Gethealthu

When I worked at Greenpeace for five years before I attended medical school, a popular slogan was, “Think globally, act locally.” As I write this blog about climate change and hay fever, I wonder if wiping off my computer that I’ve just sneezed all over due to my seasonal allergies counts as abiding by this aphorism? (Can you clean a computer screen with a tissue?)

Come to think of it, my allergies do seem to be worse in recent years. So do those of my patients. It seems as if I’m prescribing nasal steroids and antihistamines, recommending over-the-counter eye drops, and discussing ways to avoid allergens much more frequently than in the past. Are people more stressed out, working harder, sleeping less, and thus more susceptible to allergies? Or, are the allergies themselves actually worse? Could the worsening of climate change explain why the rates of allergies and asthma have been climbing steadily over the last several decades?

There’s more pollen and a longer pollen season

Seasonal allergies tend to be caused disproportionately by trees in the spring, grasses in the summer, and ragweed in the fall. The lengthening interval of “frost-free days” (the time from the last frost in the spring to the first frost in the fall) allows more time for people to become sensitized to the pollen — the first stage in developing allergies — as well as to then become allergic to it. No wonder so many more of my patients have been complaining of itchy eyes, runny nose, and wheezing.

In many places in the United States, due to climate change, spring is now starting earlier and fall is ending later, which, yearly, allows more time for plants and trees to grow, flower, and produce pollen. This leads to a longer allergy season. According to a study at Rutgers University, from the 1990s until 2010, pollen season started in the contiguous United States on average three days earlier, and there was a 40% increase in the annual total of daily airborne pollen. More recent research in North America shows rising concentrations of sneeze-inducing pollens and lengthening pollen seasons from 1990 to 2018, largely driven by climate change.

Climate change is increasing the potency of pollen

In addition to longer allergy seasons, allergy sufferers have other things to fret about with climate change. When exposed to increased levels of carbon dioxide, plants grow to a larger size and produce more pollen. Some studies have shown that ragweed pollen, a main culprit of allergies for many people, becomes up to 1.7 times more potent under conditions of higher carbon dioxide. With warming climates, the geographic distribution of pollen-producing plants is expanding as well; for example, due to warmer temperatures, ragweed species can now inhabit climates that were formerly inhospitable.

Other unfortunate consequences of climate change, which we are already witnessing, include coastal flooding as the arctic ice sheets melt, causing the sea levels to rise; and more extreme weather, such as storms and droughts. With the increased coastal flooding, mold outbreaks are more common, which can trigger or worsen allergic reactions and asthma. More extreme weather events, such as thunderstorms, are associated with an increase in emergency department visits for asthma attacks. (It is unclear why this is the case, but one theory suggests that the winds associated with thunderstorms kick up a tremendous amount of pollen.) Allergies and asthma are closely associated, with many people, this author included, having “allergic asthma” that is likely to worsen as climate change progresses.

So what can an allergy sufferer do?

Even as the allergic environment changes in conjunction with our climate, there are steps you can take to manage the impact of seasonal allergies and reduce sneezing and itchy eyes.

• Work with your doctor to treat your allergies with medications such as antihistamines, nasal steroids, eye drops, and asthma medications if needed. If you take other medications that may interact with over-the-counter allergy medications such as Benadryl or Sudafed, let your doctor know.
• Discuss with your doctor whether you would benefit from allergy testing, a referral to an allergist, or prevention methods like allergy injections or sublingual immunotherapy, which, by exposing your body in a controlled manner, slowly conditions your immune system not to respond to environmental allergens.
• Track the local pollen count and avoid extended outdoor activities during peak pollen season, on peak pollen days. However, most doctors would agree that it isn’t healthy to cut back on exercise, hobbies, or time in nature, so this is a less than satisfying solution at best. You could plan for an indoor exercise program on high-pollen days.
• Wash clothing and bathe or shower after being outdoors to remove pollen.
• Close windows during peak allergy season or on windy days.
• Wear a mask when outdoors during high pollen days, and keep car windows rolled up when driving.
• If your house has been flooded, be on the lookout for mold. There are services that you can hire that will inspect your home for mold, and remove the mold if it is thought to be harmful.
• Have as small a carbon footprint as possible and plant trees. Even though they are responsible for some of the pollen that many of us choke and gag on each spring, summer, and fall, trees contribute to their environment by taking in carbon dioxide and producing the oxygen we breathe, thereby improving air quality. We have to protect and plant trees, even as allergy sufferers, as climate change is arguably the biggest threat that we, as a species, now face.

