The Association between Chronic Arsenic Exposure and Hypertension: A Meta-Analysis

Background. There is inconclusive evidence from cross-sectional and cohort studies that arsenic exposure is a risk factor involved in the development of hypertension. Methods. A database search, using several keywords, was conducted to identify relevant studies. Separate odds ratio estimates for arsenic exposure with concentration only and arsenic exposure with duration, including biomarker, were extracted from studies that met all inclusion criteria. The extracted odds ratios (OR) comparing the highest exposure categories with the lowest in each study were pooled using the random effects methods of meta-analysis. Heterogeneity of odds ratios in the included studies were analyzed using I2 statistics. Results. Eight studies were analyzed. Using the exposure as arsenic concentration in the drinking water, the OR estimate was 1.9 (95% CI: 1.2–3.0), with the I2 = 92%, while using the exposure as concentration and duration, the OR estimate was 1.4 (95% CI: 0.95–2.0) with the I2 = 80%. Meta-regression was done and the quality of exposure measurement was found to be significantly associated with the effect measure. For a one unit increase in the score from exposure assessment, the odds ratio decreased by 6%. No publication bias was evident. The only major weaknesses of this study were heterogeneity across studies and small sample size. Conclusions. The study findings provide limited evidence for a relationship between arsenic and hypertension. In summary, the relationship between arsenic exposure and hypertension is still inconclusive and needs further validation through prospective cohort studies

Bangladesh arsenic mitigation programs: lessons from the past

Ensuring access to safe drinking water by 2015 is a global commitment by the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). In Bangladesh, significant achievements in providing safe water were made earlier by nationwide tubewell-installation programme. This achievement was overshadowed in 1993 by the presence of arsenic in underground water. A total of 6 million tubewells have been tested for arsenic since then, the results of which warranted immediate mitigation. Mitigation measures included tubewell testing and replacing; usage of deeper wells; surface water preservation and treatment; use of sanitary dug wells, river sand and pond sand filters; rainwater collection and storage; household-scale and large-scale arsenic filtrations; and rural pipeline water supply installation. Shallow tubewell installation was discouraged. Efforts have been made to increase people's awareness. This paper describes the lessons learned about mitigation efforts by the authors from experience of arsenic-related work. In spite of national mitigation plans and efforts, a few challenges still persist: inadequate coordination between stakeholders, differences in inter-sectoral attitudes, inadequate research to identify region-specific, suitable safe water options, poor quality of works by various implementing agencies, and inadequate dissemination of the knowledge and experiences to the people by those organizations. Issues such as long-time adaptation using ground water, poor surface water quality including bad smell and turbidity, and refusal to using neighbor's water have delayed mitigation measures so far. Region-specific mitigation water supply policy led by the health sector could be adopted with multisectoral involvement and responsibility. Large-scale piped water supply could be arranged through Public Private Partnerships (PPP) in new national approach

Thrombolysis implementation intervention and clinical outcome : a secondary analysis of a cluster randomized trial

Background: Multiple studies have attempted to increase the rate of intravenous thrombolysis for ischemic stroke using interventions to promote adherence to guidelines. Still, many of them did not measure individual-level impact. This study aimed to make a posthoc comparison of the clinical outcomes of patients in the "Thrombolysis ImPlementation in Stroke (TIPS)"study, which aimed to improve rates of intravenous thrombolysis in Australia. Methods: A posthoc analysis was conducted using individual-level patient data. Excellent (Three-month post treatment modified Rankin Score 0-2) and poor clinical outcome (Three-month post treatment modified Rankin Score 5-6) and post treatment parenchymal haematoma were the three main outcomes, and a mixed logistic regression model was used to assess the difference between the intervention and control groups. Results: There was a non-significant higher odds of having an excellent clinical outcome of 57% (odds ratio: 1.57; 95% CI: 0.73-3.39) and 33% (odds ratio: 1.33; 95% CI: 0.73-2.44) during the active-And post-intervention period respectively, for the intervention compared to the control group. A non-significant lower odds of having a poor clinical outcome was also found in the intervention, relative to control group of 4% (odds ratio: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.56-2.07) and higher odds of having poor outcome of 44% (odds ratio: 1.44 95% CI: 0.61-3.41) during both active and post-intervention period respectively. Similarly, a non-significant lower odds of parenchymal haematoma was also found for the intervention group during the both active-(odds ratio: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.21-1.32) and post-intervention period (odds ratio: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.36-2.52). Conclusion: The TIPS multi-component implementation approach was not effective in reducing the odds of post-Treatment severe disability at 90 days, or post-thrombolysis hemorrhage

Thrombolysis implementation intervention and clinical outcome: A secondary analysis of a cluster randomized trial

Background: Multiple studies have attempted to increase the rate of intravenous thrombolysis for ischemic stroke using interventions to promote adherence to guidelines. Still, many of them did not measure individual-level impact. This study aimed to make a posthoc comparison of the clinical outcomes of patients in the "Thrombolysis ImPlementation in Stroke (TIPS)" study, which aimed to improve rates of intravenous thrombolysis in Australia. Methods: A posthoc analysis was conducted using individual-level patient data. Excellent (Three-month post treatment modified Rankin Score 0-2) and poor clinical outcome (Three-month post treatment modified Rankin Score 5-6) and post treatment parenchymal haematoma were the three main outcomes, and a mixed logistic regression model was used to assess the difference between the intervention and control groups. Results: There was a non-significant higher odds of having an excellent clinical outcome of 57% (odds ratio: 1.57; 95% CI: 0.73-3.39) and 33% (odds ratio: 1.33; 95% CI: 0.73-2.44) during the active-and post-intervention period respectively, for the intervention compared to the control group. A non-significant lower odds of having a poor clinical outcome was also found in the intervention, relative to control group of 4% (odds ratio: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.56- 2.07) and higher odds of having poor outcome of 44% (odds ratio: 1.44 95% CI: 0.61-3.41) during both active and post-intervention period respectively. Similarly, a non-significant lower odds of parenchymal haematoma was also found for the intervention group during the both active- (odds ratio: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.21-1.32) and post-intervention period (odds ratio: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.36-2.52). Conclusion: The TIPS multi-component implementation approach was not effective in reducing the odds of posttreatment severe disability at 90 days, or post-thrombolysis hemorrhage.This study was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) partnership grant (569328), part-funded by an NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (1043913) and NHMRC Translating Research Into Practice fellowship, and included partnership grant contribution funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, in-kind support from Agency for Clinical Innovation Stroke Care Network/Stroke Services New South Wales (NSW), Stroke Foundation and NSW Cardiovascular Research Network-National Heart Foundation, with a cash contribution from the Victorian Stroke Clinical Network and infrastructure funding from the Hunter Medical Research Institute and The University of Newcastle

Annual Incidence of Snake Bite in Rural Bangladesh

Snake bite is one of the major causes of morbidity and mortality in many rural tropical areas. As a neglected public health problem, estimate of the risk is largely unknown. However, the associated personal and economic impact of snake bite is substantial across developing countries. This national survey investigated the risk and consequences of snake bite among the rural Bangladeshi population. We surveyed 18857 individuals from 24 out of 64 districts in Bangladesh where 98 snake bites including one death were reported. The estimated incidence density of snake bite is 623.4/ 100,000 person years (95% CI: 513.4–789.2/100,000 person years). Biting occurs mostly when individuals are at work. The majority of the victims (71%) received snake bites to their lower extremities. Eighty-six percent of the victims received some form of management within two hours of snake bite, although only three percent of them went directly to either a medical doctor or a hospital. The observed rate of snake bite in rural Bangladesh is substantially higher than anticipated. This coupled with poor access to health services led to an increase in related morbidity and mortality. An improvement in public health actions is therefore warranted