Posts Tagged ‘great mistake’

When Leonard Noon reported his first tentative experiments with immunotherapy for hayfever, in 1911 (see p. 164), he believed that pollen contained a toxin. Most people were

‘immune’ to this toxin, he said, in the same way that people might be immune to measles or diphtheria, but hayfever sufferers lacked this immunity. Noon thought that his

steadily increasing doses of pollen, injected just under the skin, were inducing immunity to the pollen toxin, in the same way that a smallpox vaccine could induce immunity to

smallpox.
Noon’s theory was all wrong, as we now know, but the important thing was that the treatment seemed to work. In fact it transformed the lives of some patients, especially those

who were very severely affected by hayfever. One spoke of a ‘marvellous cure’, another of going for walks to kick my old enemy the hay’.
So doctors kept using Noon’s treatment, and in time — when it became clear that Noon’s theory was flawed — medical researchers began trying to figure out how the injections

really worked.
Surprisingly, they have still not succeeded, even though a great deal is now known about the changes that can occur in people undergoing immunotherapy. Despite a wealth of

detailed knowledge (see p. 166), it remains impossible to say exactly how conventional immunotherapy reduces allergic reactions. Surprising discoveries about the effects of

conventional immunotherapy are being made all the time.
New methods of immunotherapy are still being devised today, and there are three different approaches being taken.
Firstly, there are doctors experimenting with modifications of the technique devised by Noon. For example, instead of injecting the allergen extract, some doctors are giving it

to their patients in capsule form. to be swallowed. Others are giving it as a liquid, to be placed under the tongue and held there for a few minutes, then swallowed (see p.

169). Sound scientific trials show that both these methods work well, at least with some allergens.
There are also experiments with speeded-up immunotherapy
(see p. 166), called ultrarush techniques — at the outset, injections are given at hourly intervals, or even more frequently (in hospital, of course, where severe reactions can

be dealt with immediately). Doctors have found that they can induce a remarkably rapid tolerance of the allergen in this way.
The second approach is to apply modern medical knowledge about allergic reactions and so develop entirely new methods of immunotherapy (see p. 168-9). Such research involves

working out, from first principles, novel ways of modifying the immune response in general, or the reaction to one allergen in particular.
This theory-led approach is certainly successful for classical allergies such as hayfever and perennial allergic rhinitis, where there is a good understanding of the basic

mechanism (i.e. the malfunctions of the immune system that produce the disease). But for those diseases where the underlying mechanism is only partially understood, such as

atopic eczema, this approach is not necessarily the best one. And for diseases such as food intolerance, where the cause of the illness remains largely unknown, it is a complete

non-starter.
The third type of approach is to devise a technique by trial and error, and then puzzle out the ‘how’ question later. This is the same sort of path as Noon originally took, and

some believe that this kind of pragmatic experimental approach — practising a method which seems to be effective, even though it’s a mystery how it works — is as valid now as it

was in 1911. Others disagree.
210 complementary therapies The two most widely used methods that have been developed in this way are Provocation-Neutralisation and Enzyme- Potentiated Desensitisation.

Although these techniques are practised by doctors with a conventional medical training, they remain ‘outside the pale’ as far as orthodox medicine is concerned. The

controversies that surround them are discussed below.
Enzyme- Potentiated Desensitisation (EPD)
This technique has been developed by a British doctor, Dr Len McEwen, who began work on it in the 1960s. It is now practised in many parts of the world, as well as Britain,

including the United States, Germany and Italy.
EPD is used for a far wider range of problems than conventional immunotherapy, being given to people with food intolerance and chemical intolerance, as well as to those with

true allergies. This — along with the fact that it is unclear how it works —contributes to the controversies that surround it, because these conditions do not have the same

basic causes.
Dr McEwen began with the observation that, when immune cells are aroused during inflammation — whether caused by allergy or some other stimulus — they release large amounts of

an enzyme called beta-glucuronidase. This enzyme increases the immune response to the allergen or antigen that provoked the inflammation.
Dr McEwen experimented with injecting beta-glucuronidase into the skin, along with very small amounts of allergen, believing that in such circumstances the enzyme might have the

opposite effect, and reduce the immune reaction to the allergen. Eventually he discovered a combination of enzyme and allergen which seemed to have the desired effect.
EPD has been tested, in a rigorous scientific manner, and the results suggest that it can work for hayfever and asthma, as well as for childhood migraine and hyperactivity in

children when these are triggered by foods.
In one trial with hayfever patients, researchers measured the levels of anti-pollen IgE following EPD treatment, and it did not rise during the pollen season as it normally does

in those with hayfever. This kind of finding is impressive because it is unlikely to be due to placebo effect. Not all studies have produced positive results, however.
In addition, doctors using EPD claim that it is very effective for patients with allergies who have not done well on the standard course of immunotherapy injections (see p.

164). This fits in with other studies suggesting that the immune changes brought about by EPD are fundamentally different from those induced by traditional immunotherapy.
Patients with true food allergy have been given EPD, and while it does not enable them to eat their culprit food, it does
seem to reduce their reaction to accidental exposures.
Doctors in the Netherlands are using EPD as a treatment for people with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS), and report that it helps about 50% of patients.
One point in favour of EPD is that it uses very small amounts of allergen, and is therefore very safe — anaphylaxis has never occurred with this technique.
Provocation-Neutralisation
‘After following conventional methods [of immunotherapy] for thirteen years, I heard Carleton H. Lee deliver a paper on provocative testing in 1965, at a meeting of the American

College of Allergists in Chicago. I was naturally sceptical, but tried his suggestions when I returned to my office. The results can only be described as astounding. Many

patients with unresolved allergic problems responded markedly and rapidly. Many with resistant asthma or perennial allergic rhinitis improved greatly or cleared completely when

food injection therapy was added to their inhalant injection therapy.’ So wrote Dr Joseph B. Miller — a distinguished allergist and paediatrician, and a Professor of Medicine at

the University of Alabama, in 1972.
The technique which he learned from Carleton H. Lee was controversial then and, although Miller developed it with great care and precision during the years that followed, it

remains controversial now.
There are two elements in provocation - neutralisation: testing and treatment. Both are used for a wide range of problems — not just classical allergic diseases, but also food

intolerance and chemical intolerance. As with EPD (see left), this is one of the controversial aspects of the technique.
Although provocation-neutralisation involves an injection technique that looks, superficially, very much like conventional immunotherapy (see p. 164), there are several

important differences. Firstly, the allergen extract used (in the case of true allergies) is a very dilute extract, so that far less of the allergen is injected than in

conventional immunotherapy. Likewise, in the case of food intolerance and chemical intolerance, the extracts of the offending substance are used in highly dilute form.
Secondly, the idea of the neutralising dose — which is the central plank of provocation-neutralisation — is quite different from anything in conventional immunotherapy. Broadly

speaking, the conventional technique (see pp. 165-6) works by slowly reeducating the immune system with a gradually increasing dose of the allergen. Only after a succession of

injections does the immune system start to behave differently on encountering the allergen. By contrast, in provocation-neutralisation treatment, the neutralising dose is

claimed to have an instantaneous and direct effect on the body, ‘turning off’ symptoms that have already begun. This is the neutralisation aspect of the technique. The doctors

who practise this technique do not claim to know how the neutralising dose might work.
According to the theory of provocation-neutralisation, the strength of the extract that acts as a neutralising dose is specific for a particular allergen and a particular

person. It can only be worked out by a rather slow procedure involving a series of injections. These are intradermal injections – they place the allergen extract in the skin, at

a slightly deeper level than a skin-prick test. (For treatment, rather than testing, subcutaneous injections are used – these go deeper than intradermal injections, placing the

allergen extract just underneath the skin. Neither hurts very much.)
Ideally, the neutralising dose should be decided on by measuring the size of the wheal (a raised area of skin around the injection site), and whether it grows, stays the same

size, or disappears. The doctor or nurse carrying out the procedure can, in theory, work out the neutralising dose just by careful examination of the skin wheals.
However, it is part of the tradition of provocation-neutralisation techniques that verbal feedback from the patient is also taken into account – so if the patient says that an

injection has turned off the symptoms, that reinforces the belief that the neutralising dose has been found.
The problem with this aspect of provocation-neutralisation is that expectations, and the power of suggestion, can become involved. So if the doctor or nurse says ‘you may find

that this next injection makes the symptoms go away’, that is often exactly what happens – because the forces of placebo effect (see p. 233) come into play. Unfortunately,

verbal interactions such as this are a key aspect of the provocation-neutralisation procedure in many clinics.
Just the same hazard besets provocation - neutralisation if it is used to test for the existence of allergy or intolerance, because it is quite common for practitioners to tell

patients which allergen (or other offending substance) is being injected and to ask if any symptoms are provoked by the injection. This is not good practice – if someone expects

to react to a particular substance, they are quite likely to produce symptoms through purely psychological mechanisms (see pp. 232-3).
Quite apart from this, the question of allergy testing with provocation-neutralisation techniques is contentious, because the pioneers of the technique, such as Professor

Miller, never advocated using provocation - neutralisation in this way. Using it as a routine test for sensitivity reactions was a later development, and there are many doctors

today who, while they practise provocation-neutralisation as a treatment, say that it does not work well as a test for sensitivity reactions. While they agree that injecting a

dose
which is either stronger or weaker than the neutralising dose may provoke actual symptoms (this is the provocation aspect of the technique) they don’t think the reaction is

reliable enough to form the basis of a test for allergies. Nor do they think that using skin-wheal measurements alone (i.e. silent testing) turns the technique into an accurate

test for allergies. That is not what the provocation-neutralisation technique was designed for – it is about treatment, not testing.
The evidence from research
Recent research from the Nova Scotia Environmental Health Centre in Canada confirms that testing by provocation injections is not reliable. The subjects in this study were all

suffering fr= multiple chemical intolerance, a condition which – for one reasor or another – makes patients liable to develop symptoms at an,, time. No less than 70% of these

patients experienced symptoms in response to a dummy injection which contained none of the offending substance. Indeed, 15% of patients also produced a skin wheal in response to

some of the dummy injections, confirming that even this reaction may be subject to the power of suggestion (see pp. 232-3).
Looking just at the patients who did not react to the placebo injection (i.e. those least susceptible to suggestion) the test still did not yield any reliable result – a person

might react to one injection with a particular substance, but fail to react to a subsequent injection with the same substance. The authors concluded that their patients were ‘in

a state of heightened sensitivity as the result of the chronic irritation by various environmental components and other external and internal stressors’. In this state of

sensitivity. patients are so close to the brink all the time that the smallest thing can trigger symptoms. So the apparent reactions to the test injections were actually

determined by other factors – some psychological factors (including a psychological response to the prick of the needle) and some external ones, such as exposure to smells or

very small amounts of airborne chemicals.
Another recent research study, carried out by scientists at the University of California, confirmed the finding of the Nova Scotia team as regards testing. Although this study

did not set out to look at the use of the neutralising dose for treatment, some of the patients were given neutralising doses during the testing process and the researchers

observed that ‘in most cases a single neutralising injection relieved the symptoms’. This casual observation clearly needs to be confirmed by more rigorous testing. Oddly

enough, despite this positive observation about the neutralising doses, the overall conclusion of the researchers was to completely dismiss all aspects of

provocation-neutralisation as ‘the result of suggestion and chance’. This conclusion has been widely publicised in the United States as part of a general campaign against

provocation-neutralisation and doctors who practise it.
Other researchers have looked at treatment with neutralising doses, using stringent scientific methods (a double-blind placebo-controlled trial — see p. 90), and found that they

do work. In one such trial, patients with asthma. and allergies to dogs or cats, were treated with injections of the neutralising dose. They showed a reduction in the

sensitivity of their airways, as measured by objective tests. In another experiment, patients with perennial allergic rhinitis and an allergy to house-dust mite were studied,

and the neutralising dose was given as drops of allergen extract placed under the tongue (sublingual drops) – an alternative to injections. The blockage of the nose, as measured

by scientific tests, was reduced by the neutralising dose.
A great many more trials of this kind would be required to convince most doctors that provocation-neutralisation works.
Furthermore, the recent study from California – which observed a number of practitioners of provocation-neutralisation at work with their patients — showed that these

practitioners need to be a lot more rigorous and objective in their approach. However, the fact that provocation-neutralisation is often practised badly does not necessarily

mean that the basic technique is without any value. There are a great many level-headed doctors and patients who, while initially very sceptical about

provocation-neutralisation, have found it surprisingly effective – just as Professor Miller did back in 1965.
Deciding for yourself
So is provocation-neutralisation an option that is worth trying for your condition?
As regards testing, the answer is probably ‘no’. The most reliable tests are skin-prick tests or FAST blood tests for true allergies (see pp. 91-2), an elimination diet for food

intolerance (see p. 194), and avoidance followed by re-exposure (a challenge test) for chemical intolerance.
As regards treatment for true allergies, conventional immunotherapy has been far more thoroughly tested and, if you can get it (not easy in Britain — see p. 164), is probably a

better bet. It is definitely the best treatment for allergy to insect stings.
The major advantage that provocation-neutralisation has over conventional immunotherapy, in the case of true allergies, is that it is far safer. Because such small amounts of

allergen are used, anaphylactic reactions (see p. 58) don’t occur.
When it comes to treatment for food intolerance, complete avoidance of the problem food(s), for a period of a year or two, is usually a very effective treatment (see p. 77).

Other forms of treatment are only needed for people who find that they have
intolerance to a great many different foods (on the basis of an elimination diet, not kinesiology, blood tests and the like — see p. 93) and cannot devise an adequate diet from

the foods they are able to eat. For such people, provocation-neutralisation may be worth a try. Many patients feel that they have gained considerable help from this treatment.

They report suffering fewer symptoms and being able to return to a more nutritionally balanced diet.
In the case of chemical intolerance, the first line of treatment should be to avoid the substances concerned as far as possible, eat a good balanced diet, and take a vitamin and

mineral supplement if nutritional deficiencies are suspected. Treating any underlying hyperventilation (see pp. 226-9) can also help considerably. Only if there are persistent

symptoms, and you are sure these are not due to psychological causes, might provocation-neutralisation be worth a try. Some people with chemical intolerance do find it is

helpful, but whether this is a real effect, or simply placebo, remains uncertain.
If you decide to give provocation-neutralisation a try, find a practitioner who has good medical qualifications, who seems objective and sensible in their approach, and who

doesn’t make implausible claims for the technique. Take note of what other treatments the practitioner offers, and whether these seem rational or not – this is often a good

guide to the care and objectivity with which provocation - neutralisation is carried out.
Ask the doctor how he or she assesses the neutralising dose. and avoid anyone who does not use the traditional method of a series of injections combined with wheal measurement.

When the neutralising dose is being assessed, say that you would like it to be done ’single-blind’ – that is, you don’t want to be told anything about what is being injected.

Reporting how you feel to the doctor or nurse during the assessment is fine, but only mention really significant symptoms, or a very definite clearance of the symptoms, if this

occurs. These precautions will help you to be sure that you are getting something which is of genuine benefit, rather than just a very expensive form of placebo treatment.
I always wanted to be a doctor, and I enjoyed
medical school immensely, but once I became a
ell GP, I no longer felt quite so sure about what I was doing. It seemed clear to me that there were a lot of people coming to my surgery who I couldn’t do much for. And there

were others who, while I could treat their obvious medical problems with some success, remained distressed and were not coping well with life. Once I became a senior partner in

this practice, I experimented with having a counsellor come in for one session a week, and then an osteopath for the bad backs. It was popular with the patients, and I saw some

people improve enormously. Now we have stress-management classes too, and one of my colleagues has trained in acupuncture, which he uses for selected patients. We also use

elimination diets for patients with a lot of long-term problems like migraine. Overall, I think of it in terms of having more tools at our disposal - being able to tackle things

from a different angle when standard medicine isn’t hitting the spot.’
Geoffrey, a GP in the north of England, is typical of the reconciliation that is now beginning to occur between conventional medicine and alternative medicine. But he also has

plenty of criticisms to make of the alternative scene. ‘The idea that alternative medicine is “holistic” while conventional medicine isn’t, really raises my hackles. Most GPs

could be magnificently holistic if they had an hour with each patient as alternative therapists usually do. We have just 15 minutes, on average, and we have to pack a lot into

that - including our basic duty to eliminate the possibility of serious organic disease such as cancer. Time pressure is everything now, and it has squeezed the humanity out of

medicine, to a very large extent. But the potential for a holistic approach is there - most doctors have a tremendous store of wisdom and life
experience at their disposal, which could form the basis of a holistic approach to treatment if only there were more time to spend with each patient.’
It is in search of a more unhurried and all-embracing approach to treatment that many people turn to alternative medicine. Frequently, what they get out of the therapy has less

to do with the actual methods used, and still less with the theories behind those methods, but everything to do with spending a quiet hour with someone supportive and caring who

listens to all the complex concerns that surround any illness, gives reassurance or advice, or just offers a `safe space’ in which to talk about life’s difficulties.
Other people turn to alternative therapies due to a more serious disillusionment with orthodox medicine. When patients with inscrutable medical problems -such as persistent

unexplained diarrhoea, joint pain or chronic urticaria - are given a succession of different diagnoses by different doctors, they often lose faith entirely in modern medicine

and reject orthodox treatment in favour of alternatives. This is a great mistake. Modern medicine isn’t perfect, but that is only to be expected, because it is not a fixed body

of knowledge but a process - a continuing journey of questioning, investigation, discovery and improvement. Scientific medicine has come a tremendously long way from the state

of ignorance that prevailed two centuries ago, and it will undoubtedly go farther.
Conventional medicine has a great deal going for it - ask anyone over 50, with severe life-long asthma, what they think of treatment now compared to treatment in the 1950s or

early 1960s. You will hear a hymn of praise to the improvements in both drugs and drug delivery systems. Asthma is just one example -conventional medicine has a lot to offer for

all the classical allergic diseases. Alternative medicine should always be regarded as an adjunct to conventional treatment, not a replacement. That is why many doctors prefer

the term complementary medicine.
A third reason for using alternative medicine is a more philosophical one, a need to understand illness in some larger sense, often part of a general search for meaning in life.

Some types of alternative treatment attempt to offer metaphysical reasons for allergy -rather than the mundane explanations of antibodies and immune cells that are given in this

book - and this can be attractive to some people. There is no harm in this approach, which can prompt you to make a critical review of your life, look at unresolved emotional

issues, or reassess choices that are making you unhappy.
But not all illness, or worsening symptoms, can be explained by emotional causes, and the rigid belief that every illness must have a meaning can be damaging. It easily

degenerates into the wholesale psychologisation of illness, the kind of blame-the-victim mentality which can attribute hayfever to ‘Emotional congestion; fear of the calendar; a

belief in persecution; guilt’ and asthma in babies to ‘Fear of life; not wanting to be here’. Both these diagnoses are taken from the best-selling You
can Heal your Life by Louise Hay, which is very influential among some alternative therapists. This compulsive psychologisation of illness can be profoundly damaging, and if

your complementary therapist is preoccupied by ideas of this kind, you could find yourself on a very long guilt trip indeed.
Apart from the psychological aspects of alternative medicine, there is the question of whether it actually works in a practical sense - whether it provides more than just

emotional support and placebo effect (the benefit that comes from any treatment which you believe in). This is always the central question for scientific medicine in relation to

its own treatments,
and conventional doctors naturally apply the same criteria to alternative medicine. Most of this chapter is concerned with trying to answer that question.
Unfortunately, there are so many different kinds of alternative therapy available today that it is impossible to cover all of them in this book. To complicate matters further,

many complementary therapists now practise two or more different techniques, mixing them to
produce their own unique cocktail of diagnosis and treatment. This eclectic approach can span a remarkable range - you may find a therapist doing distinctly whacky stuff such as

iridology (looking at the eye to diagnose all illness - it has been tested and definitely doesn’t work), combined with something perfectly rational such as an elimination diet.

(The elimination diet might be presented as a ‘detox diet’, but it is actually being used to detect food intolerances.)
With new forms of therapy springing up all over the place, a healthy scepticism is a distinct asset for the consumer. Be sceptical about any diagnostic test or treatment that is

only being practised by one person in the country, or in the world - when doctors hit on something that works, they want other doctors to try it out. World exclusives in

medicine are usually suspect.
Avoid any practitioner who tells you to stop using your drugs without your doctor’s consent. Likewise, avoid those with a messianic gleam in their eye, an evident disregard for

logic or reasonable discussion, or an amazing cure that fixes everything from acne to AIDS. Very few of those who sell bogus cures and phoney diagnostic tests are complete

rogues. Most are nice people who are quite genuinely convinced that they have indeed found the answer to people’s problems. The powers of placebo effect (see p. 233) can sustain

such a conviction for a very long time.

Few drugs create quite so much alarm as corticosteroids. To some extent, this alarm is justified — if

over-used, they have dangerous side effects. But rejecting them entirely is a great mistake, because

they are safe at the right dose, and immensely useful for a variety of allergic symptoms. With the

information given here, you can use steroids as safely and effectively as possible.
Although their proper name is corticosteroids, these drugs are commonly — and rather inaccurately —

called steroids. This name adds to their doubtful reputation by confusing them with the notorious

anabolic steroids (see box on p. 142). However, the term ’steroids’ is used for corticosteroids in this

book, simply because that is the name most people recognise.
Steroids do not deal with the allergic reaction itself, unlike antihistamines (see p. 138) or

cromoglycate (see p. 148). Instead, they tackle the consequences of the allergic reaction,

inflammation.
What exactly is inflammation? The visible features of this phenomenon – for example, if it occurs in

the skin, around a scratch or cut – are redness and slight swelling. There is also soreness, and some

warmth. All these effects are produced by an influx of immune cells, intent on protecting the broken

skin from infection. These immune cells generate messenger chemicals (see box on p. 10) which boost the

inflammation, as well as attracting yet more immune cells to the area. When inflammation affects

delicate membranes, as when you suffer a sore throat for example, there can be a great deal more

swelling and discomfort.
The inflammation that follows allergic reactions is very similar to that provoked by infection,

although the balance of immune cells and messenger chemicals is slightly different. Eosinophils (see p.

19) play a particularly important role in sustaining the inflammation produced by allergies.
This influx of eosinophils and other immune cells, which lights the fires of inflammation, occurs some

hours after the allergic response itself. It is known as the Late Phase Reaction (see p. 13). Steroids

work well for allergies because they curtail the Late Phase Reaction and have a calming effect on

various immune cells, especially the eosinophils.
Steroid phobia
So many patients have a profound objection to taking steroids that doctors call it, half-jokingly,

’steroid phobia’. One of the hazards of giving information about potential side effects – as in this

book – is that it may encourage ’steroid phobia’. That would be a tragedy, because steroids really are

useful drugs that can do you a lot of good and very little harm, if used correctly. The risks are very

small when the steroids are used at low to medium doses, and targeted directly onto the inflammation.

Even with high doses, the serious side effects can generally be avoided. Please don’t use the

information here to scare yourself – instead, use it to protect yourself while getting the most from

steroid treatment.
A few effects on other body processes remain, even with the new steroids:
•    Raised blood pressure – this can occur even with short-term use of steroids.
•    Children may stop growing, or grow more slowly. Usually they make up for this later.
•    Quite commonly, there is increased hunger (though you don’t actually need more food, and will

put on weight if you eat more than usual). Insomnia and an agitated, edgy feeling during the day may

occur. These are minor side effects, and no cause for concern.
•    Side effects in the eye can occur: there is an increased risk of glaucoma and, with prolonged

use, cataracts.
•    Long-term use can also result in loss of minerals from the bones, leading to thinning and

fragility (osteoporosis).
•    Psychological changes may occur. Some people experi- ece euphoria or greatly increased energy

levels – with the opposite effects occurring when the course of steroids ends. At worst, steroids can

trigger paranoia or severe depression and suicidal feelings. (These effects are more likely to occur in

those with a history of mental illness. If you are concerned about this aspect, discuss the possible

risks with your doctor before taking steroid tablets.)
•    Epileptics may suffer more frequent or more severe seizures.
•    Very rarely, stomach ulcers develop, or other side effects in the digestive system.
•    The skin may become thin, and the small blood vessels beneath it more fragile, leading to easy

bruising and stretch marks (striae). This is also a potential problem with steroid creams (see p. 146).

