Viral Control Agents

Author(s):  
Charles M. Rush ◽  
John L. Sherwood
Keyword(s):  
2016 ◽  
Vol 54 (12) ◽  
pp. 1343-1404
Author(s):  
V Duhan ◽  
V Khairnar ◽  
SK Friedrich ◽  
C Hardt ◽  
PA Lang ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Jesus F Bermejo-Martin ◽  
Raquel Almansa ◽  
Ana P Tedim ◽  
Amanda de la Fuente ◽  
Jose María Eiros ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S533-S533
Author(s):  
Folake J Lawal ◽  
Arni S R Srinivasa Rao ◽  
Jose A Vazquez

Abstract Background The increasing incidence of HIV and lack of care in rural areas contributes to the ongoing epidemic. The dearth of specialized health services within remote communities and access of this population to available services poses a challenge to HIV care. Telemedicine (TM) is a potential tool to improve HIV care in these remote communities, but little is known about its effectiveness when compared to traditional (face-to-face) (F2F) care. The objective of this study is to examine the effectiveness of HIV care delivered through TM, and compare to F2F care. Methods This is a retrospective chart review of all HIV positive patients who attended either the F2F clinic (Augusta, GA) or the TM clinic (Dublin, GA) between May 2017 to April 2018. Data extracted included demographics, CD4 count, HIV PCR, co-morbidities, dates of clinic attendance, HIV resistance mutations and ART changes. Viral suppression and gain in CD4 counts were compared. T-test was conducted to test differences in characteristics and outcomes between the two groups. Results 385 cases were included in the study (52.5% black, 82% females, F2F=200, TM=185). Mean CD4 count in the TM group was statistically higher (643.9 cells/mm3) than the F2F group (596.3 cells/mm3) (p< 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in mean HIV viral load (F2F= 416.8 cp/ml, TM=713.4 cp/ml, p=0.3) and rates of year-round viral control (F2F= 73% vs TM = 77% p= 0.54). 38 patients achieved viral suppression during the study period (F2F= 24, TM =14) with a mean change of -3.34 x 104 vs -1.24 x 104, respectively. The difference in mean change was not statistically significant by Snedacor’s W Statistics. This indicates there was no significant difference between the two populations in terms of mean viral suppression among patients who were otherwise not suppressed before the study period. Conclusion To achieve an HIV cure, HIV care is required to extend to rural areas of the country and the world. Through delivery of care using TM, trained specialists can target communities with little or no health care. Moreover, use of TM achieves target outcome measures comparable to F2F clinics. Increase in the use of TM will improve the access to specialty HIV care and help achieve control of HIV in rural communities. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures


2020 ◽  
Vol 72 (3) ◽  
pp. 420-430 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yongyin Li ◽  
Libo Tang ◽  
Ling Guo ◽  
Chengcong Chen ◽  
Shuqin Gu ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 210 (7) ◽  
pp. 1042-1046 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sagar A. Vaidya ◽  
Christian Korner ◽  
Michael N. Sirignano ◽  
Molly Amero ◽  
Sue Bazner ◽  
...  

Science ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 334 (6057) ◽  
pp. 737-737
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
Cecilia Johansson ◽  
Freja C. M. Kirsebom

AbstractViral respiratory infections are a common cause of severe disease, especially in infants, people who are immunocompromised, and in the elderly. Neutrophils, an important innate immune cell, infiltrate the lungs rapidly after an inflammatory insult. The most well-characterized effector mechanisms by which neutrophils contribute to host defense are largely extracellular and the involvement of neutrophils in protection from numerous bacterial and fungal infections is well established. However, the role of neutrophils in responses to viruses, which replicate intracellularly, has been less studied. It remains unclear whether and, by which underlying immunological mechanisms, neutrophils contribute to viral control or confer protection against an intracellular pathogen. Furthermore, neutrophils need to be tightly regulated to avoid bystander damage to host tissues. This is especially relevant in the lung where damage to delicate alveolar structures can compromise gas exchange with life-threatening consequences. It is inherently less clear how neutrophils can contribute to host immunity to viruses without causing immunopathology and/or exacerbating disease severity. In this review, we summarize and discuss the current understanding of how neutrophils in the lung direct immune responses to viruses, control viral replication and spread, and cause pathology during respiratory viral infections.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document