Articles

Read the latest articles relevant to your clinical practice, including exclusive insights from Healthed surveys and polls.

By reading selected clinical articles, you earn CPD in the Educational Activities (EA) category whenever you click the “Claim CPD” button and follow the prompts. 

Emeritus Prof Simon Chapman AO

Using prescription drugs or over-the-counter products like gums, mints or patches won’t increase your chances of quitting smoking a year later, according to a new study. The US researchers followed two groups of people 2002/03 and 2010/11 and found at the end of the 12-month period, those using varenicline (sold in Australia as Champix), bupropion (Zyban), or nicotine-replacement therapy (gums, mints or patches) were no more likely to have quit smoking for 30 days or more than those who didn’t use these drugs.
Read more – Weekly Dose: Champix’s effectiveness is questionable and safety record is concerning

Evidence based smoking cessation?

We’re told the best way to quit smoking is to use an “evidence-based” method: a strategy supported by high-quality research evidence. And for the last 30 or so years, this has been nicotine-replacement therapy, bupropion (Zyban) and varenicline (Champix), which claim to increase (and sometimes double) your chance of success. In the hierarchy of evidence, the lowest form is anecdote or case studies (“I smoked for 20 years, then an alternative therapist sprinkled magic powder on me, and the next day I stopped smoking!”). These cannot withstand the most elementary critical appraisal, starting with the basic question of how many similar smokers sprinkled with the powder kept smoking and how many who went nowhere it also stopped smoking. Far higher up the evidence pyramid is the double-blinded, randomised controlled trial (RCTs). In these, both the person taking the treatment and those delivering it are unware of who is taking the active drug and who is taking the comparison placebo or comparison drug. All enrolled in RCTs are randomly allocated to the active or placebo/comparison groups. The numbers of participants are sufficiently large enough to allow for an outcome to be declared statistically significant (or not) above a chance finding.
Read more – Randomised control trials: what makes them the gold standard in medical research?
Some have tried to dismiss earlier findings about the poor performance of nicotine-replacement therapy by emphasising “indication bias”. In the real world, those who opt to use medications to try to quit are likely to be more intractable smokers, more highly addicted to nicotine, and with histories of failure at quitting unaided. No one should therefore be surprised if they fail more often than those who try to quit on their own. In this new study, this issue was anticipated and all smokers were assessed by what the study authors called a “propensity to quit” score. This score accounts for factors such as smoking intensity, nicotine dependence, their quitting history, self-efficacy to quit, and whether they lived in a smoke-free home where quitting would likely be more supported. In the analysis, those who tried to quit with drugs and those who didn’t were matched on this propensity score, so “like with like” could be compared in the analysis. The findings held even when these “propensity” to quit factors were taken into account.

RCTs are very different to real world use

Critics have long pointed out that RCTs have many features which make them a pale shadow of how drugs are used in the real world. RCTs often exclude people with mental illness, poor English, and no fixed address. Excluding hard-to-reach and treat participants is likely to produce more flattering results. In the real world, people are not paid or otherwise incentivised to keep taking the drugs across the full period of the trial, so compliance is almost always far lower. In the real world, people do not get reminder calls, texts or visits from researchers highly motivated to minimise trial drop-out. There is no “Hawthorne effect”: when trial involvement and the attention paid to participants alters the outcomes. Nicotine-addicted people generally know very quickly if they have been allocated to the placebo arm in NRT trials because their brains feel deprived of nicotine. They invariably experience unpleasant symptoms. Knowing they have been allocated to the placebo undermines the integrity of the trial because it is important participants believe the drug might be effective. Large, real world studies like the one just published, which assess long-term success, not just end-of-treatment or short-term results, are therefore of most importance in assessing effectiveness. These new data ought to cause such rhetoric to cool right down. As for the evidence on e-cigarettes in quitting, neither the US Preventive Health Services Task Force, nor the UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence or Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council, have endorsed e-cigarettes as an effective way of quitting smoking.
Read more: Want to quit smoking? Switching to e-cigarettes no advantage
Quitting smoking is the single most important thing anyone can do to reduce the likelihood they will get heart or lung disease, and a whole string of cancers. It has been in the clear interests of the pharmaceutical and, more recently, the vaping (e-cigarette) industries, to promote the notion that anyone who tries to quit alone is the equivalent of someone with pneumonia refusing antibiotics. Hundreds of millions around the world have quit smoking without using any pharmaceutical intervention. Before nicotine-replacement therapies became available in the 1980s, many millions of smokers successfully quit smoking without using any drug or nicotine substitute. The same still happens today: most ex-smokers quit by going cold turkey. The ConversationThe problem is, in recent years, the government has moth-balled the national quit campaign, the megaphone for promoting this very positive message. Commercial interests are now commodifying something millions have always done for themselves. Simon Chapman, Emeritus Professor in Public Health, University of Sydney This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
Dr Linda Calabresi

Breast cancer survival has improved dramatically over the last few decades. Courtesy of earlier diagnosis and better treatments, five year survival has increased from 70% in the 1980s to 90%, says Melbourne medical oncologist, Dr Jacqueline Chirgwin in the latest issue of the MJA. It is little wonder then that there is now increased focus on the ongoing general health in this ever-growing population of breast cancer survivors. “Although breast cancer is worldwide the most common cancer in women, many, perhaps most patients die from other causes,” she says. Dr Chirgwin’s comments are in relation to an Australian study, published in the same issue of the journal which showed comorbid conditions are more likely to develop in women who have been diagnosed with hormone-dependent breast cancer than in women without cancer. The South Australian researchers reached this conclusion after analysing a random sample of PBS data from a cohort of women who commenced endocrine therapy at some time in the eight years from 2004 and compared that with age and sex matched controls who weren’t taking anti-cancer treatment. Conditions significantly more likely to develop in the breast cancer women included depression, pain or pain-inflammation, osteoporosis, diabetes, cardiovascular disorders and gastric acid disorders. As the study authors point out there are a number of very logical reasons why these conditions are more likely in this particular group of women. For example it is hardly surprising that someone given a diagnosis of breast cancer might subsequently develop depression and be prescribed antidepressants. Similarly a number of the cancer medications may contribute to comorbidities such as cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis and musculoskeletal pain, in addition menopausal hormone therapy is contraindicated. In addition some risk factors for breast cancer are the same risk factors for other chronic conditions such as heart disease and diabetes, namely excessive alcohol consumption, obesity and physical inactivity. And while the findings might not be all that surprising, the researchers suggest that we are missing a major opportunity to target this at-risk group in a manner which will ultimately improve their health outcome, independent of the breast cancer. “As most women diagnosed with breast cancer in Australia can now be cured, the burden of non-cancer comorbidities is becoming a major health concern for these patients, but this is still largely unrecognised. Future breast cancer research should focus on strategies that effectively respond to the burden imposed by these comorbidities,” they concluded. Ref: MJA doi:10.5694/mja17.00006 doi:10.5694/mja17.00938

