METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPLE FINDINGS: We investigated the human-infecting Leptospira species in blood and serum samples collected from clinically suspected leptospirosis patients admitted to three tertiary care hospitals in Malaysia. From a total of 165 patients, 92 (56%) were confirmed cases of leptospirosis through Microscopic Agglutination Test (MAT) (n = 43; 47%), Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) (n = 63; 68%) or both MAT and PCR (n = 14; 15%). The infecting Leptospira spp., determined by partial 16S rDNA (rrs) gene sequencing revealed two pathogenic species namely Leptospira interrogans (n = 44, 70%) and Leptospira kirschneri (n = 17, 27%) and one intermediate species Leptospira wolffii (n = 2, 3%). Multilocus sequence typing (MLST) identified an isolate of L. interrogans as a novel sequence type (ST 265), suggesting that this human-infecting strain has a unique genetic profile different from similar species isolated from rodents so far.
CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Leptospira interrogans and Leptospira kirschneri were identified as the dominant Leptospira species causing human leptospirosis in Central Malaysia. The existence of novel clinically important ST 265 (infecting human), that is different from rodent L. interrogans strains cautions reservoir(s) of these Leptospira lineages are yet to be identified.
METHODS: This multi-center, cross-sectional, descriptive survey was conducted at 54 study sites in seven Asia-Pacific countries. A modified Likert-scale questionnaire was used to determine the importance of each element in the ICF among research participants of a biomedical study, with an anchored rating scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (very important).
RESULTS: Of the 2484 questionnaires distributed, 2113 (85.1%) were returned. The majority of respondents considered most elements required in the ICF to be 'moderately important' to 'very important' for their decision making (mean score, ranging from 3.58 to 4.47). Major foreseeable risk, direct benefit, and common adverse effects of the intervention were considered to be of most concerned elements in the ICF (mean score = 4.47, 4.47, and 4.45, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: Research participants would like to be informed of the ICF elements required by ethical guidelines and regulations; however, the importance of each element varied, e.g., risk and benefit associated with research participants were considered to be more important than the general nature or technical details of research. Using a participant-oriented approach by providing more details of the participant-interested elements while avoiding unnecessarily lengthy details of other less important elements would enhance the quality of the ICF.