Addisons.org.nz – A Pheonix Rising

Featured

If you live in New Zealand and you are looking for information on Adrenal Insufficiency specific to New Zealand you may have been given the address addisons.org.nz.  This website no longer exists.  The organisation went into recession in 2011/2012 and does not appear to function for anyone except older members of the group.

I offered to take over/assist with the maintenance of the website, but was told NO.  I offered to come on to the committee to keep Addison’s.org.nz going.  I was told NO.

Those running it appeared not to trust anyone outside their group.  This has left a gaping hole in information for New Zealanders.

I am trying to fill the void.  If you have a sound knowledge of Adrenal Insufficiency and want to help, please visit Adrenal Insufficiency NZ .

This site is not run by medical professionals, however, we have done extensive research, and have endeavoured to ensure that all the information on the site is correct, and up to date.  Where you feel the information is not correct, please contact us via the site, with a reference to what you believe the correct information to be.  We can discuss it.

Advertisements

The Half-life of Facts

Aside

I was watching QI this morning. It’s a show where the facts are “Quite Interesting”, and generally obscure.

This morning the episode said something I was so intrigued with, that I rewound it to.
It stated that “At medical college, they usually teach that half of what medical students will learn, will be considered untrue in 10-20 years. This is termed the “half-life of facts”. That is to say that you know that half of the information will be untrue, you just don’t know which half.”

I found that to be Quite Interesting. Enough so that I decided to look the fact up, and see if there was any truth to it.

Samuel Arbesman, a mathematician at Harvard, titled his new book “The Half-life of Facts”. When talking to the Economist, he stated:

For example, in the area of medical science dealing with hepatitis and cirrhosis, two liver diseases, researchers actually measured how long it takes for half of the knowledge in these fields to be overturned. They gave a whole bunch of research papers from fifty years ago to a panel of experts and asked them which were still regarded as true and which had been refuted or no longer considered interesting. They plotted this on a graph. What they found is that there is a nice, smooth rate of decay; you can predict that every 45 years, half of this particular sort of knowledge gets outdated.”

But why am I citing an article in the Economist. Because you probably know a Dr that is still using that 50% of knowledge that is now outdated. Yet they treat you based on that knowledge.

According to Dr. Michael Gold from the Medical University of South Carolina; To paraphrase:

The half-life of medical knowledge is seven years.”

If Dr’s are not keeping up to date, they may be treating you based on what is now outdated knowledge. We have found one such Dr in the guise of the Medical Advisor of one national Advocacy group

He trained 50 years ago. Based on the half-life of facts, if he finished his training in 1970, by 2010, almost 50% of what he learned is outdated. Some of that is “knowledge” is still stating as fact which is on the groups public webiste. When we recently questioned this knowledge (which we showed with research papers to be obsolete) we were told by the Advisor “I don’t care.” (words in writing).

This attitude by the “Medical Avisor” of a major Advocacy Group for a rare condition leads to several questions.

  1. Why is he holding the position? Is it just that it has some kudos?
  2. How does his obsolete knowledge help patients today to live a better life when other Doctor use that “knowledge” to treat the patient.

Knowledge is Power, but obsolete Knowledge is DANGEROUS!

Continuing education is key to good Doctoring. And that continuing education must include reading recent research on the conditions they are treating and accepting that just because it goes against what they have been taught, doesn’t mean it is wrong, or that the Dr researching and promoting the new information is doing it “for ulterior motives”.

Next time you speak to your Dr, ask him the date of the last Research Paper was that they read? If it is before 2000, then there is a better than even chance that half that knowledge is obsolete, or will be in the next couple of years. Ask them if they have heard the term Half-life Of Facts.

Some will agree, others will get upset because they will be reminded that they are not as up to date as they should be, and others will probably refute the statement, or get angry about it. Most likely the latter, are so well past their half-life with knowledge, that they should perhaps be ignored completely.

The Expert Patient

As far back as 2002 an article was written for the British Medical Journal encouraging patients to become “Expert Patients”.

