In the News
Categories:
SBH
in the News
Over the years, a variety of newspapers,
magazines and ophthalmology trade publications have written about
ScienceBased Health's products. Following is a collection of some
of these articles:
Fighting
Glaucoma with Antioxidant Treatment
(featuring John D. Sheppard, MD, MMSc
speaking in reference to ScienceBased Health's Optic
Nerve Formula)
EyeWorld, February, 2008
New
Formula Quells Swelling
Optometric
Management, June, 2007
Ocular
Supplements may Stay Course of AMD, Maintain Eye Health
Ocular Surgery
News, March 1, 2005
New
Product Gallery: MacularProtect Complete-S Preserves Smokers'
Eyesight
VisionCare
Product News, September 2005
What's New for your Patients and Practice: MacularProtect Complete-S
- Protection from the Inside
Optometric
Management, August 2005
HydroEye
Raised Lactoferrin Levels Pre- and Post-LASIK
Ophthalmology
Management, May 2004
What's New for Your Practice from the AAO Annual Meeting: Supplement
for Optic Nerve Health
Ophthalmology
Management, January 14, 2004
Omega Fatty Acid Supplements Useful Strategy Before LASIK
Ophthalmology
Times, November 1, 2003
Dry Eye Today
Contact Lens
Spectrum, June 2003
Awareness facilitates treatment of LASIK-associated dry eye
Ophthalmology
Times, May 15, 2003
New Treatments Available for Dry Eye Symptoms of Fibromyalgia
Primary Care
Optometry News, May 1, 2003
Nutrition, Vitamins & Anti-Aging
AgingEye Times,
April 2003
Products
from the Show Floor
Ophthalmology
Times, April 2003
Oral Formula for Dry Eye Earns Patent
Ophthalmology
Times, March, 2003
Tears
without Fears: Solutions for Dry-Eyed Patients
Vision Care
Products, February 2003
Dry Eye Treatments Attack on Hormonal, Nutritional, Systemic Level
Primary Care
Optometry News, November, 2002
Dry Eye: A New Road to Relief
Ophthalmology
Management, November 2002
Nutritional Supplement May Help Mitigate Dry Eye Symptoms
Ophthalmology
Times, October 2002
Is AREDS Changing Practice Patterns?
Ophthalmology
Management, July, 2002
The Supplement-Dry Eye Link
Eyeworld,
June 2002
Nutrition and the Eye
Eyeworld,
February, 2002
Can Nutritional Supplementation Reduce Dry Eye?
Ophthalmology
Management, May 2001
New Drops, Nutritional Supplement Help Combat Dry Eye
Primary Care
Optometry News, May 1, 2001
Dry Eye Update
Optometric
Management, February 2001
First Oral Treatment for Dry Eye Offers Patients Hope
EyeWorld,
February, 2001
Nutrition News
Nutrition & Policy
Reversing a longstanding
policy on vitamin supplements, the Journal of the American Medical
Association announced in June, 2002 that it will begin advising
all adults to take at least one multivitamin pill each day.
The
Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Reverses Its
Position on Vitamin Supplements
Scientific Research
Current Research: nutrition, cataract and
AMD
Read
an Exclusive Interview with Allen Taylor, PhD, World-Renowned
Vision Researcher, on nutrition, cataract and AMD
Current Research: Dry Eye Treatment and Diagnosis
Read
an exclusive interview with John D. Sheppard, MD and Steven C.
Pflugfelder, MD on new developments in dry eye treatment and diagnosis
Current Research: Lutein
Read
an interview with ScienceBased Health Scientific Advisory Board
Member, Paul S. Bernstein, MD, PhD, on the role of lutein in macular
health.  Listen
to the audio version!
ScienceBased Health
joins experts in criticizing "Multivitamin Use / Prostate
Cancer Risk" Study
Regular Multi-vitamin
Use Not Linked to Overall Risk of Prostate Cancer
Use of multivitamin supplements was found to be unrelated to overall
risk of prostate cancer in a large prospective study published
in the May 16 2007 Journal of the National Cancer Institute (1).
The study's authors did report, however, that a sub-group of men
who used multi-vitamin and mineral supplements excessively (defined
as more than 7 times a week) had an increased risk of advanced
and fatal prostate cancer compared to men who never used multi-vitamins.
(It is important to note that the survey used in this study asked
if subjects used multivitamins from "never" up to "every
day". Thus, it is unclear how the researchers derived a value
for "more than 7 times per week", which was not an option
on the survey).
