bounteouslyhendiadyses

When measles broke out in 31 states several years ago, health experts were surprised to see more than 1,200 confirmed cases –– the largest number reported in the US since 1992.

Measles is a very contagious, preventable illness that may cause serious health complications, especially in younger children and people who are pregnant, or whose immune systems aren’t working well. While a highly effective vaccine is available, vaccination rates are low in some communities across the US. This sets the stage for large outbreaks.

Here are four things that everyone needs to know about measles.

Measles is highly contagious

This is a point that can’t be stressed enough. A full 90% of unvaccinated people exposed to the virus will catch it. And if you think that just staying away from sick people will do the trick, think again. Not only are people with measles infectious for four days before they break out with the rash, but the virus can live in the air for up to two hours after an infectious person coughs or sneezes. Just imagine: if an infectious person sneezes in an elevator, everyone riding that elevator for the next two hours could be exposed.

It’s hard to know that a person has measles when they first get sick

The first symptoms of measles are a high fever, cough, runny nose, and red, watery eyes (conjunctivitis), which could be confused with any number of other viruses, especially during cold and flu season. After two or three days people develop spots in the mouth called Koplik spots, but we don’t always go looking in our family members’ mouths. The characteristic rash develops three to five days after the symptoms begin, as flat red spots that start on the face at the hairline and spread downward all over the body. At that point you might realize that it isn’t a garden-variety virus — and at that point, the person would have been spreading germs for four days.

Measles can be dangerous

Most of the time, as with other childhood viruses, people weather it fine, but there can be complications. Children less than 5 years old and adults older than 20 are at highest risk of complications. Common and milder complications include diarrhea and ear infections (although the ear infections can lead to hearing loss), and one out of five will need to be hospitalized, but there also can be serious complications:

• One in 20 people with measles gets pneumonia. This is the most common cause of death from the illness.
• One in 1,000 gets encephalitis, an inflammation of the brain that can lead to seizures, deafness, or even brain damage.
• One to three in 1,000 children who get it will die.

Another possible complication can occur seven to 10 years after infection, more commonly when people get the infection as infants. It’s called subacute sclerosing panencephalitis, or SSPE. While it is rare (four to 11 out of 100,000 infections), it is fatal.

Vaccination prevents measles

The measles vaccine, usually given as part of the MMR (measles-mumps-rubella) vaccine, can make all the difference. One dose is 93% effective in preventing illness; two doses gets that number up to 97%. 

• Usually, the first dose is given between ages 12 to 15 months.
• A second (booster) dose is commonly given between ages 4 to 6, although it can be given as early as a month after the first dose.
• If an infant ages 6 to 12 months will be going to a place where measles regularly occurs, a dose of vaccine can be given as protection. This extra dose will not count as part of the required series of two vaccines.

The MMR is overall a very safe vaccine. Most side effects are mild, and it does not cause autism. Most children in the US are vaccinated, with 91% of 24-month-olds having at least one dose and about 93% of those entering kindergarten having two doses.

Herd immunity occurs when enough people are vaccinated that it’s hard for the illness to spread. It helps protect those who can’t get the vaccine, such as young infants or those with weak immune systems. To achieve this you need about 95% vaccination, so the 93% isn’t perfect — and in some states and communities, that number is even lower. Most of the outbreaks we have seen over the years have started in areas where there are high numbers of unvaccinated children.

If you have questions about measles or the measles vaccine, talk to your doctor. The most important thing is that we keep every child, every family, and every community safe.

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

Social media and stores are full of products that promise perfect skin. Increasingly, these products are being marketed not just to adults but to teens and tweens. Many are benign, but some can cause skin irritation — and can be costly. And even if these products are benign, does buying them support unhealthy notions about appearance and beauty?

It’s worth looking at this from a medical perspective. Spoiler alert: for the most part teens and tweens do not need specialized skin products, especially expensive ones. But let’s talk about when they may make sense.

When can a specialized skin product help tweens and teens?

So, when should your child buy specialized skin products?