Clin Med (Lond). 2002 May-Jun;2(3):227-9.
The expert patient: a new approach to chronic disease management for the twenty-first century.   Tattersall RL1.  Author information

Abstract
The expert patient: a new approach to chronic disease management for the twenty-first century, produced by the Department of Health, recommends the introduction of ‘user-led self management’ for chronic diseases to all areas of the NHS by 2007. The premise is that many patients are expert in managing their disease, and this could be used to encourage others to become ‘key decision makers in the treatment process’. Furthermore, these expert patients could ‘contribute their skills and insights for the further improvement of services’. It is hypothesised that self-management programmes could reduce the severity of symptoms and improve confidence, resourcefulness and self-efficacy. It is stressed that this is more than just patient education to improve compliance. Instead there should be ‘a cultural change…so that user-led self management can be fully valued and understood by healthcare professionals’. I point out that these ideas, while welcome, are not particularly new. Achieving the desired culture change will not be easy.

“Expert patient”—dream or nightmare?

BMJ 2004328 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7442.723 (Published 25 March 2004)Cite this as: BMJ 2004;328:723:

The concept of a well informed patient is welcome, but a new name is needed

Since the chief medical officer for England first introduced the term expert patient, it has been picked up and used very widely.1 During this time, the notion of the expert patient seems to have been criticised by doctors at least as much as it has been welcomed.2 If one asks lawyers, architects, social workers, or management consultants whether they prefer clients who take an interest in the issues they face and are motivated to work in partnership to achieve successful results, the answer seems obvious. So why does the idea of expert patients provoke such antipathy within the medical profession?

There is even a Training Course across England called the “The Expert Patient Program which states:

“Creative thinking is key for the Expert Patients Programme (EPP), a thriving Community Interest Company that gives people more control over their conditions through cognitive therapy courses.

It has made a particular difference to people with long-term illnesses, such as diabetes, arthritis or respiratory problems, by teaching them how to self manage and monitor their own symptoms. “It’s giving patients more control,” says Renata Drinkwater, Chief Executive (interim). “Courses like these are proven to make a difference. They boost confidence and, in some cases, can delay the onset of other conditions. They also have other benefits, like reducing the amount of times the patient needs to go into hospital or use Accident and Emergency.”

Conclusions
So, will the vision set out by Professor Donaldson and the Expert Patient’s Task Force work? The simple answer is ‘no’, unless there is a sea change in attitudes among patients and, more importantly, healthcare professionals.

What About You?

As someone with a chronic illness, would you consider yourself an “Expert Patient”?  Do you consider your Dr a Good Dr or a Bad Dr.  Is he bad because he has a history of harming patients, or a bad Dr because he doesn’t know your specific condition.

As a patient with a chronic illness you go to your Dr expecting a good level of knowledge, and that they keep their knowledge up to date.

You go to a specialist with the same expectation.

What happens though if the chronic illness you have is rare condition?  If your Dr or Specialist only has 1 patient with your condition, but over 1000 with a more common one.  Do you expect them to keep their knowledge up to date?

The reality is, if you have a rare condition, you can’t and shouldn’t expect them to be as up to date as you want, or to have the knowledge you would like, at least not when you are a new patient.  It’s different if you have had them for 2, 3, 4 or more years.

Instead, what you CAN expect, is to be listened to, to have them acknowledge that it is a learning process for you both, and that if you are able to provide relevant up to date information, they will accept it and not dismiss it because it wasn’t what they learned when they were training 20/30/40 years ago.

Yet this is also not always the case.  So instead you learn what you can about your condition, to fill the gaps and hope you can at least work around your Dr.

In truth, a patient goes to the specialist wanting help to improve their quality of life.  If you are lucky your specialist, knowing you are coming, has done a quick review of your medical notes, a quick read up of the condition.  But with that, they have decided, almost before you walk in the door, what treatments they will or will not offer.  If you ask a question they are not expecting, you take them off guard.  But they don’t want to appear like they don’t know the answer (which they probably don’t) so they either ignore the question, or give some answer they drag from the back blocks of their brain where they remember something they heard once years ago, whether right or wrong.

These are the Dr’s we hear about in the forums.  The ones that “don’t get it”.  We get frequent cries of “I’ve fired my endo.”  “My Dr is an Idiot.” “I can’t find a decent Dr who knows anything.”  And I can see why they say it.  I have heard the horror stories of medical appointments, ED/ER visits, lack of knowledge and but refusal to acknowledge it.  These Dr’s need training in your condition, but they are not getting it.  Why?  Is it lack of time?  Lack of interest?  Or maybe they don’t know where to start?

