Komalamisra N.,Mahidol University |
Srisawat R.,Mahidol University |
Phanbhuwong T.,Mahidol University |
Oatwaree A.S.,Bangkok Metropolitan Administration
Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public Health | Year: 2011
Mosquito larvae were collected from the houses of dengue infected patients in Bangkok, Thailand from 55 sites (36 out of the 50 districts of Metropolitan Bangkok). Aedes aegypti larvae were tested against temephos using WHO bioassay techniques. Adult mosquitoes were tested for susceptibility to permethrin, deltamethrin, cyfluthrin, malathion and DDT using WHO diagnostic doses. Most of the larvae tested were susceptible to temephos. Only few specimens were resistant to temephos. Most adult mosquitoes were highly susceptible to malathion. Deltamethrin resistance was seen in 6 districts of Bangkok. Variable levels of susceptibility were seen with cyfluthrin. Most of the specimens showed resistance to permethrin and all specimens were resistant to DDT. Source
File photo of revelers using water guns as they participate in a water fight during Songkran Festival celebrations at Silom road in Bangkok April 13, 2015. Thailand is facing its worst water shortage in two decades, with 14 out of 76 provinces hit and large swathes of agricultural land at risk. Thailand has entered its annual dry season, which typically runs from March to May, meaning the drought is likely to get worse. The Bangkok Metropolitan Administration's solution? Be a wet blanket by cutting festival days down from four to three and imposing a curfew. "This is partly symbolic, but we hope to save water too because our lakes have become deserts," said deputy Bangkok governor Amorn Kijchawengjul. "We don't want city folk splashing water around carelessly while farmers struggle." The Songkran festival, which marks Thai New Year, is often referred to as the world's biggest water fight - a time when revelers splashing water on each other and everyone, young and old, is fair game. But this year all splashing will have to stop at 9 p.m. sharp. "We'll just shut down the party," said Amorn.
Prybylski D.,Thailand MOPH U.S. CDC Collaboration |
Prybylski D.,Centers for Disease Control and Prevention |
Manopaiboon C.,Thailand MOPH U.S. CDC Collaboration |
Visavakum P.,Thailand MOPH U.S. CDC Collaboration |
And 10 more authors.
Drug and Alcohol Dependence | Year: 2015
Background: Thailand's long-standing HIV sero-sentinel surveillance system for people who inject drugs (PWID) is confined to those in methadone-based drug treatment clinics and representative data are scarce, especially outside of Bangkok. Methods: We conducted probability-based respondent-driven sampling (RDS) surveys in Bangkok (n = 738) and Chiang Mai (n = 309) to increase understanding of local HIV epidemics and to better inform the planning of evidence-based interventions. Results: PWID had different epidemiological profiles in these two cities. Overall HIV prevalence was higher in Bangkok (23.6% vs. 10.9%, p < 0.001) but PWID in Bangkok are older and appear to have long-standing HIV infections. In Chiang Mai, HIV infections appear to be more recently acquired and PWID were younger and had higher levels of recent injecting and sexual risk behaviors with lower levels of intervention exposure. Methamphetamine was the predominant drug injected in both sites and polydrug use was common although levels and patterns of the specific drugs injected varied significantly between the sites. In multivariate analysis, recent midazolam injection was significantly associated with HIV infection in Chiang Mai (adjusted odds ratio = 8.1; 95% confidence interval: 1.2-54.5) whereas in Bangkok HIV status was not associated with recent risk behaviors as infections had likely been acquired in the past. Conclusion: PWID epidemics in Thailand are heterogeneous and driven by local factors. There is a need to customize intervention strategies for PWID in different settings and to integrate population-based survey methods such as RDS into routine surveillance to monitor the national response. © 2015. Source
Choopanya K.,Bangkok Tenofovir Study Group |
Martin M.,Health-U |
Martin M.,Centers for Disease Control and Prevention |
Suntharasamai P.,Bangkok Tenofovir Study Group |
And 16 more authors.
The Lancet | Year: 2013
Background Antiretroviral pre-exposure prophylaxis reduces sexual transmission of HIV. We assessed whether daily oral use of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (tenofovir), an antiretroviral, can reduce HIV transmission in injecting drug users. Methods In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we enrolled volunteers from 17 drug-treatment clinics in Bangkok, Thailand. Participants were eligible if they were aged 20-60 years, were HIV-negative, and reported injecting drugs during the previous year. We randomly assigned participants (1:1; blocks of four) to either tenofovir or placebo using a computer-generated randomisation sequence. Participants chose either daily directly observed treatment or monthly visits and could switch at monthly visits. Participants received monthly HIV testing and individualised risk-reduction and adherence counselling, blood safety assessments every 3 months, and were off ered condoms and methadone treatment. The primary effi cacy endpoint was HIV infection, analysed by modifi ed intention-to-treat analysis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00119106. Findings Between June 9, 2005, and July 22, 2010, we enrolled 2413 participants, assigning 1204 to tenofovir and 1209 to placebo. Two participants had HIV at enrolment and 50 became infected during follow-up: 17 in the tenofovir group (an incidence of 0.35 per 100 person-years) and 33 in the placebo group (0.68 per 100 person-years), indicating a 48.9% reduction in HIV incidence (95% CI 9.6-72.2; p=0.01). The occurrence of serious adverse events was much the same between the two groups (p=0.35). Nausea was more common in participants in the tenofovir group than in the placebo group (p=0.002). Interpretation In this study, daily oral tenofovir reduced the risk of HIV infection in people who inject drugs. Preexposure prophylaxis with tenofovir can now be considered for use as part of an HIV prevention package for people who inject drugs. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier B.V. Source
Martin M.,Centers for Disease Control and Prevention |
Vanichseni S.,Bangkok Vaccine Evaluation Group |
Suntharasamai P.,Mahidol University |
Mock P.A.,Centers for Disease Control and Prevention |
And 8 more authors.
International Journal of Drug Policy | Year: 2010
Background: HIV spread rapidly amongst injecting drug users (IDUs) in Bangkok in the late 1980s. In recent years, changes in the drugs injected by IDUs have been observed. We examined data from an HIV vaccine trial conducted amongst IDUs in Bangkok during 1999-2003 to describe drug injection practices, drugs injected, and determine if drug use choices altered the risk of incident HIV infection. Methods: The AIDSVAX B/E HIV vaccine trial was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. At enrolment and every 6 months thereafter, HIV status and risk behaviour were assessed. A proportional hazards model was used to evaluate demographic characteristics, incarceration, drug injection practices, sexual activity, and drugs injected during follow-up as independent predictors of HIV infection. Results: The proportion of participants injecting drugs, sharing needles, and injecting daily declined from baseline to month 36. Amongst participants who injected, the proportion injecting heroin declined (98.6-91.9%), whilst the proportions injecting methamphetamine (16.2-19.6%) and midazolam (9.9-31.9%) increased. HIV incidence was highest amongst participants injecting methamphetamine, 7.1 (95% CI, 5.4-9.2) per 100 person years. Injecting heroin and injecting methamphetamine were independently associated with incident HIV infection. Conclusions: Amongst AIDSVAX B/E vaccine trial participants who injected drugs during follow-up, the proportion injecting heroin declined whilst the proportion injecting methamphetamine, midazolam, or combinations of these drugs increased. Controlling for heroin use and other risk factors, participants injecting methamphetamine were more likely to become HIV-infected than participants not injecting methamphetamine. Additional HIV prevention tools are urgently needed including tools that address methamphetamine use. © 2010. Source