• When their doctor recommends it. If your child has a skin condition that is being treated by a doctor, such as eczema or psoriasis, over-the-counter skin products may help. For example, with eczema we generally recommend fragrance-free cleansers and moisturizers. Always ask your doctor which brands to choose, and get their advice on how best to use them.
• If they have dry and/or sensitive skin. Again, fragrance-free cleansers are a good idea (look for ones recommended for people with eczema). So are fragrance-free, non-irritating moisturizers (look for creams and ointments rather than lotions, as they will be more effective for dry skin). If you have questions, or if the products you are buying aren’t helping, check in with your doctor.

What about skin products for acne?

It’s pretty rare to go through adolescence without a pimple. Many teens aren’t bothered by them, but if your child is bothered by their pimples or has a lot of them, it may be helpful to buy some acne products at your local pharmacy.

• Mild cleansers tend to be better than cleansers containing alcohol. You may want to check out cleansers intended for dry skin or eczema.
• Over-the-counter acne treatments usually contain benzoyl peroxide, salicylic acid, azelaic acid, or alpha-hydroxy acids. Adapalene can be helpful for more stubborn pimples.
• Steer away from astringents or exfoliants, which tend to irritate the skin.
• Talk to your doctor about what makes the most sense for your child — and definitely talk to them if over-the-counter products aren’t helpful. There are many acne treatments available by prescription.

Ask questions and help dispel myths

If your teen or tween doesn’t fall into one of these groups, chances are they don’t need anything but plain old soap and water and the occasional moisturizer if their skin gets dry.

If your child has normal, healthy skin yet is asking for or buying specialized skin products, ask them why. Do your best to dispel the inevitable marketing myths — like that the products will prevent problems they do not have. Let them know that should a problem arise, you will work with them — with the advice of their doctor — to find and buy the best products.

Use it as an opportunity, too, to talk about self-image and how it can be influenced by outside factors. This is an important conversation to have whether or not your child is pining for the latest cleanser they see on Instagram. Helping your child see their own beauty and strengths is a key part of parenting, especially for a generation raised on social media.

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

All of us have an internal clock that regulates our circadian rhythms, including when we sleep and when we are awake. And light is the single most important factor that helps establish when we should feel wakeful (generally during the day) and when we should feel sleepy (typically at night).

So, let me ask you a personal question: just how dark is your bedroom? To find out why that matters — and whether sleeping in an eye mask is worthwhile — read on.

How is light related to sleep?

Our circadian system evolved well before the advent of artificial light. As anyone who has been to Times Square can confirm, just a few watts of power can trick the brain into believing that it is daytime at any time of night. So, what’s keeping your bedroom alight?

• A tablet used in bed at night to watch a movie is more than 100 times brighter than being outside when there is a full moon.
• Working on or watching a computer screen at night is about 10 times brighter than standing in a well-lit parking lot.

Light exposure at night affects the natural processes that help prepare the body for sleep. Specifically, your pineal gland produces melatonin in response to darkness. This hormone is integral for the circadian regulation of sleep.

What happens when we are exposed to light at night?

Being exposed to light at night suppresses melatonin production, changing our sleep patterns. Compared to sleeping without a night light, adults who slept next to a night light had shallower sleep and more frequent arousals. Even outdoor artificial light at night, such as street lamps, has been linked with getting less sleep.

But the impact of light at night is not limited to just sleep. It’s also associated with increased risk of developing depressive symptoms, obesity, diabetes, and high blood pressure. Light exposure misaligned with our circadian rhythms — that is, dark during the day and light at night — is one reason scientists believe that shift work puts people at higher risk for serious health problems.

Could sleeping with an eye mask help?

Researchers from Cardiff University in the United Kingdom conducted a series of experiments to see if wearing an eye mask while sleeping at night could improve certain measures of learning and alertness.

Roughly 90 healthy young adults, 18 to 35 years of age, alternated between sleeping while wearing an eye mask or being exposed to light at night. They recorded their sleep patterns in a sleep diary.

In the first part of the study, participants wore an intact eye mask for a week. Then during the next week, they wore an eye mask with a hole exposing each eye so that the mask didn't block the light.

After sleeping with no light exposure (wearing the intact eye mask) and with minimal light exposure (the eye mask with the holes), participants completed three cognitive tasks on days six and seven of each week:

• First was a paired-associate learning task. This helps show how effectively a person can learn new associations. Here the task was learning related word pairs. Participants performed better after wearing an intact eye mask during sleep in the days leading up to the test than after being exposed to light at night.
• Second, the researchers administered a psychomotor vigilance test, which assesses alertness. Blocking light at night also improved reaction times on this task.
• Finally, a motor skill learning test was given, which involved tapping a five-digit sequence in the correct order. For this task, there was no difference in performance whether participants had worn an intact eye mask or been exposed to light at night.

What else did the researchers learn?

No research study is ever perfect, so it is important to take the conclusions above with a grain of salt.

According to sleep diary data, there was no difference in the amount of sleep, nor in their perceptions of sleep quality, regardless of whether people wore an eye mask or not.

Further, in a second experiment with about 30 participants, the researchers tracked sleep objectively using a monitoring device called the Dreem headband. They found no changes to the structure of sleep — for example, how much time participants spent in REM sleep — when wearing an eye mask.

Should I rush out to buy an eye mask before an important meeting or exam?

If you decide to try using an eye mask, you probably don’t need to pay extra for overnight shipping. Instead, follow a chronobiologist’s rule of thumb: “bright days, dark nights.”

• During the daytime, get as much natural daylight as you possibly can: go out to pick up your morning bagel from a local bakery, take a short walk during your afternoon lull at work.
• In the evening, reduce your exposure to electronic devices such as your cell phone, and use the night-dimming modes on these devices. Make sure that you turn off all unnecessary lights. Finally, try to make your bedroom as dark as possible when you go to bed. This could mean turning the alarm clock next to your bed away from you or covering up the light on a humidifier.

Of course, you might decide a well-fitted, comfortable eye mask is a useful addition to your light hygiene toolkit. Most cost $10 to $20, so you may find yourself snoozing better and improving cognitive performance for the price of a few cups of coffee.

About the Author

Eric Zhou, PhD, Contributor

Eric Zhou, PhD, is an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School. His research focuses on how we can better understand and treat sleep disorders in both pediatric and adult populations, including those with chronic illnesses. Dr. … See Full Bio View all posts by Eric Zhou, PhD

Maybe we should add toothbrushes to the bouquet of flowers we bring to friends and family members in the hospital — and make sure to pack one if we wind up there ourselves.

New Harvard-led research published online in JAMA Internal Medicine suggests seriously ill hospitalized patients are far less likely to develop hospital-acquired pneumonia if their teeth are brushed twice daily. They also need ventilators for less time, are able to leave the intensive care unit (ICU) more quickly, and are less likely to die in the ICU than patients without a similar toothbrushing regimen.

Why would toothbrushing make any difference?

“It makes sense that toothbrushing removes the bacteria that can lead to so many bad outcomes,” says Dr. Tien Jiang, an instructor in oral health policy and epidemiology at Harvard School of Dental Medicine, who wasn’t involved in the new research. “Plaque on teeth is so sticky that rinsing alone can’t effectively dislodge the bacteria. Only toothbrushing can.”

Pneumonia consistently falls among the leading infections patients develop while hospitalized. According to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, each year more than 633,000 Americans who go to the hospital for other health issues wind up getting pneumonia. Air sacs (alveoli) in one or both lungs fill with fluid or pus, causing coughing, fever, chills, and trouble breathing. Nearly 8% of those who develop hospital-acquired pneumonia die from it.

How was the study done?

The researchers reviewed 15 randomized trials encompassing nearly 2,800 patients. All of the studies compared outcomes among seriously ill hospitalized patients who had daily toothbrushing to those who did not.

• 14 of the studies were conducted in ICUs
• 13 involved patients who needed to be on a ventilator
• 11 used an antiseptic rinse called chlorhexidine gluconate for all patients: those who underwent toothbrushing and those who didn’t.

What were the findings?

The findings were compelling and should spur efforts to standardize twice-daily toothbrushing for all hospitalized patients, Dr. Jiang says.

Study participants who were randomly assigned to receive twice-daily toothbrushing were 33% less likely to develop hospital-acquired pneumonia. Those effects were magnified for people on ventilators, who needed this invasive breathing assistance for less time if their teeth were brushed.

Overall, study participants were 19% less likely to die in the ICU — and able to graduate from intensive care faster — with the twice-daily oral regimen.

