Timing of HIV Seroreversion Among HIV-Exposed, Breastfed Infants in Malawi: Type of HIV Rapid Test Matters

Introduction Rapid HIV serological tests are a cost-effective, point-of-care test among HIV exposed infants but cannot distinguish between maternal and infant antibodies. The lack of data on the timing of decay of maternal antibodies in young infants hinders the potential use of rapid tests in exposed infants. We aimed to determine the time to seroreversion for two commonly used rapid tests in a prospective cohort of HIV-exposed breastfeeding infants ages 3-18 months of life. Methods We collected data on the performance of two commonly used rapid tests (Determine and Unigold) in Malawi between 2008 and 2012 or at the University of North Carolina between 2014 and 2015. Time to seroreversion was estimated for both rapid tests using the Kaplan-Meier product limit estimator which allows for interval censored data. Results At 3 months of age, 3 % of infants had seroreverted according to Determine and 7 % had seroreverted according to Unigold. About one in four infants had achieved seroreversion by 4 months using Unigold, but only about one in twelve infants by 4 months when using Determine. More than 95 % of all infants had seroverted by 7 months according to Unigold and by 12 months according to the Determine assay. Discussion We show that the time of seroreversion depends greatly on the type of test used. Our results highlight the need for recommendations to specify the timing and type of test used in the context of infant HIV detection in resource-poor settings, and base the interpretation of test result on knowledge of time to seroreversion of the selected test

MyD88 Is Required for Protection from Lethal Infection with a Mouse-Adapted SARS-CoV

A novel human coronavirus, SARS-CoV, emerged suddenly in 2003, causing approximately 8000 human cases and more than 700 deaths worldwide. Since most animal models fail to faithfully recapitulate the clinical course of SARS-CoV in humans, the virus and host factors that mediate disease pathogenesis remain unclear. Recently, our laboratory and others developed a recombinant mouse-adapted SARS-CoV (rMA15) that was lethal in BALB/c mice. In contrast, intranasal infection of young 10-week-old C57BL/6 mice with rMA15 results in a nonlethal infection characterized by high titer replication within the lungs, lung inflammation, destruction of lung tissue, and loss of body weight, thus providing a useful model to identify host mediators of protection. Here, we report that mice deficient in MyD88 (MyD88−/−), an adapter protein that mediates Toll-like receptor (TLR), IL-1R, and IL-18R signaling, are far more susceptible to rMA15 infection. The genetic absence of MyD88 resulted in enhanced pulmonary pathology and greater than 90% mortality by day 6 post-infection. MyD88−/− mice had significantly higher viral loads in lung tissue throughout the course of infection. Despite increased viral loads, the expression of multiple proinflammatory cytokines and chemokines within lung tissue and recruitment of inflammatory monocytes/macrophages to the lung was severely impaired in MyD88−/− mice compared to wild-type mice. Furthermore, mice deficient in chemokine receptors that contribute to monocyte recruitment to the lung were more susceptible to rMA15-induced disease and exhibited severe lung pathology similar to that seen in MyD88−/−mice. These data suggest that MyD88-mediated innate immune signaling and inflammatory cell recruitment to the lung are required for protection from lethal rMA15 infection

An Economic Toolkit for Identifying the Cost of Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Systems: Detailed Methodology of the EMS Cost Analysis Project (EMSCAP)

Calculating the cost of an emergency medical services (EMS) system using a standardized method is important for determining the value of EMS. This article describes the development of a methodology for calculating the cost of an EMS system to its community. This includes a tool for calculating the cost of EMS (the “cost workbook”) and detailed directions for determining cost (the “cost guide”). The 12‐step process that was developed is consistent with current theories of health economics, applicable to prehospital care, flexible enough to be used in varying sizes and types of EMS systems, and comprehensive enough to provide meaningful conclusions. It was developed by an expert panel (the EMS Cost Analysis Project [EMSCAP] investigator team) in an iterative process that included pilot testing the process in three diverse communities. The iterative process allowed ongoing modification of the toolkit during the development phase, based upon direct, practical, ongoing interaction with the EMS systems that were using the toolkit. The resulting methodology estimates EMS system costs within a user‐defined community, allowing either the number of patients treated or the estimated number of lives saved by EMS to be assessed in light of the cost of those efforts. Much controversy exists about the cost of EMS and whether the resources spent for this purpose are justified. However, the existence of a validated toolkit that provides a standardized process will allow meaningful assessments and comparisons to be made and will supply objective information to inform EMS and community officials who are tasked with determining the utilization of scarce societal resources. ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2012; 19:1–7 © 2012 by the Society for Academic Emergency MedicinePeer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/90144/1/j.1553-2712.2011.01277.x.pd

An Economic Toolkit for Identifying the Cost of Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Systems: Detailed Methodology of the EMS Cost Analysis Project (EMSCAP)

Calculating the cost of an emergency medical services (EMS) system using a standardized method is important for determining the value of EMS. This article describes the development of a methodology for calculating the cost of an EMS system to its community. This includes a tool for calculating the cost of EMS (the “cost workbook”) and detailed directions for determining cost (the “cost guide”). The 12‐step process that was developed is consistent with current theories of health economics, applicable to prehospital care, flexible enough to be used in varying sizes and types of EMS systems, and comprehensive enough to provide meaningful conclusions. It was developed by an expert panel (the EMS Cost Analysis Project [EMSCAP] investigator team) in an iterative process that included pilot testing the process in three diverse communities. The iterative process allowed ongoing modification of the toolkit during the development phase, based upon direct, practical, ongoing interaction with the EMS systems that were using the toolkit. The resulting methodology estimates EMS system costs within a user‐defined community, allowing either the number of patients treated or the estimated number of lives saved by EMS to be assessed in light of the cost of those efforts. Much controversy exists about the cost of EMS and whether the resources spent for this purpose are justified. However, the existence of a validated toolkit that provides a standardized process will allow meaningful assessments and comparisons to be made and will supply objective information to inform EMS and community officials who are tasked with determining the utilization of scarce societal resources. ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2012; 19:1–7 © 2012 by the Society for Academic Emergency MedicinePeer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/90144/1/j.1553-2712.2011.01277.x.pd