Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 14 de 14
Filter
1.
Glob Health Sci Pract ; 10(1)2022 02 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1744624

ABSTRACT

Lack of trust in the health care system can serve as a barrier to service utilization, especially in pandemic and postemergency settings. Although previous research has identified domains of trust that contribute to individuals' trust in the health system, little research exists from low- and middle-income countries, particularly during and after infectious disease outbreaks. The current study-conducted to inform activities for a post-Ebola program-explored perceptions and experiences of health care provision in post-Ebola Guinea, with particular attention to trust. Researchers conducted in-depth interviews with health workers (n=15) and mothers of young children (n=29) along with 12 focus group discussions with grandmothers of young children and 12 with male heads of household. The study occurred in Basse Guinée and Guinée Forestière-2 areas hardest hit by Ebola. Respondents identified a breach of trust during the epidemic, with several domains emerging as relevant for renewed trust and care-seeking practices. At the core of a trusting client-provider relationship was the inherent belief that providers had an intrinsic duty to treat clients well. From there, perceived provider competence, the hospitality at the facility, provider empathy, transparency about costs, and commitment to confidentiality emerged as relevant influences on participant trust in providers. Community members and providers expressed similar viewpoints regarding trust and discussed the role of open communication and community mobilization in rebuilding trust. Study findings informed a variety of program activities, including the development of campaign messages and interpersonal communication trainings for health workers. This study provides valuable insight about some underlying components of trust that can provide key leverage points to rebuild trust and promote care seeking in postemergency settings. This insight is informing program activities in the current Ebola response in Guinea and could be useful in other crises, such as the global coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Hemorrhagic Fever, Ebola , Child , Child, Preschool , Guinea/epidemiology , Hemorrhagic Fever, Ebola/epidemiology , Hemorrhagic Fever, Ebola/therapy , Humans , Male , Qualitative Research , Trust
2.
Acta Virol ; 65(4): 350-364, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1607905

ABSTRACT

Zoonotic transmission of highly pathogenic viruses, are a cause of deadly epidemics around the globe. These are of particular concern as evident from the recent global pandemic due to Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The genus Ebolavirus belongs to the Filoviridae family and its members are known to cause the Ebola virus disease (EVD), a highly contagious disease with a mortality rate of approximately 90%. The similarity of the clinical symptoms to those of various tropical ailments poses a high risk of misdiagnosis. Diagnostic strategies currently utilized include real time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction, amongst others. No specific treatment exists at present, and the management of patients is aimed at the treatment of complications augmented with supportive clinical care. The recent outbreak of EVD in West Africa, which began in 2014, led to accelerated development of vaccines and treatment. In this review, we contemplate the origin of the ebolaviruses, discuss the clinical aspects and treatment of the disease, depict the current diagnostic strategies of the virus, as well discuss its pathogenesis. Keywords: Ebolavirus; viral origin; treatment; pathogenicity of Ebola; Ebola virus disease.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Ebolavirus , Hemorrhagic Fever, Ebola , Disease Outbreaks , Ebolavirus/genetics , Hemorrhagic Fever, Ebola/diagnosis , Hemorrhagic Fever, Ebola/epidemiology , Hemorrhagic Fever, Ebola/therapy , Humans , Perception , SARS-CoV-2
3.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol ; 42(11): 1307-1312, 2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1574178

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: In response to the 2013-2016 Ebola virus disease outbreak, the US government designated certain healthcare institutions as Ebola treatment centers (ETCs) to better prepare for future emerging infectious disease outbreaks. This study investigated ETC experiences and critical care policies for patients with viral hemorrhagic fever (VHF). DESIGN: A 58-item questionnaire elicited information on policies for 9 critical care interventions, factors that limited care provision, and innovations developed to deliver care. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The questionnaire was sent to 82 ETCs. METHODS: We analyzed ordinal and categorical data pertaining to the ETC characteristics and descriptive data about their policies and perceived challenges. Statistical analyses assessed whether ETCs with experience caring for VHF patients were more likely to have critical care policies than those that did not. RESULTS: Of the 27 ETCs who responded, 17 (63%) were included. Among them, 8 (47%) reported experience caring for persons under investigation or confirmed cases of VHF. Most felt ready to provide intubation, chest compressions, and renal replacement therapy to these patients. The factors most cited for limiting care were staff safety and clinical futility. Innovations developed to better provide care included increased simulation training and alternative technologies for procedures and communication. CONCLUSIONS: There were broad similarities in critical care policies and limitations among institutions. There were several interventions, namely ECMO and cricothyrotomy, which few institutions felt ready to provide. Future studies could identify obstacles to providing these interventions and explore policy changes after increased experience with novel infectious diseases, such as COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Hemorrhagic Fever, Ebola , Critical Illness , Disease Outbreaks , Hemorrhagic Fever, Ebola/epidemiology , Hemorrhagic Fever, Ebola/therapy , Humans , Organizational Policy , SARS-CoV-2
4.
BMC Med ; 19(1): 160, 2021 07 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1301851

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: East Africa is home to 170 million people and prone to frequent outbreaks of viral haemorrhagic fevers and various bacterial diseases. A major challenge is that epidemics mostly happen in remote areas, where infrastructure for Biosecurity Level (BSL) 3/4 laboratory capacity is not available. As samples have to be transported from the outbreak area to the National Public Health Laboratories (NPHL) in the capitals or even flown to international reference centres, diagnosis is significantly delayed and epidemics emerge. MAIN TEXT: The East African Community (EAC), an intergovernmental body of Burundi, Rwanda, Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda, and South Sudan, received 10 million € funding from the German Development Bank (KfW) to establish BSL3/4 capacity in the region. Between 2017 and 2020, the EAC in collaboration with the Bernhard-Nocht-Institute for Tropical Medicine (Germany) and the Partner Countries' Ministries of Health and their respective NPHLs, established a regional network of nine mobile BSL3/4 laboratories. These rapidly deployable laboratories allowed the region to reduce sample turn-around-time (from days to an average of 8h) at the centre of the outbreak and rapidly respond to epidemics. In the present article, the approach for implementing such a regional project is outlined and five major aspects (including recommendations) are described: (i) the overall project coordination activities through the EAC Secretariat and the Partner States, (ii) procurement of equipment, (iii) the established laboratory setup and diagnostic panels, (iv) regional training activities and capacity building of various stakeholders and (v) completed and ongoing field missions. The latter includes an EAC/WHO field simulation exercise that was conducted on the border between Tanzania and Kenya in June 2019, the support in molecular diagnosis during the Tanzanian Dengue outbreak in 2019, the participation in the Ugandan National Ebola response activities in Kisoro district along the Uganda/DRC border in Oct/Nov 2019 and the deployments of the laboratories to assist in SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics throughout the region since early 2020. CONCLUSIONS: The established EAC mobile laboratory network allows accurate and timely diagnosis of BSL3/4 pathogens in all East African countries, important for individual patient management and to effectively contain the spread of epidemic-prone diseases.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Community Networks , Dengue/epidemiology , Hemorrhagic Fever, Ebola/epidemiology , Laboratories , Mobile Health Units , Burundi/epidemiology , COVID-19/therapy , Dengue/prevention & control , Epidemics , Hemorrhagic Fever, Ebola/prevention & control , Hemorrhagic Fever, Ebola/therapy , Humans , Kenya/epidemiology , Mobile Health Units/economics , Public Health , Rwanda/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , South Sudan/epidemiology , Tanzania/epidemiology , Uganda/epidemiology
5.
Emerg Med Clin North Am ; 39(3): 453-465, 2021 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1263258

ABSTRACT

The role of the emergency provider lies at the forefront of recognition and treatment of novel and re-emerging infectious diseases in children. Familiarity with disease presentations that might be considered rare, such as vaccine-preventable and non-endemic illnesses, is essential in identifying and controlling outbreaks. As we have seen thus far in the novel coronavirus pandemic, susceptibility, severity, transmission, and disease presentation can all have unique patterns in children. Emergency providers also have the potential to play a public health role by using lessons learned from the phenomena of vaccine hesitancy and refusal.


Subject(s)
Communicable Diseases, Emerging/epidemiology , Pediatrics , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/therapy , COVID-19/transmission , Chickenpox/diagnosis , Chickenpox/therapy , Chickenpox/transmission , Chikungunya Fever/diagnosis , Chikungunya Fever/therapy , Chikungunya Fever/transmission , Child , Communicable Diseases, Emerging/immunology , Decision Trees , Dengue/diagnosis , Dengue/therapy , Dengue/transmission , Emergency Medicine , Hemorrhagic Fever, Ebola/diagnosis , Hemorrhagic Fever, Ebola/therapy , Hemorrhagic Fever, Ebola/transmission , Humans , Incidence , Malaria/diagnosis , Malaria/therapy , Malaria/transmission , Measles/diagnosis , Measles/therapy , Measles/transmission , Physician's Role , Public Health , SARS-CoV-2 , Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome , Travel-Related Illness , Vaccination , Vaccination Refusal , Whooping Cough/diagnosis , Whooping Cough/therapy , Whooping Cough/transmission , Zika Virus Infection/diagnosis , Zika Virus Infection/therapy , Zika Virus Infection/transmission
6.
Global Health ; 17(1): 46, 2021 04 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1183549

ABSTRACT

Health innovations are generally oriented on a techno-economic vision. In this perspective, technologies are seen as an end in themselves, and there is no arrangement between the technical and the social values of innovation. This vision prevails in sanitary crises, in which management is carried out based on the search for punctual, reactive, and technical solutions to remedy a specific problem without a systemic/holistic, sustainable, or proactive approach. This paper attempts to contribute to the literature on the epistemological orientation of innovations in the field of public health. Taking the Covid-19 and Ebola crises as examples, the primary objective is to show how innovation in health is oriented towards a techno-economic paradigm. Second, we propose a repositioning of public health innovation towards a social paradigm that will put more emphasis on the interaction between social and health dimensions in the perspective of social change. We will conclude by highlighting the roles that public health could play in allowing innovations to have more social value, especially during sanitary crises.


Subject(s)
Biomedical Technology , COVID-19/therapy , Health Care Reform , Health Priorities , Hemorrhagic Fever, Ebola/therapy , Public Health , Access to Information , COVID-19/prevention & control , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Diffusion of Innovation , Health Equity , Health Services Accessibility , Hemorrhagic Fever, Ebola/prevention & control , Humans , Pharmaceutical Preparations , Social Conditions , Social Environment , Social Values , Technology , Vaccines
7.
Public Health Rep ; 136(2): 148-153, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1088393

ABSTRACT

Force health protection (FHP) is defined as "the prevention of disease and injury in order to protect the strength and capabilities" of any service population. FHP was the foundational principal of the US Public Health Service (USPHS). President John Adams' signing of An Act for Sick and Disabled Seamen on July 16, 1798, marked the first dedication of US federal resources to ensuring the well-being of US civilian sailors and Naval service members. On January 4, 1889, President Cleveland enacted the USPHS Commissioned Corps, creating the world's first (and still only) uniformed service dedicated to promoting, protecting, and advancing the health and safety of the United States and the world. Building on the lessons of the 2014-2015 response to the Ebola virus pandemic, the Corps Care program was formalized in 2017 to establish and implement a uniform and comprehensive strategy to meet the behavioral health, medical, and spiritual needs of all Commissioned Corps officers. Its role was expanded in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, which has placed unprecedented demands on health care workers and spotlighted the need for FHP strategies. We describe the FHP roles of the Corps Care program for the resiliency of Commission Corps officers in general and the Corps' impact during the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Qualitative analysis of FHP discussions with deployed officers highlights the unique challenges to FHP presented by the pandemic response.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Health Personnel/psychology , Hemorrhagic Fever, Ebola/epidemiology , Resilience, Psychological , United States Public Health Service , COVID-19/therapy , Hemorrhagic Fever, Ebola/therapy , United States
8.
PLoS One ; 16(2): e0246320, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1059862

ABSTRACT

Emerging infectious diseases such as Ebola Virus Disease (EVD), Nipah Virus Encephalitis and Lassa fever pose significant epidemic threats. Responses to emerging infectious disease outbreaks frequently occur in resource-constrained regions and under high pressure to quickly contain the outbreak prior to potential spread. As seen in the 2020 EVD outbreaks in the Democratic Republic of Congo and the current COVID-19 pandemic, there is a continued need to evaluate and address the ethical challenges that arise in the high stakes environment of an emerging infectious disease outbreak response. The research presented here provides analysis of the ethical challenges with regard to allocation of limited resources, particularly experimental therapeutics, using the 2013-2016 EVD outbreak in West Africa as a case study. In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with senior healthcare personnel (n = 16) from international humanitarian aid organizations intimately engaged in the 2013-2016 EVD outbreak response in West Africa. Interviews were recorded in private setting, transcribed, and iteratively coded using grounded theory methodology. A majority of respondents indicated a clear propensity to adopt an ethical framework of guiding principles for international responses to emerging infectious disease outbreaks. Respondents agreed that prioritization of frontline workers' access to experimental therapeutics was warranted based on a principle of reciprocity. There was widespread acceptance of adaptive trial designs and greater trial transparency in providing access to experimental therapeutics. Many respondents also emphasized the importance of community engagement in limited resource allocation scheme design and culturally appropriate informed consent procedures. The study results inform a potential ethical framework of guiding principles based on the interview participants' insights to be adopted by international response organizations and their healthcare workers in the face of allocating limited resources such as experimental therapeutics in future emerging infectious disease outbreaks to ease the moral burden of individual healthcare providers.


Subject(s)
Communicable Diseases, Emerging/therapy , Disease Outbreaks/ethics , Health Care Rationing/ethics , Hemorrhagic Fever, Ebola/therapy , Adaptive Clinical Trials as Topic/ethics , Adult , Africa, Western/epidemiology , Female , Health Personnel/ethics , Humans , Interviews as Topic , Male , Middle Aged , Therapies, Investigational/ethics
9.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 11: CD013779, 2020 11 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1006090

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Evidence from disease epidemics shows that healthcare workers are at risk of developing short- and long-term mental health problems. The World Health Organization (WHO) has warned about the potential negative impact of the COVID-19 crisis on the mental well-being of health and social care professionals. Symptoms of mental health problems commonly include depression, anxiety, stress, and additional cognitive and social problems; these can impact on function in the workplace. The mental health and resilience (ability to cope with the negative effects of stress) of frontline health and social care professionals ('frontline workers' in this review) could be supported during disease epidemics by workplace interventions, interventions to support basic daily needs, psychological support interventions, pharmacological interventions, or a combination of any or all of these. OBJECTIVES: Objective 1: to assess the effects of interventions aimed at supporting the resilience and mental health of frontline health and social care professionals during and after a disease outbreak, epidemic or pandemic. Objective 2: to identify barriers and facilitators that may impact on the implementation of interventions aimed at supporting the resilience and mental health of frontline health and social care professionals during and after a disease outbreak, epidemic or pandemic. SEARCH METHODS: On 28 May 2020 we searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Global Index Medicus databases and WHO Institutional Repository for Information Sharing. We also searched ongoing trials registers and Google Scholar. We ran all searches from the year 2002 onwards, with no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies in which participants were health and social care professionals working at the front line during infectious disease outbreaks, categorised as epidemics or pandemics by WHO, from 2002 onwards. For objective 1 we included quantitative evidence from randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies and interrupted time series studies, which investigated the effect of any intervention to support mental health or resilience, compared to no intervention, standard care, placebo or attention control intervention, or other active interventions. For objective 2 we included qualitative evidence from studies that described barriers and facilitators to the implementation of interventions. Outcomes critical to this review were general mental health and resilience. Additional outcomes included psychological symptoms of anxiety, depression or stress; burnout; other mental health disorders; workplace staffing; and adverse events arising from interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of review authors independently applied selection criteria to abstracts and full papers, with disagreements resolved through discussion. One review author systematically extracted data, cross-checked by a second review author. For objective 1, we assessed risk of bias of studies of effectiveness using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. For objective 2, we assessed methodological limitations using either the CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme) qualitative study tool, for qualitative studies, or WEIRD (Ways of Evaluating Important and Relevant Data) tool, for descriptive studies. We planned meta-analyses of pairwise comparisons for outcomes if direct evidence were available. Two review authors extracted evidence relating to barriers and facilitators to implementation, organised these around the domains of the Consolidated Framework of Implementation Research, and used the GRADE-CERQual approach to assess confidence in each finding. We planned to produce an overarching synthesis, bringing quantitative and qualitative findings together. MAIN RESULTS: We included 16 studies that reported implementation of an intervention aimed at supporting the resilience or mental health of frontline workers during disease outbreaks (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS): 2; Ebola: 9; Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS): 1; COVID-19: 4). Interventions studied included workplace interventions, such as training, structure and communication (6 studies); psychological support interventions, such as counselling and psychology services (8 studies); and multifaceted interventions (2 studies). Objective 1: a mixed-methods study that incorporated a cluster-randomised trial, investigating the effect of a work-based intervention, provided very low-certainty evidence about the effect of training frontline healthcare workers to deliver psychological first aid on a measure of burnout. Objective 2: we included all 16 studies in our qualitative evidence synthesis; we classified seven as qualitative and nine as descriptive studies. We identified 17 key findings from multiple barriers and facilitators reported in studies. We did not have high confidence in any of the findings; we had moderate confidence in six findings and low to very low confidence in 11 findings. We are moderately confident that the following two factors were barriers to intervention implementation: frontline workers, or the organisations in which they worked, not being fully aware of what they needed to support their mental well-being; and a lack of equipment, staff time or skills needed for an intervention. We are moderately confident that the following three factors were facilitators of intervention implementation: interventions that could be adapted for local needs; having effective communication, both formally and socially; and having positive, safe and supportive learning environments for frontline workers. We are moderately confident that the knowledge or beliefs, or both, that people have about an intervention can act as either barriers or facilitators to implementation of the intervention. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of both quantitative and qualitative evidence from studies carried out during or after disease epidemics and pandemics that can inform the selection of interventions that are beneficial to the resilience and mental health of frontline workers. Alternative sources of evidence (e.g. from other healthcare crises, and general evidence about interventions that support mental well-being) could therefore be used to inform decision making. When selecting interventions aimed at supporting frontline workers' mental health, organisational, social, personal, and psychological factors may all be important. Research to determine the effectiveness of interventions is a high priority. The COVID-19 pandemic provides unique opportunities for robust evaluation of interventions. Future studies must be developed with appropriately rigorous planning, including development, peer review and transparent reporting of research protocols, following guidance and standards for best practice, and with appropriate length of follow-up. Factors that may act as barriers and facilitators to implementation of interventions should be considered during the planning of future research and when selecting interventions to deliver within local settings.


Subject(s)
Disease Outbreaks , Health Personnel/psychology , Mental Health , Occupational Health , Resilience, Psychological , Social Workers/psychology , Betacoronavirus , Bias , Burnout, Professional/psychology , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Epidemics , Hemorrhagic Fever, Ebola/epidemiology , Hemorrhagic Fever, Ebola/therapy , Humans , Needs Assessment , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Psychosocial Support Systems , SARS-CoV-2 , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/epidemiology , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/therapy , Workplace
10.
Paediatr Int Child Health ; 41(1): 12-27, 2021 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-745876

ABSTRACT

Ebola virus (EBOV) causes an extremely contagious viral haemorrhagic fever associated with high mortality. While, historically, children have represented a small number of total cases of Ebolavirus disease (EVD), in recent outbreaks up to a quarter of cases have been in children. They pose unique challenges in clinical management and infection prevention and control. In this review of paediatric EVD, the epidemiology of past EVD outbreaks with specific focus on children is discussed, the clinical manifestations and laboratory findings are described and key developments in clinical management including specific topics such as viral persistence and breastfeeding while considering unique psychosocial and anthropological considerations for paediatric care including of survivors and orphans and the stigma they face are discussed. In addition to summarising the literature, perspectives based on the authors' experience of EVD outbreaks in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) are described.Abbreviations: ARDS: acute respiratory distress syndrome; aOR: adjusted odds ratio; ALT: alanine transferase; ALIMA: Alliance for International Medical Action; AST: aspartate transaminase; BUN: blood urea nitrogen; CNS: central nervous system; CUBE: chambre d'urgence biosécurisée pour épidémie; COVID-19: coronavirus disease 2019; Ct: cycle threshold; DRC: Democratic Republic of Congo; ETC: ebola treatment centre; ETU: ebola treatment unit; EBOV: ebola virus; EVD: ebolavirus disease; FEAST: fluid expansion as supportive therapy; GP: glycoprotein; IV: intravenous; MEURI: monitored emergency use of unregistered interventions; NETEC: National Ebola Training and Education Centre; NP: nucleoprotein; ORS: oral rehydration solution; PALM: Pamoja Tulinde Maisha; PREVAIL: Partnership for Research on Ebola Virus in Liberia; PPE: personal protective equipment; PCR: polymerase chain reaction; PEP: post-exposure prophylaxis; RDTs: rapid diagnostic tests; RT: reverse transcriptase; RNA: ribonucleic acid; UNICEF: United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund; USA: United States of America; WHO: World Health Organization.


Subject(s)
Hemorrhagic Fever, Ebola/therapy , Adolescent , Breast Feeding , Child , Child, Preschool , Democratic Republic of the Congo/epidemiology , Disease Outbreaks , Hemorrhagic Fever, Ebola/complications , Hemorrhagic Fever, Ebola/epidemiology , Hemorrhagic Fever, Ebola/prevention & control , Humans , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Viral Load
14.
Transfus Med Rev ; 34(3): 145-150, 2020 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-108960

ABSTRACT

As the world faces the current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, extensive efforts have been applied to identify effective therapeutic agents. Convalescent plasma collected from recovered patients has been a therapeutic modality employed for over a hundred years for various infectious pathogens. Specifically, it has been used in the treatment of many viral infections with varying degrees of clinical efficacy. As we consider the use of convalescent plasma in the battle against this new strain of coronavirus, it is prudent to review what is known from past experiences. Accordingly, the aim of this review is to examine in detail studies of convalescent plasma used during previous viral outbreaks and pandemics with particular focus on hemorrhagic fevers, influenza, and other coronaviruses. The concluding sections of this review address the potential use of convalescent plasma during the present-day SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, not only insofar as its clinical benefit but also the steps required to make convalescent plasma treatments readily available for an exponentially growing patient population. By the end, the authors hope to address the extent to which convalescent plasma represents a realistic therapeutic approach, or a distraction from other potentially useful treatments.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , COVID-19 , Hemorrhagic Fever, Ebola/therapy , Humans , Immunization, Passive , Immunoglobulins, Intravenous/therapeutic use , Influenza, Human/therapy , Pandemics , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/therapy , Treatment Outcome
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL