Showing posts with label India. Show all posts
Showing posts with label India. Show all posts

Saturday, August 14, 2010

'Superbug' scare. Myths and facts

A scientific article in the Lancet has created big commotion in the media both in India and outside.It is being said that a bacteria which is resistant to all known antibiotics is wide spread in India and Pakistan and is being spread to other countries including U.K through medical tourism.This bacteria termed the 'superbug' is supposed to bring an end to the antibiotic era. Indian Government has come out with a clarification saying the media scare in UK is unwarranted.
Let me try to separate facts from myths in this issue.
Fact 1
WHO has identified antibiotic resistance as one of the greatest threats to human health. In the European Union (EU), about 25 000 patients die every year from infection with multidrug-resistant bacteria, and such infections result in health-care costs and lost productivity totalling at least €1·5 billion per year. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus alone infects more than 94 000 people and kills nearly 19 000 in the US every year, more deaths than are caused by HIV/AIDS, Parkinson's disease, emphysema, and homicide combined.
Fact 2
Bacteria with Carbapenemase  activity is a fast emerging threat in the field of antibiotic resistance all over the World as you can see from this article. India is actually a late entrant in this field.
Fact 3
There are 4 classes of Carbapenemase A,B,C and D.Each have different sub groups.So there are a large number of such bacteria producing different Carbapenemase isolated from all over the World.
Fact 4
New Delhi metallo-beta-lactamases[ NDM-1] belonging to B sub group of Carbapenemase was first detected in a Klebsiella pneumoniae isolate from a Swedish patient of Indian origin in 2008.It was given such a name assuming that the patient got it while hospitalized in New Delhi.
Fact 5
Further study in India indicated that NDM 1 enzyme producing bacteria are fairly common in a tertiary hospital in Mumbai.
Fact 6
In short NDM1 enzyme  is the major cause for antibiotic resistance in Ecoli and Klebsiella species in India.In other countries enzymes are different and are named differently like    VIM-1 (for “Verona integron-encoded metallo-β-lactamase” first isolated in Verona, Italy,)       SPM-1 (for “Sao Paulo metallo-β-lactamase”),         GIM-1 (for “German imipenemase”)    SIM 1 (for Seoul imipenemase)   etc.
Fact 7
The Lancet article in question is only about NDM 1 producing bacteria. It is a good attempt to find out the extend of spread of antibiotic resistance in bacteria in India.
Fact 8
It showed NDM in UK not only in those who had surgical procedures in India but also in many who have never visited India..Out of the 37 samples with NDM1 collected in UK, only 17 samples had history of travel to India or Pakistan.
Myth
The article in Lancet says
'It is disturbing, in context, to read calls in the popular press for UK patients to opt for corrective surgery in India with the aim of saving the NHS money. As our data show, such a proposal might ultimately cost the NHS substantially more than the short-term saving and we would strongly advise against such proposals'.
This is an unscientific comment not based on any data.The authors have not proved that NDM 1 enzyme producing bacteria in UK was imported from India. More than 50% of patients in UK detected to have NDM 1 has never traveled to South Asia.Also the comment is not taking into consideration other groups and sub groups of Carbapenemase enzyme producing bacteria which are more prevalent in UK than in India.

         The author of the article in Lancet seems to show undue haste in blaming medical tourism for antibiotic resistance in UK.

It is true that Indian health system abuses antibiotics like most other 3 rd World countries.While protesting the unfair conclusion of the author of the article let us hope that the concerned authorities will open their eyes to the lack of antibiotic policies in most health care centers of India and implement strict regulations so that patients both native and foreign are protected from emergence of resistant bacteria.

Saturday, March 27, 2010

Is alcohol good or bad for the Heart?

Is alcohol good or bad for the heart?
I am asked this question many a time in my practice. I usually answer without committing myself. I will reply that in very small amounts it may not be harmful.
I am aware that many studies from the West have shown that mild to moderate intake of alcohol,especially Red wines are somewhat protective to the heart. At the same time I know that many who ask this question are alcoholics who just want a positive response from the doctor to continue to indulge in  spirits.

A recent study in Indian males disapproves the theory that alcohol in mild to moderate doses has a protective effect on Heart. In a large retrospective survey based study [being the first of it kind in India looking at this question] conducted in 10 centers showed that alcohol consumption even in low amounts increased coronary artery disease risk. Heart attacks were more seen in those who are regular drinkers, occassional drinkers and even ex-drinkers when compared to life long abstainers.


Why Indian male drinkers are more prone to heart disease than Western drinking population?

The reasons are not clear and even lack of protective effect has to be proved with large prospective randomised controlled  studies. But some theories are postulated.
1. Indians are more prone to binge drinking than Caucasian population.Binge drinking can cause Heart attack. In the above study around 55% were binge drinkers.
2. Indians tend to drink more stronger spirits that Caucasians. We drink more whiskey and Rum than wine and beer.
3. There may be genetic/racial difference in effect of alcohol on human body. African American drinkers  also do not have that much protective effect on Heart as Caucasians.

So in conclusion let me state that the so called protective effect of alcohol on Heart is under a big question mark especially for  Indians.
So please do not drink to live.

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Should I give the cervical cancer vaccine to my daughter?

A mother of a 12-year-old girl was asking me this question the other day.


"Should I give my daughter cervical cancer vaccine?"

I was not prepared for the question. Though I know such a vaccine is available I have not studied it in detail. So my answer was little bit evasive.

' It is a new vaccine. Needs to be studied more .........."

I was curious why she asked the question.

"My sister who lives in USA gave her daughter the vaccine. I was wondering whether I should give it to my daughter too."



I realized that I would be asked similar questions again and again as the vaccine has been launched in India. More over I may have to take a decision about it personally since I have a daughter of about same age.

This post is an attempt by me to answer the question raised by that mother after considering all the facts available at present.



What is cervical cancer?




The cervix is another name for the neck of the womb. It is the opening to the womb from the vagina. It is really a strong muscle. Normally it is quite tightly shut, but during labour it opens up to let the baby out.



The cervix has a layer of skin-like cells on its outer surface. When these cells become cancerous it is called squamous cell cervical cancer.

There are glandular cells lining the inside of the cervix. The glandular cells produce mucus. Cancer of these cells is called adenocarcinoma of the cervix.



The area where cervical cells are most likely to become cancerous is called the transformation zone. It is the area around the opening of the cervix that leads on to the narrow passageway running up into the womb.



What causes cervical cancer?



HPV infection



Human papilloma virus or HPV is the major cause of cervical cancer. There are many different types of HPV. It is sometimes called the genital wart virus as some types of HPV cause genital warts. In fact, the types that cause warts are not the types that cause cervical cancer. But there are other types of HPV that are considered 'high risk' for cancer of the cervix. HPV is passed on from person to another through sexual contact.



Women who get cervical cancer have had past infections with HPV. High risk types of HPV can cause changes in the cells covering the cervix that make them more likely to become cancerous in time. It is said that around 50 to 80 % of women get infected with HPV some time in their lifetime.

Most people with HPV do not develop symptoms or health problems from it. In 90% of cases, the body’s immune system clears HPV naturally within two years.



But most women infected with these viruses do NOT develop cervical cancer. So other factors must also be needed for someone with HPV infection to develop cervical cancer.

HPV is passed on through genital contact, most often during vaginal and anal sex. HPV may also be passed on during oral sex and genital-to-genital contact. HPV can be passed on between straight and same-sex partners—even when the infected partner has no signs or symptoms.



A person can have HPV even if years have passed since he or she had sexual contact with an infected person. Most infected persons do not realize they are infected or that they are passing the virus on to a sex partner. It is also possible to get more than one type of HPV.



HPV can cause normal cells on infected skin to turn abnormal. Most of the time, you cannot see or feel these cell changes. In most cases, the body fights off HPV naturally and the infected cells then go back to normal. But in cases when the body does not fight off HPV, HPV can cause visible changes in the form of genital warts or cancer. Warts can appear within weeks or months after getting HPV. Cancer often takes years to develop after getting HPV.


Other risk factors for Cervical Cancer

Women who smoke are more likely to get cervical cancer than those who do not. Taking the birth control pill could increase a woman’s risk of cervical cancer. It is not clear why this is. Women with a weakened immune system are also more likely to get cervical cancer, as are those who have had a large number of children.

Preventive measures against HPV infection

For those who choose to be sexually active, condoms may lower the risk of HPV. To be most effective, they should be used with every sex act, from start to finish. Condoms may also lower the risk of developing HPV-related diseases, such as genital warts and cervical cancer. But HPV can infect areas that are not covered by a condom - so condoms may not fully protect against HPV.



People can also lower their chances of getting HPV by starting sexual activity at a later age, being in a faithful relationship with one partner; limiting their number of sex partners; and choosing a partner who has had no or few prior sex partners. But even people with only one lifetime sex partner can get HPV. And it may not be possible to determine if a partner who has been sexually active in the past is currently infected. That's why the only sure way to prevent HPV is to avoid all sexual activity.



Preventive measures against Cervical Cancer

Screening/PAP smear

Cervical screening is very important because we can stop cervical cancer from developing in the first place. This is one of the few cancers that are preventable because pre-cancerous cell changes can be picked up before they have a chance to develop into a full-blown cancer.

The screening test is often called a cervical smear. A nurse or doctor takes a small sample of cells from the surface of your cervix and spread straight onto a glass slide or put into a liquid. When it reaches the lab, your sample is put under a microscope. The cells are examined and any abnormal ones reported.

The smear test picks up pre-cancerous changes. If you have an abnormal result, it does NOT mean you have cervical cancer. But you may need further tests or treatment for an abnormal smear.

You have to be screened like this every 3 to 5 years from 25 years of age.



Vaccine against HPV

Now I come to the topic I wanted to discuss.

How good are these vaccines in preventing Cervical Cancer?

Are there any risks in taking this vaccine?

Though they are marketed as cervical cancer vaccines, they only prevent the infection of few types of HPV that are responsible for about 70% of cervical cancers. The studies that were conducted were for a period of about 2 to 3 years only. No long-term study results are available yet. Also no studies were conducted in girls less than 16 years of age. The studies had shown that the Vaccine can prevent abnormal cell changes for 2 to 3 years, but long-term effectiveness is not known.

Cervical intra epithelial neoplasia (abnormal cell growth) is graded from 1 to 3. Grade 1 indicates active HPV infection and is not considered to be pre-cancerous; current guidelines discourage treatment of this condition. Grade 2 is treated in most women but is not considered as true marker of developing cancer, as up to 40 percent of such lesions regress spontaneously; current guidelines suggest that some young women with such lesions do not need treatment. Grade 3 cervical neoplasia has the lowest likelihood of regression and the strongest potential to become cancerous.

In the HPV vaccine trials not much efficacy was reported in Grade 3 disease. This was attributed to other types of HPV, [against which we do not have vaccines] taking over and producing Cancer.

Though 3 doses are currently recommended whether there is a need for booster dose is not known

In conclusion the overall efficacy is only about 17 to 20 %.

Even after taking the vaccine the Women should undergo routine screening and safe sex practices to get maximum benefits.

Although it was licensed for use in the United States in June 2006, the first phase 3 trials of the HPV vaccine with clinically relevant end points — cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grades 2 and 3 (CIN 2/3) — were not reported until May 2007,

Why the US FDA and CDC was in such a hurry to give approval to this vaccine?


The editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine [NEJM] said:

The vaccine was highly successful in reducing the incidence of precancerous cervical lesions caused by HPV-16 and HPV-18, but a number of critical questions remained unanswered.
For instance, will the vaccine ultimately prevent not only cervical lesions, but also cervical cancer and death?
 How long will protection conferred by the vaccine last?
Since most HPV infections are easily cleared by the immune system, how will vaccination affect natural immunity against HPV, and with what implications?
How will the vaccine affect preadolescent girls, given that the only trials conducted in this cohort have been on the immune response? ......

.....In the meantime, there has been pressure on policymakers worldwide to introduce the HPV vaccine in national or statewide vaccination programs. How can policymakers make rational choices about the introduction of medical interventions that might do good in the future, but for which evidence is insufficient, especially since we will not know for many years whether the intervention will work or — in the worst case — do harm?

....... serious questions regarding the overall effectiveness of the vaccine in the protection against cervical cancer remained to be answered, and more long-term studies were called for before large-scale vaccination programs could be recommended.

Is the vaccine safe?

.Even though most of the reported adverse events were not serious, there were some reports of hypersensitivity reactions including anaphylaxis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, transverse myelitis, pancreatitis, and venous thromboembolic events. The editorial in the JAMA [Journal of American Medical Association] says, "it is also difficult to conclude that a serious event is not caused by the vaccine". That means the safety is not fully assured.



Should I recommend the HPV Vaccine?

The JAMA editorial says:

When do physicians know enough about the beneficial effects of a new medical intervention to start recommending or using it? When is the available information about harmful adverse effects sufficient to conclude that the risks outweigh the potential benefits? If in doubt, should physicians err on the side of caution or on the side of hope? These questions are at the core of all medical decision making. It is a complicated process because medical knowledge is typically incomplete and ambiguous. It is especially complex to make decisions about whether to use drugs that may prevent disease in the future, particularly when these drugs are given to otherwise healthy individuals. Vaccines are examples of such drugs, and the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine is a case in point.


........Whether a risk is worth taking depends not only on the absolute risk, but on the relationship between the potential risk and the potential benefit. If the potential benefits are substantial, most individuals would be willing to accept the risks. But the net benefit of the HPV vaccine to a woman is uncertain. Even if persistently infected with HPV, a woman most likely will not develop cancer if she is regularly screened. So rationally she should be willing to accept only a small risk of harmful effects from the vaccine.


When weighing evidence about risks and benefits, it is also appropriate to ask who takes the risk, and who gets the benefit. Patients and the public logically expect that only medical and scientific evidence is put on the balance. If other matters weigh in, such as profit for a company or financial or professional gains for physicians or groups of physicians, the balance is easily skewed. The balance will also tilt if the adverse events are not calculated correctly.


My conclusion is like this.

I will not recommend HPV Vaccine with the present available scientific evidence due to the fact that the efficacy in preventing invasive cervical cancer is not much and there is a small but considerable risk of adverse events.
Even though India reports more than 70000 deaths yearly due to cervical cancer,this coslty vaccine [around 10000 Rs for 3 shots] is highly unlikely to make any change in incidence of Cervical cancer in India due low efficacy and prohibitive cost.

Links and references
NEJM editorial
JAMA editorial
Controversy on cancer vaccine
more on cervical cancer

Wednesday, December 2, 2009

World AIDS Day 2009.A statistical update


Another World AIDS Day is here.Let me update you with the current statistics and trends.
New figures released by the World Health Organization and UNAIDS estimate the number of new HIV infections have declined each year by about 17% from 2001 to 2008.
The number of new infections in sub-Saharan Africa is approximately 15% lower, which is about 400,000 fewer infections in 2008.
In East Asia new HIV infections declined by nearly 25% and in South and South East Asia by 10% in the same time period.
In Eastern Europe, after a dramatic increase in new infections among injecting drug users, the epidemic has leveled off considerably.
However, in some countries there are signs that new HIV infections are rising again.


But for every five people infected, only two start treatment.
The UN report noted about 4 million people were receiving AIDS drugs at the end of 2008, compared with 3 million the previous year. Nonetheless, an additional 5 million people need treatment and are not receiving it.

Number of people living with HIV in 2008


Total 33.4 million [31.1 million–35.8 million]

Adults 31.3 million [29.2 million–33.7 million]

Women 15.7 million [14.2 million–17.2 million]

Children under 15 years 2.1 million [1.2 million–2.9 million]


People newly infected with HIV in 2008

Total 2.7 million [2.4 million–3.0 million]

Adults 2.3 million [2.0 million–2.5 million]

Children under 15 years 430 000 [240 000–610 000]

AIDS-related deaths in 2008

Total 2.0 million [1.7 million–2.4 million]

Adults 1.7 million [1.4 million–2.1 million]

Children under 15 years 280 000 [150 000–410 000]

There are more people living with HIV than ever before as people are living longer due to the beneficial effects of antiretroviral therapy and population growth.
However the number of AIDS-related deaths has declined by over 10% over the past five years as more people gained to access to the life saving treatment.
 UNAIDS and WHO estimate that since the availability of effective treatment in 1996, some 2.9 million lives have been saved.
 
