Fisherfolk at higher risk of chronic kidney disease, says nephrologist
For over two decades, a high incidence of chronic renal disease has been reported in the coastal villages of Canacona. Dr Narayan Prasad, head of the nephrology department of Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, said the occurrence of the disease among the fishing community, people working in salt pans and those living in coastal areas has been peculiar.
He was speaking on 'Renal healthcare in India: Understanding environmental exposures and social determinants' at an event organised by the Goa University.
He listed heat stress and dehydration as the key causes. 'Coastal people often tend to skip water consumption, exposing themselves to the disease,' said Prasad in his talk.
A health official of the community health centre, Canacona, said that currently, there are more than 190 people listed for dialysis.
Citing a study on chronic kidney disease of uncertain aetiology (CKDu), Prasad said that a 2009 medical camp in Canacona indicated a high prevalence of CKDu in residents. As many as 298 urine samples were collected, and nearly 24% of the participants showed urinal abnormalities, he quoted the study.
'The disease can also be attributed to the presence of mycotoxin in mouldy cereals, food products and aromatic compounds found in drinking water,' the research found.
Prasad also presented other case studies that analysed the prevalence of CKDu in coastal people of Andhra Pradesh, Odisha, Goa, and union territories of Puducherry and Daman and Diu.
Prasad said by virtue of their occupation, which is likely to be either agriculture or fisheries, or both, people are likely to be more susceptible to having CKDu. 'Coastal areas and agricultural lands are high-heat areas. Spending long hours here leads to dehydration, slowly affecting the kidneys. Similarly, exposure to toxic agro chemicals, pesticides and fertilisers further exacerbates the problem,' he said.
'With rest and adequate water consumption, kidney injury markers can be reduced. A multi-disciplinary approach to sociological, occupational, legal and policy framework can be helpful to bring down CKDu cases,' the doctor said.
Excess uric acid doesn't just lead to kidney stones— over time, it can also damage tissues in the kidney. Studies show that high uric acid levels are linked with a higher risk of developing chronic kidney disease (CKD). In this health condition, one's kidney function declines slowly and progressively. For the unversed, the kidneys help filter out waste from the blood and it is removed along with urine from the body. However, when the kidneys don't function properly it could lead to build of toxins— including uric acid— in the blood. CKD may not show any early symptoms, it can cause high blood pressure (BP), fatigue, and even kidney failure in extreme cases. Managing uric acid early through lifestyle changes, exercise, hydration, and regular health check-ups is important to protect long-term kidney health.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
4 days ago
- Hindustan Times
Drug Approvals Hit an FDA Wall
Does Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Marty Makary want to accelerate life-saving drugs as he claims? The agency's recent torpedoing of an immunotherapy shot for advanced melanoma and slow-rolling a treatment for a rare disease raise big questions. The FDA's approval of new drugs has notably slowed this year. Annual novel drug approvals averaged 52 in the first Trump Presidency and 48 under Joe Biden, but there have been only 22 in the first seven months of this year. On current trend that would make 38 for the year. One concern is that regulators are nixing drugs under the false flag of raising scientific standards. A case in point is Replimune's melanoma treatment, which the FDA rejected last month. About a third of patients who hadn't responded to prior immunotherapy showed a strong response to Replimune's in a clinical trial. Tumors shrank in nearly all patients, and responses proved durable over three years. Serious side effects were rare. Oncologists who treated patients in the trial hailed the results. Yet the FDA said the trial was 'not considered to be an adequate and well-controlled clinical investigation that provides substantial evidence of effectiveness.' Its quibble is that the trial lacked a control group. Vinay Prasad, the head of the biologics division, has long criticized such single-arm studies that have no placebo groups. He believes medicines should undergo randomized controlled trials that track patients over longer periods to measure overall survival. Never mind if patients die in the interim. It's unethical to give patients with an advanced deadly disease a treatment that failed to help them as a placebo. Measuring overall survival would also require drug makers to run bigger trials and over longer periods, delaying access to potentially life-saving therapies. Replimune executives said they were blind-sided by the FDA rejection and its shifting post-hoc demands. Leading oncologists lambasted the FDA and urged the agency to reconsider. Replimune's 'results are unpredecented,' Vishal Patel, a dermatology oncologist at George Washington University Cancer Center, wrote to Dr. Makary this month. 'Physicians urgently want and need this agent based on the data they have seen,' University of Iowa oncologist Mohammed Milhem wrote in another letter. 'Indeed, the precedent set by this rejection is likely to halt many aspects of the science and clinical development required to move agents like this into practice in later line disease.' 'The world looks for leadership from the FDA based on rationality, science and evidence,' wrote Melanoma World Society president Axel Hauschild. Doing a randomized controlled trial, he said, 'would be considered as unethical' in his home country of Germany. We criticized Dr. Prasad, who was appointed by Dr. Makary, for using dubious safety risks in an effort to scuttle a gene therapy for Duchenne muscular dystrophy. After a public backlash, the FDA backed down, and Dr. Prasad resigned. Yet Dr. Makary recently brought him back. This followed a StatNews story in which anonymous FDA officials sought to pin the blame for the Replimune rejection on Richard Pazdur, the agency's head of oncology. But Dr. Prasad's shop was directly responsible for the Replimune review and his career staff had supported approval. In any case, the buck stops with Dr. Makary. The finger-pointing and his continued support for Dr. Prasad is creating tremendous uncertainty for pharmaceutical developers. If Dr. Makary really wants to make drug approvals for deadly and rare diseases faster and more flexible, he'd send a signal by ordering the FDA to reconsider Replimune's treatment. *** He'd also green-light Stealth BioTherapeutics' treatment for Barth syndrome, which the bureaucracy is strangling. Barth causes a fatal weakening of the heart, muscles and immune system and afflicts about 150 Americans. It's the sort of rare-disease therapy that Dr. Makary says he wants to bring to market faster. Stealth applied for approval in January 2024, and an FDA advisory committee last autumn found the drug to be effective. But the agency keeps changing its demands and has deployed one excuse after another to delay approval. The agency recently told Stealth to resubmit its application, which would take at least six months to review. Stealth CEO Reenie McCarthy says her company might not survive that long. If the company fails, patients that began receiving the medicine in the trial will lose access, and others may never benefit. Parents of children in Stealth's trial are urging the FDA to approve it. So are Democrats and Republicans in Congress. 'I have lost two boys with Barth syndrome and know firsthand how lethal Barth syndrome is,' Shelley Bowen of South Carolina tells us. Do FDA leaders care? Does Dr. Makary?
News18
11-08-2025
- News18
Ousted FDA vaccine chief Vinay Prasad returning to agency
Washington, Aug 11 (AP) A Food and Drug Administration official is getting his job back as the agency's top vaccine regulator, less than two weeks after he was pressured to step down at the urging of biotech executives, patient groups and conservative allies of President Donald Trump. Dr Vinay Prasad is resuming leadership of the FDA centre that regulates vaccines and biotech therapies, a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services said in a statement Monday. Prasad left the agency late last month after drawing ire of right-wing activists, including Laura Loomer, because of his past statements criticizing Trump. A longtime a critic of FDA's standards for approving medicines, Prasad briefly ordered the maker of a gene therapy for Duchenne's muscular dystrophy to halt shipments after two patient deaths. But that action triggered pushback from the families of boys with the fatal condition and libertarian supporters of increased access to experimental medicines. Prasad's decision to pause the therapy was criticized by The Wall Street Journal editorial board, former Republican Sen Rick Santorum and others. The FDA swiftly reversed its decision suspending the therapy's use. Loomer posted online that Prasad was 'a progressive leftist saboteur," noting his history of praising liberal independent Sen. Bernie Sanders. But Prasad has had the backing of FDA Commissioner Marty Makary and health secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr, who have both called for scrutinizing the use of COVID-19 vaccines. Under Prasad, the FDA restricted the approval of two new COVID-19 shots from vaccine makers Novavax and Moderna and set stricter testing requirements for future approvals. (AP) RD RD view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Hindustan Times
11-08-2025
- Hindustan Times
America's drug regulator is in turmoil
TO APPRECIATE the dilemmas the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) faces when it reviews new drugs targeting rare diseases, consider the recent rollercoaster ride of Sarepta Therapeutics, a biotech firm. In 2023 the FDA granted accelerated approval for its gene therapy for Duchenne muscular dystrophy, a rare genetic disorder that typically causes death in early adulthood. Peter Marks, director of the FDA's biologics centre at the time, approved the treatment despite reviewers' concerns about limited clinical data. Some hailed that as proof the FDA could be nimble in cases where sufferers had few options. The treatment costs an eye-watering $3.2m per patient, so the drug's approval delivered Sarepta a major payday. But in the past four months three patients on Sarepta's treatments have died from acute liver failure. On July 18th the FDA asked the firm to suspend distribution. Within days its stock lost nearly half of its value (see chart 1). Illustration: Vartika Sharma Chart 1 Political drama followed. Laura Loomer, a conspiracy theorist with access to President Donald Trump, accused Vinay Prasad—Dr Marks' successor and a long-standing critic of loosening evidentiary standards for drug approvals—of being a 'leftist saboteur' bent on derailing 'Trump's deregulatory mission'. Her attack was widely seen as criticism of his decision to pause Sarepta's therapy. On July 28th the FDA reauthorised the treatment's use for some younger patients. By the next day Dr Prasad had resigned to 'spend more time with his family'. George Tidmarsh, a physician-scientist newly in charge of the agency's other key drug-evaluation division, became acting head of this one, too. But on August 9th Dr Prasad was re-hired, apparently after being persuaded that the FDA's commissioner, Martin Makary, supported him. Ms Loomer responded by threatening exposés of FDA officials. It is hardly a picture of stable decision-making at an agency responsible for regulating products that account for some 14% of America's GDP. Drugs that target rare diseases, known as orphan drugs, constitute a distinctive segment of the pharmaceutical industry, one that is replete with extraordinary financial promise, scientific risk and knotty ethical considerations. The FDA polices this frontier. It is a treacherous mandate even without interventions by the likes of Ms Loomer. And while the challenges for rare-disease drugs are especially acute, they mirror those facing the entire sector in a regulatory landscape for drugs and new treatments that is growing ever more politicised and unstable. Though 200m-500m people worldwide suffer from rare diseases—and nearly half of these illnesses affect children—drugmakers had long neglected the development of treatments. To spur such work Congress passed the Orphan Drug Act in 1983. It offers companies seven years of market exclusivity. Between the legislation's strong incentives and advances in cell and gene therapies, orphan drugs have become an important sector for biotech firms. Today these therapies account for roughly half of the new drugs the FDA approves. They are lucrative, too. Some companies, such as Sarepta, rely almost entirely on orphan drugs for their revenue. Even Johnson & Johnson, a pharmaceutical giant, earned roughly a third of its revenue from these treatments in 2024, according to Evaluate, a pharmaceutical-analytics firm (see chart 2). Mr Makary, the new commissioner of the FDA, has joined a long line of agency chiefs in calling for faster drug reviews, which can take ten months. In June the FDA launched a pilot scheme to cut that to just a month or two for treatments deemed to support 'national interests'. Because robust randomised trials are often unfeasible for rare diseases given the tiny patient pool, Mr Makary has also talked about developing quicker alternative approval pathways for orphan drugs. But these moves towards innovation have been undermined by the administration's inclination to shoot first and aim later. Speaking on the Megyn Kelly Show, a podcast, Mr Makary announced a plan to speed up drug approvals for ultra-rare diseases by relying on 'a plausible mechanism', meaning a scientific explanation showing that treatments could theoretically lead to improved outcomes. Such a standard would be 'about as low as it goes', argues Daniel Kracov, a lawyer who advises pharmaceutical firms on regulation. However, parents of patients with diseases so rare that they can be impossible to run trials for are pushing for new ways to win approval for novel drugs. Officials at the FDA worry that the push to accelerate approvals without hiring more staff will backfire. One reviewer who works on rare diseases notes that during evaluations of proposed treatments for them, the science can be less familiar, the clinical trials smaller, and approval may hinge on less conventional intermediate evidence. This uncertainty can breed scepticism initially. What often persuades reviewers of a treatment's safety and efficacy is statistical stress-testing and other scrutiny of the evidence that can take months. Speeding this up risks causing reviewers to err on the side of caution, which could lead to fewer approvals, not more. Side effects may include Congress is another source of uncertainty. Lawmakers have so far failed to reauthorise a voucher programme that encouraged drugmakers to pursue treatments for rare pediatric diseases. In exchange, companies received a voucher granting expedited FDA review for another drug. The vouchers are transferable and can be sold for tens of millions of dollars on a secondary market (see chart 3). Amid instability, 'vouchers are selling for more, because there is some possibility that Congress will not get this done by the end of 2026', says David Ridley, a health economist at Duke University. Drug development typically takes a decade or longer, which is why investors prize policy certainty. 'The biggest thing is, you want the FDA to be consistent,' explains Matt Phipps, a biotech analyst at William Blair, an investment bank. 'You want them to tell you something and then stick with it and not change their minds at the last minute.' Smaller biotech firms that fuel early innovation across the industry will struggle most to ride out the volatility. Funding cuts at the National Institutes of Health, the wellspring of biomedical research, and threats of pharmaceutical tariffs have given a hypersensitive industry additional reasons to retreat. More uncertainty at the FDA is likely to make it harder to approve drugs in general, and possibly orphan drugs especially. Rollercoasters are no fun when you have no choice but to ride them. America-s-drug-regulator-is-in-turmoil
