Is snuff really safer than smoking?

An open tin of dark brown smokeless tobacco known as snuff on right; fingers of a hand cupping pouches of snuff on left

Snuff is a smokeless tobacco similar to chewing tobacco. It rarely makes headlines. But it certainly did when the FDA authorized a brand of snuff to market its products as having a major health advantage over cigarettes. Could this be true? Is it safe to use snuff?

What did the FDA authorize as a health claim?

Here’s the approved language for Copenhagen Classic Snuff:

If you smoke, consider this: switching completely to this product from cigarettes reduces risk of lung cancer.

While the statement is true, this FDA action — and the marketing that’s likely to follow — might suggest snuff is a safe product. It’s not. Let’s talk about the rest of the story.

What is snuff, anyway?

Snuff is a form of tobacco that’s finely ground. There are two types:

  • Moist snuff. Users place a pinch or a pouch of tobacco behind their upper or lower lips or between their cheek and gum. They must repeatedly spit out or swallow the tobacco juice that accumulates. After a few minutes, they remove or spit out the tobacco as well. This recent FDA action applies to a brand of moist snuff.
  • Dry snuff. This type is snorted (inhaled through the nose) and is less common in the US.

Both types are available in an array of scents and flavors. Users absorb nicotine and other chemicals into the bloodstream through the lining of the mouth. Blood levels of nicotine are similar between smokers and snuff users. But nicotine stays in the blood for a longer time with snuff users.

Why is snuff popular?

According to CDC statistics, 5.7 million adults in the US regularly use smokeless tobacco products — that’s about 2% of the adult population. A similar percentage (1.6%) of high school students use it as well. That’s despite restrictions on youth marketing and sales.

What accounts for its popularity?

  • Snuff may be allowed in places that prohibit smoking.
  • It tends to cost less than cigarettes: $300 to $1,000 a year versus several thousand dollars a year paid by some smokers.
  • It doesn’t require inhaling smoke into the lungs, or exposing others to secondhand smoke.
  • Snuff is safer than cigarettes in at least one way — it is less likely to cause lung cancer.
  • It may help some cigarette smokers quit.

The serious health risks of snuff

While the risk of lung cancer is lower compared with cigarettes, snuff has plenty of other health risks, including

  • higher risk of cancers of the mouth (such as the tongue, gums, and cheek), esophagus, and pancreas
  • higher risk of heart disease and stroke
  • harm to the developing teenage brain
  • dental problems, such as discoloration of teeth, gum disease, tooth damage, bone loss around the teeth, tooth loosening or loss
  • higher risk of premature birth and stillbirth among pregnant users.

And because nicotine is addictive, using any tobacco product can quickly become a habit that’s hard to break.

There are also the “ick” factors: bad breath and having to repeatedly spit out tobacco juice.

Could this new marketing message about snuff save lives?

Perhaps, if many smokers switch to snuff and give up smoking. That could reduce the number of people who develop smoking-related lung cancer. It might even reduce harms related to secondhand smoke.

But it’s also possible the new marketing message will attract nonsmokers, including teens, who weren’t previously using snuff. A bigger market for snuff products might boost health risks for many people, rather than lowering them.

The new FDA action is approved for a five-year period, and the company must monitor its impact. Is snuff an effective way to help smokers quit? Is a lower rate of lung cancer canceled out by a rise in other health risks? We don’t know yet. If the new evidence shows more overall health risks than benefits for snuff users compared with smokers, this new marketing authorization may be reversed.

The bottom line

If you smoke, concerns you have about lung cancer or other smoking-related health problems are justified. But snuff should not be the first choice to help break the smoking habit. Commit to quit using safer options that don’t involve tobacco, such as nicotine gum or patches, counseling, and medications.

While the FDA’s decision generated news headlines that framed snuff as safer than smoking, it’s important to note that the FDA did not endorse the use of snuff — or even suggest that snuff is a safe product. Whether smoked or smokeless, tobacco creates enormous health burdens and suffering. Clearly, it’s best not to use any tobacco product.

Until we have a better understanding of its impact, I think any new marketing of this sort should also make clear that using snuff comes with other important health risks — even if lung cancer isn’t the biggest one.

Follow me on Twitter @RobShmerling

About the Author

photo of Robert H. Shmerling, MD

Robert H. Shmerling, MD, Senior Faculty Editor, Harvard Health Publishing; Editorial Advisory Board Member, Harvard Health Publishing

Dr. Robert H. Shmerling is the former clinical chief of the division of rheumatology at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC), and is a current member of the corresponding faculty in medicine at Harvard Medical School. … See Full Bio View all posts by Robert H. Shmerling, MD

How does waiting on prostate cancer treatment affect survival?

close-up photo of a vial of blood marked PSA test alongside a pen; both are resting on a document showing the PSA test results

Prostate cancer progresses slowly, but for how long is it possible to put off treatment? Most newly diagnosed men have low-risk or favorable types of intermediate-risk prostate cancer that doctors can watch and treat only if the disease is found to be at higher risk of progression. This approach, called active surveillance, allows men to delay — or in some cases, outlive — the need for aggressive treatment, which has challenging side effects.

