The New Old Age Blog: For Some Caregivers, the Trauma Lingers

Recently, I spoke at length to a physician who seems to have suffered a form of post-traumatic stress after her mother’s final illness.

There is little research on this topic, which suggests that it is overlooked or discounted. But several experts acknowledge that psychological trauma of this sort does exist.

Barry Jacobs, a clinical psychologist and author of “The Emotional Survival Guide for Caregivers” (The Guilford Press, 2006), often sees caregivers who struggle with intrusive thoughts and memories months and even years after a loved one has died.

“Many people find themselves unable to stop thinking about the suffering they witnessed, which is so powerfully seared into their brains that they cannot push it away,” Dr. Jacobs said.

Flashbacks are a symptom of post-traumatic stress disorder, along with feelings of numbness, anxiety, guilt, dread, depression, irritability, apathy, tension and more. Though one symptom or several do not prove that such a condition exists — that’s up to an expert to determine — these issues are a “very common problem for caregivers,” Dr. Jacobs said.

Dolores Gallagher-Thompson, a professor of psychiatry at the Stanford University School of Medicine who treats many caregivers, said there was little evidence that caregiving on its own caused post-traumatic stress. But if someone is vulnerable for another reason — perhaps a tragedy experienced earlier in life — this kind of response might be activated.

“When something happens that the individual perceives and reacts to as a tremendous stressor, that can intensify and bring back to the forefront of consciousness memories that were traumatic,” Dr. Gallagher-Thompson said. “It’s more an exacerbation of an already existing vulnerability.”

Dr. Judy Stone, the physician who was willing to share her mother’s end-of-life experience and her powerful reaction to it, fits that definition in spades.

Both of Dr. Stone’s Hungarian parents were Holocaust survivors: her mother, Magdus, called Maggie by family and friends, had been sent to Auschwitz; her father, Miki, to Dachau. The two married before World War II, after Maggie left her small village, moved to the city and became a corset maker in Miki’s shop.

Death cast a long shadow over the family. During the war, Maggie’s first baby died of exposure while she was confined for a time to the Debrecen ghetto. After the war, the family moved to the United States, where they worked to recover a sense of normalcy and Miki worked as a maker of orthopedic appliances. Then he died suddenly of a heart attack at the age of 50.

“None of us recovered from that,” said Dr. Stone, who traces her interest in medicine and her lifelong interest in fighting for social justice to her parents and trips she made with her father to visit his clients.

Decades passed, as Dr. Stone operated an infectious disease practice in Cumberland, Md., and raised her own family.

In her old age, Maggie, who her daughter describes as “tough, stubborn, strong,” developed macular degeneration, bad arthritis and emphysema — a result of a smoking habit she started just after the war and never gave up. Still, she lived alone, accepting no help until she reached the age of 92.

Then, in late 2007, respiratory failure set in, causing the old woman to be admitted to the hospital, then rehabilitation, then assisted living, then another hospital. Maggie had made her preferences absolutely clear to her daughter, who had medical power of attorney: doctors were to pursue every intervention needed to keep her alive.

Yet one doctor sent her from a rehabilitation center to the hospital during respiratory crisis with instructions that she was not to be resuscitated — despite her express wishes. Fortunately, the hospital called Dr. Stone and the order was reversed.

“You have to be ever vigilant,” Dr. Stone said when asked what advice she would give to families. “You can’t assume that anything, be it a D.N.R. or allergies or medication orders, have been communicated correctly.”

Other mistakes were made in various settings: There were times that Dr. Stone’s mother had not received necessary oxygen, was without an inhaler she needed for respiratory distress, was denied water or ice chips to moisten her mouth, or received an antibiotic that can cause hallucinations in older people, despite Dr. Stone’s request that this not happen. “People didn’t listen,” she said. “The lack of communication was horrible.”

It was a daily fight to protect her mother and make sure she got what she needed, and “frankly, if I hadn’t been a doctor, I think I would have been thrown out of there,” she said.

In the end, when it became clear that death was inevitable, Maggie finally agreed to be taken off a respirator. But rather than immediately arrange for palliative measures, doctors arranged for a brief trial to see if she could breathe on her own.

“They didn’t give her enough morphine to suppress her agony,” Dr. Stone recalled.

