Chagas: Is tropical disease really the new AIDS?

[MugenOne]

Chagas, a tropical disease spread by insects, is causing some fresh concern following an editorial—published earlier this week in a medical journal—that called it “the new AIDS of the Americas.”

More than 8 million people have been infected by Chagas, most of them in Latin and Central America. But more than 300,000 live in the United States.

The editorial, published by the Public Library of Science’s Neglected Tropical Diseases, said the spread of the disease is reminiscent of the early years of HIV.

“There are a number of striking similarities between people living with Chagas disease and people living with HIV/AIDS,” the authors wrote, “particularly for those with HIV/AIDS who contracted the disease in the first two decades of the HIV/AIDS epidemic.”

Both diseases disproportionately affect people living in poverty, both are chronic conditions requiring prolonged, expensive treatment, and as with patients in the first two decades of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, “most patients with Chagas disease do not have access to health care facilities.”

Unlike HIV, Chagas is not a sexually-transmitted disease: it’s “caused by parasites transmitted to humans by blood-sucking insects,” as the New York Times put it.

news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/chagas-tropical-disease-really-aids-145745645.html

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Yeah, thanks to illegal immigration.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Yeah, thanks to illegal immigration.

Have incidents of the disease been restricted to illegal immigrants?

 

[epan]

Yeah, thanks to illegal immigration.

The vector is an insect. In the US, the disease is mainly in Southern Texas. Some jurisdictions require blood to be tested for Chagras. In its wisdom, Texas does not.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Have incidents of the disease been restricted to illegal immigrants?

“Both diseases disproportionately affect people living in poverty”

Yeah, the wealthy Mexicans don’t immigrate. They come up here and shop and then return to their compounds in Mexico City.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Chagas, a tropical disease spread by insects, is causing some fresh concern following an editorial—published earlier this week in a medical journal—that called it “the new AIDS of the Americas.”

More than 8 million people have been infected by Chagas, most of them in Latin and Central America. But more than 300,000 live in the United States.

The editorial, published by the Public Library of Science’s Neglected Tropical Diseases, said the spread of the disease is reminiscent of the early years of HIV.

“There are a number of striking similarities between people living with Chagas disease and people living with HIV/AIDS,” the authors wrote, “particularly for those with HIV/AIDS who contracted the disease in the first two decades of the HIV/AIDS epidemic.”
**
Both diseases disproportionately affect people living in poverty, both are chronic conditions requiring prolonged, expensive treatment, and as with patients in the first two decades of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, “most patients with Chagas disease do not have access to health care facilities.”**

Unlike HIV, Chagas is not a sexually-transmitted disease: it’s “caused by parasites transmitted to humans by blood-sucking insects,” as the New York Times put it.

news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/chagas-tropical-disease-really-aids-145745645.html

This article is so wrong! HIV/AIDS was not a disease of poverty, not in the US! The disease first occurred in gay white males, mostly in California, who did have access to medical care. The medical community didn’t know what the virus was or how to treat it, however.

I don’t see any parallels at all between Chagas and HIV/AIDS other than that the disease can be spread through blood products. HIV/AIDS can be transmitted through bodily fluids as well, which Chagas cannot be.

 

[epan]

This article is so wrong! HIV/AIDS was not a disease of poverty, not in the US! The disease first occurred in gay white males, mostly in California, who did have access to medical care. The medical community didn’t know what the virus was or how to treat it, however.

I don’t see any parallels at all between Chagas and HIV/AIDS other than that the disease can be spread through blood products. HIV/AIDS can be transmitted through bodily fluids as well, which Chagas cannot be.

About 50% of people with AIDS are female. It is a very old disease, whose origins are now understood. The first documented gay white male infection was probably a British sailor, more than 60 years ago. I say probably, because it is not known if he was gay. He only set foot outside of England once, on shore leave in Gibraltar. It was unknown what his cause of death was at the time. Tissue samples were frozen by a curious pathologist, and test for the presence of HIV many years later.

It is not known how prevalent HIV has been in the US and Europe, over the years. A large part of the HIV population are intravenous drug users, who are often poverty stricken. Maybe this is the analogy that the article refers to, or maybe that worldwide HIV is more common in poverty stricken communities.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Yeah, thanks to illegal immigration.

Was this in the article?

Jim

 

[Luna_Lovecraft]

Both diseases disproportionately affect people living in poverty, both are chronic conditions requiring prolonged, expensive treatment, and as with patients in the first two decades of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, “most patients with Chagas disease do not have access to health care facilities.”

This article is so wrong! HIV/AIDS was not a disease of poverty, not in the US! The disease first occurred in gay white males, mostly in California, who did have access to medical care. The medical community didn’t know what the virus was or how to treat it, however.

I don’t see any parallels at all between Chagas and HIV/AIDS other than that the disease can be spread through blood products. HIV/AIDS can be transmitted through bodily fluids as well, which Chagas cannot be.

The article is talking about now, the situation with HIV/AIDS today, not in the past. What HIV/AIDS was isn’t the topic of the article.

Luna

 

[Dale_M]

Some jurisdictions require blood to be tested for Chagras. In its wisdom, Texas does not.

Are you sure about that? In the US, I think the FDA (US Food and Drug Administration) sets the requirements for what blood must be tested for. According to the FDA website, there are seven diseases on the list, and Chagas is one of them.

Over a period of years, FDA has progressively strengthened the overlapping safeguards that protect patients from unsuitable blood and blood products:

Blood donors are now asked specific and very direct questions about risk factors that could indicate possible infection with a transmissible disease. This "up-front" screening eliminates approximately 90 percent of unsuitable donors.

FDA requires blood centers to maintain lists of unsuitable donors to prevent the use of collections from them.

Blood donations are tested for seven different infectious agents.

fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/BloodBloodProducts/default.htm

Here are the seven diseases which US blood banks must test for:

Hepatitis B
Hepatitis C
HIV 1
HIV 2
HTLV 1 & 2
Trypanosoma cruzi (the cause of Chagas disease)
West Nile Virus

fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/BloodBloodProducts/ApprovedProducts/LicensedProductsBLAs/BloodDonorScreening/InfectiousDisease/ucm080466.htm

 

[ellipsis2]

The vector is an insect. In the US, the disease is mainly in Southern Texas. Some jurisdictions require blood to be tested for Chagras. In its wisdom, Texas does not.

Do you have any more information on this disease? Where did you get the info you do have. I am interested in reading further. Thanks in advance.

 

[Dale_M]

I don’t see any parallels at all between Chagas and HIV/AIDS other than that the disease can be spread through blood products. HIV/AIDS can be transmitted through bodily fluids as well, which Chagas cannot be.

I think you make a good point. The article cited in the first post was based upon an editorial which appeared in PLoS, which is a pioneering online research journal created to get research findings distributed to the public quicker. It should be noted that the PLoS article, in this case, is an editorial.

plosntds.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pntd.0001498

If you anyone wants to read the authors’ reasoning why they think Chagas and HIV/AIDS are similar, please follow the link. However, what it really comes down to is that the authors consider Chagas to be a neglected tropical disease (which it is), which affects millions of people (also true) and for which treatment is hard to get (also true in much of the world, but less so after the US funneled money to treat HIV in Africa during President GW Bush’s administration)

The authors want to draw the public attention of the developed world to this neglected tropical disease in hopes of getting an increase in research assistance, increased prevention efforts, and increased medical care provided to those afflicted.

Chagas disease has existed from time immemorial and the causative agent was identified 100 years ago. It isn’t a new disease nor is it an epidemic. However, it is an endemic disease which ruins the health of millions of people and kills a large number of them. The authors of the PLoS editorial think that a effort to control Chagas disease is worthy of attention by the developed world and hope their article will attract that attention.

 

[Dale_M]

Do you have any more information on this disease? Where did you get the info you do have. I am interested in reading further. Thanks in advance.

Here is a reliable source of information on Chagas disease

cdc.gov/parasites/chagas/

 

[rlg94086]

I think you make a good point. The article cited in the first post was based upon an editorial which appeared in PLoS, which is a pioneering online research journal created to get research findings distributed to the public quicker. It should be noted that the PLoS article, in this case, is an editorial.

plosntds.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pntd.0001498

If you anyone wants to read the authors’ reasoning why they think Chagas and HIV/AIDS are similar, please follow the link. However, what it really comes down to is that the authors consider Chagas to be a neglected tropical disease (which it is), which affects millions of people (also true) and for which treatment is hard to get (also true in much of the world, but less so after the US funneled money to treat HIV in Africa during President GW Bush’s administration)

The authors want to draw the public attention of the developed world to this neglected tropical disease in hopes of getting an increase in research assistance, increased prevention efforts, and increased medical care provided to those afflicted.

Chagas disease has existed from time immemorial and the causative agent was identified 100 years ago. It isn’t a new disease nor is it an epidemic. However, it is an endemic disease which ruins the health of millions of people and kills a large number of them. The authors of the PLoS editorial think that a effort to control Chagas disease is worthy of attention by the developed world and hope their article will attract that attention.

Thank you for that information, Dale. The OP made it sound like a new epidemic. While it is quite serious, I’m glad to hear it isn’t a cause for panic.

It does sound like a disease worth investing in a cure for.

 

[epan]

Are you sure about that? In the US, I think the FDA (US Food and Drug Administration) sets the requirements for what blood must be tested for. According to the FDA website, there are seven diseases on the list, and Chagas is one of them.

fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/BloodBloodProducts/default.htm

Here are the seven diseases which US blood banks must test for:

Hepatitis B
Hepatitis C
HIV 1
HIV 2
HTLV 1 & 2
Trypanosoma cruzi (the cause of Chagas disease)
West Nile Virus

fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/BloodBloodProducts/ApprovedProducts/LicensedProductsBLAs/BloodDonorScreening/InfectiousDisease/ucm080466.htm

You’re correct that the FDA sets the minimum standard. State and local agencies may impose additional screening requirements. The assay for Chagas disease was approved by the FDA in 2007. Samples at that time yielded one in 4,600 samples infected. I don’t know what infection rates are in places where the blood supply is tested.

 

[epan]

Thank you for that information, Dale. The OP made it sound like a new epidemic. While it is quite serious, I’m glad to hear it isn’t a cause for panic.

It does sound like a disease worth investing in a cure for.

It is one of four diseases currently targeted for increased awareness by the CDC.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I think you make a good point. The article cited in the first post was based upon an editorial which appeared in PLoS, which is a pioneering online research journal created to get research findings distributed to the public quicker. It should be noted that the PLoS article, in this case, is an editorial.

plosntds.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pntd.0001498

If you anyone wants to read the authors’ reasoning why they think Chagas and HIV/AIDS are similar, please follow the link. However, what it really comes down to is that the authors consider Chagas to be a neglected tropical disease (which it is), which affects millions of people (also true) and for which treatment is hard to get (also true in much of the world, but less so after the US funneled money to treat HIV in Africa during President GW Bush’s administration)

The authors want to draw the public attention of the developed world to this neglected tropical disease in hopes of getting an increase in research assistance, increased prevention efforts, and increased medical care provided to those afflicted.

Chagas disease has existed from time immemorial and the causative agent was identified 100 years ago. It isn’t a new disease nor is it an epidemic. However, it is an endemic disease which ruins the health of millions of people and kills a large number of them. The authors of the PLoS editorial think that a effort to control Chagas disease is worthy of attention by the developed world and hope their article will attract that attention.

Ah, that makes sense. Unfortunately when our media picks it up, the issue gets sensationalized by default.

This is a disease that has come to the US through illegal immigration. There is no arguing with that. Even the advocates of open borders understand that diseases not known in our country are here now, and diseases like TB, which was once eradicated, are making a comeback.

 

[ellipsis2]

Ah, that makes sense. Unfortunately when our media picks it up, the issue gets sensationalized by default.

This is a disease that has come to the US through illegal immigration. There is no arguing with that. Even the advocates of open borders understand that diseases not known in our country are here now, and diseases like TB, which was once eradicated, are making a comeback.

It doesn’ty necessarily have to come to this country through illegal immigration. Americans travel all over the place. We also have tourists from all parts of the globe. Do you have know for certain it’s from illiegals?

 

[ellipsis2]

Here is a reliable source of information on Chagas disease

cdc.gov/parasites/chagas/

Thank you very much. You seem to take a lot of time with the information you provide. I apreciate your postings.

 

[Dale_M]

Thank you very much. You seem to take a lot of time with the information you provide. I apreciate your postings.

Thank you. I am grateful for your praise.

I generally double check my points before posting, and provide links if I think others would be interested or would contest what I posted.