Suchergebnisse

This is the third in a conference series organized by the Forum on Capital as Power. The present meetings explore the capitalization of power. There are 24 presentations, including keynote addresses and guest presentations by Jeffrey Harrod, Herman Schwartz, Justin Podur, J.J. McMurtry and Jonathan Nitzan. The conference is sponsored by a SSHRC Connection Grant and York University. Attendance is free and all are welcome.

Keynote speakers: * Jeffrey Harrod, University of Amsterdam -- Global Weimarism: The Demise of Cohesive Global Power? * Herman Schwartz, University of Virginia -- Intellectual Property Rights, Collective Action, and the Continuing Power of "Finance" * Justin Podur, York University -- Nature, Capital and Commodification: Ecology and the Capital as Power Framework * J.J. McMurtry, York University -- Community Capital: The Pitfalls and Promise of Local Power * Jonathan Nitzan, York University -- No Way Out: Crime, Punishment and the Limits of Power With the global crisis lingering, many now wonder how capital has become so powerful, and what should be done about it. Although we are eager to provide answers, the problem starts with the question itself: what exactly do we mean by 'capital', and what does it mean to say that capital is 'powerful'? The theme of the 2012 conference is the capitalization of power. The focus is the conversion of qualities to quantities: to theorize and research how the qualities of power – the multifaceted interactions of command and obedience, force and submission, violence and resistance – are universalized and discounted to the quantities of capitalization. The conference will comprise two parts: public presentations open to all (September 28), followed by a closed workshop for the conference participants (September 29-30). The workshop will consist of longer presentations, allowing more time for debate, discussion and contemplation. Financial assistance: we may be able to assist presenters by partly covering the cost of travel and accommodation. This possibility is still tentative; it is conditional on our ability to secure sufficient funding. Deadline for abstract submissions: July 21, 2012.

This surveillance report summarises the information from the I-MOVE-COVID-19 hospital surveillance networks to monitor the COVID-19 pandemic in nine European countries. ; This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 101003673

IntroductionThe cascade of HIV diagnosis, care and treatment (HIV care cascade) is increasingly used to direct and evaluate interventions to increase population antiretroviral therapy (ART) coverage, a key component of treatment as prevention. The ability to compare cascades over time, sub‐population, jurisdiction or country is important. However, differences in data sources and methodology used to construct the HIV care cascade might limit its comparability and ultimately its utility. Our aim was to review systematically the different methods used to estimate and report the HIV care cascade and their comparability.MethodsA search of published and unpublished literature through March 2015 was conducted. Cascades that reported the continuum of care from diagnosis to virological suppression in a demographically definable population were included. Data sources and methods of measurement or estimation were extracted. We defined the most comparable cascade elements as those that directly measured diagnosis or care from a population‐based data set.Results and discussionsThirteen reports were included after screening 1631 records. The undiagnosed HIV‐infected population was reported in seven cascades, each of which used different data sets and methods and could not be considered to be comparable. All 13 used mandatory HIV diagnosis notification systems to measure the diagnosed population. Population‐based data sets, derived from clinical data or mandatory reporting of CD4 cell counts and viral load tests from all individuals, were used in 6 of 12 cascades reporting linkage, 6 of 13 reporting retention, 3 of 11 reporting ART and 6 of 13 cascades reporting virological suppression. Cascades with access to population‐based data sets were able to directly measure cascade elements and are therefore comparable over time, place and sub‐population. Other data sources and methods are less comparable.ConclusionsTo ensure comparability, countries wishing to accurately measure the cascade should utilize complete population‐based data sets from clinical data from elements of a centralized healthcare setting, where available, or mandatory CD4 cell count and viral load test result reporting. Additionally, virological suppression should be presented both as percentage of diagnosed and percentage of estimated total HIV‐infected population, until methods to calculate the latter have been standardized.