In 1999, British researchers launched a clinical trial comparing outcomes among 1,643 men who were either treated immediately for their cancer or followed on active surveillance (then called active monitoring). The men’s average age at enrollment was 62, and they all had low- to intermediate risk tumors with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels ranging from 3.0 to 18.9 nanograms per milliliter.

Long-term results from the study, which were published in March, show that prostate cancer death rates were low regardless of the therapeutic strategy. “This hugely important study shows quite clearly that there is no urgency to treat men with low- and even favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer,” says Dr. Anthony Zietman, the Jenot W. and William U. Shipley Professor of Radiation Oncology at Harvard Medical School, anda radiation oncologist at Massachusetts General Hospital who was involved in the research and is a member of the Harvard Medical School Annual Report on Prostate Diseases editorial board. “They give up nothing in terms of 15-year survival.”

What the results showed

During the study, called the Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) trial, researchers randomized 545 men to active monitoring, 533 men to surgical removal of the prostate, and 545 men to radiation.

After a median follow-up of 15 years, 356 men had died from any cause, including 45 men who died from prostate cancer specifically: 17 from the active monitoring group, 12 from the surgery group, and 16 from the radiation group. Men in the active surveillance group did have higher rates of cancer progression than the treated men did. More of them were eventually treated with drugs that suppress testosterone, a hormone that fuels prostate cancer growth.

In all, 51 men from the active surveillance group developed metastatic prostate cancer, which is roughly twice the number of those treated with surgery or radiation. But 133 men in the active surveillance group also avoided any treatment and were still alive when the follow-up concluded.

Experts weigh in

In a press release, the study’s lead author, Dr. Freddie Hamdy of the University of Oxford, claims that while cancer progression and the need for hormonal therapy were more limited in the treatment groups, “those reductions did not translate into differences in mortality.” The findings suggest that for some men, aggressive therapy “results in more harm than good,” Dr. Hamdy says.

Dr. Zietman agrees, adding that active surveillance protocols today are even safer than those used when ProtecT was initiated. Unlike in the past, for instance, active surveillance protocols now make more use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans that detect cancer progression in the prostate with high resolution.

Dr. Boris Gershman, a surgeon who specializes in urology at Harvard-affiliated Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, and is also an Annual Report on Prostate Diseases editorial board member, cautions that the twofold higher risk of developing metastasis among men on active surveillance may eventually translate into a mortality difference at 20-plus years.

“It’s important to not extend the data beyond their meaning,” says Dr. Gershman, who was not involved in the study. “These results should not be used to infer that all prostate cancer should not be treated, or that there is no benefit to treatment for men with more aggressive disease.” Still, ProtecT is a landmark study in urology, Dr. Gershman says, that “serves to reinforce active surveillance as the preferred management strategy for men with low-risk prostate cancer and some men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer.”

Dr. Marc B. Garnick, the Gorman Brothers Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, and editor in chief of the Annual Report, points out that nearly all the enrolled subjects provided follow-up data for the study’s duration, which is highly unusual for large clinical trials with long follow-up. The authors had initially predicted that patients from the active monitoring group who developed metastases at 10 years would have shortened survival at 15 years, “but this was not the case,” Dr. Garnick says. “As with many earlier PSA screening studies, the impact of local therapy on long-term survival for this class of prostate cancer — whether it be radiation or surgery — was again brought into question,” he says.

About the Author

photo of Charlie Schmidt

Charlie Schmidt, Editor, Harvard Medical School Annual Report on Prostate Diseases

Charlie Schmidt is an award-winning freelance science writer based in Portland, Maine. In addition to writing for Harvard Health Publishing, Charlie has written for Science magazine, the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Environmental Health Perspectives, … See Full Bio View all posts by Charlie Schmidt

About the Reviewer

photo of Marc B. Garnick, MD

Marc B. Garnick, MD, Editor in Chief, Harvard Medical School Annual Report on Prostate Diseases; Editorial Advisory Board Member, Harvard Health Publishing

Dr. Marc B. Garnick is an internationally renowned expert in medical oncology and urologic cancer. A clinical professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, he also maintains an active clinical practice at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical … See Full Bio View all posts by Marc B. Garnick, MD

The FDA relaxes restrictions on blood donation

Cartoonish graphic with four pairs of hands holding blood donation bags; tubing marked with blood type leads to red heart in center

While the FDA rules for blood donation were revised twice in the last decade, one group — men who have sex with men (MSM) — continued to be turned away from donating. Now new, evidence-based FDA rules will focus on individual risk rather than groupwide restrictions.

Medical experts consider the new rules safe based on extensive evidence. Let’s review the changes here.

The new blood donation rules: One set of questions

The May 2023 FDA guidelines recommend asking every potential blood donor the same screening questions. These questions ask about behavior that raises risk for HIV, which can be spread through a transfusion.

Blood donation is then allowed, or not, based on personal risk factors for HIV and other blood-borne diseases.

Questions for potential blood donors

Screening questions focus on the risk of recent HIV infection, which is more likely to be missed by routine testing than a longstanding infection.

The screening questions ask everyone — regardless of gender, sex, or sexual orientation — whether in the past three months they have

  • had a new sexual partner and engaged in anal sex
  • had more than one sexual partner and engaged in anal sex
  • taken medicines to prevent HIV infection (such as pre-exposure prophylaxis, or PrEP)
  • exchanged sex for pay or drugs, or used nonprescription injection drugs
  • had sex with someone who has previously tested positive for HIV infection
  • had sex with someone who exchanged sex for pay or drugs
  • had sex with someone who used nonprescription injection drugs.

