Latent tuberculosis screening and treatment in HIV: highly acceptable in a prospective cohort study

Background: People living with HIV (PLWH) are at increased risk of re-activation of latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI). Although UK and international guidelines identify this group as a priority for LTBI screening and treatment, data on attitudes of PLWH to this policy recommendation are lacking. / Methods: A five-point, Likert-style questionnaire was administered to PLWH to assess views and intentions towards accepting LTBI screening and treatment. Subsequent interferon-γ release assay (IGRA) testing was offered, and chemoprophylaxis if required. Influencing demographic and psychological associations with planned, and actual, testing and treatment uptake were assessed using multivariable logistic regression. / Results: 444 out of 716 (62%) patients responded. 417 out of 437 (95.4%) expressed intention to accept LTBI testing. The only significant association was the perceived importance of testing to the individual (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 8.98, 95% CI 2.55-31.67). 390 out of 393 (99.2%) accepted appropriate IGRA screening; 41 out of 390 (10.5%) were positive. 397 out of 431 (92.1%) expressed intention to accept chemoprophylaxis, associated with perceived importance of treatment (aOR 3.52, 95% CI 1.46-8.51), a desire to have treatment for LTBI (aOR 1.77, 95% CI 0.99-3.15) and confidence in taking treatment (aOR 3.77, 95% CI 1.84-7.72). Of those offered chemoprophylaxis, 36 out of 37 (97.3%) accepted and 34 out of 36 (94.4%) completed treatment. There were no correlates with actual screening acceptance. / Conclusions: LTBI is common amongst PLWH, highlighting the importance of robust screening and treatment programmes. This study shows that screening and treatment for LTBI is highly acceptable to PLWH and provides strong, objective evidence for policy-makers developing guidelines in this cohort

Response to DAA Therapy in the NHS England Early Access Programme for Rare HCV Subtypes from Low and Middle Income Countries

No abstract available

Reply to: No effect of resistance-associated substitutions in patients with rare HCV subtypes following treatment with sofosbuvir-containing regimens

No abstract available

Risk of vaccine preventable diseases in UK migrants: A serosurvey and concordance analysis.

BACKGROUND: Vaccine preventable diseases (VPDs) such as measles and rubella cause significant morbidity and mortality globally every year. The World Health Organization (WHO), reported vaccine coverage for both measles and rubella to be 71 % in 2019, indicating an immunity gap. Migrants in the EU/EEA may be at high risk of VPDs due to under-immunisation and poor living conditions. However, there are limited data on VPD seroprotection rates amongst migrants living in the United Kingdom (UK). METHODS: We conducted an exploratory cross-sectional serosurvey amongst a sample of adult migrants living in Leicester, UK to: (a) determine seroprotection rates for measles, varicella zoster, and rubella in this group; (b) identify risk factors associated with seronegativity and, (c) understand if self-reported vaccine or diseases history is an effective measure of seroprotection. Participants gave a blood sample and completed a questionnaire asking basic demographic details and vaccine and disease history for the three VPDs. We summarised the data using median and interquartile range (IQR) for non-parametric continuous variables and count and percentage for categorical variables. We used logistic regression to establish predictors of seroprotection against these diseases. We examined the reliability of self-reported vaccination/disease history for prediction of seroprotection through a concordance analysis. RESULTS: 149 migrants were included in the analysis. Seroprotection rates were: varicella zoster 98 %, rubella 92.6 % and measles 89.3 %. Increasing age was associated with seroprotection (OR 1.07 95 % CI 1.01-1.13 for each year increase in age). Migrants from Africa and the Middle East (aOR 15.16 95 % CI 1.31 - 175.06) and South/East Asia and Pacific regions (aOR 15.43 95 %CI 2.38 - 100.00) are significantly more likely to be seroprotected against measles as compared to migrants from Europe and Central Asia. The proportions of migrants unsure about their vaccination and disease history combined were 53.0 % for measles; 57.7 % for rubella; 43.0 % for varicella. There was no agreement between self-reported vaccination/disease history and serostatus. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest lower levels of seroprotection against measles in migrants living in Leicester, UK, with younger migrants and those from Europe and Central Asia more likely to lack seroprotection. A high proportion of surveyed migrants were unaware of their vaccination/disease history and self-reported vaccine/disease was a poor predictor of seroprotection against VPDs which is important for clinical decision-making regarding catch-up vaccination in this population. Our results, although derived from a small sample, suggest that there may be gaps in seroimmunity for certain VPDs in particular migrant populations. These findings should inform future qualitative studies investigating barriers to vaccine uptake in migrants and population-level seroprevalence studies aimed at determining individualised risk profiles based on demographic and migration factors

