Search

Background It is unknown whether persons with symptomatic cryptococcal meningitis detected during routine blood cryptococcal antigen (CrAg) screening have better survival than persons presenting with overt meningitis. Methods We prospectively enrolled Ugandans with HIV and cryptocococcal meningitis from December 2018 to December 2021. Participants were treated with amphotericin-based combination therapy. We compared outcomes between persons who were CrAg screened then referred to hospital with those presenting directly to the hospital with symptomatic meningitis. Results Among 489 participants with cryptococcal meningitis, 40% (194/489) received blood CrAg screening and were referred to hospital (median time to referral 2 days; interquartile range [IQR], 1–6). CrAg-screened persons referred to hospital had lower 14-day mortality than non–CrAg-screened persons who presented directly to hospital with symptomatic meningitis (12% vs 21%; hazard ratio,.51; 95% confidence interval,.32–.83; P =.006). Fewer CrAg-screened participants had altered mental status versus non–CrAg-screened participants (29% vs 41%; P =.03). CrAg-screened persons had lower quantitative cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) culture burden (median [IQR], 4570 [11–100 000] vs 26 900 [182–324 000] CFU/mL; P =.01) and lower CSF opening pressures (median [IQR], 190 [120–270] vs 225 [140–340] mmH2O; P =.004) compared with non–CrAg-screened persons. Conclusions Survival from cryptococcal meningitis was higher in persons with prior CrAg screening than those without CrAg screening. Altered mental status was the most potent predictor for mortality in a multivariate model. We suggest that CrAg screening detects cryptococcal meningitis at an earlier stage, as evidenced by a favorable baseline risk profile and notably fewer persons with altered mental status. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a rapidly emerging virus causing the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic with no known effective prophylaxis. We investigated whether hydroxychloroquine could prevent SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare workers at high risk of exposure. Methods We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial of healthcare workers with ongoing exposure to persons with SARS-CoV-2, including those working in emergency departments, intensive care units, COVID-19 hospital wards, and first responders. Participants across the United States and in the Canadian province of Manitoba were randomized to hydroxychloroquine loading dose then 400 mg once or twice weekly for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was confirmed or probable COVID-19–compatible illness. We measured hydroxychloroquine whole-blood concentrations. Results We enrolled 1483 healthcare workers, of whom 79% reported performing aerosol-generating procedures. The incidence of COVID-19 (laboratory-confirmed or symptomatic compatible illness) was 0.27 events/person-year with once-weekly and 0.28 events/person-year with twice-weekly hydroxychloroquine compared with 0.38 events/person-year with placebo. For once-weekly hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis, the hazard ratio was.72 (95% CI,.44–1.16; P =.18) and for twice-weekly was.74 (95% CI,.46–1.19; P =.22) compared with placebo. Median hydroxychloroquine concentrations in whole blood were 98 ng/mL (IQR, 82–120) with once-weekly and 200 ng/mL (IQR, 159–258) with twice-weekly dosing. Hydroxychloroquine concentrations did not differ between participants who developed COVID-19–compatible illness (154 ng/mL) versus participants without COVID-19 (133 ng/mL; P =.08). Conclusions Pre-exposure prophylaxis with hydroxychloroquine once or twice weekly did not significantly reduce laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 or COVID-19–compatible illness among healthcare workers. Clinical Trials Registration Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04328467. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]