More confusion over prescription of Tamiflu
Yet more Tamiflu confusion on Friday with new advice from the that otherwise healthy individuals will recover from swine flu without needing the anti-viral drug.
That does not fit neatly with the UK government's policy of giving the drug to anyone who meets the National Flu line's "phone-in" criteria. It also comes a day after we learned that only some 10% of callers are likely to be suffering from swine flu, yet 40% are receiving the drug - as I reported yesterday (link to yesterday's blog).
Ok, some people may have cheated the system, matching the criteria so they can store the drug for future use. But if Tamiflu is being taken unnecessarily it could matter to everyone, because this increases the chance of the H1N1 virus developing resistance.
The Department of Health (DoH) denies that today's advice from the WHO contradicts its own, saying: "We have consistently said that many people with swine flu only get mild symptoms, and they may find bed rest and over-the-counter flu remedies work for them."
The problem is that telephone prescribing takes the GP or nurse out of the loop, so limiting the opportunity for a health professional to take a view that some patients will do just as well without antivirals.
The DoH says its approach is safer: "We believe a safety-first approach of offering antivirals, when required, to everyone remains a sensible and responsible way forward. However, we will keep this policy under review as we learn more about the virus and its effects."
And that's the important bit - because we may only be looking at 11,000 cases in the last week, but if that rockets up again in the autumn or winter then the experiment with mass-prescribing of Tamiflu gets bigger.
And every day the experts are learning more about who is most at risk. So targeted prescribing should get easier. Up until yesterday, the UK had seen 59 deaths linked to swine flu. Today, both Wales and Northern Ireland reported their first swine-flu related deaths.
The Chief Medical Officer for England, Sir Liam Donaldson, has been investigating deaths and classifying these according to whether a patient had mild, moderate or severe underlying health conditions, or none at all. To date, just over a fifth of deaths linked to swine flu are in otherwise healthy people.
As you can see in this graphic provided by the CMO:
So it clearly remains hard for anyone to second-guess who among otherwise healthy patients ringing the flu line might go on to develop severe symptoms from this disease.
And as the DoH pointed out today: "WHO state that 40% of severe cases worldwide have been in previously healthy children and adults and that serious cases should be treated immediately. This emphasises the need not to become complacent about the mildness of the illness and the reasoning behind a precautionary policy."
The bottom line then is if you have any doubts about whether you need Tamiflu or not, avoid the flu line. Which is pretty much what the government is saying too.
"People with underlying health conditions, pregnant women, and parents with children under the age of one should speak to their GP if they have symptoms. If people have any doubts about taking antivirals they should contact their GP."
Comment number 1.
At 21st Aug 2009, barriesingleton wrote:FOLLOW THE MONEY
Which are the Big Pharma companies involved? Which of our MPs is linked to them, either now or 'on a promise' in the future? What is the potential cost/profit of anti-virals and vaccines used?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 21st Aug 2009, streetphotobeing wrote:"People with underlying health conditions, pregnant women, and parents with children under the age of one should speak to their GP if they have symptoms.
There are notices all over my surgery saying dont make an appointment
if you have flu like symtoms, you can forget trying to call and getting
to talk to a doctor, the receptionists say call the flu line or NHS direct (pay line)
And I'm giving you correct information Susan.
21% of the deaths were healthy - thats a concern. What were their ages
and likely exposure to previous flu giving them immunity ?
Need more info.
Yes Barrie is on the *money* with this one.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 2nd Sep 2009, thegangofone wrote:Completely off topic but as an idea:
'Each of us has at least 100 new mutations in our DNA, according to research published in the journal Current Biology.
Scientists have been trying to get an accurate estimate of the mutation rate for over 70 years'
Do we also get "throwbacks" that might shed light on whether Neanderthals or some undiscovered species contributed to human DNA and our explosive increase in mental ability? Could the new mutations be connected to previously "passive sequences" becoming dominant, if I have the techno-speak correct, and changing the mutation process?
Completely off topic but possibly interesting about where we came from?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)