When is a waiting period recommended before giving blood?

  • Answering no to all of these screening questions suggests a person has a low risk of having a recently acquired HIV infection. No waiting period is necessary.
  • Answering yes to any of these screening questions raises concern that a potential donor might have an HIV infection. A three-month delay before giving blood is advised.

Does a waiting period before giving blood apply in other situations?

Yes:

  • A three-month delay before giving blood is recommended after a blood transfusion; treatment for gonorrhea or syphilis; or after most body piercings or tattoos not done with single-use equipment. These are not new rules.
  • A waiting period before giving blood is recommended for people who take medicines to prevent HIV infection, called PrEP (pre-exposure prophylaxis). PrEP might cause a test for HIV to be negative even if infection is present. The new guidelines recommend delaying blood donation until three months after the last use of PrEP pills, or a two-year delay after a person receives long-acting, injected PrEP.

Who cannot donate blood?

Anyone who has had a confirmed positive test for HIV infection or has taken medicines to treat HIV infection is permanently banned from donating blood. This rule is not new.

Why were previous rules more restrictive?

In 1983, soon after the HIV epidemic began in the US, researchers recognized that blood transfusions could spread the infection from blood donor to recipient. US guidelines banned men who had sex with men from giving blood. A lifetime prohibition was intended to limit the spread of HIV.

At that time, HIV and AIDS were more common in certain groups, not only among MSM, but also among people from Haiti and sub-Saharan Africa, and people with hemophilia. This led to blood donation bans for some of these people, as well.

A lot has changed in the world of HIV in the last several decades, especially the development of highly accurate testing and highly effective prevention and treatment. Still, the rules regarding blood donation were slow to change.

The ban from the 1980s for MSM remained in place until 2015. At that time, rules were changed to allow MSM to donate only if they attested to having had no sex with a man for 12 months. In 2020, the period of sexual abstinence was reduced, this time to three months.

Why are the blood donation guideline changes important?

  • Removing unnecessary restrictions that apply only to certain groups is a step forward in reducing discrimination and stigma for people who wish to donate blood but were turned away in the past.
  • The critical shortage in our blood supply has worsened since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. These revised rules are expected to significantly boost the number of blood donors.

The bottom line

Science and hard evidence should drive policy regarding blood donation as much as possible. Guidelines should not unnecessarily burden any particular group. These new guidelines represent progress in that regard.

Of course, these changes will be closely monitored to make sure the blood supply remains safe. My guess is that they’ll endure. And it wouldn’t surprise me if there is additional lifting of restrictions in the future.

About the Author

photo of Robert H. Shmerling, MD

Robert H. Shmerling, MD, Senior Faculty Editor, Harvard Health Publishing; Editorial Advisory Board Member, Harvard Health Publishing

Dr. Robert H. Shmerling is the former clinical chief of the division of rheumatology at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC), and is a current member of the corresponding faculty in medicine at Harvard Medical School. … See Full Bio View all posts by Robert H. Shmerling, MD

Screening tests may save lives — so when is it time to stop?

Graphic of page-a-day calendar with a red cross icon and bright yellow background; concept is healthcare appointment

Screening tests, such as Pap smears or blood pressure checks, could save your life. They can detect a disease you have no reason to suspect is there. Early detection may allow treatment while a health condition is curable and before irreversible complications arise.

Some screening tests help prevent the disease they are designed to detect. For example, colonoscopies and Pap smears can identify precancerous abnormalities that can be addressed so they cannot continue to grow and become cancerous. And missed screening tests contribute to thousands of avoidable deaths each year in the US. Yet there’s a point of diminishing returns, as a new study on Pap smears illustrates. And many of us could benefit from a better understanding of the limits of screening, and how experts decide when people should stop routine screening tests.

Know the limits of screening tests

Even the best screening test has limitations. It can miss the disease it’s intended to detect (false-negative results). Or it can return abnormal results when no disease is present (false-positive results).

Equally important, as people grow older life expectancy declines and screening benefits tend to wane. Many conditions detected by routine screenings, such as prostate cancer or cervical cancer, typically take a while to cause trouble. A person in their 80s is more likely to die from another fatal condition before cervical cancer or prostate cancer would affect their health. Additionally, certain diseases, such as cervical cancer, become less common with advancing age.

As a result, many screening tests are not recommended forever: at some point in your life, your doctor may tell you that you no longer need to repeat a screening test, even one you finally got used to having.

Know when screening tests usually end

Expert guidelines for many common screening tests include an “end age” when people can reasonably stop having the test. For example:

  • Pap smear: age 65
  • mammogram: age 75
  • colonoscopy: age 75
  • chest CT scan (recommended for people with a significant smoking history): age 80.

There are exceptions, of course. For example, if a colonoscopy found abnormalities in an otherwise healthy 72-year-old, repeat testing after age 75 may be recommended.

Many women have Pap smears after guidelines suggest stopping

Pap smears screen for cervical cancer. In 1996, new guidelines recommended that women who received Pap smears at appropriate intervals before age 65 could safely stop.