About the Author

Peter Grinspoon, MD, Contributor

Dr. Peter Grinspoon is a primary care physician, educator, and cannabis specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital; an instructor at Harvard Medical School; and a certified health and wellness coach. He is the author of the forthcoming book Seeing … See Full Bio View all posts by Peter Grinspoon, MD

You may have heard recent news reports about a company that knowingly sold defective lead testing machines that tested tens of thousands of children between 2013 and 2017. Or wondered about lead in tap water after the widely reported problems with lead-contaminated water in Flint, Michigan. Reports like these are reminders that parents need to be aware of lead — and do everything they can to keep their children safe.

How is lead a danger to health?

Lead is poisonous to the brain and nervous system, even in small amounts. There really is no safe level of lead in the blood. We particularly worry about children under the age of 6. Not only are their brains actively developing, but young children commonly touch lots of things — and put their hands in their mouths. Children who are exposed to lead can have problems with learning, understanding, and behavior that may be permanent.

How do children get exposed to lead?

In the US, lead used to be far more ubiquitous than it is now, particularly in paint and gas. Yet children can be exposed to lead in many ways.

• Lead paint. In houses built before 1978, lead paint can sometimes be under other paint, and is most commonly found on windowsills or around doors. If there is peeling paint, children can sometimes ingest it. Dust from old paint can land on the floor or other surfaces that children touch with their hands (and then put their hands in their mouths). If there was ever lead paint on the outside of a house, it can sometimes be in the dirt around a house.
• Leaded gas. While leaded gas was outlawed in 1996, its use is still allowed in aircraft, farm equipment, racing cars, and marine engines.
• Water passing through lead pipes. Lead can be found in the water of older houses that have lead pipes.
• Other sources. Lead can also be found in some imported toys, candles, jewelry, and traditional medicines. Some parents may have exposure at work or through hobbies and bring it home on their hands or clothing. Examples include working in demolition of older houses, making things using lead solder, or having exposure to lead bullets at a firing range.

What can parents do to protect children from lead?

First, know about possible exposures.

• If you have an older home, get it inspected for lead if you haven’t done so already. (If you rent, federal law requires landlords to disclose known lead-based paint hazards when you sign a lease.) Inspection is particularly important if you are planning renovations, which often create dust and debris that increase the risk of exposure. Your local health department can give you information about how to do this testing. If there is lead in your home, don’t try to remove it yourself! It needs to be done carefully, by a qualified professional, to be safe.
• Talk to your local health department about getting the water in your house tested. Even if your house is new, there can sometimes be older pipes in the water system. Using a water filter and taking other steps can reduce or eliminate lead in tap water.
• If you have an older home and live in an urban area, there can be lead in the soil. You may want to have the soil around your house tested for lead. Don’t let your child play in bare soil, and be sure they take off their shoes before coming in the house and wash their hands after being outside.
• Learn about lead in foods, cosmetics, and traditional medications.
• Learn about lead in toys, jewelry, and plastics (yet another reason to limit your child’s exposure to plastic).

Second, talk to your pediatrician about whether your child should have a blood test to check for lead poisoning. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends:

• Assessing young children for risk of exposure at all checkups between 6 months and 6 years of age, and
• Testing children if a risk is identified, particularly at 12 and 24 months. Living in an old home, or in a community with lots of older homes, counts as a risk. Given that low levels of lead exposure that can lead to lifelong problems do not cause symptoms, it’s always better to be safe than sorry. If there is any chance that your child might have an exposure, get them tested.

How is childhood lead exposure treated?

If your child is found to have lead in their blood, the most important next step is to figure out the exposure — and get rid of it. Once the child is no longer exposed, the lead level will go down, although it does so slowly.

Iron deficiency makes the body more vulnerable to lead poisoning. If your child has an iron deficiency it should be treated, but usually medications aren’t used unless lead levels are very high. In those cases, special medications called chelators are used to help pull the lead out of the blood.

For more information, visit the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website on lead poisoning prevention.

About the Author

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

The transgender population is steadily increasing. Last year, investigators reported that 1.3% of people between the ages of 18 and 24 in the United States identify as transgender, compared to 0.55% of the country’s older adults. This trend has implications for public health, and one issue in particular concerns the risk of prostate cancer in transgender women.

Because removing the prostate can lead to urinary incontinence and other complications, doctors leave the gland in place when initiating hormonal treatments to induce female sex characteristics in transitioning people. This process, which is called feminizing or gender-affirming hormonal therapy (GAHT), relies on medications and surgery to block testosterone, a male sex hormone. Prostate cancer is fueled by testosterone, and therefore GAHT lowers overall risks for the disease. But transgender women can still develop prostate cancer in ways that remain poorly understood, according to the authors of a new paper.

