Real-Time PCR: An Effective Tool for Measuring Transduction Efficiency in Human Hematopoietic Progenitor Cells

Accurate measurement of gene transfer into hematopoietic progenitor cells is an essential prerequisite for assessing the utility of gene therapy approaches designed to correct hematologic defects. We developed a reliable method to measure transduction efficiency at the level of the progenitor cell with real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis of individual progenitor-derived colonies. We hypothesized that this method would demonstrate better sensitivity and specificity than are currently achievable with conventional PCR. An oncoretroviral vector containing the enhanced green fluorescent protein was used to transduce human CD34+ cells derived from bone marrow or granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor-mobilized peripheral blood. Progenitor assays were set up and colonies plucked after visualization by fluorescence microscopy. By analyzing microscopically identified fluorescent samples and nontransduced samples, we calculated an overall sensitivity and specificity of 90.2 and 95.0%, respectively. Real-time PCR had higher specificity and sensitivity than conventional PCR as analyzed by generalized linear models (P = 0.002 and P = 0.019, respectively). In conclusion, we found real-time PCR to have superior sensitivity and specificity compared to conventional PCR in determining transduction efficiency of hematopoietic progenitor cells

Signal transducer and activator of transcription 1 (STAT1) gain-of-function mutations and disseminated coccidioidomycosis and histoplasmosis

