Search for tag: "mortality"

Interviewer: It used to be 50. Now it's 45 and there's a good reason for that. Huntsman Cancer Institute and University of Utah Health says more lives can be saved if men and women who are at average risk of colorectal cancer get screened at 45 instead of 50 years old. Dr. Priyanka Kanth is from Huntsman Cancer Institute. Why the change? What happened?

Dr. Kanth: Over the years since mid-'90s to early 2000, we have noticed an increased risk, increase incidence, and mortality. Actually both. So increased cases and people dying from colorectal cancer. And that was the main reason people started looking into it, researchers started looking into it and came up with this studies, modeling studies. And that's why this recommendation was changed.

Interviewer: Yeah. And the reason that's so important is because unlike other disease that perhaps might show symptoms, and then you would go get treatment. That's not how colorectal cancer presents. It really is screening is the best way to save lives.

Dr. Kanth: Absolutely. You're very right about it. So most of the early onset cancers or any colorectal cancer, early stages do not produce symptoms. Polyp usually starts with a polyp, which is a little bump in the colon and it changes into colon cancer. These polyps do not produce symptoms and they grow slowly, and you will never know you have one. So that's the biggest problem with colorectal cancer. And by the time you have symptoms, it's fairly late. So screening is the best strategy to prevent this cancer.

Interviewer: And this new research has just really shown that people between 45 and 49 because catching it early is the best defense that a lot of good can be done by having it at 45.

Dr. Kanth: Absolutely. Absolutely. There are certain research which has shown that there was a drastic increase even between age 49 and 50. So one study showed that there was an increase of almost 46% between age 49 and 50. So if we decrease it from 50 to 45, we are really hoping to capture that colon cancer patient. And this would be very, very beneficial between that age group.

The other thing I would like to say that this is also an incentive, an added benefit to increase screening from age 50 to 55, 50 to 54. But traditionally, it has been on the lower side if you do it from 50 to 75. There's slightly decreased screening rates in screening uptake between age 50 to 55. So this will help patients who are thinking about it at age 50, but did not get it till age 55. Now they're like, "Oh, you have to get it done at 45, let's get it one at by age 48." Something like that. So this will be very helpful at that point.

Interviewer: Is there a perception that colorectal cancer is an older person's disease?

Dr. Kanth: Yes. I think a lot of us, a lot of our patients in general public we think cancer is an old person's disease, especially colorectal cancer. That's not the case anymore. This is still true. Most colorectal cancer will still be diagnosed when you're older, but there has been a rise in patients who are younger than age 50. Some of it is because of genetic causes, but the rise has been in the average risk. So this perception should be changed. We should consider 45 as new 50 to start screening now.

Interviewer: And really that number, age 45 is the most important number. It's not do I have a family history? It's not do I have symptoms? It's not am I a man or a woman and think I'm less likely to get it. Really as soon as anyone hits that age of average risk of 45, that's the trigger you should go get it checked.

Dr. Kanth: Absolutely. Very correct. So 50 was . . . the same recommendation was for anyone, any gender, male, female. Any person who hits 50, you should get a colonoscopy. Now that has changed to 45. So it doesn't matter if you have symptoms, you should get it checked, especially if you don't have family history. If you have family history, that's a different story. If you don't have family history or average risk, please go get checked at age 45.

Interviewer: How is this going to impact those that do have an increased risk? Not an average risk, an increased risk? Does that also drop their age that they should go in down or do we know?

Dr. Kanth: So, at this point, if you have a family history, we usually start screening early. Most of the time we start screening at age 40. Or if somebody had colon cancer, I'd say whatever age, 10 years before they had colon cancer. So that may not change so much. It's possible we can look at the data and that may change again, but at this point, this recommendation is only for average risk. So family history is a different cohort of patients. That is still a very good point for primary care physician for all of us to ask that history from patients, "Do you have a family history of colon cancer?" Because your risk might be very different from the average risk.

Interviewer: So have that conversation if you're above average risk with your physician, your provider is whether or not you should get it earlier.

Dr. Kanth: Absolutely. Yes.

Interviewer: All right. And for the recommendation, is a colonoscopy okay? The home stool test, is that impacted by this age going down to 45?

Dr. Kanth: The best screening is the one that gets done. So that's another message which has to be delivered by providers. Colonoscopy is not the only screening test. Colonoscopy is gold standard because you can see the polyps you can remove it before it turn into cancer. But there are other very, very good stool tests which can detect colon cancer easily. They are non-invasive, you stay at home, you don't have any logistics around it. And those are good tests to be done. So that's a big message which everyone should know that colonoscopy is not the only way to detect cancer. There are other very good stool tests, which everyone should consider. If you're declining colonoscopy for any reason, do go for a stool test.

Interviewer: So if it's a stool test or if it's the colonoscopy, it doesn't matter. Average risk needs to be 45 now.

Dr. Kanth: Absolutely.