Immunogenicity of concomitant SARS-CoV-2 and influenza vaccination in UK healthcare workers: a prospective longitudinal observational study.

BACKGROUND: Co-administration of inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) and SARS-CoV-2 vaccine may impact SARS-CoV-2 vaccine induced humoral immune responses. We aimed to compare IIV and SARS-CoV-2 vaccine induced cellular and humoral immune responses in those receiving concomitant vaccination to those receiving these vaccines separately. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study between 29th September 2021 and 5th August 2022 in healthcare workers who worked at the local NHS trust and in the surrounding area that were vaccinated with a mRNA SARS-CoV-2 booster and cell-based IIV. We measured haemagglutination inhibition assay (HAI) titres, SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike antibody and SARS-CoV-2 ELISpot count pre-vaccination, 1-month and 6-months post-vaccination and evaluated differences by vaccine strategy. FINDINGS: We recruited 420 participants, 234/420 (56%) were vaccinated concomitantly and 186/420 (44%) separately. The 1-month post-vaccination mean fold rise (MFR) in SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike antibodies was lower in those vaccinated concomitantly compared to separately (MFR [95% confidence interval (CI)] 9.7 [8.3, 11.4] vs 12.8 [10.3, 15.9], p = 0.04). After adjustment for age and sex, the adjusted geometric mean ratio (aGMR) remained lower for those vaccinated concomitantly compared to separately (aGMR [95% CI] 0.80 [0.70, 0.92], p = 0.001). At 6-months post-vaccination, we found no statistically significant difference in SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike antibody titres (aGMR [95% CI] 1.09 [0.87, 1.35], p = 0.45). We found no statistically significant correlation between vaccine strategy with SARS-CoV-2 ELISpot count and influenza HAI titres at 1-month and 6-months post-vaccination. INTERPRETATION: Our study found that concomitant vaccination with SARS-CoV-2 and IIV has no statistically significant impacts on long-term immunogenicity. Further research is required to understand the underlying mechanisms and assess the clinical significance of reduced anti-spike antibodies in those vaccinated concomitantly. FUNDING: Research and Innovation (UKRI) through the COVID-19 National Core Studies Immunity (NCSi) programme (MC_PC_20060)

Adjunctive rifampicin to reduce early mortality from Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia: the ARREST RCT.