“More individuals are openly identifying as transgender, particularly as advances are made in reducing the discrimination and marginalization that this group has faced,” says Dr. Farnoosh Nik-Ahd, a urologist at the University of California, San Francisco, and the paper’s first author. “Thus, it’s important to understand their health outcomes and how best to care for this population.”

Dr. Nik-Ahd and her colleagues wanted better insights into prostate cancer incidence and screening rates among transgender women, so they performed a comprehensive review of the literature that generated some notable findings. One is that that the prevalence of GAHT in the transgender population is still unknown. Some studies put the figure at roughly one in every 12,000 to 13,000 people who identify as transgender. But this is likely an underestimate, the authors claim, and it’s not broken out by sex.

Questions over GAHT

Similarly, little is known about the impact of GAHT on the likelihood of developing prostate cancer, the team reported. Prostate cancer rates do appear to be lower among transgender women than they are among cisgender men (men whose gender identify matches their sex at birth). For instance, one study found just a single case of prostate cancer among 2,306 transgender women receiving routine health care at a clinic in Amsterdam, Holland, between 1975 and 2006. Another study, also from Holland, detected six cases of prostate cancer among 2,281 transgender women over 17 years, which again is less than the comparable rate among cisgender men.

But the interpretation of these rates is limited by the fact that transgender women often experience barriers to care. Nearly a third of them live in poverty, and many avoid the health system for fear of mistreatment. Some scientists suspect that estrogen given during GAHT may somehow contribute to prostate cancer development when given over long durations. However, more confirmatory evidence is needed. Worryingly, one study found that survival among transgender women with prostate cancer is worse than it is in cisgender men with the disease, yet that research lacked data on GAHT use.

Interpreting PSA values for specific populations

Dr. Nik-Ahd’s team was especially concerned about the lack of guideline recommendations for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening in the transgender population. None of the available guidelines worldwide mention transgender women, and the PSA cutoff of 4 nanograms per milliliter (ng/mL) of blood — which raises suspicions for prostate cancer — is specific to cisgender men. PSA levels ordinarily plummet in people taking GAHT, so the limit for what’s considered normal in transgender women should be capped at 1.0 ng/mL, the researchers propose. In the absence of more specific guidance, they also recommend that people meeting age criteria for PSA screening get tested before starting on GAHT, in order to obtain a baseline value.

Many doctors are already familiar with other common drugs that alter PSA values — in this case with screening implications for cisgender men, points out Dr. Heidi Rayala, a urologist affiliated with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, and a member of the Harvard Medical School Annual Report on Prostate Diseases editorial board. For instance, PSA values drop by half in men taking finasteride or dutasteride for hair loss (or to shrink an enlarged prostate). “Doctors take extra care when interpreting PSA in cisgender men who take these drugs,” she says. “The same care needs to be taken in interpreting PSA values in transgender women. And there needs to be broader education on this topic for both primary care doctors as well as the transgender community.

Dr. Nik-Ahd agrees. “Future research should aim to understand baseline PSA values for those on gender-affirming hormones, and to understand how to navigate some of the psychosocial barriers around PSA screening so as to not stigmatize transgender patients,” she says.

About the Author

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

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

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

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

Many health-conscious consumers have already cut back on hamburgers, steaks, and deli meats, often by swapping in poultry or seafood. Those protein sources are better than beef, and not just because they’re linked to a lower risk of heart disease, diabetes, and cancer. Chicken and fish are also better for the environment, as their production uses less land and other resources and generates fewer greenhouse gas emissions.

And choosing seafood that’s lower on the food chain — namely, small fish such as herring and sardines and bivalves such as clams and oysters — can amp up those benefits. “It’s much better for your health and the environment when you replace terrestrial food sources — especially red meat — with aquatic food sources,” says Christopher Golden, assistant professor of nutrition and planetary health at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. But instead of popular seafood choices such as farmed salmon or canned tuna, consider mackerel or sardines, he suggests.

Why eat small fish?

Anchovies, herring, mackerel, and sardines are all excellent sources of protein, micronutrients like iron, zinc, and vitamin B12, and heart-healthy omega-3 fatty acids, which may help ease inflammation within the body and promote a better balance of blood lipids. And because you often eat the entire fish (including the tiny bones), small fish are also rich in calcium and vitamin D, says Golden. (Mackerel is an exception: cooked mackerel bones are too sharp or tough to eat, although canned mackerel bones are fine to eat).

Small fish are also less likely to contain contaminants such as mercury and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) compared with large species like tuna and swordfish. Those and other large fish feed on smaller fish, which concentrates the toxins.

It's also more environmentally friendly to eat small fish directly instead of using them to make fish meal, which is often fed to farmed salmon, pork, and poultry. Feed for those animals also includes grains that require land, water, pesticides, and energy to produce, just as grain fed to cattle does, Golden points out. The good news is that increasingly, salmon farming has begun using less fish meal, and some companies have created highly nutritious feeds that don’t require fish meal at all.

Small fish in the Mediterranean diet

The traditional Mediterranean diet, widely considered the best diet for heart health, highlights small fish such as fresh sardines and anchovies, says Golden. Canned versions of these species, which are widely available and less expensive than fresh, are a good option. However, most canned anchovies are salt-cured and therefore high in sodium, which can raise blood pressure.

Sardines packed in water or olive oil can be

• served on crackers or crusty, toasted bread with a squeeze of lemon
• prepared like tuna salad for a sandwich filling
• added to a Greek salad
• tossed with pasta, either added to tomato sauce or with lemon, capers, and red pepper flakes.

Golden is particularly fond of pickled herring, which you can often find in jars in supermarkets, or even make yourself; here’s his favorite recipe.

Bivalve benefits

Bivalves are two-shelled aquatic creatures that include clams, oysters, mussels, and scallops. Also known as mollusks, they’re good sources of protein but are quite low in fat, so they aren’t as rich in omega-3’s as small, fatty fish. However, bivalves contain several micronutrients, especially zinc and vitamin B12. Zinc contributes to a healthy immune system, and vitamin B12 helps form red blood cells that carry oxygen and keep nerves throughout the body healthy. While most Americans get enough B12, some may not.

And from a planetary health perspective, bivalves are among the best sources of animal-based protein. “Bivalves can be ‘nature positive’ because they don’t require feed and they filter and clean up water,” says Golden.

Be aware, however, that bivalves can become contaminated from runoff, bacteria, viruses, or chemicals in the water. So be sure to follow FDA advice about buying and preparing seafood safely.

Although we tend to think of coastal cities as the best places to find seafood, it’s available throughout the United States. For less-common varieties, try larger Asian markets, which often carry a wide variety of fish and bivalves, Golden suggests.

Aquatic plant foods

You can even go one step further down the aquatic food chain by eating aquatic plant foods such as seaweed and kelp. If you like sushi, you’ve probably had nori, the flat sheets of seaweed used to make sushi rolls. You can also find seaweed snacks in Asian and many mainstream grocery stores. The truly adventurous may want to try kelp jerky or a kelp burger, both sold online.

Nutrients in seaweed vary quite a bit, depending on species (kelp is one type of brown seaweed; there are also numerous green and red species). But seaweed is low in calories, is a good source of fiber, and also contains iodine, a mineral required to make thyroid hormones. Similar to terrestrial vegetables, seaweeds contain a range of other minerals and vitamins. For now, aquatic plant foods remain fringe products here in the United States, but they may become more mainstream in the future, according to Golden.

About the Author

Julie Corliss, Executive Editor, Harvard Heart Letter

Julie Corliss is the executive editor of the Harvard Heart Letter. Before working at Harvard, she was a medical writer and editor at HealthNews, a consumer newsletter affiliated with The New England Journal of Medicine. She … See Full Bio View all posts by Julie Corliss

About the Reviewer

Howard E. LeWine, MD, Chief Medical Editor, Harvard Health Publishing

Howard LeWine, M.D., is a practicing internist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Chief Medical Editor at Harvard Health Publishing, and editor in chief of Harvard Men’s Health Watch. See Full Bio View all posts by Howard E. LeWine, MD

Dementia poses many challenges, both for people struggling with it and for those close to them. It can be hard to witness and cope with common behaviors that arise from illnesses like Alzheimer’s disease, vascular dementia, or frontotemporal dementia.

Caring for a person who has dementia may be frustrating, confusing, or upsetting at times. Understanding why certain behaviors occur and learning ways to handle a variety of situations can help smooth the path ahead.

What behaviors are common when a person has dementia?

People with dementia often exhibit a combination of unusual behaviors, such as:

• Making odd statements or using the wrong words for certain items.
• Not realizing they need to bathe or forgetting how to maintain good hygiene.
• Repeating themselves or asking the same question over and over.
• Misplacing objects or taking others’ belongings.
• Not recognizing you or remembering who they are.
• Being convinced that a deceased loved one is still alive.
• Hoarding objects, such as mail or even garbage.
• Exhibiting paranoid behavior.
• Becoming easily confused or agitated.
• Leaving the house without telling you, and getting lost.

Why do these behaviors occur?

Inside the brain of a loved one with dementia, picture a wildfire shifting course, damaging or destroying brain cells (neurons) and neural networks that regulate our behavior.

What drives this damage depends on the underlying cause, or causes, of dementia. For example, while the exact cause of Alzheimer’s disease is not known, it is strongly linked to proteins that are either gunking up or strangling brain cells. Someone with vascular dementia has experienced periodic insufficient blood flow to certain areas of the brain, causing neurons to die.

“As dementia progresses, the person loses brain cells associated with memory, planning, judgment, and controlling mood. You lose your filters,” says Dr. Stephanie Collier, a psychiatrist at Harvard-affiliated McLean Hospital.

Six strategies for coping with dementia-related behaviors

Dealing with distressing or puzzling dementia-related behavior can require the type of tack you’d take with a youngster. “Due to declines, older adults with dementia can seem like children. But people are generally more patient with children. You should consider using that approach with older adults,” suggests Lydia Cho, a McLean Hospital neuropsychologist.

• Don’t point out inaccurate or strange statements. “It can make people with dementia feel foolish or belittled. They may not remember details but hold onto those emotions, feel isolated, and withdraw. Instead, put them at ease. Just go with what they’re saying. Keep things light,” Cho says.
• Don’t try to reason with the person. Dementia has damaged your loved one’s comprehension. Attempting to reason might be frustrating for both of you.
• Use distraction. This helps when the person makes unreasonable requests or is moderately agitated. “Acknowledge what the person is saying, and change the activity. You could say, ‘I see that you’re upset. Let’s go over here for a minute.’ And then do an activity that engages the senses and relaxes them, such as sitting outside together, listening to music, folding socks, or eating a piece of fruit,” Dr. Collier says.
• Keep unsafe items out of sight. Put away or lock up belongings the loved one shouldn’t have — especially potentially dangerous items like car keys or cleaning fluids. Consider installing cabinet locks.
• Supervise hygiene routines. The person with dementia might need a reminder to bathe, or might need to have the day’s clothes laid out on the bed. Or you might need to assist with bathing, shaving, brushing teeth, or dressing.
• Spend time together. You don’t have to convince your loved one of your identity or engage in fascinating conversation. Just listen to music or do some simple activities together. It will help keep the person from withdrawing further.

Safety is essential when a person has dementia

Sometimes simple strategies aren’t enough when a loved one has dementia.

For example, if the person frequently tries to leave home, you might need to add child-proof covers to doorknobs, install additional door locks or a security system in your home, or get the person a GPS tracker bracelet.

If the person is frequently upset or even violent, you’ll need to call the doctor. It could be that a new medical problem (such as a urinary tract infection) is causing agitation. “If the agitated behavior isn’t due to a new health problem and is predictable and severe, we might prescribe a medication to help regulate mood, such as an antidepressant or an antipsychotic in cases of extreme agitation or hostility,” Dr. Collier says.

As dementia changes, seek the help and support you need

No one expects you to know how to interact with someone who has dementia. There’s a learning curve for all of us, and it continues even after you get a feel for the situation. “The process keeps changing,” Cho says. “What works today may not work next week or the week after that for your loved one. So keep trying different strategies.”

And get support for yourself, such as group therapy for caregivers and their families. You can also find information at the Alzheimer’s Association or Family Caregiver Alliance.

About the Author

Heidi Godman, Executive Editor, Harvard Health Letter

Heidi Godman is the executive editor of the Harvard Health Letter. Before coming to the Health Letter, she was an award-winning television news anchor and medical reporter for 25 years. Heidi was named a journalism fellow … See Full Bio View all posts by Heidi Godman

About the Reviewer

Howard E. LeWine, MD, Chief Medical Editor, Harvard Health Publishing

Howard LeWine, M.D., is a practicing internist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Chief Medical Editor at Harvard Health Publishing, and editor in chief of Harvard Men’s Health Watch. See Full Bio View all posts by Howard E. LeWine, MD

Should a woman consider having her fallopian tubes removed to lower her risk for developing ovarian cancer? Recent recommendations from the Ovarian Cancer Research Alliance (OCRA), endorsed by the Society for Gynecologic Oncology, encourage this strategy, if women are finished having children and would be undergoing gynecologic surgery anyway for other reasons.

Why is this new guidance being offered?

Ovarian cancer claims about 13,000 lives each year, according to the American Cancer Society. The new guidance builds on established advice for women with high-risk genetic mutations or a strong family history of ovarian cancer.

This idea isn’t new for women at average risk for ovarian cancer, either: in 2019, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) floated this strategy in a committee opinion.

A Harvard expert agrees the approach is sound, considering established evidence that many cases of aggressive ovarian cancers arise from cells in the fallopian tubes.

“We’ve known for a long time that many hereditary cases of ovarian cancer likely originate in lesions in the fallopian tubes,” says Dr. Katharine Esselen, a gynecologic oncologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. “Although we group all of these cancers together and call them ovarian cancer, a lot actually start in the fallopian tubes.”

Can ovarian cancer be detected early through symptoms or screening?

No — which helps fuel these recommendations.

Ovarian cancer is notoriously difficult to detect. Symptoms tend to be vague and could be related to many other health problems. Signs include bloating, pelvic pain or discomfort, changes in bowel or bladder habits, feeling full earlier when eating, fatigue, unusual discharge or bleeding, and pain during sex.

Disappointing results from a large 2021 study in the United Kingdom reported in The Lancet show that lowering the risks of a late-stage diagnosis isn’t easy. The trial tracked more than 200,000 women for an average of 16 years. It found that screening average-risk women with ultrasound and a CA-125 blood test doesn’t reduce deaths from the disease. By itself, the CA-125 blood test isn’t considered reliable for screening because it’s not accurate or sensitive enough to detect ovarian cancer.

Only 10% to 20% of patients are diagnosed at early stages of ovarian cancer, before a tumor spreads, Dr. Esselen notes. “There’s never been a combination of screenings that has reliably identified the majority of these cancers early, when they’re more treatable,” she says.

What does it mean to be at higher risk for ovarian cancer?

Family history is the top risk factor for the disease, which is diagnosed in nearly 20,000 American women annually. A woman is considered at higher risk of ovarian cancer if her mother, sister, grandmother, aunt, or daughter has had the disease.

Additionally, inherited mutations in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene raise risk considerably, according to the National Cancer Institute. (These mutations are more common among certain groups, including people of Ashkenazi Jewish heritage.) While about 1.2% of women overall will develop ovarian cancer in their lifetime, up to 17% of those with a BRCA2 mutation and up to 44% with a BRCA1 mutation will do so by ages 70 to 80.

How much can surgery lower the odds of ovarian cancer?

It’s not clear that all women — even those not scheduled for surgery — should undergo removal of their fallopian tubes to reduce this risk once they finish having children, Dr. Esselen says. This surgery can’t totally eliminate the possibility of ovarian cancer — and surgery carries its own risks. She recommends discussing options with your doctor depending on your level of risk for this disease:

For those at average risk for ovarian cancer: Available data seem to support the idea of removing the fallopian tubes. Studies of women who underwent tubal ligation (“tying the tubes”) or removal to avoid future pregnancies indicate their future risks of ovarian cancer dropped by 25% to 65% compared to their peers. And if a woman is already undergoing gynecologic surgery, such as a hysterectomy, the potential benefits likely outweigh the risks.

Before menopause, removing the fallopian tubes while leaving the ovaries in place is preferable to removing both. That’s because estrogen produced by the ovaries can help protect against health problems such as cardiovascular disease and osteoporosis. Leaving the ovaries also prevents suddenly experiencing symptoms of menopause.

“The fallopian tubes don’t produce any hormones and aren’t really needed for anything other than transporting the egg,” she says. “So there’s little downside to removing them at the time of another gynecologic procedure if a woman is no longer interested in fertility.”

For those at high risk for ovarian cancer: “In a world where we don’t have good screening tools for ovarian cancer, it makes sense to do something as dramatic as surgery to remove both ovaries and fallopian tubes when a woman is known to be at higher risk because of a strong family history or a BRCA gene mutations,” Dr. Esselen says.

Currently, preliminary evidence suggests it may be safe to proactively remove the fallopian tubes while delaying removal of the ovaries to closer to the time of menopause to avoid an early menopause. However, it’s unclear how much this procedure lowers the odds of developing ovarian cancer.

“Generally, the findings so far have focused on the safety of the surgery itself and women’s quality of life,” Dr. Esselen says. “Long-term data in high-risk women takes a great number of years to accumulate. We need this data to know whether removing the fallopian tubes alone is equally effective in preventing ovarian cancer as removing the tubes and ovaries.”

Discussing your options is key

Ultimately, Dr. Esselen says that she advocates OCRA’s new recommendations. “For anyone who’s completed childbearing, if I’m doing surgery that wouldn’t necessarily include routinely removing their fallopian tubes, I’m offering it,” she says. “A woman and her doctor should always discuss this at the time she’s having gynecologic surgery.”