Five years have passed since her mother died, and “I still have nightmares about her being tortured,” the doctor said. “I’ve never been able to overcome the feeling that I failed her — I let her down. It wasn’t her dying that is so upsetting, it was how she died and the unnecessary suffering at the end.”

Dr. Stone had specialized in treating infectious diseases and often saw patients who were critically ill in intensive care. But after her mother died, “I just could not do it,” she said. “I couldn’t see people die. I couldn’t step foot in the I.C.U. for a long, long time.”

Today, she works part time seeing patients with infectious diseases on an as-needed basis in various places — a job she calls “rent a doc” — and blogs for Scientific American about medical ethics. “I tilt at windmills,” she said, describing her current occupations.

Most important to her is trying to change problems in the health system that failed her mother and failed her as well. But Dr. Stone has a sense of despair about that: it is too big an issue, too hard to tackle.

I’m grateful to her for sharing her story so that other caregivers who may have experienced overwhelming emotional reactions that feel like post-traumatic stress realize they are not alone.

It is important to note that both Dr. Jacobs and Dr. Gallagher-Thompson report successfully treating caregivers beset by overwhelming stress. It is hard work and it takes time, but they say recovery is possible. I’ll give a sense of treatment options they and others recommend in another post.

Read More..

Canon Forecast Falls Short of Expectations


TOKYO — Canon expects a 26.6 percent increase in operating profit this year as it cuts costs and increases revenue — but the projection Wednesday still fell short of analysts’ expectations.


Canon, a camera and printer maker considered a leader in profitability in corporate Japan with its aggressive cost-cutting, is angling for a foothold in the growing market for mirrorless cameras with interchangeable lenses, where it faces stiff competition from Sony, Olympus and Nikon.


Canon’s operating profit for the three months that ended Dec. 31 fell 17.9 percent, to ¥77.7 billion, or $853 million, below the average estimate of ¥100.9 billion among seven analysts surveyed by Thomson Reuters I/B/E/S.


“Both its full-year earnings and forecast are below market consensus, so the results were seen as negative,” said Makoto Kikuchi, the chief executive of Myojo Asset Management. “Investors have bought Canon on overly high expectations that a weaker yen will lift its bottom line, but such excitement should recede.”


Demand for compact cameras is shrinking as consumers shift to smartphones, while stretched budgets among customers in Europe have eroded sales of Canon’s office printers. And the company, which derives 80 percent of its revenue from overseas, was badly hit by the firmness of the Japanese currency last year. Canon officials said Wednesday that economic recovery in India and China, as well as aggressive economic stimulus policies in Japan, were likely to support the company’s earnings.


The company set its exchange rate assumptions for the business year ending in December at ¥85 to the dollar and ¥115 to the euro, weaker than the average last year of ¥79.96 per dollar and ¥102.8 per euro.


As one of the first blue-chip Japanese companies to report quarterly results, Canon is often seen as a barometer for technology sector earnings.


The company forecast a full-year operating profit of ¥410 billion for the current year through December, compared with the average expectation of a ¥443.3 billion profit among 21 analysts, according to Thomson Reuters StarMine.


Canon’s shares have fallen about 1 percent since the start of last year, underperforming the Nikkei average’s gain of 31 percent. The shares slipped to a three-year low in July, when Canon cut its outlook on fears of shrinking demand in China.


The stock ended nearly 3 percent higher Wednesday before the earnings announcement.


Xerox, with which Canon competes for a share of the global printer market, overshot expectations with its quarterly earnings and maintained its full-year targets as it restructures parts of its business and commits to further cost cuts.


Nikon is due to report its results next Wednesday, with Sony following the next day.


 


 


Read More..

India Ink: No Knowledge of Pakistan Complaints, Indian Officials Say

Following the recent killings of Indian and Pakistani soldiers near the Kashmir border, a local newspaper reported classified United Nations documents show that the cycle of violence between troops of the two countries has continued despite the cease-fire in 2003.

The Hindu, a national English-language daily newspaper, said Wednesday that Pakistan has repeatedly complained to the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan about the killings of at least 18 of its soldiers, including four beheadings, by Indian forces between 2000 and 2011. The United Nations group was set up in 1949 to monitor cease-fire violations between the two countries.