Yet many women continue to have this screening after turning 65, according to a recent study published in JAMA Internal Medicine that looked at data from 15 to 16 million women per year between 1999 and 2019. Their average age was 76, most (82%) were white, and all were enrolled in Medicare.

The study found:

  • In 1999, nearly three million women over age 65 (almost 19% of the study population) had Pap smears. By 2019, the number had fallen to 1.3 million (8.5%), a reduction of more than half.
  • Among women older than age 80, about 3% had Pap smears.
  • In 2019, the estimated cost related to Pap smears in these older women was $83.5 million.

Possibly, some women in this study had good reasons to continue having Pap smears. Perhaps they weren’t adequately screened when they were younger. Perhaps they had previous Pap smear abnormalities. Maybe their doctors recommended they continue having Pap smears despite their advanced age. We don’t know, because this study didn’t collect that information. Still, it’s quite likely that many (or even most) of these Pap smears represent overscreening: routine testing with little chance of benefit.

Why does overscreening matter?

Overscreening may cause

  • discomfort that may be tolerable when there’s an expectation of benefit, but less acceptable when the test is unnecessary
  • anxiety while awaiting the results of the test
  • false-positive results that lead to additional testing and unnecessary treatment
  • complications of testing, such as infection or bleeding after a Pap smear, or perforation or bleeding after a colonoscopy. (Fortunately, complications are rare.)
  • unnecessary costs, including medical appointments and lab fees, time wasted, and taking health providers away from more valuable care.

The bottom line

Screening tests are typically performed for people without symptoms, signs, or a high suspicion of disease. In many cases, they’re looking for a condition that is probably not there. For most screening tests, we have guidelines developed by experts and backed by data suggesting when to start — and when to stop — screening.

But guidelines are only general recommendations, and individual preferences matter. If foregoing a screening test will cause you excessive anxiety, or if having a test will provide significant peace of mind, it may be reasonable to have a test even after the recommended end age. Be sure you understand potential downsides, such as additional tests and complications.

So, never hesitate to ask your doctor when your next screening tests are due — but don’t forget to also ask if they are no longer worth having.

About the Author

photo of Robert H. Shmerling, MD

Robert H. Shmerling, MD, Senior Faculty Editor, Harvard Health Publishing; Editorial Advisory Board Member, Harvard Health Publishing

Dr. Robert H. Shmerling is the former clinical chief of the division of rheumatology at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC), and is a current member of the corresponding faculty in medicine at Harvard Medical School. … See Full Bio View all posts by Robert H. Shmerling, MD

Swimming and skin: What to know if a child has eczema

Three children bobbing in a pool on red, yellow, and green swimming noodles; two are wearing swim googles

Swimming is a great activity for children. It’s good exercise, it’s an important safety skill, and it can be a good way to get outside and get some fresh air and sunshine.

But for children with eczema — also known as atopic dermatitis — swimming can be complicated. Here’s how parents can help.

What is eczema?

Eczema is an allergic condition of the skin. It can be triggered by allergies to things in the environment, like pollen or cats, as well as by allergies to food. It can also be triggered when chemicals or other things irritate the skin, or when the skin loses moisture, or by excessive sweating.

Swimming and sun may be helpful for eczema

Swimming in a chlorinated pool can actually be helpful for eczema. Bleach baths, which are a commonly recommended eczema treatment, essentially make the bathtub like a swimming pool.

It also can be good for eczema to get some sun and be in the water. The trick is to optimize the benefits while preventing the possible problems.

What to do before and after swimming when a child has eczema

Here are some suggestions for parents:

  • If you’ll be outside, make sure you use sunscreen, preferably one with zinc oxide or titanium. Look for formulations for sensitive skin and avoid anything with fragrance. Consider using UV-protectant swimwear or shirts, especially if embarrassment about rashes is a problem.
  • Put on an emollient before swimming, especially in a chlorinated pool. A good grease-up before swimming can protect the skin. Don’t overdo it on the palms or soles; you want your child to be able to hold on to things, and you don’t want them to slip and fall. Talk to your doctor about the best emollient for your child.
  • If you are swimming in a pool for the first time, you might want to try a briefer swim than usual to be sure the chemicals aren’t too irritating. If possible, avoid going in a pool right after chlorine has been added.
  • Plan to change and shower right after swimming, using a mild soap or body wash without fragrance. Dab the skin dry with a clean towel (don’t use the one you used while swimming) and reapply emollient.
  • Look for silicone-lined swim caps and goggles, as they may be less irritating than rubber or other plastics. Be sure to rinse all swim gear after use.
  • If your child’s eczema is very inflamed, or is infected, it might be best to avoid swimming until it is better — or at least to get your doctor’s advice.

What else should you consider?

Be aware that some children and teens with eczema are embarrassed by it and don’t like to wear bathing suits that show a lot of skin. Follow your child’s lead on this.

If your child has frequent flares of eczema, or severe eczema, talk to your doctor about whether using regular topical steroids might help — and whether you should use them before swimming. If you are headed on a vacation where your child will be swimming often, or just headed into a time of year with lots of possible swimming, talk to your doctor about the best strategies to keep your child’s skin healthy.

For more information, visit the websites of the National Eczema Association and the American Academy of Dermatology.

