Humoral and cellular responses to a non-adjuvanted monovalent H1N1 pandemic influenza vaccine in hospital employees.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of the H1N1 influenza vaccine relies on the induction of both humoral and cellular responses. This study evaluated the humoral and cellular responses to a monovalent non-adjuvanted pandemic influenza A/H1N1 vaccine in occupationally exposed subjects who were previously vaccinated with a seasonal vaccine. METHODS: Sixty healthy workers from a respiratory disease hospital were recruited. Sera and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) were obtained prior to and 1 month after vaccination with a non-adjuvanted monovalent 2009 H1N1 vaccine (Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine Panenza, Sanofi Pasteur). Antibody titers against the pandemic A/H1N1 influenza virus were measured via hemagglutination inhibition (HI) and microneutralization assays. Antibodies against the seasonal HA1 were assessed by ELISA. The frequency of IFN-γ-producing cells as well as CD4+ and CD8+ T cell proliferation specific to the pandemic virus A/H1N peptides, seasonal H1N1 peptides and seasonal H3N2 peptides were assessed using ELISPOT and flow cytometry. RESULTS: At baseline, 6.7% of the subjects had seroprotective antibody titers. The seroconversion rate was 48.3%, and the seroprotection rate was 66.7%. The geometric mean titers (GMTs) were significantly increased (from 6.8 to 64.9, p < 0.05). Forty-nine percent of the subjects had basal levels of specific IFN-γ-producing T cells to the pandemic A/H1N1 peptides that were unchanged post-vaccination. CD4+ T cell proliferation in response to specific pandemic A/H1N1 virus peptides was also unchanged; in contrast, the antigen-specific proliferation of CD8+ T cells significantly increased post-vaccination. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that a cellular immune response that is cross-reactive to pandemic influenza antigens may be present in populations exposed to the circulating seasonal influenza virus prior to pandemic or seasonal vaccination. Additionally, we found that the pandemic vaccine induced a significant increase in CD8+ T cell proliferation.

Prevalence of latent and active tuberculosis among dairy farm workers exposed to cattle infected by Mycobacterium bovis.

BACKGROUND: Human tuberculosis caused by M. bovis is a zoonosis presently considered sporadic in developed countries, but remains a poorly studied problem in low and middle resource countries. The disease in humans is mainly attributed to unpasteurized dairy products consumption. However, transmission due to exposure of humans to infected animals has been also recognized. The prevalence of tuberculosis infection and associated risk factors have been insufficiently characterized among dairy farm workers (DFW) exposed in settings with poor control of bovine tuberculosis. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Tuberculin skin test (TST) and Interferon-gamma release assay (IGRA) were administered to 311 dairy farm and abattoir workers and their household contacts linked to a dairy production and livestock facility in Mexico. Sputa of individuals with respiratory symptoms and samples from routine cattle necropsies were cultured for M. bovis and resulting spoligotypes were compared. The overall prevalence of latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) was 76.2% (95% CI, 71.4-80.9%) by TST and 58.5% (95% CI, 53.0-64.0%) by IGRA. Occupational exposure was associated to TST (OR 2.72; 95% CI, 1.31-5.64) and IGRA (OR 2.38; 95% CI, 1.31-4.30) adjusting for relevant variables. Two subjects were diagnosed with pulmonary tuberculosis, both caused by M. bovis. In one case, the spoligotype was identical to a strain isolated from bovines. CONCLUSIONS: We documented a high prevalence of latent and pulmonary TB among workers exposed to cattle infected with M. bovis, and increased risk among those occupationally exposed in non-ventilated spaces. Interspecies transmission is frequent and represents an occupational hazard in this setting.

Emerging mitigation needs and sustainable options for solving the arsenic problems of rural and isolated urban areas in Latin America - a critical analysis.

In this work, current information about the contamination of ground- and surface-water resources by arsenic from geogenic sources in Latin America is presented together with possible emerging mitigation solutions. The problem is of the same order of magnitude as other world regions, such as SE Asia, but it is often not described in English. Despite the studies undertaken by numerous local researchers, and the identification of proven treatment methods for the specific water conditions encountered, no technologies have been commercialized due to a current lack of funding and technical assistance. Emerging, low-cost technologies to mitigate the problem of arsenic in drinking water resources that are suitable for rural and urban areas lacking centralized water supplies have been evaluated. The technologies generally use simple and low-cost equipment that can easily be handled and maintained by the local population. Experiences comprise (i) coagulation/filtration with iron and aluminum salts, scaled-down for small community- and household-scale-applications, (ii) adsorption techniques using low-cost arsenic sorbents, such as geological materials (clays, laterites, soils, limestones), natural organic-based sorbents (natural biomass), and synthetic materials. TiO(2)-heterogeneous photocatalysis and zerovalent iron, especially using nanoscale particles, appear to be promising emergent technologies. Another promising innovative method for rural communities is the use of constructed wetlands using native perennial plants for arsenic rhizofiltration. Small-scale simple reverse osmosis equipment (which can be powered by wind or solar energy) that is suitable for small communities can also be utilized. The individual benefits of the different methods have been evaluated in terms of (i) size of the treatment device, (ii) arsenic concentration and distribution of species, chemical composition and grade of mineralization in the raw water, (iii) guidelines for the remaining As concentration, (iv) economical constrains, (v) complexity of installation and maintenance, and infrastructure constraints (e.g. electricity needs).