×

[Comment] RISK stratification in paediatric Crohn’s disease

“Speak up. Step up. Stand out.” With this slogan for the fifth annual Crohn’s and Colitis Awareness Week, the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation of America was asking everyone to raise awareness of Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. Despite the invisible nature of these incurable diseases, patients with inflammatory bowel disease have symptoms including severe abdominal pain, weight loss, and diarrhoea. The onset of Crohn’s disease is characterised most often by an inflammatory phenotype; most patients develop stricturing or penetrating complications, or both, over time.

[Comment] From arterial ageing to cardiovascular disease

Although cardiovascular disease is one of the most prevalent and studied diseases in high-income countries, its aetiology has not been fully unveiled. Study of its pathophysiology in other regions will help develop a greater understanding of the disease.

Prevalence of microcephaly in an Australian population-based birth defects register, 1980–2015

The known Microcephaly has recently received increased attention because it is associated with congenital Zika virus infection. The World Health Organization recommends that countries at risk of Zika virus transmission collate baseline data on the historical prevalence of microcephaly. 

The new We report the prevalence and characteristics of microcephaly in a geographically defined Australian population over a 35-year period. Significant rate differences between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal births were identified. 

The implications Our study provides a useful baseline that will allow changes in microcephaly prevalence to be measured, and raises important matters for consideration by other jurisdictions reviewing their birth defects surveillance systems. 

Microcephaly is a birth defect in which a child’s head is smaller than expected for their age, sex and ethnicity; there are, however, varying operational definitions of how much smaller (eg, head circumference below the first or third percentile, or more than two or three standard deviations below the mean value). The lack of a universally accepted definition complicates the comparison of prevalence estimates, which range from 2 to 12 per 10 000 live births in the United States,1 0.5 to 10 per 10 000 total births in EUROCAT registries (source: http://www.eurocat-network.eu/accessprevalencedata/prevalencetables), and 2 to 6 per 10 000 total births in Australia.24

Known causes of microcephaly include genetic conditions, metabolic diseases, teratogens (eg, alcohol), severe malnutrition (eg, extreme placental insufficiency), and transplacental infections.5 For many children the cause is unknown.

Microcephaly has recently gained increased attention because of its association with congenital Zika virus infection.6 It is predicted that more than 2.2 billion people live in areas where there is a risk of Zika virus infection.7 Local transmission has recently been reported in Singapore8 and in other common travel destinations for Australians.9 The most common vector, the mosquito Aedes aegypti, is found in northern and central Queensland; although local transmission of Zika virus has not been reported, returning travellers with Zika viraemia could infect local mosquitoes and thereby cause a local outbreak. A. aegypti was once present in other Australian states and territories, and there is concern that the mosquito could become re-established outside Queensland.10

Because of the many travellers returning from Zika-affected countries and the potential for Zika virus transmission to become established in Australia, we report baseline data on the prevalence and characteristics of microcephaly in a geographically defined Australian population over a 35-year period (1980–2015).

Methods

Cases of microcephaly were identified in the Western Australian Register of Developmental Anomalies (WARDA), a population-based statutory register with high ascertainment of developmental anomalies (cerebral palsy and birth defects).3,11 Birth defects are defined as structural or functional abnormalities present from conception or before the end of pregnancy and ascertained after a live birth (diagnosed by 6 years of age), stillbirth (minimum 20 weeks’ gestation), or a pregnancy terminated because of detected fetal anomalies (regardless of gestational age). Each defect (up to ten per case) is coded according to the British Paediatric Association extension to the International Classification of Diseases, ninth revision (BPA–ICD9).12

WARDA defines microcephaly as an occipito-frontal head circumference below the third percentile or more than two standard deviations (SDs) below the mean sex- and age-appropriate distribution curve. Any known primary cause (eg, infection, clinical syndrome) is recorded, but the head circumference measurements are not recorded. All identified cases fulfilled the third percentile criterion; either the head circumference measurement was validated by WARDA staff, or the notifier (specialist, genetics services, neonatal units) confirmed applying this criterion. The definition and registration criteria have not changed since 1980.

We identified all cases of microcephaly (BPA–ICD9, 742.10) recorded during January 1980 – December 2015. Each case was reviewed and classified according to aetiology:

  • cause unknown;

  • microcephaly associated with a chromosomal defect;

  • monogenic disorder known to affect head size;

  • known environmental cause (eg, fetal alcohol spectrum disorder [FASD]);

  • congenital infection; or

  • other cause.

We also grouped cases according to whether microcephaly was the only defect (“isolated”), or further major birth defects were reported (“associated”). We examined the age at diagnosis and notification sources.

Microcephaly prevalence was defined as the total number of cases (in live births, stillbirths and terminations of pregnancy for fetal anomaly) divided by the number all births in WA, expressed as number per 10 000 births. Tabulated denominator data for all WA live and stillbirths of at least 20 weeks’ gestation during the study period were obtained from the statutory WA Midwives Notification System. The average annual change in prevalence was calculated by Poisson regression with an offset term. Birth prevalence rates were analysed according to sex, mother’s Aboriginal status, region of residence, known v unknown cause, and isolated v associated microcephaly. We examined associated defects by organ system in cases with known and unknown causes. The prevalence of microcephaly of known and unknown cause in Aboriginal births (5.7% of births during the study period) was compared with that in non-Aboriginal births as prevalence ratios (PRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Analyses were performed in SPSS 23 (IBM) and EpiBasic (Aarhus University, Denmark).

Ethics approval

Ethics approval was obtained from the Human Research Ethics Committee of the WA Health Department (reference, 2016/19).

Results

Among 963 126 births during 1980–2015, 478 cases of microcephaly were ascertained, a prevalence of 5.0 per 10 000 births (95% CI, 4.53–5.43). For births during 1980–2009 (ie, with at least 6 years’ follow-up and therefore with complete case ascertainment), 416 cases were identified, a prevalence of 5.5 per 10 000 births (95% CI, 4.95–6.02), or 1 in 1830 births.

Of the cases from 1980–2009, 389 (93.5%) involved live births; there were seven stillbirths (1.7%) and 20 terminations of pregnancy for fetal anomaly (4.8%). A cause of microcephaly was identified in 186 cases (45%), and more frequently for Aboriginal (64 cases, 70%) than non-Aboriginal births (122, 38%). The most frequent known cause in Aboriginal births was FASD (11 per 10 000 births; 95% CI, 8.2–14.6); in non-Aboriginal births the most frequent causes were monogenic disorders (0.68 per 10 000 births; 95% CI, 0.51–0.90) and chromosomal defects (0.59 per 10 000 births; 95% CI, 0.42–0.79) (Box 1).

The prevalence of microcephaly of unknown cause was higher among Aboriginal than non-Aboriginal births (6.1 v 2.8 per 10 000 births; PR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.38–3.22); this was also true for each type of known cause, but was statistically significant only for known environmental (PR, 200; 95% CI, 73–756) and infectious causes (PR, 4.2; 95% CI, 1.40–10.6) (Box 1).

There was no significant temporal trend in microcephaly prevalence during 1980–2009 (Wald χ2 test, P = 0.23; Box 2). The prevalence of microcephaly of unknown cause declined from 3.4 per 10 000 births (95% CI, 2.7–4.2) during 1980–1989 to 2.6 per 10 000 births (95% CI, 2.0–3.2) during 2000–2009, a mean decline of 1.3% per year (95% CI, –2.4% to –0.2%; P = 0.02); that of microcephaly with a known cause increased by a mean 0.4% per year (95% CI, –1.3% to 2.0%; P = 0.67). The average annual increases in the prevalence of microcephaly associated with chromosomal defects (0.6%; 95% CI, –2.1% to 3.4%; P = 0.64), monogenic disorders (0.6%; 95% CI, –2.2% to 3.4%; P = 0.67), and environmental causes (2.6%; 95% CI, –0.3% to 5.4%; P = 0.08) were statistically non-significant. We found a significant 5.6% average annual decline in the prevalence of microcephaly associated with congenital infection (95% CI, –10.0% to –1.1%; P = 0.01); the change was evident for both Aboriginal (4.4% decline; 95% CI, –12.9% to 4.2%; P = 0.32) and non-Aboriginal births (6.0% decline; 95% CI, –10.6% to –1.5%; P = 0.008), but was statistically significant only for non-Aboriginal births.

The prevalence of microcephaly was similar for male and female children, but higher for Aboriginal than non-Aboriginal Australians (PR, 4.5; 95% CI, 3.55–5.73; Box 1). Prevalence was much higher in remote regions, particularly that of microcephaly of known cause (Box 3); this was influenced by the higher proportion of Aboriginal births (and FASD) in these areas (data not shown).

The 81 cases of isolated microcephaly (20% of all cases) were all of unknown cause. All 186 cases with a known cause were associated with other major birth defects, compared with 65% of the 230 cases without a known cause (Box 4).

The overall prevalence of isolated microcephaly declined by a mean 3.4% per year (95% CI, –5.3% to –1.4%; P = 0.001); there was no significant change in the prevalence of microcephaly with associated defects (P = 0.86) (Box 2). Temporal changes in the availability of folate supplements and the introduction of folic acid fortification of some foods were not associated with changes in the prevalence of microcephaly (data not shown).

Microcephaly was diagnosed after the age of 12 months in 27% of cases, increasing from 19% during the 1980s to 29% in the 1990s and 31% during 2000–2009 (Box 5). Isolated cases were more likely to be diagnosed later (35% after 12 months of age), as were cases with a known cause (30% after 12 months of age). For most cases with a known cause diagnosed after 12 months of age, the cause was FASD (52%).

The major notification sources were geneticists, paediatricians, and obstetric and paediatric hospitals. While paediatric and obstetric hospitals maintained steady notification rates, genetics services played an increasingly important role; they contributed more than one-quarter of reported cases during 2000–2009 (data not shown). Most cases were notified by more than one source (mean, 2.8 notifications per case [SD, 1.76]; median, 2 notifications per case [interquartile range, 1–4]).

Discussion

Our study, the first descriptive epidemiological investigation of microcephaly in Australia, provides baseline data on the prevalence of microcephaly in Western Australia over a 35-year period. Most cases of microcephaly were in live-born infants (93.5%), and the overall prevalence was 5.5 per 10 000 births, with annual rates ranging between 2.9 and 7.7 per 10 000 births.

