This paper describes an action framework for countries with low tuberculosis (TB) incidence (<100 TB cases per million population) that are striving for TB elimination. The framework sets out priority interventions required for these countries to progress first towards “pre-elimination” (<10 cases per million) and eventually the elimination of TB as a public health problem (less than one case per million). TB epidemiology in most low-incidence countries is characterised by a low rate of transmission in the general population, occasional outbreaks, a majority of TB cases generated from progression of latent TB infection (LTBI) rather than local transmission, concentration to certain vulnerable and hard-to-reach risk groups, and challenges posed by cross-border migration. Common health system challenges are that political commitment, funding, clinical expertise and general awareness of TB diminishes as TB incidence falls. The framework presents a tailored response to these challenges, grouped into eight priority action areas: 1) ensure political commitment, funding and stewardship for planning and essential services; 2) address the most vulnerable and hard-to-reach groups; 3) address special needs of migrants and cross-border issues; 4) undertake screening for active TB and LTBI in TB contacts and selected high-risk groups, and provide appropriate treatment; 5) optimise the prevention and care of drug-resistant TB; 6) ensure continued surveillance, programme monitoring and evaluation and case-based data management; 7) invest in research and new tools; and 8) support global TB prevention, care and control. The overall approach needs to be multisectorial, focusing on equitable access to high-quality diagnosis and care, and on addressing the social determinants of TB. Because of increasing globalisation and population mobility, the response needs to have both national and global dimensions.

International travel is rapidly increasing, as are travelers presenting with illness after they return home. Researchers used a large surveillance database to examine the frequency and patterns of ... Chinese translation Background: International travel continues to increase, particularly to Asia and Africa. Clinicians are increasingly likely to be consulted for advice before travel or by ill re...

More than 244 million international migrants were estimated to live in a foreign country in 2015, leaving apart the massive number of people that have been relocated in their own country. Furthermore, a substantial proportion of international migrants from southern countries do not reach western nations but resettle in neighbouring low-income countries in the same geographical area. Migration is a complex phenomenon, where ‘macro’-, ‘meso’- and ‘micro’-factors act together to inform the final individual decision to migrate, integrating the simpler previous push–pull theory. Among the ‘macro-factors’, the political, demographic, socio-economic and environmental situations are major contributors to migration. These are the main drivers of forced migration, either international or internal, and largely out of individuals’ control. Among the ‘meso-factors’, communication technology, land grabbing and diasporic links play an important role. In particular, social media attract people out of their origin countries by raising awareness of living conditions in the affluent world, albeit often grossly exaggerated, with the diaspora link also acting as an attractor. However, ‘micro-factors’ such as education, religion, marital status and personal attitude to migration also have a key role in making the final decision to migrate an individual choice. The stereotype of the illiterate, poor and rural migrant reaching the borders of affluent countries has to be abandoned. The poorest people simply do not have the means to escape war and poverty and remain trapped in their country or in the neighbouring one. Once in the destination country, migrants have to undergo a difficult and often conflictive integration process in the hosting community. From the health standpoint, newly arrived migrants are mostly healthy (healthy migrant effect), but they may harbour latent infections that need appropriate screening policies. Cultural barriers may sometimes hamper the relation between the migrant patient and the health care provider. The acquisition of western lifestyles is leading to an increase of non-communicable chronic diseases that require attention. Destination countries have to reconsider the positive medium/long-term potential of migration and need to be prepared to receive migrants for the benefit of the migrants themselves and their native population.

Knowledge of factors associated with medication adherence could help HIV clinicians to target persons in need of intervention, design these interventions, and help researchers to plan studies of adherence. This review summarizes the results of 20 studies investigating the issue of barriers to optimal highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) adherence. Only a few determinants were consistently associated with nonadherence. Symptoms and adverse drug effects, psychologic distress, lack of social or family support, complexity of the HAART regimen, low patient self-efficacy, and inconvenience of treatment were the factors most consistently associated with nonadherence. There were inconsistent findings regarding the relationship of adherence and the following variables: sociodemographic characteristics, substance abuse, depressive symptoms, quality of life, CD4+ cell count, knowledge and beliefs about treatment, patients' satisfaction with health care, and patient-provider relationship. A synthesis of findings relating various factors to adherence to HAART is difficult to reach because of several limitations of the existing body of research. These limitations concern the measurement of adherence, the assessment of correlates and predictors of adherence, the study population, and the study design.

Immune and inflammatory responses to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) contribute to disease severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the utility of specific immune-based biomarkers to predict clinical outcome remains elusive. Here, we analyzed levels of 66 soluble biomarkers in 175 Italian patients with COVID-19 ranging from mild/moderate to critical severity and assessed type I IFN–, type II IFN–, and NF-κB–dependent whole-blood transcriptional signatures. A broad inflammatory signature was observed, implicating activation of various immune and nonhematopoietic cell subsets. Discordance between IFN-α2a protein and IFNA2 transcript levels in blood suggests that type I IFNs during COVID-19 may be primarily produced by tissue-resident cells. Multivariable analysis of patients’ first samples revealed 12 biomarkers (CCL2, IL-15, soluble ST2 [sST2], NGAL, sTNFRSF1A, ferritin, IL-6, S100A9, MMP-9, IL-2, sVEGFR1, IL-10) that when increased were independently associated with mortality. Multivariate analyses of longitudinal biomarker trajectories identified 8 of the aforementioned biomarkers (IL-15, IL-2, NGAL, CCL2, MMP-9, sTNFRSF1A, sST2, IL-10) and 2 additional biomarkers (lactoferrin, CXCL9) that were substantially associated with mortality when increased, while IL-1α was associated with mortality when decreased. Among these, sST2, sTNFRSF1A, IL-10, and IL-15 were consistently higher throughout the hospitalization in patients who died versus those who recovered, suggesting that these biomarkers may provide an early warning of eventual disease outcome.