Background: Impaired signaling in the IFN-g/IL-12 pathway causes susceptibility to severe disseminated infections with mycobacteria and dimorphic yeasts. Dominant gain-of-function mutations in signal transducer and activator of transcription 1 (STAT1) have been associated with chronic mucocutaneous candidiasis. Objective: We sought to identify the molecular defect in patients with disseminated dimorphic yeast infections. Methods: PBMCs, EBV-transformed B cells, and transfected U3A cell lines were studied for IFN-g/IL-12 pathway function. STAT1 was sequenced in probands and available relatives. Interferon-induced STAT1 phosphorylation, transcriptional responses, protein-protein interactions, target gene activation, and function were investigated. Results: We identified 5 patients with disseminated Coccidioides immitis or Histoplasma capsulatum with heterozygous missense mutations in the STAT1 coiled-coil or DNA-binding domains. These are dominant gain-of-function mutations causing enhanced STAT1 phosphorylation, delayed dephosphorylation, enhanced DNA binding and transactivation, and enhanced interaction with protein inhibitor of activated STAT1. The mutations caused enhanced IFN-g–induced gene expression, but we found impaired responses to IFN-g restimulation. Conclusion: Gain-of-function mutations in STAT1 predispose to invasive, severe, disseminated dimorphic yeast infections, likely through aberrant regulation of IFN-g–mediated inflammationFil: Sampaio, Elizabeth P.. National Institutes of Health. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Laboratory of Clinical Infectious Diseases. Immunopathogenesis Section; Estados Unidos. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Laboratorio de Leprologia; BrasilFil: Hsu, Amy P.. National Institutes of Health. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Laboratory of Clinical Infectious Diseases. Immunopathogenesis Section; Estados UnidosFil: Pechacek, Joseph. National Institutes of Health. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Laboratory of Clinical Infectious Diseases. Immunopathogenesis Section; Estados UnidosFil: Hannelore I.. National Institutes of Health. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Laboratory of Clinical Infectious Diseases. Immunopathogenesis Section; Estados Unidos. Erasmus Medical Center. Department of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease; Países BajosFil: Dias, Dalton L.. National Institutes of Health. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Laboratory of Clinical Infectious Diseases. Immunopathogenesis Section; Estados UnidosFil: Paulson, Michelle L.. Clinical Research Directorate/CMRP; Estados UnidosFil: Chandrasekaran, Prabha. National Institutes of Health. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Laboratory of Clinical Infectious Diseases. Immunopathogenesis Section; Estados UnidosFil: Rosen, Lindsey B.. National Institutes of Health. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Laboratory of Clinical Infectious Diseases. Immunopathogenesis Section; Estados UnidosFil: Carvalho, Daniel S.. National Institutes of Health. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Laboratory of Clinical Infectious Diseases. Immunopathogenesis Section; Estados Unidos. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz, Laboratorio de Leprologia; BrasilFil: Ding, Li. National Institutes of Health. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Laboratory of Clinical Infectious Diseases. Immunopathogenesis Section; Estados UnidosFil: Vinh, Donald C.. McGill University Health Centre. Division of Infectious Diseases; CanadáFil: Browne, Sarah K.. National Institutes of Health. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Laboratory of Clinical Infectious Diseases. Immunopathogenesis Section; Estados UnidosFil: Datta, Shrimati. National Institutes of Health. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Laboratory of Allergic Diseases. Allergic Inflammation Unit; Estados UnidosFil: Milner, Joshua D.. National Institutes of Health. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Laboratory of Allergic Diseases. Allergic Inflammation Unit; Estados UnidosFil: Kuhns, Douglas B.. Clinical Services Program; Estados UnidosFil: Long Priel, Debra A.. Clinical Services Program; Estados UnidosFil: Sadat, Mohammed A.. National Institutes of Health. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Laboratory of Host Defenses. Infectious Diseases Susceptibility Unit; Estados UnidosFil: Shiloh, Michael. University of Texas. Southwestern Medical Center. Division of Infectious Diseases; Estados UnidosFil: De Marco, Brendan. University of Texas. Southwestern Medical Center. Division of Infectious Diseases; Estados UnidosFil: Alvares, Michael. University of Texas. Southwestern Medical Center. Division of Allergy and Immunology; Estados UnidosFil: Gillman, Jason W.. University of Texas. Southwestern Medical Center. Division of Infectious Diseases; Estados UnidosFil: Ramarathnam, Vivek. University of Texas. Southwestern Medical Center. Division of Infectious Diseases; Estados UnidosFil: de la Morena, Maite. University of Texas. Southwestern Medical Center. Division of Allergy and Immunology; Estados UnidosFil: Bezrodnik, Liliana. Gobierno de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires. Hospital General de Niños "Ricardo Gutierrez"; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Moreira, Ileana. Gobierno de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires. Hospital General de Niños "Ricardo Gutierrez"; ArgentinaFil: Uzel, Gulbu. National Institutes of Health. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Laboratory of Clinical Infectious Diseases. Immunopathogenesis Section; Estados UnidosFil: Johnson, Daniel. University of Chicago. Comer Children; Estados UnidosFil: Spalding, Christine. National Institutes of Health. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Laboratory of Clinical Infectious Diseases. Immunopathogenesis Section; Estados UnidosFil: Zerbe, Christa S.. National Institutes of Health. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Laboratory of Clinical Infectious Diseases. Immunopathogenesis Section; Estados UnidosFil: Wiley, Henry. National Eye Institute. Clinical Trials Branch; Estados UnidosFil: Greenberg, David E.. University of Texas. Southwestern Medical Center. Division of Infectious Diseases; Estados UnidosFil: Hoover, Susan E.. University of Arizona. College of Medicine. Valley Fever Center for Excellence; Estados UnidosFil: Rosenzweig, Sergio D.. National Institutes of Health. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Laboratory of Host Defenses Infectious Diseases Susceptibility Unit; Estados Unidos. National Institutes of Health. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Primary Immunodeficiency Clinic; Estados UnidosFil: Galgiani, John N.. University of Arizona. College of Medicine. Valley Fever Center for Excellence; Estados UnidosFil: Holland, Steven M.. National Institutes of Health. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Laboratory of Clinical Infectious Diseases. Immunopathogenesis Section; Estados Unido

Evolution and patterns of global health financing 1995-2014 : development assistance for health, and government, prepaid private, and out-of-pocket health spending in 184 countries

Background An adequate amount of prepaid resources for health is important to ensure access to health services and for the pursuit of universal health coverage. Previous studies on global health financing have described the relationship between economic development and health financing. In this study, we further explore global health financing trends and examine how the sources of funds used, types of services purchased, and development assistance for health disbursed change with economic development. We also identify countries that deviate from the trends. Methods We estimated national health spending by type of care and by source, including development assistance for health, based on a diverse set of data including programme reports, budget data, national estimates, and 964 National Health Accounts. These data represent health spending for 184 countries from 1995 through 2014. We converted these data into a common inflation-adjusted and purchasing power-adjusted currency, and used non-linear regression methods to model the relationship between health financing, time, and economic development. Findings Between 1995 and 2014, economic development was positively associated with total health spending and a shift away from a reliance on development assistance and out-of-pocket (OOP) towards government spending. The largest absolute increase in spending was in high-income countries, which increased to purchasing power-adjusted $5221 per capita based on an annual growth rate of 3.0$914 and $267 per capita in 2014, respectively. Spending in low-income countries grew nearly as fast, at 4.6$51 to $120 per capita. In 2014, 59.2$37.6 billion in 2016. Nonetheless, there is a great deal of variation revolving around these averages. 29 countries spend at least 50% more than expected per capita, based on their level of economic development alone, whereas 11 countries spend less than 50% their expected amount. Interpretation Health spending remains disparate, with low-income and lower-middle-income countries increasing spending in absolute terms the least, and relying heavily on OOP spending and development assistance. Moreover, tremendous variation shows that neither time nor economic development guarantee adequate prepaid health resources, which are vital for the pursuit of universal health coverage.Peer reviewe

Future and potential spending on health 2015-40: Development assistance for health, and government, prepaid private, and out-of-pocket health spending in 184 countries

Background: The amount of resources, particularly prepaid resources, available for health can affect access to health care and health outcomes. Although health spending tends to increase with economic development, tremendous variation exists among health financing systems. Estimates of future spending can be beneficial for policy makers and planners, and can identify financing gaps. In this study, we estimate future gross domestic product (GDP), all-sector government spending, and health spending disaggregated by source, and we compare expected future spending to potential future spending. Methods: We extracted GDP, government spending in 184 countries from 1980-2015, and health spend data from 1995-2014. We used a series of ensemble models to estimate future GDP, all-sector government spending, development assistance for health, and government, out-of-pocket, and prepaid private health spending through 2040. We used frontier analyses to identify patterns exhibited by the countries that dedicate the most funding to health, and used these frontiers to estimate potential health spending for each low-income or middle-income country. All estimates are inflation and purchasing power adjusted. Findings: We estimated that global spending on health will increase from US$9.21 trillion in 2014 to$24.24 trillion (uncertainty interval [UI] 20.47-29.72) in 2040. We expect per capita health spending to increase fastest in upper-middle-income countries, at 5.3% (UI 4.1-6.8) per year. This growth is driven by continued growth in GDP, government spending, and government health spending. Lower-middle income countries are expected to grow at 4.2% (3.8-4.9). High-income countries are expected to grow at 2.1% (UI 1.8-2.4) and low-income countries are expected to grow at 1.8% (1.0-2.8). Despite this growth, health spending per capita in low-income countries is expected to remain low, at $154 (UI 133-181) per capita in 2030 and$195 (157-258) per capita in 2040. Increases in national health spending to reach the level of the countries who spend the most on health, relative to their level of economic development, would mean $321 (157-258) per capita was available for health in 2040 in low-income countries. Interpretation: Health spending is associated with economic development but past trends and relationships suggest that spending will remain variable, and low in some low-resource settings. Policy change could lead to increased health spending, although for the poorest countries external support might remain essential

Trends in future health financing and coverage: future health spending and universal health coverage in 188 countries, 2016–40

Background: Achieving universal health coverage (UHC) requires health financing systems that provide prepaid pooled resources for key health services without placing undue financial stress on households. Understanding current and future trajectories of health financing is vital for progress towards UHC. We used historical health financing data for 188 countries from 1995 to 2015 to estimate future scenarios of health spending and pooled health spending through to 2040. Methods: We extracted historical data on gross domestic product (GDP) and health spending for 188 countries from 1995 to 2015, and projected annual GDP, development assistance for health, and government, out-of-pocket, and prepaid private health spending from 2015 through to 2040 as a reference scenario. These estimates were generated using an ensemble of models that varied key demographic and socioeconomic determinants. We generated better and worse alternative future scenarios based on the global distribution of historic health spending growth rates. Last, we used stochastic frontier analysis to investigate the association between pooled health resources and UHC index, a measure of a country's UHC service coverage. Finally, we estimated future UHC performance and the number of people covered under the three future scenarios. Findings: In the reference scenario, global health spending was projected to increase from US$10 trillion (95$20 trillion (18 trillion to 22 trillion) in 2040. Per capita health spending was projected to increase fastest in upper-middle-income countries, at 4·2% (3·4–5·1) per year, followed by lower-middle-income countries (4·0%, 3·6–4·5) and low-income countries (2·2%, 1·7–2·8). Despite global growth, per capita health spending was projected to range from only $40 (24–65) to$413 (263–668) in 2040 in low-income countries, and from $140 (90–200) to$1699 (711–3423) in lower-middle-income countries. Globally, the share of health spending covered by pooled resources would range widely, from 19·8% (10·3–38·6) in Nigeria to 97·9% (96·4–98·5) in Seychelles. Historical performance on the UHC index was significantly associated with pooled resources per capita. Across the alternative scenarios, we estimate UHC reaching between 5·1 billion (4·9 billion to 5·3 billion) and 5·6 billion (5·3 billion to 5·8 billion) lives in 2030. Interpretation: We chart future scenarios for health spending and its relationship with UHC. Ensuring that all countries have sustainable pooled health resources is crucial to the achievement of UHC. Funding: The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Past, present, and future of global health financing : a review of development assistance, government, out-of-pocket, and other private spending on health for 195 countries, 1995-2050