There are few published epidemiological studies of microcephaly, and comparisons are complicated by differences in case definition, period of ascertainment, pregnancy outcomes included, underlying population differences, and environmental variables. These difficulties were illustrated by a recent report of important variations in the prevalence of microcephaly recorded by 16 European birth defects registries.13 In Australia, national estimates are difficult because of major differences between states in the scope of birth defects data collections.14 The most recent national data (for births during 2002–2003),2 which did not include data from the Northern Territory, found a lower prevalence of microcephaly (1.9 per 10 000 births) than we did. Our results, however, are similar to those reported by other registers using the same case definition and equivalent follow-up periods, including the Atlanta Congenital Defects Program1 and the South Australian Register4 (5.0–5.2 per 10 000 births).

Our prevalence estimates, and those reported by birth defects registries in other countries, are well below the rate of 230 cases per 10 000 births expected when a case definition of an occipito-frontal head circumference more than two SDs below the mean for age and sex is applied. This implies that specialists are moderating their notifications according to criteria other than head circumference; these may include notifying cases when they have clinical concern about the child, or when there is an association with a particular cause (eg, trisomy 18). This moderation probably operates in most surveillance systems, including our own. Although head circumference or percentile measures were checked before registering a case of microcephaly in the database, the measurements themselves are not recorded by WARDA. Adding these data to the collection is planned, facilitating assessment of case severity and comparisons with registries using different registration criteria.

We identified a cause for microcephaly in 45% of cases, and more frequently for births to Aboriginal (70%) than to non-Aboriginal mothers (38%). The figure for non-Aboriginal births was similar to those reported from Atlanta (40%)15 and by a German clinic-based study in which the most common cause was genetic in nature (29% of 680 cases;16 similar to the 28% of non-Aboriginal births in our study). We found an average annual decline in microcephaly cases of unknown cause of 1.3%; this may be attributable to improved genetic diagnostic technologies and increasing diagnosis of FASD, factors that may also account for the declining number of cases of isolated microcephaly.

Our results highlight the contribution of FASD to microcephaly in Aboriginal children, with a prevalence of FASD-associated microcephaly (11 per 10 000 births) 260 times that for non-Aboriginal births (0.04 per 10 000 births). FASD also contributed to higher prevalence rates in remote areas of WA. A recent study found that the prevalence of fetal alcohol syndrome in remote WA Aboriginal communities among 7–8-year-old children was 12%, and that 69% of these children had microcephaly;17 another study reported a twofold increase in FASD notifications to WARDA for both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal births during 1980–2010, coinciding with increased state and national awareness of FASD.18 Nevertheless, FASD is still underdiagnosed, and this may partly explain the higher prevalence of microcephaly of unknown cause in Aboriginal children (6.1 v 2.8 per 10 000 non-Aboriginal births), and may also account for some cases of unknown cause in non-Aboriginal infants. The higher prevalence of microcephaly of unknown cause among Aboriginal Australians may also be related to the relative lack of access to or engagement with health care services and the paucity of genomic reference data for Aboriginal Australians.19 The release of the Australian guide for diagnosing FASD20 and the Partnership Grants (“Models and quality of genetic health services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people”) co-funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Lowitja Institute may advance aetiological investigations. In addition, a major research program for investigating the diagnosis, prevention and management of FASD is underway in WA.21

In 27% of cases, microcephaly was diagnosed in children more than 12 months old. This large proportion would be missed were ascertainment periods shorter. This factor may be particularly important when differentiating cases of known and unknown cause, especially when microcephaly is associated with conditions (such as FASD and specific genetic anomalies) that are often diagnosed at a later age.18

Further major birth defects were associated with 80% of cases of microcephaly. The most frequent in cases of unknown cause were those affecting the nervous system (61% of associated defects), including neural tube defects (13%). The US National Birth Defects Prevention Network suggests excluding microcephaly associated with neural tube defects, holoprosencephaly, craniosynostosis, and conjoined twins.5 We favour broader inclusion criteria, especially in light of the evolving understanding of the full spectrum of defects that may be associated with congenital Zika infection. One in five definite or probable cases of congenital Zika syndrome in a large case series from Brazil were associated with brain abnormalities in infants without microcephaly, suggesting that surveillance should not focus on microcephaly alone.22 Other defects associated with Zika infection include intracranial calcifications, craniofacial malformations, severe arthrogryposis, and eye defects.23 WARDA includes each of these in its data collection.

Zika virus is the first mosquito-borne virus associated with human birth defects, and is also sexually transmissible. A recent editorial in the MJA24 highlighted the robust Australian systems that enable rapid responses to newly identified communicable diseases, but our capacity for monitoring birth defects was not discussed. Medical practitioners have been advised to ask pregnant women about their recent travel history and to offer testing to those who have visited Zika-affected areas. Birth defect registries that record the causes of birth defects are therefore likely to capture cases of microcephaly or other defects associated with Zika virus exposure in returned travellers. Our capacity to detect changes in the prevalence of microcephaly caused by local transmission of the virus is less clear, as infection is frequently asymptomatic, and the collection of data on birth defects in this country is not standardised, with wide variability between states in case ascertainment.14

As remote regions in Northern Australia either already harbour or are at risk of harbouring A. aegypti mosquitoes, enhanced monitoring of birth defects in these areas (and also of FASD) is important. The Australian Paediatric Surveillance Unit project for the surveillance of microcephaly in infants under 12 months of age is important for responding to the challenges of geographically equitable case ascertainment.25

Attempts to standardise state and territory birth defects data collections have been unsuccessful.26 In the absence of national data, our study provides a useful baseline for measuring changes in microcephaly prevalence, and highlights important matters for consideration by other jurisdictions reviewing their birth defects surveillance systems.

