Search

Background: Respiratory isolation of people with pulmonary tuberculosis (TB), including after treatment initiation, is used to prevent community-based transmission; yet guidelines on duration are limited and implementation is heterogeneous. This systematic review synthesized evidence on respiratory isolation for TB to inform National TB Coalition of America guidelines., Methods: After searching six databases, eight reviewers screened and extracted data in duplicate on effects of respiratory isolation compared to no isolation or masking. Studies were stratified by outcomes: TB infection or disease in contacts, mortality, hospitalization duration, patient and health system costs, and impact on mental health or stigma. We used a convergent integrated approach to synthesize quantitative and qualitative findings and assess limitations., Results: Seventeen studies were included. There were limited data directly comparing isolation to non-isolation interventions, including effects after treatment initiation. One randomized controlled trial suggested treatment in a sanatorium versus at home did not affect TB incidence in contacts. Modelling studies suggest isolation may reduce transmission, but relied on various assumptions, and isolation was implemented alongside other interventions. Descriptive, mixed-methods, and qualitative studies described adverse impacts of isolation on employment, education, food/housing security, and mental health due to transmission fears, stigma and social isolation. Impacts were compounded in marginalized groups including indigenous and incarcerated persons., Conclusion: Data to support current isolation practices, particularly after effective treatment initiation, to reduce TB transmission in communities are limited. Public health guidance should weigh the negative impacts on people with TB against decreased community transmission to make evidence-based decisions about respiratory isolation., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Data regarding ocular tuberculosis (OTB) in the United States have not been previously reported. We evaluated trends of OTB compared with other extrapulmonary TB (EPTB)., Methods: We estimated the proportion of all EPTB cases (with or without concurrent pulmonary involvement) with OTB reported to the National Tuberculosis Surveillance System during 1993-2019. We compared demographics and clinical characteristics of people with OTB and other EPTB during 2010-2019. P values were calculated by chi-square test for categorical variables and Kruskal-Wallis for continuous variables., Results: During 1993-2019, 1766 OTB cases were reported, representing 1.6% of 109 834 all EPTB cases: 200 (0.5% of 37 167) during 1993-1999, 395 (1.0% of 41 715) during 2000-2009, and 1171 (3.8% of 30 952) during 2010-2019. In contrast to persons with other EPTB, persons with OTB were older (median, 48 vs 44 years; P < .01), more likely to be US-born (35% vs 28%; P < .01), more likely to have diabetes (17% vs 13%; P < .01), and less likely to have HIV (1% vs 8%; P < .01). OTB was less likely to be laboratory confirmed (5% vs 75%; P < .01), but patients were more likely to be tested by interferon gamma release assay (IGRA; 84% vs 56%; P < .01) and to be IGRA positive (96% vs 80%; P < .01)., Conclusions: Reported OTB increased during 1993-2019 despite decreasing TB, including EPTB; the largest increase occurred during 2010-2019. OTB was rarely laboratory confirmed and was primarily diagnosed in conjunction with IGRA results. More research is needed to understand the epidemiology of OTB to inform clinical and diagnostic practices., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. The authors declare no conflicts of interest related to the content of this manuscript., (Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America 2024.)