Elderly patients are much more susceptible to this side effect.
•    Some diabetics need more insulin. in addition, anyone with the potential to develop diabetes is

more likely to do so, but only if taking steroid tablets long term. The diabetes usually goes when the

steroids are stopped.
•    A few men suffer impotence, but only with long-term use of tablets. This can be treated, so see

your doctor. Women may have irregular periods.
•    Damage to the hip bones may rarely occur, usually with excessive doses of steroid tablets. This

is called avascular necrosis and may require hip replacement.
In addition to these effects on other body processes, there are also some side effects that arise from

the steroids’ suppression of the inflammation. These can occur even with short courses. Again, however,

these problems can almost always be prevented, or treated, or reversed if detected at an early stage.
•    Skin wounds may be slow to heal, and are more likely to become infected because of reduced

immunity. This is not a serious problem – just keep all cuts as clean as possible.
•    Infections by viruses and fungi (e.g. Candida – see box on p. 83), may occur more readily.
•    Some infections may be masked initially because fever is suppressed by the steroids.
•    Chickenpox and measles can be far more serious – even fatal – if steroid tablets are being

taken, or have been taken for more than three weeks within the last three months. This is something to

be very careful about (see item 15 on p. 143).
•    Prolonged use can increase the risk of chest infections.
•    Vaccination with live vaccines can cause problems.
•    Older people who once suffered from tuberculosis (TB) may find it comes back.
•    Steroids can lead to pregnancy if using an IUD, because IUDs work by inducing mild inflammation

in the womb.
The most insidious effect of steroids – and remember again that this is only a hazard of prolonged

high-dose treatment – is adrenal suppression. When steroid tablets are taken for more than three weeks,

the adrenal glands’ own ability to produce cortisol (see p. 141) starts to be slightly suppressed. The

longer the course of steroids, the greater the effect. Stopping the steroids abruptly leaves the body

without enough cortisol to protect itself, which, in the very worst cases, can lead to collapse. Less

obviously, there may be greater vulnerability to the effects of accidents, serious illnesses, surgery

or childbirth – demanding events that would normally stimulate a rise in cortisol production to help

the body cope with the stress.
If you take a short course of steroid tablets during this period, there is more risk of side effects

than normal. Adrenal suppression can last for 6-12 months after steroid treatment ends. It may be two

years before the body can cope with surgery unaided and you will need low doses of steroids to get you

through stress of this kind.
Will I look like a weight-lifter?
Absolutely not. The steroids taken by unscrupulous athletes to pump up their muscles artificially are

anabolic steroids. They are entirely different from the corticosteroids used to treat allergies.
Mimicking nature
All corticosteroids are chemically very similar to a substance known as cortisol that is produced

naturally by the body. Cortisol – which is a hormone made in the adrenal glands, located near the

kidneys – has a great number of different effects, apart from damping down inflammation. It regulates

the action of the kidneys, moves proteins out of the muscles and bones, and alters the pattern of fat

distribution.
Like other hormones and chemical messengers that the body produces, cortisol achieves its effects by

binding to receptors on target cells (e.g. immune cells, muscle cells and the cells that make up the

kidneys). These receptors vary a little, which gives researchers scope for making a synthetic version

of the hormone, cunningly modified so that it binds well to one kind of receptor (the one on the immune

cells, for example) but not so well to another (the one on the kidneys).
Hydrocortisone, the original steroid drug, is identical to cortisol, but the newer steroids have been

modified chemically to have the maximum effect on inflammation and minimal effects on other body

processes. While hydrocortisone can only be used for allergies at very low doses (as in

non-prescription hydrocortisone cream), the modified steroids can be used at higher doses.
The side effects of steroid drugs are of two basic kinds:
•    those due to suppression of inflammation (the desired effect of the drugs) because this

partially reduces immunity to disease
•    those due to the effects of steroids on other body processes – undesirable effects which have,

as far as possible, been designed out of the modern drugs.
These different side effects are discussed in more detail on p. 142. First, it is important to look at

the crucial difference between taking steroids in tablet form and applying them directly to the

affected area. Much unnecessary anxiety can be avoided by understanding this difference.
Targeting steroids
The risks of steroids fall dramatically if, instead of taking them in tablet form, you put them exactly

where they are needed: that means drops for the nose or eyes, inhalers to get the drug into the

airways, or creams and ointments to target the skin.
The medical term for this is topical application, and it is infinitely preferable to taking steroid

tablets. When a drug is swallowed, it does its job by being absorbed through the stomach lining into

the bloodstream, and then being carried around the body in the blood. This is called systemic treatment

because it reaches the whole body-system via the blood.
The areas that need the drug – the itchy skin or inflamed airways – get their dose, but so does every

other part of the body. In order to get a useful amount to the afflicted parts, a fairly large total

dose has to be taken which inevitably affects the rest of the body, making the drug far more hazardous.
When a drug is targeted precisely, in sprays, drops, creams or inhalers, the dose used can be very much

smaller. Some of the drug does get into the bloodstream, by penetrating the skin or the membranes of

the nose or airways, and entering the tiny blood vessels that lie just below. But the amount reaching

the bloodstream is usually minuscule compared with the amount in the blood when you take steroid

tablets. Systemic side effects –those due to the drug going round in the blood (see below) – are

usually avoided, although there may be some local side effects, where the drug is applied.
Only with very powerful doses – as in the steroid inhalers used for severe asthma, or high-potency

creams for eczema – do topical steroids reach the bloodstream in sufficient amounts to cause systemic

side effects. You have to be on these treatments for a long time, or be overdoing the dose (a possible

hazard with creams for eczema), to run the risk of systemic side effects.
Steroid tablets
Short courses of steroid tablets – which means three weeks or less – are pretty safe. They are usually

sufficient to get the inflammation under control, and can be taken three or four times a year without

creating any problems.
Even if you have no choice but to take steroid tablets on a long-term basis, remember that the serious

side effects can usually be avoided, or reversed if caught early (see p. 143).
Side effects
Apart from changes that may (rarely) occur in the stomach lining, the side effects of steroid tablets

are all systemic side effects.
In the early days of steroid use, a set of side effects that resemble a disease known as Cushing’s

Syndrome were frequently seen. The side effects included deposits of fat on the shoulders and abdomen,

and around the face, producing a ,moon face’, water retention resulting in puffiness, weakening of the

bones, easy bruising, acne and muscle wasting. All these changes are due to the unwanted effects of

steroids on other body processes, not to any effect on inflammation.
With the new and improved steroids (see left), plus a much more watchful approach by doctors, these

severe side effects have become very rare, but they can still occur in those on high-dose steroid

tablets. As long as they are noticed in good time (see p. 143) the problem can be reversed.
Using steroid tablets safely
Those taking steroid tablets for more than three weeks, or taking a lot of short courses, can protect

themselves from serious side effects in the following ways:
1. Weigh yourself every day. Should your weight suddenly start to rise, despite eating normally,

consult your doctor: this may be a sign of water retention.
2. If you develop hip pain, swollen ankles, muscle weakness or acne tell your doctor.
3. Get your blood pressure checked regularly by the doctor.
4. Get your eyes checked regularly by an optician, who can detect any problems before there is

irreversible damage.
5. In the case of children, make sure the child’s growth is being monitored carefully by the doctor.
6. Stay as active as possible, with plenty of vigorous exercise, to protect against osteoporosis. Avoid

getting too thin, as this is also a risk factor for osteoporosis. Reduce your salt intake and don’t

drink too much alcohol. Ask your doctor to order a bone-density measurement periodically. Following the

menopause, women on steroid tablets should consider taking hormone replacement therapy (HRT) as this

protects against osteoporosis.
7. Persistent unexplained back pain must be reported to your doctor: this can be a sign of

osteoporosis. If you fracture your wrist in a fall (a Colles’ fracture) make sure your doctor knows

about this, and prescribes urgent drug treatment for osteoporosis.
8. See your doctor if you are over-tired, thirsty, or need to pass urine much more frequently – these

can sometimes be signs of diabetes.
9. Take your tablets after food to protect the stomach. See your doctor if you have persistent

indigestion: coated forms of the tablets may help.
10. If you ever produce black, tarry stools, call your doctor immediately. This is generally a sign of

bleeding from the digestive tract.
11. With your doctor’s permission, take all your daily steroids as a single dose in the morning. The

long gap between one dose and the next stimulates the body to maintain its own steroid-making abilities

and so reduces the risk of adrenal suppression. It can also protect against growth problems in

children. Even greater protection comes from taking steroids on alternate days – one day on, one day

off – although not everyone can keep their symptoms under control with this regime. Obviously, you must

consult your doctor before you try. Your dose may need adjusting.
12. Adrenal suppression puts you at risk during any medical procedure. Tell your doctor, dentist, and

anyone treating you in an emergency – even if you stopped taking steroids up to two years earlier. You

should also carry a Steroid Card at all times, in case you are unconscious. These cards are available

from your doctor.
13. Ask the doctor what you should do if you develop any kind of infection or suffer an accident. It is

often necessary to increase the dose of steroid tablets.
14. Tell your doctor if you have ever had tuberculosis, as this can recur.
15. If you or your child have not had measles or chickenpox, avoid contact with anyone suffering from

these diseases – or from shingles (herpes zoster) which is caused by the chickenpox virus. See your

doctor promptly if there is any contact with someone infected. Emergency treatment to combat the virus

must be started promptly.
16. When being vaccinated, remind the doctor or nurse that you are taking steroid tablets.
17. Never stop taking steroid tablets abruptly if you have been taking them for more than three weeks,

as some degree of adrenal suppression may already have begun. Your body needs time to recover its

natural level of activity, so reduce the dosage gradually. Get precise instructions from your doctor

about how to do this.
18. If you are asthmatic, at the end of any course of steroid tablets lasting more than three weeks, be

extra careful about exposure to allergens and asthma triggers. You may be more vulnerable to severe

asthma attacks for as much as a year after long-term steroid tablets are stopped, or the dosage

reduced.
Watch out for adrenal suppression
If you develop any of the following symptoms after stopping steroids,
or while reducing the dose, call your doctor as soon as possible:
•    muscle weakness; muscle and joint pain
•    feeling ‘under the weather’
•    mental changes
•    scaly or flaking skin
•    breathlessness
•    lack of appetite; or nausea and vomiting
•    fever and weight loss
•    painful itchy lumps on the skin.
Note that, very rarely, withdrawal of steroid tablets, or lowering the dose, can unmask a disease

called Churg-Strauss Syndrome (see p. 160).
Steroid nose drops and sprays
Most steroid nose drops and nasal sprays contain very low doses of the drug, and produce no significant

side effects when used for short periods of time. The safety of these preparations is such that several

are available without prescription.
Steroid drops and sprays for the nose are a very effective way of treating hayfever and perennial

allergic rhinitis. They can be used after the symptoms have begun, or in advance of encountering the

allergen.
Steroid nose drops are also useful in reducing the size of nasal polyps (see p. 30) but only if the

drops are inserted correctly. Kneel down and, bending your neck forward as much as possible, put the

crown of your head on the floor. Now put the drops in and stay in this position for several minutes

while the drops reach their target. Once the polyps have shrunk, the drops can be replaced by a steroid

spray which will keep them under control.
Always stick to the stated dose, as with any drugs – don’t use the drops or spray more often than you

should. If you have a cold or other infection in the nose, stop using steroid drops and sprays until it

is better. Following surgical operations on the nose, ask your doctor’s advice before using steroid

drops or sprays.
Side effects
Minor short-term side effects may include dryness and irritation in the nose and throat, and

disturbances of smell and taste. Nosebleeds might occur and should be reported to your doctor. When

inserting the drops, try to keep them away from the central partition of the nose (the septum), as this

is
the part most vulnerable to bleeding. If you are a long-term user of steroid nose drops, your doctor

should check the membranes in your nose regularly, to be sure that they are not becoming thinned. Eye

checks may also be advisable with long-term use, as glaucoma can occur.
Allergic reactions to the steroid are possible, and they can cause bronchospasm (contraction of the

airway muscles) though this is unusual. You should obviously stop using the drops and see your doctor

if this occurs.
With very high doses of steroids in the nose, or prolonged treatment, some systemic side effects might

occur. The main cause for concern is children’s growth (see box on p. 145) – their height should be

checked regularly.
Steroid eye drops
Steroid eye drops are sometimes given for severe inflammation of the eye during the hayfever season.

However, the eye is vulnerable to infections if treated with steroid drops, and such treatment requires

close medical supervision.
Side effects
Be extremely careful about infections – don’t rub your eyes with your fingers, for example, or dry

around your eyes with a towel unless it is absolutely clean. Follow your doctor’s instructions very

carefully, and go back immediately if your eyes become more uncomfortable, if redness increases, or if

you have any other cause for concern.
Steroid eye drops are rarely used for more than a few weeks. With prolonged use, there is a risk of two

serious side effects, glaucoma and cataract.
Using two lots of steroid
Allergy sufferers who need steroid nose drops or a nasal spray, as well as a steroid inhaler, often

worry that they are getting too much steroid overall.
In fact there is no cause for concern, unless you are taking very high doses of inhaled steroid, in

which case talk the matter over with your doctor. The amount in most nose drops and sprays is quite

small and the same is true of steroid eye drops. In all cases, relatively little gets into the

bloodstream.
If you have allergies in the nose, this may well be making your asthma worse, and using steroid nose

drops can be very helpful for the asthma symptoms (see p. 39).
Inhaled steroids and children’s growth
If an asthmatic child inhales relatively high doses of steroids for many years, his or her growth can

be stunted. However, only a small number of children need these high doses, and with low to moderate

doses most children’s growth is unaffected. They may experience a short-term slow-down in growth, but

their eventual height should be normal.
Unfortunately, there are a few children whose growth is stunted even by relatively low doses of inhaled

steroids - and it is impossible to predict which children will respond in this way. However, if it is

noticed in good time, and if the steroids can be withdrawn safely, the child’s growth rate will almost

certainly recover.
Your GP or paediatrician should be monitoring your child’s growth. You can also measure this yourself,

and go back to the doctor if you are concerned. Keep the risks in perspective - uncontrolled severe

asthma also stunts children’s growth, as well as endangering the child in far more serious ways, so

don’t stop using the steroid inhaler.
Steroid inhalers
Inhaled steroids are a key part of the modern treatment of asthma (see p. 157). As with other topical

treatments, inhaled steroids are a great deal safer than steroid tablets. However, some of the drug

does get into the bloodstream, and with high-dose inhaled steroids taken for several years, the levels

can be high enough to cause systemic side effects such as osteoporosis (see p. 142).
The dose is the crucial factor here. The packaging or information leaflet that comes with your inhaler

will tell you how much of the drug is delivered with each inhalation. To interpret the information

about side effects correctly, you need to know your total daily consumption of inhaled steroid, and

whether this corresponds to a low, medium or high dose:
•    For budesonide or beclomethasone, two of the more common steroids, less than 400mcg

(micrograms) per day counts as a low dose for adults and children over the age of five. A moderate dose

is 500-800mcg per day, and more than 800mcg a day is a high dose.
•    For fluticasone (Flixotide), halve these figures (i.e. more than 400mcg a day is a high dose).
•    In the case of children under five, all these figures should be halved (e.g. a high dose of

beclomethasone is more than 400mcg a day).
•    For other steroids, check with your pharmacist.
Anyone taking a low or moderate dose has very little to worry about as regards systemic side effects.

Only those inhaling high-dose steroids for many years need feel concerned.
If you may be at risk of systemic side effects, follow the protective measures described for steroid

tablets on p. 143. Apart from growth suppression in children (see box above) the most likely effects

are osteoporosis, adrenal suppression, and a recurrence of tuberculosis.
You can minimise the risk of systemic side effects from
steroid inhalers by swallowing as little as possible of the steroid. Always rinse out your mouth,

gargle, and spit out the water after using your inhaler. Using your steroid inhaler morning and

evening, just before brushing your teeth, will make it much easier to remember to do this.
Bear in mind that inhaling steroids regularly will help you avoid the need for steroid tablets.

Asthmatics who are worried about side effects sometimes skip doses of their inhaled steroids, then find

their asthma is much worse and that they need a course of steroid tablets. Frequent courses of tablets

increase the risk of serious side effects.
Minor local side effects of inhaled steroids include hoarseness and short-lived coughing due to direct

irritation of the throat. These are no cause for concern.
If you are regularly inhaling steroids from a nebuliser, make sure the mask fits really well (see p.

163).
Because steroids reduce the immune defences a little, one common side effect of inhaling them is a

throat infection by Candida (see upper box on p. 83). Oesophageal infections with Candida can also

happen but these are rare; the symptoms are heartburn and indigestion. Gargling with warm water after

each inhalation will help prevent Candida infections. There are also anti-fungal lozenges, if you are

still having trouble.
Keep inhaled steroids away from your lips if you suffer from cold sores (herpes infections around the

mouth). These can be made worse with steroids.
Fortunately, other infections are no more common when using inhaled steroids. This includes chest

infections.
Recent research has found other side effects in children using high doses of inhaled steroids. Cough

and thirst are common, while hoarseness and loss of voice affect quite a few. Behavioural problems also

occur, including hyperactivity, mood swings, excitability, sleep disturbances, depression, and even

hallucinations.
Steroid creams and ointments
Steroid creams and ointments are used for both atopic eczema and contact dermatitis. By delivering the

drug to the place where it is needed, they reduce the dose required to an absolute minimum and, if used

correctly, are very safe. Dr Ernst Epstein, a dermatologist at the University of California, observes

‘All too often I encounter children who are miserable with uncontrolled atopic dermatitis because of

their parents’ unjustified fears of steroid side effects. It is cruel to the child and the family to

forgo topical medication.’
It is very important to use a steroid cream of the right strength. For example, applying a 1%

hydrocortisone cream (available without prescription) to severe atopic eczema will be of no value.

Similarly, only applying a prescribed cream occasionally, or only once a day when the doctor said three

times a day, will mean that the rash never really succumbs to the treatment.
Keeping old tubes of steroid cream in the bathroom cabinet, and using these rather than the newly

prescribed cream, is another frequent mistake. If the earlier prescription was for a weaker steroid

cream, that is not quite up to the job, you won’t get the symptoms under control.
Inadequate treatment means that the rash goes on longer, so you probably apply more steroid in the long

run – which exposes you to a greater risk of local side effects. It is far better to use a moderately

strong steroid cream for a short period of time and get the inflammation fully under control.
Remember that steroid creams are absorbed far more effectively immediately after a bath or shower, so

this is a good time to apply them (see p. 48).
Don’t stop using steroid creams too soon. The skin looks healthy and happy long before it is completely

healed underneath. You must continue until the ‘hidden healing’ has occurred. As a rough guide, the

point when the skin looks good is just the halfway point: so the steroid creams should be continued for

the same length of time again. If it took three weeks to get to the point where the skin looks fine,

then you should go on applying the steroid creams for another three weeks after that.
Generally speaking, it is a good idea to phase out steroid creams slowly, especially after using them

for a long period of time. Stopping abruptly may cause the rash to flare up again –this is called a

rebound effect.
Once you have atopic eczema under good control, you will still need some steroid cream at home for

dealing with relapses. As soon as you notice any rough, itchy skin, apply the cream twice daily for

three days, then once daily for another three days. This should be enough to curb the outbreak of

eczema before it really gets going.
Side effects
To assess the risk of side effects from your steroid cream or oirtment, you need to know how strong it

is. Four grades are recognised: mild (corresponding to non-prescription hydrocortisone cream),

moderately potent, potent and very potent. Ask your doctor or pharmacist which grade corresponds to

your cream, so that you can make sense of the information given below.
Unfortunately, if steroid creams are not used correctly, there are some quite serious local side

effects. Any steroid cream that is strong enough to work is also strong enough to produce side effects

if over-used, so this is a delicate balancing act. The main local side effects are thinning of the skin

and striae (stretch marks). Teenagers and pregnant women are particularly susceptible to stretch marks

if using steroid creams.
It is important to take care because these side effects can be irreversible. The stretch marks, for

example, may fade in time but never entirely disappear. Sustained over-use of steroid creams can

produce permanent thinning of the skin. Thinning of the ski on the face may produce redness, with small

blood vessels shoving through. The fingertips may develop painful cracks.
Note that these side effects can come on very gradually.. Some may be mistaken for symptoms of the

disease itself.
Other local side effects may include an outbreak of spots that look rather like acne. Increased

hairiness or change in skin colour are also possible. Fortunately these effects are reversible.
To avoid side effects, follow the instructions for using steroid creams carefully, and don’t apply too

much or too often. If you have not been given clear instructions by your doctor on the quantity to use,

go back and ask for more information. Ideally, you should actually be shown the correct amount of the

cream to use each time. Remember to wash your fingers after applying steroid creams
If potent or very potent steroid creams are slapped on W& abandon, enough is absorbed into the

bloodstream to produce systemic side effects, comparable to those that can occur with steroid tablets

(see p. 142).
With very potent steroid creams, used for a long period of time, there is some risk of slight systemic

side effects even though the instructions for use are carefully followed. Young children more

susceptible. Bear in mind that covering the skin with cages after applying the cream increases the

amount absorbed into the bloodstream. The degree of adrenal suppression caused by using the cream (see

p. 142) is probably going to remain unnoticed in everyday life, but a major illness, accident,

childbirth or a surgical operation might reveal the problem – so tell medical what you have been using.
Different areas of the body respond differently to steroids creams. The skin of the face, and within

skin folds.
sensitive and generally requires a lower-strength cream, while the palms of the hands and the soles of

the feet require a higher strength. The genitals and the area around the anus are particularly

sensitive, and can become permanently damaged (and then a source of intense discomfort) by strong

steroid creams: some dermatologists recommend using nothing stronger than 1 % hydrocortisone.
Make sure you see your doctor regularly when using steroid creams continuously, especially if:
•    you are using very potent steroid cream
•    you are applying potent or moderately potent steroid cream over more than 20% of your body for

more than a month
•    you are applying potent steroid cream to a baby or young child.
The vehicle – the cream or ointment base in which the steroid is carried – is important because

sensitivity reactions can occur to certain of its ingredients (see p. 45). Eczema sufferers can even

become sensitised to the steroid itself, and this problem is difficult to diagnose because patch tests

with steroids often give false negatives (see box on p. 91). If you are not getting better, ask the

doctor if this could be the explanation. (If a rash gets worse and starts to spread when you begin

using steroid creams, go back and see the doctor very promptly – you may have an infection called

tinea, or ringworm, which flourishes all the more when steroid creams are applied.)
Tacrolimus and pimecrolimus
These are new treatments for atopic eczema. They are not steroids, but are covered here because they

are an alternative to steroid creams and ointments, and if you are comparing the two treatments it may

help to have the information on them side-by-side.
Tacrolimus ointment (brand name Protopic) is for the treatment of moderate to severe atopic eczema, and

pimecrolimus ointment (brand name Elidel) is for milder atopic eczema, especially in children.
These drugs are immunomodulatory rather than immune-suppressive – they adjust the balance of immune

reactions in the
skin. Unlike with steroid creams, there is no risk of thinning the skin, so they can be used on

delicate areas like the face and eyelids.
These treatments are generally used for patients who are not getting better with moisturisers and

steroid creams. Because they cost so much more (about ten times as much as topical steroid treatment),

and since much of the fear of steroid creams is unfounded, doctors are reluctant to prescribe

tacrolimus ointment ,on demand’. With time, the cost of these treatments may fall.
One important advantage of tacrolimus and pimecrolimus ointments is that they may have good effects

that persist after you have stopped using them. And the benefits are cumulative: in one trial where

babies with atopic eczema were treated with pimecrolimus ointment on an as-needed basis, most had fewer

and fewer flare-ups as the months went by. This was not true of babies being treated with steroid

cream.
As with topical steroids, the effect of tacrolimus and pimecrolimus on infections such as

Staphylococcus aureus is surprisingly beneficial: the enormous improvement in the surface structure of

the skin keeps bacteria out. But heavily infected skin should be thoroughly treated with antibiotics

before you start. While using the ointment, watch out for any signs of infection, especially herpes

(see p. 44), and see your doctor immediately.
Minimise your exposure to UV light – in sunlight and sunlamps – because of the tendency of UV to

provoke skin cancers. With the dampening effect that tacrolimus has on the immune system, the risk of

skin cancers may be a little higher.
Don’t apply anything else to the skin (not even moisturisers) within two hours of putting on the

tacrolimus ointment – they dilute the treatment too much. And don’t apply tacrolimus ointment

underneath bandages or other dressings.
Side effects
A few patients find that, while using tacrolimus ointment, skin in areas not being treated actually

gets worse. Talk to your doctor if this happens. Other possible side effects include stinging and

burning when applied, or redness. These are nothing to worry about, and usually lessen with time.
Some common brand names
Common brand names of steroids include:
nose drops – Betnesol, Vista-Methasone
nasal sprays – Beclometasone, Beconase, Flixonase, Nasacort, Nasonex, Rhinocort Aqua, Syntaris eye

drops – Betnesol, Cloburate, Maxidex, Predsol, Vista-Methasone
inhalers – Aerobec, Becloforte, Beclometasone, Becotide, Flixotide, Pulmicort
tablets – Betnesol, Cortisyl, Dexamethasone, Medrone, Prednesol, Prednisolone,
creams – Adcortyl, Betnovate, Dermovate, Fucibet, Synalar