About the Author

Maureen Salamon, Executive Editor, Harvard Women's Health Watch

Maureen Salamon is executive editor of Harvard Women’s Health Watch. She began her career as a newspaper reporter and later covered health and medicine for a wide variety of websites, magazines, and hospitals. Her work has … See Full Bio View all posts by Maureen Salamon

Be honest: just how much television are you watching? One study has estimated that half of American adults spend two to three hours each day watching television, with some watching as much as eight hours per day.

Is time spent on TV a good thing or a bad thing? Let's look at some of the data in relation to your risks for cognitive decline and dementia.

Physical activity does more to sharpen the mind than sitting

First, the more time you sit and watch television, the less time you have available for physical activity. Getting sufficient physical activity decreases your risk of cognitive impairment and dementia. Not surprisingly, if you spend a lot of time sitting and doing other sedentary behaviors, your risk of cognitive impairment and dementia will be higher than someone who spends less time sitting.

Is television actually bad for your brain?

Okay, so it's better to exercise than to sit in front of the television. You knew that already, right?

But if you're getting regular exercise, is watching television still bad for you? The first study suggesting that, yes, television is still bad for your brain was published in 2005. After controlling for year of birth, gender, income, and education, the researchers found that each additional hour of television viewing in middle age increased risk for developing Alzheimer's disease 1.3 times. Moreover, participating in intellectually stimulating activities and social activities reduced the risk of developing Alzheimer's.

Although this study had fewer than 500 participants, its findings had never been refuted. But would these results hold up when a larger sample was examined?

Television viewing and cognitive decline

In 2018, the UK Biobank study began to follow approximately 500,000 individuals in the United Kingdom who were 37 to 73 years old when first recruited between 2006 and 2010. The demographic information reported was somewhat sparse: 88% of the sample was described as white and 11% as other; 54% were women.

The researchers examined baseline participant performance on several different cognitive tests, including those measuring

• prospective memory (remembering to do an errand on your way home)
• visual-spatial memory (remembering a route that you took)
• fluid intelligence (important for problem solving)
• short-term numeric memory (keeping track of numbers in your head).

Five years later, many participants repeated certain tests. Depending on the test, the number of participants evaluated ranged from 12,091 to 114,373. The results of this study were clear. First, at baseline, more television viewing time was linked with worse cognitive function across all cognitive tests.

More importantly, television viewing time was also linked with a decline in cognitive function five years later for all cognitive tests. Although this type of study cannot prove that television viewing caused the cognitive decline, it suggests that it does.

Further, the type of sedentary activity chosen mattered. Both driving and television were linked to worse cognitive function. But computer use was actually associated with better cognitive function at baseline, and a lower likelihood of cognitive decline over the five-year study.

Television viewing and dementia

In 2022, researchers analyzed this same UK Biobank sample with another question in mind: Would time spent watching television versus using a computer result in different risks of developing dementia over time?

Their analyses included 146,651 people from the UK Biobank, ages 60 and older. At the start of the study, none had been diagnosed with dementia.

Over 12 years, on average, 3,507 participants (2.4%) were diagnosed with dementia. Importantly, after controlling for participant physical activity:

• time spent watching television increased the risk of dementia
• time spent using the computer decreased the risk of dementia.

These changes in risk were not small. Those who watched the most television daily — more than four hours — were 24% more likely to develop dementia. Those who used computers interactively (not passively streaming) more than one hour daily as a leisure activity were 15% less likely to develop dementia.

Studies like these can only note links between behaviors and outcomes. It's always possible that the causation works the other way around. In other words, it's possible that people who were beginning to develop dementia started to watch television more and use the computer less. The only way to know for sure would be to randomly assign people to watch specific numbers of hours of television each day while keeping the amount of exercise everyone did the same. That study is unlikely to happen.

The bottom line

If you watch more than one hour of TV daily, my recommendation is to turn it off and do activities that we know are good for your brain. Try physical exercise, using the computer, doing crossword puzzles, dancing and listening to music, and participating in social and other cognitively stimulating activities.

About the Author

Andrew E. Budson, MD, Contributor; Editorial Advisory Board Member, Harvard Health Publishing

Dr. Andrew E. Budson is chief of cognitive & behavioral neurology at the Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System, lecturer in neurology at Harvard Medical School, and chair of the Science of Learning Innovation Group at the … See Full Bio View all posts by Andrew E. Budson, MD

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

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

Three months into the year is a good time to recalculate if you’ve been slacking on your resolution to eat healthy. And if you’ll be leaving home base or school soon and foraging for yourself (plus or minus roommates), it’s a great time to learn about healthy, low-cost choices for your grocery list.

The basics: A weekly shop

A healthy diet is rich in vegetables, fruits, legumes (beans or lentils), whole grains, nuts, seeds, lean proteins, and low-fat dairy products. Trying to fill your cart with all of those goodies can feel overwhelming. But just think in terms of twos.

“Get two fruits and two vegetables of different colors, and two types of lean protein — such as fresh, frozen, or canned fish, chicken or lean ground turkey, or plant-based options,” suggests Nancy Oliveira, a registered dietitian and manager of the Nutrition and Wellness Service at Harvard-affiliated Brigham and Women’s Hospital.

Oliveira also recommends getting two foods in each of these categories on your weekly shopping trip:

• plant proteins, such as canned or dried beans, tofu, tempeh, veggie burgers, or unsalted nuts or seeds
• whole grains, such as whole-grain bread, whole-grain pasta, brown or black rice, quinoa, or farro
• dairy or nondairy milk items, such as nonfat Greek yogurt or cheese.

Go ahead and add one or two healthy treats or snacks, such hummus or dried apricots.

Do you need to choose organic foods?

Organic produce is grown without synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, which are linked to many health problems. While US scientists debate whether foods grown with organic fertilizers (such as animal waste) are safer for your health, other countries, including European Union nations, have banned or phased out synthetic pesticides still used in the United States.

That doesn’t mean that everything you buy must be organic. But try to stay away from conventionally grown produce with thin skins, such as strawberries, spinach, kale, peaches, and grapes. They tend to absorb more chemicals compared to produce with thick skins, such as avocados or pineapples.

The Environmental Working Group creates an annual list to help shoppers avoid high-pesticide produce, and another one that highlights the least contaminated produce.

Buying cost-conscious fresh food and staples

Healthy food, especially organic produce, has a reputation for being expensive. But it doesn’t have to be. Just do a little comparison shopping, and follow Oliveira’s tips to save money on a grocery run:

• Shop in a smaller store with fewer choices.
• Never enter a store hungry, since you might buy more than you normally would.
• Carry a shopping list and stick to it.
• Go directly to the aisles you need. Avoid browsing elsewhere, which may lead to extra purchases.
• Be flexible, have several options within your food categories, and go with sale items.
• Always check the day-old produce cart that offers perfectly edible fresh produce at 50% to 75% off regular prices.
• Buy unseasoned canned or frozen whole foods such as vegetables, chicken, or fish (salmon, sardines, tuna), which are often cheaper than fresh versions.
• Wait for sales of healthy nonperishable staples like quinoa, brown rice, whole-grain pasta, and high-fiber cereals.
• Use coupons and coupon apps.

Easy healthy snacks to reach for

Move on from easy grab-n-go snacks, which are typically processed foods. They often contain unhealthy ingredients and promote overeating. Instead, Oliveira suggests keeping healthy snacks on hand, such as:

• unsalted mixed nuts
• string cheese
• grapes and berries (rinse before eating)
• clementines, bananas, or other fruits that don’t need washing
• a rice cake with nut butter or hummus
• fat-free Greek yogurt
• a peeled hard-boiled egg.

“To save money, buy certain foods in larger amounts when possible, such as an 8-ounce bar of cheese that you slice into small cubes and store in a sealed container in the fridge,” Oliveira says.

Crowdsource shopping tips and savings

Don’t be shy about asking for shopping tips from friends and family members who’ve already developed shortcuts, and grocery store staffers who can offer insider advice.

You can also turn to apps for help. Oliveira recommends two faves:

• Mealime is a meal-planning app with simple, healthy plant-based recipes that automatically create grocery lists for the ingredients.
• List Ease creates lists for grocery runs. You can search for items to add or scan barcodes to add to lists.

“And if you prefer not to use apps, just jot down notes after a quick pantry or fridge inventory, or text yourself every time you remember something you need,” Oliveira advises. “With a little practice, you’ll quickly work out the best system for you.”

About the Author

Heidi Godman, Executive Editor, Harvard Health Letter

Heidi Godman is the executive editor of the Harvard Health Letter. Before coming to the Health Letter, she was an award-winning television news anchor and medical reporter for 25 years. Heidi was named a journalism fellow … See Full Bio View all posts by Heidi Godman

About the Reviewer

Howard E. LeWine, MD, Chief Medical Editor, Harvard Health Publishing

Howard LeWine, M.D., is a practicing internist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Chief Medical Editor at Harvard Health Publishing, and editor in chief of Harvard Men’s Health Watch. See Full Bio View all posts by Howard E. LeWine, MD