Early versus delayed initiation of antiretroviral therapy for Indian HIV-Infected individuals with tuberculosis on antituberculosis treatment

BACKGROUND: For antiretroviral therapy (ART) naive human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infected adults suffering from tuberculosis (TB), there is uncertainty about the optimal time to initiate highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) after starting antituberculosis treatment (ATT), in order to minimize mortality, HIV disease progression, and adverse events. METHODS: In a randomized, open label trial at All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India, eligible HIV positive individuals with a diagnosis of TB were randomly assigned to receive HAART after 2-4 or 8-12 weeks of starting ATT, and were followed for 12 months after HAART initiation. Participants received directly observed therapy short course (DOTS) for TB, and an antiretroviral regimen comprising stavudine or zidovudine, lamivudine, and efavirenz. Primary end points were death from any cause, and progression of HIV disease marked by failure of ART. FINDINGS: A total of 150 patients with HIV and TB were initiated on HAART: 88 received it after 2-4 weeks (early ART) and 62 after 8-12 weeks (delayed ART) of starting ATT. There was no significant difference in mortality between the groups after the introduction of HAART. However, incidence of ART failure was 31% in delayed versus 16% in early ART arm (p = 0.045). Kaplan Meier disease progression free survival at 12 months was 79% for early versus 64% for the delayed ART arm (p = 0.05). Rates of adverse events were similar. INTERPRETATION: Early initiation of HAART for patients with HIV and TB significantly decreases incidence of HIV disease progression and has good tolerability. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CTRI/2011/12/00226

Environmental Geotechnics: Challenges and Opportunities in the Post COVID-19 World

The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic not only created a health crisis across the world but is expected to negatively impact the global economy and societies at a scale that maybe larger than the 2008 financial crisis. Simultaneously, it has inevitably exerted many negative consequences on the geoenvironment upon which human beings depend. The current article articulates the role of environmental geotechnics to elucidate and mitigate the effects of the current pandemic. It is the belief of all authors that the COVID-19 pandemic presents significant challenges, but also opportunities for the development of our field. Our discipline should make full use of our professional skills and expertise to look for development opportunities from this crisis, to highlight our discipline’s irreplaceable position in the global fight against pandemics, and to contribute to the health and prosperity of our communities, so as to better serve humankind. In order to reach this goal, while taking into account the specificity of the SARS-CoV-2 and the uncertainty of its environmental effects, it is believed that more emphasis should be placed on the following research directions: pathogen-soil interactions, isolation and remediation technologies for pathogen-contaminated sites, new materials for pathogen-contaminated soil, recycling and safe disposal of medical wastes, quantification of uncertainty in geoenvironmental and epidemiological problems, emerging technologies and adaptation strategies in civil, geotechnical, and geoenvironmental infrastructure, pandemic-induced environmental risk management, and model pathogen transport and fate in geoenvironment, among others. Moreover, COVID-19 has made it clear to the environmental geotechnics community the importance of urgent international cooperation and of multidisciplinary research actions that must extend to a broad range of scientific fields, including medical and public health disciplines, in order to meet the complexities posed by the COVID-19 pandemic

Evaluation of large research initiatives: outcomes, challenges, and methodological considerations

The authors synthesize relevant literature and findings of evaluations of four large-scale, federally funded scientific research programs in the United States to identify desired outcomes of these types of programs, major evaluation chal-lenges, and methodological principles and approaches. Evaluators face numer-ous contextual, political, and methodological challenges in evaluating big science. The authors propose that these may be addressed through participatory planning, such as concept mapping, triangulation of evidence, use of promising methodologies, and a systems approac