Background: Managing the complex needs of outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy (OPAT) patients is challenging and time-consuming. We describe development of multimodal interventions to facilitate patient management within an Epic® (Epic Systems Corporation)-based electronic health record (EHR) platform., Methods: During 2016-2018, a multidisciplinary team created several modifications in our local EHR to improve gaps in OPAT care, including shared note templates, shared patient lists, automatically triggered notifications, and comprehensive order sets. A SmartForm was created, allowing collection of discrete, self-contained extractable data about each OPAT episode. We reviewed OPAT episodes from January 2019 through December 2022., Results: The multimodal EHR interventions culminated in the creation of a patient report, the "OPAT Monitoring View" collating OPAT-relevant data from multiple sections of the chart onto 1 screen display. This view is accessible both within the patient chart and from multiple list-based, in-basket, and snapshot-anchored preview functions in the EHR. Implementation of the EHR bundle facilitated management of 3402 OPAT episodes from 2019 to 2022 (850 episodes/year), about 50% higher than anticipated based on 540 OPAT courses in 2016. The OPAT EHR bundle allowed efficient (<3 hours) multidisciplinary rounds for management of 130-145 patients each week, streamlining of care transitions, and increasing staff satisfaction., Conclusions: Bundled multimodal modifications to the local EHR increased patient care efficiency and staff satisfaction and facilitated data collection to support a large OPAT program. These modifications apply commonly available EHR functionalities to OPAT care and could be adapted to other settings with different EHR platforms., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

Background: We evaluated our SARS-CoV-2 prefusion spike recombinant protein vaccine (CoV2 preS dTM) with different adjuvants, unadjuvanted, and in a one-injection and two-injection dosing schedule in a previous phase 1-2 study. Based on interim results from that study, we selected a two-injection schedule and the AS03 adjuvant for further clinical development. However, lower than expected antibody responses, particularly in older adults, and higher than expected reactogenicity after the second vaccination were observed. In the current study, we evaluated the safety and immunogenicity of an optimised formulation of CoV2 preS dTM adjuvanted with AS03 to inform progression to phase 3 clinical trial., Methods: This phase 2, randomised, parallel-group, dose-ranging study was done in adults (≥18 years old), including those with pre-existing medical conditions, those who were immunocompromised (except those with recent organ transplant or chemotherapy) and those with a potentially increased risk for severe COVID-19, at 20 clinical research centres in the USA and Honduras. Women who were pregnant or lactating or, for those of childbearing potential, not using an effective method of contraception or abstinence, and those who had received a COVID-19 vaccine, were excluded. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) using an interactive response technology system, with stratification by age (18-59 years and ≥60 years), rapid serodiagnostic test result (positive or negative), and high-risk medical conditions (yes or no), to receive two injections (day 1 and day 22) of 5 7mu;g (low dose), 10 7mu;g (medium dose), or 15 7mu;g (high dose) CoV2 preS dTM antigen with fixed AS03 content. All participants and outcome assessors were masked to group assignment; unmasked study staff involved in vaccine preparation were not involved in safety outcome assessments. All laboratory staff performing the assays were masked to treatment. The primary safety objective was to describe the safety profile in all participants, for each candidate vaccine formulation. Safety endpoints were evaluated for all randomised participants who received at least one dose of the study vaccine (safety analysis set), and are presented here for the interim study period (up to day 43). The primary immunogenicity objective was to describe the neutralising antibody titres to the D614G variant 14 days after the second vaccination (day 36) in participants who were SARS-CoV-2 naive who received both injections, provided samples at day 1 and day 36, did not have protocol deviations, and did not receive an authorised COVID-19 vaccine before day 36. Neutralising antibodies were measured using a pseudovirus neutralisation assay and are presented here up to 14 days after the second dose. As a secondary immunogenicity objective, we assessed neutralising antibodies in non-naive participants. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04762680) and is closed to new participants for the cohort reported here., Findings: Of 722 participants enrolled and randomly assigned between Feb 24, 2021, and March 8, 2021, 721 received at least one injection (low dose=240, medium dose=239, and high dose=242). The proportion of participants reporting at least one solicited adverse reaction (injection site or systemic) in the first 7 days after any vaccination was similar between treatment groups (217 [91%] of 238 in the low-dose group, 213 [90%] of 237 in the medium-dose group, and 218 [91%] of 239 in the high-dose group); these adverse reactions were transient, were mostly mild to moderate in intensity, and occurred at a higher frequency and intensity after the second vaccination. Four participants reported immediate unsolicited adverse