Ebola: translational science considerations

We are currently in the midst of the most aggressive and fulminating outbreak of Ebola-related disease, commonly referred to as “Ebola”, ever recorded. In less than a year, the Ebola virus (EBOV, Zaire ebolavirus species) has infected over 10,000 people, indiscriminately of gender or age, with a fatality rate of about 50%. Whereas at its onset this Ebola outbreak was limited to three countries in West Africa (Guinea, where it was first reported in late March 2014, Liberia, where it has been most rampant in its capital city, Monrovia and other metropolitan cities, and Sierra Leone), cases were later reported in Nigeria, Mali and Senegal, as well as in Western Europe (i.e., Madrid, Spain) and the US (i.e., Dallas, Texas; New York City) by late October 2014. World and US health agencies declared that the current Ebola virus disease (EVD) outbreak has a strong likelihood of growing exponentially across the world before an effective vaccine, treatment or cure can be developed, tested, validated and distributed widely. In the meantime, the spread of the disease may rapidly evolve from an epidemics to a full-blown pandemic. The scientific and healthcare communities actively research and define an emerging kaleidoscope of knowledge about critical translational research parameters, including the virology of EBOV, the molecular biomarkers of the pathological manifestations of EVD, putative central nervous system involvement in EVD, and the cellular immune surveillance to EBOV, patient-centered anthropological and societal parameters of EVD, as well as translational effectiveness about novel putative patient-targeted vaccine and pharmaceutical interventions, which hold strong promise, if not hope, to curb this and future Ebola outbreaks. This work reviews and discusses the principal known facts about EBOV and EVD, and certain among the most interesting ongoing or future avenues of research in the field, including vaccination programs for the wild animal vectors of the virus and the disease from global translational science perspective

Mild test anxiety influences neurocognitive performance among African Americans and European Americans: Identifying interfering and facilitating sources

The current study examined ethnic/racial differences in test-related anxiety and its relationship to neurocognitive performance in a community sample of African American (n = 40) and European American (n = 36) adults. The authors hypothesized the following: (a) Test-anxiety related to negative performance evaluation would be associated with lower neurocognitive performance, whereas anxiety unrelated to negative evaluation would be associated with higher neurocognitive performance. (b) African American participants would report higher levels of anxiety about negative performance evaluation than European Americans. (c) European Americans would report higher levels of anxiety unrelated to negative performance evaluation. The first two hypotheses were supported: Ethnic/racial differences in test-taking anxiety emerged such that African Americans reported significantly higher levels of negative performance evaluation, which was associated with lower cognitive performance. The third hypothesis was not supported: African Americans and European Americans reported similar levels of test-anxiety unrelated to negative evaluation

Mild test anxiety influences neurocognitive performance among African Americans and European Americans: Identifying interfering and facilitating sources

The current study examined ethnic/racial differences in test-related anxiety and its relationship to neurocognitive performance in a community sample of African American (n = 40) and European American (n = 36) adults. The authors hypothesized the following: (a) Test-anxiety related to negative performance evaluation would be associated with lower neurocognitive performance, whereas anxiety unrelated to negative evaluation would be associated with higher neurocognitive performance. (b) African American participants would report higher levels of anxiety about negative performance evaluation than European Americans. (c) European Americans would report higher levels of anxiety unrelated to negative performance evaluation. The first two hypotheses were supported: Ethnic/racial differences in test-taking anxiety emerged such that African Americans reported significantly higher levels of negative performance evaluation, which was associated with lower cognitive performance. The third hypothesis was not supported: African Americans and European Americans reported similar levels of test-anxiety unrelated to negative evaluation

Defining Neurocognitive Impairment in HIV: Deficit Scores Versus Clinical Ratings

BACKGROUND: Because HIV-related neurocognitive impairment is usually mild and variable, clinical ratings (CR) and global deficit scores (GDS) are recommended for detecting HIV-associated neurocognitive disorders (HAND). The CR-approach requires impairment in at least two ability domains; GDS considers number and severity of impairments across all measures. We examined classification agreement and clinical correlates of the two methods. METHOD: Neurocognitive functioning of 1574 HIV-infected participants was assessed via a comprehensive, seven-domain neuropsychological battery. Global neurocognitive impairment was defined for each participant independently by CR and GDS. Participants were classified into four categories (Dually-normal, impaired by CR-only, impaired by GDS-only, or Dually-impaired). RESULTS: There was 83% concordance between CR and GDS classifications; in total, 56% of participants were deemed impaired by CR and 41% were classified as impaired by GDS. Impairment by GDS virtually guaranteed CR impairment, but 16% of participants were additionally classified as impaired only by CR. As compared to Dually-normal participants, those classified as Dually and CR-only impaired were more likely to have AIDS, have more severe co-occurring conditions, have more severe depressive symptoms, be unemployed, and have more everyday functioning complaints (ps < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Impairment classifications of the two methods were in high agreement; however, more people were classified as impaired using the CR-approach compared to the GDS approach, and those impaired according to CR-only showed fewer neurocognitive and functional deficits than the Dually-impaired participants. The CR approach may be most appropriate for detecting more subtle forms of neurocognitive impairment. Clinicians and researchers should recognize the strengths and weaknesses of each method when evaluating neurocognitive complications in HIV