Search

Background: In South Africa malaria is endemic in Mpumalanga, Limpopo and the north-eastern areas of KwaZulu-Natal provinces. South Africa has set targets to eliminate malaria by 2018 and research into complementary vector control tools such as the Sterile Insect Technique (SIT) is ongoing. It is important to understand community perceptions regarding malaria transmission and control interventions to enable development of community awareness campaign messages appropriate to the needs of the community. We aimed to assess knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding malaria transmission to inform a public awareness campaign for SIT in Jozini Local Municipality, Mamfene in KwaZulu-Natal province.Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey in three communities in Mamfene, KwaZulu-Natal during 2015. A structured field piloted questionnaire was administered to 400 randomly selected heads of households. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize data.Results: Of the 400 participants interviewed, 99% had heard about malaria and correctly associated it with mosquito bites. The sources of malaria information were the local health facility (53%), radio (16%) and community meetings (7%). Approximately 63% of the participants were able to identify three or four symptoms of malaria. The majority (76%) were confident that indoor residual spraying (IRS) kills mosquitoes and prevents infection. Bed nets were used by 2% of the participants. SIT knowledge was poor (9%), however 63% of the participants were supportive of mosquito releases for research purposes. The remaining 37% raised concerns and fears, including fear of the unknown and lack of information on the SIT.Conclusion: Appropriate knowledge, positive attitude and acceptable treatment-seeking behaviour for malaria were demonstrated by members of the community. Community involvement will be crucial in achieving success of the SIT and future studies should further investigate concerns raised by the community. The existing communication channels used by the malaria control program can be used; however additional channels should be investigated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Accumulating data suggest that immune effector functions mediated through the Fc portion of HIV-1-specific immunoglobulin G (IgG) are a key component of HIV-1 protective immunity, affecting both disease progression and HIV-1 acquisition. Through studying Fc gamma receptor (Fc?R) variants known to alter IgG Fc-mediated immune responses, we indirectly assessed the role of Fc?R-mediated effector functions in modulating perinatal HIV-1 transmission risk. In this study, genotypic data from 79 HIV-1 infected mothers and 78 HIV-1 infected infants (transmitting cases) were compared to 234 HIV-1 infected mothers and 235 HIV-1 exposed-uninfected infants (non-transmitting controls). Associations, unadjusted and adjusted for multiple comparisons, were assessed for overall transmission and according to mode of transmission—intrapartum (n = 31), in utero (n = 20), in utero-enriched (n = 48). Results: The maternal FcγRIIIa-158V allele that confers enhanced antibody binding affinity and antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity capacity significantly associated with reduced HIV-1 transmission [odds ratio (OR) 0.47, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.28-0.79, P = 0.004; PBonf > 0.05]. In particular, the FcγRIIIa-158V allele was underrepresented in the in utero transmitting group (P = 0.048; PBonf > 0.05) and in utero-enriched transmitting groups (P = 0.0001; PBonf < 0.01). In both mother and infant, possession of an FcγRIIIb-HNA1b allotype that reduces neutrophil-mediated effector functions associated with increased transmission (OR 1.87, 95 % CI 1.08-3.21, P = 0.025; PBonf > 0.05) and acquisition (OR 1.91, 95 % CI 1.11-3.30, P = 0.020; PBonf > 0.05), respectively. Conversely, the infant FcγRIIIb-HNA1a∣1a genotype was significantly protective of perinatal HIV-1 acquisition (OR 0.42, 95 % CI 0.18-0.96, P = 0.040; PBonf > 0.05). Conclusions: The findings of this study suggest a potential role for FcγR-mediated effector functions in perinatal HIV-1 transmission. However, future studies are required to validate the findings of this study, in particular associations that did not retain significance after adjustment for multiple comparisons. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and objectives Nausea and vomiting during pregnancy (NVP) occur commonly. Possible harmful side-effects of conventional medicine to the fetus create the need for alternative options to relieve NVP. This systematic review (SR) investigated current evidence regarding orally administered ginger for the treatment of NVP. The primary objective was to assess the effectiveness of ginger in treating NVP. The secondary objective was to assess the safety of ginger during pregnancy. Methods A comprehensive electronic bibliographic database search was carried out. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the efficacy of orally administered ginger, as treatment for NVP in pregnant women at any stage of pregnancy, published in English, were included. Two researchers independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. RevMan5 software (Cochrane Collaboration) was used for data analysis. p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results Twelve RCTs involving 1278 pregnant women were included. Ginger significantly improved the symptoms of nausea when compared to placebo (MD 1.20, 95% CI 0.56-1.84, p = 0.0002, I² = 0%). Ginger did not significantly reduce the number of vomiting episodes during NVP, when compared to placebo, although there was a trend towards improvement (MD 0.72, 95% CI -0.03-1.46, p = 0.06, I² = 71%). Subgroup analyses seemed to favor the lower daily dosage of <1500 mg ginger for nausea relief. Ginger did not pose a significant risk for spontaneous abortion compared to placebo (RR 3.14, 95% CI 0.65-15.11, p = 0.15; I² = 0%), or to vitamin B6 (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.17-1.42, p = 0.19, I² = 40%). Similarly, ginger did not pose a significant risk for the side-effects of heartburn or drowsiness. Conclusions This review suggests potential benefits of ginger in reducing nausea symptoms in pregnancy (bearing in mind the limited number of studies, variable outcome reporting and low quality of evidence). Ginger did not significantly affect vomiting episodes, nor pose a risk for side-effects or adverse events during pregnancy. Based on evidence from this SR, ginger could be considered a harmless and possibly effective alternative option for women suffering from NVP. International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) registration number: CRD42011001237. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background There is little or no information available on the impact of funding by the food industry on trial outcomes and methodological quality of synbiotics, probiotics and prebiotics research in infants. The objective of this study was to compare the methodological quality, outcomes of food industry sponsored trials versus non industry sponsored trials, with regards to supplementation of synbiotics, probiotics and prebiotics in infant formula. Methods A comprehensive search was conducted to identify published and unpublished randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Cochrane methodology was used to assess the risk of bias of included RCTs in the following domains: 1) sequence generation; 2) allocation concealment; 3) blinding; 4) incomplete outcome data; 5) selective outcome reporting; and 6) other bias. Clinical outcomes and authors' conclusions were reported in frequencies and percentages. The association between source of funding, risk of bias, clinical outcomes and conclusions were assessed using Pearson's Chi-square test and the Fisher's exact test. A p-value < 0.05 was statistically significant. Results Sixty seven completed and 3 on-going RCTs were included. Forty (59.7%) were funded by food industry, 11 (16.4%) by non-industry entities and 16 (23.9%) did not specify source of funding. Several risk of bias domains, especially sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding, were not adequately reported. There was no significant association between the source of funding and sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding and selective reporting, majority of reported clinical outcomes or authors' conclusions. On the other hand, source of funding was significantly associated with the domains of incomplete outcome data, free of other bias domains as well as reported antibiotic use and conclusions on weight gain. Conclusion In RCTs on infants fed infant formula containing probiotics, prebiotics or synbiotics, the source of funding did not influence the majority of outcomes in favour of the sponsors' products. More non-industry funded research is needed to further assess the impact of funding on methodological quality, reported clinical outcomes and authors' conclusions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Synbiotics, probiotics or prebiotics are being added to infant formula to promote growth and development in infants. Previous reviews (2007 to 2011) on term infants given probiotics or prebiotics focused on prevention of allergic disease and food hypersensitivity. This review focused on growth and clinical outcomes in term infants fed only infant formula containing synbiotics, probiotics or prebiotics. Methods: Cochrane methodology was followed using randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which compared term infant formula containing probiotics, prebiotics or synbiotics to conventional infant formula with / without placebo among healthy full term infants. The mean difference (MD) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported for continuous outcomes, risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% CI for dichotomous outcomes. Where appropriate, meta-analysis was performed; heterogeneity was explored using subgroup and sensitivity analyses. If studies were too diverse a narrative synthesis was provided. Results: Three synbiotic studies (N = 475), 10 probiotics studies (N = 933) and 12 prebiotics studies (N = 1563) were included. Synbiotics failed to significantly increase growth in boys and girls. Use of synbiotics increased stool frequency, had no impact on stool consistency, colic, spitting up / regurgitation, crying, restlessness or vomiting. Probiotics in formula also failed to have any significant effect on growth, stool frequency or consistency. Probiotics did not lower the incidence of diarrhoea, colic, spitting up / regurgitation, crying, restlessness or vomiting. Prebiotics in formula did increase weight gain but had no impact on length or head circumference gain. Prebiotics increased stool frequency but had no impact on stool consistency, the incidence of colic, spitting up / regurgitation, crying, restlessness or vomiting. There was no impact of prebiotics on the volume of formula tolerated, infections and gastrointestinal microflora. The quality of evidence was compromised by imprecision, inconsistency of results, use of different study preparations and publication bias. Authors' conclusions: There is not enough evidence to state that supplementation of term infant formula with synbiotics, probiotics or prebiotics does result in improved growth or clinical outcomes in term infants. There is no data available to establish if synbiotics are superior to probiotics or prebiotics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Previous reviews (2005 to 2009) on preterm infants given probiotics or prebiotics with breast milk or mixed feeds focused on prevention of Necrotizing Enterocolitis, sepsis and diarrhea. This review assessed if probiotics, prebiotics led to improved growth and clinical outcomes in formula fed preterm infants. Methods: Cochrane methodology was followed using randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which compared preterm formula containing probiotic(s) or prebiotic(s) to conventional preterm formula in preterm infants. The mean difference (MD) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported for continuous outcomes, risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% CI for dichotomous outcomes. Heterogeneity was assessed by visual inspection of forest plots and a chi2 test. An I2 test assessed inconsistencies across studies. I2> 50% represented substantial heterogeneity. Results: Four probiotics studies (N=212), 4 prebiotics studies (N=126) were included. Probiotics: There were no significant differences in weight gain (MD 1.96, 95% CI: -2.64 to 6.56, 2 studies, n=34) or in maximal enteral feed (MD 35.20, 95% CI: -7.61 to 78.02, 2 studies, n=34), number of stools per day increased significantly in probiotic group (MD 1.60, 95% CI: 1.20 to 2.00, 1 study, n=20). Prebiotics: Galacto-oligosaccharide / Fructo-oligosaccharide (GOS/FOS) yielded no significant difference in weight gain (MD 0.04, 95% CI: -2.65 to 2.73, 2 studies, n=50), GOS/FOS yielded no significant differences in length gain (MD 0.01, 95% CI: -0.03 to 0.04, 2 studies, n=50). There were no significant differences in head growth (MD ?0.01, 95% CI: -0.02 to 0.00, 2 studies, n=76) or age at full enteral feed (MD ?0.79, 95% CI: -2.20 to 0.61, 2 studies, n=86). Stool frequency increased significantly in prebiotic group (MD 0.80, 95% CI: 0.48 to 1.1, 2 studies, n=86). GOS/FOS and FOS yielded higher bifidobacteria counts in prebiotics group (MD 2.10, 95% CI: 0.96 to 3.24, n=27) and (MD 0.48, 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.68, n=56). Conclusions: There is not enough evidence to state that supplementation with probiotics or prebiotics results in improved growth and clinical outcomes in exclusively formula fed preterm infants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]