Friday, March 29, 2013

Practice Redesign Isn’t Going To Erase The Primary Care Shortage

The Health Care Blog
The Health Care Blog
Practice Redesign Isn't Going To Erase The Primary Care Shortage
Mar 29th 2013, 22:35

By Jeff Goldsmith

Most experts agree that primary care needs to be re-invented.  There are a lot of promising ingredients of practice redesign:  better scheduling, electronic medical records with patient portals, redesigned clinician workflow, and work sharing.  Linda Green's intriguing article in the January Health Affairs simulates a strategic combination of these changes and argues if they all happened at once, we would have no primary care physician shortage.

Even if we make much more effective use of clinical time and energy, however, Green's formula isn't going to get us far enough fast enough.  The baby boom generation of physicians is fast nearing its "sell by" date.  In 2010, one quarter of the 242,000 primary care physicians in the US were 56 or older.  One in six general internists left their practices in mid-career.  Many more hardworking clinicians delayed retirement due to the 2008 financial collapse.

Few manpower specialists have noted the cohort effect likely to manifest itself shortly.  A continued economic recovery and, more importantly, a recovery in retirement plan and medical real estate asset values will lead as many as 100,000 physicians of all stripes to leave practice in the next few years.  We will be replacing a generation of workaholic, 70-hour-a-week baby boom physicians with Gen Y physicians with a revealed preference for 35-hour work weeks.  During this same period, we'll be adding 1.5-1.7 million net new Medicare beneficiaries a year and enfranchising perhaps 25 million newly insured folks through health reform.  "Train wreck" is the right descriptor of the emerging primary care supply situation.

Green suggests that this demand pressure could be accommodated with a much smaller replacement cohort of primary care docs if we:  increased each physician's patient visits slots to 28 per day; enabled more same-day scheduling; had physicians practice in pods of 3-8 docs where any doc in the pod could see one anyone else's patients; leveraged patient portals to substitute electronic visits for in-person ones; and plugged in physician "extenders."  Implementing all these innovations across the entire health system has the effect of doubling physicians' patient panels to more than 5,000 and, voila, no physician shortage.

Real-World Problems With The Model Green Lays Out

Several of these redesign elements aren't going to be well received either by physicians or their patients.  I've visited real-world group practices organized this way.  They reminded me of nothing so much as "I Love Lucy's" famous chocolate factory assembly line.  It was exhausting simply watching the physicians sprint through their days. You wanted to install oxygen carrels for them to catch their breath.  Gen Y docs aren't going to practice 28-slot days, with intensive "break times" to answer their emails and make phone calls.  Neither are Gen Y nurse practitioners.

And without the sustaining influence of genuine relationships with their patients, the new generation of primary care physicians are likely to burn out even faster than their boomer elders did.  Moreover, aging patients will need relationships with physicians who understand the context for their chronic disease risks and can motivate them to manage those risks.  Even though they will like on-demand scheduling and e-visits, baby boomer patients, in particular, aren't going to embrace a "bullpen" approach to their primary care coverage.  Twenty-eight-slot physician work days staffed by physician pods is an inferior primary care product.

In Group Health's Factoria medical home practices, panel sizes went the other way, shrinking to 1,800 rather than growing to 5,400.  Visit times were doubled, to about 30 minutes, not halved.  Previous Group Health primary care practice redesigns improved physician productivity, but at a terrible price:  increased turnover and markedly reduced professional satisfaction.

The Factoria redesign leveraged Group Health's successful patient portal, physician extenders, and better scheduling and resulted in improved clinician morale and patient satisfaction.  And, most importantly for Group Health's business model, the redesign markedly reduced emergency visits and hospital costs per-member per-month.  Similarly, the widely cited ProvenCare Navigator model developed at Geisinger Clinic achieved panel sizes of about 2,500, less than half of Green's 5400 panel target.

The Limitations Of Potential Strategies To Increase Productivity

Better use of nurse practitioners.  Leveraging physician extenders is a key to making more "medical homes" work properly.  Here too, however, there are cohort problems.  The current nurse practitioner population is even more "boomer intensive" than the physician population is.  In 2008, 63 percent of nurse practitioners in the US were over the age of 45, and 15 percent over the age of 60.

