Persistent Zika Virus Detection in Semen in a Traveler Returning to the United Kingdom from Brazil, 2016.

Zika virus is normally transmitted by mosquitos, but cases of sexual transmission have been reported. We describe a patient with symptomatic Zika virus infection in whom the virus was detected in semen for 92 days. Our findings support recommendations for 6 months of barrier contraceptive use after symptomatic Zika virus infection

Cutaneous Larva Migrans Presenting with Folliculitis.

No abstract available

Identification of Antigens Specific to Non-Tuberculous Mycobacteria: The Mce Family of Proteins as a Target of T Cell Immune Responses

The lack of an effective TB vaccine hinders current efforts in combating the TB pandemic. One theory as to why BCG is less protective in tropical countries is that exposure to non-tuberculous mycobacteria (NTM) reduces BCG efficacy. There are currently several new TB vaccines in clinical trials, and NTM exposure may also be relevant in this context. NTM exposure cannot be accurately evaluated in the absence of specific antigens; those which are known to be present in NTM and absent from M. tuberculosis and BCG. We therefore used a bioinformatic pipeline to define proteins which are present in common NTM and absent from the M. tuberculosis complex, using protein BLAST, TBLASTN and a short sequence protein BLAST to ensure the specificity of this process. We then assessed immune responses to these proteins, in healthy South Africans and in patients from the United Kingdom and United States with documented exposure to NTM. Low level responses were detected to a cluster of proteins from the mammalian cell entry family, and to a cluster of hypothetical proteins, using ex vivo ELISpot and a 6 day proliferation assay. These early findings may provide a basis for characterising exposure to NTM at a population level, which has applications in the field of TB vaccine design as well as in the development of diagnostic tests

Best practice standards for the delivery of NHS infection services in the United Kingdom

Infection expertise in the NHS has historically been provided predominantly by hospital-based medical microbiologists responsible for provision of diagnostic services and advice to front-line clinicians. While most hospitals had consultant-led microbiology departments, infectious iiseases departments were based in a small number of specialist centres. The demand for infection expertise is growing in the NHS, driven by advances in medical care, increasing awareness of the impact of antibiotic resistant and healthcare associated infections and threats from emerging infectious diseases. At the same time diagnostic services are being reorganised into pathology networks. The Combined Infection Training (CIT) is delivering a consultant workforce with expertise both in laboratory diagnostic practice and delivery of direct patient care. These changes create challenges for delivery of high quality infection expertise equitably across the NHS. They also offer an opportunity to shape infection services to meet clinical and laboratory demands.To date there has not been an attempt to bring together a single set of best practice guidelines for the requirements of an infection service. This document sets out seven standards. These are written to be practical and flexible according to the diverse ways in which infection expertise may be required across the NHS. It has been prepared by the Clinical Services Committee of the British Infection Association drawing on published evidence and guidance where they exist and on the group’s extensive experience of delivering infection services in hospitals across the NHS. It was then refined with input from the RCP Joint Specialist committee (JSC) and the RCPath Specialist Advisory Committee (SAC) and through consultation with the RCPath membership. It has been endorsed by the Royal College of Pathologists and the Royal College of Physicians. It will be reviewed annually by the CSC and updated as additional evidence becomes available

Diagnosing and treating leprosy in a non-endemic setting in a national centre, London, United Kingdom 1995-2018

Background Leprosy is rare in the United Kingdom (UK), but migration from endemic countries results in new cases being diagnosed each year. We documented the clinical presentation of leprosy in a non-endemic setting. Methods Demographic and clinical data on all new cases of leprosy managed in the Leprosy Clinic at the Hospital for Tropical Diseases, London between 1995 and 2018 were analysed. Results 157 individuals with a median age of 34 (range 13-85) years were included. 67.5% were male. Patients came from 34 different countries and most contracted leprosy before migrating to the UK. Eighty-two (51.6%) acquired the infection in India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal and Pakistan. 30 patients (19.1%) acquired leprosy in Africa, including 11 from Nigeria. Seven patients were born in Europe; three acquired their leprosy infection in Africa, three in South East Asia, and one in Europe. The mean interval between arrival in the UK and symptom onset was 5.87 years (SD 10.33), the longest time to diagnosis was 20 years. Borderline tuberculoid leprosy (n=71, 42.0%), and lepromatous leprosy (n=,53 33.1%) were the commonest Ridley Jopling types. Dermatologists were the specialists diagnosing leprosy most often. Individuals were treated with World Health Organization recommended drug regimens (rifampicin, dapsone and clofazimine). Conclusion Leprosy is not a disease of travellers but develops after residence in an leprosy endemic area. The number of individuals from a leprosy endemic country reflect both the leprosy prevalence and the migration rates to the United Kingdom. There are challenges in diagnosing leprosy in non-endemic areas and clinicians need to recognise the symptoms and signs of leprosy

Adult cerebral malaria: acute and subacute imaging findings, long-term clinical consequences.

Cerebral malaria is an important cause of mortality and neurodisability in endemic regions. We show MRI features suggestive of cytotoxic and vasogenic cerebral edema followed by microhemorrhages in two adult UK cases, comparing them with an Indian cohort. Long-term follow-up images correlate ongoing changes with residual functional impairment

Favipiravir, lopinavir-ritonavir, or combination therapy (FLARE): A randomised, double-blind, 2 × 2 factorial placebo-controlled trial of early antiviral therapy in COVID-19

BACKGROUND: Early antiviral treatment is effective for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) but currently available agents are expensive. Favipiravir is routinely used in many countries, but efficacy is unproven. Antiviral combinations have not been systematically studied. We aimed to evaluate the effect of favipiravir, lopinavir-ritonavir or the combination of both agents on Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral load trajectory when administered early. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a Phase 2, proof of principle, randomised, placebo-controlled, 2 × 2 factorial, double-blind trial of ambulatory outpatients with early COVID-19 (within 7 days of symptom onset) at 2 sites in the United Kingdom. Participants were randomised using a centralised online process to receive: favipiravir (1,800 mg twice daily on Day 1 followed by 400 mg 4 times daily on Days 2 to 7) plus lopinavir-ritonavir (400 mg/100 mg twice daily on Day 1, followed by 200 mg/50 mg 4 times daily on Days 2 to 7), favipiravir plus lopinavir-ritonavir placebo, lopinavir-ritonavir plus favipiravir placebo, or both placebos. The primary outcome was SARS-CoV-2 viral load at Day 5, accounting for baseline viral load. Between 6 October 2020 and 4 November 2021, we recruited 240 participants. For the favipiravir+lopinavir-ritonavir, favipiravir+placebo, lopinavir-ritonavir+placebo, and placebo-only arms, we recruited 61, 59, 60, and 60 participants and analysed 55, 56, 55, and 58 participants, respectively, who provided viral load measures at Day 1 and Day 5. In the primary analysis, the mean viral load in the favipiravir+placebo arm had changed by -0.57 log10 (95% CI -1.21 to 0.07, p = 0.08) and in the lopinavir-ritonavir+placebo arm by -0.18 log10 (95% CI -0.82 to 0.46, p = 0.58) compared to the placebo arm at Day 5. There was no significant interaction between favipiravir and lopinavir-ritonavir (interaction coefficient term: 0.59 log10, 95% CI -0.32 to 1.50, p = 0.20). More participants had undetectable virus at Day 5 in the favipiravir+placebo arm compared to placebo only (46.3% versus 26.9%, odds ratio (OR): 2.47, 95% CI 1.08 to 5.65; p = 0.03). Adverse events were observed more frequently with lopinavir-ritonavir, mainly gastrointestinal disturbance. Favipiravir drug levels were lower in the combination arm than the favipiravir monotherapy arm, possibly due to poor absorption. The major limitation was that the study population was relatively young and healthy compared to those most affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: At the current doses, no treatment significantly reduced viral load in the primary analysis. Favipiravir requires further evaluation with consideration of dose escalation. Lopinavir-ritonavir administration was associated with lower plasma favipiravir concentrations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04499677 EudraCT: 2020-002106-68

Geographical and temporal trends and seasonal relapse in Plasmodium ovale spp. and Plasmodium malariae infections imported to the UK between 1987 and 2015.

BACKGROUND: Plasmodium ovale spp. and P. malariae cause illness in endemic regions and returning travellers. Far less is known about these species than P. falciparum and P. vivax. METHODS: The UK national surveillance data, collected 1987 to 2015, were collated with the International Passenger Survey and climatic data to determine geographical, temporal and seasonal trends of imported P. ovale spp. and P. malariae infection. RESULTS: Of 52,242 notified cases of malaria, 6.04% (3157) were caused by P. ovale spp. and 1.61% (841) by P. malariae; mortality was 0.03% (1) and 0.12% (1), respectively. Almost all travellers acquired infection in West or East Africa. Infection rate per travel episode fell fivefold during the study period. The median latency of P. malariae and P. ovale spp. was 18 and 76 days, respectively; delayed presentation occurred with both species. The latency of P. ovale spp. infection imported from West Africa was significantly shorter in those arriving in the UK during the West African peak malarial season compared to those arriving outside it (44 days vs 94 days, p < 0.0001), implying that relapse synchronises with the period of high malarial transmission. This trend was not seen in P. ovale spp. imported from East Africa nor in P. malariae. CONCLUSION: In West Africa, where malaria transmission is highly seasonal, P. ovale spp. may have evolved to relapse during the malarial high transmission season. This has public health implications. Deaths are very rare, supporting current guidelines emphasising outpatient treatment. However, late presentations do occur