Ingredient in makeup could bring on early menopause?

The research is new, so this may or may not bear out over time. But right now the suspicion is that phthalates, a common ingredient in makeup and in household cleansers (?! – I’m putting something on my face that I use to clean my toilets or something?) may bring on early menopause. And that’s bad news because early menopause brings on osteoporosis. From the article:

In the study, Grindler and her colleagues examined the levels of phthalates in the blood or urine of 5,700 women. Those with the highest amounts were found to have gone through menopause an average of 2.3 years before the others. Menopause typically occurs in women around the age of 51, so those exposed to the highest levels of phthalates were going through it at around age 49.

But Grindler told those at the conference that some women may be reaching menopause 15 years early, in their mid-30s. She suggested that the women may not only have been exposed to phthalates through makeup, but also through the eating of more packaged foods.

Phthalates also have been cited as the culprit in other studies looking at risks for cancer, obesity and diabetes. In one recent study, phthalates were tied to reproductive system abnormalities in mice.

Researchers at Washington University emphasized that the studies are still in the preliminary stages and that final results of won’t be released for months, noting that they “don’t want to scare people.”

Wait a second. This is ringing some kind of bell. Wasn’t there an article awhile back about how people who cleaned their houses more often had a higher incidence of cancer?  Was that it? I remember joking that it was a good thing that I was such a pig. So could this all be related?

Sing it, sister.

I avoid talking about politics too much on this site because it puts some people off. But when political choices affect our health, I think it’s appropriate. And I think Leslie Gore says it better in this 1964 song than just about anyone else. Women, get out there and vote.

Ovarian Cancer Screenings are Not Effective

… and may actually do more harm than good.

And in other Medicine-May-Be-Bad-For-You news, CT scans, x-rays, and MRIs of children may actually increase their chances of getting cancer later in life. Perhaps more reason to only have DEXAs every two years? (I know – the article is talking about children, not those young at heart. But still.) This was a 20-year study, so do with that what you will.

Jane Brody had an article about how popular antibiotics carry serious side-effects. (And why are doctors prescribing those monster antibiotics for an ear-ache, one has to wonder?)

Tuberculosis has all but been wiped-out in this country, but high doses of vitamin D (the wonder vitamin!) have been shown to speed recovery! I guess there was something to all those solariums/sun porches in the Tubercular wards at the turn of the century.

Slobs of the world, unite! Good news! There is such a thing as being too clean! (Take it with a grain of salt. There are issues with the research.)

Using a computer before bed can disrupt melatonin levels and interfere with sleep. (Wait! What? Why am I typing?)

Lastly, Yum! What a great use for oatmeal.

Another scare headline: women who stop HRT have a big jump in hip fractures.

Image from Trialx

So says a study posted in Menopause (and reported on in the Chicago Tribune yesterday). How big was the jump for those who quit HRT? A whopping 55%. HRT has fallen out of favor because of it increases a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer.

And now comes the part where I rag on the shoddy reporting.

Because neither source goes into any detail about what kind of HRT. Grr!

Not all HRTs are created equal. There are the awful equine estrogens which have been implicated in breast cancer and increased risk of heart attack; there are the HRTs that don’t include progesterone which result in increased cervical cancers; and there are bio-identical HRTs which not as much is known about because not a lot has been said about them.

One of the best, most comprehensive articles on bio-identical estrogens / early-intervention HRT therapy was in The New York Times Magazine back in April. It’s enough to make me want to go on the bio-identicals, if only I didn’t hate taking medicine. You can read that here. And I suggest you do.

Long way of saying that without knowing the type of HRT the women were on, I can’t get up in arms about this.  My guess would be that the study involved women who stopped taking the equine estrogens (whenever they do a study about HRT, the same two drugs seem to be in the middle: Prempro and Provera.)

Maybe if I do a scholarly search, I can find more info. I’ll let you know.

Bone and fertility – they might be linked?

Interesting article in The New York Times that looks at how bone health may affect fertility rates in both men and women. Give it a read here.

Soy doesn’t alleviate hot flashes.

At least not according to the latest research. Rats. They found no difference in menopausal symptoms between women taking soy and the control group. The article goes on to recommend taking antidepressants for hot flashes (?!!), but remember folks! SSRIs are implicated in bone loss. So you can’t take that either. Second choice was estrogen, although if you have a history of breast cancer in your family, you’ll want to avoid that as well. Except for some pretty heavy night sweats in my late 30s and early 40s, I am asymptomatic in my menopause. A hot flash to me just means my toes and fingers aren’t freezing. But on the bright side, they think hot flashes may protect your heart.

This should be required continuing ed. for my doctor

The New York Times has an article today about a med school in Virginia that requires prospective med students to go through an “admissions equivalent of speed dating,” nine brief interviews designed to weed out arrogant people with zero social skills. Or at least that was my interpretation of the article. In reality, they may just be trying to identify the problem early and train them to behave better / develop better people skills. In any case, I wish my doctor would take that course as part of his continuing education. You can read all about it here.

Newer doesn’t always mean better.

There’s an interesting article in The New York Times about how in the U.S., there’s the rush to create the next great medical device or drug. And how we as consumers often mistake the latest for the greatest and end up suffering the consequences when a few years down the road it turns out that the “latest” has a lot of problems and/or unforeseen consequences that we would have known about had there not been this rush to get this “terrific” medical advance on the market.

Specifically, they talk about metal on metal hip replacements, the diabetes drug Avandia (linked to heart attack), and a component in a heart device made by Medtronic that was installed in 200,000 patients before they discovered it was prone to fracturing (the component, not the patient). Twelve people died as a result.

For the metal hip, it seems to work well in some instances – like if you’re a tall, middle aged man:

Some experts, like Dr. Malchau, said they used a special type of metal-on-metal implant known as a resurfacing device in specific patients — mainly taller, middle-age men — because data showed that they worked in that small group. But as with many innovations, metal hips were marketed to all comers. For example, about 65 percent of the implants went to women and older patients, according to an estimate by a consulting firm, Exponent Inc. As it turned out, those two groups appear most prone to failures involving the devices.

“The vast majority of the ‘innovations’ on which we have spent money with respect to orthopedics over the past two decades have not resulted in improved patient outcomes,” said Dr. Kevin J. Bozic, an orthopedic surgeon and professor at the University of California, San Francisco, who has written about artificial joints’ impact on health care costs.”

So what’s the issue with the metal on metal hip? Evidently in the “old” hip replacement design created in the 1960s, the ball joint was metal and the socket or cup in which it was inserted was plastic. In the new design (which actually isn’t that new — it’s been kicking around for about three decades), both parts are metal. The drawback with metal on metal is that over time, the ball rubbing on that metal socket shaves off little bits of metal which then enter the bloodstream and wind up lodged in people’s organs. There were concerns it might lead to cancer.  From the Times:

By 1996, Jonathan Black, an industry consultant and professor emeritus of bioengineering at Clemson University, warned in a medical journal article that the metal-on-metal design posed significant risks because little was known about the biological havoc that metallic debris might cause. He also argued that given the high success rate of existing designs, it would be statistically impossible to run enough studies to prove the new implants’ supposed superiority.

At the time, Mr. Black estimates, the all-metal implants accounted for only a tiny fraction of some 250,000 hips implanted annually in the United States. By 2008, they were used in one out of every three hip procedures.

What happened? In essence, the old technology was repackaged as new and cutting-edge, and warnings like Mr. Black’s were ignored and considered no longer relevant. This new generation of devices was manufactured differently and reflected better designs, advocates argued.

Companies and surgeons began promoting the new implants as the next big step in orthopedics, one that would let patients, particularly middle-age ones, do strenuous physical activities because their mechanics were more natural. And patients, intrigued by ads featuring celebrity athletes, also wanted such devices.

One woman ended up with grey fluid around her hips. Her doctor, who had leapt on the “latest” technology and performed 40 metal-on-metal hip replacements, said “It has not been fun.” The metal debris has caused “crippling tissue and muscle damage and neurological issues in other patients.” One woman had a blood test and found she had a high level of metal ions. When they did an x-ray of her hip, they found there was a tumor growing around the replacement device. Yikes.

Of course the metal-on-plastic design has its drawbacks too. The articles says that the type of plastic used in some of those designs shed particles that then led to bone loss in some patients. Sigh. You can read the full article here.

 

Prenatal vitamins may prevent autism

Wouldn’t it be glorious (but also slightly heartbreaking) if this is actually true? That something as simple as a vitamin could so greatly reduce autism statistics? But so it seems. Studies suggest that women who have children with autism spectrum disorders were significantly less likely to have taken prenatal vitamins before conception and during the first month of pregnancy. In other words, if you weren’t actively planning on getting pregnant — because who else takes prenatal vitamins three months before conception? — then you are seven times more likely to have a child with autism.

Proving once again that there are no short cuts

… studies have shown if you have liposuction to get rid of unwanted fat on your thighs, your body just makes more fat – only this time it distributes it in the abdominal area, shoulders and upper arms. And I’m wondering… since there’s been this study on how abdominal fat contributes to bone loss, would that mean women who have liposuction on their thighs are then going to be at a greater risk for osteoporosis? Just asking.

Exercise, people. Not too much; not too little. Eat sensibly. Avoid the fat and the sugar. You know, all those things doctors have been saying for decades (centuries?) that we should do.