Prevalence of HCV and HIV infections in 2005-Earthquake-affected areas of Pakistan

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>On October 8, 2005, an earthquake of magnitude 7.6 hit the Northern parts of Pakistan. In the post-earthquake scenario, overcrowding, improper sewage disposal, contamination of food and drinking water, hasty surgical procedures, and unscreened blood transfusions to earthquake victims most likely promotes the spread of infections already prevalent in the area.</p> <p>Objective</p> <p>The objective of the study reported here was to determine the prevalence of Human Immunodeficiency and Hepatitis C viruses (respectively, HIV and HCV) in the earthquake-affected communities of Pakistan. The samples were analyzed 2 months and then again 11 months after the earthquake to estimate the burden of HIV and HCV in these areas, and to determine any rise in the prevalence of these viral infections as a result of the earthquake.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Blood samples were initially collected during December, 2005 to March 2006, from 245 inhabitants of the earthquake-affected areas. These samples were screened for HCV and HIV, using immunochromatography and Enzyme-Linked Immuno-Sorbent Assay (ELISA).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Out of 245 samples tested, 8 (3.26%) were found positive for HCV, and 0 (0.0%) for HIV, indicating the existence of HCV infection in the earthquake-stricken areas. The same methods were used to analyze the samples collected in the second round of screening in the same area, in September, 2006 – 11 months after the earthquake. This time 290 blood samples were collected, out of which 16 (5.51%) samples were positive for HCV, and 0 for HIV.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>A slightly higher prevalence of HCV was recorded 11 months after the earthquake; this increase, however, was not statistically significant. None of the study participants was found HIV-infected.</p

Consensus guidelines for the use and interpretation of angiogenesis assays

The formation of new blood vessels, or angiogenesis, is a complex process that plays important roles in growth and development, tissue and organ regeneration, as well as numerous pathological conditions. Angiogenesis undergoes multiple discrete steps that can be individually evaluated and quantified by a large number of bioassays. These independent assessments hold advantages but also have limitations. This article describes in vivo, ex vivo, and in vitro bioassays that are available for the evaluation of angiogenesis and highlights critical aspects that are relevant for their execution and proper interpretation. As such, this collaborative work is the first edition of consensus guidelines on angiogenesis bioassays to serve for current and future reference

Distinguishing truly recalcitrant prurigo nodularis from poor treatment adherence: a response to treatment-resistant prurigo nodularis [Response to letter]

Eric H Kowalski,1 Diana Kneiber,1 Manuel Valdebran,2 Umangi Patel,1 Kyle T Amber11Department of Dermatology, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA; 2Department of Dermatology, University of California-Irvine, Irvine, CA, USAKolli et al shed light on a pertinent issue of poor adherence to therapy in the treatment of&nbsp;prurigo nodularis (PN).1 While our intention was to cover recalcitrance in the sense of&nbsp;medical failure, Kolli et al bring up an extremely valuable point: adherence to therapy is&nbsp;dismal.2 Escalation of therapy as a result of poor compliance may result in unintended&nbsp;adverse effects from the more potent systemic therapies delineated in the treatment of&nbsp;PN. Thus, ensuring compliance with the treatment protocol should be a priority.In our view, PN is most often a phenotypic manifestation of chronic pruritus&nbsp;secondary to a host of diseases. Presumably, the relative adherence to treatment for the underlying&nbsp;cause of the PN, in cases where there is one, has a large role to play in the recalcitrance of the&nbsp;PN. This is perhaps most glaring in the case of atopic dermatitis (AD). AD has been identified to contribute to PN development in nearly 50% of PN patients.3 Assessment of nonadherence, as well as steroid phobia has been well documented in the AD population and almost certainly contributes to the development of clinically deemed recalcitrant PN in this population.4,5 Because of the well-established efficacy of topical corticosteroids in the treatment of atopic dermatitis, it is likely that atopic PN would prove more responsive. Thus, &ldquo;treatment resistant&rdquo; atopic PN, requires serious con- sideration of nonadherence. Clinical data on nonadherence in nonatopic PN patients, however, remains undetermined.Regardless of the primary underlying cause, patients receiving supervised phototherapy in the outpatient setting offer insight into truly recalcitrant PN due to complete adherence. A recent review on phototherapy in treatment of PN showed that in 5 out of 11 studies, patients experienced recalcitrant disease.6 Thus, even in a supervised setting where adherence could be monitored, numerous cases were recalcitrant.Innovation in adherence strategies across a wide spectrum of therapies ideally will result in fewer&nbsp;&ldquo;treatment-resistant&rdquo; cases.7&ndash;9 We agree with Kolli et al, that it&nbsp;remains vital to distinguish between poor adherence and medical failure.This is in response to the Letter to the Edito