Rates of rheumatoid arthritis rising in women
It’s been known for years that autoimmune diseases affect more women than men. There are theories why – some of which are explored in a Stanford Medicine magazine article I helped research last year – but, for the most part, researchers are still in the dark. And now immunologists have yet another mystery to explore: why rates of one such disease, rheumatoid arthritis, are increasing in women after decades of decline.
MedPage Today reports:
Between 1995 and 2007, the incidence of RA increased by a modest but significant 2.5% per year… among women residing in Olmsted County, Minn., according to Elena Myasoedova, MD, PhD, and colleagues from the Mayo Clinic, in Rochester, Minn.A similar increase was not observed among men, who had a decreased incidence of 0.5% per year… the researchers reported in the June Arthritis & Rheumatism.
When applying the numbers to the total U.S. population, the researchers said the disease affects an estimated 1.5 million, up from a previously reported 1.3 million. The authors listed smoking rates, Vitamin D deficiencies and changes in oral contraceptives as the possible culprits behind the increase, and an accompanying editorial stressed the importance of further clarifying the reasons:
“Filling this knowledge gap will be critical in the design, implementation, and testing of public health interventions aimed at reducing the overall burden of RA,” [Ted R. Mikuls, MD, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha] wrote.
Photo by Perfecto Insecto
May 27th, 2010 at 2:49 pm
Is it really RA or a misdiagnosis? “Autoimmune disorder” has become a sort of bucket diagnosis for conditions not otherwise readily explained by clinicians, who we must admit often know little about basic nutrient deficiencies.
It is interesting to me that the rates of RA have gone up concurrently with the massive marketing push for calcium supplementation among women.
It’s clear that calcium supplementation without regard to other minerals such as magnesium can be risky business. Yet, do most physicians, especially rheumatologists, even understand the role of magnesium? In my experience, no.
While researchers continue to search for complex causes of this increase in RA, they seem to be overlooking the basic ones.
For example:
Nutrient intake of patients with rheumatoid arthritis is deficient in pyridoxine, zinc, copper, and magnesium
Journal of Rheumatology (Canada), 1996, 23/6 (990-994)
Objective. To determine nutrient intake of patients with active rheumatoid arthritis and compare it with the typical American diet (TAD) and the recommended dietary allowance (RDA). Methods. 41 patients with active RA recorded a detailed dietary history. Information collected was analyzed for nutrient intake of energy, fats, protein, carbohydrate, vitamins and minerals, which were then statistically compared with the TAD and the RDA. Results. Both men and women ingested significantly less energy from carbohydrates (women 47.4% (6.4) vs 55% RDA, p = 0.0001; men = 48.9% (7.4), p = 0.025) and more energy from fat (women = 36.8% (4.5) vs 30% RDA. p = 0.001 and men = 35.2% (5.9) p = 0.02). Women ingested significantly more saturated and mono-unsaturated fat than the RDA (p = 0.02 and p = 0.04 respectively) while men ingested significantly less polyunsaturated fat (PUFA)(p = 0.0001). Both groups took in less fiber (p = 0.0001). Deficient dietary intake of pyridoxine was observed vs the RDA for both sexes (men and women p = 0.0001). Deficient folate intake was seen vs the TAD for men (p = 0.02) with a deficient trend in women (p = 0.06). Zinc and magnesium intake was deficient vs the RDA in both sexes (p values less than or equal to 0.001) and copper was deficient vs the TAD in both sexes (p = 0.004 women and p = 0.02 men).
Conclusion. Patients with RA ingest too much total fat and too little PUFA and fiber. Their diets are deficient in pyridoxine, zinc and magnesium vs the RDA and copper and folate vs the TAD. These observations, also documented in previous studies, suggest that routine dietary supplementation with multivitamins and trace elements is appropriate in this population.
May 28th, 2010 at 2:46 am
Some time ago there was research into whether RA was a STD – I wonder if that theory has now been discounted…
October 15th, 2011 at 12:37 pm
Interesting to note that there was the decline in rheumatoid rates from 1955 to 1994 while the primary treatment was prednisone and minocin. With the development as the new biologicals which target the immune system directly , the rates have gone up 50 percent. Leads some creedence to doctor brown’s theory behind the antibiotic protocol and the causative agent being an infectious microplasm.
This is coming from a patient with severe rheumatoid with a mother who had severe rheumatoid – both of whom are in full remission for the last 5 to 10 years respectively through the treatments with minocin. I myself went back to college to earn the chemistry and biology degrees so that I could better understand the theory behind my treatment.
I have yet to meet another rheumatoid patient who has had every joint affected in some way with the exception of the hips – as in my case. Yet much to my rheumatologist’s disbelief , once my insurance agreed to put me back on name brand minocin and take me off of generic – I was back in full remission and getting off prednisone in 6 months time. This is without the use of biologics or methotrexate. Which I refuse to take until it is truly the last resort due to the high rates of cancer in my family and the fact that these medicines will increase my chances of cancer yet that much more.
For others that gets rheumatoid in there early thirty’s like I did, I would recommend that they look into the antibiotic protocol 4 early stage treatment before they choose to dramatically raise their chance of dying by infection or cancer through the use of immune suppressing last resort drugs like biologics.