Evaluation of In-Hospital Management for Febrile Illness\ud in Northern Tanzania before and after 2010 World Health\ud Organization Guidelines for the Treatment of Malaria

In 2010, the World Health Organization (WHO) published updated guidelines emphasizing and expanding recommendations for a parasitological confirmation of malaria before treating with antimalarials. This study aimed to assess differences in historic (2007–2008) (cohort 1) and recent (2011–2012) (cohort 2) hospital cohorts in the diagnosis and treatment of febrile illness in a low malaria prevalence area of northern Tanzania. We analyzed data from two prospective cohort studies that enrolled febrile adolescents and adults aged $13 years. All patients received quality-controlled aerobic blood cultures and malaria smears. We compared patients’ discharge diagnoses, treatments, and outcomes to assess changes in the treatment of malaria and bacterial infections. In total, 595 febrile inpatients were enrolled from two referral hospitals in Moshi, Tanzania. Laboratory-confirmed malaria was detected in 13 (3.2%) of 402 patients in cohort 1 and 1 (0.5%) of 193 patients in cohort 2 (p = 0.041). Antimalarials were prescribed to 201 (51.7%) of 389 smear-negative patients in cohort 1 and 97 (50.5%) of 192 smearnegative patients in cohort 2 (p = 0.794). Bacteremia was diagnosed from standard blood culture in 58 (14.5%) of 401 patients in cohort 1 compared to 18 (9.5%) of 190 patients in cohort 2 (p = 0.091). In cohort 1, 40 (69.0%) of 58 patients with a positive blood culture received antibacterials compared to 16 (88.9%) of 18 patients in cohort 2 (p = 0.094). In cohort 1, 43 (10.8%) of the 399 patients with known outcomes died during hospitalization compared with 12 (6.2%) deaths among 193 patients in cohort 2 (p = 0.073). In a setting of low malaria transmission, a high proportion of smear-negative patients were diagnosed with malaria and treated with antimalarials despite updated WHO guidelines on malaria treatment. Improved laboratory diagnostics for non-malaria febrile illness might help to curb this practice.\u

COVID-19 and liver transplantation: the jury is still out – Authors' reply

We thank Oliver Tavabie and colleagues for their interest in our work and their comments. We also thank them for contributing patient data from their institution to our registries

Elevated Liver Enzymes in Patients with COVID-19: Look, but Not Too Hard

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), due to infection with the virus termed SARS-CoV-2, has complicated the evaluation of elevated liver enzymes. Elevated liver enzymes occur in a median of 15% [1] and up to 58% [2] of patients with COVID-19. Though the most common patterns of liver enzyme abnormalities in patients with SARS-CoV-2 include elevated aminotransferases, with aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) typically 1–2 times the upper limit of normal [2], the prognostic significance of abnormal liver biochemistries remains uncertain. There are many potential contributing etiologies to elevated liver enzymes in patients with SARS-CoV-2 including direct liver injury, associated inflammatory responses, congestive hepatopathy, hepatic ischemia, drug-induced liver injury (DILI), and muscle breakdown [3, 4]. In one meta-analysis, an estimated 3% of patients had recognized chronic liver disease at the time of COVID-19 infection [5]. As a result, consultations for abnormal liver biochemistries in patients with COVID-19 are likely common and difficult to resolve. Clarifying a diagnosis is further complicated by the desire to limit exposure of staff assisting with or performing diagnostic testing (e.g., abdominal ultrasound or liver biopsy). In this context, there is need for more information on how best to evaluate these patients

Alcohol‐Associated Liver Disease Before and After COVID‐19 – An Overview and Call for Ongoing Investigation

The Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has exacted a heavy toll on patients with alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD) and alcohol use disorder (AUD). The collective burden of ALD and AUD was large and growing prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. There is accumulating evidence that this pandemic has had a large direct effect on these patients and is likely to produce indirect effects via delays in care, psychological strain, and increased alcohol use. Now a year into the pandemic, it is important that clinicians fully understand the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with ALD and AUD. To fill existing gaps in knowledge, the scientific community must set research priorities for patients with ALD regarding their risk of COVID-19, prevention/treatment of COVID-19, changes in alcohol use during the pandemic, best use of AUD treatments in the COVID-19 era, and downstream effects of this pandemic on ALD. Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic has already inflicted disproportionate harms on patients with ALD and ongoing, focused research efforts will be critical to better understand the direct and collateral effects of this pandemic on ALD

Opioid prescriptions are associated with hepatic encephalopathy in a national cohort of patients with compensated cirrhosis

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/154367/1/apt15639_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/154367/2/apt15639.pd

Letter: are opioid prescriptions associated with hepatic encephalopathy in patients with compensated cirrhosis? Authors’ reply

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/154393/1/apt15669.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/154393/2/apt15669_am.pd