More Indian children visiting 'inappropriate' websites: Survey

Leading physicians are celebrating a small dose of good news that arrived Tuesday about dexamethasone, a cheap and widely used steroid shown to be able to save lives among COVID-19 patients, but also cautioning against releasing study results by press release during a global health emergency, like in the case of the latest dexamethasone study by University of Oxford.

"It will be great news if dexamethasone, a cheap steroid, really does cut deaths by one-third in ventilated patients with COVID19, but after all the retractions and walk backs, it is unacceptable to tout study results by press release without releasing the paper", Atul Gawande, surgeon and CEO of Haven Healthcare, tweeted.

"Bottom line is, good news," Dr. Fauci, America's foremost infectious diseases expert told a US newswire on Tuesday, soon after the dexamethasone results were announced in the UK.

Fauci, who has long championed the therapeutics-first view said that dexamethasone is a "significant improvement" in the available therapeutic options currently available.

On Medical Twitter and Facebook, doctors broadly agree that dexamethasone use aligns well with the way COVID19 attacks the body's immune system. Fauci said the results in the Oxford study make "perfect sense" in that context.

"We should see the number of people who actually survive go up, if the study holds up," virologist and epidemiologist Dr. Joseph Fair told a television network.

Global coronavirus cases crossed 8 million on Tuesday. In the US, Texas and Florida are facing a new wave of cases after lifting lockdown orders earlier than medical experts recommended. Amidst the relentless graph upwards, the dexamethasone study results injected hope for better survival rates among those most seriously ill.

World Health Organization chief scientist Soumya Swaminathan welcomed the results from the randomised control trial.

Dr Eugene Gu, Founder and CEO of CoolQuit tweeted that he is "genuinely impressed" with the UK dexamethasone trial. This may be a "game changer", he wrote.

"There's no conflict of interest as dexamethasone is a generic steroid. The mechanism of action makes sense because steroids can reduce cytokine storms and overactive immune systems that makes COVID-19 so deadly. The number needed to treat is 8 ventilated patients which is great."

The Oxford study found that dexamethasone reduced deaths by 35 percent in patients who needed treatment with breathing machines and by 20 percent in those only needing supplemental oxygen. Dexamethasone was one of 5 drugs studied in a large clinical trial in the United Kingdom named RECOVERY, short for Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy.

Peter Horby, chief investigator of the University of Oxford clinical trial, said dexamethasone is the first drug to be shown to improve survival in COVID-19. Details of the study have not been released. The trial organisers said they made their announcement via a news release because of "the public health importance of these results." According to Horby's public comments, there was a lot of initial resistance to studying steroids.

During the study, 2,104 patients were randomly selected to be given 6 milligrams of dexamethasone once a day (either by mouth or by intravenous injection) for 10 days. That group was compared with 4,321 patients who received the usual care alone.

Researchers estimated that dexamethasone would prevent one death for every eight patients treated while on ventilators and one for every 25 patients on extra oxygen alone.

UK experts have called the study results a breakthrough in the fight against the virus. The researchers have promised they would publish the results soon.

Should you let your babies "cry it out" or rush to their side? Researchers have found that leaving an infant to 'cry it out' from birth up to 18 months does not adversely affect their behaviour development or attachment.

The study, published in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, found that an infant's development and attachment to their parents is not affected by being left to "cry it out" and can actually decrease the amount of crying and duration.

"Only two previous studies nearly 50 or 20 years ago had investigated whether letting babies 'cry it out' affects babies' development. Our study documents contemporary parenting in the UK and the different approaches to crying used," said the study's researcher Ayten Bilgin from the University of Warwick in the UK.

For the study, the researchers followed 178 infants and their mums over 18 months and repeatedly assessed whether parents intervened immediately when a baby cried or let the baby let it cry out a few times or often.

They found that it made little difference to the baby’s development by 18 months.

The use of parent’s leaving their baby to ‘cry it out’ was assessed via maternal report at term, 3, 6 and 18 months and cry duration at term, 3 and 18 months.

Duration and frequency of fussing and crying was assessed at the same ages with the Crying Pattern Questionnaire.

According to the researchers, how sensitive the mother is in interaction with their baby was video-recorded and rated at 3 and 18 months of age.

Attachment was assessed at 18 months using a gold standard experimental procedure, the strange situation test, which assesses how securely an infant is attached to the major caregiver during separation and reunion episodes.

Behavioural development was assessed by direct observation in play with the mother and during assessment by a psychologist and a parent-report questionnaire at 18 months.

Researchers found that whether contemporary parents respond immediately or leave their infant to cry it out a few times to often makes no difference on the short - or longer term relationship with the mother or the infants behaviour.

This study shows that 2/3 of mum's parent intuitively and learn from their infant, meaning they intervene when they were just born immediately, but as they get older the mother waits a bit to see whether the baby can calm themselves, so babies learn self-regulation.

Jan 31: Cervical cancer could be eliminated worldwide as a public health issue within the next 100 years, according to two studies which may lead to better strategies for screening and vaccination against the malignant disease.

According to the studies, published in the journal The Lancet, more than 74 million cervical cancer cases, and 60 million deaths could be averted, and the disease eliminated in the 78 countries which have the highest disease burden.

The researchers, including those from Laval University in Canada, said cervical cancer is the second most frequent cancer among women in low-income and lower-middle-income countries (LMICs) with 2,90,000 (51 per cent) of the 5,70,000 new cases worldwide reported in women living in LMICs.

In the current studies, the scientists used the WHO draft strategy of cervical cancer elimination which defines plans for vaccination against the disease's causative agent, the human papillomavirus (HPV).

These plans, they explained, call for 90 per cent of girls to be vaccinated against HPV by 2030, and for 70 per cent of women to be screened for cervical cancer once or twice in their lifetime.

About 90 per cent of women with precancerous lesions, or cervical cancer are also advised to receive appropriate treatment, according to the WHO draft strategy, the scientists said.

In the second study, the research team analysed the impact of three elements of the WHO strategy on deaths from cervical cancer -- modelling the impact of scaling up cancer treatment, as well as vaccination and screening

"Our findings emphasise the importance of acting immediately to combat cervical cancer on all three fronts," said Karen Canfell from the University of Sydney in Australia, who co-led both the studies.

"In just 10 years, it's possible to reduce deaths from the disease by a third and, over the next century, more than 60 million women's lives could be saved. This would represent an enormous gain in terms of both quality of life, and lives saved," Canfell said.

By adding the two screening tests, and with the treatment of precancerous cervical lesions, cases of the cancer may drop by 97 per cent, and 72 million cervical cancer cases could be averted over the next century, the researchers said.

Scaling-up of appropriate cancer treatment could avert 62 million cervical cancer deaths, the study noted.

"For the first time, we've estimated how many cases of cervical cancer could be averted if WHO's strategy is rolled out and when elimination might occur," said Marc Brisson, study co-author from Laval University.

"Our results suggest that to eliminate cervical cancer it will be necessary to achieve both high vaccination coverage, and a high uptake of screening and treatment, especially in countries with the highest burden of the disease," Brisson added.

Based on the results of the studies, WHO's cervical cancer elimination strategy has been updated which will be presented for adoption at the World Health Assembly in May 2020, the scientists noted.

"If the strategy is adopted and applied by member states, cervical cancer could be eliminated in high income countries by 2040, and across the globe within the next century, which would be a phenomenal victory for women's health," Brisson said.

"However, this can only be achieved with considerable international financial and political commitment, in order to scale-up prevention and treatment," he added.