Background Comprehensive and comparable estimates of health spending in each country are a key input for health policy and planning, and are necessary to support the achievement of national and international health goals. Previous studies have tracked past and projected future health spending until 2040 and shown that, with economic development, countries tend to spend more on health per capita, with a decreasing share of spending from development assistance and out-of-pocket sources. We aimed to characterise the past, present, and predicted future of global health spending, with an emphasis on equity in spending across countries. Methods We estimated domestic health spending for 195 countries and territories from 1995 to 2016, split into three categories-government, out-of-pocket, and prepaid private health spending-and estimated development assistance for health (DAH) from 1990 to 2018. We estimated future scenarios of health spending using an ensemble of linear mixed-effects models with time series specifications to project domestic health spending from 2017 through 2050 and DAH from 2019 through 2050. Data were extracted from a broad set of sources tracking health spending and revenue, and were standardised and converted to inflation-adjusted 2018 US dollars. Incomplete or low-quality data were modelled and uncertainty was estimated, leading to a complete data series of total, government, prepaid private, and out-of-pocket health spending, and DAH. Estimates are reported in 2018 US dollars, 2018 purchasing-power parity-adjusted dollars, and as a percentage of gross domestic product. We used demographic decomposition methods to assess a set of factors associated with changes in government health spending between 1995 and 2016 and to examine evidence to support the theory of the health financing transition. We projected two alternative future scenarios based on higher government health spending to assess the potential ability of governments to generate more resources for health. Findings Between 1995 and 2016, health spending grew at a rate of 4.00% (95% uncertainty interval 3.89-4.12) annually, although it grew slower in per capita terms (2.72% [2.61-2.84]) and increased by less than $1 per capita over this period in 22 of 195 countries. The highest annual growth rates in per capita health spending were observed in upper-middle-income countries (5.55$ 8.0 trillion (7.8-8.1) in 2016 (comprising 8.6% [8.4-8.7] of the global economy and $10.3 trillion [10.1-10.6] in purchasing-power parity-adjusted dollars), with a per capita spending of US$ 5252 (5184-5319) in high-income countries, $491 (461-524) in upper-middle-income countries,$ 81 (74-89) in lower-middle-income countries, and $40 (38-43) in low-income countries. In 2016, 0.4$ 9.5 billion, 24.3% of total DAH), although spending on other infectious diseases (excluding tuberculosis and malaria) grew fastest from 2010 to 2018 (6.27% per year). The leading sources of DAH were the USA and private philanthropy (excluding corporate donations and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation). For the first time, we included estimates of China's contribution to DAH ($644.7 million in 2018). Globally, health spending is projected to increase to$ 15.0 trillion (14.0-16.0) by 2050 (reaching 9.4% [7.6-11.3] of the global economy and $ 21.3 trillion [19.8-23.1] in purchasing-power parity-adjusted dollars), but at a lower growth rate of 1.84% (1.68-2.02) annually, and with continuing disparities in spending between countries. In 2050, we estimate that 0.6% (0.6-0.7) of health spending will occur in currently low-income countries, despite these countries comprising an estimated 15.7% of the global population by 2050. The ratio between per capita health spending in high-income and low-income countries was 130.2 (122.9-136.9) in 2016 and is projected to remain at similar levels in 2050 (125.9 [113.7-138.1]). The decomposition analysis identified governments' increased prioritisation of the health sector and economic development as the strongest factors associated with increases in government health spending globally. Future government health spending scenarios suggest that, with greater prioritisation of the health sector and increased government spending, health spending per capita could more than double, with greater impacts in countries that currently have the lowest levels of government health spending. Interpretation Financing for global health has increased steadily over the past two decades and is projected to continue increasing in the future, although at a slower pace of growth and with persistent disparities in per-capita health spending between countries. Out-of-pocket spending is projected to remain substantial outside of high-income countries. Many low-income countries are expected to remain dependent on development assistance, although with greater government spending, larger investments in health are feasible. In the absence of sustained new investments in health, increasing efficiency in health spending is essential to meet global health targets.Peer reviewe

Past, present, and future of global health financing: a review of development assistance, government, out-of-pocket, and other private spending on health for 195 countries, 1995–2050

Background: Comprehensive and comparable estimates of health spending in each country are a key input for health policy and planning, and are necessary to support the achievement of national and international health goals. Previous studies have tracked past and projected future health spending until 2040 and shown that, with economic development, countries tend to spend more on health per capita, with a decreasing share of spending from development assistance and out-of-pocket sources. We aimed to characterise the past, present, and predicted future of global health spending, with an emphasis on equity in spending across countries. Methods: We estimated domestic health spending for 195 countries and territories from 1995 to 2016, split into three categories—government, out-of-pocket, and prepaid private health spending—and estimated development assistance for health (DAH) from 1990 to 2018. We estimated future scenarios of health spending using an ensemble of linear mixed-effects models with time series specifications to project domestic health spending from 2017 through 2050 and DAH from 2019 through 2050. Data were extracted from a broad set of sources tracking health spending and revenue, and were standardised and converted to inflation-adjusted 2018 US dollars. Incomplete or low-quality data were modelled and uncertainty was estimated, leading to a complete data series of total, government, prepaid private, and out-of-pocket health spending, and DAH. Estimates are reported in 2018 US dollars, 2018 purchasing-power parity-adjusted dollars, and as a percentage of gross domestic product. We used demographic decomposition methods to assess a set of factors associated with changes in government health spending between 1995 and 2016 and to examine evidence to support the theory of the health financing transition. We projected two alternative future scenarios based on higher government health spending to assess the potential ability of governments to generate more resources for health. Findings: Between 1995 and 2016, health spending grew at a rate of 4·00% (95% uncertainty interval 3·89–4·12) annually, although it grew slower in per capita terms (2·72% [2·61–2·84]) and increased by less than $1 per capita over this period in 22 of 195 countries. The highest annual growth rates in per capita health spending were observed in upper-middle-income countries (5·55 in lower-middle-income countries (3·71$8·0 trillion (7·8–8·1) in 2016 (comprising 8·6% [8·4–8·7] of the global economy and $10·3 trillion [10·1–10·6] in purchasing-power parity-adjusted dollars), with a per capita spending of US$5252 (5184–5319) in high-income countries, $491 (461–524) in upper-middle-income countries,$81 (74–89) in lower-middle-income countries, and $40 (38–43) in low-income countries. In 2016, 0·4 countries, despite these countries comprising 10·0 DAH targeted HIV/AIDS ($9·5 billion, 24·3% of total DAH), although spending on other infectious diseases (excluding tuberculosis and malaria) grew fastest from 2010 to 2018 (6·27% per year). The leading sources of DAH were the USA and private philanthropy (excluding corporate donations and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation). For the first time, we included estimates of China’s contribution to DAH ($644·7 million in 2018). Globally, health spending is projected to increase to$15·0 trillion (14·0–16·0) by 2050 (reaching 9·4% [7·6–11·3] of the global economy and $21·3 trillion [19·8–23·1] in purchasing-power parity-adjusted dollars), but at a lower growth rate of 1·84% (1·68–2·02) annually, and with continuing disparities in spending between countries. In 2050, we estimate that 0·6% (0·6–0·7) of health spending will occur in currently low-income countries, despite these countries comprising an estimated 15·7% of the global population by 2050. The ratio between per capita health spending in high-income and low-income countries was 130·2 (122·9–136·9) in 2016 and is projected to remain at similar levels in 2050 (125·9 [113·7–138·1]). The decomposition analysis identified governments’ increased prioritisation of the health sector and economic development as the strongest factors associated with increases in government health spending globally. Future government health spending scenarios suggest that, with greater prioritisation of the health sector and increased government spending, health spending per capita could more than double, with greater impacts in countries that currently have the lowest levels of government health spending Interpretation: Financing for global health has increased steadily over the past two decades and is projected to continue increasing in the future, although at a slower pace of growth and with persistent disparities in per-capita health spending between countries. Out-of-pocket spending is projected to remain substantial outside of high-income countries. Many low-income countries are expected to remain dependent on development assistance, although with greater government spending, larger investments in health are feasible. In the absence of sustained new investments in health, increasing efficiency in health spending is essential to meet global health targets. Funding: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundatio