Impact of immune activation and inflammation on the susceptibility to HIV infection and disease progression in HIV serodiscordant and seroconcordant couples

Includes bibliographical references.The biological correlates of protection against HIV infection remain poorly characterized, hindering the development of an effective prevention strategy. Studies of individuals who resist HIV infection or progress more slowly after being infected are important for the conception of appropriate approaches for mimicking the effective responses against HIV infection or progression. The role of immune activation and chronic inflammation in the modulation of HIV acquisition risk and/or rate of HIV disease progression has been proposed as one of the most important mechanisms determining risk and pathogenesis but is not fully understood. A state of immune quiescence has been associated with protection against HIV infection and slower disease progression. To explore potential risk factors associated with HIV transmission and HIV disease progression, this dissertation investigates the relationship between clinical and biological biomarkers and resistance to HIV infection or disease progression (including viral load, CD4 counts, cellular activation, soluble inflammatory and regulatory cytokines, and HIV co-receptor expression) in stable long-term HIV seroconcordant and serodiscordant couples

Will Africans take COVID-19 vaccination?

The economic and humanistic impact of COVID-19 pandemic is enormous globally. No definitive treatment exists, hence accelerated development and approval of COVID-19 vaccines, offers a unique opportunity for COVID-19 prevention and control. Vaccine hesitancy may limit the success of vaccine distribution in Africa, therefore we assessed the potentials for coronavirus vaccine hesitancy and its determinants among Africans. An online crosssectional African-wide survey was administered in Arabic, English, and French languages. Questions on demographics, self-reported health status, vaccine literacy, knowledge and perception on vaccines, past experience, behavior, infection risk, willingness to receive and affordability of the SARS-COV-2 vaccine were asked. Data were subjected to descriptive and inferential statistics. A total of 5,416 individuals completed the survey. Approximately, 94% were residents of 34 African countries while the other Africans live in the Diaspora. Only 63% of all participants surveyed were willing to receive the COVID-19 vaccination as soon as possible and 79% were worried about its side effects. Thirty-nine percent expressed concerns of vaccine-associated infection. The odds of vaccine hesitancy was 0.28 (95% CI: 0.22, 0.30) among those who believed their risk of infection was very high, compared to those who believed otherwise. The odds of vaccine hesitancy was one-fifth (OR = 0.21, 95% CI: 0.16, 0.28) among those who believed their risk of falling sick was very high, compared to those who believed their risk of falling very sick was very low. The OR of vaccine hesitancy was 2.72 (95% CI: 2.24, 3.31) among those who have previously refused a vaccine for themselves or their child compared to counterparts with no self-reported history of vaccine hesitancy. Participants want the vaccines to be mandatory (40%), provided free of charge (78%) and distributed in homes and offices (44%). COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is substantial among Africans based on perceived risk of coronavirus infection and past experiences.http://www.plosone.orgam2022Veterinary Tropical Disease

Will Africans take COVID-19 vaccination?

The economic and humanistic impact of COVID-19 pandemic is enormous globally. No definitive treatment exists, hence accelerated development and approval of COVID-19 vaccines, offers a unique opportunity for COVID-19 prevention and control. Vaccine hesitancy may limit the success of vaccine distribution in Africa, therefore we assessed the potentials for coronavirus vaccine hesitancy and its determinants among Africans. An online cross-sectional African-wide survey was administered in Arabic, English, and French languages. Questions on demographics, self-reported health status, vaccine literacy, knowledge and perception on vaccines, past experience, behavior, infection risk, willingness to receive and affordability of the SARS-COV-2 vaccine were asked. Data were subjected to descriptive and inferential statistics. A total of 5,416 individuals completed the survey. Approximately, 94% were residents of 34 African countries while the other Africans live in the Diaspora. Only 63% of all participants surveyed were willing to receive the COVID-19 vaccination as soon as possible and 79% were worried about its side effects. Thirty-nine percent expressed concerns of vaccine-associated infection. The odds of vaccine hesitancy was 0.28 (95% CI: 0.22, 0.30) among those who believed their risk of infection was very high, compared to those who believed otherwise. The odds of vaccine hesitancy was one-fifth (OR = 0.21, 95% CI: 0.16, 0.28) among those who believed their risk of falling sick was very high, compared to those who believed their risk of falling very sick was very low. The OR of vaccine hesitancy was 2.72 (95% CI: 2.24, 3.31) among those who have previously refused a vaccine for themselves or their child compared to counterparts with no self-reported history of vaccine hesitancy. Participants want the vaccines to be mandatory (40%), provided free of charge (78%) and distributed in homes and offices (44%). COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is substantial among Africans based on perceived risk of coronavirus infection and past experiences

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK

Background A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. Methods This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. Findings Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0–75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4–97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8–80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3–4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. Interpretation ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK.

