Using surveillance data to determine treatment rates and outcomes for patients with chronic hepatitis C virus infection

The aim of this work was to develop and validate an algorithm to monitor rates of, and response to, treatment of patients infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) across England using routine laboratory HCV RNA testing data. HCV testing activity between January 2002 and December 2011 was extracted from the local laboratory information systems of a sentinel network of 23 laboratories across England. An algorithm based on frequency of HCV RNA testing within a defined time period was designed to identify treated patients. Validation of the algorithm was undertaken for one center by comparison with treatment data recorded in a clinical database managed by the Trent HCV Study Group. In total, 267,887 HCV RNA test results from 100,640 individuals were extracted. Of these, 78.9% (79,360) tested positive for viral RNA, indicating an active infection, 20.8% (16,538) of whom had a repeat pattern of HCV RNA testing suggestive of treatment monitoring. Annual numbers of individuals treated increased rapidly from 468 in 2002 to 3,295 in 2009, but decreased to 3,110 in 2010. Approximately two thirds (63.3%; 10,468) of those treated had results consistent with a sustained virological response, including 55.3% and 67.1% of those with a genotype 1 and non-1 virus, respectively. Validation against the Trent clinical database demonstrated that the algorithm was 95% sensitive and 93% specific in detecting treatment and 100% sensitive and 93% specific for detecting treatment outcome. Conclusions: Laboratory testing activity, collected through a sentinel surveillance program, has enabled the first country-wide analysis of treatment and response among HCV-infected individuals. Our approach provides a sensitive, robust, and sustainable method for monitoring service provision across Englan

Dengue Virus Infection-Enhancing Activity in Serum Samples with Neutralizing Activity as Determined by Using FcγR-Expressing Cells

Dengue has become a major international public health concern in recent decades. There are four dengue virus serotypes. Recovery from infection with one serotype confers life-long protection to the homologous serotype but only partial protection to subsequent infection with other serotypes. Secondary infection with a serotype different from that in primary infection increases the risk of development of severe complications. Antibodies may play two competing roles during infection: virus neutralization that leads to protection and recovery, or infection-enhancement that may cause severe complications. Progress in vaccine development has been hampered by limited understanding on protective immunity against dengue virus infection. We report the neutralization activity and infection-enhancement activity in individuals with dengue in Malaysia. We show that infection-enhancement activity is present when neutralizing activity is absent or low, and cross-reactive neutralizing activity may be hampered by infection-enhancing activity. Conventional assays for titration of neutralizing antibody do not consider infection-enhancement activity. We used an alternative assay that determines the sum of neutralizing and infection-enhancement activity in sera from dengue patients. In addition to providing insights into antibody responses during infection, the alternative assay provides a new platform for the study of immune responses to vaccine

Convalescent plasma in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised controlled, open-label, platform trial

SummaryBackground Azithromycin has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of its immunomodulatoryactions. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of azithromycin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19.Methods In this randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19Therapy [RECOVERY]), several possible treatments were compared with usual care in patients admitted to hospitalwith COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 176 hospitals in the UK. Eligible and consenting patients wererandomly allocated to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus azithromycin 500 mg once perday by mouth or intravenously for 10 days or until discharge (or allocation to one of the other RECOVERY treatmentgroups). Patients were assigned via web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment andwere twice as likely to be randomly assigned to usual care than to any of the active treatment groups. Participants andlocal study staff were not masked to the allocated treatment, but all others involved in the trial were masked to theoutcome data during the trial. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treatpopulation. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936.Findings Between April 7 and Nov 27, 2020, of 16 442 patients enrolled in the RECOVERY trial, 9433 (57%) wereeligible and 7763 were included in the assessment of azithromycin. The mean age of these study participants was65·3 years (SD 15·7) and approximately a third were women (2944 [38%] of 7763). 2582 patients were randomlyallocated to receive azithromycin and 5181 patients were randomly allocated to usual care alone. Overall,561 (22%) patients allocated to azithromycin and 1162 (22%) patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days(rate ratio 0·97, 95% CI 0·87–1·07; p=0·50). No significant difference was seen in duration of hospital stay (median10 days [IQR 5 to >28] vs 11 days [5 to >28]) or the proportion of patients discharged from hospital alive within 28 days(rate ratio 1·04, 95% CI 0·98–1·10; p=0·19). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, nosignificant difference was seen in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilationor death (risk ratio 0·95, 95% CI 0·87–1·03; p=0·24).Interpretation In patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, azithromycin did not improve survival or otherprespecified clinical outcomes. Azithromycin use in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 should be restrictedto patients in whom there is a clear antimicrobial indication

