A New Approach to Developing Long-Acting Injectable Formulations of Anti-HIV Drugs: Poly(Ethylene Phosphoric Acid) Block Copolymers Increase the Efficiency of Tenofovir against HIV-1 in MT-4 Cells

Despite the world’s combined efforts, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), the causative agent of AIDS, remains one of the world’s most serious public health challenges. High genetic variability of HIV complicates the development of anti-HIV vaccine, and there is an actual clinical need for increasing the efficiency of anti-HIV drugs in terms of targeted delivery and controlled release. Tenofovir (TFV), a nucleotide-analog reverse transcriptase inhibitor, has gained wide acceptance as a drug for pre-exposure prophylaxis or treatment of HIV infection. In our study, we explored the potential of tenofovir disoproxil (TFD) adducts with block copolymers of poly(ethylene glycol) monomethyl ether and poly(ethylene phosphoric acid) (mPEG-b-PEPA) as candidates for developing a long-acting/controlled-release formulation of TFV. Two types of mPEG-b-PEPA with numbers of ethylene phosphoric acid (EPA) fragments of 13 and 49 were synthesized by catalytic ring-opening polymerization, and used for preparing four types of adducts with TFD. Antiviral activity of [mPEG-b-PEPA]TFD or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) was evaluated using the model of experimental HIV infection in vitro (MT-4/HIV-1IIIB). Judging by the values of the selectivity index (SI), TFD exhibited an up to 14-fold higher anti-HIV activity in the form of mPEG-b-PEPA adducts, thus demonstrating significant promise for further development of long-acting/controlled-release injectable TFV formulations

Big data technology in infectious diseases modeling, simulation, and prediction after the COVID-19 outbreak

After the outbreak of COVID-19, the interaction of infectious disease systems and social systems has challenged traditional infectious disease modeling methods. Starting from the research purpose and data, researchers improved the structure and data of the compartment model or used agents and artificial intelligence based models to solve epidemiological problems. In terms of modeling methods, the researchers use compartment subdivision, dynamic parameters, agent-based model methods, and artificial intelligence related methods. In terms of factors studied, the researchers studied 6 categories: human mobility, nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), ages, medical resources, human response, and vaccine. The researchers completed the study of factors through modeling methods to quantitatively analyze the impact of social systems and put forward their suggestions for the future transmission status of infectious diseases and prevention and control strategies. This review started with a research structure of research purpose, factor, data, model, and conclusion. Focusing on the post-COVID-19 infectious disease prediction simulation research, this study summarized various improvement methods and analyzes matching improvements for various specific research purposes

Cationic Surfactants as Disinfectants against SARS-CoV-2

The virucidal activity of a series of cationic surfactants differing in the length and number of hydrophobic tails (at the same hydrophilic head) and the structure of the hydrophilic head (at the same length of the hydrophobic n-alkyl tail) was compared. It was shown that an increase in the length and number of hydrophobic tails, as well as the presence of a benzene ring in the surfactant molecule, enhance the virucidal activity of the surfactant against SARS-CoV-2. This may be due to the more pronounced ability of such surfactants to penetrate and destroy the phospholipid membrane of the virus. Among the cationic surfactants studied, didodecyldimethylammonium bromide was shown to be the most efficient as a disinfectant, its 50% effective concentration (EC50) being equal to 0.016 mM. Two surfactants (didodecyldimethylammonium bromide and benzalkonium chloride) can deactivate SARS-CoV-2 in as little as 5 s

Research priorities for HIV/M. tuberculosis co-infection

Submitted by Éder Freyre ([email protected]) on 2012-05-14T19:29:55Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Research_priorities_HIV_tuberculosis_coinfection.pdf: 642718 bytes, checksum: a71964f1be150cb7428e7017c5c0418b (MD5)Made available in DSpace on 2012-05-14T19:29:55Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Research_priorities_HIV_tuberculosis_coinfection.pdf: 642718 bytes, checksum: a71964f1be150cb7428e7017c5c0418b (MD5) Previous issue date: 2011MS is funded by the EU; AM is funded by the EU and the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. The EUCO-Net project leading to these results has received funding from the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme.Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas - CONICET. Buenos Aires, CABA, Argentina.Universidad de Antioquia. Medellín, Colombia.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto de Comunicação e Informação Científica e Tecnológica em Saúde. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil.University of Amsterdam. Academic Medical Center. Amsterdam,The Netherlands.Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education & Research. Chandigarh, India.Russian Academy of Sciences. Institute of Numerical Mathematics. Moscow, Russia.Russian Academy of Sciences. Institute of Immunology and Physiology, Moscow, Russia.Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS - UNAIDS. Geneva, Switzerland.Institute of Immunology and Genetics. Germany.Russian Academy of Medical Sciences. Central Research Institute of Tuberculosis. Moscow, Russia.Kuratorium Tuberkulose in der Welt e.V. Germany.European Research & Project Office. Germany.BPS Women University. India.Imperial College London. South Kensington Campus, London, UK.Russian Academy of Medical Sciences. D.I. Ivanovsky Institute of Virology. Moscow, Russia.BOTUSA. Botswana.Ministry of Health and Social Development of the Russian Federation. Moscow, Russia.Istituto Superiore di Sanitá. Roma, Italy.Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil.Research Center Borstel. Germany.Instituto de Salud Carlos III. Spain.Community Working Group On Health. Zimbabwe.Institute of Tropical Medicine. Belgium.Makerere University. College of Health Sciences. Uganda.London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. UK.Saarland University. Saarbrücken, Germany / Germany & ICREA. Germany / University Pompeu Fabra. Barcelona, Spain.Fondazione Salvatore Maugeri. Pavia, Italy.Johns Hopkins University. Baltimore, Maryland, USA.Karonga Prevention Study. Malawi.European AIDS Treatment Groups - EATG. Brussels, Belgium.Medical Research Council Unit - MRC. Fajara, The Gambia.Luzerne General Hospital. Switzerland.Stellenbosch University. South Africa.Corporación para Investigaciones Biológicas - CIB-UPB. Colombia.Hinduja National Hospital. Mahim, Mumbai, India.Argentinean National Reference Center for AIDS. Argentina.Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud - I+CS. Spain.Asociacion Civil Impacta, Salud y Educacion. Peru.Saarland University. Germany.Seth Research Foundation. India.AIDS & RIGHTS Alliance for Southern Africa. South Africa.SRC Institute of Immunology. Russia.L.R.S. Institute of Tuberculosis & Respiratory Diseases. India.University of Brescia. Brescia, Italy.Careggi University Hospital, Italy.Fraunhofer Institute for Biomedical Engineering - Fraunhofer IBMT. Germany.Indian Council of Medical Research. New Delhi, India.Treatment Action Group. USA.This document summarizes priority areas for joint research and concerted actions to counteract the public health threat of AIDS/TB as identified within the European Support Action “EUCO-Net” funded under the 7th Framework Programme of the European Commission

A multinational Delphi consensus to end the COVID-19 public health threat

Despite notable scientific and medical advances, broader political, socioeconomic, and behavioural factors continue to undercut the response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic1,2. This Delphi study convened a diverse, multidisciplinary panel of 386 academic, health, NGO, government and other experts in COVID-19 response from 112 countries and territories to recommend specific actions to end this persistent global public health threat. The panel developed a set of 41 consensus statements and 57 recommendations to governments, health systems, industry, and other key stakeholders across six domains: communication; health systems; vaccination; prevention; treatment and care; and inequities. In the wake of nearly three years of ragmented global and national responses, it is instructive to note that three of the highest-ranked recommendations call for the adoption of whole-of-society and whole-of-government approaches1, while maintaining proven prevention measures using a vaccines-plus approach2 that employs a range of public health and financial support measures to complement vaccination. Other recommendations with at least 99% combined agreement advise governments and other stakeholders to improve communication, rebuild public trust, and engage communities3 in the management of pandemic responses. The findings of the study, which have been further endorsed by organisations globally, include points of unanimous agreement, as well as six recommendations with >5% disagreement, that provide health and social policy actions to address inadequacies in the pandemic response and help bring this public health threat to an end

A multinational Delphi consensus to end the COVID-19 public health threat

Abstract Despite notable scientific and medical advances, broader political, socioeconomic and behavioural factors continue to undercut the response to the COVID-19 pandemic 1,2 . Here we convened, as part of this Delphi study, a diverse, multidisciplinary panel of 386 academic, health, non-governmental organization, government and other experts in COVID-19 response from 112 countries and territories to recommend specific actions to end this persistent global threat to public health. The panel developed a set of 41 consensus statements and 57 recommendations to governments, health systems, industry and other key stakeholders across six domains: communication; health systems; vaccination; prevention; treatment and care; and inequities. In the wake of nearly three years of fragmented global and national responses, it is instructive to note that three of the highest-ranked recommendations call for the adoption of whole-of-society and whole-of-government approaches 1 , while maintaining proven prevention measures using a vaccines-plus approach 2 that employs a range of public health and financial support measures to complement vaccination. Other recommendations with at least 99% combined agreement advise governments and other stakeholders to improve communication, rebuild public trust and engage communities 3 in the management of pandemic responses. The findings of the study, which have been further endorsed by 184 organizations globally, include points of unanimous agreement, as well as six recommendations with >5% disagreement, that provide health and social policy actions to address inadequacies in the pandemic response and help to bring this public health threat to an end

A multinational Delphi consensus to end the COVID-19 public health threat

Abstract Despite notable scientific and medical advances, broader political, socioeconomic and behavioural factors continue to undercut the response to the COVID-19 pandemic . Here we convened, as part of this Delphi study, a diverse, multidisciplinary panel of 386 academic, health, non-governmental organization, government and other experts in COVID-19 response from 112 countries and territories to recommend specific actions to end this persistent global threat to public health. The panel developed a set of 41 consensus statements and 57 recommendations to governments, health systems, industry and other key stakeholders across six domains: communication; health systems; vaccination; prevention; treatment and care; and inequities. In the wake of nearly three years of fragmented global and national responses, it is instructive to note that three of the highest-ranked recommendations call for the adoption of whole-of-society and whole-of-government approaches , while maintaining proven prevention measures using a vaccines-plus approach that employs a range of public health and financial support measures to complement vaccination. Other recommendations with at least 99% combined agreement advise governments and other stakeholders to improve communication, rebuild public trust and engage communities in the management of pandemic responses. The findings of the study, which have been further endorsed by 184 organizations globally, include points of unanimous agreement, as well as six recommendations with >5% disagreement, that provide health and social policy actions to address inadequacies in the pandemic response and help to bring this public health threat to an end

A multinational Delphi consensus to end the COVID-19 public health threat

Abstract Despite notable scientific and medical advances, broader political, socioeconomic and behavioural factors continue to undercut the response to the COVID-19 pandemic 1,2 . Here we convened, as part of this Delphi study, a diverse, multidisciplinary panel of 386 academic, health, non-governmental organization, government and other experts in COVID-19 response from 112 countries and territories to recommend specific actions to end this persistent global threat to public health. The panel developed a set of 41 consensus statements and 57 recommendations to governments, health systems, industry and other key stakeholders across six domains: communication; health systems; vaccination; prevention; treatment and care; and inequities. In the wake of nearly three years of fragmented global and national responses, it is instructive to note that three of the highest-ranked recommendations call for the adoption of whole-of-society and whole-of-government approaches 1 , while maintaining proven prevention measures using a vaccines-plus approach 2 that employs a range of public health and financial support measures to complement vaccination. Other recommendations with at least 99% combined agreement advise governments and other stakeholders to improve communication, rebuild public trust and engage communities 3 in the management of pandemic responses. The findings of the study, which have been further endorsed by 184 organizations globally, include points of unanimous agreement, as well as six recommendations with >5% disagreement, that provide health and social policy actions to address inadequacies in the pandemic response and help to bring this public health threat to an end