BACKGROUND: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. METHODS: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0-75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4-97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8-80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3-4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

The first series of laparoscopic radical cystectomies done in South Africa

Background: Radical cystectomy (RC) with extended lymphadenectomy and urinary diversion remains the standard of care for muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma. Laparoscopic radical cystectomies (LRC) have been performed at Groote Schuur Hospital (GSH) since 2009. We aimed to audit our data regarding complications and oncological outcome and compare it to data obtained from patients undergoing open radical cystectomy (ORC) by the same surgeon since 2007. Methods: All adult patients who underwent open and laparoscopic RC from 2007 to 2013 have been included in the study. Data on demographics, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative complications, margin positivity, and lymph nodes was obtained retrospectively by means of folder review. Results: Thirty (30) patients who underwent LRC and 32 who underwent ORC were included in the study. Participants undergoing ORC experienced shorter operative duration (301 minutes versus 382 minutes; p-value < 0.0001), increased blood loss (1376 ml versus 779ml; p-value = 0.0023) and transfusion requirement (2 units versus 0; p-value = 0.071) in contrast to LRC. Postoperative complications were more prevalent in the ORC arm compared to the LRC arm (61% versus 43%). Patients with a past medical history were at higher risk of experiencing postoperative complications (p-value = 0.04; Risk Ratio: 1.6). Margin positivity was comparable between the two arms. A higher number of nodes was sampled by the laparoscopic technique in this study (overall p-value = 0.07). Conclusion: Laparoscopic RC is associated with longer operative times, decreased blood loss, and equivalent oncological outcomes when compared to ORC. Laparoscopic RC is a feasible option in our setting.Environmental Science

Probiotics for vaginal health in South Africa: what is on retailers’ shelves?

Background: Probiotics are widely used to improve gastrointestinal (GI) health, but they may also be useful to prevent or treat gynaecological disorders, including bacterial vaginosis (BV) and candidiasis. BV prevalence is high in South Africa and is associated with increased HIV risk and pregnancy complications. We aimed to assess the availability of probiotics for vaginal health in retail stores (pharmacies, supermarkets and health stores) in two major cities in South Africa. Methods: A two-stage cluster sampling strategy was used in the Durban and Cape Town metropoles. Instructions for use, microbial composition, dose, storage and manufacturers’ details were recorded. Results: A total of 104 unique probiotics were identified in Cape Town and Durban (66.4% manufactured locally). Cape Town had more products than Durban (94 versus 59 probiotics), although 47% were common between cities (49/104). Only four products were explicitly for vaginal health. The remainder were for GI health in adults (51.0%) or infants (17.3%). The predominant species seen overall included Lactobacillus acidophilus (53.5%), L. rhamnosus (37.6%), Bifidobacterium longum ssp. longum (35.6%) and B. animalis ssp. lactis (33.7%). Products for vaginal health contained only common GI probiotic species, with a combination of L. acidophilus/B. longum ssp. longum/B. bifidum, L. rhamnosus/L. reuteri or L. rhamnosus alone, despite L. crispatus, L. gasseri, and L. jensenii being the most common commensals found in the lower female reproductive tract. Conclusion: This survey highlights the paucity of vaginal probiotics available in South Africa, where vaginal dysbiosis is common. Most vaginal products contained organisms other than female genital tract commensal

Additional file 2: Figure S1.2. of Probiotics for vaginal health in South Africa: what is on retailers’ shelves?

Products, their health claim and contained bacterial species. (TIFF 944 kb

Additional file 1: Figure S1.1. of Probiotics for vaginal health in South Africa: what is on retailers’ shelves?

Products, their health claim and contained bacterial species. (TIFF 1023 kb