The symptom experience of people living with HIV and AIDS in the Eastern Cape, South Africa

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Symptom management for persons living with HIV (PLHIV) or AIDS is an important part of care management. Limited information about symptom prevalence exists about HIV infected persons in South Africa, in particular in the context of antiretroviral treatment (ART). The aim of this study was to assess HIV symptoms and demographic, social and disease variables of people living with HIV in South Africa.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In 2007 607 PLHIV, sampled by all districts in the Eastern Cape Province and recruited through convenience sampling, were interviewed by PLHIV at health facilities, key informants in the community and support groups.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Two-thirds of the PLHIV (66%) classified themselves with being given an AIDS (advanced stage of HIV) diagnosis, 48% were currently on ART, 35% were currently on a disability grant for HIV/AIDS and for 13% the disability grant had been stopped. Participants reported that on the day of the interview, they were experiencing an average of 26.1 symptoms out of a possible 64. In a regression model with demographic and social variables, higher HIV symptom levels were associated with lower educational levels, higher age, urban residence and not on a disability grant, lack of enough food and having a health insurance, and in a regression model with demographic, social and disease variables only being on ART, lack of enough food and having a health insurance were associated with HIV symptoms.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Symptom assessment provides information that may be valuable in evaluating AIDS treatment regimens and defining strategies to improve quality of life. Because of the high levels of symptoms reported, the results imply an urgent need for effective health care, home- and community-based as well as self-care symptom management to help patients and their families manage and control AIDS symptoms.</p

Family history of cancer as a risk factor for second malignancies after Hodgkin's lymphoma

This study estimated the risk of second primary malignancies after Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL) in relation to family history of cancer, age at diagnosis and latency, among 6946 patients treated for HL in Sweden in 1965–1995 identified through the Swedish Cancer Register (SCR). First-degree relatives (FDRs) to the HL patients and their malignancies were then ascertained together with their malignancies through the Multi-Generation Registry and SCR. The HL patient cohort was stratified on the number of FDRs with cancer, and standardised incidence ratios (SIRs) of developing SM were analysed. In the HL cohort, 781 SM were observed 1 year or longer after HL diagnosis. The risk for developing SM increased with the number of FDRs with cancer, SIRs being 2.26, 3.01, and 3.45 with 0, 1, or ⩾2 FDRs with cancer, respectively. Hodgkin's lymphoma long-term survivors treated at a young age with a family history of cancer carry an increased risk for developing SM and may represent a subgroup where standardised screening for the most common cancer sites could be offered in a stringent surveillance programme

Controlling behavior, power relations within intimate relationships and intimate partner physical and sexual violence against women in Nigeria

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Controlling behavior is more common and can be equally or more threatening than physical or sexual violence. This study sought to determine the role of husband/partner controlling behavior and power relations within intimate relationships in the lifetime risk of physical and sexual violence in Nigeria.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This study used secondary data from a cross-sectional nationally-representative survey collected by face-to-face interviews from women aged 15 - 49 years in the 2008 Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey. Utilizing a stratified two-stage cluster sample design, data was collected frrm 19 216 eligible with the DHS domestic violence module, which is based on the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS). Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to determine the role of husband/partner controlling behavior in the risk of ever experiencing physical and sexual violence among 2877 women aged 15 - 49 years who were currently or formerly married or cohabiting with a male partner.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Women who reported controlling behavior by husband/partner had a higher likelihood of experiencing physical violence (RR = 3.04; 95% CI: 2.50 - 3.69), and women resident in rural areas and working in low status occupations had increased likelihood of experiencing physical IPV. Controlling behavior by husband/partner was associated with higher likelihood of experiencing physical violence (RR = 4.01; 95% CI: 2.54 - 6.34). In addition, women who justified wife beating and earned more than their husband/partner were at higher likelihood of experiencing physical and sexual violence. In contrast, women who had decision-making autonomy had lower likelihood of experiencing physical and sexual violence.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Controlling behavior by husband/partner significantly increases the likelihood of physical and sexual IPV, thus acting as a precursor to violence. Findings emphasize the need to adopt a proactive integrated approach to controlling behavior and intimate partner violence within the society.</p

Progesterone after previous preterm birth for prevention of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome (PROGRESS): a randomised controlled trial

Background: Neonatal respiratory distress syndrome, as a consequence of preterm birth, is a major cause of early mortality and morbidity during infancy and childhood. Survivors of preterm birth continue to remain at considerable risk of both chronic lung disease and long-term neurological handicap. Progesterone is involved in the maintenance of uterine quiescence through modulation of the calcium-calmodulin-myosin-light-chain-kinase system in smooth muscle cells. The withdrawal of progesterone, either actual or functional is thought to be an antecedent to the onset of labour. While there have been recent reports of progesterone supplementation for women at risk of preterm birth which show promise in this intervention, there is currently insufficient data on clinically important outcomes for both women and infants to enable informed clinical decision-making. The aims of this randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial are to assess whether the use of vaginal progesterone pessaries in women with a history of previous spontaneous preterm birth will reduce the risk and severity of respiratory distress syndrome, so improving their infant's health, without increasing maternal risks. Methods Design: Multicentred randomised, double blind, placebo-controlled trial. Inclusion Criteria: pregnant women with a live fetus, and a history of prior preterm birth at less than 37 weeks gestation and greater than 20 weeks gestation in the immediately preceding pregnancy, where onset of labour occurred spontaneously, or in association with cervical incompetence, or following preterm prelabour ruptured membranes. Trial Entry & Randomisation: After obtaining written informed consent, eligible women will be randomised between 18 and 23+6 weeks gestation using a central telephone randomisation service. The randomisation schedule prepared by non clinical research staff will use balanced variable blocks, with stratification according to plurality of the pregnancy and centre where planned to give birth. Eligible women will be randomised to either vaginal progesterone or vaginal placebo. Study Medication & Treatment Schedules: Treatment packs will appear identical. Woman, caregivers and research staff will be blinded to treatment allocation. Primary Study Outcome: Neonatal Respiratory Distress Syndrome (defined by incidence and severity). Sample Size: of 984 women to show a 40% reduction in respiratory distress syndrome from 15% to 9% (p = 0.05, 80% power). Discussion: This is a protocol for a randomised trial.Jodie M. Dodd, Caroline A. Crowther, Andrew J. McPhee, Vicki Flenady, and Jeffrey S. Robinso

Traumatic physical health consequences of intimate partner violence against women: what is the role of community-level factors?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Intimate partner violence (IPV) against women is a serious public health issue with recognizable direct health consequences. This study assessed the association between IPV and traumatic physical health consequences on women in Nigeria, given that communities exert significant influence on the individuals that are embedded within them, with the nature of influence varying between communities.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Cross-sectional nationally-representative data of women aged 15 - 49 years in the 2008 Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey was used in this study. Multilevel logistic regression analysis was used to assess the association between IPV and several forms of physical health consequences.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Bruises were the most common form of traumatic physical health consequences. In the adjusted models, the likelihood of sustaining bruises (OR = 1.91, 95% CI = 1.05 - 3.46), wounds (OR = 2.54, 95% CI = 1.31 - 4.95), and severe burns (OR = 3.20, 95% CI = 1.63 - 6.28) was significantly higher for women exposed to IPV compared to those not exposed to IPV. However, after adjusting for individual- and community-level factors, women with husbands/partners with controlling behavior, those with primary or no education, and those resident in communities with high tolerance for wife beating had a higher likelihood of experiencing IPV, whilst mean community-level education and women 24 years or younger were at lower likelihood of experiencing IPV.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Evidence from this study shows that exposure to IPV is associated with increased likelihood of traumatic physical consequences for women in Nigeria. Education and justification of wife beating were significant community-level factors associated with traumatic physical consequences, suggesting the importance of increasing women's levels of education and changing community norms that justify controlling behavior and IPV.</p

SARS-CoV-2 Omicron-B.1.1.529 leads to widespread escape from neutralizing antibody responses

On 24th November 2021, the sequence of a new SARS-CoV-2 viral isolate Omicron-B.1.1.529 was announced, containing far more mutations in Spike (S) than previously reported variants. Neutralization titers of Omicron by sera from vaccinees and convalescent subjects infected with early pandemic Alpha, Beta, Gamma, or Delta are substantially reduced, or the sera failed to neutralize. Titers against Omicron are boosted by third vaccine doses and are high in both vaccinated individuals and those infected by Delta. Mutations in Omicron knock out or substantially reduce neutralization by most of the large panel of potent monoclonal antibodies and antibodies under commercial development. Omicron S has structural changes from earlier viruses and uses mutations that confer tight binding to ACE2 to unleash evolution driven by immune escape. This leads to a large number of mutations in the ACE2 binding site and rebalances receptor affinity to that of earlier pandemic viruses

Increasing frailty is associated with higher prevalence and reduced recognition of delirium in older hospitalised inpatients: results of a multi-centre study

Purpose Delirium is a neuropsychiatric disorder delineated by an acute change in cognition, attention, and consciousness. It is common, particularly in older adults, but poorly recognised. Frailty is the accumulation of deficits conferring an increased risk of adverse outcomes. We set out to determine how severity of frailty, as measured using the CFS, affected delirium rates, and recognition in hospitalised older people in the United Kingdom. Methods Adults over 65 years were included in an observational multi-centre audit across UK hospitals, two prospective rounds, and one retrospective note review. Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), delirium status, and 30-day outcomes were recorded. Results The overall prevalence of delirium was 16.3% (483). Patients with delirium were more frail than patients without delirium (median CFS 6 vs 4). The risk of delirium was greater with increasing frailty [OR 2.9 (1.8–4.6) in CFS 4 vs 1–3; OR 12.4 (6.2–24.5) in CFS 8 vs 1–3]. Higher CFS was associated with reduced recognition of delirium (OR of 0.7 (0.3–1.9) in CFS 4 compared to 0.2 (0.1–0.7) in CFS 8). These risks were both independent of age and dementia. Conclusion We have demonstrated an incremental increase in risk of delirium with increasing frailty. This has important clinical implications, suggesting that frailty may provide a more nuanced measure of vulnerability to delirium and poor outcomes. However, the most frail patients are least likely to have their delirium diagnosed and there is a significant lack of research into the underlying pathophysiology of both of these common geriatric syndromes

Single-dose administration and the influence of the timing of the booster dose on immunogenicity and efficacy of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine: a pooled analysis of four randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: The ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine has been approved for emergency use by the UK regulatory authority, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, with a regimen of two standard doses given with an interval of 4-12 weeks. The planned roll-out in the UK will involve vaccinating people in high-risk categories with their first dose immediately, and delivering the second dose 12 weeks later. Here, we provide both a further prespecified pooled analysis of trials of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and exploratory analyses of the impact on immunogenicity and efficacy of extending the interval between priming and booster doses. In addition, we show the immunogenicity and protection afforded by the first dose, before a booster dose has been offered. METHODS: We present data from three single-blind randomised controlled trials-one phase 1/2 study in the UK (COV001), one phase 2/3 study in the UK (COV002), and a phase 3 study in Brazil (COV003)-and one double-blind phase 1/2 study in South Africa (COV005). As previously described, individuals 18 years and older were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive two standard doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (5 × 1010 viral particles) or a control vaccine or saline placebo. In the UK trial, a subset of participants received a lower dose (2·2 × 1010 viral particles) of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 for the first dose. The primary outcome was virologically confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 disease, defined as a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT)-positive swab combined with at least one qualifying symptom (fever ≥37·8°C, cough, shortness of breath, or anosmia or ageusia) more than 14 days after the second dose. Secondary efficacy analyses included cases occuring at least 22 days after the first dose. Antibody responses measured by immunoassay and by pseudovirus neutralisation were exploratory outcomes. All cases of COVID-19 with a NAAT-positive swab were adjudicated for inclusion in the analysis by a masked independent endpoint review committee. The primary analysis included all participants who were SARS-CoV-2 N protein seronegative at baseline, had had at least 14 days of follow-up after the second dose, and had no evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection from NAAT swabs. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose. The four trials are registered at ISRCTN89951424 (COV003) and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606 (COV001), NCT04400838 (COV002), and NCT04444674 (COV005). FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Dec 6, 2020, 24 422 participants were recruited and vaccinated across the four studies, of whom 17 178 were included in the primary analysis (8597 receiving ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 8581 receiving control vaccine). The data cutoff for these analyses was Dec 7, 2020. 332 NAAT-positive infections met the primary endpoint of symptomatic infection more than 14 days after the second dose. Overall vaccine efficacy more than 14 days after the second dose was 66·7% (95% CI 57·4-74·0), with 84 (1·0%) cases in the 8597 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 248 (2·9%) in the 8581 participants in the control group. There were no hospital admissions for COVID-19 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group after the initial 21-day exclusion period, and 15 in the control group. 108 (0·9%) of 12 282 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 127 (1·1%) of 11 962 participants in the control group had serious adverse events. There were seven deaths considered unrelated to vaccination (two in the ChAdOx1 nCov-19 group and five in the control group), including one COVID-19-related death in one participant in the control group. Exploratory analyses showed that vaccine efficacy after a single standard dose of vaccine from day 22 to day 90 after vaccination was 76·0% (59·3-85·9). Our modelling analysis indicated that protection did not wane during this initial 3-month period. Similarly, antibody levels were maintained during this period with minimal waning by day 90 (geometric mean ratio [GMR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·59-0·74]). In the participants who received two standard doses, after the second dose, efficacy was higher in those with a longer prime-boost interval (vaccine efficacy 81·3% [95% CI 60·3-91·2] at ≥12 weeks) than in those with a short interval (vaccine efficacy 55·1% [33·0-69·9] at <6 weeks). These observations are supported by immunogenicity data that showed binding antibody responses more than two-fold higher after an interval of 12 or more weeks compared with an interval of less than 6 weeks in those who were aged 18-55 years (GMR 2·32 [2·01-2·68]). INTERPRETATION: The results of this primary analysis of two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 were consistent with those seen in the interim analysis of the trials and confirm that the vaccine is efficacious, with results varying by dose interval in exploratory analyses. A 3-month dose interval might have advantages over a programme with a short dose interval for roll-out of a pandemic vaccine to protect the largest number of individuals in the population as early as possible when supplies are scarce, while also improving protection after receiving a second dose. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR), The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, the Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca