Malaria is declining in many parts of the tropical world as a result of increased provision of effective control interventions (mainly insecticide-treated bed nets and artemisinin-based combination therapies).1 The effects on the clinical epidemiology of malaria differ depending on the level of transmission intensity. Where the transmission intensity was previously low, mortality and case numbers have declined even more, making elimination of malaria at the local and regional levels increasingly possible. Where the transmission intensity was high, the consequences are more complex, reflecting the interplay between malaria transmission and an imperfect acquired immunity. There are places in Africa where a . . .
The deployment of artesunate for severe malaria and the artemisinin combination therapies (ACTs) for uncomplicated malaria has been a major advance in antimalarial therapeutics. These drugs have reduced treated mortality, accelerated recovery and reduced treatment failure rates and transmission from the treated infection. Artemisinin derivatives remain highly effective against falciparum malaria in most malaria endemic areas, but significant resistance has emerged in the Greater Mekong subregion of Southeast Asia. Resistance to artemisinins was followed by resistance to the ACT partner drugs, and fit multidrug resistant parasite lineages have now spread widely across the region. ACTs remain highly effective against P. vivax and the other malaria species. Recent studies have shown that radical curative regimens of primaquine (to prevent relapse) can be shortened to 7 days, and that the newly introduced single dose tafenoquine is an alternative, although the currently recommended dose is insufficient in Southeast Asia and Oceania. Targeted malaria elimination using focal mass treatments with dihydroartemisinin‐piperaquine have proved safe and effective malaria elimination accelerators, but progress overall towards malaria elimination is slow. Indeed since 2015 overall malaria case numbers globally have risen. As new drugs will not become widely available in the near future, active measures to preserve the current antimalarials should be given the highest priority.
Choosing suitable sleeping sites is a common challenge faced by animals across a range of taxa, with important implications for the space usage patterns of individuals, groups, and ultimately populations. A range of factors may affect these decisions, including access to resources nearby, shelter from the elements, safety from predators, territorial defense, and protection of offspring. We investigated the factors driving patterns of sleeping site use in wild Kalahari meerkats (Suricata suricatta), a cooperatively breeding, territorial mongoose species that forages on scattered resources and makes use of multiple sleeping sites (burrows). We found that meerkat groups used some burrows much more often than others. In particular, large burrows near the center of the territory were used more often than small and peripheral burrows, and groups became even more biased toward central burrows when rearing pups. Meerkats also used their sleeping burrows in a nonrandom order. When they changed sleeping burrows, they moved disproportionately to nearby burrows but did not always select the closest burrow. Burrow decisions also reflected responses to short-term conditions: rates of switching burrows increased after encounters with predators and when resources were depleted, whereas group splits were associated with a reduced probability of switching. The group’s dominant female appeared to have disproportionate influence over burrow decisions, as groups were more likely to switch burrows when her foraging success was low. Our results link behavioral and movement ecology to show that a multitude of environmental and social factors shape daily group decisions of where to spend the night.
The purpose of a neck dissection is to control the diseasein the neck and has little influence on long-term survival. Radical neck dissection leads to significant morbidity; this morbidityis decreased in modified radical neck dissections and reduced evenfurther in selective dissections. An analysis was made of 37 consecutive patients with melanoma for an 8-year period presenting with a clinically N1 neck (a single involved node based on clinical examination and radiologic investigation). Six patients underwent radical, 24 modified radical, and 7 selective neck dissections. There was a mean follow-up of 3 years 10 months after primary diagnosis. Minimum follow-up after lymphadenectomy was 18 months, and at this point, there were no cases of local recurrence (neck failure) in any of the survivors in the 3 groups. In our series, there was no difference in locoregional control for the 3 groups. We would recommend a modified radical neck dissection for the N1 neck in melanoma with an intraoperative decision being made on which structures to preserve based on position of involved lymph node and adjacent structures, particularly in younger patients. A selective neck dissection should be considered in those patients with significant comorbidity, distant metastatic disease, or primary sites on the back or posterior scalp.