Association between Landscape Factors and Spatial Patterns of Plasmodium knowlesi Infections in Sabah, Malaysia.

The zoonotic malaria species Plasmodium knowlesi has become the main cause of human malaria in Malaysian Borneo. Deforestation and associated environmental and population changes have been hypothesized as main drivers of this apparent emergence. We gathered village-level data for P. knowlesi incidence for the districts of Kudat and Kota Marudu in Sabah state, Malaysia, for 2008-2012. We adjusted malaria records from routine reporting systems to reflect the diagnostic uncertainty of microscopy for P. knowlesi. We also developed negative binomial spatial autoregressive models to assess potential associations between P. knowlesi incidence and environmental variables derived from satellite-based remote-sensing data. Marked spatial heterogeneity in P. knowlesi incidence was observed, and village-level numbers of P. knowlesi cases were positively associated with forest cover and historical forest loss in surrounding areas. These results suggest the likelihood that deforestation and associated environmental changes are key drivers in P. knowlesi transmission in these areas

Synthesis of (+)-(R)-Tiruchanduramine

The absolute stereochemistry of the marine alkaloid (+)-(R)-tiruchanduramine was established via a convergent total synthesis in six steps and 15.5% overall yield from Fmoc-D-Dab(Boc)-OH

Chlamydia Screening in Ireland: a pilot study of opportunistic screening for genital Chlamydia trachomatis infection in Ireland (2007-2009). Economic evaluation

Economic Evaluation The aim of the economic evaluation was to examine the cost effectiveness of the two screening models tested in the Chlamydia Screening in Ireland Pilot (CSIP) study: (a) Clinical Setting screening, and (b) ’Pee-in-a-pot’ periodic screening in third level institution/college settings. The methodological approach comprised of a dynamic transmission model paired with an economic model. In both analyses, screening was compared to a control strategy of no organised screening, that is existing care in Ireland. A public health system or provider perspective was adopted with respect to costs. The analysis considered the cost of screening to the health service, and the costs of infection and complications, not any additional costs reported by young people in accepting a chlamydia screening test. Health outcomes were assessed in terms of major outcomes (MOs) averted and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. The costs of Clinical Setting screening were presented in terms of the cost per offer (€26 ), the cost per negative case (€66), the cost per positive case (€152), and the cost per partner notified and treated (€74). The costs of ’Pee-in-a-pot’ screening were presented in terms of the cost per negative case (€39), the cost per positive case (€125), and the cost per partner notified and treated (€74). In both analyses, screening was estimated to result in fewer major outcomes, fewer QALYs lost, and higher healthcare costs compared to the control strategy. The incremental cost effectiveness analyses indicated that screening in the Clinical Setting would result in an incremental cost per MO averted of €6,093 and an incremental cost per QALY gained of €94,717. ’Pee-in-a-pot’ screening was estimated to result in incremental cost effectiveness ratios of €2,294 per MO averted and €34,486 per QALY gained respectively. In Ireland, there is no fixed and generally agreed cost effectiveness threshold below which health care technologies would be considered by policy makers to be costeffective. Nonetheless, on the basis of other technologies that are currently funded, it is not likely that screening delivered in the Clinical Setting, given an incremental cost per QALY in the region of the €94,717 found in this study, would be considered cost effective. ’Pee-in-a-pot’ screening in third level institution/college settings may be considered cost effective if a cost effectiveness threshold in the region of €45,000 per QALY gained is used. This is open to question, however, given the current economic climate and its resulting impact in terms of imposing further constraints on future healthcare budgets. It is also important to note that this strategy would have minimal in impact in reducing overall chlamydia prevalence in the population, if not supported by general population screening and prevention strategy

Chlamydia Screening in Ireland: a pilot study of opportunistic screening for genital Chlamydia trachomatis infection in Ireland (2007-2009). Summary Integrated Report

Genital Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) infection is the most common curable, bacterial sexually transmitted infection (STI) worldwide [1, 2]. The number of cases notified in Ireland increased from 3,353 in 2005 to 5,781 in 2009 [3]. Notifications have increased since 2004 when legislation requiring laboratory notification came into effect. Chlamydia is usually a ‘silent’ asymptomatic infection, spread without the knowledge of those transmitting and contracting it: most cases remain undetected and thus untreated. It is a major public health problem because it causes pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) in up to 30% of infected women who are not treated, which can lead to ectopic pregnancy and tubal factor infertility, and it also facilitates the transmission of HIV in both women and men [1, 4]. Prevalence studies in Ireland have detected chlamydia in 4–11% of young people [5, 6, 7], with positivity rates of over 10% in some settings [8]. Similar rates have been found in large studies in the United Kingdom (UK) [9], elsewhere in Europe [10] and North America [11]. A 2004 review estimated UK rates of 4–5% for women under 20 years in the general population, and 8–17% in women under 20 years attending sexual health services [9]. The authors of the review assumed, in the absence of data, that males had similar rates. Age under 25 years is considered a risk factor for infection in England [12]. In the English National Chlamydia Screening Programme (NCSP) overall chlamydia positivity rates have averaged 7.6% in men and 9.3% in women, based on a total of 370,012 screening tests reported [13]. Chlamydia screening has become more feasible due to the development of urinebased laboratory tests, which can be used in clinical and non-clinical settings, instead of more invasive and uncomfortable methods such as endocervical and urethral swabs. Urine testing is now the norm for screening men for chlamydia. For these reasons and because most cases are asymptomatic and undetected, especially in women, several countries have introduced chlamydia screening interventions [1]. A 2005 report prepared by the Health Protection Surveillance Centre (HPSC) [14] concluded that an investigation of the feasibility, acceptability and likely uptake of chlamydia screening in various settings in Ireland should be prioritised. It also concluded that agreement on best practice for the management of identified infections and partner notification was urgently needed. Following a competitive tendering process in late 2006, the HPSC, supported by the Health Research Board (HRB), contracted a team of population health and other specialists from the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland (RCSI), the National University of Ireland Galway (NUIG) and the Health Service Executive (HSE) to conduct a pilot study of chlamydia screening.The study ran from 2007 to 2009. Since 2009, several articles and reports have been published internationally, including reviews and the results of screening studies, which question the case for chlamydia screening in the general population. A systematic review of screening programmes concluded that the available evidence did not justify the establishment of opportunistic chlamydia screening programmes in under-25 year olds in the general population, given methodological weaknesses in the trials cited as justification for screening [4]. A review of the three phases of the English National Chlamydia Screening Programme (NCSP) reported screening coverage levels in the target population of only 4.8% in 2007–2008 [13]; although by 2009–2010, 47% of sexually active young women and 25% of men had been tested [15]. A review by the English National Audit Office [16] concluded that the NCSP had not demonstrated value for money, citing lack of efficiencies in purchasing and logistics. Also, models had shown that annual testing rates of young people of between 26% and 43% would be needed in order to significantly reduce the prevalence of chlamydia [17]. The recent higher coverage levels achieved by the NCSP in reaching these recommended levels is a cause for optimism, and valuable lessons will be learned from the English national programme. However, the potential of opportunistic chlamydia screening to prevent serious morbidity (chiefly pelvic inflammatory disease in women) has been challenged by the results of an important randomised control trial of screening among young female students in London [18]. The trial found that most episodes of PID (30 of 38) would not have been prevented by annual screening as they occurred in women who had tested negative for chlamydia at the start of the 12 months

Chlamydia Screening in Ireland: a pilot study of opportunistic screening for genital Chlamydia trachomatis infection in Ireland (2007-2009). Screening Intervention Report

This report summarises the findings of the Pilot Screening Intervention conducted in Ireland between 2008 and 2009 as part of the Chlamydia Screening in Ireland Pilot study. The studies aimed to pilot screening models and to evaluate their feasibility and effectiveness. The study was commissioned by the Health Protection Surveillance Centre (HPSC) and overseen by the Health Research Board (HRB). It was carried out by a team from the Division of Population Health Sciences at the Royal College of Surgeons (RSCI) in Ireland, the College of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences at the National University of Ireland Galway, and Consultants in Public Health Medicine from the Health Service Executive (HSE). ² Ethical approval for study components was provided by Research Ethics Committees of the RCSI, NUI Galway and the Irish College of General Practitioners (ICGP)

A Response to the Draft National Mitigation Plan. Teagasc submission to the Department of Communications, Climate Action & theEnvironment

Teagasc SubmissionThis submission details the mitigation potential of agriculture to shortly be published as an update to the Marginal Abatement Cost Curve (MACC) for Agriculture and and describes how the MACC mitigation strategies relate to the measures in the National Mitigation Plan

Tuberculosis in cattle: the results of the four-area project

<p/> <p>The four-area project was undertaken to further assess the impact of badger removal on the control of tuberculosis in cattle herds in Ireland. It was conducted between 1997 and 2002 in matched removal and reference areas in four counties, namely Cork, Donegal, Kilkenny and Monaghan, representing a wide range of Irish farming environments. In the removal areas, a proactive programme of badger removal was conducted, on two or three occasions each year, whereas in the reference areas, badger removal was entirely reactive following severe outbreaks of tuberculosis amongst cattle. A detailed statistical analysis of this study has already been presented by Griffin <it>et al. </it><abbrgrp><abbr bid="B13">13</abbr></abbrgrp>; this paper presents further, mainly descriptive, findings from the study. In total, 2,360 badgers were captured in the removal areas of which 450 (19.5%) were considered positive for tuberculosis and 258 badgers were captured in the reference areas, with 57 (26.1%) positive for tuberculosis. The annual incidence of confirmed herd restrictions was lower in the removal area compared to the reference area in every year of the study period in each of the four counties. These empirical findings were consistent with the hazard ratios found by Griffin <it>et al. </it><abbrgrp><abbr bid="B13">13</abbr></abbrgrp>. Further, the effect of proactive badger removal on cattle tuberculosis in the four-area project and in the earlier east-Offaly project, as measured using the number of reactors per 1,000 cattle tested, were very similar, providing compelling evidence of the role of badgers in the epidemiology of tuberculosis in Irish cattle herds. The validity of the four-area project was discussed in detail. Efforts to minimise badger-to-cattle transmission in Ireland must be undertaken in association with the current comprehensive control programme, which has effectively minimised opportunities for cattle-to-cattle transmission.</p