Perinatal care at the limit of viability between 22 and 26 completed weeks of gestation in Switzerland. 2011 revision of the Swiss recommendations

Perinatal care of pregnant women at high risk for preterm delivery and of preterm infants born at the limit of viability (22-26 completed weeks of gestation) requires a multidisciplinary approach by an experienced perinatal team. Limited precision in the determination of both gestational age and foetal weight, as well as biological variability may significantly affect the course of action chosen in individual cases. The decisions that must be taken with the pregnant women and on behalf of the preterm infant in this context are complex and have far-reaching consequences. When counselling pregnant women and their partners, neonatologists and obstetricians should provide them with comprehensive information in a sensitive and supportive way to build a basis of trust. The decisions are developed in a continuing dialogue between all parties involved (physicians, midwives, nursing staff and parents) with the principal aim to find solutions that are in the infant's and pregnant woman's best interest. Knowledge of current gestational age-specific mortality and morbidity rates and how they are modified by prenatally known prognostic factors (estimated foetal weight, sex, exposure or nonexposure to antenatal corticosteroids, single or multiple births) as well as the application of accepted ethical principles form the basis for responsible decision-making. Communication between all parties involved plays a central role. The members of the interdisciplinary working group suggest that the care of preterm infants with a gestational age between 22 0/7 and 23 6/7 weeks should generally be limited to palliative care. Obstetric interventions for foetal indications such as Caesarean section delivery are usually not indicated. In selected cases, for example, after 23 weeks of pregnancy have been completed and several of the above mentioned prenatally known prognostic factors are favourable or well informed parents insist on the initiation of life-sustaining therapies, active obstetric interventions for foetal indications and provisional intensive care of the neonate may be reasonable. In preterm infants with a gestational age between 24 0/7 and 24 6/7 weeks, it can be difficult to determine whether the burden of obstetric interventions and neonatal intensive care is justified given the limited chances of success of such a therapy. In such cases, the individual constellation of prenatally known factors which impact on prognosis can be helpful in the decision making process with the parents. In preterm infants with a gestational age between 25 0/7 and 25 6/7 weeks, foetal surveillance, obstetric interventions for foetal indications and neonatal intensive care measures are generally indicated. However, if several prenatally known prognostic factors are unfavourable and the parents agree, primary non-intervention and neonatal palliative care can be considered. All pregnant women with threatening preterm delivery or premature rupture of membranes at the limit of viability must be transferred to a perinatal centre with a level III neonatal intensive care unit no later than 23 0/7 weeks of gestation, unless emergency delivery is indicated. An experienced neonatology team should be involved in all deliveries that take place after 23 0/7 weeks of gestation to help to decide together with the parents if the initiation of intensive care measures appears to be appropriate or if preference should be given to palliative care (i.e., primary non-intervention). In doubtful situations, it can be reasonable to initiate intensive care and to admit the preterm infant to a neonatal intensive care unit (i.e., provisional intensive care). The infant's clinical evolution and additional discussions with the parents will help to clarify whether the life-sustaining therapies should be continued or withdrawn. Life support is continued as long as there is reasonable hope for survival and the infant's burden of intensive care is acceptable. If, on the other hand, the health car...

Highly pathogenic adapted HIV-1 strains limit host immunity and dictate rapid disease progression.

OBJECTIVE: The study of HIV-1 rapid progressors has been limited to specific case reports. Nevertheless, identification and characterization of the viral and host factors involved in rapid progression are crucial when attempting to uncover the correlates of rapid disease outcome. DESIGN: We carried out comparative functional analyses in rapid progressors (n = 46) and standard progressors (n = 46) early after HIV-1 seroconversion (≤1 year). The viral traits tested were viral replicative capacity, co-receptor usage, and genomic variation. Host CD8 T-cell responses, humoral activity, and HLA immunogenetic markers were also determined. RESULTS: Our data demonstrate an unusual convergence of highly pathogenic HIV-1 strains in rapid progressors. Compared with standard progressors, rapid progressor viral strains show higher in-vitro replicative capacity (81.5 vs. 67.9%; P = 0.025) and greater X4/DM co-receptor usage (26.3 vs. 2.8%; P = 0.006) in early infection. Limited or absent functional HIV-1 CD8 T-cell responses and neutralizing activity were measured in rapid progressors. Moreover, the increase in common HLA allele-restricted CD8 T-cell escape mutations in rapid progressors acts as a signature of uncontrolled HIV-1 replication and early impairment of adaptive cellular responses. CONCLUSION: Our data support a dominant role for viral factors in rapid progressors. Robust HIV-1 replication and intrinsic viral properties limit host adaptive immune responses, thus driving rapid disease progression.