Preliminary taxonomic survey and molecular documentation of jellyfish species (Cnidaria: Scyphozoa and Cubozoa) in Malaysia

Scientific enqumes into jellyfish blooms and associated problems in Malaysia are often deterred by the lack of taxonomical and ecological studies. To date, only two scyphozoan jellyfish species have been documented from field surveysin Malaysian waters, whereas other four Malaysian scyphozoan and two cubozoan jellyfish species have been mentioned in toxicological studies, all of which their species identity were not verified. Thus,this study aimed to document and to resolve the identification of jellyfish in Malaysia using morphology and molecular DNA sequencing of COl, 16Sand ITS1 regions. Jellyfish specimens were collected from 2008 to 2010 in the Straits of Malacca, South-China Sea and the Sulu-SulawesiSea. Ten scyphozoan and two cubozoan species were recorded, which included eight species from the order Rhizostomeae (Rhizostomatidae, Lobonematidae, Mastigiidae, Catostylidae and Cepheidae), two species from Semaestomeae (Pelagiidae and Cyaneidae) and two species from class Cubozoa; one from order Carybdeida (family Carukiidae) and another from order Chirodropida (family Chiropsalmidae). TheCOl phylogenetic tree of Cubozoa and Scyphozoa species from the Atlantic and Pacific region showed distinct clustering of sixMalaysian jellyfish species. However, most of the deeper divergences and relationships between the families were unresolved, which were also observed in the 16Sand ITS1 phylogenetic trees. The Malaysian edible species Lobonemoides robustus, Rhopilema hispidum and Rhopilema esculentum were proven to belong to Rhizostomeae, whereas other scyphozoans showed phylogenetic affinities to Semaestomeae and Kolpophorae. Chrysaora and Cyan eo appeared non -monophyletic, however their paraphyly was not confirmed. Although this study has provided much needed baseline information on the barcoding of Malaysian jellyfish species, there isstilla general lack of jellyfish sequences in GenBank to facilitate better species confirmation

Efficacy of second-line antiretroviral therapy among people living with HIV/AIDS in Asia: Results from the TREAT Asia HIV observational database

Roughly 4% of the 1.25 million patients on antiretroviral therapy (ART) in Asia are using second-line therapy. To maximize patient benefit and regional resources, it is important to optimize the timing of second-line ART initiation and use the most effective compounds available. METHODS:: HIV-positive patients enrolled in the TREAT Asia HIV Observational Database who had used second-line ART for 6 months were included. ART use and rates and predictors of second-line treatment failure were evaluated. RESULTS:: There were 302 eligible patients. Most were male (76.5%) and exposed to HIV via heterosexual contact (71.5%). Median age at second-line initiation was 39.2 years, median CD4 cell count was 146 cells per cubic millimeter, and median HIV viral load was 16,224 copies per milliliter. Patients started second-line ART before 2007 (n = 105), 2007-2010 (n = 147) and after 2010 (n = 50). Ritonavir-boosted lopinavir and atazanavir accounted for the majority of protease inhibitor use after 2006. Median follow-up time on second-line therapy was 2.3 years. The rates of treatment failure and mortality per 100 patient/years were 8.8 (95% confidence interval: 7.1 to 10.9) and 1.1 (95% confidence interval: 0.6 to 1.9), respectively. Older age, high baseline viral load, and use of a protease inhibitor other than lopinavir or atazanavir were associated with a significantly shorter time to second-line failure. CONCLUSIONS:: Increased access to viral load monitoring to facilitate early detection of first-line ART failure and subsequent treatment switch is important for maximizing the durability of second-line therapy in Asia. Although second-line ART is highly effective in the region, the reported rate of failure emphasizes the need for third-line ART in a small portion of patients

Risk factors for poor outcomes in hospitalised COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundUnderstanding the risk factors for poor outcomes among COVID-19 patients could help identify vulnerable populations who would need prioritisation in prevention and treatment for COVID-19. We aimed to critically appraise and synthesise published evidence on the risk factors for poor outcomes in hospitalised COVID-19 patients.MethodsWe searched PubMed, medRxiv and the WHO COVID-19 literature database for studies that reported characteristics of COVID-19 patients who required hospitalisation. We included studies published between January and May 2020 that reported adjusted effect size of any demographic and/or clinical factors for any of the three poor outcomes: mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and invasive mechanical ventilation. We appraised the quality of the included studies using Joanna Briggs Institute appraisal tools and quantitatively synthesised the evidence through a series of random-effect meta-analyses. To aid data interpretation, we further developed an interpretation framework that indicated strength of the evidence, informed by both quantity and quality of the evidence.ResultsWe included a total of 40 studies in our review. Most of the included studies (29/40, 73%) were assessed as “good quality”, with assessment scores of 80 or more. We found that male sex (pooled odds ratio (OR) = 1.32 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.18-1.48; 20 studies), older age (OR = 1.05, 95% CI = 1.04-1.07, per one year of age increase; 10 studies), obesity (OR = 1.59, 95% CI = 1.02-2.48; 4 studies), diabetes (OR = 1.25, 95% CI = 1.11-1.40; 11 studies) and chronic kidney diseases (6 studies; OR = 1.57, 95% CI = 1.27-1.93) were associated with increased risks for mortality with the greatest strength of evidence based on our interpretation framework. We did not find increased risk of mortality for several factors including chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (5 studies), cancer (4 studies), or current smoker (5 studies); however, this does not indicate absence of risk due to limited data on each of these factors.ConclusionMale sex, older age, obesity, diabetes and chronic kidney diseases are important risk factors of COVID-19 poor outcomes. Our review provides not only an appraisal and synthesis of evidence on the risk factors of COVID-19 poor outcomes, but also a data interpretation framework that could be adopted by relevant future research

Risk factors for poor outcomes in hospitalised COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundUnderstanding the risk factors for poor outcomes among COVID-19 patients could help identify vulnerable populations who would need prioritisation in prevention and treatment for COVID-19. We aimed to critically appraise and synthesise published evidence on the risk factors for poor outcomes in hospitalised COVID-19 patients.MethodsWe searched PubMed, medRxiv and the WHO COVID-19 literature database for studies that reported characteristics of COVID-19 patients who required hospitalisation. We included studies published between January and May 2020 that reported adjusted effect size of any demographic and/or clinical factors for any of the three poor outcomes: mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and invasive mechanical ventilation. We appraised the quality of the included studies using Joanna Briggs Institute appraisal tools and quantitatively synthesised the evidence through a series of random-effect meta-analyses. To aid data interpretation, we further developed an interpretation framework that indicated strength of the evidence, informed by both quantity and quality of the evidence.ResultsWe included a total of 40 studies in our review. Most of the included studies (29/40, 73%) were assessed as “good quality”, with assessment scores of 80 or more. We found that male sex (pooled odds ratio (OR) = 1.32 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.18-1.48; 20 studies), older age (OR = 1.05, 95% CI = 1.04-1.07, per one year of age increase; 10 studies), obesity (OR = 1.59, 95% CI = 1.02-2.48; 4 studies), diabetes (OR = 1.25, 95% CI = 1.11-1.40; 11 studies) and chronic kidney diseases (6 studies; OR = 1.57, 95% CI = 1.27-1.93) were associated with increased risks for mortality with the greatest strength of evidence based on our interpretation framework. We did not find increased risk of mortality for several factors including chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (5 studies), cancer (4 studies), or current smoker (5 studies); however, this does not indicate absence of risk due to limited data on each of these factors.ConclusionMale sex, older age, obesity, diabetes and chronic kidney diseases are important risk factors of COVID-19 poor outcomes. Our review provides not only an appraisal and synthesis of evidence on the risk factors of COVID-19 poor outcomes, but also a data interpretation framework that could be adopted by relevant future research

Body composition and metabolic outcomes after 96 weeks of treatment with ritonavir-boosted lopinavir plus either nucleoside or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors or raltegravir in patients with HIV with virological failure of a standard first-line antiretroviral therapy regimen: a substudy of the randomised, open-label, non-inferiority SECOND-LINE study

BACKGROUND: Lipoatrophy is one of the most feared complications associated with the use of nucleoside or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (N[t]RTIs). We aimed to assess soft-tissue changes in participants with HIV who had virological failure of a first-line antiretroviral (ART) regimen containing a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor plus two N(t)RTIs and were randomly assigned to receive a second-line regimen containing a boosted protease inhibitor given with either N(t)RTIs or raltegravir. METHODS: Of the 37 sites that participated in the randomised, open-label, non-inferiority SECOND-LINE study, eight sites from five countries (Argentina, India, Malaysia, South Africa, and Thailand) participated in the body composition substudy. All sites had a dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scanner and all participants enrolled in SECOND-LINE were eligible for inclusion in the substudy. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1), via a computer-generated allocation schedule, to receive either ritonavir-boosted lopinavir plus raltegravir (raltegravir group) or ritonavir-boosted lopinavir plus two or three N(t)RTIs (N[t]RTI group). Randomisation was stratified by site and screening HIV-1 RNA. Participants and investigators were not masked to group assignment, but allocation was concealed until after interventions were assigned. DXA scans were done at weeks 0, 48, and 96. The primary endpoint was mean percentage and absolute change in peripheral limb fat from baseline to week 96. We did intention-to-treat analyses of available data. This substudy is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01513122. FINDINGS: Between Aug 1, 2010, and July 10, 2011, we recruited 211 participants into the substudy. The intention-to-treat population comprised 102 participants in the N(t)RTI group and 108 participants in the raltegravir group, of whom 91 and 105 participants, respectively, reached 96 weeks. Mean percentage change in limb fat from baseline to week 96 was 16·8% (SD 32·6) in the N(t)RTI group and 28·0% (37·6) in the raltegravir group (mean difference 10·2%, 95% CI 0·1-20·4; p=0·048). Mean absolute change was 1·04 kg (SD 2·29) in the N(t)RTI group and 1·81 kg (2·50) in the raltegravir group (mean difference 0·6, 95% CI -0·1 to 1·3; p=0·10). INTERPRETATION: Our findings suggest that for people with virological failure of a first-line regimen containing efavirenz plus tenofovir and lamivudine or emtricitabine, the WHO-recommended switch to a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor plus zidovudine (a thymidine analogue nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor) and lamivudine might come at the cost of peripheral lipoatrophy. Further study could help to define specific groups of people who might benefit from a switch to an N(t)RTI-sparing second-line ART regimen.Mark A Boyd, Janaki Amin, Patrick W G Mallon, Nagalingeswaran Kumarasamy, Johan Lombaard, Robin Wood, Ploenchan Chetchotisakd, Praphan Phanuphak, Lerato Mohapi, Iskandar Azwa, Waldo H Belloso, Jean-Michel Molina, Jennifer Hoy, Cecilia L Moore, Sean Emery, David A Cooper, on behalf of the SECOND-LINE Study Grou

Prevalence of and risk factors for anal high-risk HPV among HIV-negative and HIV-positive MSM and transgender women in three countries at South-East Asia.

This study aimed to assess the prevalence of and associated risk factors for anal high-risk human papillomavirus (hr-HPV) infection among men who have sex with men (MSM) and transgender women (TGW) in Indonesia, Thailand, and Malaysia.This was baseline data from a prospective cohort study with clinic sites in Jakarta and Bali (Indonesia), Bangkok (Thailand), and Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia).MSM and TGW aged 18 years and older from Indonesia, Thailand, and Malaysia were enrolled. Demographic and behavioral characteristics were assessed, and anal samples were collected for HPV genotyping. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to assess risk factors for anal hr-HPV overall and among HIV-positive participants.A total of 392 participants were enrolled, and 48 were TGW. As many as 245 were HIV-positive, and 78.0% of the participants were on combination antiretroviral therapy (cART). Median CD4 count was 439 cells/mm and 68.2% had undetectable HIV-RNA. HIV-positive participants had significantly more hr-HPV compared to HIV-negative participants (76.6% vs 53.5%, P < .001). HPV-16 was the most common high-risk type (20%), whereas HPV-33, -39, and -58 were significantly more common among HIV-positive participants. HIV-positive participant significantly associated with anal hr-HPV infection compared with HIV-negative (OR: 2.87, 95% CI: 1.76-4.70, P ≤ .001), whereas among HIV-positive participants transgender identity had lower prevalence of hr-HPV infection (OR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.19-0.91, P = .03).High-risk HPV infection was very common among MSM and TGW in South-East Asia. Overall, HIV-infection, regardless of cART use and immune status, significantly increased the risk, while among HIV-positive participants transgender identity seemed to decrease the risk of anal hr-HPV