Search

BACKGROUND: WHO recommends urine lateral-flow lipoarabinomannan (LF-LAM) testing with AlereLAM in HIV-positive inpatients only if screening criteria are met. We assessed the performance of WHO screening criteria and alternative screening tests/strategies to guide LF-LAM testing and compared diagnostic accuracy of the WHO AlereLAM algorithm (WHO screening criteria followed by AlereLAM if screen positive) with AlereLAM and FujiLAM (a novel LF-LAM test) testing in all HIV-positive inpatients. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library from Jan 1, 2011 to March 1, 2020 for studies among adult/adolescent HIV-positive inpatients regardless of tuberculosis signs and symptoms. The reference standards were (1) AlereLAM or FujiLAM for screening tests/strategies and (2) culture or Xpert for AlereLAM/FujiLAM. We determined proportion of inpatients eligible for AlereLAM using WHO screening criteria; assessed accuracy of WHO criteria and alternative screening tests/strategies to guide LF-LAM testing; compared accuracy of WHO AlereLAM algorithm with AlereLAM/FujiLAM testing in all; and determined diagnostic yield of AlereLAM, FujiLAM, and Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert). We estimated pooled proportions with a random-effects model, assessed diagnostic accuracy using random-effects bivariate models, and assessed diagnostic yield descriptively. FINDINGS: We obtained data from all 5 identified studies (n = 3,504). The pooled proportion of inpatients eligible for AlereLAM using WHO criteria was 93% (95%CI 91, 95). Among screening tests/strategies to guide LF-LAM testing, WHO criteria, C-reactive protein (≥5 mg/L), and CD4 count (< 200 cells/ μL) had high sensitivities but low specificities; cough (≥2 weeks), hemoglobin (< 8 g/dL), body mass index (< 18.5 kg/m(2)), lymphadenopathy, and WHO-defined danger signs had higher specificities but suboptimal sensitivities. AlereLAM in all had the same sensitivity (62%) and specificity (88%) as WHO AlereLAM algorithm. Sensitivity of FujiLAM and AlereLAM was 69% and 48%, while specificity was 88% and 96%, respectively. In 2 studies that collected sputum and non-sputum samples for Xpert and/or culture, diagnostic yield of sputum Xpert was 40–41%, AlereLAM was 39–76%, and urine Xpert was 35–62%. In one study, FujiLAM diagnosed 80% of tuberculosis cases (vs 39% for AlereLAM), and sputum Xpert combined with AlereLAM, urine Xpert, or FujiLAM diagnosed 61%, 81%, and 92% of all cases, respectively. INTERPRETATION: WHO criteria and alternative screening tests/strategies have limited utility in guiding LF-LAM testing, suggesting that AlereLAM testing in all HIV-positive medical inpatients be implemented. Routine FujiLAM may improve tuberculosis diagnosis.

Background Passive immunotherapy using hyperimmune intravenous immunoglobulin (hIVIG) to SARS-CoV-2, derived from recovered donors, is a potential rapidly available, specific therapy for an outbreak infection such as SARS-CoV-2. Findings from randomised clinical trials of hIVIG for the treatment of COVID-19 are limited. Methods In this international randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, hospitalised patients with COVID-19 who had been symptomatic for up to 12 days and did not have acute end-organ failure were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either hIVIG or an equivalent volume of saline as placebo, in addition to remdesivir, when not contraindicated, and other standard clinical care. Randomisation was stratified by site pharmacy; schedules were prepared using a mass-weighted urn design. Infusions were prepared and masked by trial pharmacists; all other investigators, research staff, and trial participants were masked to group allocation. Follow-up was for 28 days. The primary outcome was measured at day 7 by a seven-category ordinal endpoint that considered pulmonary status and extrapulmonary complications and ranged from no limiting symptoms to death. Deaths and adverse events, including organ failure and serious infections, were used to define composite safety outcomes at days 7 and 28. Prespecified subgroup analyses were carried out for efficacy and safety outcomes by duration of symptoms, the presence of anti-spike neutralising antibodies, and other baseline factors. Analyses were done on a modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population, which included all randomly assigned participants who met eligibility criteria and received all or part of the assigned study product infusion. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04546581. Findings From Oct 8, 2020, to Feb 10, 2021, 593 participants (n=301 hIVIG, n=292 placebo) were enrolled at 63 sites in 11 countries; 579 patients were included in the mITT analysis. Compared with placebo, the hIVIG group did not have significantly greater odds of a more favourable outcome at day 7; the adjusted OR was 1·06 (95% CI 0·77–1·45; p=0·72). Infusions were well tolerated, although infusion reactions were more common in the hIVIG group (18·6% vs 9·5% for placebo; p=0·002). The percentage with the composite safety outcome at day 7 was similar for the hIVIG (24%) and placebo groups (25%; OR 0·98, 95% CI 0·66–1·46; p=0·91). The ORs for the day 7 ordinal outcome did not vary for subgroups considered, but there was evidence of heterogeneity of the treatment effect for the day 7 composite safety outcome: risk was greater for hIVIG compared with placebo for patients who were antibody positive (OR 2·21, 95% CI 1·14–4·29); for patients who were antibody negative, the OR was 0·51 (0·29–0·90; pinteraction=0·001). Interpretation When administered with standard of care including remdesivir, SARS-CoV-2 hIVIG did not demonstrate efficacy among patients hospitalised with COVID-19 without end-organ failure. The safety of hIVIG might vary by the presence of endogenous neutralising antibodies at entry. Funding US National Institutes of Health.

ObjectiveTo examine humoral and cellular response in multiple sclerosis patients on anti-CD20 therapy after third BNT162b2 mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.MethodsA prospective longitudinal study design from first throughout third vaccination in Danish and American MS centers. All participants were treated with ocrelizumab. Antibody (Ab) levels were assessed before and after third vaccination using SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant assay (Abbott Laboratories). B- and T-lymphocytes enumeration was done with BD Multitest™6-color TBNK reagent. Spike-specific T-cell responses were measured through PBMC stimulation with spike peptide pools (JPT Peptide Technologies).ResultsWe found that 14.0%, 37.7%, and 33.3% were seropositive after first, second and third vaccination. The median Ab-levels were 74.2 BAU/mL (range: 8.5-2427) after second vaccination, as well as 43.7 BAU/ml (range: 7.8-366.1) and 31.3 BAU/mL (range: 7.9-507.0) before and after third vaccination, respectively. No difference was found in levels after second and third vaccination (p=0.1475). Seropositivity dropped to 25.0% of participants before the third vaccination, a relative reduction of 33.3% (p=0.0020). No difference was found between frequencies of spike reactive CD4+and CD8+ T-cells after second (0.65±0.08% and 0.95±0.20%, respectively) and third vaccination (0.99±0.22% and 1.3±0.34%, respectively).ConclusionIn this longitudinal cohort we found no significant increased humoral or cellular response with administration of a third SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination. These findings suggest the need for clinical strategies to include allowance of B cell reconstitution before repeat vaccination and/or provision of pre-exposure prophylactic monoclonal antibodies.