BACKGROUND: Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia is a common and frequently fatal infection. Adjunctive rifampicin may enhance early S. aureus killing, sterilise infected foci and blood faster, and thereby reduce the risk of dissemination, metastatic infection and death. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether or not adjunctive rifampicin reduces bacteriological (microbiologically confirmed) failure/recurrence or death through 12 weeks from randomisation. Secondary objectives included evaluating the impact of rifampicin on all-cause mortality, clinically defined failure/recurrence or death, toxicity, resistance emergence, and duration of bacteraemia; and assessing the cost-effectiveness of rifampicin. DESIGN: Parallel-group, randomised (1 : 1), blinded, placebo-controlled multicentre trial. SETTING: UK NHS trust hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Adult inpatients (≥ 18 years) with meticillin-resistant or susceptible S. aureus grown from one or more blood cultures, who had received < 96 hours of antibiotic therapy for the current infection, and without contraindications to rifampicin. INTERVENTIONS: Adjunctive rifampicin (600-900 mg/day, oral or intravenous) or placebo for 14 days in addition to standard antibiotic therapy. Investigators and patients were blinded to trial treatment. Follow-up was for 12 weeks (assessments at 3, 7, 10 and 14 days, weekly until discharge and final assessment at 12 weeks post randomisation). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was all-cause bacteriological (microbiologically confirmed) failure/recurrence or death through 12 weeks from randomisation. RESULTS: Between December 2012 and October 2016, 758 eligible participants from 29 UK hospitals were randomised: 370 to rifampicin and 388 to placebo. The median age was 65 years [interquartile range (IQR) 50-76 years]. A total of 485 (64.0%) infections were community acquired and 132 (17.4%) were nosocomial; 47 (6.2%) were caused by meticillin-resistant S. aureus. A total of 301 (39.7%) participants had an initial deep infection focus. Standard antibiotics were given for a median of 29 days (IQR 18-45 days) and 619 (81.7%) participants received flucloxacillin. By 12 weeks, 62 out of 370 (16.8%) patients taking rifampicin versus 71 out of 388 (18.3%) participants taking the placebo experienced bacteriological (microbiologically confirmed) failure/recurrence or died [absolute risk difference -1.4%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -7.0% to 4.3%; hazard ratio 0.96, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.35; p = 0.81]. There were 4 (1.1%) and 5 (1.3%) bacteriological failures (p = 0.82) in the rifampicin and placebo groups, respectively. There were 3 (0.8%) versus 16 (4.1%) bacteriological recurrences (p = 0.01), and 55 (14.9%) versus 50 (12.9%) deaths without bacteriological failure/recurrence (p = 0.30) in the rifampicin and placebo groups, respectively. Over 12 weeks, there was no evidence of differences in clinically defined failure/recurrence/death (p = 0.84), all-cause mortality (p = 0.60), serious (p = 0.17) or grade 3/4 (p = 0.36) adverse events (AEs). However, 63 (17.0%) participants in the rifampicin group versus 39 (10.1%) participants in the placebo group experienced antibiotic or trial drug-modifying AEs (p = 0.004), and 24 (6.5%) participants in the rifampicin group versus 6 (1.5%) participants in the placebo group experienced drug-interactions (p = 0.0005). Evaluation of the costs and health-related quality-of-life impacts revealed that an episode of S. aureus bacteraemia costs an average of £12,197 over 12 weeks. Rifampicin was estimated to save 10% of episode costs (p = 0.14). After adjustment, the effect of rifampicin on total quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) was positive (0.004 QALYs), but not statistically significant (standard error 0.004 QALYs). CONCLUSIONS: Adjunctive rifampicin provided no overall benefit over standard antibiotic therapy in adults with S. aureus bacteraemia. FUTURE WORK: Given the substantial mortality, other antibiotic combinations or improved source management should be investigated. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN37666216, EudraCT 2012-000344-10 and Clinical Trials Authorisation 00316/0243/001. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 59. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.NIHR HTA Programm

Severe community-acquired adenovirus pneumonia in an immunocompetent 44-year-old woman: a case report and review of the literature

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Introduction</p> <p>This case report describes a rare condition: community-acquired adenovirus pneumonia in an immunocompetent adult. The diagnosis was achieved by using a multiplex real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay and highlights the usefulness of these novel molecular diagnostic techniques in patients hospitalized with acute respiratory illness. We also performed a literature search for previously published cases and present a summary of the clinical, laboratory and radiological features of this condition.</p> <p>Case presentation</p> <p>A 44-year-old immunocompetent Caucasian woman was admitted to our hospital with an acute febrile respiratory illness associated with a rash. Her blood tests were non-specifically abnormal, and tests for bacterial pathogens were negative. Her condition rapidly deteriorated while she was in our hospital and required mechanical ventilation and inotropic support. A multiplex real-time RT-PCR assay performed on respiratory specimens to detect respiratory viruses was negative for influenza but positive for adenovirus DNA. The patient recovered on supportive treatment, and antibiotics were stopped after 5 days.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Community-acquired adenovirus pneumonia in immunocompetent adult civilians presents as a non-specific acute febrile respiratory illness followed by the abrupt onset of respiratory failure, often requiring mechanical ventilation. Its laboratory and radiological features are typical of viral infections but also are non-specific. Novel multiplex real-time RT-PCR testing for respiratory viruses enabled us to rapidly make the diagnosis in this case. The new technology could be used more widely in patients with acute respiratory illness and has potential utility for rationalization of the use of antibiotics and improving infection control measures.</p

