Showing posts with label health .. Show all posts
Showing posts with label health .. Show all posts

Sunday, 30 December 2012

dementia by type'


Brain scan 'can sort dementia by type'

Frontotemporal dementia on MRI scanTell-tale shrinkage of the frontal and temporal lobes on an MRI scan

Related Stories

Scientists say they have found a way to distinguish between different types of dementia without the need for invasive tests, like a lumbar puncture.
US experts could accurately identify Alzheimer's disease and another type of dementia from structural brain patterns on medical scans, Neurology reports.
Currently, doctors can struggle to diagnose dementia, meaning the most appropriate treatment may be delayed.
More invasive tests can help, but are unpleasant for the patient.

Start Quote

This could be used as a screening method and any borderline cases could follow up with the lumbar puncture or PET scan”
Lead researcher Dr Corey McMillan
Distinguishing features
Despite being two distinct diseases, Alzheimer's and frontotemporal dementia, share similar clinical features and symptoms and can be hard to tell apart without medical tests.
Both cause the person to be confused and forgetful and can affect their personality, emotions and behaviour.
Alzheimer's tends to attack the cerebral cortex - the layer of grey matter covering the brain - where as frontotemporal dementia, as the name suggests, tends to affect the temporal and frontal lobes of the brain, which can show up on brain scans, but these are not always diagnostic.
A lumbar puncture - a needle in the spine - may also be used to check protein levels in the brain, which tend to be higher in Alzheimer's than with frontotemporal dementia.
A team at the University of Pennsylvania set out to see if they could ultimately dispense of the lumbar puncture test altogether and instead predict brain protein levels using MRI brain scans alone.
They recruited 185 patients who had already been diagnosed with either Alzheimer's disease or frontotemporal dementia and had undergone a lumbar puncture test and MRI scanning.

Dementia

  • There are many causes of dementia, with Alzheimer's the most common
  • More than half a million people in the UK have Alzheimer's disease
  • Frontotemporal dementia tends to affects people who are younger - under 65 - and can affect a personality and behaviour
  • Other types of dementia include vascular dementia and dementia with Lewy bodies
The researchers scrutinised the brain scans to see if they could find any patterns that tallied with the protein level results from the lumbar puncture tests.
They found the density of gray matter on the MRI scans correlated with the protein results.
The MRI prediction method was 75% accurate at identifying the correct diagnosis.
Although this figure is some way off an ideal 100%, it could still be a useful screening tool, say the researchers.
Lead researcher Dr Corey McMillan said: "This could be used as a screening method and any borderline cases could follow up with the lumbar puncture or PET scan."
Dr Simon Ridley, Head of Research at Alzheimer's Research UK, said: "This small study suggests a potential new method for researchers to distinguish between two different types of dementia, and a next step will be to investigate its accuracy in much larger studies involving people without dementia.
"While this method is not currently intended for use in the doctor's surgery, it may prove to be a useful tool for scientists developing new treatments. The ability to accurately detect a disease is vital for recruiting the right people to clinical trials and for measuring how well a drug may be working.
"Ultimately, different causes of dementia will need different treatment approaches, so the ability to accurately distinguish these diseases from one another will be crucial."
The only drug currently licensed in England and Wales for treating frontotemporal dementia is rivastigmine.
There are four licensed treatments for Alzheimer's - donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine and memantine.

More on This Story

Related Stories

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites

Tuesday, 18 October 2011

“Trendy fish pedicures could spread HIV and hepatitis

“Trendy fish pedicures could spread HIV and hepatitis C,” The Sun has today reported. Its front-page story said that officials have raised an “alert” over the treatment, popular in beauty spas, where tiny fish are used to nibble away areas of hard foot skin.

While The Sun has been carping on about warnings and alerts, the newspaper seems to have overestimated the scale of the risk, which health experts have described as being “extremely low”. Rather than being an alert, the news is based on a report by the Health Protection Agency that has set out good practice for so-called ‘fish spas’ that offer the service.

While the report did acknowledge that the risk of infections could not be completely ruled out, it is important to view this in context and not be reeled in by fishy headlines.

What exactly is a fish pedicure?

A fish pedicure is a beauty treatment that uses dozens of tiny fish to nibble away dead and hardened skin from the feet. During a session a person immerses their feet in a tank of warm water and lets the minute, toothless Garra rufa fish nibble away for around 15 to 30 minutes. The fish are said only to eat dead skin, although there are some anecdotal reports that they can break the skin if they nibble too deep.

Fish pedicures have long been used as beauty treatments in Turkey and the Far East, but have only recently been introduced to this country. In the few years since the first UK ‘fish spa’ opened the treatment’s popularity has rocketed due to celebrity endorsements and high-profile press coverage. The HPA says that, as of spring 2011, it is aware of 279 in operation (although there are likely to be many more).

A small number of spas may also be using other species of fish to perform pedicures, such as Chin chin fish. However, the HPA says that these should not be used as they develop teeth when they get older, and may therefore present a greater risk to public health.

What did the report examine?

The report examined a number of issues relating to fish pedicures, including:

  • potential ways infections might occur
  • the risk of catching blood-borne viruses, including HIV and hepatitis
  • the risk of bacterial infections
  • the risk of catching parasites, such as fluke worms
  • the risk of transmitting conditions, such as athlete’s foot and verrucas
  • procedures that might reduce any health risks

The report is based on consultations with experts and professional bodies within the fields of public health, aquaculture, health and safety, and animal welfare.

What did the report find?

The report considered three main ways that a person might catch an infection:

  • from a fish or a fish tank
  • from tank water
  • from another person via surfaces, such as floors

Within these areas they considered the different types of infections that might occur.

Blood-borne viruses

Viruses such as HIV and hepatitis are carried in the blood and, in theory, could be transmitted through tank water if someone with a cut or abrasion were to use a tank containing traces of blood from an infected person with cuts.

However, there is only anecdotal evidence that Garra rufa fish can draw blood, and the HPA says that any blood-borne viruses they come into contact with are unlikely to stay on the surface of their mouths and lead to infection. Any blood entering the tank is likely to be diluted by the volume of water used.

While transmission through this method cannot be completely ruled out, the HPA says the risk of catching a blood-borne virus in this way is extremely low. Further to this, the HPA is recommending that the fish spas check clients for cuts and abrasions both before and after their session.

Parasites

Fish-borne parasites, such as tapeworms and flukes that can be caught by humans if they eat undercooked fish. However, the HPA says that there is no evidence that these can be caught from a fish pedicure as this would require ingestion of the fish or the water.

Bacterial infections

The report looked at a number of specific harmful bacteria, including those that cause salmonella and legionnaires’ disease. Generally, these were deemed to be of low risk as they would not be ingested or would need broken skin to cause infection.

However, certain bacteria were identified as posing a greater risk of infection. For example, Staphylococcus aureus might infect people’s skin if they had eczema or psoriasis. Also, a type of bacteria called Mycobacterium marinum, which is associated with fish tanks and non-chlorinated swimming pools, could cause boils if transferred into broken skin.

Fungal infections such as verrucas and athlete’s foot

Fungi are known to survive on inanimate surfaces for prolonged periods and could, therefore, be passed on by infected clients walking around barefoot. However, the HPA points out that this route of transmission is not unique to fish spas.

So are fish pedicures safe?

The Health Protection Agency says that “on the basis of the evidence identified and the consensus view of experts, the risk of infection as a result of a fish pedicure is likely to be very low”. The agency does outline some groups who are not recommended to have fish pedicures due to increased risk of infection, such as people with diabetes or compromised immune systems.

The HPA also specifically addresses the possibility of transmitting blood-borne viruses such as HIV and hepatitis. The agency says that, in theory, transmission could occur if infected blood from one person got into an open wound on another person using the same tank, although, once again, the risk is “extremely low”. In part, the risk would be minimised due to factors such as the diluting action of the water and the fact that infected blood would be unlikely to stay on the fishes’ mouths.

However, the agency does say that the risk of infections cannot be completely excluded and, in order to reduce this risk even further, they have drawn up a list of recommendations for fish spas.

What recommendations does the HPA make?

The HPA has made extensive recommendations on how fish spas can further reduce the risk of infections. Below are some of the major ones.

Groups not recommended to have a fish pedicure

The agency also says fish pedicures are not recommended for people that may increase the risk of infection or pose an infection risk to other clients. This includes people who:

  • have had their legs waxed or shaved in the previous 24 hours (they may have tiny cuts that increase infection risk)
  • have any open cuts, wounds, abrasions or broken skin on the feet or lower legs
  • have an infection on the feet (including athlete’s foot or a verruca)
  • have psoriasis, eczema or dermatitis affecting the feet or lower legs
  • are diabetic (which leads to increased risk of infection)
  • have a blood-borne virus such as hepatitis B, hepatitis C or HIV
  • have an immune deficiency due to illness or medication
  • have bleeding disorders or take anticoagulant medication (for example, heparin or warfarin)

Safety procedures for fish spas

The HPA recommends that:

  • Clients should be provided with medical information on any potential risk, including specific guidance on conditions that raise infection risk.
  • Clients should have their feet examined both before and after treatment to make sure they are free from cuts and infections. Staff should log that these checks have been performed.
  • Feet should be thoroughly washed and rinsed before a pedicure to minimise the number of micro-organisms transferred into the tank.
  • If there is evidence that bleeding has occurred during a session the tank should be drained and cleaned thoroughly. The HPA has drawn up thorough guidelines on how to disinfect tanks in a fish-friendly way. After 48 hours in a holding tank the fish can be reused.
  • Clients should be told to seek advice from their GP if they experience any adverse effects.

Links to the headlines

Fish foot spa virus bombshell. The Sun, October 18 2011

Health risk from fish pedicures. The Daily Telegraph, October 18 2011

Links to the science

Fish pedicures unlikely to cause infection. HPA 2011

Better hospital IT 'would save thousands of lives'

Monday, 17 October 2011

Better hospital IT 'would save thousands of lives'

Better hospital IT 'would save thousands of lives'

drugs trolley Medication errors were halved by using the IT system, the report authors say

Related Stories

Better use of information technology in England's hospitals could help prevent 16,000 deaths a year, a report says.

University Hospitals Birmingham has recommended its system to the team investigating above-average death rates from 2005 to 2008 at Stafford Hospital.

The trust says it saw a 17% fall in deaths among emergency patients over 12 months, which would equate to 16,000 deaths prevented across England.

Systems include a computer reminding staff to give patients their drugs.

The trust says IT surveillance on its wards is backed up by a policy of holding staff to account for errors.

The report shows how the trust has harnessed IT to bear down on errors, with the initial focus on preventing missed medications. Evidence suggests that hospitals may miss one dose in every five.

Staff at the trust are issued with computer-generated reminders, and the system also issues warnings to prevent prescriptions which could harm the patient.

The number of medication errors at the trust has halved, which has coincided with a sharp fall in deaths for patients admitted as an emergency, the report says.

Missed medications are just one of many clinical activities that are monitored on University Hospitals Birmingham's computer database, and presented to staff on the wards on a dashboard display.

It also includes falls, checks for blood-clots and infection control.

The system also generates alarms when staff key-in clinical information that could give cause for concern, such as changes to a patient's temperature, heart rate, or blood pressure. This triggers an alert in the critical care Unit, prompting an outreach team to be dispatched to wherever they are needed in the hospital.

Where mistakes arise, the real-time feedback to senior executives enables them to call staff to account, with regular reviews to assess and explain performance.

'Culture change'

The trust's medical director, Dr Dave Rosser, said nurses in modern healthcare have trained and worked in an environment where one in five drugs is not given and that this has become the norm.

"It has become over the decades culturally acceptable for drugs not to be given to patients, and what we've been trying to do here is turn round that culture and say every single dose is important."

Dr Rosser was asked to present a report to the public inquiry into the Mid Staffordshire NHS scandal. The paper shows that mortality rates for patients admitted as an emergency fell by nearly 17% over a 12-month period, but remained static in the rest of England. He said that if his trust's approach was adopted across the NHS, this would equate to 16,000 deaths avoided.

The matron in the critical care unit at the Birmingham trust's Queen Elizabeth hospital, Helen Gyves, said nurses recognised the value of tight clinical scrutiny.

"All of the ITU nurses work in a hi-tech environment so they are used to the impact of IT. So if you asked us why we hadn't done something or if you can give us evidence to prove that by challenging us things will improve for the patient, then we wouldn't mind."

The matron in the hospital's clinical decision unit, Liz Miller, said increased accountability had improved the culture of care.

"A good nurse ensures that all of the care is given to the patient. Not just the medication, not just the fluid, but also the personal hygiene, those nursing touches, the communication with the patients. How well she gives her medication and how on time she gives her medication is a good barometer of the all-round care that she gives."

The system at University Hospitals Birmingham is one of several commercially available to the NHS. The chief executive of the Patients Association, Katherine Murphy, welcomed the work at the trust.

"This system has the potential to really make a big difference to patient safety across the board. By highlighting ongoing problems and trends in patient care, ward and trust leaders can put changes in place to prevent other patients from suffering in the same way, learning from their mistakes rather than trying to bury them under bureaucracy."

More on This Story

Related Stories

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites

Saturday, 15 October 2011

A painkiller taken by millions can increase the risk of heart attack and stroke

A painkiller taken by millions can increase the risk of heart attack and stroke by 40%, the Daily Mail has today reported. The newspaper says that researchers are calling for the drug, called diclofenac, to be available on prescription only.

The news is based on a large review that looked at the cardiovascular risks associated with a class of widely used painkillers called non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). NSAIDs in high-dose formulations are usually only available on prescription, but some low-dose NSAIDs, including ibuprofen, naproxen and diclofenac, can be bought over the counter.

The review found that diclofenac raised the risk of heart problems by 22% when taken at over-the-counter doses and by 40% at prescription strength. Naproxen and low-dose ibuprofen were least likely to increase the risk of heart attacks and strokes.

While previous research has highlighted the cardiovascular risks of some NSAIDs, this review of observational studies provides some important new information about the risks associated with all currently available NSAIDs at different doses. As such, its findings will no doubt be important to future decisions about how these drugs should be used and regulated.

However, it is important to note that for a healthy individual who takes diclofenac, the increased risk to the heart is still very small. The nature of this research means it is not possible to estimate accurately how small this risk is. Anyone who is concerned about taking NSAIDs should not stop taking these drugs but should consult their doctor.

Where did the story come from?

The study was carried out by researchers affiliated with Hull York Medical School, the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, the University of Toronto in Canada and the University of Newcastle in Australia. It received no external funding. The study was published in the peer-reviewed journal PLoS Medicine.

The research was covered fairly in most newspapers. In its print version of the story the Daily Mail featured a large front-page headline warning of a “Painkiller heart alert”, which may have been alarming. However, within the article itself the Daily Mail did feature prominent messages that patients should not panic and should not stop taking their medication. Both the Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph reported that, for most healthy people, the increased risk of heart and other problems from diclofenac was small, and the reports featured in the Daily Mail, The Daily Telegraph and the Daily Express all included comments and advice from independent experts.

What kind of research was this?

This was a systematic review comparing the risks of individual NSAIDs taken at typical doses by people at home, rather than in hospital. The researchers say that there are concerns about the risk associated with non-prescription NSAIDs available in low-dose forms, such as ibuprofen, naproxen and diclofenac.

The researchers point out that while some randomised trials have highlighted the cardiovascular risk of some NSAIDs, little is known about how the risks of individual drugs compare when used at different doses, for different lengths of time and in different populations. For this reason the researchers set out to examine the outcomes seen in controlled observational studies, which would better reflect the risks associated with the typical domestic use of NSAIDs rather than the risks associated with their use in the idealised setting of a clinical trial. To date, randomised trials of NSAIDs have reported only small numbers of heart and stroke problems.

What did the research involve?

The researchers searched a wide range of electronic databases for relevant studies published between 1985 and 2010 that had reported on the cardiovascular risks associated with the use of individual NSAIDs in population settings. They included only non-randomised, controlled observational studies in their literature search. These observational studies included case control, cohorts and case-crossover studies. They then assessed the methodological quality of the selected studies. From a total 459 potentially relevant papers, 51 studies met their criteria.

From the studies gathered, the researchers extracted and pooled information about the risk of major cardiovascular events associated with individual NSAIDs. They also assessed subsets of studies that provided relevant information to examine the risk of NSAIDs in different doses and in people with low and high existing risk of heart problems. To compare different drugs they carried out a further type of analysis, called a pair-wise comparison, where they indirectly compared each drug against another in turn, taking the results from separate trials.

The overall analyses included data from 30 case-control studies and 21 cohort studies involving more than 2.7 million individuals and featuring a total of 184,946 cardiovascular events.

What were the basic results?

The researchers looked at the drugs where there were 10 or more studies. Of drugs where there were 10 or more studies, researchers found that the highest overall risks were seen with rofecoxib and diclofenac, and the lowest with ibuprofen and naproxen. Compared with not using any NSAIDs, the researchers found:

  • rofecoxib increased the risk of heart problems by 45% (95% CI 1.33 to 1.59)
  • diclofenac increased the risk by 40% (95% CI 1.27 to 1.55)
  • ibuprofen increased the risk by 18% (95% CI 1.11 to 1.25)

In a subset of studies that looked at risk associated with lower doses they found:

  • low doses of rofecoxib increased the risk by 37% (95% CI 1.20 to 1.57)
  • low doses of celecoxib increased the risk by 26% (95% CI 1.09 to 1.47)
  • low doses of diclofenac increased the risk by 22% (95% CI 1.12 to 1.33)

It is important to note that the drug rofecoxib has already been withdrawn from the market because of its association with a raised risk of cardiovascular events. Including it in the study allows the risk associated with other drugs to be compared with the risks of rofecoxib.

Ibuprofen only posed a risk when taken at a higher dose and naproxen had no significant risk at any dose.

The researchers say the increase in risk was proportional for both high- and low-risk groups. This means that, relative to their risk if not using NSAIDS, the risks for both groups increased to the same extent. The risk of cardiovascular problems also rose early in the course of treatment. For some NSAIDs, risk was found to increase within the first month of taking the drug.

How did the researchers interpret the results?

The researchers say the results of their review “are robust enough to inform clinical and regulatory decisions”.

  • They call for “regulatory action” on diclofenac, as it is currently available without prescription.
  • They say the limited data on etoricoxib “raises serious concerns” about safety, particularly as similar drugs such as rofecoxib have been withdrawn.
  • They say that, in the case of ibuprofen, labelling warnings should be strengthened to stop patients who are already at high risk of cardiovascular problems from exceeding the maximum recommended dose.
  • They question the continued use of indomethacin.

Conclusion

This large review has published some important information on the cardiovascular risks associated with NSAIDs, including the risk associated with different doses and in populations at both high and low risk of cardiovascular events. It raises concerns about some of these risks, in particular the risk associated with the widely used non-prescription drug diclofenac.

As its authors point out, it had some limitations.

  • It had to rely on observational studies (rather than randomised controlled trials), which are subject to bias, especially in terms of other factors (confounders) that might influence results. However, the researchers did take steps to minimise this risk.
  • The data in the studies mainly came from large administrative databases and electronic health records, and may not have been comprehensive, especially concerning key information such as use of non-prescription NSAIDs and aspirin, or information about people’s risk of heart problems.
  • The review suffered from ‘heterogeneity’. This means that many of the studies varied in their design, their methods and how they analysed results. Heterogeneity makes it harder to combine the results of different studies accurately and can, therefore, throw doubt on the findings of systematic reviews.

Patients using NSAIDs who are worried about side effects should not stop taking them, but instead consult their doctor.

Links To The Headlines

Painkiller heart alert: Don't stop taking pills, but do talk to your GP, British scientists urge. Daily Mail, September 28 2011

Common painkillers can raise heart risk. The Daily Telegraph, September 28 2011

Health alert over common painkiller. Daily Express, September 28 2011

Links To Science

McGettigan P, Henry D. Cardiovascular Risk with Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs: Systematic Review of Population-Based Controlled Observational Studies. PLoS Medicine 8(9)

Wednesday, 12 October 2011

Raw vegetables and fruit 'counteract heart risk genes'

Raw vegetables and fruit 'counteract heart risk genes'

fruit Experts already recommend eating at least five portions of fruit and veg a day for good health

Related Stories

People who are genetically susceptible to heart disease can lower their risk by eating plenty of fruit and raw vegetables, a study suggests.

It says five or more daily portions should be enough to counteract culprit versions of a gene on chromosome 9, thought to be possessed by a fifth of people of European ancestry.

Healthy diets appeared to weaken its effect.

The US researchers investigated more than 27,000 people for their work.

The findings were published in Plos Medicine journal.

These participants came from from around the globe, including Europe, China and Latin America.

The results suggest that individuals with high risk 9p21 gene versions who consumed a diet packed with raw vegetables, fruits and berries had a similar risk of heart attack as those with a low-risk variant of the same gene.

Five a day

Foods that count:

  • Fresh fruit and vegetables
  • Frozen fruit and vegetables
  • Dried fruit, such as currants, dates, sultanas and figs
  • Tinned or canned fruit and vegetables
  • Fruit and vegetables cooked in dishes such as soups, stews or pasta dishes
  • A glass (150ml) of unsweetened 100% fruit or vegetable juice
  • Smoothies
  • Beans and pulses; these only count as one portion a day, no matter how many you eat

Researcher Prof Sonia Anand, of McMaster University, said: "Our results support the public health recommendation to consume more than five servings of fruits or vegetables as a way to promote good health."

The scientists, who also included staff from McGill University, say they now need to do more work to establish how diet might have this effect on genes.

Judy O'Sullivan of the British Heart Foundation said the findings should serve as a reminder that while lifestyle and genes could increase heart risk, the way the two interacted with each other was also very important.

"The relationship between the two is often very complicated and we don't yet have all the answers, but the message appears to be very simple - eating lots of fruit and vegetables is great news for our heart health."

More on This Story

Related Stories

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites

Featured post

More patients in Scotland given antidepressants

More patients in Scotland given antidepressants 13 October 2015   From the section Scotland Image copyright Thinkstock Image ca...