Follow me on Twitter @drClaire

About the Author

photo of Claire McCarthy, MD

Claire McCarthy, MD, Senior Faculty Editor, Harvard Health Publishing

Claire McCarthy, MD, is a primary care pediatrician at Boston Children’s Hospital, and an assistant professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School. In addition to being a senior faculty editor for Harvard Health Publishing, Dr. McCarthy … See Full Bio View all posts by Claire McCarthy, MD

Drug recalls are common

Multicolored pills, tablets, and gel medicines spilling onto a bright yellow background and surrounded by emptied silver blister packs for medications

Scientific advances have brought us scores of new drugs in recent years. In the US, one major agency — the FDA — is responsible for making sure that the drugs they approve are safe and effective. Yet there were more than 14,000 drug recalls in the last 10 years, according to FDA statistics. That averages out to nearly four drug recalls a day!

Why are drug recalls so common, and how can you maximize safety when taking the medicines you need?

Why do so many drug recalls occur?

The FDA approves prescription drugs if research shows a medicine is safe and effective. Usually the risks are well known by the time approval is granted. For over-the-counter drugs, the bar is lower: proof that they work is not required, but the FDA still maintains oversight for safety.

Drug recalls are common because:

  • Rare side effects may be missed in clinical trials. Studies leading to drug approval might have hundreds or thousands of study subjects. But a rare problem may not be detected until tens of thousands of people have taken a drug.
  • Study subjects tend to be healthier than the general population. When you’re trying to figure out if a drug works, the chances of success are higher and reliability of results is greater if study subjects are healthy. Once a drug is approved, people taking it may be older, less healthy, or taking multiple drugs for health issues.
  • Problems during or after manufacturing can make a safe drug harmful. Examples include bacterial contamination, incorrect labeling, and improper storage.
  • Bad behavior by drug makers may affect drug safety. For example, multiple over-the-counter supplements marketed for male sexual performance were recalled in recent years because they were laced with prescription drugs for erectile dysfunction.

Are most drug recalls high-risk?

Fewer than one in 10 poses a serious health risk. The FDA grades risk severity for recalls as follows:

  • Class I is dangerous and poses a serious health risk (a hand sanitizer contaminated with methanol)
  • Class II might cause a temporary or slight risk of serious harm (a diabetes medicine stored at the wrong temperature)
  • Class III is unlikely to cause any harm to health, but there is a violation of FDA requirements (an ointment for dermatitis in damaged tubes).

Between 80% and 90% of drug recalls are Class II.

In 2022, 6% of recalls were Class 1, 86% were Class II, and 7% were Class III.

How do drug recalls happen?

The FDA inspects drug manufacturing facilities every two to three years. The agency also tests thousands of drugs each year.

Problems spotted during inspections, concerns identified by drug makers, or problems reported by patients or health care professionals can prompt a recall. The FDA then assigns a risk classification, supervises actions taken by the drug maker to remedy the problem, and monitors the product to make sure the problem is eliminated.

Drug recalls in the US are almost always voluntary. That means the drug maker acknowledges the problem and takes corrective action rather than waiting for a possible mandate from the FDA.

How can you stay informed about medicines you use?

Here are some practical measures to take:

  • Sign up to receive texts or emails about recalls, market withdrawals, and safety alerts from the FDA.
  • When filling prescriptions, take a good look at your medicine. Pills should not be discolored or crumbling, or have an unusual odor. If your prescription hasn’t changed, a refill should look similar to what you’ve taken in the past. If you suspect a problem, contact your pharmacist or the health care professional who prescribed it. And if you do confirm a problem, you can report it to the FDA.
  • If you learn of a recall for a drug you take, check the lot number on the package to see if your medication is affected. If the risk is classified as high (Class I), contact your doctor right away for advice. For many recalled drugs, there are safe and effective alternatives.
  • A recall notice will tell you if the medicine can be replaced or if you can be reimbursed. If you are instructed to dispose of medication, do so safely.

Another way to limit your potential exposure to recalled drugs is to take fewer drugs. Review your medication list with your doctor regularly and take only what you truly need.

The bottom line

News on drug recalls may not inspire confidence. It might make you wonder if the drugs you take are safe. In general, yes: the vast majority of medicines on the market have an excellent safety profile. But with more than 1,000 drug recalls every year, there’s plenty of room for improvement by drug makers and good reason to encourage better regulation of the industry.

Follow me on Twitter @RobShmerling

About the Author

photo of Robert H. Shmerling, MD

Robert H. Shmerling, MD, Senior Faculty Editor, Harvard Health Publishing; Editorial Advisory Board Member, Harvard Health Publishing

Dr. Robert H. Shmerling is the former clinical chief of the division of rheumatology at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC), and is a current member of the corresponding faculty in medicine at Harvard Medical School. … See Full Bio View all posts by Robert H. Shmerling, MD

Does running cause arthritis?

A middle-aged man wearing a blue zip top and lighter blue track pants running alongside a blurred cityscape

When I took up running in college, a friend of mine scoffed at the idea. He hated running and was convinced runners were “wearing out” their joints. He liked to say he was saving his knees for his old age.

So, was he onto something? Does running really ruin your joints, as many people believe?

Runners can get arthritis, but is running the cause?