In the worst flare-up since the 2003 cease-fire, Indian and Pakistani troops exchanged gunfire near the Line of Control earlier this month, resulting in deaths on both sides. At the time, India accused Pakistan of beheading one of its soldiers, a charge Pakistan denies.

Among the complaints it filed, Pakistan alleged in 2003 that Indian forces decapitated one of its soldiers, the Hindu said.

The Hindu also reported that Pakistan also complained that Indian forces decapitated two civilians during a massacre in the village of Bandala in 1998, which claimed 22 civilian lives.

Sitanshu Kar, spokesman for the Indian Ministry of Defense, said that he had no knowledge of Pakistan’s complaints to the United Nations group, and that he had not been contacted for The Hindu article. “It’s the first time I’m hearing about this,” he said. “I have not seen any such document.”

Syed Akbaruddin, the spokesman for the India’s Ministry of External Affairs, said that India did not have any formal exchange with the United Nations Military Observer Group. “We feel that Unmogip has outlived its relevance,” he said. The country’s relationship with the organization ended after India and Pakistan entered the 1972 Simla Agreement, in which both countries said they would resolve their disputes bilaterally.

Mr. Akbaruddin added that Pakistan had not raised these complaints directly with India. “Frankly, this is not a discussion we have had diplomatically,” he said.

An official at the United Nations organization’s office in Srinagar refused to comment on the report, or whether such complaints by Pakistan had been received. Calls made to the group’s office in Delhi were not answered.

A spokesman for the Indian Army was not immediately available for comment.

Lt. Gen. Baljit Singh Jaswal, who from October 2009 to December 2010 led the Northern Command, which supervises troops in Jammu and Kashmir, said that India had engaged in no cross-border violations during that time.

General Jaswal, now retired, added that Pakistan had violated the cease-fire “numerous times” and that India had exchanged retaliatory fire.

Read More..

DealBook: Former Jefferies Trader Is Charged With Fraud

Federal prosecutors charged a former senior trader at the Jefferies Group on Monday with defrauding his clients — and the government — while selling them mortgage-backed securities after the financial crisis.

Jesse C. Litvak, the former Jefferies trader, is accused of generating more than $2 million in revenue for Jefferies by overcharging his customers through deceitful conduct. Those who are said to have been his victims include some of the world’s largest investment firms, including Soros Fund Management, Magnetar Capital, BlackRock and Wellington Management.

The government was also a victim in this case, prosecutors said, because Mr. Litvak’s clients were managing money that was part of the Treasury Asset Relief Program, or TARP, the $700 billion bailout fund. As part of a public-private investment program, the Treasury picked nine private firms to invest in toxic mortgage-backed securities and help remove them from the clogged balance sheets of the large banks.

While the alleged violations — cheating brokerage clients by misrepresenting the prices of securities — might typically prompt the loss of a job or civil lawsuits, such conduct rarely, if ever, rises to the level of a federal criminal prosecution.

The case demonstrates the aggressive prosecutorial stance of the special inspector general for TARP, or Sigtarp, which led the investigation. The office, now led by Christy Romero, has been responsible for criminal cases filed against 121 individuals.

“Illegally profiting from a federal program designed to assist our nation in recovering from one of our worst economic crises is reprehensible,” said David B. Fein, the United States attorney in Connecticut, whose office brought the charges. The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a parallel civil action in the case.

Federal agents arrested Mr. Litvak, 38, early Monday morning at his apartment on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. He made an appearance in Federal District Court in Bridgeport, Conn., and was released on $1 million bail. Mr. Litvak, who worked at RBS Greenwich Capital earlier in his career, joined Jefferies in 2008 and was fired in December 2011.

“Jesse Litvak did not cheat anyone out of a dime,” said Patrick J. Smith, Mr. Litvak’s lawyer at DLA Piper, in a statement. “In fact, most of these trades turned out to be hugely profitable. Jesse looks forward to the trial in this case so that his name can be cleared and he can get on with his career.”

While the market for mortgage-backed securities is complex and opaque, the charges against Mr. Litvak are rather simple. Prosecutors said that he deceived his customers about the prices of the securities that he sold to them. The indictment said that Mr. Litvak deployed the scheme in part to increase the size of his year-end bonus.

