![]() | |
|
With around 3 million live births a year (roughly 8,500 live births average per day; 360 an hour [11]), there is likely to be a goodly number of twins when around 1.5% to 3.4% of live births result in twins of some type.[2,3]
I'm clearly no expert in the area of obstetrics, neonatology or congenital central nervous system disorders. But this finding, certainly not the first or only disease/healthy split between twins of this sort,[4,5,6,7] is fascinating.
To me, this finding highlights how rare the microcephaly and CNS disorder outcome seems to be after a suspected Zika virus infection of a mum at some point in her pregnancy. With so many births and just 1,300 M&CD diagnoses, its clearly nothing like as simplistic as "Zika virus infection while pregnant results in microcephaly".
What is for sure though, is that sometimes release of preliminary Zika virus disease study data without more detail and discussion, can give the appearance that things are more simple than they are.
The following tweets were a result of listening to Dr Celina Turchi Martelli, of the Brazilian Ministry of Health’s Fundação Oswaldo Cruz Foundation (FIOCRUZ)-Pernambuco, Brazil.[10]
She gave a little insight into two case-control studies she is involved in, while speaking to the Cura Zika symposium hosted by The University of Pittsburgh.[10]
@AndrewALover From aroudn 38min at https://t.co/3w20ZiN6Yp— Ian M Mackay, PhD (@MackayIM) May 5, 2016
if you want to get a better sense of it all. Thoughts? pic.twitter.com/3k33UcVjpF
In response to those, Dr Andrew Lover crunched some numbers and highlighted that those data, when viewed in isolation, suggest that a Zika virus infection alone is almost guaranteed to result in microcephaly.Prelim case-control study results— Ian M Mackay, PhD (@MackayIM) May 5, 2016
-#Zika infection detected in 12/23 - Odds Ratio 48
-Martelli #Zika pic.twitter.com/SctPplhRHp
But that is clearly not the case. Remember that total of 1,300 confirmed M&CD diagnoses amidst 8,500 live births a day? It was very probably not the intended meaning of Dr Martelli either.@MackayIM OR of 48 = 98% probability of MC given ZIKV(+); lower CI of 5.6 = 84.8% probability. Trimesters? DENV or CHIKV co-infection?— Andrew Lover (@AndrewALover) May 6, 2016
This all just exemplifies how confusing the Zika virus epidemic can be to the public, how complex finding a cause(s) to the M&CD surge will be and how much time may yet pass before we get anywhere near that goal.
It's all a bit confusing for scientists too!
References...
- http://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-zika-twins-idUSKCN0XX1V2
- .https://www.twins.org.au/twins-and-twin-families/about-twins/facts-and-figures
- http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/multiple.htm
- http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/epigenetics/twins/
- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7847025
- http://www.nature.com/pr/journal/v61/n5-2/full/pr2007129a.html
- https://www.technologyreview.com/s/406200/when-only-one-twin-gets-a-disease/
- https://www.twins.org.au/twins-and-twin-families/about-twins/facts-and-figures
- http://virologydownunder.blogspot.com.au/2016/04/the-three-parent-hypothesis-mum-dad-and.html
- https://pitt.hosted.panopto.com/Panopto/Pages/Viewer.aspx?id=a9abb64a-6f84-43d3-ac50-144b96fe67a4
- http://countrymeters.info/en/Brazil


No comments:
Post a Comment