History of biological warfare and bioterrorism.

Bioterrorism literally means using microorganisms or infected samples to cause terror and panic in populations. Bioterrorism had already started 14 centuries before Christ, when the Hittites sent infected rams to their enemies. However, apart from some rare well-documented events, it is often very difficult for historians and microbiologists to differentiate natural epidemics from alleged biological attacks, because: (i) little information is available for times before the advent of modern microbiology; (ii) truth may be manipulated for political reasons, especially for a hot topic such as a biological attack; and (iii) the passage of time may also have distorted the reality of the past. Nevertheless, we have tried to provide to clinical microbiologists an overview of some likely biological warfare that occurred before the 18th century and that included the intentional spread of epidemic diseases such as tularaemia, plague, malaria, smallpox, yellow fever, and leprosy. We also summarize the main events that occurred during the modern microbiology era, from World War I to the recent 'anthrax letters' that followed the World Trade Center attack of September 2001. Again, the political polemic surrounding the use of infectious agents as a weapon may distort the truth. This is nicely exemplified by the Sverdlovsk accident, which was initially attributed by the authorities to a natural foodborne outbreak, and was officially recognized as having a military cause only 13 years later.

Prevalence of etravirine mutations and impact on response to treatment in routine clinical care: the Swiss HIV Cohort Study (SHCS).

OBJECTIVES: Etravirine (ETV) is a novel nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) with reduced cross-resistance to first-generation NNRTIs, which has been primarily studied in randomized clinical trials and not in routine clinical settings. METHODS: ETV resistance-associated mutations (RAMs) were investigated by analysing 6072 genotypic tests. The antiviral activity of ETV was predicted using different interpretation systems: International AIDS Society-USA (IAS-USA), Stanford, Rega and Agence Nationale de Recherches sur le Sida et les hépatites virales (ANRS). RESULTS: The prevalence of ETV RAMs was higher in NNRTI-exposed patients [44.9%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 41.0-48.9%] than in treatment-naïve patients (9.6%, 95% CI 8.5-10.7%). ETV RAMs in treatment-naïve patients mainly represent polymorphism, as prevalence estimates in genotypic tests for treatment-naïve patients with documented recent (<1 year) infection, who had acquired HIV before the introduction of NNRTIs, were almost identical (9.8%, 95% CI 3.3-21.4). Discontinuation of NNRTI treatment led to a marked drop in the detection of ETV RAMs, from 51.7% (95% CI 40.8-62.6%) to 34.5% (95% CI 24.6-45.4%, P=0.032). Differences in prevalence among subtypes were found for V90I and V179T (P<0.001). Estimates of restricted virological response to ETV varied among algorithms in patients with exposure to efavirenz (EFV)/nevirapine (NVP), ranging from 3.8% (95% CI 2.5-5.6%) for ANRS to 56.2% (95% CI 52.2-60.1%) for Stanford. The predicted activity of ETV decreased as the sensitivity of potential optimized background regimens decreased. The presence of major IAS-USA mutations (L100I, K101E/H/P and Y181C/I/V) reduced the treatment response at week 24. CONCLUSIONS: Most ETV RAMs in drug-naïve patients are polymorphisms rather than transmitted RAMs. Uncertainty regarding predictions of antiviral activity for ETV in NNRTI-treated patients remains high. The lowest activity was predicted for patients harbouring extensive multidrug-resistant viruses, thus limiting ETV use in those who are most in need.