Dr Linda Calabresi

Skin abscesses are best treated with incision and drainage plus antibiotics, rather than just incision and drainage alone, recommends an international guideline panel in the BMJ. After critically appraising all the current evidence, the panel found adjuvant antibiotic therapy in addition to incision and drainage of uncomplicated skin abscesses reduced the risk of treatment failure and abscess recurrence by approximately 13% compared to treatment without additional antibiotics. In particular the randomised controlled trials included in the review, were evaluating the use of clindamycin or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX) in addition to incision and drainage. “TMP-SMX or clindamycin modestly reduces pain and treatment failure and probably reduces abscess recurrence, but increases the risk of adverse effects including nausea and diarrhoea,” they said. TMP-SMX is the more preferable option over clindamycin as it is less likely to cause diarrhoea, they added. The recommendation is in contrast to most of the current guidelines that generally advise uncomplicated skin abscesses be treated with incision and drainage alone except in cases where there is systemic illness, extensive tissue damage, immunocompromising conditions, an artificial joint or a high risk of endocarditis. And while the panel concedes that the benefit of adjuvant antibiotic therapy is modest, they anticipate that most fully informed patients would consider it large enough to choose it over incision and drainage alone. Of course, the major counter argument against increasing antibiotic use would be the possible increased risk of antimicrobial resistance. “From a societal perspective, it is possible that the modest benefits from adjuvant antibiotics in this scenario would not outweigh the risk of antimicrobial resistance in the community,” they said. However, the impact of a single course of antibiotics on this public health problem remains unknown, so any conclusion about net benefit versus net harm can only be speculative, they concluded, even though the issues are worth considering as part of the shared decision making. The panel also considered evidence for using cephalosporins for adjuvant treatment of skin abscesses, however they concluded that this class of antibiotics was unlikely to provide any benefit over incision and drainage in the majority of cases of skin abscesses, and therefore could not be recommended. Ref: BMJ 2018; 360: k243 doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k243

Dr Linda Calabresi

In what will be seen as a blow to cryptic crossword compilers the world over, it appears wealth is a better determinant of whether you keep your marbles than education. In a UK prospective study of over 6000 adults aged over 65 years, researchers found those people in the lowest quintile in terms of socioeconomic status were almost 70% more likely to get dementia than those categorised to be in the top fifth, over a 12 year follow-up period. Depressingly, this finding held true regardless of education level. “This longitudinal cohort study found that wealth in late life, but not education, was associated with increased risk of dementia, suggesting people with fewer financial resources were at higher risk,” the study authors said. On further analysis, researchers found the association between wealth, or the lack thereof and dementia was even more pronounced in the younger participants in the cohort. So what did the researchers think was the reason behind the link between poverty and dementia? One explanation was that having money allowed one to access more mentally stimulating environments including cultural resources (reading, theatre etc) and increased social networks that might help preserve cognitive function. While on the flip side, poverty (or ‘persistent socioeconomic disadvantage’ as the authors describe it) affects physiological functioning, increasing the risk of depression, vascular disease and stroke – all known risk factors for dementia. Other factors such as poor diet and lack of exercise also appear to more common among poorer people in the community. All this seems fairly logical, but what of the lack of a protective effect of education? Well, the researchers think this might be a particularly British phenomenon in this age group. “This might be a specific cohort effect in the English population born and educated in the period surrounding the World War II,” they suggested. A number of other studies have shown other results, with some, including the well-respected Canadian Study of Health and Aging-  showing the complete opposite – education protects against dementia. Consequently, the authors of this study, published in JAMA Psychiatry, hypothesise that perhaps this cohort of patients may have been unable to access higher education because of military service or financial restrictions but were able to access intellectually challenging jobs after the war. All in all, the study is an observational one and it is possible there are a number of confounding factors from smoking to availability of medical care that play a role in why poorer people are at greater risk of dementia. And while the researchers are not advocating older people give up their Bridge game and just buy lottery tickets, it would seem money is useful, if not for happiness, then at least for preserving brain power. Ref: JAMA Psychiatry doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2018.1012

Prof Adam Watkins

ON THE PILL: In this seven-part series we explore the history, myths, side-effects and alternatives of the pill, and why it’s the most popular form of contraception in Australia.
The female contraceptive pill has helped millions of women take control of their fertility and reproductive health since it became available in 1961. Yet a male equivalent has yet to be fully developed. This effectively leaves men with only two viable contraceptive options: condoms or a vasectomy. The idea of creating a male contraceptive has been around almost as long as the female contraceptive. In theory, targeting the production of sperm should be a simple process. The biology of sperm production and how they swim towards the egg are well understood. Yet, studies aimed at developing an effective male pill have been dogged by issues such as severe side effects. Most recently, a study that injected men with the hormones testosterone and progestogen – similar to hormones found in the female pill – had to be stopped early.
Read more: Why the male 'pill' is still so hard to swallow
The study, from 2016, showed pregnancy rates for female partners of men receiving the injections fell below that typically seen for women on the pill. But the study was cut short due to reports of adverse side effects including acne, mood disorders and raised libido. For the men taking part, these side effects proved too severe for them to continue, despite the desired drop in sperm production. However, many people may see these side effects as relatively minor compared to those suffered by women on the pill, which include anxiety, weight gain, nausea, headaches, reduced libido and blood clots. Male contraceptives have been under development for at least 50 years. However, the drive to bring a male contraceptive onto the market has stalled for two main reasons. First, there is a general pessimism of men towards taking a contraceptive pill, especially in countries such as India. Second, the global success of the female pill provides little incentive for pharmaceuticals to invest in a male pill. Globally, the female pill is the third most-used form of contraception, with a projected market value of nearly US$23 billion by 2023. Despite these setbacks, a new way of thinking about male contraception is taking shape. Here, the focus has shifted from stopping sperm production to stopping the sperm being able to fertilise the egg.

The clean sheet pill

The clean sheet pill effectively works as its name suggests: preventing the release of sperm. The clean sheet pill has two main selling points. First, by preventing the release of sperm and the fluid they are carried in, the clean sheet pill simultaneously prevents unwanted pregnancy and the spread of sexually-transmitted infections. Second, because the pill does not affect the feeling of orgasm, there is no reduction in male sexual pleasure. Unfortunately, the clean sheet pill has so far only been tested in animals. As such, a version for human use is probably ten years away from being developed.

Vasalgel

One of the downsides of a vasectomy is that it can render a man permanently sterile. However, the recent development of a product call Vasalgel may offer men a serious alternative to a vasectomy. Vasalgel is a long-term, non-hormonal yet reversible form of contraception. This offers benefits over both hormonal contraceptives with their side effects as well as the permanency of a vasectomy. Vasalgel is polymer that is injected into the vas deferens, the tube that carries sperm from the testes. This allows the movement of fluid, but stops the passage of sperm.
Read more: A new male contraceptive could help men bear the family planning burden
In a trial in monkeys, Vasagel was found to be 100% effective at preventing conception. In separate studies in animals, the effect of Vasagel was easily reversed with a simple second injection to dissolve the polymer. If these effects are replicated in men, this could offer a low-cost, minimally invasive and effective contraceptive that is also reversible.

Heart-stopping poisons

A deadly, heart-stopping poison might not sound like a good starting point for a new male contraceptive. However, researchers have shown that a toxic compound call oubain can be be used to slow down the swimming of sperm. Researchers already knew that oubain could affect male fertility. But the cardio toxic effects of oubain prevented scientists from exploring its effects on male reproduction in any detail. By modifying the structure of the oubain molecule, researchers showed it can be used to reduce the motility (ability to swim) of rat sperm while being non-toxic to the heart.

Research and development

While research into male contraceptives have been ongoing for nearly 50 years, we still seem to be at least “five to ten years away” from an effective male pill.
Read more: We won't have a male contraceptive until we change our understanding of risk
Potential new targets for male contraceptives are being developed and tested scientifically all the time. However, without the significant input and push from big pharmaceutical companies, these discoveries may never see the light of day. The ConversationWith the cost of developing a new drug to market estimated at US$2.6 billion, the burden of family planning looks to remain firmly on the shoulders of women for now. Adam Watkins, Assistant Professor, University of Nottingham This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
Dr Joyce Wu

Glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) has been used for monitoring patients with established diabetes for many years but its diagnostic application is a more recent development. This article provides some background to the test, explains dual reporting of results and discusses the use of HbA1c in the diagnosis and monitoring of diabetes.

What is HbA1c?

