Indian origin scientist behind path breaking test that detects all cancers in minutes

Washington D.C., May 9: Do the middle age feel much stressful now, and seems to have changed over time, if compared to the life in the 90s? Well, this recent study indicates that it might be true.

The study has signalled to the fact that life may become more stressful majorly for middle-aged people than it was in the 1990s. The researchers reached this analysis even before the novel coronavirus started sweeping the globe.

A team of researchers led by Penn State found that across all ages, there was a slight increase in daily stress in the 2010s compared to the 1990s. But when researchers restricted the sample to people between the ages of 45 and 64, there was a sharp increase in daily stress.

"On average, people reported about 2 percent more stressors in the 2010s compared to people in the past," said David M. Almeida, professor of human development and family studies at Penn State.

"That's around an additional week of stress a year. But what really surprised us is that people at mid-life reported a lot more stressors, about 19 percent more stress in 2010 than in 1990. And that translates to 64 more days of stress a year."

Almeida said the findings were part of a larger project aiming to discover whether health during the middle of Americans' lives has been changing over time.

"Certainly, when you talk to people, they seem to think that daily life is more hectic and less certain these days," Almeida said.

For the study, the researchers collected data from 1,499 adults in 1995 and 782 different adults in 2012.

Almeida said the goal was to study two cohorts of people who were the same age at the time the data was collected but born in different decades. All study participants were interviewed daily for eight consecutive days.

During each daily interview, the researchers asked the participants about their stressful experiences throughout the previous 24 hours.

They asked questions related to arguments with family or friends or feeling overwhelmed at home or work, so and so. The participants were also asked how severe their stress was and whether those stressors were likely to impact other areas of their lives.

"We were able to estimate not only how frequently people experienced stress, but also what those stressors mean to them," Almeida said.

"For example, did this stress affect their finances or their plans for the future. And by having these two cohorts of people, we were able to compare daily stress processes in 1990 with daily stress processes in 2010," Almeida added.

After analyzing the data, the researchers found that participants reported significantly more daily stress and lower well-being in the 2010s compared to the 1990s.

Additionally, participants reported a 27 percent increase in the belief that stress would affect their finances and a 17 percent increase in the belief that stress would affect their future plans.

Almeida said he was surprised not that people were more stressed now than in the 90s, but at the age group that was mainly affected.

"We thought that with economic uncertainty, life might be more stressful for younger adults. But we didn't see that. We saw more stress for people at mid-life," Almeida said.

"And maybe that's because they have children who are facing an uncertain job market while also responsible for their own parents. So it's this generational squeeze that's making stress more prevalent for people at mid-life," he concluded.

China, where the novel coronavirus originated, has reported 111 cases since beginning of May, which shows the infection rate has dipped, and 3 deaths since April 27, according to the WHO. A Shanghai-based Noida doctor says China is close to winning the battle against COVID-19, and the combination of zinc, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and antibiotic azithromycin has been able to save the lives of coronavirus patients.

Speaking to media persons, Dr Sanjeev Choubey, Medical Director Internal Medicine at St. Michael Hospital said this combination has been adopted as a line of treatment for patients infected with coronavirus, and as a result patients are recovering, decreasing their need for intensive care.

What is the line of treatment for COVID-19 patients, which also include asymptomatic patients?

The combination of zinc, hydroxychloroquine and antibiotic azithromycin has produced positive results, and it helped in the recovery of many COVID-19 patients. The combination -- Ascorbic Acid, B-complex, Zinc, Selenium, L-carnitine, Vitamin B-12 and Glutathione normal saline should be administered on patients twice a week for at least 6 weeks. This is COVID-19 treatment protocol for prophylaxis, and it implies both asymptomatic and symptomatic along with other medicine support.

Based on your experience on COVID-19 in China, after how many tests, is it safe to call a person coronavirus free?

The coronavirus should be performed at least 9 times, before terming a patient COVID-19 free. It is a standard in China. This procedure has worked in China and it will also work in India. Minimum five tests should be mandatory through RT-PCR.

Does coronavirus majorly attack the respiratory system or it could lead to organ failure too?

Line of treatment should not be just looking at the respiratory system, as the problem lies somewhere else. COVID-19 attacks many vital organs in the body. In China, a coronavirus patient died from a stroke. In the autopsy it was found that the innermost layer in the arteries was swollen. It was concluded that coronavirus had inflamed the layer of the arteries leading to clotting, which was a factor in generating a heart attack. Therefore, COVID-19 is not just a respiratory problem.

Amid the coronavirus pandemic, should autopsy be made mandatory in the case of unpredictable death or where reasons for death are not unknown?

Patients below 50 years, who die suddenly and the reasons are not known, then it should be mandatory to conduct the autopsy. After death, coronavirus is active in the body for five days, and it fades away on day 6. Therefore, if an autopsy is done then it will help in understanding this disease. In China, we have seen young COVID-19 patients, aged 22 and 28, succumbed to strokes.

Since the beginning of May, India has recorded more than 2,000 cases everyday in the first week, then it jumped past 3,000 mark in the second week. Finally, the tally is 4,987 on May 17. At 90,927 cases, has India progressed into community transmission or Stage3?

Yes, India has moved into Stage 3. The data suggests that 3,000 to 4,000 active COVID-19 cases, who are asymptomatic, are moving around and spreading the infection. The research has indicated that COVID-19 from an infected person spreads in 30 minutes to non-infected persons. The relaxation on the lockdown will certainly contribute to a high infection rate.

Do you think India has reached its peak in COVID-19 cases, or the sharp rise will continue till July end?

It seems India has already reached its peak and cases will begin to come down from June end or beginning of July first week. If social distancing norms are followed then certainly things can improve, but if not followed then it may get worse. High population density is a major contributor for the increase in cases. The government should continue to focus on finding hotspots, and urge people to follow the rules, eventually it is for people’s own benefit.

Has China won the battle against COVID-19?

It seems China has won the battle by not opening up Wuhan. The Chinese are following a COVID-19 patient’s engagement program, where the authorities continuously interact with people infected with the disease. The Government of India should reward people who follow the guidelines; it will help in setting up a positive trend in the society.

Despite tremendous advances in treatment of congenital heart disease (CHD), a new global study shows that the chances for a child to survive a CHD diagnosis is significantly less in low-income countries.

The research revealed that nearly 12 million people are currently living with CHD globally, 18.7 per cent more than in 1990.

The findings, published in The Lancet, is drawn from the first comprehensive study of congenital heart disease across 195 countries, prepared using data from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries and Risk Factors Study 2017 (GBD).

"Previous congenital heart estimates came from few data sources, were geographically narrow and did not evaluate CHD throughout the life course," said the study authors from Children's National Hospital in the US.

This is the first time the GBD study data was used along with all available data sources and previous publications - making it the most comprehensive study on the congenital heart disease burden to date.

The study found a 34.5 per cent decline in deaths from congenital disease between 1990 to 2017. Nearly 70 per cent of deaths caused by CHD in 2017 (180,624) were in infants less than one year old.

Most CHD deaths occurred in countries within the low and low-middle socio-demographic index (SDI) quintiles.

Mortality rates get lower as a country's Socio-demographic Index (SDI) rises, the study said.

According to the researchers, birth prevalence of CHD was not related to a country's socio-demographic status, but overall prevalence was much lower in the poorest countries of the world.

This is because children in these countries do not have access to life saving surgical services, they added.

"In high income countries like the United States, we diagnose some heart conditions prenatally during the 20-week ultrasound," said Gerard Martin from Children's National Hospital who contributed to the study.

"For children born in middle- and low-income countries, these data draw stark attention to what we as cardiologists already knew from our own work in these countries -- the lack of diagnostic and treatment tools leads to lower survival rates for children born with CHD," said researcher Craig Sable.

"The UN has prioritised reduction of premature deaths from heart disease, but to meet the target of 'ending preventable deaths of newborns and children under 5 years of age,' health policy makers will need to develop specific accountability measures that address barriers and improve access to care and treatment," the authors wrote.