Limitations of the Study
Many experts agree that the findings are not necessarily applicable
to the general public because of significant limitations in the
study's research design. A key limitation was the inability to
collect or analyze the amounts of the many different nutrients
that were supplemented, or how long they were taken. Men using
multivitamins "excessively" were also more likely to
take a variety of individual supplements, making it impossible
to identify or quantify any individual nutrients within the "multis"
that could have been responsible for the observed association.
Most importantly, it's well recognized that
men at high risk for advanced prostate cancer or diagnosed with
the disease, tend to use more alternative therapies including
supplements. That increased use is a likely explanation for the
apparent link between excessive use and increased risk for fatal
or advanced cancer since this association disappeared when the
investigators controlled for this factor in their analysis.
AREDS Findings Are Reassuring
The authors of this study also found that the positive association
with "excessive" multivitamin use and advanced or fatal
prostate cancer was strongest in men with a family history of
the disease, or among men who took additional individual supplements
including beta-carotene and zinc. In contrast, a follow-up analysis
of the Age-Related Eye Disease Study (AREDS) found that AREDS
participants taking zinc alone or with antioxidants were 14% less
likely to die after 6.5 years of supplementation compared to those
taking a placebo (2). No increased deaths from cancer in those
taking zinc (alone or with anti-oxidants) was noted in this analysis.
However, to err on the side of safety, men with elevated PSA levels
or diagnosed with prostate cancer should discuss the issue with
their own physician to determine the best course of action.
Use Supplements that are Scientifically
Based, Balanced, and Sensible
Even though the findings of this study
have been questioned, the study points up some common sense practices
worthy of emphasis:
- Don't use daily multivitamins excessively. Use them as directed.
The idea that "if a little is good, more is better"
is not always the best recipe for good health.
- As a general rule, don't combine many individual nutrient
supplements instead of a taking a multi - or even in addition
to a multi - unless advised to do so by a qualified health professional.
Each individual nutrient has its own unique safety range, and
taking many nutrients singly, or in addition to a multi, could
result in exceeding those safety ranges.
- Choose multis that are formulated by nutrition scientists
and ocular experts to ensure that supplements contain the highest
quality ingredients, are balanced and scientifically sound.
References
Experts
Criticize Meta-Analysis on Antioxidant Safety
A controversial new review of data from 68
studies which concluded that "beta-carotene,
vitamin
A, and vitamin
E supplements may increase the risk of mortality", has
drawn swift criticism from independent experts (1). Some physicians
are also concerned that people who are safely and beneficially
taking supplements for age-related macular degeneration (AMD)
might stop, putting their vision at greater risk. In fact, taking
zinc
alone or with antioxidants in the Age-Related
Eye Disease Study (AREDS)
was associated with improved survival or living longer.
Dr. Meir Stampfer, professor of nutrition
and epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health, said
that the studies reviewed in the new meta-analysis were too different
to be able to pool them together. "This study does not advance
our understanding, and could easily lead to misinterpretation
of the data" according to Dr. Stampfer.
Dr. Jeffrey Blumberg, Director of the Antioxidants
Research Laboratory at Tufts University in Boston expressed a
similar view. "One of the major premises of doing such a
meta-analysis is that the studies should be comparable. Here,
they looked at primary prevention, treatment, old people, young
people, smokers, non-smokers. Only when they used their own criteria
of what was good and what was bad were they able to show an increase
in all-cause mortality."
The study found no overall increase in death
rates when all the trials were considered. But when the trials
were divided into classes using the researchers' own criteria,
they found an increased risk of mortality associated with beta-carotene,
vitamin
A and vitamin
E supplements. No increased risk was found for vitamin
C and selenium.
The new meta-analysis used methods which
raise questions as to the validity of the results. Meta-analysis
(a statistical method for combining results from smaller studies)
can be useful and valid when the included studies are very similar
in design and populations studied. However, this meta-analysis
combined studies that differ vastly from each other in a number
of important ways. It included clinical trials that varied widely
in terms of dosage, length of study, study population and nutrients
tested. For example, a study lasting only one day with a vitamin
A dose of 200,000 IU in elderly nursing home residents was
included along with other studies lasting years.
In the AREDS
trial, scientists found that people at high risk for developing
advanced AMD cut their risk by 25% when treated with a high-dose
combination of vitamins C,
E,
beta-carotene,
and zinc
with copper.
It is reassuring to note that an association with reduced mortality
was found among AREDS
participants who took zinc
- either alone or in combination with antioxidants vitamin C,
E
and beta-carotene
- compared to those who did not (2). This improved survival, or
longer lifespan, observed in patients taking zinc
and the zinc-antioxidant
combination lends support to the safety of AREDS-based
supplements for those at high risk for AMD.
NEI AREDS Authors Advise AMD Patients To Continue Taking Supplements
with 400 IU Vitamin E
Vitamin
E has been in the spotlight
lately, following a meta-analysis by Johns Hopkins researchers regarding
its safety. Meta-analysis, a statistical method for combining results
from smaller studies, is given only limited credence by many researchers.
A number of experts strongly disagree with the conclusions drawn
by Johns Hopkins researchers that 400 IU of vitamin
E could be harmful. The study, widely criticized as flawed,
found only a tiny adverse effect - less than ½ of one percent -
and the NY Times reported that prominent Harvard and UC Berkeley
statisticians found the analysis to be unpersuasive. Researchers
who conducted the AREDS
trial also issued a statement advising those concerned about their
macular health to continue taking 400 IU of vitamin
E, the level found to protect eyesight in that long-term clinical
trial, along with other nutrients. The AREDS
investigators believe that the evidence indicates 400 IU is safe.
Learn more about the original study, and reaction to it, by clicking
here. You can read the statement from the AREDS
researchers to participants of the study (on the American Academy
of Opthalmology's website), by clicking
here.
New Study Shows Lutein Improves Visual Function in Those with
Age-Related Macular Degeneration
A significant new study showing that lutein improves visual functions
in subjects with AMD was published in the April 2004 edition of
Optometry: The Journal of the American Optometric Association.
The Lutein
Antioxidant Supplementation Trial (LAST) was led by Stuart
Richer, OD, PhD, a member of ScienceBased Health’s Scientific
Advisory Board. The study concluded that visual function of study
participants with symptoms of age-related macular degeneration
(AMD) improved with the intake of lutein
alone or lutein
together with other antioxidants.
In the study,
30 subjects with AMD were given 10 milligrams of FloraGLO®
lutein a day. Another 30 subjects were given a supplement
containing 10 milligrams of FloraGLO®
lutein and a combination of antioxidants, vitamins, and minerals.
A placebo was given to a third group of 30. Over the year of the
study, those subjects getting either formulation of lutein
had a modest increase in visual acuity, while those receiving
a placebo became worse. As Dr. Richer states, these findings are
unprecedented.
Read
the original article on the American Optometric Association
website
Read
an interview with ScienceBased Health Science Advisory Board Member,
Paul S. Bernstein, MD, PhD, on the role of lutein in macular health.
Listen
to the audio version!
The HydroEye Lactoferrin Pilot Study
This pilot study, conducted by Frank A. Bucci, Jr., MD, a renowned
ophthalmologist and cataract surgeon, shows a correlation between
intake of HydroEye®, and increased lactoferrin levels. Tear
lactoferrin level is a diagnostic tool for dry eye, with low levels
being indicative of dry eye. Many patients who undergo Lasik surgery
are at risk for dry eye, and lactoferrin levels typically drop
post-surgery.
Dr. Bucci
found that lactoferrin levels increased significantly in patients
who started with normal lactoferrin levels and in pre-LASIK patients
who were given HydroEye a month preceding surgery.
Read
about the HydroEye Pilot Study in Ophthalmology Times
Read
the HydroEye Pilot Study Press Release
The AREDS Clinical Trial
The findings for the Age-Related Disease Study (AREDS) were released
in October, 2001. The AREDS
clinical trial is being heralded by doctors and nutrition experts
as the most significant clinical trial on nutrition and age-related
macular degeneration (ARMD) ever. Findings of the 6 ½ year AREDS
clinical trial, published in the October 2001 issue of Archives
of Ophthalmology, demonstrated a statistically significant reduction
in the rate of progression of ARMD in 3,640 patients taking a
supplement containing vitamins, antioxidants and zinc.
Click
here to read the full text of the AREDS clinical trial on
the Archives of Opthalmology website.
A Case Report
A new case
report details the experience of Max Henry, MD, an ophthalmologist
who used HydroEye to sucessfully address allergy-related dry eye
in a nine year-old boy.
Case Report: Use of HydroEye for Pediatric, Allergy-Related Dry
Eye
|
Return
to Top