events; two (one each in the low-dose group and medium-dose group) were considered by the investigators to be vaccine related and two (one each in the low-dose and high-dose groups) were considered unrelated. Five participants reported seven vaccine-related medically attended adverse events (two in the low-dose group, one in the medium-dose group, and four in the high-dose group). No vaccine-related serious adverse events and no adverse events of special interest were reported. Among participants naive to SARS-CoV-2 at day 36, 158 (98%) of 162 in the low-dose group, 166 (99%) of 168 in the medium-dose group, and 163 (98%) of 166 in the high-dose group had at least a two-fold increase in neutralising antibody titres to the D614G variant from baseline. Neutralising antibody geometric mean titres (GMTs) at day 36 for participants who were naive were 2189 (95% CI 1744-2746) for the low-dose group, 2269 (1792-2873) for the medium-dose group, and 2895 (2294-3654) for the high-dose group. GMT ratios (day 36: day 1) were 107 (95% CI 85-135) in the low-dose group, 110 (87-140) in the medium-dose group, and 141 (111-179) in the high-dose group. Neutralising antibody titres in non-naive adults 21 days after one injection tended to be higher than titres after two injections in adults who were naive, with GMTs 21 days after one injection for participants who were non-naive being 3143 (95% CI 836-11 815) in the low-dose group, 2338 (593-9226) in the medium-dose group, and 7069 (1361-36 725) in the high-dose group., Interpretation: Two injections of CoV2 preS dTM-AS03 showed acceptable safety and reactogenicity, and robust immunogenicity in adults who were SARS-CoV-2 naive and non-naive. These results supported progression to phase 3 evaluation of the 10 7mu;g antigen dose for primary vaccination and a 5 7mu;g antigen dose for booster vaccination., Funding: Sanofi Pasteur and Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests SSr, MIB, A-LC, AC, RMC, BF, HJ, YM, ER, NR, DvB, GdB, RC, M-HG, DL, RM, SM, CM, CAD, and SSa are Sanofi Pasteur employees. SSr, MIB, HJ, CM, and SSa own stock or stock options; A-LC, NR, and M-HG hold shares or restricted shares; and RMC reports owning shareholder and vesting options in Sanofi Pasteur. SSr, RMC, GdB, CAD, and SSa are inventors on a pending patent application filed by Sanofi Pasteur and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) for the development of the CoV-2 dTM vaccine. LS, MK, MAC, and FT-D-S are employed by, and hold restricted shares in, the GSK group of companies. AJ was contracted by Sanofi Pasteur. DD received funding from Sanofi Pasteur for his institution, George Washington University, to serve as a clinical site for the vaccine trial. NG reports receiving funding and study materials from Sanofi and funding from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) through the COVID-19 Prevention Network (CoVPN), which provides research grants to her institution, the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. MCK received NIAID funding support for the current study, paid to the clinical trials site for the CoVPN and HIV vaccine trials network; Sanofi Pasteur contracted the site to do this clinical trial. DMRM received a research grant from Sanofi Pasteur for this study. OO received a Gilead Sciences grant paid to Yale, and consulting fees from Gilead Sciences. OO also reports that Gilead, Integrity CE, and Medscape paid for lectures, presentations, manuscript writing, or educational events and that Gilead and ViiV Healthcare paid for their participation on a data safety monitoring or advisory board. VNR received funding from Sanofi for the CoVPN and Vaccine Treatment and Evaluation Units for COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, and payments from Pfizer to her institution for the conduct of COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials. RS received clinical trial investigator site contracts with AES Synexus. NGR received a grant from Sanofi Pasteur to do this study and received grants from Sanofi, Merck, Pfizer, Quidel, and Lilly in the past 36 months. NGR received a payment from the Infectious Disease Association of California and participated on advisory or safety monitoring boards for Micron, ICON, and The Emmes Company; NGR also reports having a leadership or fiduciary role (paid or unpaid) for the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the Vaccine Treatment and Evaluation Unit and Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group. LDS received a research grant from Sanofi Pasteur and SRW and JW were contracted by Sanofi Pasteur. AB, BJE, NLM, SSM, MKJ, SR, JS, TT, and JT declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Broad-spectrum antibiotics with once-daily dosing are often chosen for outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy (OPAT) due to convenience even when narrower-spectrum antibiotics are appropriate. At our institution, up to 50% of select broad-spectrum OPAT regimens had potential to be narrowed, highlighting the need to re-evaluate regimens for de-escalation prior to discharge., (© The Author(s) 2021.)

Non-tuberculous mycobacteria are increasingly recognized as a cause of infection in both immunocompromised and immunocompetent hosts. Mycobacterium heraklionense is a recently described member of the Mycobacterium terrae complex. Herein we report a case of M. heraklionense chronic flexor tenosynovitis in the hand, managed with surgery and antibiotics., (Copyright © 2016 Asian-African Society for Mycobacteriology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)