A 55-year-old woman presented with a non-healing, painless pigmented macule with a superficial ulceration on the left planta, which she said had been there for 6 months. She could not recall any history of trauma and did not report any family history of cutaneous diseases. On physical examination, an irregular pigmented macule with a superficial ulceration and brown haemorrhagic crusts was observed on the left plantar near the heel (figures). A skin biopsy showed a malignant melanoma and immunohistochemical examination of biopsied tissue sections showed positive staining for melanoma associated antigens using the antibodies HMB-45, Melan-A, and S100.
Understanding the complex interaction of risk factors that increase the likelihood of developing common diseases is challenging. The Canadian Partnership for Tomorrow Project (CPTP) is a prospective cohort study created as a population-health research platform for assessing the effect of genetics, behaviour, family health history and environment (among other factors) on chronic diseases.
METHODS:
Volunteer participants were recruited from the general Canadian population for a confederation of 5 regional cohorts. Participants were enrolled in the study and core information obtained using 2 approaches: attendance at a study assessment centre for all study measures (questionnaire, venous blood sample and physical measurements) or completion of the core questionnaire (online or paper), with later collection of other study measures where possible. Physical measurements included height, weight, percentage body fat and blood pressure. Participants consented to passive follow-up through linkage with administrative health databases and active follow-up through recontact. All participant data across the 5 regional cohorts were harmonized.
RESULTS:
A total of 307 017 participants aged 30–74 from 8 provinces were recruited. More than half provided a venous blood sample and/or other biological sample, and 33% completed physical measurements. A total of 709 harmonized variables were created; almost 25% are available for all participants and 60% for at least 220 000 participants.
INTERPRETATION:
Primary recruitment for the CPTP is complete, and data and biosamples are available to Canadian and international researchers through a data-access process. The CPTP will support research into how modifiable risk factors, genetics and the environment interact to affect the development of cancer and other chronic diseases, ultimately contributing evidence to reduce the global burden of chronic disease.
GBD 2016 provides a more detailed understanding of past success and current challenges in improving personal health-care access and quality worldwide. Despite substantial gains since 2000, many low-SDI and middle-SDI countries face considerable challenges unless heightened policy action and investments focus on advancing access to and quality of health care across key health services, especially non-communicable diseases. Stagnating or minimal improvements experienced by several low-middle to high-middle SDI countries could reflect the complexities of re-orienting both primary and secondary health-care services beyond the more limited foci of the Millennium Development Goals.
An infectious disease outbreak in south India that has left at least 16 people dead has brought the world’s attention to a little-known health threat: the Nipah virus. An emerging zoonotic virus whose natural host is the Pteropus fruit bat, Nipah virus was first recognised in the late 1990s when an outbreak in pigs in Malaysia and Singapore moved to humans, killing 106 people.
Winter has started, and with it, flu season. Inevitably, all of us (young, old and sick) have been implored to be immunised against influenza, with some eligible for a subsidised vaccine. And people are heeding the message, to the point that there is now a shortage of available vaccines.
At the same time, findings from three important Cochrane reviews on the effectiveness of the influenza vaccination aren’t consistent with the advice we’re been given.
Cochrane reviews are independent systematic reviews, which are comprehensive analyses of most of the literature relevant to a research topic. Cochrane reviews summarise the results in a multitude of studies, and are regularly updated to absorb new research.
These three Cochrane reviews have been recently updated, as well as stabilised, which is what happens when it looks as if it seems unlikely new research would be published that would change the conclusions.
What the reviews found
The first Cochrane review looked at the effects of the influenza vaccine in healthy adults from 25 studies conducted over single influenza seasons in North America, South America, and Europe between 1969 and 2009. It found the vaccine reduced the chance of getting laboratory confirmed influenza from 23 cases out of 1,000 to 9 cases out of 1,000.
While this seems to be a reduction of more than 50%, that seems less optimistic expressed in absolute terms.
The infection rate in adults drops from 2% per year to 1%. You could say that’s halved, but it effectively only drops by 1%. So this means that out of every 100 healthy adults vaccinated, 99 get no benefit against laboratory confirmed influenza.
The second Cochrane review – which looked at trials in children over single influenza seasons in the US, Western Europe, Russia, and Bangladesh between 1984 and 2013 – found similar results.