Box 1 –
Prevalence of microcephaly (per 10 000 births) by cause and Aboriginal status of the mother, Western Australia, 1980–2009

Cause

All cases


Aboriginal


Non-Aboriginal


Prevalence ratio (95% CI)

Number

Prevalence (95% CI)

Number

Prevalence (95% CI)

Number

Prevalence (95% CI)


Total number of cases

416

5.5(4.95–6.02)

91

21(16.5–25.2)

325

4.5(4.05–5.05)

4.5(3.55–5.73)

Unknown cause

230 (55%)

3.0(2.64–3.44)

27

6.1(4.01–8.86)

203

2.8(2.46–3.25)

2.2(1.38–3.22)

Known cause

186 (45%)

2.4(2.10–2.82)

64

14(11.11–18.43)

122

1.7(1.41–2.03)

8.5(6.17–11.6)

Chromosomal

47 (11%)

0.62(0.45–0.82)

5

1.1(0.37–2.63)

42

0.59(0.42–0.79)

1.9(0.59–4.86)

Monogenic

54 (13%)

0.71(0.53–0.93)

5

1.1(0.37–2.63)

49

0.68(0.51–0.90)

1.6(0.51–4.12)

Environmental

53 (13%)

0.70(0.52–0.91)

49*

11(8.2–14.6)

< 5

0.06(0.01–0.14)

200(73–756)

Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder*

52

0.68(0.51–0.90)

49*

11(8.2–14.6)

< 5

0.04(0.01–0.12)

260(85–1320)

Infectious

29 (7%)

0.38(0.26–0.55)

6*

1.4(0.50–2.94)

23

0.32(0.20–0.48)

4.2(1.40–10.6)

Cytomegalovirus*

24

0.32(0.20–0.47)

5*

1.1(0.37–2.63)

19

0.26(0.16–0.41)

4.2(1.24–11.8)

Other infections

5

0.07(0.02–0.15)

< 5

0.22(0.01–1.26)

< 5

0.06(0.01–0.14)

4.0(0.08–40.8)

Other cause

< 5

0.05(0.01–0.14)

0

< 5

0.06(0.01–0.14)


* One child was diagnosed with both cytomegalovirus infection and fetal alcohol spectrum disorder.

Box 2 –
Prevalence of microcephaly in Western Australia, 1980–2015: overall prevalence, and prevalence of cases with and without associated anomalies*


* From 2009, there is less than 6 years’ follow-up of births, so that ascertainment of cases will be incomplete.

Box 3 –
Prevalence (per 10 000 births) of microcephaly in Western Australia, 1980–2009

All cases


Microcephaly of known cause


Microcephaly of unknown Cause


Number

Prevalence (95% CI)

Number

Prevalence (95% CI)

Number

Prevalence (95% CI)


All

416

5.5 (4.95–6.02)

186

2.4 (2.10–2.82)

230

3.0 (2.64–3.44)

Sex

Male

199

5.1 (4.41–5.85)

85

2.2 (1.74–2.69)

114

2.9 (2.41–3.51)

Female

216

5.8 (5.08–6.66)

101

2.7 (2.22–3.31)

115

3.1 (2.56–3.72)

Missing data

1

1

Aboriginal status of mother

Aboriginal

91

21 (16.52–25.2)

64

14 (11.11–18.4)

27

6.1 (4.01–8.86)

Non-Aboriginal

325

4.5 (4.05–5.05)

122

1.7 (1.41–2.03)

203

2.8 (2.46–3.25)

Residential location*

Metropolitan

261

4.8 (4.24–5.42)

103

1.9 (1.55–2.30)

158

2.9 (2.47–3.40)

Rural

74

5.2 (4.12–6.50)

31

2.2 (1.49–3.12)

43

3.0 (2.21–4.10)

Remote

81

11 (8.56–13.4)

52

6.9 (5.17–9.07)

29

3.9 (2.59–5.54)


* According to the postcode of the mother as recorded by WARDA at the time of her child’s birth. The eight WA Department of Health residential location categories were grouped into three classes: metropolitan; rural (Great Southern, South-West, Wheatbelt, Midwest Murchison); and remote (Kimberley, Pilbara–Gascoyne, Goldfields–Southeast).

Box 4 –
Association of microcephaly (of known and unknown cause) with other congenital anomalies, Western Australia, 1980–2009

All cases

Microcephaly of known cause

Microcephaly of unknown Cause


Total number of cases

416

186

230

Isolated microcephaly

81 (20%)

0

81 (35%)

Microcephaly associated with other defects

335 (80%)

186 (100%)

149 (65%)

Associated defects by diagnostic category

335

186

149

Nervous system, apart from microcephaly

141 (34%)

50 (27%)

91 (61%)

Neural tube defects

25 (6%)

6 (3%)

19 (13%)

Chromosomal

47 (11%)

47 (25%)

0

Cardiovascular

49 (12%)

29 (16%)

20 (13%)

Respiratory

15 (4%)

10 (5%)

5 (3%)

Gastrointestinal

48 (12%)

20 (11%)

28 (19%)

Musculoskeletal

72 (17%)

35 (19%)

37 (25%)

Urogenital

68 (16%)

43 (23%)

25 (17%)

Eye

36 (9%)

24 (13%)

12 (8%)

Ear, face, neck

8 (2%)

3 (2%)

5 (3%)