Interviewer: All right. And also, I understand with the new recommendation that Medicare, Medicaid, and also your commercial insurance will cover either one of those screenings starting at 45.

Dr. Kanth: That is correct. And that's what we believe after the new recommendation which has been endorsed by pretty much all the societies that all these should be now covered under preventive care just that how we had it at age 50. Even now, some insurances are already covering at age 45, but that was more sporadic. So now we expect this to be 100% covered.

Dr. Jones: So you live longer if your doctor is female. That's what the research suggests. Well, let's look at this a little more carefully, okay? This is Dr. Kirtly Jones from Obstetrics and Gynecology at University of Utah Healthcare and full disclosure, I'm a female physician and this is The Scope.

Announcer: Covering all aspects of women's health, this is "The Seven Domains of Women's Health," with Dr. Kirtly Jones, on The Scope.

Dr. Jones: It seems as if every major news outlet brought forth the research that people live longer if their doctor is female. Okay. That sets us up for some controversy and some potential bad feelings. But let's unpack the numbers and take a closer look.

The study was published in JAMA Internal Medicine. This is a well-respected journal and it looked at medical billings for hospitalizations around the country for people over 65 with a number of common medical problems such as pneumonia, heart failure, or urinary tract infections, to name a few. They analyzed over 1.5 million admissions between January 2011 and December of 2014. Wow, that's a lot of hospitalizations. But in fact, they just picked a random 20% of all the admissions in the US to study.

They specifically looked at the outcomes of death in the 30 days after admission or readmission to the hospital. Those are just the two things they looked at. And then, they looked at whether the physician who billed for the admission was a female or a male. It's amazing what you can find on the internet.

Of course, they had to look carefully to see if the patients of male physicians were sicker than those of women. They had to look at the age of the patients to see if they were older in the male doctor group than the female doctor group. Then, they looked at the doctors to see if the females were younger. And they were, on average, about five years. And if they had had more recently finished their training, which women physicians had by about five years. Then, they had to control for all these factors in their statistical analysis. They chose hospitals where the doctors who provided care tended to work on shifts, so the admitting doctor was not by the choice of the patient.

Well, it was pretty good study and with really big numbers. And the envelope, please. Patients who were cared for by female physicians were less likely to die in 20 days. Now the real numbers. Patients cared for by female physicians had an 11% chance of dying in the 30 days. You should know that the average age of these patients was 80. Compared to the rate of death within 30 days of 11.5% in those patients cared for by male physicians, that is one-half of 1% difference.

Now, because the number of patients is so large, one-half of 1% is statistically different. However, if you're thinking of changing your doctor, that's a pretty small difference for any one person. To save one death in 30 days, you had to have 233 people cared for by women for every one cared for by men.

Similar numbers were found in the rate of readmissions for hospitals, and the females compared to males was slightly less. Some people argue that the difference is very small for any individual patient. But if you look at hospital admissions for the elderly over the entire United States, there are over 10 million hospitalizations among Medicare patients annually. And one-half of 1% of 30-day mortality could add up to a lot.

So, what's this about? Physician sex doesn't make a difference in outcome. It isn't the extra x chromosome or the estrogen level that makes the difference. It must be some behaviors in female physicians that are just a little different than men. We call that a gender difference, not a sex difference. Sex is the chromosomes in the biology; gender is the behavior.

Studies have found that female physicians are little more likely to adhere to clinical guidelines in care and practice more evidence-based medicine. Women tend to use more patient-centered communication and provide more psychosocial counseling to their patients than males. It's hard to know exactly what is the difference in practice that accounts for this small difference in patient outcomes.

Of course, to me, it may all boil down to a factor that all women know. Women are more likely to stop and ask for directions, right? In fact, we are trying to teach more protocol-based and evidence-based medicine to all our medical student these days, men and women. And we are teaching patient-centered communications more.

So maybe our women and men graduating from medical school will be more comfortable asking for directions. And everyone, patients and doctors, will get where they're supposed to go.

Announcer: Thescoperadio.com is University of Utah Health Sciences Radio. If you like what you heard, be sure to get our latest content by following us on Facebook. Just click on the Facebook icon at thescoperadio.com

Interviewer: Older adults are at a higher risk for death if they have low levels of bicarbonate in their blood. Bicarbonate, it's the main ingredient in baking soda. We'll talk about that next on The Scope.

Announcer: Examining the latest research and telling you about the latest breakthroughs. The Science and Research Show is on The Scope.

Interviewer: I'm talking with Dr. Kalani Raphael, a nephrologist and Associate Professor of Internal Medicine at the University of Utah and at the Salt Lake City VA. Dr. Raphael, tell me about the main finding of your study. It's pretty interesting.

Dr. Raphael: In this study, we were looking at the association between serum bicarbonate levels and mortality in a generally healthy older population. The basic finding from our study was that in people with low bicarbonate levels, they had a higher risk of death and their risk of death was about 24%, 25% higher over a mean follow-up period of about 10 years or so.

