Arsenic-safe drinking water and antioxidants for the management of arsenicosis patients

The role of arsenic-safe drinking water and antioxidants in the management of arsenicosis patients were observed. Two hundred and fifty patients of arsenicosis from an arsenic-affected area of Bangladesh were included and divided into five groups based on the source of drinking water (green- or red-marked tube well) and intake of antioxidants (vitamin A, C and E). Melanosis improved in 43 patients of the group who took arsenic-safe drinking water from green-marked tube well and antioxidants regularly. Patients of the group who took green-marked tube well water regularly but not the antioxidant showed improvement in melanosis in 22 cases. The respondents who were using red-marked tube well water and antioxidants, only two of them improved; and all other respondents either deteriorated or did not improve. The respondents who were using red-marked tube well water but not the antioxidant, none did show any improvement of their illness. The respondents who took antioxidants irregularly and had irregular intake of safe water, were not considered to compare the prognosis of skin lesions. Regarding keratosis, the respondents who took green-marked tube well water regularly and antioxidant regularly, 8 of them improved, 1 case didn’t change; while the respondents who took green-marked tube well water regularly but not the antioxidant, 8 cases didn’t improve much but majority of them remain unchanged. Among the respondents of other groups, keratosis deteriorated. This study suggests that both arsenic-safe drinking water and use of antioxidants gave good result in improvement of the arsenicosis

Detecting arsenic-related skin lesions: experiences from a large community-based survey in Bangladesh.

A cross-sectional survey was conducted in Matlab, Bangladesh, to determine the prevalence of skin lesions (a three-step procedure) associated with arsenic exposure and discuss validity and feasibility in relation to recommended screening algorithms. Cases with skin lesions were identified by screening above 4 years of age (n = 166,934). Trained field teams conducted a careful house-to-house screening and identified 1682 individuals with skin lesions, who were referred to physicians for confirmation. Physicians diagnosed 579 cases as probable and documented all these with digital photographs. Two experts inspected all photographs for consensus agreement that was reached for 504 cases. Using the experts' opinions as reference, the positive predictive value of the physicians' diagnosis was 87% (male = 82% vs. female = 94%; p < 0.01). The physicians had difficulties in separating arsenic-induced keratosis from differential diagnoses, while probability for correct diagnosis was high for arsenic-related pigmentation changes. Including information on current arsenic concentration in drinking water (which was masked at time of skin examination) or urine in the diagnostic algorithm should have increased the number of false negative cases. In the present transition of drinking water sources these markers of current exposure levels provide no information on past exposure. A 2-3 step procedure with house-to-house screening and clinic-based confirmation of arsenic-induced skin lesions is a feasible approach. Information on arsenic concentration in current water sources or in urine should not have improved the precision in the diagnosis. These results may have policy implications for community screening of arsenic-related skin lesions in Bangladesh and elsewhere