Little is known about the epidemiology of typhoid and paratyphoid fever in Nepal. We aimed to elucidate the molecular and clinical epidemiology of Salmonella Paratyphi A in Nepal. Isolates were collected from 23 cases of bacteremia due to S. Paratyphi A between December 2014 and October 2015. Thirteen patients (57%) were male, and the median age was 21 years. None of the patients had an underlying chronic disease. All S. Paratyphi A isolates were sensitive to ampicillin, trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, ceftriaxone, and chloramphenicol. All isolates were resistant to nalidixic acid and were categorized as intermediately susceptible to levofloxacin. Phylogenetic analysis revealed close relatedness among the isolates, including several clonal groups, suggesting local spread. Patients with bacteremia due to S. Paratyphi A in Kathmandu, Nepal, were relatively young and nondebilitated. Improving control of S . Paratyphi infections should focus on effective infection control measures and selection of empirical therapy based on current resistance patterns.
The In the Clinic® slide sets are owned and copyrighted by the American College of Physicians (ACP). All text, graphics, trademarks, and other intellectual property incorporated into the slide sets remain the sole and exclusive property of the ACP. The slide sets may be used only by the person who downloads or purchases them and only for the purpose of presenting them during not-for-profit educational activities. Users may incorporate the entire slide set or selected individual slides into their own teaching presentations but may not alter the content of the slides in any way or remove the ACP copyright notice. Users may make print copies for use as hand-outs for the audience the user is personally addressing but may not otherwise reproduce or distribute the slides by any means or media, including but not limited to sending them as e-mail attachments, posting them on Internet or Intranet sites, publishing them in meeting proceedings, or making them available for sale or distribution in any unauthorized form, without the express written permission of the ACP. Unauthorized use of the In the Clinic slide sets will constitute copyright infringement.
In one study, which lasted six months, the low-carb diet seemed to win hands down. The people on it lost nearly 13 pounds (6 kg); the low-fat dieters shed just 4 pounds (2 kg). But the second study lasted six months longer, revealing a truth about low-carb diets: The results don’t last. This study too found that the low-carb dieters lost more weight in the first six months, but in the second half of the year, the weight came roaring back. By the end of a year, there was no significant difference in weight loss between the two groups. This weight “snapback” may be one reason that extremely low-carb diets have fallen out of favor.
Take the Good, Leave the Bad
The good news? Many of the weight-loss advantages of low-carb diets may have nothing at all to do with restricting carbohydrates. The main benefit may be due to the extra protein—and you can add protein to your diet even if you don’t drastically cut carbs. Protein-rich foods can really help with weight control. One reason may be that protein stimulates the body to burn slightly more calories than carbohydrates or fats do.