometimes with the same drugs as humans. The inflation-adjusted value of veterinary drugs rose by 8 percent, to $5.2 billion, over the past five years, according to an analysis of data from the Animal Health Institute.

Ask the pharmaceutical industry whether the contamination of water supplies is a problem, and officials will tell you no.

"Based on what we now know, I would say we find there's little or no risk from pharmaceuticals in the environment to human health," said microbiologist Thomas White, a consultant for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.

But at a conference last summer, Mary Buzby -- director of environmental technology for drug maker Merck & Co. Inc. -- said: "There's no doubt about it, pharmaceuticals are being detected in the environment and there is genuine concern that these compounds, in the small concentrations that they're at, could be causing impacts to human health or to aquatic organisms."

Recent laboratory research has found that small amounts of medication have affected human embryonic kidney cells, human blood cells and human breast cancer cells. The cancer cells proliferated too quickly; the kidney cells grew too slowly; and the blood cells showed biological activity associated with inflammation.

Also, pharmaceuticals in waterways are damaging wildlife across the nation and around the globe, research shows. Notably, male fish are being feminized, creating egg yolk proteins, a process usually restricted to females. Pharmaceuticals also are affecting sentinel species at the foundation of the pyramid of life -- such as earthworms in the wild and zooplankton in the laboratory, studies show.

Wildlife problems troubling

Some scientists stress that the research is extremely limited, and there are too many unknowns. They say, though, that the documented health problems in wildlife are disconcerting.

To the degree that the EPA is focused on the issue, it appears to be looking at detection. Grumbles acknowledged that just late last year the agency developed three new methods to "detect and quantify pharmaceuticals" in wastewater.

"We realize that we have a limited amount of data on the concentrations," he said. "We're going to be able to learn a lot more."

So much is unknown. Many independent scientists are skeptical that trace concentrations will ultimately prove to be harmful to humans. There's growing concern in the scientific community, though, that certain drugs -- or combinations of drugs -- may harm humans over decades because water, unlike most specific foods, is consumed in sizable amounts every day.

advertisement

Our bodies may shrug off a relatively big one-time dose, yet suffer from a smaller amount delivered continuously over a half century, perhaps subtly stirring allergies or nerve damage. Pregnant women, the elderly and the very ill might be more sensitive.

"We know we are being exposed to other people's drugs through our drinking water, and that can't be good," says Dr. David Carpenter, who directs the Institute for Health and the Environment of the State University of New York at Albany. E-mail to a friend E-mail to a friend

All About Prescription Drugs

CNN 10 March 2008

Friday, February 15, 2008

On the bookshelf behind me at work, I have two new books on the way the pharmaceutical industry is turning us into a nation of hypochondriacal pill-popping zombies: “Shyness: How Normal Behavior Became a Sickness” and “Our Daily Meds.” On the floor, windowsill and shelves of my office at home, I have quite a few more: “Generation Rx” … “The Last Normal Child” … “Toxic Psychiatry” … “Let Them Eat Prozac” … The latest volume, front and center now on my desk, is Charles Barber’s “Comfortably Numb: How Psychiatry Is Medicating a Nation.”

In the book, Barber argues that Americans are being vastly overmedicated for often relatively minor mental health concerns. This over-reliance on quick-fix medication is numbing our nation and dulling our awareness of real and pressing social issues and of non-psychopharmacological therapies and treatments.

Barber is hardly alone these days in this line of reasoning. The notion that American children and adults are being over-diagnosed and overmedicated for exaggerated or even fictitious mental disorders has now become one of the defining tropes of our era.

This storyline persists despite the fact that government research has repeatedly shown that most adults and children with mental health issues don’t get the specialized help that they need. It persists despite the fact that there’s really no way to meaningfully evaluate the degree of over-diagnosis and medication unique to our era, because to do so is essentially to look at the current era in a vacuum. We don’t know how many adults suffered from things like depression in the distant past because no one ever asked. The words and concepts through which we understand common mental health disorders today didn’t exist until the last few decades.

The narrative survives largely uncontested despite the fact, shared by psychiatrist Peter Kramer in his Slate review of Barber’s book, that only tiny numbers of people are receiving mental health services without real, clinical levels of mental health dysfunction or a history of mental illness or trauma. And despite the fact that, contrary to received wisdom, the United States is not a world leader when it comes to the use of psychiatric medications. (The U.S. is “’in the middle’ relative to other countries, and is not an outlier,” a study from M.I.T’s. Sloan School of Management, cited by Kramer, showed last year.)

Just because it feels like, just because it sounds like, just because soaring drug company profits and obnoxious direct to consumer advertising seem to indicate that everyone around us is popping pills like mad doesn’t mean that they are doing so. Nor does it mean that we’re in the grip of some new, previously unheard-of, and uniquely epoch-defining social phenomenon.

People have been unofficially drugging themselves for as long as they’ve had the capability to do so. They smoked cigarettes to boost their concentration. They drank cocktails with lunch and dinner — and more — to deal with anxiety and despair. Prior to the modern era of F.D.A.-regulated prescribing practices, they slugged down untold quantities of tonics and bromides.

All of which suggests that what social critics now identify as the signature event of our time (the urge to manage psychic pain through substance use) may, in fact, almost always have been a facet of the human condition. It may just be that we’re better at it than ever before – with cleaner, safer, less addictive and debilitating tools at our disposal.

Is that a terrible thing to say?

And what if, examined in the light of basic facts, and with a perturbing bit of common sense thrown into the mix, the popular storyline of our fatal corruption by Big Pharma turns out to be, if not utterly baseless, then at least greatly exaggerated?

Kramer, the author of the 1993 bestseller “Listening to Prozac” and, more recently, “Freud: Inventor of the Modern Mind” and “Against Depression,” makes a quite compelling case in his Slate review that the received wisdom about psychiatric drug use today is ahistorical, narrow in its cultural understanding and factually, often wrong.

To illustrate his point, he details research he did for the Carter administration to investigate the then deeply-held belief that a generation of women were being over-medicated with “mother’s little helpers” like Valium. “This inquiry occurred in the context of a broader discussion about whether America was becoming an overmedicated society – whether we were peculiarly averse to discomfort and enamored of the quick fix,” he writes. Yet, after convening a team of experts from the National Institute of Mental Health and other government agencies and studying women’s drug use and physicians’ prescribing patterns, Kramer’s group found that “little in the scientific literature suggested a crisis or even a uniquely American response to anxiety.”

Searching the data didn’t produce a convincing narrative about women being drugged into submission. But the belief that they were was itself deeply meaningful.

“The worries expressed about Valium were our worries: women were being given these more diverse responsibilities, weren’t being given their due, their voices weren’t being heard, the culture in general had a sort of oddness about it, we had a general sense of anxiety or unease and these issues were being explained through the idea that we’re just giving medication to women and not talking to them,” Kramer told me in an interview this week. “There was a sense that something was being covered over. Those issues found their symbol in Valium.”

There’s a lot in this little parable that’s relevant today.

Let’s get beyond statistics, percentage changes in diagnosis rates and billions earned off human suffering by Big Pharma. And let’s just try for a moment to get real.

Most of the critics decrying the over-medicalization of the American mind rest their arguments upon the bedrock assumption that people who have nothing wrong with them – happy-go-lucky types who essentially make a wrong turn on their way to Starbucks or soccer and end up in the consulting room – are being medicated for largely fictitious concerns.

But search your minds and memories: Have you, or people close to you, ever taken medication in a lazy or thoughtless way? Eagerly? As a lark? Ask around a bit; find out what kind of desperation led others to the point where they had to accept psychopharmacological help.

(Write and tell me. Tell us all. But please don’t send abstract social observations or share stories about people you don’t actually know. First-hand knowledge and real life only, thanks.)

The psychiatrists I’ve interviewed over the course of the past four years say that they have yet to be swamped by frivolous patients showing up in their offices looking for pills to help them tweak troublesome little aspects of their personalities. “Not only have I not encountered many [such patients], I haven’t encountered any in my office or even in detailed phone calls,” Kramer, most recently, told me.

There are good reasons to harbor considerable distrust about whether some psychiatrists’ prescribing practices really have patients’ best interests in mind. The Times has repeatedly and extensively covered the pernicious gravy train of payments from the pharmaceutical industry to psychiatrists who help promote their latest products; studies have indicated that receiving drug company money does influence doctors’ prescribing habits.

This is a disturbing, even disgusting, state of affairs. But it’s a fixable situation: Doctors and universities could in the future just say no to the drug money that is believed to corrupt them. They could be required to say no by law. Provided, of course, that the government stepped in to fund more and better research.

Harder to fix is the current social malaise that drives the belief that we have become a Prozac (and Concerta and Zyprexa and Effexor) Nation. What is its cause? How has it spun itself into a storyline about mentally vulnerable children and adults that is largely at odds with the facts?

What purpose does that narrative serve? What do we gain – or lose — through its continuation?

The downside is stigma, misunderstanding, and a lot of righteous indignation. I’m still working on figuring out the upside.

On the bookshelf behind me at work, I have two new books on the way the pharmaceutical industry is turning us into a nation of hypochondriacal pill-popping zombies: “Shyness: How Normal Behavior Became a Sickness” and “Our Daily Meds.” On the floor, windowsill and shelves of my office at home, I have quite a few more: “Generation Rx” … “The Last Normal Child” … “Toxic Psychiatry” … “Let Them Eat Prozac” … The latest volume, front and center now on my desk, is Charles Barber’s “Comfortably Numb: How Psychiatry Is Medicating a Nation.”

In the book, Barber argues that Americans are being vastly overmedicated for often relatively minor mental health concerns. This over-reliance on quick-fix medication is numbing our nation and dulling our awareness of real and pressing social issues and of non-psychopharmacological therapies and treatments.

Barber is hardly alone these days in this line of reasoning. The notion that American children and adults are being over-diagnosed and overmedicated for exaggerated or even fictitious mental disorders has now become one of the defining tropes of our era.

This storyline persists despite the fact that government research has repeatedly shown that most adults and children with mental health issues don’t get the specialized help that they need. It persists despite the fact that there’s really no way to meaningfully evaluate the degree of over-diagnosis and medication unique to our era, because to do so is essentially to look at the current era in a vacuum. We don’t know how many adults suffered from things like depression in the distant past because no one ever asked. The words and concepts through which we understand common mental health disorders today didn’t exist until the last few decades.

The narrative survives largely uncontested despite the fact, shared by psychiatrist Peter Kramer in his Slate review of Barber’s book, that only tiny numbers of people are receiving mental health services without real, clinical levels of mental health dysfunction or a history of mental illness or trauma. And despite the fact that, contrary to received wisdom, the United States is not a world leader when it comes to the use of psychiatric medications. (The U.S. is “’in the middle’ relative to other countries, and is not an outlier,” a study from M.I.T’s. Sloan School of Management, cited by Kramer, showed last year.)

Just because it feels like, just because it sounds like, just because soaring drug company profits and obnoxious direct to consumer advertising seem to indicate that everyone around us is popping pills like mad doesn’t mean that they are doing so. Nor does it mean that we’re in the grip of some new, previously unheard-of, and uniquely epoch-defining social phenomenon.

People have been unofficially drugging themselves for as long as they’ve had the capability to do so. They smoked cigarettes to boost their concentration. They drank cocktails with lunch and dinner — and more — to deal with anxiety and despair. Prior to the modern era of F.D.A.-regulated prescribing practices, they slugged down untold quantities of tonics and bromides.

All of which suggests that what social critics now identify as the signature event of our time (the urge to manage psychic pain through substance use) may, in fact, almost always have been a facet of the human condition. It may just be that we’re better at it than ever before – with cleaner, safer, less addictive and debilitating tools at our disposal.

Is that a terrible thing to say?

And what if, examined in the light of basic facts, and with a perturbing bit of common sense thrown into the mix, the popular storyline of our fatal corruption by Big Pharma turns out to be, if not utterly baseless, then at least greatly exaggerated?

Kramer, the author of the 1993 bestseller “Listening to Prozac” and, more recently, “Freud: Inventor of the Modern Mind” and “Against Depression,” makes a quite compelling case in his Slate review that the received wisdom about psychiatric drug use today is ahistorical, narrow in its cultural understanding and factually, often wrong.

To illustrate his point, he details research he did for the Carter administration to investigate the then deeply-held belief that a generation of women were being over-medicated with “mother’s little helpers” like Valium. “This inquiry occurred in the context of a broader discussion about whether America was becoming an overmedicated society – whether we were peculiarly averse to discomfort and enamored of the quick fix,” he writes. Yet, after convening a team of experts from the National Institute of Mental Health and other government agencies and studying women’s drug use and physicians’ prescribing patterns, Kramer’s group found that “little in the scientific literature suggested a crisis or even a uniquely American response to anxiety.”

Searching the data didn’t produce a convincing narrative about women being drugged into submission. But the belief that they were was itself deeply meaningful.

“The worries expressed about Valium were our worries: women were being given these more diverse responsibilities, weren’t being given their due, their voices weren’t being heard, the culture in general had a sort of oddness about it, we had a general sense of anxiety or unease and these issues were being explained through the idea that we’re just giving medication to women and not talking to them,” Kramer told me in an interview this week. “There was a sense that something was being covered over. Those issues found their symbol in Valium.”

There’s a lot in this little parable that’s relevant today.

Let’s get beyond statistics, percentage changes in diagnosis rates and billions earned off human suffering by Big Pharma. And let’s just try for a moment to get real.

Most of the critics decrying the over-medicalization of the American mind rest their arguments upon the bedrock assumption that people who have nothing wrong with them – happy-go-lucky types who essentially make a wrong turn on their way to Starbucks or soccer and end up in the consulting room – are being medicated for largely fictitious concerns.

But search your minds and memories: Have you, or people close to you, ever taken medication in a lazy or thoughtless way? Eagerly? As a lark? Ask around a bit; find out what kind of desperation led others to the point where they had to accept psychopharmacological help.

(Write and tell me. Tell us all. But please don’t send abstract social observations or share stories about people you don’t actually know. First-hand knowledge and real life only, thanks.)

The psychiatrists I’ve interviewed over the course of the past four years say that they have yet to be swamped by frivolous patients showing up in their offices looking for pills to help them tweak troublesome little aspects of their personalities. “Not only have I not encountered many [such patients], I haven’t encountered any in my office or even in detailed phone calls,” Kramer, most recently, told me.

There are good reasons to harbor considerable distrust about whether some psychiatrists’ prescribing practices really have patients’ best interests in mind. The Times has repeatedly and extensively covered the pernicious gravy train of payments from the pharmaceutical industry to psychiatrists who help promote their latest products; studies have indicated that receiving drug company money does influence doctors’ prescribing habits.

This is a disturbing, even disgusting, state of affairs. But it’s a fixable situation: Doctors and universities could in the future just say no to the drug money that is believed to corrupt them. They could be required to say no by law. Provided, of course, that the government stepped in to fund more and better research.

Harder to fix is the current social malaise that drives the belief that we have become a Prozac (and Concerta and Zyprexa and Effexor) Nation. What is its cause? How has it spun itself into a storyline about mentally vulnerable children and adults that is largely at odds with the facts?

What purpose does that narrative serve? What do we gain – or lose — through its continuation?

The downside is stigma, misunderstanding, and a lot of righteous indignation. I’m still working on figuring out the upside.