What would happen if, instead of leaving frustrated, angry, and ready to fire them, you sat down and tried talking to them as equals?

What if you opened up the consultation with a different tact.  If, instead of expecting them to know everything, or worse, you go in expecting to have a bad appointment with them knowing NOTHING,  you went in knowing they didn’t know anything, but were open to learning.

What would happen if you opened up the conversation with something like “I am struggling with my conditions, and with the general lack of knowledge and research available.   I don’t know how you Dr’s keep up to date when there are so many rare conditions out there.  I need to get a better quality of life, perhaps we could learn and work together on how to better manage my health.”

What would your Dr say?  You are not challenging their knowledge, but you are also not putting expectations on them to know it all.   If they take that bit well, perhaps go on with “Do you have any recent research I could read, or a website where I could go to get good up to date research on my condition so I can learn more about how to help myself”.

The worst that could happen is they dismiss you out of hand and go back to their personal ideas. If this happens you have two options, you can get upset and leave the consultation frustrated then go on line to rant.  Or you could ask them straight what their objection to having a knowledgeable patient is.

By now you have nothing to lose
if you have already decided to leave
and find a new Dr?

You might get a surprise.  You MIGHT get a Dr that is willing to work and learn with you.

The Expert Patient may not only need to be an expert in their condition, but also in negotiation.  A Win/Win negotiation is an art.  It requires giving the Dr something they really need (which may be stroking their ego) but also getting what you need, which is  a Dr willing to work with you.

Dr’s won’t learn, if they are not taught and quitting a Dr because he doesn’t already know simply means that the next patient will get what you have, a Dr that has neither the time or interest to learn.  You never know, you might awaken in that Specialist or Dr, a new interest in your rare condition.  Then he won’t be a Dr to run from, but a Dr to run TO.

Biologic Half-Life of Hydrocortisone.  Why is this important?

As Derek lives with Adrenal Insufficiency, we started looking into his steroid doses to work out whether he was on the best dosing schedule possible for him.

In 2016 we had an Endo appointment and asked for a Day Curve to confirm his dosing was right.  It was refused.  So we asked for 1 random cortisol blood test.  This was agreed to, more to keep us quiet than that the endocrinologist was actually looking for something.  What we didn’t tell him was what WE were looking for.

We both believed that his dosing at 3 times a day was leaving him with low cortisol in the middle of the day.  The only way to show this was to have a random cortisol taken right before his second dose of the day was due. His dosing at the time was:

6.00 am – 10mg / 12.00 noon – 7.5 mg / 4.00 pm – 5 mg

The problem with this dosing was that by 2.00 pm every day he was feeling like he wanted to sleep, and felt “blah”.  Some days he was also showing clear signs of low cortisol.

We had seen tables that said that cortisol had a Half Life of 8-12 hours, but that didn’t make sense.  We had also seen other tables that said 2 hours.  That was a big difference.  We needed to know what was going on for Derek.

1 Blood Test Tells It All

On the day we had set for the test Derek took his morning dose as usual at 6am.  We then did the things we normally do on a weekend, very little.   At 11.15 we went to the Lab for the blood draw.  We wanted it as close to his second scheduled dose of the day as possible.

When we got the results it showed what we already believed.  He was under range.  Not just under range for that time of day, but below range completely.  His cortisol was not lasting long enough in his body.  But we had been shown tables that said it had a biologic half-life of 8-12 hours, so how could he be below range in 5.5 hours?

This didn’t make sense even though we knew it was right.  So we started looking into what was meant by biologic half-life.  What we found out is very scary, very concerning, and actually very dangerous.

What did we find?

BIOLOGIC HALF-LIFE CAN BE RUBBISH.  It can be a false number, it shouldn’t be used in the way the below table indicates.

The table here is beening used by many groups/forums and on medical sites including on websites such as Endotxt.org, NCBI, and NADF so it must be right, surely.

Do NOT use this to work out the half life of your Hydrocortisone or Prednisone for dosing!