The third Cochrane review looked at vaccines for the elderly in nursing homes. It found much less good evidence, with only one randomised trial – considered the gold standard in clinical trials as it establishes causation rather than correlation.
While observational studies (that draw inferences from a population to establish associations) have been done to show benefits of the vaccines, bias means we cannot rely on their results.
There are also potential harms from influenza vaccines noted in the reviews. They range from serious (a neurological disease called Guillain Barre) through to moderate (fevers, in children especially – some of which will cause febrile convulsions), and trivial (a sore arm for a couple of days).
Why are we so scared of the flu?
There is a special concern about influenza from a public health point of view. This comes about from its potential to cause pandemics. The first in modern history was the Spanish influenza pandemic of 1918-19, when tens of millions of people died worldwide.
There’s good evidence to show face masks protect against influenza. from shutterstock.com
There have also been been several, less severe pandemics. These include the most recent swine flu that, although while affecting some (unexpected) groups of people (including pregnant women, those who were obese, and had asthma), caused little more effect on the overall population than the usual seasonal influenza.
Public health experts worry about another pandemic that can be more harmful and contagious, which could be devastating. But it’s important to note the vast majority of deaths from Spanish influenza were from secondary bacterial infections and predated the antibiotic era.
The reasons influenza virus has this ability to cause new pandemics comes from its instability – it changes genetically easily, making it more difficult for our immune systems to recognise newer strains. The effect is that new vaccines must be prepared every year for a best-guess at next year’s virus, and we need vaccination every year.
Influenza can also undergo a more radical change, such as when a new form of the virus emerges from an animal host (wild or domesticated birds or pigs, for example). This moving target makes it more difficult to vaccinate against – especially with the genetic shifts of pandemics. Just when we need protection most, vaccines can provide it least.
So what, if not the vaccine?
There are physical barriers that can prevent the spread of influenza. These are the masks (to reduce the spread of aerosol-borne virus particles), hand washing (to reduce the spread if virus from hands onto shared surfaces), and quarantine measures (isolating infected people to reduce their infectivity).
There is now reasonable evidence such measures reduce infections considerably. It might take a bit of effort to change the psyche of Australians to make wearing a facemask acceptable if you have an acute respiratory infection. Even the heroic “soldiering on to work” (or school) with your virus needs to be reversed as a public health act.
Last week, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) joined forces with the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) to release public health guidance on the prevention and control of communicable diseases in prisons. Aimed at planners and providers of health care for people over the age of 18 years in prison, the report documents the evidence behind active case finding options for the high-burden communicable diseases hepatitis B and C, HIV, other sexually transmitted infections, and tuberculosis.
The economic burden on households of non-communicable diseases (NCDs), including cardiovascular diseases, cancer, respiratory diseases, and diabetes, poses major challenges to global poverty alleviation efforts. For patients with NCDs, being uninsured is associated with 2–7-fold higher odds of catastrophic levels of out-of-pocket costs; however, the protection offered by health insurance is often incomplete. To enable coverage of the predictable and long-term costs of treatment, national programmes to extend financial protection should be based on schemes that entail compulsory enrolment or be financed through taxation.
The global burden of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) is growing, and there is an urgent need to estimate the costs and benefits of an investment strategy to prevent and control NCDs. Results from an investment-case analysis can provide important new evidence to inform decision making by governments and donors. We propose a methodology for calculating the economic benefits of investing in NCDs during the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) era, and we applied this methodology to cardiovascular disease prevention in 20 countries with the highest NCD burden.
Five Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) set targets that relate to the reduction of health inequalities nationally and worldwide. These targets are poverty reduction, health and wellbeing for all, equitable education, gender equality, and reduction of inequalities within and between countries. The interaction between inequalities and health is complex: better economic and educational outcomes for households enhance health, low socioeconomic status leads to chronic ill health, and non-communicable diseases (NCDs) reduce income status of households.
Last week, WHO released its first Essential Diagnostics List. Designed to complement the Essential Medicines list first released over 40 years ago, the list defines an essential package of diagnostic tests for use in primary care and laboratory settings. 58 of these tests are aimed at supporting the diagnosis and monitoring of common conditions such as cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, and anaemia, and 55 tests are targeted at high priority diseases including HIV, hepatitis B and C, and malaria.