Interviewer: So that's pretty significant. What is bicarbonate?

Dr. Raphael: Bicarbonate is very important in the body for maintaining your pH levels in a normal range. In order for our cells and our organs to work normally, the pH needs to be kept at a range of about 7.40.

Interviewer: So people with low bicarbonate would have blood that's more acidic. Why might that be unhealthy?

Dr. Raphael: The bicarbonate levels could be low for two main reasons. One is it could be because the kidneys are holding on to too much acid and your bicarbonate levels fall. That's something we call metabolic acidosis. Or the reason the bicarbonate level could be low is because the lungs are breathing off too much carbon dioxide and your bicarbonate levels fall as a compensatory response is what we call that.

So we're not exactly sure why the bicarbonate levels were low in these people. If I had to guess, I would say that the most likely reason the bicarbonate levels are low is because of an impaired ability of the kidney to get rid of the acid that we need to on a daily basis. The main reason why I say that is because our diets are really high in acid content in these western diets that we have now. We don't consume enough fruits and vegetables in relation to the amount of acid that we intake.

So if I had to guess, I would say that the most likely reason that the bicarbonate levels were low is because of an impaired ability to get rid of acid by the kidneys.

Interviewer: So what caused you to even take a look at that in the first place?

Dr. Raphael: Well, in people with kidney disease, we know that low bicarbonate levels occur quite commonly. It occurs in about 15% of people with kidney disease who aren't yet on dialysis. What we know is that in people with kidney disease who have low bicarbonate levels, they have a higher risk of death and they have a higher risk of progression of their kidney disease to end-stage renal disease or needing dialysis or a transplant in order to survive.

But much less was really known about generally healthy people and so I was interested in whether or not low bicarbonate levels have any association with poor outcomes in people who are otherwise healthy. So that was really the driving force behind this research study.

Interviewer: So do you think measuring bicarbonate levels could be some sort of test or indicator that someone could do to evaluate the healthiness of somebody?

Dr. Raphael: Absolutely. I mean, bicarbonate levels are very commonly measured in clinical practice these days. Bicarbonate levels are measured usually when a physician wants to check on somebody's kidney function. They'll order a chemistry panel or a renal panel. In primary care, I'm not exactly sure how well people look at these levels and I think that one of the things that maybe doesn't attract their attention is they don't really know what it means for that person.

So if you had a healthy person sitting in your clinic who had a bicarbonate value that was low, I think most physicians would say, "Okay. It's low. I'm not sure what to do with that." But I think what this research is showing is that it's probably something we should be paying attention to. But I don't really know quite yet what we should do about that.

Interviewer: Right. Maybe it would be a signal that it's worth taking a second look at this patient to see . . .

Dr. Raphael: Absolutely.

Interviewer: . . . if something else is going on.

Dr. Raphael: Right. So, I think you said it correctly that it's a signal for potentially bad things. That might trigger the physician to look into their kidney function a little bit more or maybe consider underlying lung disease or heart problems in that person.

Interviewer: So do you think more research needs to be done to figure out exactly what this could mean?

Dr. Raphael: Absolutely. The key thing about this research is that these were really healthy people. I mean, they were older folks. They could have had diabetes. They could have had some cardiovascular disease. But they were independently living. They could take care of themselves. They could walk a quarter-mile. They could climb up stairs. These were pretty healthy, older folks.

Interviewer: Right. So not necessarily any other indication that something was wrong, right?

Dr. Raphael: Exactly.

Interviewer: Interesting.

Dr. Raphael: Yep. So I think the next steps are to kind of look into why this cohort had low bicarbonate levels in the first place. Is it an undiagnosed or yet to be determined type of kidney disease or some other underlying lung disease, potentially? Then, I think the next thing also to consider is can we raise the bicarbonate levels in these people with various types of interventions and perhaps improve their outcomes, make them live longer, those sorts of things?

Interviewer: Is there anything else you'd like to add?

Dr. Raphael: The takeaway from this type of research is that we can say that there are associations between bicarbonate levels and outcomes. We can't really say quite yet whether or not people should be changing their diets or taking baking soda. I think that's something that needs to be cautioned against at this point, pending further clinical trials.

But I think if somebody is interested in keeping their bicarbonate levels at a normal range, I think that the safest way to do that is to look at how much fruits and vegetables they eat because fruits and vegetables are a source of bicarbonate, that bicarbonate largely comes from citric acid in fruits and vegetables, which gets converted by the liver into bicarbonate. We all know that fruits and vegetables have great health benefits for lots of other reasons.

One of the cautions about increasing fruits and vegetables in your diet is in people with kidney disease because those have high levels of potassium and that could cause potassium buildup in people with kidney disease. So I think if somebody is thinking about increasing their fruits and vegetables in their diet to keep their bicarbonate levels in a normal range that they should probably check with their doctor to make sure that it's safe.

Announcer: Interesting, informative, and all in the name of better health. This is The Scope Health Sciences Radio.