Adult haemoglobin is predominantly (97% of total) HbA. HbA1c is formed when a glucose molecule non-enzymatically attaches to the N-terminal valine of the β-chain of HbA. The amount of HbA1c formed is directly proportional to the average plasma glucose concentration during the 120-day life span of the erythrocyte, with recent plasma glucose contributing more than earlier concentrations. HbA1c is therefore a reflection of the average glycaemia over roughly the preceding 6–8 weeks and has a vital role in assessing the risk of an individual developing the complications of diabetes.1

HbA1c for the diagnosis of diabetes mellitus

A 2012 position statement of the Australian Diabetes Society, the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia (RCPA) and the Australasian Association of Clinical Biochemists (AACB)2 contains the following:
  • HbA1c levels ≥6.5% (≥48 mmol/mol) are acceptable for diagnosing diabetes so long as the test is done in a laboratory and no conditions exist which preclude its accuracy.
  • In an asymptomatic patient with a positive result, the test should be repeated to confirm the diagnosis.
  • The existing criteria based on fasting and random glucose levels and on the oral glucose tolerance test remain valid and are the diagnostic tests of choice for gestational diabetes, type 1 diabetes and in the presence of conditions that interfere with HbA1c measurement.
The use of HbA1c simplifies the diagnostic process and may facilitate the detection of diabetes diagnosis. The test can be performed at any time of the day, does not require special pre-test preparation, such as a diet or fasting, and is stable when collected in the appropriate specimen tube. Testing should be restricted to patients at high risk of undiagnosed diabetes and who are asymptomatic.3 If one or more symptoms suggestive of diabetes are present in a low-risk patient, blood glucose tests should be used, because patients with rapidly evolving diabetes can have normal HbA1c. HbA1c <6.5% (<48mmol/mol) indicates that diabetes is unlikely but (since the patient is high-risk) the test should be repeated in 12 months. Patients should be given appropriate lifestyle advice and other modifiable cardiovascular risk factors should be assessed.3 There is uncertainty about the use of HbA1c to diagnose prediabetes. While patients with HbA1c above normal but below 6.5% (48 mmol/mol) are more likely to develop diabetes than is suggested by their AUSDRISK score alone, they have minimal risk of developing microvascular complications. Management is the same as for those at high risk of type 2 diabetes with HbA1c within the normal range.3 HbA1c ≥6.5% (≥48 mmol/mol) should be confirmed by another test (glucose or repeat HbA1c). Repeat HbA1c should be performed on a different day but as soon as possible, before any lifestyle or pharmacological interventions are initiated.3 It is important that clinicians state clearly the indication for the test when requesting HbA1c testing, with wording such as ‘diabetes monitoring’ or ‘diabetes screening’. This will allow the correct Medicare item number and interpretative comments to be used.

Individualisation of HbA1c treatment targets

In monitoring patients with established diabetes, the general target is ≤7.0% (≤53 mmol/mol). Individualisation of target HbA1c, taking into account patient-specific factors, such as type of diabetes and its duration, pregnancy, diabetes medication used, existing cardiovascular disease, risk of hypoglycaemia and comorbidities, may modify the target range from ≤6.0% (≤42 mmol/mol) to ≤8.0%(≤64 mmol/mol).4

Dual reporting of HbA1c

There are many assays for measuring HbA1c. For many years, the NGSP in the US and other national and regional programs harmonised HbA1c methods. This allowed valid, interlaboratory comparison of results. The NGSP uses percentage (%) units. The IFCC standardised glycated haemoglobin measurement by making it traceable to an international standard.5 The IFCC uses mmol/mol (mmol HbA1c per mol total Hb). The improved specificity of IFCC-HbA1c is reflected in results which are consistently 1.5%–2.0% lower than NGSP values.1 A 2007 consensus statement from the American Diabetes Association (ADA), European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD), IFCC and International Diabetes Federation (IDF) was adopted and implemented by Australasian laboratories.5 It recommended that HbA1c results be reported in both IFCC units (mmol/mol) and derived NGSP units (%) to allow clinicians to become familiar with IFCC results before reporting of NGSP % units is withdrawn. Currently, there is no agreement on when dual reporting will cease and hence HbA1c results are still reported with two units.

Conditions affecting HbA1c results

As HbA1c is simply haemoglobin with the addition of a glucose molecule, conditions that affect red blood cells or their survival time, such as haemoglobinopathies or anaemia, will affect the HbA1c result.3 Patients with abnormal haemoglobins may form other glycated products which may form at different rates to that of normal haemoglobin. Haemolytic anaemia can reduce HbA1c by decreasing red cell survival, leading to reduction in the availability of haemoglobin for glycation. This occurs with autoimmune haemolytic anaemia, haemoglobinopathies and chronic renal failure. Any drugs that give rise to haemolytic anaemia will have the same effect. Red cell survival time is also reduced in severe liver disease, anaemia of chronic disease, vitamin B12 and folic acid deficiencies, and regular phlebotomy. Interestingly, iron deficiency anaemia can increase HbA1c by up to 2%.1 There are alternative ways of monitoring diabetes treatment in these patients, including the use of closer glucose monitoring and fructosamine testing. Any discordance between glucose and HbA1c levels should alert the clinician so that other testing options should be considered.

Key points

When requesting HbA1c it is vital that the clinician specify clearly the indication for the test, for example, ‘diabetes monitoring’ or ‘diabetes screening’.
  • HbA1c ≥6.5% (≥48 mmol/mol) can be used to diagnose diabetes in asymptomatic, high-risk patients. HbA1c ≥6.5% should be confirmed with glucose or another HbA1c performed on a different day but as soon as possible, before any intervention has commenced.
  • The recommended treatment target is HbA1c ≤7.0% (≤53 mmol/mol). Treatment targets may need to be individualised to between ≤6.0% (≤42 mmol/mol) to ≤8.0% (≤64 mmol/ mol), depending on patient-specific factors, such as type and duration of diabetes and risk of hypoglycaemia.
  • Currently, HbA1c is reported in both National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program (NGSP) units (%) and International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) units (mmol/mol), with the aim of eventually reporting in IFCC units only.
  • A number of medical conditions affect HbA1c results and preclude its use in both monitoring and diagnosis of diabetes mellitus.

References

  1. Kilpatrick ES. Haemoglobin A1c in the diagnosis and monitoring of diabetes mellitus. J Clin Pathol 2008;61(9):977-982
  2. d’Emdem MC. et al. The role of HbA1c in the diagnosis of diabetes mellitus in Australia. MJA 2012;197(4):1-3
  3. d’Emdem MC. et al. Guidance concerning the use of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) for the diagnosis of diabetes mellitus – A position statement of the Australian Diabetes Society. MJA 2015;203(2):89-91
  4. Cheung NW. et al. Position statement of the Australian Diabetes Society: individualisation of glycated haemoglobin targets for adults with diabetes mellitus. MJA 2009;191(6):339-344
  5. Jones G. et al. Consensus Statement on the Worldwide Standardisation of the Haemoglobin A1c Measurement – An Australasian Update. The Clinical Biochemist Newsletter 2008;14-18. Available online: https://www.aacb.asn.au/documents/item/1213

General Practice Pathology is a new regular column each authored by an Australian expert pathologist on a topic of particular relevance and interest to practising GPs. The authors provide this editorial, free of charge as part of an educational initiative developed and coordinated by Sonic Pathology.
Dr Jo Marchant

Is there real science in the spiritualism of meditation? Jo Marchant meets a Nobel Prize-winner who thinks so. It’s seven in the morning on the beach in Santa Monica, California. The low sun glints off the waves and the clouds are still golden from the dawn. The view stretches out over thousands of miles of Pacific Ocean. In the distance, white villas of wealthy Los Angeles residents dot the Hollywood hills. Here by the shore, curlews and sandpipers cluster on the damp sand. A few metres back from the water’s edge, a handful of people sit cross-legged: members of a local Buddhist centre about to begin an hour-long silent meditation. Such spiritual practices may seem a world away from biomedical research, with its focus on molecular processes and repeatable results. Yet just up the coast, at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), a team led by a Nobel Prize-winning biochemist is charging into territory where few mainstream scientists would dare to tread. Whereas Western biomedicine has traditionally shunned the study of personal experiences and emotions in relation to physical health, these scientists are placing state of mind at the centre of their work. They are engaged in serious studies hinting that meditation might – as Eastern traditions have long claimed – slow ageing and lengthen life.

§

Elizabeth Blackburn has always been fascinated by how life works. Born in 1948, she grew up by the sea in a remote town in Tasmania, Australia, collecting ants from her garden and jellyfish from the beach. When she began her scientific career, she moved on to dissecting living systems molecule by molecule. She was drawn to biochemistry, she says, because it offered a thorough and precise understanding “in the form of deep knowledge of the smallest possible subunit of a process”. Working with biologist Joe Gall at Yale in the 1970s, Blackburn sequenced the chromosome tips of a single-celled freshwater creature called Tetrahymena (“pond scum”, as she describes it) and discovered a repeating DNA motif that acts as a protective cap. The caps, dubbed telomeres, were subsequently found on human chromosomes too. They shield the ends of our chromosomes each time our cells divide and the DNA is copied, but they wear down with each division. In the 1980s, working with graduate student Carol Greider at the University of California, Berkeley, Blackburn discovered an enzyme called telomerase that can protect and rebuild telomeres. Even so, our telomeres dwindle over time. And when they get too short, our cells start to malfunction and lose their ability to divide – a phenomenon that is now recognised as a key process in ageing. This work ultimately won Blackburn the 2009 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. In 2000, she received a visit that changed the course of her research. The caller was Elissa Epel, a postdoc from UCSF’s psychiatry department. Psychiatrists and biochemists don’t usually have much to talk about, but Epel was interested in the damage done to the body by chronic stress, and she had a radical proposal. Epel, now director of the Aging, Metabolism and Emotion Center at UCSF, has a long-standing interest in how the mind and body relate. She cites as influences both the holistic health guru Deepak Chopra and the pioneering biologist Hans Selye, who first described in the 1930s how rats subjected to long-term stress become chronically ill. “Every stress leaves an indelible scar, and the organism pays for its survival after a stressful situation by becoming a little older,” Selye said. Back in 2000, Epel wanted to find that scar. “I was interested in the idea that if we look deep within cells we might be able to measure the wear and tear of stress and daily life,” she says. After reading about Blackburn’s work on ageing, she wondered if telomeres might fit the bill. With some trepidation at approaching such a senior scientist, the then postdoc asked Blackburn for help with a study of mothers going through one of the most stressful situations that she could think of – caring for a chronically ill child. Epel’s plan was to ask the women how stressed they felt, then look for a relationship between their state of mind and the state of their telomeres. Collaborators at the University of Utah would measure telomere length, while Blackburn’s team would measure levels of telomerase. Blackburn’s research until this point had involved elegant, precisely controlled experiments in the lab. Epel’s work, on the other hand, was on real, complicated people living real, complicated lives. “It was another world as far as I was concerned,” says Blackburn. At first, she was doubtful that it would be possible to see any meaningful connection between stress and telomeres. Genes were seen as by far the most important factor determining telomere length, and the idea that it would be possible to measure environmental influences, let alone psychological ones, was highly controversial. But as a mother herself, Blackburn was drawn to the idea of studying the plight of these stressed women. “I just thought, how interesting,” she says. “You can’t help but empathise.” It took four years before they were finally ready to collect blood samples from 58 women. This was to be a small pilot study. To give the highest chance of a meaningful result, the women in the two groups – stressed mothers and controls – had to match as closely as possible, with similar ages, lifestyles and backgrounds. Epel recruited her subjects with meticulous care. Still, Blackburn says, she saw the trial as nothing more than a feasibility exercise. Right up until Epel called her and said, “You won’t believe it.” The results were crystal clear. The more stressed the mothers said they were, the shorter their telomeres and the lower their levels of telomerase. The most frazzled women in the study had telomeres that translated into an extra decade or so of ageing compared to those who were least stressed, while their telomerase levels were halved. “I was thrilled,” says Blackburn. She and Epel had connected real lives and experiences to the molecular mechanics inside cells. It was the first indication that feeling stressed doesn’t just damage our health – it literally ages us.

§

Unexpected discoveries naturally meet scepticism. Blackburn and Epel struggled initially to publish their boundary-crossing paper. “Science [one of the world’s leading scientific journals] couldn’t bounce it back fast enough!” chuckles Blackburn. When the paper finally was published, in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in December 2004, it sparked widespread press coverage as well as praise. Robert Sapolsky, a pioneering stress researcher at Stanford University and author of the bestselling Why Zebras Don’t Get Ulcers, described the collaboration as “a leap across a vast interdisciplinary canyon”. Mike Irwin, director of the Cousins Center for Psychoneuroimmunology at the University of California, Los Angeles, says it took a lot of courage for Epel to seek out Blackburn. “And a lot of courage for Liz [Blackburn] to say yes.” Many telomere researchers were wary at first. They pointed out that the study was small, and questioned the accuracy of the telomere length test used. “This was a risky idea back then, and in some people’s eyes unlikely,” explains Epel. “Everyone is born with very different telomere lengths and to think that we can measure something psychological or behavioural, not genetic, and have that predict the length of our telomeres? This is really not where this field was ten years ago.” The paper triggered an explosion of research. Researchers have since linked perceived stress to shorter telomeres in healthy women as well as in Alzheimer’s caregivers, victims of domestic abuse and early life trauma, and people with major depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. “Ten years on, there’s no question in my mind that the environment has some consequence on telomere length,” says Mary Armanios, a clinician and geneticist at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine who studies telomere disorders. There is also progress towards a mechanism. Lab studies show that the stress hormone cortisol reduces the activity of telomerase, while oxidative stress and inflammation – the physiological fallout of psychological stress – appear to erode telomeres directly. This seems to have devastating consequences for our health. Age-related conditions from osteoarthritis, diabetes and obesity to heart disease, Alzheimer’s and stroke have all been linked to short telomeres. The big question for researchers now is whether telomeres are simply a harmless marker of age-related damage (like grey hair, say) or themselves play a role in causing the health problems that plague us as we age. People with genetic mutations affecting the enzyme telomerase, who have much shorter telomeres than normal, suffer from accelerated-ageing syndromes and their organs progressively fail. But Armanios questions whether the smaller reductions in telomere length caused by stress are relevant for health, especially as telomere lengths are so variable in the first place. Blackburn, however, says she is increasingly convinced that the effects of stress do matter. Although the genetic mutations affecting the maintenance of telomeres have a smaller effect than the extreme syndromes Armanios studies, Blackburn points out that they do increase the risk of chronic disease later in life. And several studies have shown that our telomeres predict future health. One showed that elderly men whose telomeres shortened over two-and-a-half years were three times as likely to die from cardiovascular disease in the subsequent nine years as those whose telomeres stayed the same length or got longer. In another study, looking at over 2,000 healthy Native Americans, those with the shortest telomeres were more than twice as likely to develop diabetes over the next five-and-a-half years, even taking into account conventional risk factors such as body mass index and fasting glucose. Blackburn is now moving into even bigger studies, including a collaboration with healthcare giant Kaiser Permanente of Northern California that has involved measuring the telomeres of 100,000 people. The hope is that combining telomere length with data from the volunteers’ genomes and electronic medical records will reveal additional links between telomere length and disease, as well as more genetic mutations that affect telomere length. The results aren’t published yet, but Blackburn is excited about what the data already shows about longevity. She traces the curve with her finger: as the population ages, average telomere length goes down. This much we know; telomeres tend to shorten over time. But at age 75–80, the curve swings back up as people with shorter telomeres die off – proof that those with longer telomeres really do live longer. “It’s lovely,” she says. “No one has ever seen that.” In the decade since Blackburn and Epel’s original study, the idea that stress ages us by eroding our telomeres has also permeated popular culture. In addition to Blackburn’s many scientific accolades, she was named one of Time magazine’s “100 most influential people in the world” in 2007, and received a Good Housekeeping achievement award in 2011. A workaholic character played by Cameron Diaz even described the concept in the 2006 Hollywood film The Holiday. “It resonates,” says Blackburn. But as evidence of the damage caused by dwindling telomeres piles up, she is embarking on a new question: how to protect them.