Interferon gamma release assays for Diagnostic Evaluation of Active tuberculosis (IDEA): test accuracy study and economic evaluation

Background Interferon gamma release assays (IGRAs) are blood tests recommended for the diagnosis of tuberculosis (TB) infection. There is currently uncertainty about the role and clinical utility of IGRAs in the diagnostic workup of suspected active TB in routine NHS clinical practice. Objectives To compare the diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness of T-SPOT.TB® (Oxford Immunotec, Abingdon, UK) and QuantiFERON® TB GOLD In-Tube (Cellestis, Carnegie, VIC, Australia) for diagnosis of suspected active TB and to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of second-generation IGRAs. Design Prospective within-patient comparative diagnostic accuracy study. Setting Secondary care. Participants Adults (aged ≥ 16 years) presenting as inpatients or outpatients at 12 NHS hospital trusts in London, Slough, Oxford, Leicester and Birmingham with suspected active TB. Interventions The index tests [T-SPOT.TB and QuantiFERON GOLD In-Tube (QFT-GIT)] and new enzyme-linked immunospot assays utilising novel Mycobacterium tuberculosis antigens (Rv3615c, Rv2654, Rv3879c and Rv3873) were verified against a composite reference standard applied by a panel of clinical experts blinded to IGRA results. Main outcome measures Sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and likelihood ratios were calculated to determine diagnostic accuracy. A decision tree model was developed to calculate the incremental costs and incremental health utilities [quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)] of changing from current practice to using an IGRA as an initial rule-out test. Results A total of 363 patients had active TB (culture-confirmed and highly probable TB cases), 439 had no active TB and 43 had an indeterminate final diagnosis. Comparing T-SPOT.TB and QFT-GIT, the sensitivities [95% confidence interval (CI)] were 82.3% (95% CI 77.7% to 85.9%) and 67.3% (95% CI 62.1% to 72.2%), respectively, whereas specificities were 82.6% (95% CI 78.6% to 86.1%) and 80.4% (95% CI 76.1% to 84.1%), respectively. T-SPOT.TB was more sensitive than QFT-GIT (relative sensitivity 1.22, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.31; p < 0.001), but the specificities were similar (relative specificity 1.02, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.08; p = 0.3). For both IGRAs the sensitivity was lower and the specificity was higher for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive than for HIV-negative patients. The most promising novel antigen was Rv3615c. The added value of Rv3615c to T-SPOT.TB was a 9% (95% CI 5% to 12%) relative increase in sensitivity at the expense of specificity, which had a relative decrease of 7% (95% CI 4% to 10%). The use of current IGRA tests for ruling out active TB is unlikely to be considered cost-effective if a QALY was valued at £20,000 or £30,000. For T-SPOT.TB, the probability of being cost-effective for a willingness to pay of £20,000/QALY was 26% and 21%, when patients with indeterminate test results were excluded or included, respectively. In comparison, the QFT-GIT probabilities were 8% and 6%. Although the use of IGRAs is cost saving, the health detriment is large owing to delay in diagnosing active TB, leading to prolonged illness. There was substantial between-patient variation in the tests used in the diagnostic pathway. Limitations The recruitment target for the HIV co-infected population was not achieved. Conclusions Although T-SPOT.TB was more sensitive than QFT-GIT for the diagnosis of active TB, the tests are insufficiently sensitive for ruling out active TB in routine clinical practice in the UK. Novel assays offer some promise. Future work The novel assays require evaluation in distinct clinical settings and in immunosuppressed patient groups. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and the NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Respiratory Infections, Imperial College London, London, UK

Effect of Hydroxychloroquine in Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19

BACKGROUND Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine have been proposed as treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) on the basis of in vitro activity and data from uncontrolled studies and small, randomized trials. METHODS In this randomized, controlled, open-label platform trial comparing a range of possible treatments with usual care in patients hospitalized with Covid-19, we randomly assigned 1561 patients to receive hydroxychloroquine and 3155 to receive usual care. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. RESULTS The enrollment of patients in the hydroxychloroquine group was closed on June 5, 2020, after an interim analysis determined that there was a lack of efficacy. Death within 28 days occurred in 421 patients (27.0%) in the hydroxychloroquine group and in 790 (25.0%) in the usual-care group (rate ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97 to 1.23; P = 0.15). Consistent results were seen in all prespecified subgroups of patients. The results suggest that patients in the hydroxychloroquine group were less likely to be discharged from the hospital alive within 28 days than those in the usual-care group (59.6% vs. 62.9%; rate ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83 to 0.98). Among the patients who were not undergoing mechanical ventilation at baseline, those in the hydroxychloroquine group had a higher frequency of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (30.7% vs. 26.9%; risk ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.27). There was a small numerical excess of cardiac deaths (0.4 percentage points) but no difference in the incidence of new major cardiac arrhythmia among the patients who received hydroxychloroquine. CONCLUSIONS Among patients hospitalized with Covid-19, those who received hydroxychloroquine did not have a lower incidence of death at 28 days than those who received usual care

Adjunctive rifampicin for Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia (ARREST): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Background Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia is a common cause of severe community-acquired and hospital-acquired infection worldwide. We tested the hypothesis that adjunctive rifampicin would reduce bacteriologically confirmed treatment failure or disease recurrence, or death, by enhancing early S aureus killing, sterilising infected foci and blood faster, and reducing risks of dissemination and metastatic infection. Methods In this multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, adults (≥18 years) with S aureus bacteraemia who had received ≤96 h of active antibiotic therapy were recruited from 29 UK hospitals. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a computer-generated sequential randomisation list to receive 2 weeks of adjunctive rifampicin (600 mg or 900 mg per day according to weight, oral or intravenous) versus identical placebo, together with standard antibiotic therapy. Randomisation was stratified by centre. Patients, investigators, and those caring for the patients were masked to group allocation. The primary outcome was time to bacteriologically confirmed treatment failure or disease recurrence, or death (all-cause), from randomisation to 12 weeks, adjudicated by an independent review committee masked to the treatment. Analysis was intention to treat. This trial was registered, number ISRCTN37666216, and is closed to new participants. Findings Between Dec 10, 2012, and Oct 25, 2016, 758 eligible participants were randomly assigned: 370 to rifampicin and 388 to placebo. 485 (64%) participants had community-acquired S aureus infections, and 132 (17%) had nosocomial S aureus infections. 47 (6%) had meticillin-resistant infections. 301 (40%) participants had an initial deep infection focus. Standard antibiotics were given for 29 (IQR 18–45) days; 619 (82%) participants received flucloxacillin. By week 12, 62 (17%) of participants who received rifampicin versus 71 (18%) who received placebo experienced treatment failure or disease recurrence, or died (absolute risk difference −1·4%, 95% CI −7·0 to 4·3; hazard ratio 0·96, 0·68–1·35, p=0·81). From randomisation to 12 weeks, no evidence of differences in serious (p=0·17) or grade 3–4 (p=0·36) adverse events were observed; however, 63 (17%) participants in the rifampicin group versus 39 (10%) in the placebo group had antibiotic or trial drug-modifying adverse events (p=0·004), and 24 (6%) versus six (2%) had drug interactions (p=0·0005). Interpretation Adjunctive rifampicin provided no overall benefit over standard antibiotic therapy in adults with S aureus bacteraemia