In some cases, they said, Mr. Litvak would lie about the price at which his firm had bought a security so he could resell it to another customer at a higher price and earn more money for the firm. In other instances, the government said, he created a fake seller to give the impression that he was arranging a trade between two customers, when in fact he was selling the security out of his firm’s inventory at a high price.

“The kind of false claims made by Litvak were unfit for a used-car lot, let alone a marketplace for mortgage-backed securities,” said George S. Canellos, the S.E.C.’s deputy director of enforcement.

Mr. Smith, the lawyer for Mr. Litvak, said that the trades were transactions between sophisticated market participants and that the profits that Jefferies earned on each trade were well within industry norms for the mortgage-backed securities market.

Mr. Litvak wants Jefferies to pay his legal fees related to the government’s investigation, and he has filed papers in the Delaware Court of Chancery demanding compensation from the bank. Jefferies has refused to reimburse him, arguing that it fired Mr. Litvak for cause. Richard Khaleel, a spokesman for Jefferies, declined to comment.

The case first showed up on the government’s radar after one of Mr. Litvak’s customers, AllianceBernstein, complained to Jefferies that the bank had overcharged it for mortgage-backed securities, according to people briefed on the case. According to records from the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, or Finra, Jefferies settled the case with AllianceBernstein for $2.2 million.

Court papers depict Mr. Litvak as an exuberant salesman, frequently communicating with instant messages and peppering his communications with slang. When Mr. Litvak reported to a client, Wellington Management, about a sham purchase, he wrote “winner winner chicken dinner.” Another time, the complaint said, Mr. Litvak gave a customer a false report on the price of a security that he sold to a hedge fund, York Capital Management. “We are doneski gorgeous!” he wrote.

A version of this article appeared in print on 01/29/2013, on page B1 of the NewYork edition with the headline: Ex-Trader For Jefferies Is Charged With Fraud.
Read More..

Rescuer Appears for New York Downtown Hospital





Manhattan’s only remaining hospital south of 14th Street, New York Downtown, has found a white knight willing to take over its debt and return it to good health, hospital officials said Monday.




NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, one of New York City’s largest academic medical centers, has proposed to take over New York Downtown in a “certificate of need” filed with the State Health Department. The three-page proposal argues that though New York Downtown is projected to have a significant operating loss in 2013, it is vital to Lower Manhattan, including Wall Street, Chinatown and the Lower East Side, especially since the closing of St. Vincent’s Hospital after it declared bankruptcy in 2010.


The rescue proposal, which would need the Health Department’s approval, comes at a precarious time for hospitals in the city. Long Island College Hospital, just across the river in Cobble Hill, Brooklyn, has been threatened with closing after a failed merger with SUNY Downstate Medical Center, and several other Brooklyn hospitals are considering mergers to stem losses.


New York Downtown has been affiliated with the NewYork-Presbyterian health care system while maintaining separate operations.


“We are looking forward to having them become a sixth campus so the people in that community can continue to have a community hospital that continues to serve them,” Myrna Manners, a spokeswoman for NewYork-Presbyterian, said.


Fred Winters, a spokesman for New York Downtown, declined to comment.


Presbyterian’s proposal emphasized that it would acquire New York Downtown’s debt at no cost to the state, a critical point at a time when the state has shown little interest in bailing out failing hospitals.


The proposal said that if New York Downtown were to close, it would leave more than 300,000 residents of Lower Manhattan, including the financial district, Greenwich Village, SoHo, the Lower East Side and Chinatown, without a community hospital. In addition, it said, 750,000 people work and visit in the area every day, a number that is expected to grow with the construction of 1 World Trade Center and related buildings.


The proposal argues that New York Downtown is essential partly because of its long history of responding to disasters in the city. One of its predecessors was founded as a direct result of the 1920 terrorist bombing outside the J. P. Morgan Building, and the hospital has responded to the 1975 bombing of Fraunces Tavern, the 1993 and 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center, and, this month, the crash of a commuter ferry from New Jersey.


Like other fragile hospitals in the city, New York Downtown has shrunk, going to 180 beds, down from the 254 beds it was certified for in 2006, partly because the more affluent residents of Lower Manhattan often go to bigger hospitals for elective care.


The proposal says that half of the emergency department patients at New York Downtown either are on Medicaid, the program for the poor, or are uninsured.


