BACKGROUND
Nipah virus (NiV), a highly lethal virus in humans, circulates in Pteropus bats throughout South and Southeast Asia. Difficulty in obtaining viral genomes from bats means we have a poor understanding of NiV diversity.
METHODS
We develop phylogenetic approaches applied to the most comprehensive collection of genomes to date (N = 257, 175 from bats, 73 from humans) from 6 countries over 22 years (1999–2020). We divide the 4 major NiV sublineages into 15 genetic clusters. Using Approximate Bayesian Computation fit to a spatial signature of viral diversity, we estimate the presence and the average size of genetic clusters per area.
RESULTS
We find that, within any bat roost, there are an average of 2.4 co-circulating genetic clusters, rising to 5.5 clusters at areas of 1500–2000 km2. We estimate that each genetic cluster occupies an average area of 1.3 million km2 (95% confidence interval [CI], .6–2.3 million km2), with 14 clusters in an area of 100 000 km2 (95% CI, 6–24 km2). In the few sites in Bangladesh and Cambodia where genomic surveillance has been concentrated, we estimate that most clusters have been identified, but only approximately 15% of overall NiV diversity has been uncovered.
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings are consistent with entrenched co-circulation of distinct lineages, even within roosts, coupled with slow migration over larger spatial scales.
Treatment regimens for post-kala-azar dermal leishmaniasis (PKDL) are usually extrapolated from those for visceral leishmaniasis (VL), but drug pharmacokinetics (PK) can differ due to disease-specific variations in absorption, distribution, and elimination. This study characterized PK differences in paromomycin and miltefosine between 109 PKDL and 264 VL patients from eastern Africa. VL patients showed 0.55-fold (95%CI: 0.41-0.74) lower capacity for paromomycin saturable reabsorption in renal tubules, and required a 1.44-fold (1.23-1.71) adjustment when relating renal clearance to creatinine-based eGFR. Miltefosine bioavailability in VL patients was lowered by 69% (62-76) at treatment start. Comparing PKDL to VL patients on the same regimen, paromomycin plasma exposures were 0.74-0.87-fold, while miltefosine exposure until the end of treatment day was 1.4-fold. These pronounced PK differences between PKDL and VL patients in eastern Africa highlight the challenges of directly extrapolating dosing regimens from one leishmaniasis presentation to another.
Ebola viruses (EBOVs) are primarily transmitted by contact with infected body fluids. Ebola treatment centers (ETCs) contain areas that are exposed to body fluids through the care of patients suspected or confirmed to have EBOV disease. There are limited data documenting which areas/fomites within ETCs pose a risk for potential transmission. This study conducted environmental surveillance in 2 ETCs in Freetown, Sierra Leone, during the 2014–2016 West African Ebola outbreak.
METHODS
ETCs were surveyed over a 3-week period. Sites to be swabbed were identified with input from field personnel. Swab samples were collected and tested for the presence of EBOV RNA. Ebola-positive body fluid-impregnated cotton pads were serially sampled.
RESULTS
General areas of both ETCs were negative for EBOV RNA. The immediate vicinity of patients was the area most likely to be positive for EBOV RNA. Personal protective equipment became positive during patient care, but chlorine solution washes rendered them negative.
CONCLUSIONS
Personal protective equipment and patient environs do become positive for EBOV RNA, but careful attention to decontamination seems to remove it. EBOV RNA was not detected in general ward spaces. Careful attention to decontamination protocols seems to be important in minimizing the presence of EBOV RNA within ETC wards.