METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Two ORFeome phage display libraries of the entire Leptospira spp. genomes from five local strains isolated in Malaysia and seven WHO reference strains were constructed. Subsequently, 18 unique Leptospira peptides were identified in a screen using a pool of sera from patients with acute leptospirosis. Five of these were validated by titration ELISA using different pools of patient or control sera. The diagnostic performance of these five peptides was then assessed against 16 individual sera from patients with acute leptospirosis and 16 healthy donors and was compared to that of two recombinant reference proteins from L. interrogans. This analysis revealed two peptides (SIR16-D1 and SIR16-H1) from the local isolates with good accuracy for the detection of acute leptospirosis (area under the ROC curve: 0.86 and 0.78, respectively; sensitivity: 0.88 and 0.94; specificity: 0.81 and 0.69), which was close to that of the reference proteins LipL32 and Loa22 (area under the ROC curve: 0.91 and 0.80; sensitivity: 0.94 and 0.81; specificity: 0.75 and 0.75).
CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: This analysis lends further support for using ORFeome phage display to identify pathogen-associated immunogenic peptides, and it suggests that this technique holds promise for the development of peptide-based diagnostics for leptospirosis and, possibly, of vaccines against this pathogen.
METHODS: HIV-positive patients enrolled in the TREAT Asia HIV Observational Database who had used second-line ART for ≥6 months were included. ART use and rates and predictors of second-line treatment failure were evaluated.
RESULTS: There were 302 eligible patients. Most were male (76.5%) and exposed to HIV via heterosexual contact (71.5%). Median age at second-line initiation was 39.2 years, median CD4 cell count was 146 cells per cubic millimeter, and median HIV viral load was 16,224 copies per milliliter. Patients started second-line ART before 2007 (n = 105), 2007-2010 (n = 147) and after 2010 (n = 50). Ritonavir-boosted lopinavir and atazanavir accounted for the majority of protease inhibitor use after 2006. Median follow-up time on second-line therapy was 2.3 years. The rates of treatment failure and mortality per 100 patient/years were 8.8 (95% confidence interval: 7.1 to 10.9) and 1.1 (95% confidence interval: 0.6 to 1.9), respectively. Older age, high baseline viral load, and use of a protease inhibitor other than lopinavir or atazanavir were associated with a significantly shorter time to second-line failure.
CONCLUSIONS: Increased access to viral load monitoring to facilitate early detection of first-line ART failure and subsequent treatment switch is important for maximizing the durability of second-line therapy in Asia. Although second-line ART is highly effective in the region, the reported rate of failure emphasizes the need for third-line ART in a small portion of patients.
METHODS: AMS programme team members within 349 hospitals from 10 countries (Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippines, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam) completed a questionnaire via a web-based survey link. The survey contained questions as to whether 12 core components deemed essential for AMS programmes were implemented.
RESULTS: Overall, 47 (13.5%) hospitals fulfilled all core AMS programme components. There was a mean positive response rate (PRR) of 85.6% for the responding countries in relation to a formal hospital leadership statement of support for AMS activities, but this was not matched by budgeted financial support for AMS activities (mean PRR 57.1%). Mean PRRs were ≥80.0% for the core AMS team comprising a physician or other leader responsible for AMS activities, a pharmacist and infection control and microbiology personnel. Most hospitals had access to a timely and reliable microbiology service (mean PRR 90.4%). Facility-specific antibiotic treatment guidelines for common infections (mean PRR 78.7%) were in place more often than pre-authorization and/or prospective audit and feedback systems (mean PRR 66.5%). In terms of AMS monitoring and reporting, PRRs of monitoring specific antibiotic use, regularly publishing AMS outcome measures, and the existence of a hospital antibiogram were 75.1%, 64.4% and 77.9%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Most hospitals participating in this survey did not have AMS programmes fulfilling the requirements for gold standard AMS programmes in hospital settings. Urgent action is required to address AMS funding and resourcing deficits.