NewYork-Presbyterian would absorb the cost of the hospital’s maternity and neonatal intensive care units, which have been expanding because of demand, but have been operating at a deficit of more than $1 million a year, the proposal said.


Read More..

Gadgetwise Blog: Q&A: How to Set Up Twitter Lists

Is there a way to filter my Twitter feed to see all of the sports-related people and sites I follow into one group?

Twitter lets you create “lists” of the people and sites that you follow, and you can organize these lists by topic — like sports, weather, humor, news and so on. When you select a list you have made, you just see tweets from the people you specifically added to it, and not from everybody on your main Twitter feed.

To set up a list, log into your Twitter account on the Web. On the left side of your profile page, click Lists and then click the Create List button. Give your list a name and save it.

To add users you already follow, click the Following link to see the full list of accounts you have added to your Twitter feed. Click the drop-down menu next to a username and select “Add or remove from lists.” In the box that appears, turn on the checkbox next to the name of the list you just created and then close the box.

When you have finished adding all the accounts you want on a list, you can see the finished collection by clicking the Lists button on your Twitter page and selecting the name of the list. Standalone Twitter programs for the computer usually have a List button in the toolbar or menus for viewing your user compilations. On the Twitter app for Android or iOS, tap the Me icon, flick down the screen and tap Lists to see your groupings.

Lists can be private (meaning only you can see them) or public so that others can share and subscribe to them. Twitter has detailed instructions for using lists on its site.

Read More..

IHT Rendezvous: As Asia Grows, So Do Prizes

BEIJING — A new Asian prize that pays more than the Nobel Prize will launch next year, joining an expanding list of cash-rich awards in the region as prosperity and philanthropy grow. Yet one prize – China’s Confucius Peace Prize – set up in 2010 in apparently outraged response to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to the jailed Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo – seems to be unable to establish itself. In fact, as one commentator wrote in the state-run Global Times late last year, “the award has been widely mocked.”

That is unlikely to happen to the Tang Prize, set up by Samuel Yin, a multibillionaire from Taiwan who has pledged to give away nearly all his wealth.

The new prize will award $1.7 million every other year to winners in each of four fields: sustainable development, biopharmaceutical science, Sinology, and the rule of law, Science magazine reported. The money will be divided into two parts, an award and a research fund, with the bulk going to the award.

Mr. Yin, head of Ruentex Group, is Taiwan’s seventh-richest person, according to Forbes magazine, worth about $3.1 billion from diversified investments including a hypermarket, insurance and Taiwanese real estate.

The award, announced on Monday in Taipei, “lengthens the list of rich science prizes funded by Asian philanthropists,” Science magazine reported. “Run Run Shaw, a Hong Kong media mogul, in 2002 established the Shaw Prize, which annually confers $1 million for work in astronomy, life science and medicine, and mathematical sciences.”

“Three other major science prizes in Japan hand out about $550,000 to each winner annually,” including the Kyoto Prize (technology, basic science, arts and philosophy), the Japan Prize (environment, energy and infrastructure, and health care and medical technology), and the Blue Planet Prize (environmental research.)

Mr. Yin hopes the new prize will “encourage more research that is beneficial to the world and humankind, promote Chinese culture, and make the world a better place,” according to a press release.

Academia Sinica, which oversees Taiwan’s premier research labs, will be responsible for the nomination and selection process, Science reported. The prize is named after the Tang dynasty, a high point in Chinese civilization and multiculturalism.

Yet if awarding prizes for science is relatively straightforward, awarding prizes for peace is far more controversial, as the ongoing debacle with the Confucius Peace Prize shows.

Its travails have been widely reported, with this story in Time magazine summing up some of the major issues, which include “wacky” nominee lists and a controversial founder, the Peking University professor and staunch Chinese ultra-nationalist Kong Qingdong, who claims to be a 73rd-generation offspring of Confucius himself and who early last year caused a storm of controversy after calling Hong Kong people “dogs” and “thieves.”

Time said the prize, awarded by “an obscure mainland group” (the China International Peace Research Center) was “a clumsy attempt to divert attention from the fact that the world’s most famous peace prize had just gone to a jailed Chinese dissident.” The government has reportedly dissociated itself from the award.

