The study assessed the effectiveness of operational, community-based Vistusertib larval habitat surveillance systems within the Urban Malaria Control Programme (UMCP) in urban Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Methods: Cross-sectional surveys were carried out to assess the ability of community-owned resource persons (CORPs) to detect mosquito breeding sites and larvae in areas with and without larviciding. Potential environmental and programmatic determinants of habitat detection coverage
and detection sensitivity of mosquito larvae were recorded during guided walks with 64 different CORPs to assess the accuracy of data each had collected the previous day.
Results: CORPs reported the presence of 66.2% of all aquatic habitats (1,963/2,965), but only detected Anopheles larvae in 12.6% (29/230) of habitats that contained them. Detection sensitivity was particularly low for late-stage Anopheles (2.7%, 3/111), the most direct programmatic indicator of malaria vector productivity. Whether a CORP found a wet habitat or not was associated with his/her unfamiliarity with the area (Odds Ratio (OR) [95% confidence interval (CI)] = 0.16 [0.130, 0.203], P < 0.001), the habitat type (P < 0.001) or a fence around the compound (OR [95% CI] = 0.50 [0.386, 0.646], P < 0.001). The majority of mosquito PD-L1 inhibitor larvae (Anophelines 57.8% (133/230) and Culicines 55.9% (461/825) were
not reported because their habitats were not found. The only factor affecting detection of Anopheline larvae in habitats that were reported by CORPs was larviciding, which reduced sensitivity (OR [95% CI] = 0.37 [0.142, 0.965], P = 0.042).
Conclusions: Accessibility of habitats in urban settings presents a major challenge because the majority of compounds are fenced for security reasons. Furthermore, CORPs under-reported larvae
especially where larvicides were applied. This UMCP system for larval surveillance BX-795 in cities must be urgently revised to improve access to enclosed compounds and the sensitivity with which habitats are searched for larvae.”
“Background: The clinical profile of cluster headache in Chinese patients have not been fully studied.
Methods: The classification and clinical features of 120 consecutive patients with cluster headache (105 males, 15 females; mean age, 34.9 +/- 10.5 years) visiting at International Headache Center from May 2010 to August 2012 were analyzed.
Results: Patients came from 16 different regions of China. Mean age at onset of cluster headache was 26.7 +/- 10.9 years. Only 13 patients (10.8%) had previously been diagnosed with cluster headache. Mean time to diagnosis from first symptoms was 8.2 +/- 7.1 years (range, 0-35 years). Chronic cluster headache was observed in only 9 patients (7.5%). The most commonly reported location of cluster headache was temporal region (75.0%), followed by retro-orbital region (68.3%), forehead (32.