SARS-like virus cases found

LONDON: A new virus from the same family as SARS which sparked a global alert in September has now killed two people in Saudi Arabia, and total cases there and in Qatar have reached six, the World Health Organisation said.

The U.N. health agency issued an international alert in late September saying a virus previously unknown in humans had infected a Qatari man who had recently been in Saudi Arabia, where another man with the same virus had died.

On Friday it said in an outbreak update that it had registered four more cases and one of the new patients had died.

"The additional cases have been identified as part of the enhanced surveillance in Saudi Arabia (3 cases, including 1 death) and Qatar (1 case)," the WHO said.

The new virus is known as a coronavirus and shares some of the symptoms of SARS, or Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, which emerged in China in 2002 and killed around a 10th of the 8,000 people it infected worldwide.

Among the symptoms in the confirmed cases are fever, coughing and breathing difficulties.

Of the six laboratory-confirmed cases reported to WHO, four cases, including the two deaths, are from Saudi Arabia and two cases are from Qatar.

Britain's Health Protection Agency, which helped to identify the new virus in September, said the newly reported case from Qatar was initially treated in October in Qatar but then transferred to Germany, and has now been discharged.

Coronaviruses are typically spread like other respiratory infections, such as flu, travelling in airborne droplets when an infected person coughs or sneezes.

The WHO said investigations were being conducted into the likely source of the infection, the method of exposure, and the possibility of human-to-human transmission of the virus.

"Close contacts of the recently confirmed cases are being identified and followed-up," it said.

It added that so far, only the two most recently confirmed cases in Saudi Arabia were epidemiologically linked - they were from the same family, living in the same household.

"Preliminary investigations indicate that these two cases presented with similar symptoms of illness. One died and the other recovered," the WHO's statement said.

Two other members of the same family also suffered similar symptoms of illness, and one died and the other is recovering. But the WHO said laboratory test results on the fatality were still pending, and the person who is recovering had tested negative for the new coronavirus.

The virus has no formal name, but scientists at the British and Dutch laboratories where it was identified refer to it as "London1_novel CoV 2012".

The WHO urged all its member states to continue surveillance for severe acute respiratory infections.

"Until more information is available, it is prudent to consider that the virus is likely more widely distributed than just the two countries which have identified cases," it said. (Reuters)

READMORE:http://www.thenews.com.pk/article-76827

Caffeine-diabetes

NEW YORK: Results of a large new U.S. study confirm that sugary drinks are linked to a heightened risk of developing Type 2 diabetes, but shed little light on whether caffeine helps or hinders the process.

Among more than 100,000 men and women followed for 22 years, those who drank sugar-sweetened drinks were as much as 23 percent more likely to develop diabetes than those who didn't, but the risk was about the same whether the drinks contained caffeine or not. And drinkers of both caffeinated coffee and decaf had slightly lowered diabetes risk.

"We found that caffeine doesn't make a difference at all," said the study's lead author Dr. Frank Hu of Harvard University. "Coffee can be beneficial and the caffeine doesn't appear to have a positive or negative effect on diabetes risk," Hu told Reuters Health.

Numerous past studies have linked regular consumption of soft drinks - both sugar- and artificially-sweetened - to an increased risk of diabetes. Research over the past decade has also suggested that caffeine temporarily prevents the body from processing sugar efficiently. Those who live with diabetes deal with this problem all the time.

That at least suggests that caffeine in conjunction with sweetened drinks might raise diabetes risk even further. However, other research has found a protective effect from coffee and tea, suggesting caffeine does the opposite.

Hu and his coauthors wanted to know if people who regularly drink sugary and caffeinated beverages might only be exaggerating their risk of developing a disease that affects nearly 26 million adults and children, or about eight percent of the U.S. population, according to the American Diabetes Association.

They examined the health habits of 75,000 women and 39,000 men involved in long-term health studies that began in the mid-1980s.

Compared to people who didn't consume sugary drinks, the likelihood of developing diabetes over the years for those who did was higher by 13 percent (caffeinated) or 11 percent (decaffeinated) among women, and by 16 percent (caffeinated) or 23 percent (decaffeinated) among men.

Caffeine-free artificially sweetened drinks were also linked to a slight (six percent) increase in risk among women.

However, coffee drinkers showed slightly lower risk compared to non-drinkers. The chances of developing diabetes were eight percent lower among women, whether they drank decaf or regular coffee, and for men, four percent lower with caffeinated coffee and seven percent lower with decaf.

Hu and his team have used this same dataset, which contains the health habits of mostly white health professionals, to suggest that regular coffee drinking in general is tied to lower diabetes risk.

But past studies, like the current one, have also found that the risk falls even lower if adults drink decaffeinated coffee.

"Our understanding of the body's tolerance to caffeine is not complete," said James Lane of Duke University. Lane has done short-term studies that linked caffeine to a disruption of the body's ability to process glucose, or "blood sugar."

This latest study suggests that people who currently drink sugary beverages could substitute unsweetened coffee or tea - though tea was associated with fewer benefits - instead.

Such advice could be important, since the number of Americans who develop diabetes has steadily increased, according to a study released earlier this month by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Diabetes can only be managed, not cured and its side effects range from high blood pressure to debilitating blindness.

"I'm disappointed that they are essentially repeating something they published several years ago. The bit about including sugar sweetened beverages and caffeine's possible interaction with sugar and diabetes does not add something of great value," Lane told Reuters Health.

Others agree more research is necessary to untangle caffeinated coffee's complicated relationship with diabetes risk.

At least one small, randomized two-month-long trial led last year by Rob Martinus van Dam of the National University of Singapore, also a co-author of the current study, found that caffeinated coffee did not seem to affect glucose levels in the blood.

Van Dam told Reuters Health that the next step toward establishing a direct link between caffeinated coffee and reduced diabetes risk would require a much larger study.

"We still don't advise people to start drinking coffee if they do not already," van Dam said.

People who want to lower their risk of developing diabetes could follow advice that has been better substantiated, such as eating large amounts of fruits and vegetables and exercising regularly. (Reuters)

READMORE:http://www.thenews.com.pk/article-76686

4D scans show fetuses yawn in the womb

LONDON: Growing into a fully formed human being is a long process, and scientists have found that unborn babies not only hiccup, swallow and stretch in the womb, they yawn too.

Researchers who studied 4D scans of 15 healthy fetuses also said they think yawning is a developmental process which could potentially give doctors a new way to check on a baby's health.

While some scientists have previously suggested that fetuses yawn, others disagree and say it is nothing more than a developing baby opening and stretching its mouth.

But writing in the journal PLOS ONE on Wednesday, British researchers said their study was able to clearly distinguish yawning from "non-yawn mouth opening" based on how long the mouth was open.

The researchers did this by using 4D video footage to examine all the times when fetuses opened their mouths.

Nadja Reissland of Durham University's department of Psychology, who led the study, said the function and importance of yawning in fetuses is still unknown, but the findings suggest it may be linked to fetal development and could provide a further indication of the health of the unborn baby.

"Unlike us, fetuses do not yawn contagiously, nor do they yawn because they are sleepy," she said. "Instead, the frequency of yawning in the womb may be linked to the maturing of the brain early in gestation."

The study was carried out on eight female and seven male fetuses from 24 to 36 weeks gestation. The researchers found that yawning declined from 28 weeks and that there was no significant difference in how often boys and girls yawned. (Reuters)

READMORE:http://www.thenews.com.pk/article

New SARS virus

PARIS: A novel strain of the deadly SARS virus that sparked a health scare this year is closely related to a virus found in Asian bats, according to a study published on Tuesday.

Scientists in the Netherlands said they had sequenced the genetic code of a viral sample taken from a 60-year-old man whose death in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, in June triggered fears that Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) was returning in a new guise.

The new strain, called HCoV-EMC/2012, is part of a viral family called coronavirus, but in a specific category called betacoronavirus.

Its closest known cousins are a strain found in lesser bamboo bats (Tylonycteris pachypus) and another found in Japanese house bats, Pipistrellus abramus.

"The virus is most closely related to viruses in bats in Asia, and there are no human viruses closely related to it," said Ron Fouchier of the prestigious Erasmus Medical Centre in Rotterdam.

"Therefore we speculate that it comes from an animal source," he said, noting that Pipistrellus bats are present in Saudi Arabia and neighbouring countries.

An epidemic of SARS erupted in China in 2002, eventually claiming around 800 deaths in some 30 countries.

Bats were linked with a novel strain of SARS found in 2005. Hong Kong researchers found a natural "reservoir" of it in Chinese horseshoe bats.

Two other men have also fallen sick in the latest SARS episode.

One is a Qatari man who had been in Saudi Arabia and is being treated at a hospital in London.

There is 99.6-99.7 percent similarity between his strain and the virus sequenced in the Netherlands, said Fouchier in a press release.

READMORE:http://www.thenews.com.pk/article

Refugee health

What health risks do refugees face?

In the cramped, basic conditions of a refugee camp, disease gains a strong foothold and can spread quickly throughout the population. Aid agencies particularly fear the spread (or epidemics) of:

• Cholera
• Measles
• Meningitis
• Tuberculosis
• Polio

They may also struggle to keep warm and fed in temporary shelters, and may face hypothermia and even starvation.
Refugees are also likely to have been psychologically traumatised by what they have seen. They may have seen their loved ones killed or harmed, they will have had to leave all their possessions and they face a very uncertain future.
Population movement, poor sanitation, water contamination and the interruption of public health programmes are the main reasons for the spread of disease after natural and humanitarian disasters.
Often displaced populations are forced to gather in confined spaces, further enabling the spread of epidemics, such as cholera, malaria and dengue fever.
Another problem is the number of injured people who need to be treated. However, according to the World Health Organisation, the presence of dead bodies isn't a major factor in the spread of communicable diseases in these situations.
The impact can be huge, from high mortality or death rates in refugee camps to many long term health issues in refugee populations who may then live for years dislocated and in poverty.

Cholera

The spread of cholera is one of the main dangers following a humanitarian disaster - whether natural or enforced. Cholera is an acute infection of the gut which causes pronounced diarrhoea and vomiting. This can lead to severe dehydration and, in some extreme cases, death. However, many people who are infected by the bacteria don’t become ill and 90 per cent of those who do are only mildly or moderately ill.
Cholera is spread by contaminated water and food. The infection is most deadly when it arrives unexpectedly because there are often no facilities for treatment or because people cannot get treatment in time. Cholera can be effectively treated with oral rehydration salts and antibiotics. Containing a cholera outbreak involves ensuring there are proper sanitation methods for disposing of sewage, an adequate clean drinking water supply and good food hygiene.
New oral cholera vaccines have come into use in recent years improving the protection against this disease. However they don’t provide complete protection against all strains of cholera, and its important to continue to follow strict hygiene measures.

What help is available to refugees?

The World Health Organisation's Emergency and Humanitarian Action division was set up in 1993, and works with United Nations agencies and national health ministries to co-ordinate and implement help in humanitarian disasters. The WHO policy is to work within the emergency measures set out in the country affected. Its first task in an emergency is to conduct a rapid health assessment in the affected areas within 48 hours of a disaster.
It’s then likely to set up:

• An early epidemic warning system
• Measures to control communicable diseases
• A programme for repairing key hospitals and primary care agencies affected
• Water and sanitation measures
• Programmes for ensuring necessary medical supplies are available

Establishing such measures may mean an appeal to international donors for supplies and help.
READMORE;http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/physical_health

Otitis externa(swimmer's ear)

What is otitis externa?

Otitis externa is an inflammation of the outer ear canal - the tube between the skin surface of the external ear and the ear drum.

Symptoms

There's redness and swelling of the skin of the ear canal. It may be itchy (especially in the early stages) and can become sore and painful. There may be a discharge, or increased amounts of ear wax. If the canal becomes blocked by swelling or secretions, hearing can be affected.

Causes and risk factors

Otitis externa is usually caused by an infection, which may be fungal or bacterial. A bacterial infection is more likely to result in a localised problem, such as an inflamed spot or boil in the ear canal, but can cause cellulitis or more widespread inflammation of the tissues.
Fungal otitis externa usually causes a more diffuse irritation of the skin. Otitis externa may also develop in skin conditions such as eczema or dermatitis, where there's no infection but generalised inflammation of the skin.
Anyone can develop otitis externa. It can follow localised trauma to the skin of the ear canal - for example, if objects are placed in the ear - or if the canal is scraped by a cotton tipped bud in an attempt to remove wax (cerumen to give it its technical name) which plays an important protective role - too little may predispose to infection, although too much causes retention of water in the ear canal, which can allow bacteria to thrive.
Constantly getting the ears wet can damage the normal immune defences in the ear leading to infection (hence swimmer's ear). People with diabetes are at increased risk of infections, especially of the skin.

Treatment and recovery

The ear must be examined using an instrument called an otoscope, and a swab taken to test in the laboratory for bacteria or fungi. Cleaning the ear and removal of discharge, using gentle suction, may be all that's needed in very mild cases to allow the body to clear the infection.
Most cases are usually treated with antibiotics, usually as ear drops. Occasionally, in more severe or recurrent otitis externa, antibiotics must be given by mouth. Steroid cream or drops may also be given.
In most cases, symptoms resolve with treatment within two to three days. Occasionally, more often in diabetics, the infection spreads to surrounding tissue and intravenous antibiotics are needed. Some people who experience recurrent episodes of otitis externa may benefit from the use of acidifying ear drops after every exposure to water (such as showers and swimming).
READMORE:http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/physical_health

Natural family planning

What is natural family planning?

Natural family planning, or NFP, involves being able to identify the signs and symptoms (fertility indicators) of fertility during the menstrual cycle, so you can plan or avoid pregnancy.

How reliable is it?

Its effectiveness depends on how carefully it's used. If used according to teaching and instructions it is over 98 per cent effective. This means that using this method as contraception, fewer than two women in 100 will become pregnant in a year.
It's most effective when taught by a specialist NFP teacher and when more than one fertility indicator is used.
There are also a number of different fertility devices that work by monitoring changes in temperature, urine or saliva. In the UK, the main product is called Persona. This is about 94 per cent effective. This means, using this method, at least six women in 100 will become pregnant in a year.
Myths about natural family planning include:

• It isn't effective. Not true - NFP is highly effective when used correctly.
• It's difficult to use. Not true - NFP is easy to use once you have been taught correctly and have good support.

How do you use natural family planning?

NFP works by observing and recording your body’s different natural signs or fertility indicators on each day of your menstrual cycle. The main fertility indicators are:

• Recording your body temperature - your body temperature changes through the menstrual cycle under the influence of oestrogen and progesterone. It rises slightly after ovulation. Charting these changes each day will show when ovulation has occurred.
• Monitoring cervical secretions (cervical mucus) - the amount of oestrogen and progesterone varies during the menstrual cycle, which alters the quantity, texture and appearance of cervical mucus, seen as vaginal secretions. Charting these changes can help you identify the start and end of your fertile time.
• Calculating how long your menstrual cycle lasts - charting how short or long your menstrual cycles are over six months can give you an idea of your cycle length.

Combining these different fertility indicators acts as a double-check and increases the effectiveness of NFP.

Advantages and disadvantages of natural family planning

The advantages of natural family planning include:

• It makes you more aware of your fertility and helps you plan or prevent pregnancy.
• It doesn't involve any hormones or devices.
• There are no physical side-effects.
• It's acceptable to all faiths and cultures.
• It can help recognise normal and abnormal vaginal secretions.

The disadvantages include:

• It takes time to learn to use the method.
• You have to keep daily records.
• Some events such as travel, illness, lifestyle or stress can make fertility indicators harder to interpret.

Natural family planning does not protect you against sexually transmitted infections.

Can anyone use natural family planning?

Most women can as long as they receive good instruction and support. It can be used at all stages of your reproductive life, whatever age you are.
It may take longer to recognise your fertility indicators and to start to use NFP if you have irregular menstrual cycles, or at certain times - for example, after stopping hormonal contraception, after having a baby or when approaching the menopause.
READMORE:http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/physical_health

Lowers Blood Pressure

Patients in the study who were treated with the Enlightn renal denervation system saw an average reduction of 28 points in systolic blood pressure, which is the first number expressed in a reading, after 30 days. At six months, the 46 patients who received the treatment maintained an average systolic blood pressure reduction of 26 mmHg points.
The results were presented at the annual meeting of the American Heart Association in Los Angeles.
Patients enrolled in the study had an average blood pressure of 176/96 mmHg despite being treated with multiple medications to manage the condition. No serious side effects were reported, St Jude said.
Normal blood pressure is below 120/80 mmHg. Hypertension, or high blood pressure, is a reading above 140/90 mmHg.
Renal denervation is a procedure in which a thin, flexible catheter is threaded through the body to the renal sympathetic nerves near the kidneys. Radiofrequency energy is delivered to disrupt the nerve activity, relieving high blood pressure.
Millions of people have hypertension that is resistant to drugs, putting them at risk of heart attacks and stroke.
The new therapy is not yet approved in the United States, but several products are already available in Europe.
Device makers that have already received approval to sell hypertension devices in Europe include Medtronic, the front-runner, St Jude, Covidien, ReCor Medical and Vessix Vascular.READMORE:http://www.geo.tv/GeoDetail.aspx

Menthol-smoking kids easy to get hooked

In a study of tens of thousands of U.S. students, researchers found that kids who were dabbling with menthol cigarettes were 80 percent more likely to become regular smokers over the next few years, versus those experimenting with regular cigarettes.

Menthol is added to cigarettes to give them a minty "refreshing" flavor. Critics have charged that menthol makes cigarettes more palatable to new smokers - many of whom are kids - and may be especially likely to encourage addiction.

"This study adds additional evidence that menthol cigarettes are a potential risk factor for kids becoming established, adult smokers," said study leader James Nonnemaker, of the research institute RTI International in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

Still, the findings, which appear in the journal Addiction, do not prove that menthol cigarettes are to blame.

"The study's subject to a number of limitations," Nonnemaker said. "This shows an association, not cause-and-effect."

One issue, he said, is that the study was not set up specifically to answer the question of whether menthol might encourage habitual smoking.

The findings come from three years' worth of surveys of over 47,000 U.S. middle school and high school students. That included almost 1,800 kids who had just started smoking during the first or second survey - one-third of whom had opted for menthol cigarettes.

By the third-year survey, more than half of those experimenters had quit smoking. Another third were still occasional smokers, and 15 percent had become habitual smokers.

The odds of becoming a regular smoker, the study found, were 80 percent higher for kids who'd started off with menthol cigarettes. That was with the kids' age, gender and race taken into account.

The results are consistent with the idea that menthol cigarettes encourage kids to get hooked because of menthol's "sensory properties," according to Nonnemaker.

But, he said, more studies are needed. One question is whether the findings might vary by race. This study included mostly white students. But it's known that young African Americans and Asian Americans are especially likely to smoke menthol varieties.

Last year, an advisory committee to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said taking mentholated cigarettes off the shelves may benefit public health.

But studies have varied on the possible effects of the cigarettes versus regular ones.

One recent study found that menthol smokers had a higher stroke rate than those who favored the non-menthol variety. Another, however, found no higher risk of lung cancer, and no evidence that menthol fans had a harder time kicking the smoking habit.

Of course, not smoking at all is the wisest choice. The risks of the habits go beyond lung cancer, and include a range of other cancers, emphysema and heart disease - the number-one killer of Americans.

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, smoking any type of cigarettes increases a person's risk of heart disease two- to four-fold compared to non-smokers.

READMORE:http://www.thenews.com.pk/article-73529