 

Here it was, the table we got shown constantly.  So Derek started looking further to try and find out where the biologic half-life came from.  The first thing he found was the definition for biological half-life:

 

“Time required by a body to process and eliminate half the amount of a substance introduced into it. Also called biological half-life, biological half time, metabolic half-life, or metabolic half time.”

A number of variations of this table appear on the Internet and use the column heading Duration of Action.  Other variations of this table simply classify the corticosteroids as short-, intermediate- or long-acting.  The same numbers apply no matter what the column is referred to as.

If this column truly is a (biologic) half-life, and we apply the rule of 5 half-lives for complete elimination, then that would mean that Hydrocortisone would be visible in the body for up to roughly 2 days (40 hrs).  Yet when Derek had a blood test before his morning dose, his cortisol was undetectable having had HC at 4pm the night before.  That was 17 hours and no detectable cortisol.  What would happen for the other 20+ hours?  It was clear there was something seriously wrong with this table.  None of this would be consistent with the title Duration of Action.

Also, if that was the case, you would only be prescribed cortisol once a day, not 3x, or more often now, 4x a day.

Where did this Table column come from?

There is no clear ownership of the table that we could find.  It is used, copied, and the copy is referenced, but tracking back to the original hasn’t been possible by us.  We do know it was created before 1980

He became very curious and decided to look further for the source of the information and came across this quote from “Principles of Endocrinology and Metabolism”,3rd edition, 2001, Chapter 78 “Corticosteroid Therapy” by Lloyd Axelrod.

This paper references the definition of:

“The commonly used glucocorticoids are classified as short-acting, intermediate-acting, and long-acting on the basis of the duration of the corticotropin (ACTH) suppression after a single dose, equivalent in anti-inflammatory activity to 50mg of prednisone.”

This is all about suppression of ACTH on high doses of prednisone, nothing to do with the amount of time you will remain within a safe cortisol range when you have Adrenal Insufficiency, yet Dr’s and patients alike use the table to justify twice a day dosing on HC.

So what are the implications of this table?

If someone uses this table to tell you that half-life is 8-12 hours for hydrocortisone they are wrong.

After looking for the original source of the table we discovered that the test was done as above, with a normal healthy person being given 50mg prednisone (approx 200mg HC).  The only thing that can be taken from the original research is that 50mg prednisone will suppress ACTH production for a period of time.  The hydrocortisone, and other drugs, were extrapolated from there (guess work based on poor knowledge).

If you had Primary Adrenal Insufficiency (Addison’s) and Hydrocortisone had a half-life of 8-12 hours, then taking HC every 6 hours would mean constant suppression of ACTH, and you would not have high ACTH after starting the steroid.  But we know this isn’t correct because many with Addison’s still have some part of their Addison’s “Tan” due to raised ACTH.  This is supported by the document below.

Professor Peter Hindmarsh is Professor of Peadiatric Endocrinology at University College London and Consultant in Peadiatric Endocrinology and Diabetes at University College London Hospitals and Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children. He is currently Divisional Clinical Director for Paediatrics at University College London Hospitals.  He also runs a website called CAHISUS.  He has written an article called GETTING CORTISOL REPLACEMENT OPTIMAL IN ADRENAL INSUFFICIENCY

The major goal of cortisol replacement in patients with adrenal insufficiency is to mimic as closely as possible, the normal pattern of cortisol production known as the circadian rhythm. The reason why we try to achieve this, is primarily to minimise side effects of over and under replacement and promote improved overall health. The two key factors are understanding the circadian profile and the pharmacology of hydrocortisone.

In this article Prof Hindmarsh talks about getting optimal dosing, and also looks at the absorption and clearance of people.  What he showed is that there is a very large variation between people. The article is well worth a read.  He also pointed out that the half life of hydrocortisone is a lot shorted than 8-12 hours, in fact, it is more like 70-90 minutes.

Another CAHISUS leaflet states this:

Hydrocortisone has a quick onset and the cortisol peaks to the highest level usually around 2 hours after being taken.  The cortisol obtained from the tablet lasts in the blood circulation between 4-6 hours.

This is a change from an old document by Prof Hindmarsh which included the old figures as above.  Things have changed, research has improved, and there is more knowledge out there.

What Does All This Mean in Steroid Dependant People?

For me?  Gobbledygook.  If you have a clear understanding of Half-Life, Clearance, and metabolism you may follow what is talked about in the studies.  Personally, it confuses the heck out of me.

I do however, understand the concept of half-life.  I first heard about it when watching a movie years ago about a child who had a certain amount of a chemical in his body at point C, and they claimed he had been given the chemical at point A.  It was pointed out that he would have drunk a gallon of the chemical to have the amount still in his system because of the half-life of the chemical.  The chemical had been very bitter and it would not be possible for the child to drink that much.  I became very interested in half-life.  I didn’t think then that it would be so important in Derek’s everyday life.

I had to ask Derek what everything he had found, and what the implications of half-life on hydrocortisone meant in layman’s terms, but even he struggled to explain it in a way that I could be easily understand. One thing he reminded me of is that while your Cortisol is going up, it is also being used.

I have also learned through this research is that even legitimate medical websites actually have misleading or wrong information.

When you are looking at a good way to dose for you, it must be an individual choice, based on how you feel between doses, whether you are willing to take multiple doses a day, and base it on signs and symptoms.  The fact that Derek felt low at the scheduled time of his second dose of the day, and this was supported by a blood test that showed low cortisol, meant we could get the Endo to agree that dosing more frequently was the right option for him.

Now that he is on a better regime of 4 times a day, he functions a little better, he has a low base level of HC, and in the last 6 months, has lost weight without trying, but not in a bad way.

I wish you all luck with this as I understand that there are many Dr’s out there who are not interested in listening to their patients on more dosing throughout the day.  One of the reasons for this is they don’t believe that you will be compliant, even though you are the one asking.

If they think you are asking for something that shouldn’t be done, then show them Prof Hindmarsh’s document above.

Blue September

Man Up – Give Prostate Cancer The Finger

It is a few words, with a short reach.

If you go on line and ask for “Breast Cancer Catchphrases” you get hit after hit.  The top ones were:

85 best Breast Cancer catchphrases
71 best Breast Cancer catchphrases
50 top Breast Cancer catchphrases.

Yet when you do the same search for Prostate Cancer you get

Prostate Cancer Humour
Prostate Cancer Quote of the Day
Funny Cancer T-shirts

And the images are worse.  Images of young women with Breast cancer, or “representing” breast cancer.

When you search for images of men with Prostate Cancer, they are all over 65 and the most common quote?  “Lots of men die WITH Prostate Cancer but not OF Prostate Cancer”.

According to information on the New Zealand Prostate Cancer web site:

In New Zealand, prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men, around  3,000 registrations each year and about 600 deaths from prostate cancer each year (based on the statistics from the Ministry of Health 2007 – 2009 which show an average of 3082 registrations and 602 deaths).

Men who develop prostate cancer are mostly over the age of 65. It rarely occurs in men younger than 55. About one in 13 men will develop prostate cancer before the age of 75. In very elderly men, prostate cancer often grows very slowly and may cause no symptoms.

Some men are more at risk of getting prostate cancer than others, but the most important risk factor is ageing. Men with a family history of prostate cancer have a higher risk; that is, if the father, an uncle or a brother has had prostate cancer.

Sounds good doesn’t it?  Only 1 in 13 men develop Prostate Cancer before age 75, it RARELY occurs in men younger than 55.

Just as a comparison, according to the Breast Cancer Foundation of New Zealand, Breast Cancer is the #1 Cancer for women (same as prostate cancer in men), 3,000 new cases of Breast Cancer each year (same as men), 600+ deaths in a year (same as men).  What isn’t the same, is the awareness campaigns.  The only real differences are:
Men get Breast Cancer, Women don’t get Prostate Cancer,
Women are more likely to get it over the age of 50,
men, prostate cancer is more common over the age of 65.

Fantastic.  At 50, Derek should not have to worry about Prostate Cancer.  There is no history in his family of breast or prostate cancer, no history of any other form of hormone cancer, he is only early 50’s.  Absolutely NO reason to even consider he would have it.  There is no required routine screening.  There is no “when was your last DRE” at the Dr’s office the way you are asked about your last Smear.  There is no national recall every 2 years the way there is for a Mammogram over the age of 45.

Why would there be, at 50 it is very rare to get Prostate Cancer.  And according to a survey conducted by the Cleveland Clinic:

“It turns out that taller men, and men who have bigger body mass indexes are at higher risk of high grade prostate cancer, and also are at higher risk of dying of prostate cancer,” said Dr. Klein.

Dr. Klein said previous research has shown a connection between obesity and the risk of developing high grade prostate cancer, however the relationship with the height factor has not been noted previously.

Researchers surveyed data from more than 100,000 men and found that for every ten centimetres in height, the risk of developing an aggressive prostate cancer grew by 21 percent.

Not considered taller than average at 5’10”, a healthy weight, under 55, and no family history of Prostate Cancer, Derek is safe.

He might get Prostate Cancer in his 70’s or 80’s but who cares, a lot of men do, and “they don’t die of it, they die with it”.

But all the risk factors are just that, risk factors, not a guarantee that you won’t get prostate cancer.

So why am I blogging about Prostate Cancer on a Blog about Adrenal Insufficiency.

Because, if you haven’t already read the rest of this site, you may not know that Derek has AI because of a medical botch-up when he was having surgery for the prostate cancer that according to all the risk factors, he wasn’t at risk of getting.

We didn’t actually know a lot about Prostate Cancer when Derek was in his 40’s.  So how did he get diagnosed just a couple of years later?

A mixture of things.  At 50 he had he had a problem and went to the Doctor.  He was given DRE (Digital Rectal Exam).  It is far less invasive and embarrassing than a woman having a smear, yet men won’t talk about it let alone have it.  What man wants a stranger to shove his finger up your rectum?  Well get over it guys, you expect us woman to lay there while we have a very cold speculum put up your vagina, followed by a scraping tool, to take cells.  Men simply have 1 finger press down on the prostate, and out, that’s it.  20 seconds at most.  GET OVER YOURSELVES, YOUR RECTUM ISN’T THAT PRESCIOUS!!!!!

It turns out this DRE was actually not completely normal, but Derek wasn’t told that.  He was sent for blood tests to see if there was an infection.  The Dr also requested a PSA.  We didn’t take much notice of blood tests back then, so we didn’t look at what was being asked for, and certainly didn’t worry about the results.

By 52 we had forgotten all about it.  Then he got a soft calf injury that caused a DVT.  He was diagnosed with Antiphospholipid Syndrome (APS).  That’s fine, strange but fine.

By 2011 (at the age of 53) his PSA was rising but hadn’t hit the special number of 4. (It was close)

Then, at the beginning of February of 2012, a month after turning 54 his PSA shot up.  He was fit and healthy, he had APS but that was not cancer so no worries.

In May 2012 Derek had a positive biopsy for Prostate Cancer. Thankfully, because he was having his INR monitored for his Warfarin (because of the APS) he was also having PSA every 6 months.  The Dr had seen in increasing.  So he had had Prostate cancer since BEFORE he suffered a DVT.

After the positive biopsy we looked into the options available.  His Cancer was considered MODERATELY AGGRESSIVE, which meant that, without treatment he would die OF prostate cancer, not WITH prostate cancer.

So, Not overly tall, not over weight, under 55, no family history of hormonal cancer in the family (although his father had dies of leukaemia, but that’s wasn’t a risk factor for prostate cancer) yet he had prostate cancer.

Women are told all the time that you can get breast cancer even without the risk factors.  Men are not told the same.

Why Not?  What is it that makes it so important that a woman is checked for cancer, but a man is not.  Are men any less important?  Or is it because men make the decisions, and their decision is they don’t want that initial FINGER UP TO PROSTATE CANCER?

Some people believe that it is not necessary to have PSA checks, that the chances of prostate cancer killing you is not worth the effects of invasive testing that can be wrong, the worry, the removal of a prostate (and the very high probability of erectile dysfunction) is not worth it.

Well, those people can go elsewhere to comment.  I know that Derek would be terminal now, if not dead, if we hadn’t had the testing, the biopsy, and the surgery.

SEPTEMBER IS PROSTATE CANCER AWARENESS MONTH

Even if you don’t meet ANY of the risk factors for Prostate Cancer, YOU CAN STILL GET IT?

We didn’t know this, until we did!