Summary The collapse of global cooperation and a failure of international solidarity have led to many low-income and middle-income countries being denied access to molecular diagnostics in the COVID-19 pandemic response. Yet the scarcity of knowledge on the dynamics of the immune response to infection has led to hesitation on recommending the use of rapid immunodiagnostic tests, even though rapid serology tests are commercially available and scalable. On the basis of our knowledge and understanding of viral infectivity and host response, we urge countries without the capacity to do molecular testing at scale to research the use of serology tests to triage symptomatic patients in community settings, to test contacts of confirmed cases, and in situational analysis and surveillance. The WHO R&D Blue Print expert group identified eight priorities for research and development, of which the highest is to mobilise research on rapid point-of-care diagnostics for use at the community level. This research should inform control programmes of the required performance and utility of rapid serology tests, which, when applied specifically for appropriate public health measures to then be put in place, can make a huge difference.

Neurobehavioural and psychiatric symptoms are common in a range of neurodegenerative disorders with distinct profiles which are helpful in the diagnosis and monitoring of these disorders. The Cambridge Behavioural Inventory (CBI) has been shown to distinguish frontotemporal dementia (FTD), Alzheimer’s disease (AD), Huntington’s disease (HD) and Parkinson’s disease (PD), but it is lengthy.ObjectiveTo develop a shorter version of the 81 item CBI.MethodsCBI data from 450 participants with behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia (bv-FTD) (64), AD (96), PD (215) and HD (75) were analysed using Principal Components Analysis and measures of internal consistency (Cronbach alpha).ResultsA reduced 45-item questionnaire was developed. The instrument identified distinct behavioural profiles and performed as well as the original version.ConclusionsA shorter (45 item) version of the CBI is capable of differentiating bv-FTD and AD from PD and HD. It may be useful in delineating the type and extent of problems in these disorders as well as monitoring therapeutic interventions.

Background HIV infection is known to cause developmental delay, but the effects of HIV exposure without infection during pregnancy on child development are unclear. We compared the neurodevelopmental outcomes of HIV-exposed uninfected and HIV-unexposed children during their first 2 years of life. Methods Pregnant women (>18 years of age) at 20-28 weeks' gestation were enrolled into the Drakenstein Child Health cohort study while attending routine antenatal appointments at one of two peri-urban community-based clinics in Paarl, South Africa. Livebirths born to enrolled women during follow-up were included in the birth cohort. Mothers and infants received antenatal and postnatal HIV testing and antiretroviral therapy per local guidelines. Developmental assessments on the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development, third edition (BSID-III), were done in a subgroup of infants at 6 months of age, and in the full cohort at 24 months of age, with assessors masked to HIV exposure status. Mean raw scores and the proportions of children categorised as having a delay (scores <-2 SDs from the reference mean) on BSID-III were compared between HIV-exposed uninfected and HIV-unexposed children. Findings 1225 women were enrolled between March 5, 2012, and March 31, 2015. Of 1143 livebirths, 1065 (93%) children were in follow-up at 6 months and 1000 (87%) at 24 months. Two children were diagnosed with HIV infection between birth and 24-month follow-up and were excluded from the analysis. BSID-III assessments were done in 260 (24%) randomly selected children (61 HIV-exposed uninfected, 199 HIV-unexposed) at 6 months and in 732 (73%) children (168 HIV-exposed uninfected, 564 HIV-unexposed) at 24 months. All HIV-exposed uninfected children were exposed to antiretrovirals (88% to maternal triple antiretroviral therapy). BSID-III outcomes did not significantly differ between HIV-exposed uninfected and HIV-unexposed children at 6 months. At 24 months, HIV-exposed uninfected children scored lower than HIV-unexposed for receptive language (adjusted mean difference-1•03 [95% CI-1•69 to-0•37]) and expressive language (-1•17 [-2•09 to-0•24]), whereas adjusted differences in cognitive (-0•45 [-1•32 to 0•43]), fine motor (0•09 [-0•49 to 0•66]), and gross motor (-0•41 [-1•09 to 0•27]) domain scores between groups were not significant. Correspondingly, the proportions of HIV-exposed uninfected children with developmental delay were higher than those of HIV-unexposed children for receptive language (adjusted odds ratio 1•96 [95% CI 1•09 to 3•52]) and expressive language (2•14 [1•11 to 4•15]). Interpretation Uninfected children exposed to maternal HIV infection and antiretroviral therapy have increased odds of receptive and expressive language delays at 2 years of age. Further long-term work is needed to understand developmental outcomes of HIV-exposed uninfected children, especially in regions such as sub-Saharan Africa that have a high prevalence of HIV exposure among children.