The Prevalence and Risk Factors for Pneumococcal Colonization of the Nasopharynx among Children in Kilifi District, Kenya

BACKGROUND: Pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCV) reduce nasopharyngeal carriage of vaccine-serotype pneumococci but increase in the carriage of non-vaccine serotypes. We studied the epidemiology of carriage among children 3-59 months old before vaccine introduction in Kilifi, Kenya. METHODS: In a rolling cross-sectional study from October 2006 to December 2008 we approached 3570 healthy children selected at random from the population register of the Kilifi Health and Demographic Surveillance System and 134 HIV-infected children registered at a specialist clinic. A single nasopharyngeal swab was transported in STGG and cultured on gentamicin blood agar. A single colony of pneumococcus was serotyped by Quellung reaction. RESULTS: Families of 2840 children in the population-based sample and 99 in the HIV-infected sample consented to participate; carriage prevalence was 65.8% (95% CI, 64.0-67.5%) and 76% (95% CI, 66-84%) in the two samples, respectively. Carriage prevalence declined progressively with age from 79% at 6-11 months to 51% at 54-59 months (p<0.0005). Carriage was positively associated with coryza (Odds ratio 2.63, 95%CI 2.12-3.25) and cough (1.55, 95%CI 1.26-1.91) and negatively associated with recent antibiotic use (0.53 95%CI 0.34-0.81). 53 different serotypes were identified and 42% of isolates were of serotypes contained in the 10-valent PCV. Common serotypes declined in prevalence with age while less common serotypes did not. CONCLUSION: Carriage prevalence in children was high, serotypes were diverse, and the majority of strains were of serotypes not represented in the 10-valent PCV. Vaccine introduction in Kenya will provide a natural test of virulence for the many circulating non-vaccine serotypes

Robust Biomarkers: Methodologically Tracking Causal Processes in Alzheimer’s Measurement

In biomedical measurement, biomarkers are used to achieve reliable prediction of, and useful causal information about patient outcomes while minimizing complexity of measurement, resources, and invasiveness. A biomarker is an assayable metric that discloses the status of a biological process of interest, be it normative, pathophysiological, or in response to intervention. The greatest utility from biomarkers comes from their ability to help clinicians (and researchers) make and evaluate clinical decisions. In this paper we discuss a specific methodological use of clinical biomarkers in pharmacological measurement: Some biomarkers, called ‘surrogate markers’, are used to substitute for a clinically meaningful endpoint corresponding to events and their penultimate risk factors. We confront the reliability of clinical biomarkers that are used to gather information about clinically meaningful endpoints. Our aim is to present a systematic methodology for assessing the reliability of multiple surrogate markers (and biomarkers in general). To do this we draw upon the robustness analysis literature in the philosophy of science and the empirical use of clinical biomarkers. After introducing robustness analysis we present two problems with biomarkers in relation to reliability. Next, we propose an intervention-based robustness methodology for organizing the reliability of biomarkers in general. We propose three relevant conditions for a robust methodology for biomarkers: (R1) Intervention-based demonstration of partial independence of modes: In biomarkers partial independence can be demonstrated through exogenous interventions that modify a process some number of “steps” removed from each of the markers. (R2) Comparison of diverging and converging results across biomarkers: By systematically comparing partially-independent biomarkers we can track under what conditions markers fail to converge in results, and under which conditions they successfully converge. (R3) Information within the context of theory: Through a systematic cross-comparison of the markers we can make causal conclusions as well as eliminate competing theories. We apply our robust methodology to currently developing Alzheimer’s research to show its usefulness for making causal conclusions

The demise of islet allotransplantation in the United States: A call for an urgent regulatory update

Islet allotransplantation in the United States (US) is facing an imminent demise. Despite nearly three decades of progress in the field, an archaic regulatory framework has stymied US clinical practice. Current regulations do not reflect the state-of-the-art in clinical or technical practices. In the US, islets are considered biologic drugs and “more than minimally manipulated” human cell and tissue products (HCT/Ps). In contrast, across the world, human islets are appropriately defined as “minimally manipulated tissue” and not regulated as a drug, which has led to islet allotransplantation (allo-ITx) becoming a standard-of-care procedure for selected patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus. This regulatory distinction impedes patient access to islets for transplantation in the US. As a result only 11 patients underwent allo-ITx in the US between 2016 and 2019, and all as investigational procedures in the settings of a clinical trials. Herein, we describe the current regulations pertaining to islet transplantation in the United States. We explore the progress which has been made in the field and demonstrate why the regulatory framework must be updated to both better reflect our current clinical practice and to deal with upcoming challenges. We propose specific updates to current regulations which are required for the renaissance of ethical, safe, effective, and affordable allo-ITx in the United States

Race and trust in the health care system.

OBJECTIVE: A legacy of racial discrimination in medical research and the health care system has been linked to a low level of trust in medical research and medical care among African Americans. While racial differences in trust in physicians have been demonstrated, little is known about racial variation in trust of health insurance plans and hospitals. For the present study, the authors analyzed responses to a cross-sectional telephone survey to assess the independent relationship of self-reported race (non-Hispanic black or non-Hispanic white) with trust in physicians, hospitals, and health insurance plans. METHODS: Respondents ages 18-75 years were asked to rate their level of trust in physicians, health insurance plans, and hospitals. Items from the Medical Mistrust Index were used to assess fear and suspicion of hospitals. RESULTS: Responses were analyzed for 49 (42%) non-Hispanic black and 69 (58%) non-Hispanic white respondents (N=118; 94% of total survey population). A majority of respondents trusted physicians (71%) and hospitals (70%), but fewer trusted their health insurance plans (28%). After adjustment for potential confounders, non-Hispanic black respondents were less likely to trust their physicians than non-Hispanic white respondents (adjusted absolute difference 37%; p=0.01) and more likely to trust their health insurance plans (adjusted absolute difference 28%; p=0.04). The difference in trust of hospitals (adjusted absolute difference 13%) was not statistically significant. Non-Hispanic black respondents were more likely than non-Hispanic white respondents to be concerned about personal privacy and the potential for harmful experimentation in hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Patterns of trust in components of our health care system differ by race. Differences in trust may reflect divergent cultural experiences of blacks and whites as well as differences in expectations for care. Improved understanding of these factors is needed if efforts to enhance patient access to and satisfaction with care are to be effective