Could New Acne Treatment Cause Cancer?
My mother always says “look beneath the skin.” Great advice from a child psychologist turned stay-at-home mom for evaluating relationships, but keen advice for evaluating well-respected journalism as well.
Browsing Yahoo Health, an article from Reuters caught my eye. “Drug Combo treats severe acne in women: study.” Knowing the emotional turmoil those tiny spots can inflict on the composure of otherwise self-confident women, I rapidly clicked, and even more quickly became alarmed.
This study, published in the January 2008 Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, cites the combination of the birth control pill Yasmin(r) and spironolactone (a diuretic) as a safe and effective treatment for acne. In this study, recipients had an 85 percent chance of either being free from their acne or having excellent improvement. And complications were low. There was no significant weight gain or menstrual cycle irregularites and no problems with elevated potassium levels.
But, what about the long run? Most of these women are young!
We know that oral contraceptives, such as Yasmin, are associated with a small increase in the risk of pre-menopausal breast cancer. How small? In the worst case scenario in the studies, using these for four years before the birth of a first child conferred a relative risk of 1.4. Simply said, if we consider the current risk of breast cancer to be one in seven women (some may argue one in eight or nine), this risk would now be one in five. This risk can often be justified. Going through pregnancy and delivery could definitely be considered riskier. But acne?
And then add in spironolactone. This is a great drug in certain conditions. It can help with fluid retention in those with heart failure and cirrhosis, and be a life saver for those with a condition called primary aldosteronism. Yet, as with many potentially life-saving treatments, that treatment can come at a cost. Spironolactone is listed in California’s Proposition 65 under chemicals associated with a risk of cancer.
Shocking - but not really. Looking back at the treatment of acne over the years, we laugh at our ignorance as we raised cancer risk while treating a cosmetic nuisance. First it was X-rays, now known to increase the risk of thyroid cancer. Then it was sun (UV ) exposure. Will we look back in thirty years and question why we considered a combination of a known and a probable carcinogen an acceptable treatment for something only skin deep?
Myself - I plan on listening to my mother’s advice. “Look beneath the skin.” With the alarming incidence of breast cancer in our country, and one in three women expected to develop some form of cancer in addition to skin cancer, I think I’ll opt for safer alternatives.
And for my kids it serves as an internet lesson. Unlike the TV ads as of late portraying the wonderful advantages of a multitude of meds, a laundry list of potential problems did not follow this article, nor was I able to find a direct way to contact anyone to discuss our concerns.
Get extensive information on cancer prevention by reading “Avoiding Cancer One Day At A Time: Practical Advice for Preventing Cancer” to learn more.
Posted by Lynne Eldridge, MD
Loading ...
I am sorry the doctor does not suffer from serious cystic acne. If she did I am sure that she would realize that treating acne is not just a vain effort to get rid of a few little red dots in order to look pretty. Cystic acne is painful. Cystic acne is very painful. Imagine your face full of little infections and those infections swell with pus creating lots of pressure on the nerves and then potentional for more infections. It is not healthy and there is a reason that people will do anything to get rid of it. It hurts and yes it is a little social devastating to walk around with sores all over your face. Sorry if that sounds vain but it is true.
Both posts raise an excellent post. Acne is certainly not lethal or even dangerous. So why do we choose treatments that increase the patients risk of cancer and other deadly diseases.
On the other hand, in our society severe acne is almost like a death sentence. It can totally devastate a person’s life and many acne victims confine themselves to indoors. In that sense a small increase in cancer risk is acceptable if you ‘get your life back’.
From the evils which one is worse?
Luckily there’s a third choice also. It’s possible to get over acne AND bring down your risk of all the other diseases as well.
Many people don’t know this, but acne responds beautifully to diet and lifestyle changes. But to be effective often those have to be taken to what’s considered to be almost extreme in our society. Many foods that we eat almost on every meal, such as wheat and grains and dairy, can severely aggravate acne.
But proper guidance backed up with with persistence is a recipe for success. At the end of the day making the necessary changes is not that difficult, and you don’t have to confine yourself to these two ‘evil’ options.
I believe this is the truth. Many “things that help” are dangerous.
David
I agree with some points that Seppo has pointed up. Why should you “risk” your lives because of acne when acne is a “social problem”.
Like oral contraceptives and spironolactone, accutane is also another “potential life threatening ” so called “solution” to ease you from acne.
If the patients is using the treatment for short term, I think it’s alright. Other than that, highly not recommended.
Seppo, agreed, acne is best treated proactively and holistically.
The pill should only be used with cautioned, in fact some dermatologists advise that the pill for acne treatment be used only in situations where hormonal activity is the cause of the acne and then only if other medications are not possible.