IntroductionAn increasing proportion of adult patients initiating antiretroviral therapy (ART) in resource‐limited settings are aged >50 years. Older populations on ART appear to have heightened risk of death, but little is known about factors influencing mortality in this population.MethodsWe performed a retrospective observational multisite cohort study including all adult patients (≥15 years) initiating ART between 2003 and 2013 in programmes supported by Médecins Sans Frontières across 12 countries in Asia, Africa and Europe. Patients were stratified into two age groups, >50 years and 15 to 50 years. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to explore factors associated with mortality.ResultsThe study included 41,088 patients: 2591 (6.3%) were aged >50 years and 38,497 (93.7%) were aged 15 to 50 years. The mortality rate was significantly higher in the age group >50 years [367 (14.2%) deaths; mortality rate 7.67 deaths per 100 person‐years (95% confidence interval, CI: 6.93 to 8.50)] compared to the age group 15 to 50 years [3788 (9.8%) deaths; mortality rate 4.18 deaths per 100 person‐years (95% CI: 4.05 to 4.31)], p<0.0001. Higher CD4 levels at baseline were associated with significantly reduced mortality rates in the 15 to 50 age group but this association was not seen in the >50 age group. WHO Stage 4 conditions were more strongly associated with increased mortality rates in the 15 to 50 age group compared to populations >50 years. WHO Stage 3 conditions were associated with an increased mortality rate in the 15 to 50 age group but not in the >50 age group. Programme region did not affect mortality rates in the >50 age group; however being in an Asian programme was associated with a 36% reduced mortality rate in populations aged 15 to 50 years compared to being in an African programme. There was a higher overall incidence of Stage 3 WHO conditions in people >50 years (12.8/100 person‐years) compared to those 15 to 50 years (8.1/100 person‐years) (p<0.01). The rate of Stage 4 WHO conditions was similar (5.8/100 versus 6.1/100 respectively, p=0.52). Mortality rates on ART associated with the majority of specific WHO conditions were similar between the 15 to 50 and >50 age groups.ConclusionsOlder patients on ART in resource‐limited settings have increased mortality rates, but compared to younger populations this appears to be less influenced by baseline CD4 count and WHO clinical stage. HIV treatment programmes in resource‐limited settings need to consider risk factors associated with mortality on ART in older populations, which may differ to those related to younger adults.

AbstractIntroductionHIV viral load (VL) testing is recommended by the WHO as the preferred method for monitoring patients on antiretroviral therapy (ART). However, evidence that routine VL (RVL) monitoring improves clinical outcomes is lacking.MethodsWe conducted a prospective, randomized controlled trial of RVL monitoring every six months versus a targeted VL (TVL) strategy (routine CD4 plus VL testing if clinical or immunological failure) in patients starting ART between April 2011 and April 2014 at Bach Mai Hospital in Hanoi. Six hundred and forty‐seven subjects were randomized to RVL (n = 305) or TVL monitoring (n = 342) and followed up for three years. Primary endpoints were death or WHO clinical Stage 4 events between six and thirty‐six months of ART and rate of virological suppression at three years.ResultsOverall, 37.1% of subjects were female, median age was 33.4 years (IQR: 29.5 to 38.6), and 47% had a CD4 count ≤100 cells/mm3 at time of ART initiation. Approximately 44% of study events (death, LTFU, withdrawal, or Stage 4 event) and 68% of deaths occurred within the first six months of ART. Among patients on ART at six months, death or Stage 4 event occurred in 3.6% of RVL and 3.9% of TVL (p = 0.823). Survival analysis showed no significant difference between the groups (p = 0.825). Viral suppression at 36 months of ART was 97.2% in RVL and 98.9% in TVL (p = 0.206) at a threshold of 400 copies/mL and was 98.0% in RVL and 98.9% in TVL (p = 0.488) at 1000 copies/mL. In ITT analysis, 20.7% in RVL and 21.9% in TVL (p = 0.693) were unsuppressed at 1000 copies/mL.ConclusionsWe found no significant difference in rates of death or Stage 4 events and virological failure in patients with RVL monitoring compared to those monitored with a TVL strategy after three years of follow‐up. Viral suppression rates were high overall and there were few study events among patients alive and on ART after six months, limiting the study's power to detect a difference among study arms. Nonetheless, these data suggest that the choice of VL monitoring strategy may have less impact on patient outcomes compared to efforts to reduce early mortality and improve ART retention.