Sorry for the late post today. I got tied up with some things.
Boston Globe:
Statin drugs linked to lower cancer rate- A recent study of veterans revealed that statin drugs, which are more well-known for their cholesterol-lowering properties, actually led to a lower incidence of cancer in patients taking them. While the headlines will say they lower the risk by 25% (technically correct in terms of relative risk), the absolute risk decreased from 13.2% to 9.4%, which was still statistically significant. One important thing to recognize about this study is that it was retrospective, which means the researchers basically looked at old charts to see which patients were or were not on statins and whether those patients were diagnosed with cancer. While this does not necessarily discredit their findings, it is not the ideal study design. However, it would be difficult to pass a randomized, prospective study about the use of statins to prevent cancer through an institutional review board (IRB) at this point since statins are so well-established for lowering LDL (“bad”) cholesterol and cardiovascular mortality. The IRB is unlikely to allow a study that may prevent patients from taking statins just for scientific curiosity to see if statins reduce the risk of cancer too. The study (subscription required) also notes that several prior meta-analyses failed to show any effect of statins on cancer incidence. Not surprisingly, the newspaper reports failed to report this small detail. Bottom line: I am not sure how much this matters because it seems like almost everyone over the age of 50 is on a statin at this point. I doubt that a physician will be putting a person on a statin to prevent cancer and not for its LDL-lowering properties.
Rare genetic hot spot is linked to autism- More news out of Boston where researchers have found a “genetic hot spot” where DNA errors (or a microdeletion on chromosome 16p11.2 for the nerds/politically-correct among us) appear to increase the risk of autism more than 100 times. However, this is not the “cause” of autism as this change is only found in about 1% of patients with autism. Although this is a relatively small percentage of overall autism cases, the researchers hope this will lead to finding more “genetic hot spots” and further their understanding of this condition. The full article is available at the New England Journal of Medicine.
New York Times:
But First, Doctor, What Was Your Marathon Time?- As a weekend warrior who is also active during the week, I found this article quite interesting. As a semi-active athlete (running the Boston Marathon this April) and a physician-in-training, I can see both sides of this story. Most of the physicians I have been around are very conservative with their beliefs regarding coming back from injury. Perhaps they are just trying to prevent their patients from having any more pain or perhaps as the story suggests they are taking the “easy way out”. I know several other athletes who like to be treated for their injuries by physicians who are at least active even if they are not national-level athletes. I think one more interesting thing to consider is how far can we take this out. I know several physicians and a couple of my medical school classmates smoke. If their patients found out about this, how much less credible would their advice to quit smoking be? If you have any feelings on this, I’d like to hear from you.