In 2010 and 2011 it was awarded, respectively, to a Taiwanese politician, Lien Chan, and to the Russian leader Vladimir V. Putin. Neither showed up for the ceremony.

Instead, wrote Xue Lei, a research fellow at the Shanghai Institutes for International Studies in the Global Times, “the award was given to a terrified small child” who was supposed to represent Mr. Lien, and to “two Russian hotties, supposed to represent Russian President Vladimir Putin,” all of which “just added to the entertainment value.”

Now, it appears to be slipping below the radar altogether.

Only a determined search of the Chinese internet showed up a report, dated Dec. 28, that suggested that last year a prize committee of 39 “experts and scholars” had in fact picked two winners for the 2012 award: Yuan Longping, known as “the father of hybrid rice,” a well-known scientist who for decades has worked to increase rice yields; and Kofi Annan, the former secretary-general of the United Nations.

But as the report on clubkdnet, an online chat forum, said, “there are no photographs on the internet of them receiving their prizes.”

Read More..

DealBook: Iceland Wins Major Case Over Failed Bank

More than four years after its banking system collapsed, Iceland won a landmark court case on Monday over its refusal to cover the losses of British and Dutch depositors who lost money in Icesave, a failed Icelandic bank.

In a judgment issued in Luxembourg, the court of the European Free Trade Association, or EFTA, cleared Iceland of complaints that it violated rules governing the protection of depositors drawn up by the European Union. While Iceland is not a member of the Union, it is bound by most of its rules as a member of EFTA.

The case has attracted widespread attention because it touches on issues of cross-border banking that have been at the center of the European Union’s efforts to ensure the future stability of its financial system.

The court ruling on Monday represents a major victory for Iceland. Unlike Ireland, which also experienced a catastrophic bank failure, Iceland declined to use taxpayer money to bail out foreign bondholders and depositors. This set off a bitter dispute with Britain, which used antiterrorism rules to take control of assets held in Britain by Icesave’s parent, Landsbanki.

The Icelandic government tried twice to settle the Icesave debts. But the country’s voters, asked to approve settlement plans in two separate referendums, rejected the proposals. Foreign holders of bonds issued by Landsbanki and two other failed Icelandic banks lost some $85 billion.

“It is a considerable satisfaction that Iceland’s defense has won the day in the Icesave case,” the Icelandic government said in a statement issued by the Foreign Ministry in Reykjavik. The ruling in Luxembourg, it added, “brings to a close an important stage in a long saga” and “Icesave is now no longer a stumbling block to Iceland economic recovery.”

Iceland’s economy is improving. Fitch recently raised its rating on the nation’s bonds, noting that its ‘‘unorthodox crisis policy response has succeeded in preserving sovereign creditworthiness.’’

Still, the Icesave saga has left an acrimonious legacy.

In a recent interview with British television, Iceland’s president, Olafur Ragnar Grimsson, denounced Britain’s “eternal shame’” for invoking the terrorism laws. ‘”We were there together with Al Qaeda and the Taliban on that list,” he said. “We have not forgotten that in Iceland.”

Icesave collapsed in October 2008 along with its parent bank and the rest of the banking sector. Caught in the wreckage were some 350,000 people in Britain and the Netherlands who, lured by unusually high interest rates, had put their money into Icesave accounts.

The Icelandic government guaranteed the deposits of Icelanders who had money in failed banks. But it declined to cover the losses of foreigners with online accounts operated by Icesave, a move that prompted complaints of illegal discrimination to the court in Luxembourg.

The case against Iceland, which was bought by the Surveillance Authority of the European Free Trade Association, revolved around interpretation of a European Union directive requiring that deposits in the region’s banks be covered equally by deposit guarantee schemes. Britain and the Netherlands supported the case.

But the court ruled that the directive on guaranteeing bank deposits did not oblige the Icelandic authorities to ensure payment to depositors in Britain and the Netherlands ‘‘in a systemic crisis of the magnitude experienced in Iceland.’’ Iceland argued that all Icesave depositors would eventually get their money back but that the government, confronted in 2008 with a total breakdown of the financial system, did not have the means to offer immediate payment to all claims.

The court also cleared Iceland of complaints that it violated nondiscrimination rules when it protected domestic depositors by moving their accounts to solvent new banks but reneged on protecting foreign depositors. The government statement issued on Monday assured depositors that ‘‘Icesave claims will be paid out in full’’ by the estate of Landsbanki.

Read More..

Well: Keeping Blood Pressure in Check

Since the start of the 21st century, Americans have made great progress in controlling high blood pressure, though it remains a leading cause of heart attacks, strokes, congestive heart failure and kidney disease.

Now 48 percent of the more than 76 million adults with hypertension have it under control, up from 29 percent in 2000.

But that means more than half, including many receiving treatment, have blood pressure that remains too high to be healthy. (A normal blood pressure is lower than 120 over 80.) With a plethora of drugs available to normalize blood pressure, why are so many people still at increased risk of disease, disability and premature death? Hypertension experts offer a few common, and correctable, reasons:

¶ About 20 percent of affected adults don’t know they have high blood pressure, perhaps because they never or rarely see a doctor who checks their pressure.

¶ Of the 80 percent who are aware of their condition, some don’t appreciate how serious it can be and fail to get treated, even when their doctors say they should.

¶ Some who have been treated develop bothersome side effects, causing them to abandon therapy or to use it haphazardly.

¶ Many others do little to change lifestyle factors, like obesity, lack of exercise and a high-salt diet, that can make hypertension harder to control.

Dr. Samuel J. Mann, a hypertension specialist and professor of clinical medicine at Weill-Cornell Medical College, adds another factor that may be the most important. Of the 71 percent of people with hypertension who are currently being treated, too many are taking the wrong drugs or the wrong dosages of the right ones.

Dr. Mann, author of “Hypertension and You: Old Drugs, New Drugs, and the Right Drugs for Your High Blood Pressure,” says that doctors should take into account the underlying causes of each patient’s blood pressure problem and the side effects that may prompt patients to abandon therapy. He has found that when treatment is tailored to the individual, nearly all cases of high blood pressure can be brought and kept under control with available drugs.

Plus, he said in an interview, it can be done with minimal, if any, side effects and at a reasonable cost.

“For most people, no new drugs need to be developed,” Dr. Mann said. “What we need, in terms of medication, is already out there. We just need to use it better.”

But many doctors who are generalists do not understand the “intricacies and nuances” of the dozens of available medications to determine which is appropriate to a certain patient.

“Prescribing the same medication to patient after patient just does not cut it,” Dr. Mann wrote in his book.

The trick to prescribing the best treatment for each patient is to first determine which of three mechanisms, or combination of mechanisms, is responsible for a patient’s hypertension, he said.

¶ Salt-sensitive hypertension, more common in older people and African-Americans, responds well to diuretics and calcium channel blockers.

¶ Hypertension driven by the kidney hormone renin responds best to ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers, as well as direct renin inhibitors and beta-blockers.

¶ Neurogenic hypertension is a product of the sympathetic nervous system and is best treated with beta-blockers, alpha-blockers and drugs like clonidine.

According to Dr. Mann, neurogenic hypertension results from repressed emotions. He has found that many patients with it suffered trauma early in life or abuse. They seem calm and content on the surface but continually suppress their distress, he said.

One of Dr. Mann’s patients had had high blood pressure since her late 20s that remained well-controlled by the three drugs her family doctor prescribed. Then in her 40s, periodic checks showed it was often too high. When taking more of the prescribed medication did not result in lasting control, she sought Dr. Mann’s help.

After a thorough work-up, he said she had a textbook case of neurogenic hypertension, was taking too much medication and needed different drugs. Her condition soon became far better managed, with side effects she could easily tolerate, and she no longer feared she would die young of a heart attack or stroke.

But most patients should not have to consult a specialist. They can be well-treated by an internist or family physician who approaches the condition systematically, Dr. Mann said. Patients should be started on low doses of one or more drugs, including a diuretic; the dosage or number of drugs can be slowly increased as needed to achieve a normal pressure.

Specialists, he said, are most useful for treating the 10 percent to 15 percent of patients with so-called resistant hypertension that remains uncontrolled despite treatment with three drugs, including a diuretic, and for those whose treatment is effective but causing distressing side effects.

Hypertension sometimes fails to respond to routine care, he noted, because it results from an underlying medical problem that needs to be addressed.

“Some patients are on a lot of blood pressure drugs — four or five — who probably don’t need so many, and if they do, the question is why,” Dr. Mann said.

Read More..

Well: Keeping Blood Pressure in Check

Since the start of the 21st century, Americans have made great progress in controlling high blood pressure, though it remains a leading cause of heart attacks, strokes, congestive heart failure and kidney disease.

Now 48 percent of the more than 76 million adults with hypertension have it under control, up from 29 percent in 2000.

But that means more than half, including many receiving treatment, have blood pressure that remains too high to be healthy. (A normal blood pressure is lower than 120 over 80.) With a plethora of drugs available to normalize blood pressure, why are so many people still at increased risk of disease, disability and premature death? Hypertension experts offer a few common, and correctable, reasons:

¶ About 20 percent of affected adults don’t know they have high blood pressure, perhaps because they never or rarely see a doctor who checks their pressure.

¶ Of the 80 percent who are aware of their condition, some don’t appreciate how serious it can be and fail to get treated, even when their doctors say they should.

¶ Some who have been treated develop bothersome side effects, causing them to abandon therapy or to use it haphazardly.

¶ Many others do little to change lifestyle factors, like obesity, lack of exercise and a high-salt diet, that can make hypertension harder to control.

Dr. Samuel J. Mann, a hypertension specialist and professor of clinical medicine at Weill-Cornell Medical College, adds another factor that may be the most important. Of the 71 percent of people with hypertension who are currently being treated, too many are taking the wrong drugs or the wrong dosages of the right ones.

Dr. Mann, author of “Hypertension and You: Old Drugs, New Drugs, and the Right Drugs for Your High Blood Pressure,” says that doctors should take into account the underlying causes of each patient’s blood pressure problem and the side effects that may prompt patients to abandon therapy. He has found that when treatment is tailored to the individual, nearly all cases of high blood pressure can be brought and kept under control with available drugs.

Plus, he said in an interview, it can be done with minimal, if any, side effects and at a reasonable cost.

“For most people, no new drugs need to be developed,” Dr. Mann said. “What we need, in terms of medication, is already out there. We just need to use it better.”

But many doctors who are generalists do not understand the “intricacies and nuances” of the dozens of available medications to determine which is appropriate to a certain patient.

“Prescribing the same medication to patient after patient just does not cut it,” Dr. Mann wrote in his book.

The trick to prescribing the best treatment for each patient is to first determine which of three mechanisms, or combination of mechanisms, is responsible for a patient’s hypertension, he said.

¶ Salt-sensitive hypertension, more common in older people and African-Americans, responds well to diuretics and calcium channel blockers.

¶ Hypertension driven by the kidney hormone renin responds best to ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers, as well as direct renin inhibitors and beta-blockers.

¶ Neurogenic hypertension is a product of the sympathetic nervous system and is best treated with beta-blockers, alpha-blockers and drugs like clonidine.

According to Dr. Mann, neurogenic hypertension results from repressed emotions. He has found that many patients with it suffered trauma early in life or abuse. They seem calm and content on the surface but continually suppress their distress, he said.

One of Dr. Mann’s patients had had high blood pressure since her late 20s that remained well-controlled by the three drugs her family doctor prescribed. Then in her 40s, periodic checks showed it was often too high. When taking more of the prescribed medication did not result in lasting control, she sought Dr. Mann’s help.

After a thorough work-up, he said she had a textbook case of neurogenic hypertension, was taking too much medication and needed different drugs. Her condition soon became far better managed, with side effects she could easily tolerate, and she no longer feared she would die young of a heart attack or stroke.

But most patients should not have to consult a specialist. They can be well-treated by an internist or family physician who approaches the condition systematically, Dr. Mann said. Patients should be started on low doses of one or more drugs, including a diuretic; the dosage or number of drugs can be slowly increased as needed to achieve a normal pressure.

Specialists, he said, are most useful for treating the 10 percent to 15 percent of patients with so-called resistant hypertension that remains uncontrolled despite treatment with three drugs, including a diuretic, and for those whose treatment is effective but causing distressing side effects.

Hypertension sometimes fails to respond to routine care, he noted, because it results from an underlying medical problem that needs to be addressed.

“Some patients are on a lot of blood pressure drugs — four or five — who probably don’t need so many, and if they do, the question is why,” Dr. Mann said.

Read More..