Public health and clinical dilemmas resulting from imprecise vitamin D tests

Objective: To determine whether there are clinical and public health dilemmas resulting from the reproducibility of routine vitamin D assays. Methods: Blinded agreement studies were conducted in eight clinical laboratories using two commonly used assays to measure serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) levels in Australasia and Canada (DiaSorin Radioimmunoassay (RIA) and DiaSorin LIAISON® one). Results: Only one laboratory measured 25(OH)D with excellent precision. Replicate 25(OH)D measurements varied by up to 97% and 15% of paired results differed by more than 50%. Thirteen percent of subjects received one result indicating insufficiency [25-50 nmol/l] and another suggesting adequacy [>50 nmol/l]). Agreement ranged from poor to excellent for laboratories using the manual RIA, while the precision of the semi-automated Liaison® system was consistently poor. Conclusions: Recent interest in the relevance of vitamin D to human health has increased demand for 25(OH)D testing and associated costs. Our results suggest clinicians and public health authorities are making decisions about treatment or changes to public health policy based on imprecise data. Clinicians, researchers and policy makers should be made aware of the imprecision of current 25(OH)D testing so that they exercise caution when using these assays for clinical practice, and when interpreting the findings of epidemiological studies based on vitamin D levels measured using these assays. Development of a rapid, reproducible, accurate and robust assay should be a priority due to interest in populationbased screening programs and research to inform public health policy about the amount of sun exposure required for human health. In the interim, 25(OH)D results should routinely include a statement of measurement uncertainty.

Aboriginal public health and education : has it made a difference in practice?

Over the years, public health in relation to Australian Aboriginal people has involved many individuals and groups including health professionals, governments, politicians, special interest groups and corporate organisations. Since colonisation commenced until the1980s, public health relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people was not necessarily in the best interests of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, but rather in the interests of the non-Aboriginal population. The attention that was paid focussed more generally around the subject of reproduction and issues of prostitution, exploitation, abuse and venereal diseases (Kidd, 1997). Since the late 1980s there has been a shift in the broader public health agenda (see Baum, 1998) along with public health in relation to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people (NHMRC, 2003). This has been coupled with increasing calls to develop appropriate tertiary curriculum and to educate, train, and employ more Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Aboriginal people in public health (Anderson et al., 2004; Genat, 2007; PHERP, 2008a, 2008b). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have been engaged in public health in ways in which they are in a position to influence the public health agenda (Anderson 2004; 2008; Anderson et al., 2004; NATSIHC, 2003). There have been numerous projects, programs and strategies that have sought to develop the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Public Health workforce (AHMAC, 2002; Oldenburg et al., 2005; SCATSIH, 2002). In recent times the Aboriginal community controlled health sector has joined forces with other peak bodies and governments to find solutions and strategies to improve the health outcomes of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (NACCHO & Oxfam, 2007). This case study chapter will not address these broader activities. Instead it will explore the activities and roles of staff within the Public Health and Research Unit (PHRU) at the Victorian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation (VACCHO). It will focus on their experiences with education institutions, their work in public health and their thoughts on gaps and where improvements can be made in public health, research and education. What will be demonstrated is the diversity of education qualifications and experience. What will also be reflected is how people work within public health on a daily basis to enact change for equity in health and contribute to the improvement of future health outcomes of the Victorian Aboriginal community.

Past, present and the evolving future of public health and health promotion: Reflections on dismantling in Queensland Australia

Objective For more than ten years the public health and health promotion workforce in the Australian state of Queensland grew dramatically. This growth was most pronounced in the disciplines of Health Promotion and in Public Health Nutrition, both regionally and corporately. In 2012 political change led to an abrupt dismantling of its public and preventive health services across the state. Individual responsibility was declared. Method This presentation provides a qualitative narrative description of past achievements and activities, the current situation and provides a perspective towards the future. Findings Government reports over several years described the growing burden of chronic disease arising from conditions such as obesity, physical inactivity, and poor nutrition in Queensland. By 2008, obesity had overtaken smoking as the single greatest risk factor to the health of Queenslanders. In 2010, the Chief Health Officer called for an increased focus on prevention to address the continuing need for more beds in hospitals. However, with political change in 2012 resulted in the dismantling and dismissal of preventive health services across the state. The following year, despite outcry, sexual health services were also axed. At present, outbreaks of vaccine preventable diseases such as measles are occurring. The epidemics of chronic disease, obesity and physical inactivity continue to grow. Conclusion The evolution of public health is not necessarily progressive, but cyclic. Challenges include political change, health practice and the interplay of health policy. A lack of an embedded emphasis on systematic review translation is one potential contributor. Perhaps the warning of Lang & Rayner should be heeded: “public health proponents have allowed themselves to be corralled into the narrow language of individualism and choice”.

Access to essential medicines: Public health and international law

Historically, there have been intense conflicts over the ownership and exploitation of pharmaceutical drugs and diagnostic tests dealing with infectious diseases. Throughout the 1980’s, there was much scientific, legal, and ethical debate about which scientific group should be credited with the discovery of the human immunodeficiency virus, and the invention of the blood test devised to detect antibodies to the virus. In May 1983, Luc Montagnier, Françoise Barré-Sinoussi, and other French scientists from the Pasteur Institute in Paris, published a paper in Science, detailing the discovery of a virus called lymphadenopathy (LAV). A scientific rival, Robert Gallo of the National Cancer Institute, identified the AIDS virus and published his findings in the May 1984 issue of Science. In May 1985, the United States Patent and Trademark Office awarded the American patent for the AIDS blood test to Gallo and the Department of Health and Human Services. In December 1985, the Institut Pasteur sued the Department of Health and Human Services, contending that the French were the first to identify the AIDS virus and to invent the antibody test, and that the American test was dependent upon the French research. In March 1987, an agreement was brokered by President Ronald Reagan and French Prime Minister Jacques Chirac, which resulted in the Department of Health and Human Services and the Institut Pasteur sharing the patent rights to the blood test for AIDS. In 1992, the Federal Office of Research Integrity found that Gallo had committed scientific misconduct, by falsely reporting facts in his 1984 scientific paper. A subsequent investigation by the National Institutes of Health, the United States Congress, and the US attorney-general cleared Gallo of any wrongdoing. In 1994, the United States government and French government renegotiated their agreement regarding the AIDS blood test patent, in order to make the distribution of royalties more equitable... The dispute between Luc Montagnier and Robert Gallo was not an isolated case of scientific rivalry and patent races. It foreshadowed further patent conflicts over research in respect of HIV/AIDS. Michael Kirby, former Justice of the High Court of Australia diagnosed a clash between two distinct schools of philosophy - ‘scientists of the old school... working by serendipity with free sharing of knowledge and research’, and ‘those of the new school who saw the hope of progress as lying in huge investments in scientific experimentation.’ Indeed, the patent race between Robert Gallo and Luc Montagnier has been a precursor to broader trade disputes over access to essential medicines in the 1990s and 2000s. The dispute between Robert Gallo and Luc Montagnier captures in microcosm a number of themes of this book: the fierce competition for intellectual property rights; the clash between sovereign states over access to medicines; the pressing need to defend human rights, particularly the right to health; and the need for new incentives for research and development to combat infectious diseases as both an international and domestic issue.

Turing and the Trans-Pacific Partnership: Intellectual Property, Public Health, and Access to Essential Medicines

A recent controversy in the United States over drug pricing by Turing Pharmaceuticals AG has raised larger issues in respect of intellectual property, access to medicines, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). In August 2015, Turing Pharmaceuticals AG – a private biopharmaceutical company with offices in New York, the United States, and Zug, Switzerland - acquired the exclusive marketing rights to Daraprim in the United States from Impax Laboratories Incorporated. Martin Shkreli, Turing’s Founder and Chief Executive Officer, maintained: “The acquisition of Daraprim and our toxoplasmosis research program are significant steps along Turing’s path of bringing novel medications to patients with serious disorders, some of whom often go undiagnosed and untreated.” He emphasised: “We intend to invest in the development of new drug candidates that we hope will yield an even better clinical profile, and also plan to launch an educational effort to help raise awareness and improve diagnosis for patients with toxoplasmosis.” In September 2015, there was much public controversy over the decision of Martin Shkreli to raise the price of a 62 year old drug, Daraprim, from $US13.50 to $US750 a pill. The drug is particularly useful in respect to the treatment and prevention of malaria, and in the treatment of infections in individuals with HIV/AIDS. Daraprim is listed on the World Health Organization’s (WHO) List of Essential Medicines. In the face of much criticism, Martin Shkreli has said that he will reduce the price of Daraprim. He observed: “We've agreed to lower the price on Daraprim to a point that is more affordable and is able to allow the company to make a profit, but a very small profit.” He maintained: “We think these changes will be welcomed.” However, he has been vague and ambiguous about the nature of the commitment. Notably, the lobby group, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhARMA), disassociated itself from the claims of Turing Pharmaceuticals. The group said: “PhRMA members have a long history of drug discovery and innovation that has led to increased longevity and improved lives for millions of patients.” The group noted: “Turing Pharmaceutical is not a member of PhRMA and we do not embrace either their recent actions or the conduct of their CEO.” The biotechnology peak body Biotechnology Industry Organization also sought to distance itself from Turing Pharmaceuticals. A hot topic: United States political debate about access to affordable medicines This controversy over Daraprim is unusual – given the age of drug concerned. Daraprim is not subject to patent protection. Nonetheless, there remains a monopoly in respect of the marketplace. Drug pricing is not an isolated problem. There have been many concerns about drug pricing – particularly in respect of essential medicines for HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. This recent controversy is part of a larger debate about access to affordable medicines. The dispute raises larger issues about healthcare, consumer rights, competition policy, and trade. The Daraprim controversy has provided impetus for law reform in the US. US Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton commented: “Price gouging like this in this specialty drug market is outrageous.” In response to her comments, the Nasdaq Biotechnology Index fell sharply. Hillary Clinton has announced a prescription drug reform plan to protect consumers and promote innovation – while putting an end to profiteering. On her campaign site, she has emphasised that “affordable healthcare is a basic human right.” Her rival progressive candidate, Bernie Sanders, was also concerned about the price hike. He wrote a letter to Martin Shkreli, complaining about the price increase for the drug Daraprim. Sanders said: “The enormous, overnight price increase for Daraprim is just the latest in a long list of skyrocketing price increases for certain critical medications.” He has pushed for reforms to intellectual property to make medicines affordable. The TPP and intellectual property The Daraprim controversy and political debate raises further issues about the design of the TPP. The dispute highlights the dangers of extending the rights of pharmaceutical drug companies under intellectual property, investor-state dispute settlement, and drug administration. Recently, the civil society group Knowledge Ecology International published a leaked draft of the Intellectual Property Chapter of the TPP. Knowledge Ecology International Director, James Love, was concerned the text revealed that the US “continues to be the most aggressive supporter of expanded intellectual property rights for drug companies.” He was concerned that “the proposals contained in the TPP will harm consumers and in some cases block innovation.” James Love feared: “In countless ways, the Obama Administration has sought to expand and extend drug monopolies and raise drug prices.” He maintained: “The astonishing collection of proposals pandering to big drug companies make more difficult the task of ensuring access to drugs for the treatment of cancer and other diseases and conditions.” Love called for a different approach to intellectual property and trade: “Rather than focusing on more intellectual property rights for drug companies, and a death-inducing spiral of higher prices and access barriers, the trade agreement could seek new norms to expand the funding of medical research and development (R&D) as a public good, an area where the US has an admirable track record, such as the public funding of research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and other federal agencies.” In addition, there has been much concern about the Investment Chapter of the TPP. The investor-state dispute settlement regime would enable foreign investors to challenge government policy making, which affected their investments. In the context of healthcare, there is a worry that pharmaceutical drug companies will deploy their investor rights to challenge public health measures – such as, for instance, initiatives to curb drug pricing and profiteering. Such concerns are not merely theoretical. Eli Lilly has brought an investor action against the Canadian Government over the rejection of its drug patents under the investor-state dispute settlement regime of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The Health Annex to the TPP also raises worries that pharmaceutical drug companies will able to object to regulatory procedures in respect of healthcare. It is disappointing that the TPP – in the leaks that we have seen – has only limited recognition of the importance of access to essential medicines. There is a need to ensure that there are proper safeguards to provide access to essential medicines – particularly in respect of HIV/AIDs, malaria, and tuberculosis. Moreover, there must be protection against drug profiteering and price gouging in any trade agreement. There should be strong measures against the abuse of intellectual property rights. The dispute over Turing Pharmaceuticals AG and Daraprim is an important cautionary warning in respect of some of the dangers present in the secret negotiations in respect of the TPP. There is a need to preserve consumer rights, competition policy, and public health in trade negotiations over an agreement covering the Pacific Rim.

Looking at the other side: Families, public health and anti-vaccination

The choice to vaccinate or not to vaccinate a child is usually an ‘informed decision’, however, it is how this decision is informed which is of most importance. More frequently, families are turning to the Internet, in particular social media, as a data source to support their decisions. However, much of the online information may be unscientific or biased. While issues such as vaccination will always see dissenting voices, engaging with that ‘other side’ is difficult in the public policy debate which is informed by evidence based science. This chapter investigates the other side in light of the growing adoption and reliance on social media as a source of anti-vaccine information. The study adopts a qualitative approach to data collection and is based on a critical discourse analysis of online social media discourse. The findings demonstrate the valuable contribution this approach can make to public policy work in vaccination.

Educating the public health workforce : issues and challenges

Background: In public health, as well as other health education contexts, there is increasing recognition of the transformation in public health practice and the necessity for educational providers to keep pace. Traditionally, public health education has been at the postgraduate level; however, over the past decade an upsurge in the growth of undergraduate public health degrees has taken place. Discussion: This article explores the impact of these changes on the traditional sphere of Master of Public Health programs, the range of competencies required at undergraduate and postgraduate levels, and the relevance of these changes to the public health workforce. It raises questions about the complexity of educational issues facing tertiary institutions and discusses the implications of these issues on undergraduate and postgraduate programs in public health. Conclusion: The planning and provisioning of education in public health must differentiate between the requirements of undergraduate and postgraduate students – while also addressing the changing needs of the health workforce. Within Australia, although significant research has been undertaken regarding the competencies required by postgraduate public health students, the approach is still somewhat piecemeal, and does not address undergraduate public health. This paper argues for a consistent approach to competencies that describe and differentiate entry-level and advanced practice.

Vitamin D and sun protection : the impact of mixed public health messages in Australia

Exposure of the skin to sunlight can cause skin cancer and is also necessary for cutaneous vitamin D production. Media reports have highlighted the purported health benefits of vitamin D. Our aim was to examine attitudes and behaviours related to sun protection and vitamin D. A cross-sectional study of 2,001 residents in Queensland, Australia aged 20-70 years was undertaken. Information collected included: skin cancer risk factors; perceptions about levels of sun exposure required to maintain vitamin D; belief that sun protection increases risk of vitamin D deficiency; intention, and actual change in sun protection practices for adults and children. Multivariate models examined predictors of attitudinal and behavioural change. One-third (32%) believed a fair-skinned adult, and 31% thought a child required at least 30 minutes per day in summer sun to maintain vitamin D levels. Reductions in sun protection were reported by 21% of adults and 14% of children. Factors associated with belief that sun protection may result in not obtaining enough vitamin D included aged ≥ 60 years (OR=1.35, 95% CI 1.09-1.66) and having skin that tanned easily (OR=1.96, 95% CI 1.38-2.78). Participants from low income households, and those who frequently used sun protective clothing were more likely to have reduced sun protection practices (OR=1.33, 95% CI 1.10-1.73 and OR=1.73, 95% CI 1.36-2.20, respectively). This study provides evidence of reductions in sun protection practices in a population living in a high UV environment. There is an urgent need to re-focus messages regarding sun exposure and for continued sun protection practices.

Ethics and public health

Note: see later edition of this work at http://eprints.qut.edu.au/47632/ This chapter introduces you to the basic ethical principles that underpin public health practice. The themes to be considered in this chapter include: the characteristics of ‘ethics’, the justification for reflecting on ethics and values, the foundations of public health ethics, whether and how we can incorporate ethics and values into our practice and the nature of some of the potential ethical complications of public health practice.

Ethics and public health

• recognise that “ethics” is often defined and approached in different ways • describe the foundations and development of public health ethics • summarise some key ethical systems and their relevance to public health practice • outline and critique some codes of ethics, and discuss their application to public health practice • recognise, evaluate and communicate ethical concerns regarding public health, and apply ethical principles in your practice.

Defining health and public health

- define health and public health - discuss how the concept of ‘health’ means different things to different individuals and be able to consider the range of factors that influence these definitions - identify and describe the principles of public health - recognise and describe how public health is defined and how each definition has shaped the development and implementation of public health approaches - describe the relationship between public health and other disciplines - discuss the nature and scope of public health - describe the varying roles of the public health workforce