Made by DATEXIS (Data Science and Text-based Information Systems) at Beuth University of Applied Sciences Berlin
Deep Learning Technology: Sebastian Arnold, Betty van Aken, Paul Grundmann, Felix A. Gers and Alexander Löser. Learning Contextualized Document Representations for Healthcare Answer Retrieval. The Web Conference 2020 (WWW'20)
Funded by The Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy; Grant: 01MD19013D, Smart-MD Project, Digital Technologies
Until the advent of antivenom, bites from some species of snake were almost universally fatal. Despite huge advances in emergency therapy, antivenom is often still the only effective treatment for envenomation. The first antivenom was developed in 1895 by French physician Albert Calmette for the treatment of Indian cobra bites. Antivenom is made by injecting a small amount of venom into an animal (usually a horse or sheep) to initiate an immune system response. The resulting antibodies are then harvested from the animal's blood.
Antivenom is injected into the person intravenously, and works by binding to and neutralizing venom enzymes. It cannot undo damage already caused by venom, so antivenom treatment should be sought as soon as possible. Modern antivenoms are usually polyvalent, making them effective against the venom of numerous snake species. Pharmaceutical companies which produce antivenom target their products against the species native to a particular area. Although some people may develop serious adverse reactions to antivenom, such as anaphylaxis, in emergency situations this is usually treatable and hence the benefit outweighs the potential consequences of not using antivenom. Giving adrenaline (epinephrine) to prevent adverse effect to antivenom before they occur might be reasonable where they occur commonly. Antihistamines do not appear to provide any benefit in preventing adverse reactions.
As of 2008, clinical evidence for pressure immobilization via the use of an elastic bandage is limited. It is recommended for snakebites that have occurred in Australia (due to elapids which are neurotoxic). It is not recommended for bites from non-neurotoxic snakes such as those found in North America and other regions of the world. The British military recommends pressure immobilization in all cases where the type of snake is unknown.
The object of pressure immobilization is to contain venom within a bitten limb and prevent it from moving through the lymphatic system to the vital organs. This therapy has two components: pressure to prevent lymphatic drainage, and immobilization of the bitten limb to prevent the pumping action of the skeletal muscles.
The second stage features the reabsorption of the initially extravasated fluid and albumin from the tissues, and it usually lasts 1 to 2 days. Intravascular fluid overload leads to polyuria and can cause flash pulmonary edema and cardiac arrest, with possibly fatal consequences. Death from SCLS typically occurs during this recruitment phase because of pulmonary edema arising from excessive intravenous fluid administration during the earlier leak phase. The severity of the problem depends on to the quantity of fluid supplied in the initial phase, the damage that may have been sustained by the kidneys, and the promptness with which diuretics are administered to help the patient discharge the accumulated fluids quickly. A recent study of 59 acute episodes occurring in 37 hospitalized SCLS patients concluded that high-volume fluid therapy was independently associated with poorer clinical outcomes, and that the main complications of SCLS episodes were recovery-phase pulmonary edema (24%), cardiac arrhythmia (24%), compartment syndrome (20%), and acquired infections (19%).
The prevention of episodes of SCLS has involved two approaches. The first has long been identified with the Mayo Clinic, and it recommended treatment with beta agonists such as terbutaline, phosphodiesterase-inhibitor theophylline, and leukotriene-receptor antagonists montelukast sodium.
The rationale for use of these drugs was their ability to increase intracellular cyclic AMP (adenosine monophosphate) levels, which might counteract inflammatory signaling pathways that induce endothelial permeability. It was the standard of care until the early 2000s, but was sidelined afterwards because patients frequently experienced renewed episodes of SCLS, and because these drugs were poorly tolerated due to their unpleasant side effects.
The second, more recent approach pioneered in France during the last decade (early 2000s) involves monthly intravenous infusions of immunoglobulins (IVIG), with an initial dose of 2 gr/kg/month of body weight, which has proven very successful as per abundant case-report evidence from around the world.
IVIG has long been used for the treatment of autoimmune and MGUS-associated syndromes, because of its potential immunomodulatory and anticytokine properties. The precise mechanism of action of IVIG in patients with SCLS is unknown, but it is likely that it neutralizes their proinflammatory cytokines that provoke endothelial dysfunction. A recent review of clinical experience with 69 mostly European SCLS patients found that preventive treatment with IVIG was the strongest factor associated with their survival, such that an IVIG therapy should be the first-line preventive agent for SCLS patients. According to a recent NIH survey of patient experience, IVIG prophylaxis is associated with a dramatic reduction in the occurrence of SCLS episodes in most patients, with minimal side effects, such that it may be considered as frontline therapy for those with a clear-cut diagnosis of SCLS and a history of recurrent episodes.
In mostly European experience with 69 patients during 1996-2016, the 5- and 10-year survival rates for SCLS patients were 78% and 69%, respectively, but the survivors received significantly more frequent preventive treatment with IVIG than did non-survivors. Five- and 10-year survival rates in patients treated with IVIG were 91% and 77%, respectively, compared to 47% and 37% in patients not treated with IVIG. Moreover, better identification and management of this condition appears to be resulting in lower mortality and improving survival and quality-of-life results as of late.
Biotechnology companies in the developing world have targeted neglected tropical diseases due to need to improve global health.
Mass drug administration is considered a possible method for eradication, especially for lymphatic filariasis, onchocerciasis, and trachoma, although drug resistance is a potential problem. According to Fenwick, Pfizer donated 70 million doses of drugs in 2011 to eliminate trachoma through the International Trachoma Initiative. Merck has helped The African Programme for the Control of Onchocerciasis (APOC) and Oncho Elimination Programme for the Americas to greatly diminished the effect of Onchocerciasis by donating ivermectin. Merck KGaA pledged to give 200 million tablets of praziquantel over 10 years, the only cure for schistosomiasis. GlaxoSmithKline has donated two billion tablets of medicine for lymphatic filariasis and pledged 400 million deworming tablets per year for five years in 2010. Johnson & Johnson has pledged 200 million deworming tablets per year. Novartis has pledged leprosy treatment, EISAI pledged two billion tablets to help treat lymphatic filariasis.
There are currently only two donor-funded non-governmental organizations that focus exclusively on NTDs: the Schistosomiasis Control Initiative and Deworm the World. Despite under-funding, many neglected diseases are cost-effective to treat and prevent. The cost of treating a child for infection of soil transmitted helminths and schistosomes (some of the main causes of neglected diseases), is less than US$0.50 per year, when administered as part of school-based mass deworming by Deworm the World. This programme is recommended by Giving What We Can and the Copenhagen Consensus Centre as one of the most efficient and cost-effective solutions. The efforts of Schistosomiasis Control Initiative to combat neglected diseases include the use of rapid-impact packages: supplying schools with packages including four or five drugs, and training teachers in how to administer them.
Medications used to treat diabetes do so by lowering blood sugar levels. There are a number of different classes of anti-diabetic medications. Some are available by mouth, such as metformin, while others are only available by injection such as GLP-1 agonists. Type 1 diabetes can only be treated with insulin, typically with a combination of regular and NPH insulin, or synthetic insulin analogs.
Metformin is generally recommended as a first line treatment for type 2 diabetes, as there is good evidence that it decreases mortality. It works by decreasing the liver's production of glucose. Several other groups of drugs, mostly given by mouth, may also decrease blood sugar in type II DM. These include agents that increase insulin release, agents that decrease absorption of sugar from the intestines, and agents that make the body more sensitive to insulin. When insulin is used in type 2 diabetes, a long-acting formulation is usually added initially, while continuing oral medications. Doses of insulin are then increased to effect.
Since cardiovascular disease is a serious complication associated with diabetes, some have recommended blood pressure levels below 130/80 mmHg. However, evidence supports less than or equal to somewhere between 140/90 mmHg to 160/100 mmHg; the only additional benefit found for blood pressure targets beneath this range was an isolated decrease in stroke risk, and this was accompanied by an increased risk of other serious adverse events. A 2016 review found potential harm to treating lower than 140 mmHg. Among medications that lower blood pressure, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) improve outcomes in those with DM while the similar medications angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) do not. Aspirin is also recommended for people with cardiovascular problems, however routine use of aspirin has not been found to improve outcomes in uncomplicated diabetes.
Polycephaly is the condition of having more than one head. The term is derived from the Egyptian stems "poly" (Greek: "πολύ") meaning "many" and "kephalē" (Greek: "κεφάλη") meaning "head". A polycephalic organism may be thought of as one being with a supernumerary body part, or as two or more beings with a shared body.
Two-headed animals (called bicephalic or dicephalic) and three-headed (tricephalic) animals are the only type of multi-headed creatures seen in the real world, and form by the same process as conjoined twins from monozygotic twin embryos.
In humans, there are two forms of twinning that can lead to two heads being supported by a single torso. In dicephalus parapagus dipus, the two heads are side by side. In craniopagus parasiticus, the two heads are joined directly to each other, but only one head has a functional torso. Survival to adulthood is rare, but does occur in some forms of dicephalus parapagus dipus.
There are many occurrences of multi-headed animals in mythology. In heraldry and vexillology, the double-headed eagle is a common symbol, though no such animal is known to have ever existed.
Two-headed people and animals, though rare, have long been known to exist and documented.
People with diabetes can benefit from education about the disease and treatment, good nutrition to achieve a normal body weight, and exercise, with the goal of keeping both short-term and long-term blood glucose levels within acceptable bounds. In addition, given the associated higher risks of cardiovascular disease, lifestyle modifications are recommended to control blood pressure.
There is no single dietary pattern that is best for all people with diabetes. For overweight people with type 2 diabetes, any diet that the person will adhere to and achieve weight loss on is effective.