§

At first, the beach seems busy. Waves splash and splash and splash. Sanderlings wheel along the shoreline. Joggers and dog walkers amble across, while groups of pelicans hang out on the water before taking wing or floating out of sight. A surfer, silhouetted black against the sky, bobs about for 20 minutes or so, catching the odd ripple towards shore before he, too, is gone. The unchanging perspective gives a curious sense of detachment. You can imagine that the birds and joggers and surfers are like thoughts: they inhabit different forms and timescales but in the end, they all pass. There are hundreds of ways to meditate but this morning I’m trying a form of Buddhist mindfulness meditation called open monitoring, which involves paying attention to your experience in the present moment. Sit upright and still, and simply notice any thoughts that arise – without judging or reacting to them – before letting them go. For Buddhists this is a spiritual quest; by letting trivial thoughts and external influences fall away, they hope to get closer to the true nature of reality. Blackburn too is interested in the nature of reality, but after a career spent focusing on the measurable and quantifiable, such navel-gazing initially held little personal appeal and certainly no professional interest. “Ten years ago, if you’d told me that I would be seriously thinking about meditation, I would have said one of us is loco,” she told the New York Times in 2007. Yet that is where her work on telomeres has brought her. Since her initial study with Epel, the pair have become involved in collaborations with teams around the world – as many as 50 or 60, Blackburn estimates, spinning in “wonderful directions”. Many of these focus on ways to protect telomeres from the effects of stress; trials suggest that exercise, eating healthily and social support all help. But one of the most effective interventions, apparently capable of slowing the erosion of telomeres – and perhaps even lengthening them again – is meditation. So far the studies are small, but they all tentatively point in the same direction. In one ambitious project, Blackburn and her colleagues sent participants to meditate at the Shambhala mountain retreat in northern Colorado. Those who completed a three-month course had 30 per cent higher levels of telomerase than a similar group on a waiting list. A pilot study of dementia caregivers, carried out with UCLA’s Irwin and published in 2013, found that volunteers who did an ancient chanting meditation called Kirtan Kriya, 12 minutes a day for eight weeks, had significantly higher telomerase activity than a control group who listened to relaxing music. And a collaboration with UCSF physician and self-help guru Dean Ornish, also published in 2013, found that men with low-risk prostate cancer who undertook comprehensive lifestyle changes, including meditation, kept their telomerase activity higher than similar men in a control group and had slightly longer telomeres after five years. In their latest study, Epel and Blackburn are following 180 mothers, half of whom have a child with autism. The trial involves measuring the women’s stress levels and telomere length over two years, then testing the effects of a short course of mindfulness training, delivered with the help of a mobile app. Theories differ as to how meditation might boost telomeres and telomerase, but most likely it reduces stress. The practice involves slow, regular breathing, which may relax us physically by calming the fight-or-flight response. It probably has a psychological stress-busting effect too. Being able to step back from negative or stressful thoughts may allow us to realise that these are not necessarily accurate reflections of reality but passing, ephemeral events. It also helps us to appreciate the present instead of continually worrying about the past or planning for the future. “Being present in your activities and in your interactions is precious, and it’s rare these days with all of the multitasking we do,” says Epel. “I do think that in general we’ve got a society with scattered attention, particularly when people are highly stressed and don’t have the resources to just be present wherever they are.”

§

Inevitably, when a Nobel Prize-winner starts talking about meditation, it ruffles a few feathers. In general, Blackburn’s methodical approach to the topic has earned a grudging admiration, even among those who have expressed concern about the health claims made for alternative medicine. “She goes about her business in a cautious and systematic fashion,” says Edzard Ernst of the University of Exeter, UK, who specialises in testing complementary therapies in rigorous controlled trials. Oncologist James Coyne of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who is sceptical of this field in general and describes some of the research on positive psychology and health as “morally offensive” and “tooth fairy science”, concedes that some of Blackburn’s data is “promising”. Others aren’t so impressed. Surgeon-oncologist David Gorski is a well-known critic of alternative medicine and pseudoscience who blogs under the name of Orac – he’s previously described Dean Ornish as “one of the four horsemen of the Woo-pocalypse”. Gorski stops short of pronouncing meditation as off-limits for scientific inquiry, but expresses concern that the preliminary results of these studies are being oversold. How can the researchers be sure they’re investigating it rigorously? “It’s really hard to do with these things,” he says. “It is easy to be led astray. Nobel Prize-winners are not infallible.” Blackburn’s own biochemistry community also seems ambivalent about her interest in meditation. Three senior telomere researchers I contacted declined to discuss this aspect of her work, with one explaining that he didn’t want to comment “on such a controversial issue”. “People are very uncomfortable with the concept of meditation,” notes Blackburn. She attributes this to its unfamiliarity and its association with spiritual and religious practices. “We’re always trying to say it as carefully as we can… always saying ‘look, it’s preliminary, it’s a pilot’. But people won’t even read those words. They’ll see the newspaper headings and panic.” Any connotation of religious or paranormal beliefs makes many scientists uneasy, says Chris French, a psychologist at Goldsmiths, University of London, who studies anomalous experiences including altered states of consciousness. “There are a lot of raised eyebrows, even though I’ve got the word sceptic virtually tattooed across my forehead,” he says. “It smacks of new-age woolly ideas for some people. There’s a kneejerk dismissive response of ‘we all know it’s nonsense, why are you wasting your time?’” "When meditation first came to the West in the 1960s it was tied to the drug culture, the hippie culture,” adds Sara Lazar, a neuroscientist at Harvard who studies how meditation changes the structure of the brain. “People think it’s just a bunch of crystals or something, they roll their eyes.” She describes her own decision to study meditation, made 15 years ago, as “brave or crazy”, and says that she only plucked up the courage because at around the same time, the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) created the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. “That gave me the confidence that I could do this and I would get funding.” The tide is now turning. Helped in part by that NIH money, researchers have developed secularised – or non-religious – practices such as mindfulness-based stress reduction and mindfulness-based cognitive therapy, and reported a range of health effects from lowering blood pressure and boosting immune responses to warding off depression. And the past few years have seen a spurt of neuroscience studies, like Lazar’s, showing that even short courses of meditation can forge structural changes in the brain. “Now that the brain data and all this clinical data are coming out, that is starting to change. People are a lot more accepting [of meditation],” says Lazar. “But there are still some people who will never believe that it has any benefit whatsoever." Blackburn’s view is that meditation is a fair topic to study, as long as robust methods are used. So when her research first pointed in this direction, she was undaunted by concerns about what such studies might do to her reputation. Instead, she tried it out for herself, on an intensive six-day retreat in Santa Barbara. “I loved it,” she says. She still uses short bursts of meditation, which she says sharpen her mind and help her to avoid a busy, distracted mode. She even began one recent paper with a quote from the Buddha: “The secret of health for both mind and body is not to mourn for the past, worry about the future, or anticipate troubles but to live in the present moment wisely and earnestly.” That study, of 239 healthy women, found that those whose minds wandered less – the main aim of mindfulness meditation – had significantly longer telomeres than those whose thoughts ran amok. “Although we report merely an association here, it is possible that greater presence of mind promotes a healthy biochemical milieu and, in turn, cell longevity,” the researchers concluded. Contemplative traditions from Buddhism to Taoism believe that presence of mind promotes health and longevity; Blackburn and her colleagues now suggest that the ancient wisdom might be right.

§

I meet with Blackburn in Paris. We’re at an Art Nouveau-themed bistro just down the road from the Curie Institute, where she is on a short sabbatical, arranging seminars between groups of scientists who don’t usually talk to one another. In a low, melodious voice that I strain to hear through the background clatter, the 65-year-old tells me of her first major brush with Buddhist thinking. In September 2006, she attended a conference held at the Menla Mountain Buddhist centre, a remote retreat in New York’s Catskill mountains, at which Western scientists met with Tibetan-trained scholars including the Dalai Lama to discuss longevity, regeneration and health. During the meeting, the spiritual leader honoured Blackburn’s scientific achievements by inducting her as a “Medicine Buddha”. If Epel’s psychiatry research had been another world, the scholars’ Eastern philosophy seemed to Blackburn more alien still. Over dinner one evening, while explaining to the other delegates how errors in the gene for telomerase can cause health problems, she described genetic mutation as a random, chance event. That’s dogma for Western scientists but not for those trained in the Tibetan worldview. “They said ‘oh no, we don’t regard this as chance’,” says Blackburn. For these holistic scholars, even the smallest events were infused with meaning. “I suddenly thought, whoa, this is a very different world from the one I’m on.” But instead of dismissing her Eastern counterparts, she was impressed, finding the Dalai Lama to have “a very good brain”, for example. “They’re scholarly in a very different way, but it is still good-quality thinking,” she explains. “It wasn’t ‘God told me this’, it was more ‘let’s see what actually happens in the brain’. So there are certain elements of the approach that I am quite comfortable with as a scientist.” Blackburn isn’t tempted to embrace the spiritual approach herself. “I’m rooted in the physical world,” she says. But she combines that grounding with an open mind towards new ideas and connections, and she seems to love breaking out of established paradigms. For example, she and Epel have shown that the effects of stress on telomeres can be passed on to the next generation. If women experience stress while pregnant, their children have shorter telomeres, as newborns and as adults – in direct contradiction of the standard view that traits can only be passed on via our genes. In the future, information from telomeres may help doctors decide when to prescribe particular drugs. For example, telomerase activity predicts who will respond to treatment for major depression, while telomere length influences the effects of statins. In general, however, Blackburn is more interested in how telomeres might help people directly, by encouraging them to live in a way that reduces their disease risk. “This is not a familiar model for the medical world,” she says. Conventional medical tests give us our risk of particular conditions – high cholesterol warns of impending heart disease, for example, while high blood sugar predicts diabetes. Telomere length, by contrast, gives an overall reading of how healthy we are: our biological age. And although we already know that we should exercise, eat well and reduce stress, many of us fall short of these goals. Blackburn believes that putting a concrete number on how we are doing could provide a powerful incentive to change our behaviour. In fact, she and Epel have just completed a study (as yet unpublished) showing that simply being told their telomere length caused volunteers to live more healthily over the next year than a similar group who weren’t told. Ultimately, however, the pair want entire countries and governments to start paying attention to telomeres. A growing body of work now shows that the stress from social adversity and inequality is a major force eroding these protective caps. People who didn’t finish high school or are in an abusive relationship have shorter telomeres, for example, while studies have also shown links with low socioeconomic status, shift work, lousy neighbourhoods and environmental pollution. Children are particularly at risk: being abused or experiencing adversity early in life leaves people with shorter telomeres for the rest of their lives. And through telomeres, the stress that women experience during pregnancy affects the health of the next generation too, causing hardship and economic costs for decades to come. In 2012, Blackburn and Epel wrote a commentary in the journal Nature, listing some of these results and calling on politicians to prioritise “societal stress reduction”. In particular, they argued, improving the education and health of women of child-bearing age could be “a highly effective way to prevent poor health filtering down through generations”. Meditation retreats or yoga classes might help those who can afford the time and expense, they pointed out. “But we are talking about broad socioeconomic policies to buffer the chronic stressors faced by so many.” Where many scientists refrain from discussing the political implications of their work, Blackburn says she wanted to speak out on behalf of women who lack support, and say “You’d better take their situations seriously.” While arguments for tackling social inequality are hardly new, Blackburn says that telomeres allow us to quantify for the first time the health impact of stress and inequality and therefore the resulting economic costs. We can also now pinpoint pregnancy and early childhood as “imprinting periods” when telomere length is particularly susceptible to stress. Together, she says, this evidence makes a stronger case than ever before for governments to act. But it seems that most scientists and politicians still aren’t ready to leap across the interdisciplinary canyon that Blackburn and Epel bridged a decade ago. The Nature article has engendered little response, according to a frustrated Epel. “It’s a strong statement so I would have thought that people would have criticised it or supported it,” she says. “Either way!” “It’s now a consistent story that the ageing machinery is shaped at the earliest stages of life,” she insists. “If we ignore that and we just keep trying to put band-aids on later, we’re never going to get at prevention and we’re only going to fail at cure.” Simply responding to the physical symptoms of disease might make sense for treating an acute infection or fixing a broken leg, but to beat chronic age-related conditions such as diabetes, heart disease and dementia, we will need to embrace the fuzzy, subjective domain of the mind. This article first appeared on Mosaic and is republished here under a Creative Commons licence.

Dr Linda Calabresi

Findings from a newly published study are likely to silence those who suggest doctors need to return to wearing white coats to improve patient respect. According to US researchers, patient perception in terms of a doctor’s capability, trustworthiness and reliability is not affected by the presence of visible tattoos and non-traditional piercings (on the doctor not the patient). “Physician tattoos and facial piercings were not factors in patients’ evaluations of physician competence, professionalism or approachability,” the study authors said. This interesting study, published in the Emergency Medicine Journal involved surveying over 900 patients who had attended the emergency department of a large teaching hospital in the US. The patients were not told the purpose of the survey, they were simply asked to rate their experience, including the care they received from their attending doctor across a range of domains including competence, professionalism, caring, approachability, trustworthiness and reliability. The doctors provided their own controls meaning that some shifts they worked without any ‘exposed body art’, other shifts they were ‘pierced’ (hoop earrings for men or fake nasal studs for women) and other shifts they were ‘tattooed’ (with a temporary standardised black tribal tattoo around the arm). Sometimes the doctors were both pierced and tattooed. Nurses asked the patients to complete the survey and they did provide prompts to remind the patient of the doctor who had attended them, but the prompt was along the line of ‘the young male doctor with red hair’ rather than drawing attention to the tattoo or piercing. More than 75% of the time the patient gave the attending doctor the top rating across all the domains surveyed regardless of appearance. The findings appear to be in contrast with previous research which has found patients prefer their physicians to be traditionally dressed. However, the authors of this study suggest that the evidence to date has been limited by a lack of patient blinding to the study purpose. What’s more, they suggest that existing policies regarding visible body art on doctors are likely to be driven by administrator preferences rather than data on patient satisfaction. There were a number of limitations to the study in particular the small number of doctors involved (seven) and because the patients weren’t specifically asked about the body art we don’t know whether they actually didn’t care about it or whether they were able to overcome their disapproval of it. Given the trial took place in an emergency department, the results cannot necessarily be extrapolated to the community setting as in general practice. Nonetheless, the results will be of interest given the increasing popularity of body art, especially tattoos with the study authors citing research showing, in 2006, 24% of young and middle adult persons had at least one tattoo. Concerns that a doctor’s visible body art has a negative impact on a patient’s perception of their professionalism or a patient’s satisfaction do not appear founded, the researchers concluded. Ref: Doi: 10.1136/emermed-2017-206887

Dr Linda Calabresi

All newly-diagnosed hypertensive patients should be screened for primary aldosteronism before they are started on treatment, Australian experts suggest in the latest issue of the MJA. “Primary aldosteronism is common, specifically treatable, and associated with significant cardiovascular morbidity and mortality,” say researchers Dr Jun Yang, Professor Peter Fuller and Professor Michael Stowasser. They refer to a recent systematic review of over 30 studies, that found among a cohort of people with severe or resistant hypertension (systolic BP >180mmHg and diastolic BP >110), 16.4% were found to have primary aldosteronism. Admittedly these studies were carried out in tertiary centres. There been far fewer studies on the issue conducted in primary care with somewhat mixed results, with one small Australian study suggesting 11.5% of people with significant hypertension in the general practice setting had primary aldosteronism. But its not only the patients with severe hypertension that need to be considered for primary aldosteronism screening, the authors suggest. They point to an Italian study including over 1600 GP patients selected randomly who were screened for primary aldosteronism and found a prevalence of 5.9%.  Importantly 45% of these had mild hypertension (BP 140-159/90-99mmHg). According to the article authors, these patients, because would have most likely remained undiagnosed if not for the study. And the effect of the untreated aldosterone excess would have most likely led to poor blood pressure control and increased cardiovascular, renal and metabolic morbidity long-term. In other words, identifying these patients early in the course of the disease could allow more appropriate treatment and ultimately avoid the end-organ damage that is more likely to occur if diagnosis is delayed until after the development of severe hypertension. “Targeted treatment of [primary aldosteronism] using surgery or mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, such as spironolactone and eplerenone, rather than non-specific antihypertensive medications, can reverse the underlying cardiovascular pathology,” they said. The recommended biochemical screening tool for primary aldosteronism is the aldosterone to renin ratio which is elevated in this condition because plasma aldosterone is normal or elevated while renin is suppressed. The experts suggest screening prior to commencing antihypertensive therapy as many of these drugs, including beta blockers, calcium channel blockers, ACE inhibitors, ARBs and diuretics usually interfere with this aldosterone to renin ratio. The test isn’t perfect, they admit, as it can be influenced by a number of confounders including salt intake and age, but as a screening tool it has been proven, in trials both in Australia and internationally to be very useful, resulting in significantly increased numbers of patients diagnosed. Current Australian hypertension guidelines recommend clinicians consider primary aldosteronism in patients with hypertension particularly those with moderate to severe or treatment-resistant hypertension. But, as the article authors point out, given the prevalence of primary aldosteronism and the health burden associated with this cardiovascular risk factor both to the Australian population and the economy, maybe it is time to consider screening all newly-diagnosed hypertensive patients for this condition, before the commencement of non-specific antihypertensive therapy. “This diagnostic strategy should lead to significant individual and population health and economic impacts as a result of many patients with hypertension being offered the chance of curative or simpler treatment at an early stage of their disease.” Ref: MJA doi:10.5694/mja17.00783

Prof Linda-Gail Bekker

HIV remains a global challenge. Between 36.7 million and 38.8 million people live with the disease worldwide. And more than 35 million have died of AIDS related causes since the start of the epidemic in the mid-1980s. Two years ago the International Aids Society and The Lancet put together a commission made up of a panel of experts to take stock and identify what the future response to HIV should be. The report is being released to coincide with the 22nd International Aids Conference in Amsterdam. The Conversation Africa’s Health and Medicine Editor Candice Bailey spoke to Head of the International AIDS Society Professor Linda-Gail Bekker, who also led the commission, about its report. What have we learnt about the global HIV response in the last 30 years? The world had an emergency on its hands 30 years ago with the arrival of HIV. A huge amount of effort was put into trying to find solutions. And there were some incredible breakthroughs. First was the miracle of lifesaving antiretroviral treatment, the biggest game changer over the last three decades. Great strides have been made in rolling out the treatment. UNAIDS tells us that 22 million people are currently on treatment. That’s truly remarkable. But we’ve also learnt that relying on the current pace is insufficient. That’s clear from the figures. In some countries the incidence is rising, and in many parts of the world the incidence rate has stalled or plateaued. We are not seeing the downturn that we need to be able to reach the global goal of ending the HIV pandemic by 2030. The biggest lesson we’ve learnt is that we need to reinvigorate the prevention message especially since we have new tools to combat HIV transmission in many different settings. This includes Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) – a daily antiretroviral that’s given to people who have a high risk of contracting HIV to lower their chances of getting infected – as well as treatment as prevention, which involves giving people living with HIV antiretrovirals to suppress their viral loads. For a sustainable response and looking forward to the next era, it will be important to position our responses to HIV within the broader health agenda. Patients don’t only have HIV, they have other issues. There are mental health needs and there are sexual and reproductive health needs, so HIV treatment and care must fit into that broader agenda. This will enable a more sustainable response. This is a challenge in many parts of the world where HIV is in a siloed response and people are only treated by HIV specific services. There needs to be a service delivery model that considers the broader health agenda. This goes beyond integration. We need to think about where can we take the lessons from HIV into other diseases. In the case of HIV, person centred and community-based care has become critical to ensure people get access to treatment. The message is simple: the epidemic is far from over and it’s not time to disengage. We’re here for the long haul. To ensure we have a sustainable approach we need to recalibrate. The commission is calling for a new way of doing business that will seek common cause with other global health issues. We understand that the HIV response will need resources. This will be a great way to get a double bang for the buck. What’s still going wrong? In many regions we have left whole sectors of the population behind. These include men who have sex with men, women who trade sex and people who inject drugs. They aren’t getting proper services because of policy, prejudice and stigma. And different regional pockets need particular attention. One is in Eastern Europe and Central Asia where there has been a 30% increase in new infections since 2010. This is particularly concerning. Its clear that whole regions are being left behind because of politics, denial and stigma. Here the administrations are not doing the evidence based thing – they are failing their people and the response. Another pocket is West and Central Africa. These are countries that are not reducing rates of infection as quickly as we had hoped, often due to limited resources. Nigeria, for example, needs help with the reduction of mother to child transmission. These are areas that are going to need attention, help and encouragement. But we don’t want to put out the notion that we are in trouble across the world. In East and South Africa, for example, we have made significant gains. There is still a lot to be done but the trends are going in the right direction. In many ways South Africa really is a good news story because its administration and politics favour an enthusiastic response to do the right thing. Domestic funding around HIV has increased. South Africa still has the biggest number of people in the world living with HIV – 7.9 million according to the latest HSRC report. But the country is beginning to turn the ship around. That’s something we can be incredibly proud of. There are, nevertheless, still pockets that need attention. For example, adolescent girls and young women under the age of 25 in KwaZulu-Natal are roughly three times more likely than men younger than 25 to be living with HIV. We have had them in our sights but we now need a concentrated effort to tackle HIV in this cohort otherwise we will miss the target. We need to look at the evidence and where can we make an impact with integrated care. This would be through HIV programmes that are part of sexual and reproductive health along with economic empowerment initiatives such as getting girls to stay in school and making sure they have opportunities to make autonomous decisions about sexual and reproductive health. Doing everything for everyone is a waste of money and time. We need to sharpen the tip of our response. We must put our responses where we get the biggest bang for buck and call on those resources that offer prevention and treatment. What are the biggest challenges between now and 2030? Resources are the constant challenge globally. We live in a world where politics is unpredictable. We need to constantly advocate for funding while diversifying funding opportunities. The second challenge is stigma and discrimination. Policy and ideology that is counter productive also feeds into stigma and discrimination. We need to do to something about laws that criminalise behaviour, like sex work, and stigmas towards intravenous drug users, gay people and men who have sex with men. Decriminalising sex work in South Africa, for example, would go a long way to reduce stigma, enable services and help the public health approach. Continuing to understand how to reach young women and girls and protect them socially and medically; those are also big challenges. The ConversationFinally, in South Africa there is a challenge to find men who are not in the health services and get them into care and onto treatment. We know that a suppressed viral load means no HIV transmission and so this should be on its agenda. Linda-Gail Bekker, Professor of medicine and deputy director of the Desmond Tutu HIV Centre at the Institute of Infectious Disease and Molecular Medicine, University of Cape Town This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Dr Linda Calabresi

Salt may have been unfairly targeted as a killer in the healthy heart stakes, according to newly published research. The observational study of over 90000 people in 300 communities across 18 countries, found that sodium consumption was not associated with an increase in health risks unless the average daily consumption was excessive – more than 5g/day or 2.5 teaspoons of salt. And, this average high daily sodium intake was mostly seen in China, with only about 15% of communities outside of China exceeding this 5g a day limit. As part of this ongoing Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study, participants aged 35-70 were assessed initially at baseline and then followed for an average of 8.1 years, over which time the occurrence of any major cardiovascular events or death was recorded. What the researchers found was that the risk of hypertension and strokes was only increased in communities where the average daily sodium intake was greater than 5g. Perhaps unexpectedly, this higher sodium intake was actually found to be also associated with lower rates of myocardial infarction and total mortality. Furthermore, the research found that very low levels of sodium intake were harmful, being associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and mortality. The findings fly in the face of the current WHO guidelines that recommend, as a global approach we should be aiming for populations to reduce their sodium intake to below 2g/day. However, no communities in the study came close to achieving this target. In fact, no communities in the study had an average sodium intake of less than 3g/day, based on morning fasting urine samples from the participants. “Sodium intake was associated with cardiovascular disease and strokes only in communities where mean intake was greater than 5g/day. A strategy of sodium reduction in these communities and countries but not in others might be appropriate,” the Canadian study authors said. But before we all go and stock up on our Saxa, an accompanying editorial sounds a word of caution. While acknowledging the findings that ‘normal’ salt intake appeared to be at least health-neutral if not beneficial, the editorial authors remind us that the study is observational and has not taken into consideration a number of potential confounders such as diet. Without taking these confounders into account, one can’t assume that just decreasing salt intake in people at high risk of stroke or increasing it in people at risk of a heart attack will work, they said. “Nevertheless the findings are exceedingly interesting and should be tested in a randomised controlled trial,” they concluded, adding that such a trial, to be conducted in a US federal prison population had been proposed.   Ref: Lancet Vol 392 No 10146 pp:496-506 Vol 392 No 10146 pp: 456-458

Healthed

There’s no way you’d want to go to work when you’ve got the telltale signs of gastro: nausea, abdominal cramps, vomiting and diarrhoea. But what about when you’re feeling a bit better? When is it safe to be around colleagues, or send your kids to school or daycare? The health department recommends staying home from work or school for a minimum of 24 hours after you last vomited or had diarrhoea. But the question of how long someone is contagious after recovering from gastro is a very different question.   What causes gastro? To better understand how long you can be contagious with gastro, we need to look at the various causes. Viruses are the most common causes of gastro. Rotavirus is the leading cause in infants and young children, whereas norovirus is the leading cause of gastro in adults. There are around 1.8 million cases of norovirus infection in Australia each year. This accounts for almost 40% of the total cases of gastro. Bacterial gastroenteritis is also common and accounts for around 1.6 million cases a year. Of those cases, 1.1 million come from E. coli infections. Other bacteria that commonly cause gastro include salmonella, shigella and campylobacter. These bacteria are often found in raw or undercooked meat, seafood, and unpasteurised milk. Parasites such as giardia lamblia, entamoeba histolytica and cryptosporidium account for around 700,000 cases of gastro per year. Most of the time people recover from parasitic gastroenteritis without incident, but it can cause problems for people with weaker immune systems. Read more: Health Check: I feel a bit sick, should I stay home or go to work?   Identifying the bug Most cases of diarrhoea are mild, and resolve themselves with no need for medical attention. But some warrant further investigation, particularly among returned travellers, people who have had diarrhoea for four or five days (or more than one day with a fever), patients with bloody stools, those who have recently used antibiotics, and patients whose immune systems are compromised. The most common test is the stool culture which is used to identify microbes grown from loose or unformed stools. The bacterial yield of stool cultures is generally low. But if it does come back with a positive result, it can be potentially important for the patient. Some organisms that are isolated in stool cultures are notifiable to public health authorities. This is because of their potential to cause serious harm in vulnerable groups such as the elderly, young children, pregnant women and those with weakened immune systems. The health department must be notified of gastro cases caused by campylobacter, cryptosporidium, listeria, salmonella, shigella and certain types of E.coli infection. This can help pinpoint outbreaks when they arise and allow for appropriate control measures.   You might feel better but your poo isn’t Gastro bugs are spread via the the faecal-oral route, which means faeces needs to come into contact with the mouth for transmission to occur. Sometimes this can happen if contaminated faecal material gets into drinking water, or during food preparation. But more commonly, tiny particles of poo might remain on the hands after going to the toilet. Using toilet paper to wipe when you go to the toilet doesn’t completely prevent the contamination of hands, and even more so when the person has diarrhoea. The particles then make their way to another person’s mouth during food preparation or touching a variety of contaminated surfaces and then putting your fingers in your mouth. After completely recovering from the symptoms of gastro, infectious organisms can still be shed into stools. Faecal shedding of campylobacter, the E. coli O157 strain, salmonella, shigella, cryptosporidium, entamoeba, and giardia can last for many days to weeks. In fact, some people who have recovered from salmonella have shed the bacteria into their stools 102 days later. Parasites can remain alive in the bowel for a long period of time after diarrhoea finishes. Infectious cryptosporidium oocysts can be shed into stools for up to 50 days. Giardia oocysts can take even longer to be excreted.   So, how long should you stay away? Much of the current advice on when people can return to work, school or child care after gastro is based on the most common viral gastroenteritis, norovirus, even though few patients will discover the cause of their bug. For norovirus, the highest rate of viral shedding into stools occurs 24 to 48 hours after all symptoms have stopped. The viral shedding rate then starts to quickly decrease. So people can return to work 48 hours after symptoms have stopped. Yes, viral shedding into stools can occur for longer than 48 hours. But because norovirus infection is so common and recovery is rapid, it’s not considered practical to demand patients’ stools be clear of the virus before returning to work. While 24 hours may be appropriate for many people, a specific 48-hour exclusion rule is considered necessary for those in a higher-risk category for spreading gastro to others. These include food handlers, health care workers and children under the age of five at child care or play group. If you have a positive stool culture for a notifiable organism, that may change the situation. Food handlers, childcare workers and health-care workers affected by verotoxin E.coli, for example, are not permitted to work until symptoms have stopped and two consecutive faecal specimens taken at least 24 hours apart have tested negative for verotoxin E. coli. This may lead to a lengthy exclusion period from work, possibly several days.   How to stop the spread Diligently washing your hands often with soap and water is the most effective way to stop the spread of these gastro bugs to others. Consider this: when 10,000 giardia cysts were placed in the palm of a hand, handwashing with soap eliminated 99% of them. To prevent others from becoming sick, disinfect contaminated surfaces thoroughly immediately after someone vomits or has diarrhoea. While wearing disposable gloves, wash surfaces with hot water and a neutral detergent, then use household bleach containing 0.1% hypochlorite solution as a disinfectant.