Antiretroviral therapy has also made a significant impact in preventing new infections in children as more HIV- positive mothers gain access to treatment preventing them from transmitting the virus to their children. Around 200 000 new infections among children have been prevented since 2001.
 Indian Statistics
 There are 3 million persons in India living with HIV, equivalent to approximately 0.36 percent of the adult population. The revised national estimate reflects the availability of improved data rather than a substantial decrease in actual HIV prevalence in India.
 
The transmission route is still predominantly sexual (87.4 percent); other routes of transmission by order of proportion includes perinatal (4.7 percent), unsafe blood and blood products (1.7 percent), infected needles and syringes (1.8 percent)
and unspecified and other routes of transmission (4.1 percent)2.
 
In India also there is a declining trend in new infections in southern states and Maharashtra while the epidemic is yet to level in Northern States.
 
 
This year’s World AIDS Day theme of Universal Access and Human Rights, highlights the critical link between universal access to HIV prevention, treatment, care and support and respect for human rights in the response to the global AIDS epidemic. Without addressing human rights abuses, many of the populations most vulnerable to or living with HIV will lack access to prevention and treatment services.

Thursday, October 8, 2009

Latest update on Novel H1N1 influenza pandemic 2009

Novel H1N1 influenza pandemic [swine flu pandemic] in India is not news anymore. There is no breaking news on TV channels about deaths caused by negligence of doctors. Health Minister is invisible. Newspapers have stopped counting the deaths. Many in India believe that the 'swine flu' is not killing anymore because they are not reading/viewing such news now. But what is the actual situation?




There have been a total number of 11354 confirmed cases of novel H1N1 flu infections in India till October 7th 2009.Of, which 366 persons have died. This is the officially confirmed figure and not an estimate. Many believe that a large number of infections and death may not have been included in the official data. Official statistics show that there have been 147 deaths in Maharashtra and 101 deaths in Karnataka.



The Indian Health authorities who studied the first 82 deaths that occurred till Aug 31 said that maximum deaths occurred in the adult age group.

Among the dead were 43 men and 39 women, including three pregnant women.



Of the first 82 deaths, 61 were in urban areas and 19 in rural areas. There were five deaths in the age group of 0-5 years and three from 6-15 age group. Thirteen victims were from the age group of 16 to 25 years, while 18 people died in the age group of 26-35 years.24 people died in the age group of 36-45, as compared to 18 deaths in the age group of 46-65. Only one person died in the above 65-year category.

Statistics from other countries also show similar age distribution.



Worldwide Brazil [1164 deaths], USA [814 deaths] and Argentina [539 deaths] lead India [366 deaths] in death toll.








It is expected that by the end of this winter India will overtake all other countries in the death toll.


Yet another feather in India's cap?



H1N1 flu vaccine

Vaccine for novel H1N1 flu is available in few countries now.

The groups recommended by CDC in USA to receive the 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccine include:

1.Pregnant women because they are at higher risk of complications and can potentially provide protection to infants who cannot be vaccinated;

2.Household contacts and caregivers for children younger than 6 months of age because younger infants are at higher risk of influenza-related complications and cannot be vaccinated. Vaccination of those in close contact with infants younger than 6 months old might help protect infants by “cocooning” them from the virus;

3.Healthcare and emergency medical services personnel because infections among healthcare workers have been reported and this can be a potential source of infection for vulnerable patients. Also, increased absenteeism in this population could reduce healthcare system capacity;

4.All people from 6 months through 24 years of age

Children from 6 months through 18 years of age because cases of 2009 H1N1 influenza have been seen in children who are in close contact with each other in school and day care settings, which increases the likelihood of disease spread, and
Young adults 19 through 24 years of age because many cases of 2009 H1N1 influenza have been seen in these healthy young adults and they often live, work, and study in close proximity, and they are a frequently mobile population; and,


5.Persons aged 25 through 64 years who have health conditions associated with higher risk of medical complications from influenza



2 shots are recommended for those below 10 years and one shot for others.







.