How long patients stayed in the hospital or whether they were treated with antibiotics while there didn’t seem to influence pneumonia rates. Also, toothbrushing three or more times daily didn’t translate into additional benefits over brushing twice a day.

What were the study’s strengths and limitations?

One major strength was compiling years of smaller studies into one larger analysis — something particularly unusual in dentistry, Dr. Jiang says. “From a dental point of view, having 15 randomized controlled trials is huge. It’s very hard to amass that big of a population in dentistry at this high a level of evidence,” she says.

But toothbrushing techniques may have varied among hospitals participating in the research. And while the study was randomized, it couldn’t be blinded — a tactic that would reduce the chance of skewed results. Because there was no way to conceal toothbrushing regimens, clinicians involved in the study likely knew their efforts were being tracked, which may have changed their behavior.

“Perhaps they were more vigilant because of it,” Dr. Jiang says.

How exactly can toothbrushing prevent hospital-acquired pneumonia?

It’s not complicated. Pneumonia in hospitalized patients often stems from breathing germs into the mouth — germs which number more than 700 different species, including bacteria, fungi, viruses and other microbes.

This prospect looms larger for ventilated patients, since the breathing tube inserted into the throat can carry bacteria farther down the airway. “Ventilated patients lose the normal way of removing some of this bacteria,” Dr. Jiang says. “Without that ventilator, we can sweep it out of our upper airways.”

How much does toothbrushing matter if you’re not hospitalized?

In case you think the study findings only pertain to people in the hospital, think again. Rather, this drives home how vital it is for everyone to take care of their teeth and gums.

About 300 diseases and conditions are linked in some way to oral health. Poor oral health triggers some health problems and worsens others. People with gum disease and tooth loss, for example, have higher rates of heart attacks. And those with uncontrolled gum disease typically have more difficulty controlling blood sugar levels.

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

About the Reviewer

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

Dr. Howard LeWine 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

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

What did the FDA authorize as a health claim?

Here’s the approved language for Copenhagen Classic Snuff:

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

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

What is snuff, anyway?

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

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

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

Why is snuff popular?

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

What accounts for its popularity?

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

The serious health risks of snuff

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

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

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

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

Could this new marketing message about snuff save lives?

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

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

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

The bottom line

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

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

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

Follow me on Twitter @RobShmerling

About the Author

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

If you suffer from the throbbing, intense pain set off by migraine headaches, you may well wonder which medicines are most likely to offer relief. A recent study suggests a class of drugs called triptans are the most helpful option, with one particular drug rising to the top.

The study drew on real-world data gleaned from more than three million entries on My Migraine Buddy, a free smartphone app. The app lets users track their migraine attacks and rate the helpfulness of any medications they take.

Dr. Elizabeth Loder, professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School and chief of the Division of Headache at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, helped break down what the researchers looked at and learned that could benefit anyone with migraines.

What did the migraine study look at?

Published in the journal Neurology, the study included self-reported data from about 278,000 people (mostly women) over a six-year period that ended in July 2020. Using the app, participants rated migraine treatments they used as “helpful,” “somewhat helpful,” or “unhelpful.”

The researchers looked at 25 medications from seven drug classes to see which were most helpful for easing migraines. After triptans, the next most helpful drug classes were ergots such as dihydroergotamine (Migranal, Trudhesa) and anti-emetics such as promethazine (Phenergan). The latter help ease nausea, another common migraine symptom.

“I’m always happy to see studies conducted in a real-world setting, and this one is very clever,” says Dr. Loder. The results validate current guideline recommendations for treating migraines, which rank triptans as a first-line choice. “If you had asked me to sit down and make a list of the most helpful migraine medications, it would be very similar to what this study found,” she says.

What else did the study show about migraine pain relievers?

Ibuprofen, an over-the-counter pain reliever sold as Advil and Motrin, was the most frequently used medication in the study. But participants rated it “helpful” only 42% of the time. Only acetaminophen (Tylenol) was less helpful, helping just 37% of the time. A common combination medication containing aspirin, acetaminophen, and caffeine (sold under the brand name Excedrin) worked only slightly better than ibuprofen, or about half the time.

When researchers compared helpfulness of other drugs to ibuprofen, they found:

• Triptans scored five to six times more helpful than ibuprofen. The highest ranked drug, eletriptan, helped 78% of the time. Other triptans, including zolmitriptan (Zomig) and sumatriptan (Imitrex), were helpful 74% and 72% of the time, respectively. In practice, notes Dr. Loder, eletriptan seems to be just a tad better than the other triptans.
• Ergots were rated as three times more helpful than ibuprofen.
• Anti-emetics were 2.5 times as helpful as ibuprofen.

Do people take more than one medicine to ease migraine symptoms?

In this study, two-thirds of migraine attacks were treated with just one drug. About a quarter of the study participants used two drugs, and a smaller number used three or more drugs.

However, researchers weren’t able to tease out the sequence of when people took the drugs. And with anti-nausea drugs, it’s not clear if people were rating their helpfulness on nausea rather than headache, Dr. Loder points out. But it’s a good reminder that for many people who have migraines, nausea and vomiting are a big problem. When that’s the case, different drug formulations can help.

Are pills the only option for migraine relief?

No. For the headache, people can use a nasal spray or injectable version of a triptan rather than pills. Pre-filled syringes, which are injected into the thigh, stomach, or upper arm, are underused among people who have very rapid-onset migraines, says Dr. Loder. “For these people, injectable triptans are a game changer because pills don’t work as fast and might not stay down,” she says.

For nausea, the anti-emetic ondansetron (Zofran) is very effective, but one of the side effects is headache. You’re better off using promethazine or prochlorperazine (Compazine), both of which treat nausea but also help ease headache pain, says Dr. Loder.

Additionally, many anti-nausea drugs are available as rectal suppositories. This is especially helpful for people who have “crash” migraines, which often cause people to wake up vomiting with a migraine, she adds.

What are the limitations of this migraine study?

The data didn’t include information about the timing, sequence, formulation, or dosage of the medications. It also omitted two classes of newer migraine medications — known as gepants and ditans — because there was only limited data on them at the time of the study. These options include

• atogepant (Qulipta) and rimegepant (Nurtec)
• lasmiditan (Reyvow).

“But based on my clinical experience, I don’t think that any of these drugs would do a lot better than the triptans,” says Dr. Loder.

Another shortcoming is the study population: a selected group of people who are able and motivated to use a migraine smartphone app. That suggests their headaches are probably worse than the average person, but that’s exactly the population for whom this information is needed, says Dr. Loder.

“Migraines are most common in young, healthy people who are trying to work and raise children,” she says. It’s good to know that people using this app rate triptans highly, because from a medical point of view, these drugs are well tolerated and have few side effects, she adds.

Are there other helpful takeaways?

Yes. In the study, nearly half the participants said their pain wasn’t adequately treated. A third reported using more than one medicine to manage their migraines.

If you experience these problems, consult a health care provider who can help you find a more effective therapy. “If you’re using over-the-counter drugs, consider trying a prescription triptan,” Dr. Loder says. If nausea and vomiting are a problem for you, be sure to have an anti-nausea drug on hand.

She also recommends using the Migraine Buddy app or the Canadian Migraine Tracker app (both are free), which many of her patients find helpful for tracking their headaches and triggers.

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

Dr. Howard LeWine 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

Chocolates and flowers are great gifts for Valentine’s Day. But what if the gifts we give then or throughout the year could be truly life-changing? A gift that could save a life or free someone from dialysis?

You can do this. For people in need of an organ, tissue, or blood donation, a donor can give them a gift that exceeds the value of anything that you can buy. Fittingly, Valentine’s Day is also known as National Donor Day, a time for blood drives and sign-ups for organ and tissue donation. Have you ever wondered what can be donated? Had reservations about donating after death or concerns about risks for live donors? Read on.

The enormous impact of organ, tissue, or cell donation

Imagine you have kidney failure requiring dialysis 12 or more hours each week just to stay alive. Even with this, you know you’re still likely to die a premature death. Or, if your liver is failing, you may experience severe nausea, itching, and confusion; death may only be a matter of weeks or months away. For those with cancer in need of a bone marrow transplant, or someone who’s lost their vision due to corneal disease, finding a donor may be their only good option.

Organ or tissue donation can turn these problems around, giving recipients a chance at a long life, a better quality of life, or both. And yet, the number of people who need organ donation far exceeds compatible donors. While national surveys have found about 90% of Americans support organ donation, only 40% have signed up. More than 103,000 women, men, and children are awaiting an organ transplant in the US. About 6,200 die each year, still waiting.

What can you donate?

The list of ways to help has grown dramatically. Some organs, tissues, or cells can be donated while you’re alive; other donations are only possible after death. A single donor can help more than 80 people!

After death, people can donate:

• bone, cartilage, and tendons
• corneas
• face and hands (though uncommon, they are among the newest additions to this list)
• kidneys
• liver
• lungs
• heart and heart valves
• stomach and intestine
• nerves
• pancreas
• skin
• arteries and veins.

Live donations may include:

• birth tissue, such as the placenta, umbilical cord, and amniotic fluid, which can be used to help heal skin wounds or ulcers and prevent infection
• blood cells, serum, or bone marrow
• a kidney
• part of a lung
• part of the intestine, liver, or pancreas.

To learn more about different types of organ donations, visit Donate Life America.

Becoming a donor after death: Questions and misconceptions

Common misconceptions about becoming an organ donor limit the number of people who are willing to sign up. For example, many people mistakenly believe that

• doctors won’t work as hard to save your life if you’re known to be an organ donor — or worse, doctors will harvest organs before death
• their religion forbids organ donation
• you cannot have an open-casket funeral if you donate your organs.

None of these is true, and none should discourage you from becoming an organ donor. Legitimate medical professionals always keep the patient’s interests front and center. Care would never be jeopardized due to a person’s choices around organ donation. Most major religions allow and support organ donation. If organ donation occurs after death, the clothed body will show no outward signs of organ donation, so an open-casket funeral is an option for organ donors.

Live donors: Blood, bone marrow, and organs

Have you ever donated blood? Congratulations, you’re a live donor! The risk for live donors varies depending on the intended donation, such as:

• Blood, platelets, or plasma: If you’re donating blood or blood products, there is little or no risk involved.
• Bone marrow: Donating bone marrow requires a minor surgical procedure. If general anesthesia is used, there is a chance of a reaction to the anesthesia. Bone marrow is removed through needles inserted into the back of the pelvis bones on each side. Back or hip pain is common, but can be controlled with pain relievers. The body quickly replaces the bone marrow removed, so no long-term problems are expected.
• Stem cells: Stem cells are found in bone marrow or umbilical cord blood. They also appear in small numbers in our blood and can be donated through a process similar to blood donation. This takes about seven or eight hours. Filgrastim, a medication that increases stem cell production, is given for a number of days beforehand. It can cause side effects such as flulike symptoms, bone pain, and fatigue, but these tend to resolve soon after the procedure.
• Kidney, lung, or liver: Surgery to donate a kidney or a portion of a lung or liver comes with a risk of complications, reactions to anesthesia, and significant recovery time. It’s no small matter to give a kidney, or part of a lung or liver.

The vast number of live organ donations occur without complications, and donors typically feel quite positive about the experience.

Who can donate?

Almost anyone can donate blood cells –– including stem cells –– or be a bone marrow, tissue, or organ donor. Exceptions include anyone with active cancer, widespread infection, or organs that aren’t healthy.

What about age? By itself, your age does not disqualify you from organ donation. In 2023, two out of five people donating organs were over 50. People in their 90s have donated organs upon their deaths and saved the lives of others.

However, bone marrow transplants may fail more often when the donor is older, so bone marrow donations by people over age 55 or 60 are usually avoided.

Finding a good match: Immune compatibility

For many transplants, the best results occur when there is immune compatibility between the donor and recipient. Compatibility is based largely on HLA typing, which analyzes genetically-determined proteins on the surface of most cells. These proteins help the immune system identify which cells qualify as foreign or self. Foreign cells trigger an immune attack; cells identified as self should not.

HLA typing can be done by a blood test or cheek swab. Close relatives tend to have the best HLA matches, but complete strangers may be a good match as well.

Fewer donors among people with certain HLA types make finding a match more challenging. Already existing health disparities, such as higher rates of kidney disease among Black Americans and communities of color, are worsened by lower numbers of donors from these communities, an inequity partly driven by a lack of trust in the medical system.

The bottom line

You can make an enormous impact by becoming a donor during your life or after death. In the US, you must opt in to be a donor after death. (Research suggests the opt-out approach many other countries use could significantly increase rates of organ donation in this country.)

I’m hopeful that organ donation in the US and throughout the world will increase over time. While you can still go with chocolates for Valentine’s Day, maybe this year you can also go bigger and become a donor.

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

Infections after a prostate biopsy are rare, but they do occur. Now research shows that fewer than 2% of men develop confirmed infections after prostate biopsy, regardless of the technique used.

In the United States, doctors usually thread a biopsy needle through the rectum and then into the prostate gland while watching their progress on an ultrasound machine. This is called a transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUS). Since the biopsy needle passes through the rectum, there's a chance that fecal bacteria will be introduced into the prostate or escape into the bloodstream. For that reason, doctors typically treat a patient with antibiotics before initiating the procedure.

Alternatively, the biopsy needle can be passed through the peritoneum, which is a patch of skin between the anus and the base of the scrotum. These transperitoneal prostate (TP) biopsies, as they are called, are also performed with ultrasound guidance, and since they bypass the rectum, antibiotics typically aren't required. In that way, TP biopsies help to keep antibiotic resistance at bay, and European medical guidelines strongly favor this approach, citing a lower risk of infection.

Study goals and methodology

TP biopsies aren't widely adopted in the United States, in part because doctors lack familiarity with the method and need further training to perform it. The technology is steadily improving, and TP biopsies are increasingly being conducted in office settings around the country. But questions remain about how TRUS and TP biopsies compare in terms of their infectious complications.

To investigate, researchers at Albany Medical Center in New York conducted the first-ever randomized clinical trial comparing infection risks associated with either method. The results were published in February in the Journal of Urology.

The Albany team randomized 718 men to either a TRUS or TP biopsy. Nearly all the men who got a TRUS biopsy (and with few exceptions, none of the TP-treated men) first received a single-day course of antibiotics. All the biopsies were administered between 2019 and 2022 by three urologists working at the Medical Center's affiliated and nonaffiliated hospitals.

The men were then monitored for fever, genitourinary infections, antibiotic prescriptions for suspected or confirmed infections, sepsis, and infection-related contacts with caregivers. Researchers collected data during a visit conducted two weeks after a biopsy procedure, and then by phone over an additional 30-day period following this initial meeting.

What the researchers found

According to the results, 1.1% of men in the TRUS group and 1.4% of men in the transperineal group wound up with confirmed infections. The difference was not statistically significant. If "possible" infections were counted (for example, antibiotic prescriptions for fever), then the rates increased to 2.6% and 2.7% of men in the TRUS and TP groups, respectively.

Fever was the most frequent complication, reported by six participants in each group. One participant from each group also developed noninfectious urinary retention, requiring the temporary use of a catheter. None of the men developed sepsis or required post-biopsy treatments for bleeding.

The study had some limitations: Nearly all the participants were white, and so the results may not be applicable to men from other racial and ethnic groups. Furthermore, since all the men were biopsied by a single institution, it's unclear if the findings are generalizable in other settings. Still, the study provides reassuring evidence that both types of biopsies "appear safe and viable options for clinical practice," the authors concluded.

Commentary from experts

"The paper provides needed evidence that TP biopsies without antibiotics are about as safe and efficacious as TRUS biopsies with antibiotics," said Dr. Marc Garnick, the Gorman Brothers Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. The findings also help to dispel a growing view that transperineal biopsies are superior, Dr. Garnick pointed out.

"Recent years have witnessed a marked interest and surge in the transperineal approach, primarily driven by early studies suggesting a lower risk of infectious complications compared with transrectal biopsy," said Dr. Boris Gershman, a urologist at Harvard-affiliated Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, and a member of Harvard Health Publishing's Annual Report on Prostate Diseases advisory board.

"Interestingly, the investigators find no difference in infectious complications, and it will be important to see if other ongoing studies report similar results," Dr. Gershman continued. "In addition to safety, we also need to confirm whether there are any meaningful differences between the two approaches with respect to cancer detection rates."

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