Dimethyl fumarate in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) inhibits inflammasome-mediated inflammation and has been proposed as a treatment for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. This randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing multiple treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 (NCT04381936, ISRCTN50189673). In this assessment of DMF performed at 27 UK hospitals, adults were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus DMF. The primary outcome was clinical status on day 5 measured on a seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were time to sustained improvement in clinical status, time to discharge, day 5 peripheral blood oxygenation, day 5 C-reactive protein, and improvement in day 10 clinical status. Between 2 March 2021 and 18 November 2021, 713 patients were enroled in the DMF evaluation, of whom 356 were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus DMF, and 357 to usual care alone. 95% of patients received corticosteroids as part of routine care. There was no evidence of a beneficial effect of DMF on clinical status at day 5 (common odds ratio of unfavourable outcome 1.12; 95% CI 0.86-1.47; p = 0.40). There was no significant effect of DMF on any secondary outcome

Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander communities and the development of pandemic influenza containment strategies: community voices and community control

Objectives: To develop culturally appropriate and effective strategies to reduce the risk from pandemic influenza (H1N109) in rural and remote Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Methods: Participatory Action Research (PAR) approach that enabled communities and researchers to work together to develop understanding and take action to reduce risk. Results: The H1N109 pandemic raised deep concerns and serious issues in all of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities involved in this project. The participants expressed distrust and scepticism in relation to current Australian health policies on containment and told the researchers that specific plans for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples were needed. Respondents indicated that policies and plans had been developed without respectful engagement with communities. The strong and recurring themes that emerged from the PAR cycles were: the importance of family; ways of life and realities of living in response to influenza; and key messages to government and health services to focus on communication, understanding and respect. Conclusion: The essential work of reducing risk of pandemic influenza with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities is not straightforward, but this project has highlighted a number of useful pathways to continue to journey along with communities. A number of strategies to reduce the spread of pandemic influenza in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities were identified. These strategies would make a good starting point for conversations with communities and health services. In Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities the environment, community structures and traditions vary. Respectful engagement with communities is needed to develop effective policy

Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and the development of pandemic influenza containment strategies: Community voices and community control

Objectives: To develop culturally appropriate and effective strategies to reduce the risk from pandemic influenza (H1N109) in rural and remote Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Methods: Participatory Action Research (PAR) approach that enabled communities and researchers to work together to develop understanding and take action to reduce risk. Results: The H1N109 pandemic raised deep concerns and serious issues in all of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities involved in this project. The participants expressed distrust and scepticism in relation to current Australian health policies on containment and told the researchers that specific plans for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples were needed. Respondents indicated that policies and plans had been developed without respectful engagement with communities. The strong and recurring themes that emerged from the PAR cycles were: the importance of family; ways of life and realities of living in response to influenza; and key messages to government and health services to focus on communication, understanding and respect. Conclusion: The essential work of reducing risk of pandemic influenza with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities is not straightforward, but this project has highlighted a number of useful pathways to continue to journey along with communities. A number of strategies to reduce the spread of pandemic influenza in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities were identified. These strategies would make a good starting point for conversations with communities and health services. In Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities the environment, community structures and traditions vary. Respectful engagement with communities is needed to develop effective policy