BackgroundThe United States FDA approved an over-the-counter HIV self-test, to facilitate increased HIV testing and earlier linkage to care. We assessed the accuracy of self-testing by untrained participants compared to healthcare worker (HCW) testing, participants’ ability to interpret sample results and user-acceptability of self-tests in Singapore.Methodology/Principal FindingsA cross-sectional study, involving 200 known HIV-positive patients and 794 unknown HIV status at-risk participants was conducted. Participants (all without prior self-test experience) performed self-testing guided solely by visual instructions, followed by HCW testing, both using the OraQuick ADVANCE Rapid HIV 1/2 Antibody Test, with both results interpreted by the HCW. To assess ability to interpret results, participants were provided 3 sample results (positive, negative, and invalid) to interpret. Of 192 participants who tested positive on HCW testing, self-testing was positive in 186 (96.9%), negative in 5 (2.6%), and invalid in 1 (0.5%). Of 794 participants who tested negative on HCW testing, self-testing was negative in 791 (99.6%), positive in 1 (0.1%), and invalid in 2 (0.3%). Excluding invalid tests, self-testing had sensitivity of 97.4% (95% CI 95.1% to 99.7%) and specificity of 99.9% (95% CI: 99.6% to 100%). When interpreting results, 96%, 93.1% and 95.2% correctly read the positive, negative and invalid respectively. There were no significant demographic predictors for false negative self-testing or wrongly interpreting positive or invalid sample results as negative. Eighty-seven percent would purchase the kit over-the-counter; 89% preferred to take HIV tests in private. 72.5% and 74.9% felt the need for pre- and post-test counseling respectively. Only 28% would pay at least USD15 for the test.Conclusions/SignificanceSelf-testing was associated with high specificity, and a small but significant number of false negatives. Incorrectly identifying model results as invalid was a major reason for incorrect result interpretation. Survey responses were supportive of making self-testing available.

Acute fever is one of the most common presenting symptoms globally. In order to reduce the empiric use of antimicrobial drugs and improve outcomes, it is essential to improve diagnostic capabilities. In the absence of microbiology facilities in low-income settings, an assay to distinguish bacterial from non-bacterial causes would be a critical first step. To ensure that patient and market needs are met, the requirements of such a test should be specified in a target product profile (TPP). To identify minimal/optimal characteristics for a bacterial vs. non-bacterial fever test, experts from academia and international organizations with expertise in infectious diseases, diagnostic test development, laboratory medicine, global health, and health economics were convened. Proposed TPPs were reviewed by this working group, and consensus characteristics were defined. The working group defined non-severely ill, non-malaria infected children as the target population for the desired assay. To provide access to the most patients, the test should be deployable to community health centers and informal health settings, and staff should require <2 days of training to perform the assay. Further, given that the aim is to reduce inappropriate antimicrobial use as well as to deliver appropriate treatment for patients with bacterial infections, the group agreed on minimal diagnostic performance requirements of >90% and >80% for sensitivity and specificity, respectively. Other key characteristics, to account for the challenging environment at which the test is targeted, included: i) time-to-result <10 min (but maximally <2 hrs); ii) storage conditions at 0–40°C, ≤90% non-condensing humidity with a minimal shelf life of 12 months; iii) operational conditions of 5–40°C, ≤90% non-condensing humidity; and iv) minimal sample collection needs (50–100μL, capillary blood). This expert approach to define assay requirements for a bacterial vs. non-bacterial assay should guide product development, and enable targeted and timely efforts by industry partners and academic institutions.

1-7 days). The median Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score was 28.5 (range 6-36). Six patients presented with septic shock, lactic acidosis, acute kidney injury and respiratory failure, necessitating ICU care; five of thesepatients eventually died. All patients received empirical antibiotics, including third-generation cephalosporins,

Lassa fever (LF) is a zoonotic disease associated with acute and potentially fatal hemorrhagic illness caused by the Lassa virus (LASV), a member of the family Arenaviridae. It is generally assumed that a single infection with LASV will produce life-long protective immunity. This suggests that protective immunity induced by vaccination is an achievable goal and that cell-mediated immunity may play a more important role in protection, at least following natural infection. Seropositive individuals in endemic regions have been shown to have LASV-specific T cells recognizing epitopes for nucleocapsid protein (NP) and glycoprotein precursor (GPC), suggesting that these will be important vaccine immunogens. The role of neutralizing antibodies in protective immunity is still equivocal as recent studies suggest a role for neutralizing antibodies. There is extensive genetic heterogeneity among LASV strains that is of concern in the development of assays to detect and identify all four LASV lineages. Furthermore, the gene disparity may complicate the synthesis of effective vaccines that will provide protection across multiple lineages. Non-human primate models of LASV infection are considered the gold standard for recapitulation of human LF. The most promising vaccine candidates to date are the ML29 (a live attenuated reassortant of Mopeia and LASV), vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) and vaccinia-vectored platforms based on their ability to induce protection following single doses, high rates of survival following challenge, and the use of live virus platforms. To date no LASV vaccine candidates have undergone clinical evaluation.

Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) shoulder the bulk of the global burden of infectious diseases and drug resistance. We searched for supranational networks performing antimicrobial resistance (AMR) surveillance in LMICs and assessed their organization, methodology, impacts and challenges. Since 2000, 72 supranational networks for AMR surveillance in bacteria, fungi, HIV, TB and malaria have been created that have involved LMICs, of which 34 are ongoing. The median (range) duration of the networks was 6 years (1–70) and the number of LMICs included was 8 (1–67). Networks were categorized as WHO/governmental (n = 26), academic (n = 24) or pharma initiated (n = 22). Funding sources varied, with 30 networks receiving public or WHO funding, 25 corporate, 13 trust or foundation, and 4 funded from more than one source. The leading global programmes for drug resistance surveillance in TB, malaria and HIV gather data in LMICs through periodic active surveillance efforts or combined active and passive approaches. The biggest challenges faced by these networks has been achieving high coverage across LMICs and complying with the recommended frequency of reporting. Obtaining high quality, representative surveillance data in LMICs is challenging. Antibiotic resistance surveillance requires a level of laboratory infrastructure and training that is not widely available in LMICs. The nascent Global Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance System (GLASS) aims to build up passive surveillance in all member states. Past experience suggests complementary active approaches may be needed in many LMICs if representative, clinically relevant, meaningful data are to be obtained. Maintaining an up-to-date registry of networks would promote a more coordinated approach to surveillance.