Public-health and individual approaches to antiretroviral therapy: township South Africa and Switzerland compared

BACKGROUND: The provision of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) in resource-limited settings follows a public health approach, which is characterised by a limited number of regimens and the standardisation of clinical and laboratory monitoring. In industrialized countries doctors prescribe from the full range of available antiretroviral drugs, supported by resistance testing and frequent laboratory monitoring. We compared virologic response, changes to first-line regimens, and mortality in HIV-infected patients starting HAART in South Africa and Switzerland. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We analysed data from the Swiss HIV Cohort Study and two HAART programmes in townships of Cape Town, South Africa. We included treatment-naïve patients aged 16 y or older who had started treatment with at least three drugs since 2001, and excluded intravenous drug users. Data from a total of 2,348 patients from South Africa and 1,016 patients from the Swiss HIV Cohort Study were analysed. Median baseline CD4+ T cell counts were 80 cells/mul in South Africa and 204 cells/mul in Switzerland. In South Africa, patients started with one of four first-line regimens, which was subsequently changed in 514 patients (22%). In Switzerland, 36 first-line regimens were used initially, and these were changed in 539 patients (53%). In most patients HIV-1 RNA was suppressed to 500 copies/ml or less within one year: 96% (95% confidence interval [CI] 95%-97%) in South Africa and 96% (94%-97%) in Switzerland, and 26% (22%-29%) and 27% (24%-31%), respectively, developed viral rebound within two years. Mortality was higher in South Africa than in Switzerland during the first months of HAART: adjusted hazard ratios were 5.90 (95% CI 1.81-19.2) during months 1-3 and 1.77 (0.90-3.50) during months 4-24. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to the highly individualised approach in Switzerland, programmatic HAART in South Africa resulted in similar virologic outcomes, with relatively few changes to initial regimens. Further innovation and resources are required in South Africa to both achieve more timely access to HAART and improve the prognosis of patients who start HAART with advanced disease.

The Pneumococcal Polysaccharide Capsule and Pneumolysin Differentially Affect CXCL8 and IL-6 Release from Cells of the Upper and Lower Respiratory Tract

The polysaccharide capsule and pneumolysin toxin are major virulence factors of the human bacterial pathogen Streptococcus pneumoniae. Colonization of the nasopharynx is asymptomatic but invasion of the lungs can result in invasive pneumonia. Here we show that the capsule suppresses the release of the pro-inflammatory cytokines CXCL8 (IL-8) and IL-6 from the human pharyngeal epithelial cell line Detroit 562. Release of both cytokines was much less from human bronchial epithelial cells (iHBEC) but levels were also affected by capsule. Pneumolysin stimulates CXCL8 release from both cell lines. Suppression of CXCL8 homologue (CXCL2/MIP-2) release by the capsule was also observed in vivo during intranasal colonization of mice but was only discernable in the absence of pneumolysin. When pneumococci were administered intranasally to mice in a model of long term, stable nasopharyngeal carriage, encapsulated S. pneumoniae remained in the nasopharynx whereas the nonencapsulated pneumococci disseminated into the lungs. Pneumococcal capsule plays a role not only in protection from phagocytosis but also in modulation of the pro-inflammatory immune response in the respiratory tract.

Hand in hand: public endorsement of climate change mitigation and adaptation

This research investigated how an individual’s endorsements of mitigation and adaptation relate to each other, and how well each of these can be accounted for by relevant social psychological factors. Based on survey data from two European convenience samples (N = 616 / 309) we found that public endorsements of mitigation and adaptation are strongly associated: Someone who is willing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (mitigation) is also willing to prepare for climate change impacts (adaptation). Moreover, people endorsed the two response strategies for similar reasons: People who believe that climate change is real and dangerous, who have positive attitudes about protecting the environment and the climate, and who perceive climate change as a risk, are willing to respond to climate change. Furthermore, distinguishing between (spatially) proximal and distant risk perceptions suggested that the idea of portraying climate change as a proximal (i.e., local) threat might indeed be effective in promoting personal actions. However, to gain endorsement of broader societal initiatives such as policy support, it seems advisable to turn to the distant risks of climate change. The notion that “localising” climate change might not be the panacea for engaging people in this domain is discussed in regard to previous theory and research.