While Green suggests that nurse practitioners have been growing faster than population (e.g. faster than 0.8 percent a year), that growth won't be anywhere near enough to offset the impending retirement of the baby boom NP cadre, many of whom work a lot of unpaid overtime completing their documentation tasks.  And many of the new NP's are being snarfed up by the expansion of federally qualified health centers and by non-traditional care providers like the Minute Clinics.  There won't be many left over for redesigned primary care practices.

Electronic health records.  Green's optimism about the potential productivity improvements from electronic health records might also be misplaced.  Despite, or perhaps because of, the pressure from meaningful use to automate office practices, physician offices added 162,000 workers from 2007 to 2011, even with a 10 percent shrinkage of visit volume.  Many of these new hires were medical secretaries, physician assistants, and the like.

If there are productivity offsets for practicing physicians from automating medical records, they are hard to detect.  Most physicians I've talked to about their EMR conversions are spending less time with patients and more time feeding their EMRs coding information and complying with new Medicare documentation requirements.   The result:  richer coding and more dollars from fewer patients.   Unless documentation requirements are reduced, it is not clear that the EMR will actually make it easier for physicians, or other clinicians for that matter, to see more patients.

A Potential Way Forward

There are potential solutions in addition to the ones Green identified.  They include payment models that markedly consolidate payment transactions (bundling or partial capitation), and more targeted documentation requirements focusing more tightly on patient safety and outcomes.  We can also, per Green, reduce "unnecessary" visits by markedly improving patient communication and leveraging texting, email and social media linkages.

Green does not address the market barriers to adequate primary care physician supply.  Presently, primary care physicians earn about 55 percent of the income of their procedure oriented colleagues, a number that will be barely dented by the Affordable Care Act's nominal increase in Medicare's evaluation and management payments.  Unless you're a trust funder, or someone with no medical school debt, selecting primary care as a specialty doesn't make a lot of economic sense.  Primary care docs will still be paying off loans in their sixties.

To surmount this problem, we must markedly increase per-hour compensation for primary care physicians, or they will continue selecting life-style friendly subspecialties instead.  We'll all have great skin, but we'll be waiting three months to see a primary care physician.

This problem isn't going to wait for Commissions, Blue Ribbon panels and learned pontification.  And it isn't going to be wished away by clever economic modeling.  Despite Green's optimism, we are going to experience a horrendous shortfall of front-line caregivers in the next decade.  Medicare beneficiaries whose physicians retire in the next ten years are going to have great difficulty replacing them.  Making more intelligent use of caregiver time is an urgent priority, but it is not going to be enough to meet the rising demand for primary care services in the next 20 years.

Jeff Goldsmith is president of Health Futures Inc, which specializes in corporate strategic planning and forecasting future health care trends. He is also the author of "The Long Baby Boom: An Optimistic Vision for a Graying Generation." This post originally appeared on March 28, 2013 in the Health Affairs Blog.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Pandora’s Pillbox

The Health Care Blog
The Health Care Blog
Pandora's Pillbox
Mar 29th 2013, 18:51

By J.D. KLEINKE

WASHINGTON — Oral contraceptives may be small, but they are proving to be tough pills for a vast number of Americans to swallow.

Last week, the Sunlight Foundation reported that the contraception provisions of President Obama’s health reform law garnered 147,000 comments from the public — more than on any other regulatory ruling, on any subject, in the history of the nation. Really.

The unprecedented flood of comments came from a wide range of organizations and individuals who support or oppose mandated contraception coverage as part of Obamacare.

Supporters, in general, want to extend coverage for this cornerstone of women’s health; oral contraceptives are used not just for birth control, but also for the treatment of pelvic pain, irregular periods, fibroid tumors, ovarian cysts, endometriosis, severe acne, mood disorders, and excessive menstrual bleeding that could lead to anemia. Opponents, in general, want to block this extension based on religious, moral or personal objections to women using pooled insurance resources to pay for pills that enable sex-for-fun — and that can be used, as it happens, for early termination of an unwanted pregnancy.

Such are the gray areas of medicine, the mechanics of health insurance, and the culture wars at the heart of Obamacare.

When President Obama set out to fix a broken health insurance system and find a pathway to coverage for all Americans, he could not help but open Pandora’s Pillbox — focusing and intensifying nearly every one of our culture wars. This has less to do with the actual details of Obamacare than with the hard realities of how the health insurance system invades, pervades, and connects us all — as almost anyone involved in prior health reform debates, or in trying to manage health care for an insured population, would attest.

As evidenced by those 147,000 comments, the Obama administration is simply confronting, en masse, what everyone in myriad private health insurance administrations has been facing for decades: our health care system is the dumping ground for all of our worst, unresolved arguments as a society. It is a long, messy list, and runs from the ovary to the grave: access to reproductive technology for the infertile, access to abortion for unwanted pregnancy, childhood vaccination, domestic violence, mental illness, personal responsibility for self-destructive behavior, generational economic conflict, the value of heroic medical treatment, the denial of death.

Name a subject that inflames people and drives them into warring camps of irreconcilable, passionately held beliefs, and the keepers of the U.S. health care system (and now the architects and implementers of Obamacare) get to deal with it. Extend our current health insurance system to everyone outside its walls — the essence of Obamacare — and you spark every remaining culture war: health care as an earned good versus human right, access to care by illegal immigrants, social justice and the cycle of poverty, compassion versus stigmatization of substance abuse, and pesky little issues like using the tax code for re-distribution of wealth and the role of government in our private lives.

Abortion jumps out of Pandora’s pillbox first because the country has been engaged in a civil war over it — and not always just a cold civil war — for half a century. But contraception? One of the best ways to reduce abortion rates?? 147,000 comments???

By contrast and for some odd reason, there has been almost no public discussion of Obamacare’s coverage of vasectomy, the single most effective form of birth control. Which leads one to believe that this particular debate is less about abortion — or even sex-for-fun, as enabled by vasectomy — than about something else that apparently belongs on the list of unresolved cultural arguments: female sexual autonomy.

Yes, it may seem odd or appalling that we are even having this discussion in the current century — until you take a quick glance at some of those 147,000 comments, posted by people nonetheless sufficiently modern to access the Internet. Perhaps I’ve been over-conditioned by decades of HBO and Showtime, but I’d assumed that sex-for-fun was like fluoride: it’s in the water, and people can’t really still be arguing about it, right? Apparently they are — and The Scarlet Letter is one of the most durable works of American literature for good reason.

In the current century, we can no longer run Hester Prynne out of town — but we can try to run her out of the insurance pool. This would be the core rationale for much of the opposition to the contraception rule, and shows a perfect misunderstanding of how our health insurance system works today and will work when extended under Obamacare.

The National Republican Congressional Committee sponsors a menacing-sounding website, “Living Under Obamacare,” that serves as an online bunker for potshots against health reform. A testimonial at the top of the site’s section dedicated to “Women Living Under Obamacare” is a perfect example of the public’s uninformed whining about Obamacare on its face, but is actually about health insurance in general.

“I had a hysterectomy, I have no need for maternity coverage, but I have to now pay for it. I have to pay not only my own premium but I have to subsidize everybody else.”

One little technical detail about this 49-year-old woman’s complaint: there is no way that whatever insurance premiums she or her employer paid in relevant accounting years covered the cost of her hysterectomy, combined with all the medical care leading up to it and the medications to follow. Her surgery was “subsidized” by tens of thousands of the same young healthy women in her insurance pool she now finds so burdensome — women who will be getting pregnant and having babies on her dime, along with all those Hester Prynnes who just wanna have fun.

This is why premiums will be going up for those same women, and most likely for all younger people under Obamacare — to subsidize the greater medical costs incurred by older people. This is Insurance Economics 101.

The inter-generational conflict elicited by trying to fix the broken health insurance market is corollary to the oddest cultural phenomenon of all in Pandora’s Pillbox: our exquisitely self-serving self-deception when it comes how health insurance works. It goes something like this: I’m paying for health insurance, so all my medical care should be covered, but to hell with any of your medical care I find morally objectionable. If I don’t approve of it, or just don’t feel like paying for it, then I shouldn’t have to. Sex-for-fun? For me, sure. Viagra good, but birth control pills bad — because I might not like what you do with them.

Luckily, most physicians in the U.S. do know how health insurance works. And as they did with managed care, they will find ways around the final version of the contraception rule, however contorted by the Obama administration to accommodate the birth control scolds. The Administration’s work-around right now is to designate separate new accounting entities for contraception coverage — because our health insurance system needs a little more complexity and paperwork.

This work-around may or may not ultimately appease opposition to this element of Obamacare by religious employers, but it will not matter in the trenches of medicine. Accounting entities deal in the black-and-whites of political accommodations and coverage rules; medicine deals in the gray areas of anxiety, need, fear, perception, deception, and what is or isn’t written down somewhere for submission as an insurance claim. Pelvic pain, irregular periods, fibroid tumors, ovarian cysts, endometriosis, severe acne, mood disorders, and excessive menstrual bleeding are real, and they all have diagnosis codes.

For the past two decades. managed care has been training prescribers to shadow box with the system on behalf of what their patients really need. At the height of health care’s hyper-administrative madness in the late 1990s, more than half of physicians surveyed said they would falsify documentation to enable their patients’ access to medical care they believed they needed but insurers would not pay for. In a related study, more than a quarter of the public surveyed said they approved of such deliberate deception. Those numbers cannot have gone anywhere but up, as insurance coverage has gone down.

As Obamacare extends the current health insurance system to cover the previously uninsurable, so too will physicians and patients extend their current ability to cope with administrative complexity and intrusive rules.

“Birth control” pills, like so many others, may be named and used for one medical purpose, but are mobilized for a multitude of medical reasons. The FDA approves them, patients want them, doctors prescribe them, and insurers (and Obamacare) will cover them, one way or another. Even if the birth control scolds were able to prevail on contraception coverage and block Obamacare from allowing women to have access to pills for reasons that do not meet with their moral approval, it would not matter. Physicians will medicalize those patients, document other reasons for the prescriptions, and patients will get access.

Once again, our doctors will serve as our last line of defense in the fight against medical tyranny — tyranny committed by the very people who, when they are not crusading against reproductive medicine in its many forms, like to accuse Obamacare of imposing its values on the rest of us.

Rush Limbaugh, who probably knows a thing or two about gaming the nation’s prescribing systems, may think of women who use birth control as “sluts.” No doubt the same misogyny is driving — consciously or not — a large percentage of the 147,000 organizations and people who took time out from their busy day to comment in opposition to the contraception mandate. Most doctors, by contrast, think of them simply as women who have health insurance and either want or need oral contraceptives.

As far as the rest of us should be concerned, yes, it is our money but their business – a courtesy we hope they show us when it is our turn to visit the doctor.
J.D. Kleinke is a pioneering health care information entrepreneur, medical economist, author, policy expert, and business strategist.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

The Tablet Transition

The Health Care Blog
The Health Care Blog
The Tablet Transition
Mar 29th 2013, 18:59

By Leslie Kernisan, MD

I purchased my first tablet a few weeks ago, and have since been thinking more about tablets for seniors and caregivers. Like many, I've assumed that tablet-based tools will eventually make certain aspects of healthcare easier for clinicians, for older adults, and for their caregivers. But so far I've found the tablet harder to use than I'd expected.

Actually, technically this is my third tablet purchase. The first was an iPad last summer, which I promptly sent back after realizing that my laptop was much better suited to supporting me in my clinical work (read my full minority report here).

The second was a Nexus 7 which I purchased as a holiday gift for my 62 year old step-father, a structural engineer. (As he's mildly uncomfortable figuring out new-fangled technology, I set up his device and helped get him started using it.)

Now, I finally have a tablet that I'll be keeping for myself: a Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1.

The device is slowly growing on me, but it hasn't been quite the intuitive seamless experience that I'd anticipated. Hence I have a new perspective via which to consider tablets for people who are even less digitally savvy than myself.

Now, I should disclose that my phone is a Blackberry – the only smartphone last summer at Verizon that could be answered by pushing a button rather than swiping – but I had an iPhone from 2008-2009 and an Android phone for a month in 2011. Also, as my husband remains an iPhone devotee, I've found myself regularly using his phone regularly to access some app not available on my phone.

So this year I came to try these Android tablets having a little prior Android experience to draw on, as well as some iOS familiarity.

Here are some of the hitches I experienced:

  • Disorientation when first getting started. This happened with both the Nexus and the Samsung. Obviously both devices walk the user through some basic setup initially, but I still found myself often perplexed and in "figure-it-out" mode. I struggled with things like figuring out how to switch between apps, decluttering the main screen, copying text, and searching the device. I found myself often turning to Google on my laptop to solve the latest small quandry of the moment.

  • Annoyance with the mobile versions of websites. Tablets are supposed to make it easy to access the web, but I found it annoying to find my usual websites presented in mobile format, especially when using the larger Galaxy Note 10.1, whose screen is not that much smaller than that of my compact Thinkpad. Not only do the mobile versions of websites look different, which takes a little getting used to, but they are often less functional.

  • Too many preloaded apps. The Samsung tablet came with 51 app icons in the app section. I feel a little overwhelmed everytime I look at the app list. I'd like to have less to look at, but I'm not sure what is deletable, or how to hide things. Many apps also seem redundant, such as having both an email app and a Gmail app.

  • But I still needed to install additional apps for functions I considered basic. For my step-father to be able to read library e-books, we had to install an Overdrive app and also a Kindle app, since the library books come in both formats. In order to be able to print to my wireless Brother printer, I had to futz around with my Samsung for well over an hour. I ended up installing a cloud print app and a Brother iPrint app, both of which continue to perplex me and neither of which creates satisfactory print jobs.

  • Difficulty finding the right app for a given need. How to read an e-book in PDF format on my Samsung tablet? The Play Books app preinstalled on the device didn't seem to do PDFs. (Actually, it seemed to only do books purchased through the Google Play store, and annoyed me by cluttering the screen with recommendations which I couldn't seem to get rid of.) Realizing that I'd need to add yet another e-reading app to the device, I started looking online to find a good choice. Sigh. Too many choices, hard to know which to get, once an app downloaded have to figure out how it works. Argh…

  • Hard to find a decent manual. The included quick start guides are ok for a quick start, but do not provide a lot of help for those who are lacking a certain amount of tacit knowledge, or past familiarity with the OS. It took me a while digging around on Samsung's site to find the tablet's complete user's manual. Which is basically like a small encyclopedia: ok to search in, but not something that is pleasant to read from start to finish.

So these are my current conclusions about transitioning to Android tablets:

  • A fair amount of tacit knowledge is presumed. Although the included quick start guides do help one get started, they still assume one understands certain basics, like what a widget is. (I'll admit that I didn't know what a widget was, and am still unsure of how to use them.)
  • Becoming comfortable with a helpful group of apps takes time. One has to spend time figuring out what are the darn apps already included on the device, one has to spend time identifying additional needed apps, and then one has to learn how to use the apps themselves. This is not a trivial process, especially given the choice fatigue involved in selecting apps to use.
  • It's an effort to avoid cognitive clutter. From the multitude of preloaded apps to the unavoidable recommended books in the Play Books reader, these tablets seem to bombard the user's brain with all kinds of tiresome extras. I suppose the manufacturer would tell me these are meant to be helpful, but I'm sure that if one did psychological research, one would find that people have better cognitive performance and feel calmer when there is less to look at.
  • A tablet is not a substitute for a laptop or desktop. In particular, I've found the tablets very limiting in two specific aspects. One is web browsing capability: the mobile versions of many websites drive me slightly batty. The other is text entry: even with voice input or Samsung's Swype-like keyboard feature, entering text still feels painfully clumsy compared to typing on a keyboard. (Yes, I could get a Bluetooth keyboard, but then I might as well use my laptop, right?)

How we might make the tablet transition easier

Here's what I think someone like me – or even my step-father – needed in order to transition more easily to the tablet:

  • Coaching on the basics of using the operating system and the device. Ideally this tutorial is adapted to the type of new user: my step-father and I will have different needs from this kind of tutorial, because even though we are both new, we have different learning styles and comfort levels with new technology. Alternatively, if there had been a Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 for Dummies book, I would've bought it as the Dummies series is usually much more readable and practical than the user's manual. (I imagine the poor Dummies authors are having trouble keeping up with Android updates and the general pace of tech evolution however.)
  • Needs assessment and recommendations on which apps to use. The dream scenario would be to talk to a capable person about what you'd like to use the device for, and then have good apps recommended (without undue influence from the app makers). Bonus if the apps can be installed and configured for you. This is, of course, the role that many younger adults play for older adults wanting to use a tablet or new digital device. And many of us rely on a tech-savvy friend to recommend apps to us; otherwise the choices easily become overwhelming.

  • Help optimizing frequently-used apps. Even if one is using a well-designed app or program, one often doesn't get the best use out of it without either making an effort to the learn the ins-and-outs, or getting some guidance from an expert. The ideal scenario is for someone to watch one using the app, and then make a few suggestions as to how to use it more effectively.

  • Help decluttering the tablet. It's nice to not have too much to look at, and it makes it easier to find the apps that one actually uses. A decluttered tablet would likely be especially helpful to those who are very busy (i.e. caregivers, doctors), very stressed (caregivers, doctors), or cognitively impaired.

  • Access to someone who can answer questions as they come up. So nice to be able to talk to someone when one runs into yet another little hitch. Many of us again will rely on a more tech-savvy friend or family member. Otherwise, online forums can provide some of this functionality, but of course one needs to search them.

  • Remote control and viewing of one's tablet. I gave my step-father his tablet when he was here in San Francisco visiting us for the holidays, but a week later my parents returned to their home in Arizona. This made it much harder for me to help him with his tablet. I found myself wishing there was a way for me to view and configure his tablet remotely, just as the Lenovo support team remotely controls my laptop when I call them for support.

Summing it up

Tablets and their associated apps can in theory be useful tools, especially for digital health purposes. However, my own recent experience transitioning to an Android tablet was harder than I expected, leaving me to wonder how we might make the process easier for boomer caregivers and for older adults. (And for other practicing clinicians, for that matter).

In particular, I found that using the tablet presumed a fair amount of tacit knowledge, and required me to do a lot of on-the-fly figuring things out. Finding the right apps for my needs and learning to use them was a bit time-consuming. Tablets are very customizable and offer a lot of choices, but all these choices can easily be overwhelming. It also takes a while to learn to use an app efficiently.

In an ideal world, I would've like to have access to some tailored coaching on how to use the device efficiently. I would've also liked to have a needs assessment and then have apps be recommended, rather than having to spend time and mental energy hashing it all out on my own. In many cases, tech-savvy people provide this kind of orientation, navigation, and troubleshooting to less tech-adept friends and family. Is there a way to provide this kind of assistance more broadly to people transitioning to tablets?

Leslie Kernisan, MD, MPH, has been practicing geriatrics since 2006, and is board-certified in Internal Medicine and in Geriatric Medicine. She blogs at GeriTech.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Study Ties Childhood Asthma to Combination of Genes and Wheezing Illness

Medindia Health News
Medindia largest health website in india. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Study Ties Childhood Asthma to Combination of Genes and Wheezing Illness
Mar 29th 2013, 19:01


These children, all from families with a history of asthma or allergies, were nearly four times as likely to develop the disease as those who lacked the genetic variation and did not wheeze. The effects of each-the genetic variation and wheezing illness caused by a human rhinovirus infection-are not merely additive but also interactive, the authors say.

The genetic marker studied, a variation on chromosome 17, is common. Half of the children in the study had one copy and 25 percent had two. Colds caused by human rhinoviruses also are extremely common, affecting almost all infants. But the combination of genetic risk plus the wheezing response to rhinovirus infection by children under age 3 was tightly linked to the development of asthma by age 6.

"We found that the interaction between this specific wheezing illness and a gene or genes on a region of chromosome 17 determines childhood asthma risk," said study author Carole Ober, PhD, Blum-Riese Professor of Human Genetics at the University of Chicago. "The combination of genetic predisposition and the child''s response to this infection has a huge effect."

Wheezing caused by respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), a more serious but less common childhood infection, did not show this same interaction.

Several genome-wide association studies have linked asthma to genetic variation on a region of chromosome 17, referred to as 17q21. Although this variation applies primarily to early-onset asthma, it still "dwarfs every other asthma-related genetic risk factor," Ober said.

Exactly how the genes and viral infection interact to cause asthma is unclear. Two genes in the 17q21 region may play a role. One of them, known as ORMDL3, is the "most likely candidate," Ober said. The protein produced by ORMDL3 is found in the endoplasmic reticulum membrane, the same component of airway cells that rhinovirus uses to makes more copies of itself. Less is known about the function of the second gene, GSDMB.

The researchers studied two carefully monitored cohorts of children from families at high risk for asthma. All of the 200 children in the COAST cohort, based at the University of Wisconsin under the leadership of Robert Lemanske, MD, principal investigator of the project, had at least one parent with asthma, respiratory allergies, or both. They were followed from birth and evaluated for asthma at age 6. The 297 Danish children in the COPSAC cohort were born to mothers with asthma and evaluated for asthma at age 7.

The researchers first investigated the links between genes, wheezing with viral infection, and asthma in the COAST group, in which they found significant interactions. Less than 30 percent of children in this group who lacked the asthma-related genetic marker were subsequently diagnosed with the disease, compared to 40 percent of children with one at-risk allele and 50 percent with two. Children who had two copies of the asthma-related genetic variation also had far more HRV-related wheezing illnesses.

When the researchers combined both factors, the difference was striking. Only about 25 percent of children who had no wheezing illness from HRV developed asthma. About 40 percent of those who wheezed in the first three years of life but lacked the risk-related genes got asthma. That increased to nearly 60 percent for those with one copy of the asthma-related allele and to 90 percent for those with two copies.

Next they sought to replicate that finding in a similar group, but from a different continent. Although the overall asthma prevalence, based on slightly different criteria in the Danish cohort, was lower, the more-than-additive association between the at-risk genotype, wheezing illness in early life and asthma diagnosis persisted.

To see how exposure to HRV altered expression of genes associated with the 17q21 marker, the University of Chicago researchers recruited 100 normal adult volunteers, collected blood from them and exposed immune-system cells from the blood to HRV. The leading suspect, ORMDL3, had the most robust response, more than doubling its presence in exposed cells.

This result suggests that "higher expression of ORMDL3 may increase the efficiency of the infection or viral replication in respiratory epithelial cells," according to the study''s first author, Minal Çalışkan, a graduate student in Ober''s laboratory.

"This is the site where rhinovirus infection and replication occur," she explained. "Upregulation of this gene may lessen these cells'' ability to repair the airway after an HRV infection, a feature associated with asthma. Our next project is to look more closely at this process in airway epithelial cells."

What can parents do to prevent early onset asthma? At this point, "nothing that we know of," Ober said. Parents can''t prevent their children from catching colds, but "perhaps they could work with their pediatricians to find proactive ways to prevent wheezing in young children with the asthma genotype."

The National Institutes of Health supported this study, including funding for the COAST cohort. The Lundbeck Foundation, the Danish Council for Strategic Research and the Danish Pediatric Asthma Centre funded the COPSAC research unit. Additional authors include Michelle Stein, Gaixin Du and Dan Nicolae from the University of Chicago; Yury Bochkov, Daniel Jackson, James Gern and Robert Lemanske from the University of Wisconsin; and Eskil Kreiner-Møller, Klaus Bønnelykke and Hans Bisgaard from the University of Copenhagen.

Source-Newswise

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Is America Consuming Too Much Salt?

Medindia Health News
Medindia largest health website in india. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Is America Consuming Too Much Salt?
Mar 29th 2013, 19:01

The love affair between U.S. residents and salt is making us sick. High sodium intake increases blood pressure, and leads to higher rates of heart attack and strokes. Nonetheless, Americans continue to ingest far higher amounts of sodium than those recommended by physicians and national guidelines. A balanced review of the relevant literature has been published in the March 27, 2013 edition of The New England Journal of Medicine.

Theodore A. Kotchen, M.D., professor of medicine (endocrinology), and associate dean for clinical research at the Medical College of Wisconsin, is the lead author of the article.Dr. Kotchen cites correlations between blood pressure and salt intake in a number of different studies; typically, the causation between lowering salt intake and decreased levels of blood pressure occur in individuals who have been diagnosed with hypertension. Although not as pronounced, there is also a link between salt intake and blood pressure in non-hypertensive individuals. Additionally, recent studies have demonstrated that a reduced salt intake is associated with decreased cardiovascular disease and decreased mortality.

In national studies in Finland and Great Britain, instituting a national salt-reduction program led to decreased sodium intake. In Finland, the resulting decrease in systolic and diastolic blood pressures corresponded to a 75 - 80 percent decrease in death due to stroke and coronary heart disease.Neverthelesss, not all investigators concur with population-based recommendations to lower salt intake, and the reasons for this position are reviewed.

"Salt is essential for life, but it has been difficult to distinguish salt need from salt preference," said Dr. Kotchen. "Given the medical evidence, it seems that recommendations for reducing levels of salt consumption in the general population would be justifiable at this time." However, in terms of safety, the lower limit of salt consumption has not beeen clearly identified. In certain patient groups, less rigorous targets for salt reduction may be appropriate.

Source-Eurekalert

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Mice Show Innate Ability to Vocalize: Research

Medindia Health News
Medindia largest health website in india. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Mice Show Innate Ability to Vocalize: Research
Mar 29th 2013, 19:01

Mice might serve as a model for how humans learn to vocalize according to scientists. But new research led by scientists at Washington State University-Vancouver has found that, unlike humans and songbirds, mice do not learn how to vocalize. But the results, published in the current Journal of Neuroscience, point the way to a more finely focused, genetic tool for teasing out the mysteries of speech and its disorders.

To see if mice learn to vocalize, WSU neurophysiologist Christine Portfors took more than a dozen male mice and destroyed their ears' hair cells. The cells convert sound waves into the electrical signals processed by the brain, making hearing possible.The deaf mice were then raised with hearing mice in a normal social environment.Portfors and her fellow researchers, including WSU graduate student Elena Mahrt, used males because they are particularly exuberant vocalizers in the presence of females.

"We can elicit vocalization behavior in males really easily by just putting them with a female," Portfors said, "and they vocalize like crazy."And it turned out that it didn't matter if the mouse was deaf or not. The researchers catalogued essentially the same suite of ultrasonic sounds from both the deaf and hearing mice."It means that they don't need to hear to be able to produce their sounds, their vocalizations," Portfors said.

"�Basically, they don't need to hear themselves. They don't need auditory feedback. They don't need to learn."The finding means mice are out as a model to study vocal learning. However, scientists can now focus on the mouse to learn the genetic mechanism behind communications disorders."If you don't have learning as a variable, you can look at the genetic control of these things," Portfors said. "You can look at the genetic control of the output of the signal. It's not messed up by an animal that's been in a particular learning situation."

Source-Eurekalert

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Hispanics Live Longest, Whites Shortest Among Dialysis Patients: Study

Medindia Health News
Medindia largest health website in india. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Hispanics Live Longest, Whites Shortest Among Dialysis Patients: Study
Mar 29th 2013, 19:01

According to a study, among kidney failure patients on dialysis, Hispanics tend to live the longest and Whites the shortest, with Blacks' survival time in between these two. The study is appearing in an upcoming issue of the Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology (CJASN) Examining the reasons for these survival differences could help improve care for all patients with kidney disease.

While Blacks have a shorter average lifespan than Whites in the general US population, some studies indicate that among kidney failure patients on dialysis, Blacks tend to live longer than whites.

To investigate the issue further, Guofen Yan, PhD (University of Virginia School of Medicine) and her colleagues studied data from the United States Renal Data System pertaining to 1,282,201 adults undergoing dialysis between 1995 and 2009.

The researchers found that Hispanics were the least likely to die and non-Hispanic Whites were most likely to die over an average follow-up of 22.3 months. Blacks'' risk of dying was in between these two racial/ethnic groups. This pattern held true in all age groups, except for the youngest (18 to 30 years old), where there was a higher risk of dying for Blacks compared with non-Hispanic Whites.

"The survival advantage of racial/ethnic minorities on maintenance dialysis is one of the unresolved issues that has been around for some time and is of interest to health care providers, patients, and public policy," said Dr. Yan. She noted that several hypotheses exist to explain why Black and Hispanic dialysis patients tend to live longer than Whites in most age groups. It may be that Black and Hispanic patients with kidney disease are more likely to die before they develop kidney failure, and those surviving are generally healthier and hence more likely to live longer with kidney failure than Whites.

"Examining dialysis survival among racial and ethnic subgroups may help identify care disparities and outcome differences in chronic kidney disease. Continued effort to discern the factors responsible for the general survival advantage of Black and Hispanic dialysis patients may yield major clinical and public health implications for the kidney failure and kidney disease populations," said Dr. Yan.

Source-Newswise

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions