|
medpundit |
||
 |
 |
|
Friday, April 18, 2003About three dozen Americans have probable cases of SARS using the definition of the deadly flu-like disease followed by the rest of the world, federal officials said Thursday. In all, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention lists 208 Americans from 34 states as probable or suspected SARS cases. However, only 35 of them meet the definition for probable cases of the disease set by the World Health Organization. CDC Director Dr. Julie Gerberding said the agency will begin using the WHO definition because ``we don't want to exaggerate the scope of the problem here by including patients'' who would not be considered SARS cases elsewhere. Many of the suspected U.S. cases had only mild flulike symptoms, and less than one-quarter were hospitalized. Most were on the list because of recent travel to a part of the world with SARS. Having a test to diagnose it accurately will certainly help paint a better picture of the virus’s natural history and true mortality. The CDC version of a diagnostic test might be available as early as next week: One version created by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention could be shipped to state labs as soon as the end of next week, officials say. Several others are being fine tuned around the world using new information compiled just last weekend from scientists' marathon exercise of decoding the virus's genes. The tests, which search for viral genes in victims' nasal secretions and other samples, are likely to work only in the early stages of the disease, before the body defeats the virus, removing all traces it existed. They will be used cautiously at first, while developers work to prove they pinpoint the virus in infected people without sending up frequent false alarms in the healthy. Until this accuracy is known, "we will be loath to say someone doesn't have SARS on the basis of the test," CDC head Dr. Julie Gerberding said Thursday. Two doctors from Hong Kong document their experience with SARS: The disease, initially affecting mainly healthcare workers, spread rapidly to the community as family members became infected and in turn infected their coworkers and friends. When symptoms developed, they consulted their general practitioners, leading to more healthcare workers developing the disease. Although one would hope that hospitals would see in this pattern of infection the potential for harm in the event of a smallpox attack, The Bloviator points to evidence that they’re taking home the wrong lesson. Instead of offering pre-attack smallpox vaccination to their employees, at least two hospitals say they would turn away potential smallpox victims instead: St. Vincent's Hospital, a 758-bed acute-care facility in Manhattan, recently held a drill to prepare for a nuclear, biological or chemical terrorist attack. The first step: Lock down the hospital so that no new patients could come in. "If we can't protect the people who are here, we can't do our job," says Richard Westfal, assistant director of emergency medicine at St. Vincent's..... In Houston, St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital is vaccinating up to 75 of its staffers against the smallpox virus. But since smallpox doesn't have a cure and kills about 30% of its victims, hospital officials say they would lock down the moment conditions were deemed unsafe for those within. Such a policy "may not have the needs of the [smallpox] victims in mind," says Herbert DuPont, chief of internal medicine at St. Luke's, but he says St. Luke's first priority should be to its patients, staff and their families. Of course, if they offered the vaccine to more than 75 staff members, they wouldn’t have to shut down. (RangelMD agrees with me that our public health officials should be paying attention to SARS as an example of the importance of acting now, via preattack vaccination, to prevent a potentially far worse catastrophe with smallpox.) posted by Sydney on 4/18/2003 08:29:00 AM 0 comments 0 Comments: |
|