You may think the answer is obvious. Surely, years of running (pounding pavements, or even softer surfaces) could wear out your joints, much like tires wear out after you put enough miles on them. And osteoarthritis, the most common type of arthritis, usually affects older adults. In fact, it’s often described as age-related and degenerative. That sounds like a wear-and-tear sort of situation, right?

Maybe not. Sure, it’s easy to blame running when a person who runs regularly develops arthritis. But that blame may be misguided. The questions to ask are:

  • Does running damage the joints and lead to arthritis?
  • Does arthritis develop first and become more noticeable while running?
  • Is the connection more complicated? Perhaps there’s no connection between running and arthritis for most people. But maybe those destined to develop arthritis (due to their genes, for example) get it sooner if they take up running.

Extensive research over the last several decades has investigated these questions. While the answers are still not entirely clear, we’re moving closer.

What is the relationship between running and arthritis?

Mounting evidence suggests that that running does not cause osteoarthritis, or any other joint disease.

  • A study published in 2017 found that recreational runners had lower rates of hip and knee osteoarthritis (3.5%) compared with competitive runners (13.3%) and nonrunners (10.2%).
  • According to a 2018 study, the rate of hip or knee arthritis among 675 marathon runners was half the rate expected within the US population.
  • A 2022 analysis of 24 studies found no evidence of significant harm to the cartilage lining the knee joints on MRIs taken just after running.

These are just a few of the published medical studies on the subject. Overall, research suggests that running is an unlikely cause of arthritis — and might even be protective.

Why is it hard to study running and arthritis?

  • Osteoarthritis takes many years to develop. Convincing research would require a long time, perhaps a decade or more.
  • It’s impossible to perform an ideal study. The most powerful type of research study is a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial. Participants in these studies are assigned to a treatment group (perhaps taking a new drug) or a control group (often taking a placebo). Double-blind means neither researchers nor participants know which people are in the treatment group and which people are getting a placebo. When the treatment being studied is running, there’s no way to conduct this kind of trial.
  • Beware the confounders. A confounder is a factor or variable you can’t account for in a study. There may be important differences between people who run and those who don’t that have nothing to do with running. For example, runners may follow a healthier diet, maintain a healthier weight, or smoke less than nonrunners. They may differ with respect to how their joints are aligned, the strength of their ligaments, or genes that direct development of the musculoskeletal system. These factors could affect the risk of arthritis and make study results hard to interpret clearly. In fact, they may explain why some studies find that running is protective.
  • The effect of running may vary between people. For example, it’s possible, though not proven, that people with obesity who run regularly are at increased risk of arthritis due to the stress of excess weight on the joints.

The bottom line

Trends in recent research suggest that running does not wear out your joints. That should be reassuring for those of us who enjoy running. And if you don’t like to run, that’s fine: try to find forms of exercise that you enjoy more. Just don’t base your decision — or excuse — for not running on the idea that it will ruin your joints.

About the Author

photo of Robert H. Shmerling, MD

Robert H. Shmerling, MD, Senior Faculty Editor, Harvard Health Publishing; Editorial Advisory Board Member, Harvard Health Publishing

Dr. Robert H. Shmerling is the former clinical chief of the division of rheumatology at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC), and is a current member of the corresponding faculty in medicine at Harvard Medical School. … See Full Bio View all posts by Robert H. Shmerling, MD

Apps to accelerometers: Can technology improve mental health in older adults?

photo of a visiting nurse and a senior patient in the person's kitchen at home; nurse is showing how to book an online appointment using a smartphone

It can be devastating to watch older adults struggle with memory problems, low mood, anxiety, or a lack of motivation, particularly during times of physical distancing. With waiting lists for mental health appointments stretching for months, you may be wondering about alternatives.

Reaching out to family members or faith leaders may be helpful in talking through stressors. Alternatively, self-help books may provide skills or a new perspective for older adults choosing to keep their struggles private. But with the explosion of mental health mobile applications, telepsychiatry services, social media, and wearable technologies, where does technology fit in with treatment?

Combating ageist stereotypes

Seeing your loved one struggle with their computer, you may wonder whether to pursue technology-based treatments in the first place. Although older adults may be reluctant to use new technology due to stereotype threat (the fear of confirming negative stereotypes), a little help from loved ones can ease technology discomfort. The adoption of technology has grown rapidly over the past decade among older adults, and with it have come potential benefits to mental health, daily functioning, and quality of life.

Moving to virtual

A couple of years into the pandemic, older adults are increasingly seeing their doctors virtually. How well does this work for mental health? Thankfully, several studies have shown that virtual therapy is comparable to in-person treatment.

What about mobile apps that remove the human component? Here the data suggest that mobile apps can be complementary, although they are not sufficient as standalone treatments for mental illnesses.

Privacy

When navigating online treatments, you want to ensure that the platform used is HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act)-compliant, which means your information is protected by law. Zoom and BlueJeans are HIPAA compliant; FaceTime and Skype are not. When using mental health mobile apps, read the privacy policies: red flags include sharing or selling information to third parties and using your information for advertisements.

Which apps can help older adults the most?

Navigating the explosion of mental health apps for online treatment can be tricky, as the landscape is changing quickly. For teletherapy services, Teladoc, K health, and Doctor on Demand are good places to start.

To supplement treatment of common mental illnesses, wellness apps developed by the federal government (including Mindfulness Coach, COVID Coach, and CBT-i Coach) can help teach skills, manage sleep, and track symptoms. Medisafe is the top-ranked medication reminder app for good reason: it has excellent privacy features (and with the premium subscription, you can receive medication reminders in celebrity voices).

Movement and mental health

We know that physical activity has numerous benefits on brain health in old age: it reduces anxiety and stress, it improves depressive symptoms, and it even strengthens learning and memory. Wearable technologies can play a role in helping older adults set physical activity goals. Through the use of smartwatches (which use accelerometers to keep track of movements), older adults can monitor how many steps they take, how many calories they burn, and even how well they sleep at night.

Wearable technologies have advantages for caregivers as well. They can be used to monitor their loved ones for wandering and falls, and they can alert them to changes in mood: a significant increase or decrease in usual activity levels may herald early signs of depression or anxiety.

Can smartphones be used to improve memory in older adults?

New research suggests that technology can indeed improve prospective memory, and help older adults with mild cognitive impairment continue their daily activities. Through the use of a personal assistant application on their smartphone (a digital voice recorder or reminder app), older adults who received reminders about events and activities experienced memory benefits and improvements in their activities of daily living.

Tips for using technology with older adults

While the benefits and harms of using technologies are still being studied, you can try the following:

  • Encourage older adults to try out applications that are research-informed, especially if they express interest.
  • If using a mobile health app, make sure to read the privacy policy. If using an online mental health platform, ensure it is HIPAA-compliant.
  • Try to set physical activity goals, as physical activity helps improve symptoms of almost every mental illness. Wearable technologies that count steps are a good place to start.
  • Modify device settings to improve comfort: this can include optimizing volume and font size to accommodate changes in vision or hearing.

If mental health technology doesn’t suit your loved one, that’s okay — technology is not always the answer. Treatments are most likely to work when patients believe it will help and can stick with it.

About the Author

photo of Stephanie Collier, MD, MPH

Stephanie Collier, MD, MPH, Contributor; Editorial Advisory Board Member, Harvard Health Publishing

Dr. Stephanie Collier is the director of education in the division of geriatric psychiatry at McLean Hospital; consulting psychiatrist for the population health management team at Newton-Wellesley Hospital; and instructor in psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. … See Full Bio View all posts by Stephanie Collier, MD, MPH

Healthier planet, healthier people

A crystal globe with countries etched on, circled by stethoscope with red heart; Earth health and our health connect

Everything is connected. You’ve probably heard that before, but it bears repeating. Below are five ways to boost both your individual health and the health of our planet — a combination that environmentalists call co-benefits.

How your health and planetary health intersect

Back in 1970, Earth Day was founded as a day of awareness about environmental issues. Never has awareness of our environment seemed more important than now. The impacts of climate change on Earth — fires, storms, floods, droughts, heat waves, rising sea levels, species extinction, and more — directly or indirectly threaten our well-being, especially for those most vulnerable. For example, air pollution from fossil fuels and fires contributes to lung problems and hospitalizations. Geographic and seasonal boundaries for ticks and mosquitoes, which are carriers of infectious diseases, expand as regions warm.

The concept of planetary health acknowledges that the ecosystem and our health are inextricably intertwined. Actions and events have complex downstream effects: some are expected, others are surprising, and many are likely unrecognized. While individual efforts may seem small, collectively they can move the needle — even ever so slightly — in the right direction.

Five ways to improve personal and planetary health

Adopt plant-forward eating.

This means increasing plant-based foods in your diet while minimizing meat. Making these types of choices lowers the risks of heart disease, stroke, obesity, high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, and many cancers. Compared to meat-based meals, plant-based meals also have many beneficial effects for the planet. For example, for the same amount of protein, plant-based meals have a lower carbon footprint and use fewer natural resources like land and water.

Remember, not all plants are equal.

Plant foods also vary greatly, both in terms of their nutritional content and in their environmental impact. Learning to read labels can help you determine the nutritional value of foods. It’s a bit harder to learn about the environmental impact of specific foods, since there are regional factors. But to get a general sense, Our World in Data has a collection of eye-opening interactive graphs about various environmental impacts of different foods.

Favor active transportation.

Choose an alternative to driving such as walking, biking, or using public transportation when possible. Current health recommendations encourage adults to get 150 minutes each week of moderate-intensity physical activity, and two sessions of muscle strengthening activity. Regular physical activity improves mental health, bone health, and weight management. It also reduces risks of heart disease, some cancers, and falls in older adults. Fewer miles driven in gas-powered vehicles means cleaner air, decreased carbon emissions contributing to climate change, and less air pollution (known to cause asthma exacerbations and many other diseases).

Start where you are and work up to your level of discomfort.

Changes that work for one person may not work for another. Maybe you will pledge to eat one vegan meal each week, or maybe you will pledge to limit beef to once a week. Maybe you will try out taking the bus to work, or maybe you will bike to work when it’s not winter. Set goals for yourself that are achievable but are also a challenge.

Talk about it.

It might feel as though these actions are small, and it might feel daunting for any one individual trying to make a difference. Sharing your thoughts about what matters to you and about what you are doing might make you feel less isolated and help build community. Building community contributes to well-being and resilience.

Plus, if you share your pledges and aims with one person, and that person does the same, then your actions are amplified. Who knows, maybe one of those folks along the way might be the employee who decides what our children eat from school menus, or a city planner for pedestrian walkways and bike lanes!

About the Author

photo of Wynne Armand, MD

Wynne Armand, MD, Contributor

Dr. Wynne Armand is a physician at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH), where she provides primary care; an assistant professor in medicine at Harvard Medical School; and associate director of the MGH Center for the Environment and … See Full Bio View all posts by Wynne Armand, MD

Natural disasters strike everywhere: Ways to help protect your health

A powerful, destructive storm producing a tornado crosses through fields and roads, throwing debris up into the air as lightening forks down in the distance

Climate change is an escalating threat to the health of people everywhere. As emergency medicine physicians practicing in Australia and the United States, we — and our colleagues around the world — already see the impacts of climate change on those we treat.

Will we be seeing you one day soon? Hopefully not. Yet an ever-growing number of us will face climate-related emergencies, such as flooding, fires, and extreme weather. And all of us can actively prepare to protect health when the need arises. Here’s what to know and do.

How is climate change affecting health?

As the planet warms, people are seeking emergency medical care for a range of climate-related health problems, such as heat exhaustion and heat stroke, asthma due to air pollution, and infectious diseases related to flooding and shifting biomes that prompt ticks, mosquitoes, and other pests to relocate. News headlines frequently spotlight physical and emotional trauma stemming from hurricanes, wildfires, tornadoes, and floods.

We care for people displaced from their homes and their communities by extreme weather events. Many suddenly lack access to their usual medical team members and pharmacies, sometimes for significant periods of time. The toll of extreme weather often lands hardest on people who are homeless, those with complex medical conditions, children, the elderly, people with disabilities, minoritized groups, and those who live in poorer communities.

On a recent 110º Fahrenheit day, for example, a woman came to an emergency department in Adelaide, Australia complaining of a headache, fatigue, and nausea, all symptoms of heat exhaustion. She told medical staff that she had just walked for two hours in the sun to obtain groceries, as she had no car or access to public transportation. While health advisories in the media that day had advised her to stay inside in air conditioning, walking outside was only the only option she had to feed her family. For this woman and many others, well-intended public health warnings do little to reduce the risk of illness during extreme weather. Achieving safe, equitable health outcomes will require addressing access to shelter, access to transportation, and other societal factors that put people at risk of bad health outcomes.

Extreme weather contributes to large-scale health and safety issues

Increasingly, climate-related extreme weather is leading to interrupted access to medical care, contributing to later illness and death. Extreme weather can damage key infrastructure like the electrical grid, so that those relying on home medical equipment cannot use it. It may shut down health care facilities like a dialysis center or emergency room, or slow care in facilities that stay open.

People fleeing a fire or hurricane can be displaced into settings where they may have difficulty getting medical care or obtaining much-needed medicine, such as insulin, dialysis, high blood pressure treatments, and heart medicines. Such factors can worsen chronic conditions and may even cause death, particularly in people with existing medical conditions like heart failure, lung disease, and kidney disease.

How can you be ready to protect your health?

We all have a part to play in keeping ourselves and our communities well in the face of increasing dangers from climate change. Taking these steps will help.

If you or a loved one has health issues:

  • Keep a printed summary handy listing all medical conditions, medications and dosages, and phone numbers for your health providers.
  • If you have to leave your home, try to bring all medications with you — even bringing empty pill bottles will help a doctor trying to restart your medications.
  • Store medicines in a waterproof bag in a place where you can easily find them. This will help if you need to evacuate quickly.

Think about what to do if you need to leave home quickly. Now is the time to figure out your basic emergency plan:

  • Where will you go if you need to evacuate?
  • How will you get there?
  • How could you communicate with others if there is no electricity or phone service?
  • Do you have written contact info for a few family members and friends, in case you lose your phone or the battery dies?

Finally, we all need to look out for others in our community. Check in on elderly neighbors and those around you who may be socially disconnected, and make sure that they are safe where they live and are able to access the medical care they may need when the weather turns hot, cold, smoky, fiery, snowy, wet, or windy.

Climate change is here. It is already having tangible and significant impacts on our communities and the health of people around the world. Moreover, the increased risk of climate-related extreme weather is here to stay for the foreseeable future, and we must prepare for the threats it poses to our health, both now and in decades to come. We all have a part to play — health professionals, communities, and individuals — in keeping ourselves and each other healthy and safe.

About the Authors

photo of Kimberly Humphrey, MD, MPH

Kimberly Humphrey, MD, MPH, Contributor

Dr. Kimberly Humphrey is an emergency physician, a current Fellow in Climate Change and Human Health at Harvard C-CHANGE at Harvard's T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and a visiting scholar at the Harvard FXB Center. Her research focuses on the … See Full Bio View all posts by Kimberly Humphrey, MD, MPH photo of Caleb Dresser, MD, MPH

Caleb Dresser, MD, MPH, Contributor

Dr. Caleb Dresser is an emergency physician and assistant director of the Climate and Human Health Fellowship, cohosted by Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, the Harvard FXB Center, and Harvard C-CHANGE. His research focuses on understanding the health implications of climate-related … See Full Bio View all posts by Caleb Dresser, MD, MPH