Integument

4 (1%)

2 (1%)

2 (1%)

Other major diagnoses

158 (38%)

142 (76%)

16 (11%)

Monogenic condition

58 (14%)

54 (29%)

4 (3%)

Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder

52 (12%)

52 (28%)

0


Box 5 –
Number of cases of microcephaly in Western Australia, 1980–2015, by age at diagnosis

Age at diagnosis

Follow-up period


At least 6 years (416 cases)


Less than 6 years (62 cases)

1980–1989

1990–1999

2000–2009

2010–2015


Prenatal

16 (12%)

25 (17%)

18 (13%)

18 (29%)

Within first month of life

47 (36%)

49 (33%)

40 (29%)

16 (26%)

> 1 month to 1 year

33 (26%)

26 (18%)

36 (26%)

16 (26%)

> 1 year to 3 years

16 (12%)

24 (16%)

27 (19%)

7 (11%)

> 3 years to 6 years

9 (7%)

19 (13%)

17 (12%)

3 (5%)

Post mortem

8 (6%)

4 (3%)

2 (1%)

2 (3%)


PM to address national conference

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull will address the Saturday morning session of the AMA National conference, as the event’s keynote speaker.

The 2017 AMA National Conference will take place at the Sofitel on Collins, Canberra, from 27-29 May.

National political and medical leaders and experts will present at this year’s conference to cover a diverse range of issues central to AMA members.  

The 2017 AMA National Conference Program will discuss and debate topical medical, political and ethical issues affecting health and care in Australia.

  • Tackling Obesity – will deliver opinion from a range of experts into the global obesity epidemic, including how AMA policy can help shape an effective and informed method of address by the Australian Government.
  • Threats Beyond Borders – is an interactive panel discussion on potential infectious diseases that could cross Australian borders and will explore the role of a National Centre for Disease Control (CDC).
  • Improving Australia’s organ donation rate – will examine ethical and practical considerations in how to match Australia’s leading global role of successful organ transplant outcomes with our need to increase organ donation rate.
  • Doctors’ Health and Wellbeing – will discuss emerging issues relating looking after doctors’ health during medical training and throughout their professional careers. The session will explore the success and otherwise of initiatives being implemented in this area.

Pre-conference masterclass on offer – Limited places only

In conjunction with the 2017 AMA National Conference, the Pam McLean Centre and will provide a pre-conference masterclass open to all doctors on Thursday 25 May, also held at the Sofitel on Collins, Melbourne.

The masterclass on ‘Dealing with Bad health News’ will be an interactive, evidence based full-day masterclass designed to provide a safe learning environment for participants to explore different communication approaches to help patients deal with bad health news.

Under the guidance of an expert facilitator, Professor Stewart Dunn (Director, Pam McLean Centre), participants will develop skills in interpreting human behaviour by improving the way they recognise, identify and respond to emotional reactions.

This is an accredited activity for RACGP Category 1 and ACRRM Core PDP points.

Pre-conference masterclass details are:

  • Time: 9:30 – 5:00 
  • Date: Thursday, May 25, 2017
  • Venue: Sofitel, 25 Collins Street, Melbourne, VIC 3000
  • Tickets: Conference attendees – $660, AMA members – $770, non-AMA members – $880

 For more information about the whole conference visit: https://natcon.ama.com.au/  

Mapping HIV virus for more effective treatment

Deakin University scientists, with support from CSIRO, have revealed for the first time the individual protein blocks that form the HIV virus.

It is hoped that the research will enable the development of effective and affordable new antivirals to treat millions of people living with HIV.

The exact way the virus formed had eluded scientist for the past 30 years so that current antivirals created only a partial understanding of how the pieces joined together.

“Inadequate supply of anti-HIV drugs in low- and middle-income countries has created an ideal breeding ground for the emergence of drug resistant HIV, which threatens the long-term effectiveness of patient care using existing anti-HIV agents,” said senior researcher Professor Johnson Mak, from Deakin University’s Centre for Molecular and Medical Research.

Professor Mak hoped his team’s work would go on to inform the development of new drugs that work by interfering with the formation of infectious virus particles – essentially blocking HIV from taking a hold on patients.

HIV continues to be a major global public health issue.  UNAIDs estimates in 2015, an estimated 36.7 million people were living with HIV, there were 2.1 million new infections worldwide and in the same year 1.1 million people died of AIDS-related illnesses.

The AMA this year launched its updated position statement on blood borne viruses (BBVs).  The statement expressed the AMA’s support for the availability of new, regularly evaluated treatments for BBVs. 

Further, it acknowledged that prevention, treatment, and management of BBVs is a public health priority that requires a coordinated and strategic policy response, with national leadership driving actions to sustain improvements in their prevention, detection, and treatment. A copy of the statement can be found at: position-statement/blood-borne-viruses-bbvs-2017      

Meredith Horne

UHT milk used to study age-related diseases

A new study on UHT milk jointly undertaken by ANU, CSIRO, University of Wollongong and international researchers is helping scientists to better understand Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and type 2 diabetes – opening the door to improved treatments for these age-related diseases.

The research examined how milk proteins changed structurally when heated briefly to around 140 degrees to produce UHT milk, causing the gelling phenomenon with long-term storage. 

These proteins are the same type of protein clusters found in plaque deposits in cases of Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s.

Fifty different diseases have been recognised as being associated with protein aggregation.

“Parkinson’s, dementia and type 2 diabetes are big problems for the ageing population in Australia and many other countries around the world,” said Professor John Carver from the ANU Research School of Chemistry.

“Any means we can understand these proteins, their structure and why they form amyloid fibrils has the potential for developing treatments.”

Aging relating diseases affect about 500 million people worldwide and is set to increase over the next 20 to 30 years. 

Population projections by the Australian Treasury forecasts the number of Australians aged 65 is increasing rapidly, from 2.5 million in 2002 to 6.2 million in 2042, or from 13 per cent of the population to 25 per cent.

The collaborative research was published in the published in the journal Small.  The research does not suggest UHT milk can cause these age-related diseases.

Meredith Horne

[Correspondence] Stoop to conquer: preventing stroke and dementia together

The timely editorial in The Lancet (Dec 3, p 2713)1 calls for a broadening of our approaches to dementia research. Treatment and prevention of cerebrovascular diseases appear to be the most obvious examples. Covert cerebrovascular disease can contribute to or trigger neurodegeneration. Alzheimer’s and other neurodegenerative diseases are common in the elderly, most of whom do not develop dementia. However, if an individual has a component of vascular disease, which occurs in 80% of patients with Alzheimer’s disease, it doubles the chances of developing dementia.

[Correspondence] Health systems resilience: meaningful construct or catchphrase?

Resilience is an emerging concept in the health systems discourse, further highlighted by infectious disease outbreaks including Ebola virus disease, Zika virus disease, and Middle East respiratory syndrome. However, the definition and exploration of resilience within health systems research remains a source of debate, as underscored at the recent 4th Global Symposium on Health Systems Research; Vancouver, BC, Canada; Nov 14–18, 2016.

Death from an untreatable infection may signal the start of the post-antibiotic era

The ASID perspective on the most important infectious diseases problem of 2017 and beyond

On 12 January 2017, the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that a woman in Nevada had died from an untreatable Gram-negative infection resistant to all available classes of antibiotics.1 The woman had sustained a fractured femur, complicated by osteomyelitis, while travelling in India, necessitating hospitalisation and intravenous antibiotic treatment. After returning to the US in mid-2016, she was admitted to hospital with systemic inflammatory response syndrome, probably secondary to a hip seroma that developed after the earlier surgery, and a pan-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae was isolated from a tissue specimen; the woman died of untreatable septic shock.

Although infections by antimicrobial-resistant organisms are now common, we and other infectious diseases physicians, microbiologists, and public health experts in Australia and around the world are deeply alarmed by this report, as it may herald a post-antibiotic era in which high level antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is widespread, meaning that common pathogens will be untreatable. Should this be the case, it would profoundly affect all areas of health care, and society. Simple childhood infections would once again be life-threatening events, major surgery would be associated with high mortality, chemotherapy for cancer and organ transplantation would no longer be possible.

There is increasing international recognition that AMR is one of the major public health problems of our time. An independent review of AMR prepared for the United Kingdom government recommended a global public awareness campaign, reducing unnecessary antibiotic use in agriculture, and providing incentives for both AMR diagnostics and new drug development.2 The authors of the report emphasised that these goals could not be achieved without the concerted participation of the United Nations and G20 group. In September 2016, the G20 declared AMR a serious threat to public health, economic growth, and global economic stability, and called for prudent antibiotic use and action to tackle AMR.3 The UN General Assembly held a special summit later the same month at which several countries affirmed national action plans for dealing with AMR.4

The Australian government has been proactive in its response to AMR, promptly forming the Australian Antimicrobial Resistance Prevention and Containment Steering Group, led by the secretaries of the federal Departments of Health and Agriculture. Australia’s first National Antimicrobial Resistance strategy was released in June 2015, supporting a “One Health” approach to mitigating AMR (that is, recognising that human, animal and environmental health are interrelated),5 and was soon followed by an implementation plan.6 Our challenge is to translate this plan “into swift, effective, life-saving actions across the human, animal and environmental health sectors”, as the Director-General of the World Health Organization, Margaret Chan, has urged.4

The per capita consumption of antibiotics by people in Australia is among the highest in the world.7 Australian prescribers and consumers need to reduce antibiotic use in both humans and animals. The National Health and Medical Research Council National Centre for Antimicrobial Stewardship is leading national initiatives to adapt human antimicrobial stewardship to busy clinical practices in both the hospital and community settings, with the aim of improving prescribing behaviour.8 The Royal Australasian College of Physicians and the Australasian Society for Infectious Diseases (ASID) have recently developed a list of the top five low value interventions in infectious diseases,9 as discussed by Spelman and colleagues in this issue.10 Four of the five recommendations are related to reducing antibiotic use in settings where they are of limited value: asymptomatic bacteriuria, leg ulcers without clinical infection, upper respiratory tract infections, and treating faecal pathogens in the absence of diarrhoea.9 The Australian Veterinary Association has released guidelines for the prescribing of veterinary antibiotics, but antimicrobial stewardship in animals and agriculture is yet to be established.11

To have an impact on AMR, we will need to address all its drivers in Australia, including unrestrained use of antibiotics and poor infection control in both humans and animals, the decline of antibiotic research and development, and the introduction of AMR by ingesting imported food products (eg, seafood and meat) that contain AMR organisms, particularly if antibiotics were employed during their production, and through international travel. Coordination of these actions will be critical, but also complex in Australia, as health departments, antimicrobial prescribing, and communicable diseases surveillance are regulated by state-based authorities, while the federal government regulates quarantine, biosecurity, and the licensing and subsidising of medicines. The Australian Medical Association has recently called for immediate establishment of an Australian National Centre for Disease Control, “with a national focus on current and emerging communicable disease threats, engaging in global health surveillance, health security, epidemiology and research”.12 Such a body could operate in a similar manner to the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), complementing and coordinating existing state- and territory-based activities.

The recent death from an untreatable infection in Nevada provides a preview of a future without effective antibiotics. A list of tangible actions against each of the drivers of AMR, coordinated across human and animal health and agriculture, must be an urgent priority. ASID, the Australian Society for Antimicrobials, and animal health societies will host government representatives and stakeholders in June 2017 at the second Australian AMR Summit in Melbourne, with the aim of drafting this action list.

Is Australia prepared for the next pandemic?

Pieces of the plan are in place, but we must continue to strengthen preparedness research capacity

Infectious diseases continue to threaten global health security,1 despite decades of advances in hygiene, vaccination and antimicrobial therapies. Population growth, widespread international travel and trade, political instability and climate change have caused rapid changes in human populations, wildlife and agriculture, in turn increasing the risk of infection transmission within and between countries and from animal species.2 New human pathogens have emerged, and previously “controlled” diseases have re-emerged or expanded their range.2 In the past decade alone, the global community has experienced infection outbreaks of pandemic influenza, Ebola and Zika viruses and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS).

Planning for an effective response to the next pandemic is complex and requires extensive engagement between public health experts, clinicians, diagnostic laboratory staff, general and at-risk communities and jurisdictional and federal agencies. An effective response also requires access to real-time data, management of uncertainty, clear and rapid communication, coordination and, importantly, strong leadership. Are all these pieces of the plan currently in place in Australia?

The 2009 influenza pandemic tested Australia’s capacity to respond to a highly transmissible emerging infectious disease.3 Public health units and frontline practitioners around the country were affected in different ways. The pandemic reached our states and territories at different times, leading to staggered and varied responses and pointing to clear gaps and challenges in logistics and governance. Although higher than usual rates of hospitalisation and intensive care admission, particularly among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and pregnant women, were observed early in the pandemic, most cases were mild.3 As the spectrum of disease became apparent, the existing plan, which had been based on a Spanish influenza-like worst-case scenario, was modified. The focus shifted from containing or limiting the spread of disease at a whole-of-population level to mitigation strategies targeted at key risk groups.3

Alongside their roles as primary effectors of response, frontline clinical, public health and laboratory staff were required to gather key information to inform best practice. At the same time, surge capacity was limited. Given the requirement for comprehensive laboratory testing to support diagnosis and case management in the initial phases, laboratory resources in the states affected early in the pandemic were stretched beyond their limits.4 Antivirals were available but sub-optimally deployed in some areas.4 It was therefore not possible to determine the impact of antivirals on rates of hospitalisation, the need for critical care, or death in Australia, as was reported elsewhere.5 As in other settings, the pandemic vaccine only became available after the “first wave”. However, a 20% increase in the proportion of the population with antibodies to the pandemic strain, which was associated with vaccine uptake, likely contributed to low levels of disease activity in the 2010 influenza season.6

In keeping with similar exercises globally,7 the Review of Australia’s health sector response to pandemic (H1N1) 2009 identified a need for greater flexibility in implementation plans to achieve an optimal response.4 Improved data sharing and synthesis within and between jurisdictions and internationally was defined as a key priority, to enable better understanding of the situation and evolving needs, to advise evidence-based practice and to inform clear, consistent messaging. The review also recommended development of a set of overarching ethical principles, to guide resource allocation in alignment with community expectations and values and to identify feasible interventions that are not disproportionately disruptive to society (disruptive interventions include social distancing measures such as school and workplace closures or travel restrictions). Failure to engage key populations at risk, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, in preparedness activities before the 2009 pandemic was recognised as a critical deficiency.4

Much has happened since 2009. The Australian health management plan for pandemic influenza, redrafted in 2014, is a nationally agreed plan for flexible and scalable responses in the health sector. It was developed in consultation with key stakeholders, including state and territory health departments and practitioner groups involved in implementing responses.8 The plan emphasises engaging with existing committees and practitioners to provide input to decision making under the leadership of the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee (AHPPC), the key decision maker in a national health emergency. Pandemic response phases and key responsibilities in Australia, as outlined in the plan, are summarised in Box 1 and described in detail elsewhere.9 The AHPPC is advised by two expert standing committees — the Communicable Diseases Network Australia and the Public Health Laboratory Network, on which states and territories are represented by their chief health officers — and by practitioner groups including the General Practice Roundtable and National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation. The plan’s recommendations on the use of infection control measures and pharmaceuticals, including antivirals and vaccines, are based on a wealth of national and international evidence emerging from the 2009 experience.8 Corresponding efforts have gone into strengthening the National Medical Stockpile and ensuring onshore vaccine manufacturing capacity to safeguard against the emergence of novel influenza strains.

However, influenza is not the only threat to Australia’s health security. Recent outbreaks of MERS and Ebola and Zika virus infections have provided opportunities for the AHPPC and key stakeholders to practise and refine coordination and communication strategies to prevent, prepare for and respond to threats posed to Australians. These new threats highlighted the need to develop response plans that are agile, can be adapted to known and unknown pathogens and syndromes and are well coordinated with international responses. The CDPLAN: Emergency response plan for communicable disease incidents of national significance, released in September 2016, provides a generic national framework for a primary response to outbreaks for which there is no pre-existing disease-specific plan.10 This plan is supported by the National framework for communicable disease control,11 a roadmap to improve national information sharing and facilitate a coordinated response to events of public health importance.

Research readiness to identify and generate key information needed in health emergencies is also crucial. The World Health Organization’s research and development blueprint, released in May 2016, draws on lessons learned from past responses to improve preparedness and reduce the time needed to make diagnostics, therapeutics and vaccines available.12 Three main approaches are required: improved coordination and an enabling environment; acceleration of research and development processes; and new norms and standards tailored to the epidemic context.12 Both pre-emptive and responsive efforts are needed. Establishment of the Global Research Collaboration for Infectious Disease Preparedness has enabled global financial support for both. This collaboration is a network of organisations that fund research,13 of which Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) is a member.

The NHMRC has recently funded four centres of research excellence (CREs) that are focused on effective information acquisition and use, laboratory diagnostics, clinical trials, modelling and community engagement. All will contribute to Australia’s emergency response to infectious diseases (Box 2). One of these CREs, the Australian Partnership for Preparedness Research on Infectious Disease Emergencies (APPRISE), was funded under a novel paradigm in July 201614 — the requirement to complete an initial, broad stakeholder consultation to achieve an agreed research plan. Central to this consultation is the development of ethical frameworks to support implementation of an emergency response, with clear emphasis on planning with (not for) key populations, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Pre-emptive activities undertaken by the four complementary CREs will promote collaboration and information sharing between researchers, frontline responders and the community, including developing pre-approved protocols for emergency response research and implementation. This process will accelerate development and testing of novel diagnostics and therapeutic interventions; facilitate rapid acquisition, collation and interpretation of clinical and epidemiological data to support decision making; and, ultimately, enhance emergency responses.

The networks established by these CREs recognise the need for an interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral approach to preparedness research and are developing local skills and capacity to support emergency responses. Critically, they represent a focal point of engagement with similar international efforts, including PREPARE (Platform for European Preparedness against [Re-]emerging Epidemics; https://www.prepare-europe.eu) in Europe, and the REACTing (Research and action targeting emerging infectious diseases) consortium in France.15 Such links enable rapid information sharing and synthesis to inform local responses. They also facilitate participation in multinational clinical trials of sufficient power to rapidly determine effectiveness of novel infection control, therapeutic and preventive interventions, including vaccines. Equally important is the trilateral engagement between researchers, public health practitioners and policy makers in defining the research agenda. Priority needs are linked to training programs, ensuring that research activities and skills feed into ongoing policy and practice.

We are unable to predict when the next pandemic will occur or which new pathogen may appear, emphasising that every country must be well prepared. Australia has many pieces of the plan in place, but we must continue to fill gaps, test and refine existing systems and continually review what works to make sure we are as ready as possible for the next emerging infectious disease challenge. Louis Pasteur once said, “Gentlemen, it is the microbes who will have the last word”. We need to ensure that he was wrong!

Box 1 –
Pandemic response phases and key responsibilities defined by the Australian health management plan for pandemic influenza,8 superimposed on a representative epidemic curve


The AHPPC coordinates the national response under the leadership of the CMO, and the PHLN and CDNA provide critical capability to support and inform the response.

AHPPC = Australian Health Protection Principal Committee. CDNA = Communicable Diseases Network Australia. CMO = Chief Medical Officer. ED = emergency department. PHLN = Public Health Laboratory Network. WHO = World Health Organization.

Box 2 –
Current NHMRC centres of research excellence (CREs) engaged in emergency infectious diseases preparedness research*

Centre of research excellence

Stated goals


Centre of Research Excellence in Emerging Infectious Diseases (CREID)http://www.creid.org.au

  • Develop and integrate new technologies, including profiling the entire gene complement of microorganisms and creating new electronic communication platforms to improve the precision and speed of public health responses
  • Develop ethics research-based policy frameworks to enable implementation of these technologies into public health practice and policy

Centre of Research Excellence, Integrated Systems for Epidemic Response (ISER)https://sphcm.med.unsw.edu.au/centres-units/centre-research-excellence-epidemic-response

  • Conduct cross-sectoral collaborative research and engagement
  • Convene and lead multidisciplinary systems research in epidemic response across health, government, international law and security, at both national and international levels

Centre of Research Excellence in Policy Relevant Infectious Diseases Simulation and Mathematical Modelling (PRISM)http://prism.edu.au

  • Develop new methods for the study of disease distribution and transmission using expertise in infectious disease epidemiology, public health and mathematical and computational modelling

Australian Partnership for Preparedness Research on Infectious Disease Emergencies (APPRISE)https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/media/releases/2016/infectious-disease-emergency-response-research-funding

  • Support a single, multidisciplinary, nationally focused team who will establish a collaborative network to undertake infectious disease emergency response research in the Australian health system
  • Lead a cohesive approach to priority setting for infectious disease emergency response research
  • Conduct research in accordance with these priorities
  • Facilitate rapid Australian research responses to urgent infectious disease threats

NHMRC = National Health and Medical Research Council. * Information sourced from the NHMRC website (https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/grants-funding/research-funding-statistics-and-data), CRE websites and funding applications, where available.