Hepatitis E: an underestimated emerging threat.

Hepatitis E virus (HEV) is the most common cause of viral hepatitis in the world. It is estimated that millions of people are infected every year, resulting in tens of thousands of deaths. However, these estimates do not include industrialized regions and are based on studies which employ assays now known to have inferior sensitivity. As such, this is likely to represent a massive underestimate of the true global burden of disease. In the developing world, HEV causes large outbreaks and presents a significant public-health problem. Until recently HEV was thought to be uncommon in industrialized countries, and of little relevance to clinicians in these settings. We now know that this is incorrect, and that HEV is actually very common in developed regions. HEV has proved difficult to study in vitro, with reliable models only recently becoming available. Our understanding of the lifecycle of HEV is therefore incomplete. Routes of transmission vary by genotype and location: endemic regions experience large waterborne epidemics, while sporadic cases in industrialized regions are zoonotic infections likely spread via the food chain. Both acute and chronic infection has been observed, and a wide range of extrahepatic manifestations have been reported. This includes neurological, haematological and renal conditions. As the complete clinical phenotype of HEV infection is yet to be characterized, a large proportion of cases go unrecognized or misdiagnosed. In many cases HEV infection does not feature in the differential diagnosis due to a lack of knowledge and awareness of the disease amongst clinicians. In combination, these factors have contributed to an underestimation of the threat posed by HEV. Improvements are required in terms of recognition and diagnosis of HEV infection if we are to understand the natural history of the disease, improve management and reduce the burden of disease around the world

The neural correlates of emotion regulation by implementation intentions

Several studies have investigated the neural basis of effortful emotion regulation (ER) but the neural basis of automatic ER has been less comprehensively explored. The present study investigated the neural basis of automatic ER supported by ‘implementation intentions’. 40 healthy participants underwent fMRI while viewing emotion-eliciting images and used either a previously-taught effortful ER strategy, in the form of a goal intention (e.g., try to take a detached perspective), or a more automatic ER strategy, in the form of an implementation intention (e.g., “If I see something disgusting, then I will think these are just pixels on the screen!”), to regulate their emotional response. Whereas goal intention ER strategies were associated with activation of brain areas previously reported to be involved in effortful ER (including dorsolateral prefrontal cortex), ER strategies based on an implementation intention strategy were associated with activation of right inferior frontal gyrus and ventro-parietal cortex, which may reflect the attentional control processes automatically captured by the cue for action contained within the implementation intention. Goal intentions were also associated with less effective modulation of left amygdala, supporting the increased efficacy of ER under implementation intention instructions, which showed coupling of orbitofrontal cortex and amygdala. The findings support previous behavioural studies in suggesting that forming an implementation intention enables people to enact goal-directed responses with less effort and more efficiency

Hepatitis E virus: Western Cape, South Africa

AIM To conduct a prospective assessment of anti-hepatitis E virus (HEV) IgG seroprevalence in the Western Cape Province of South Africa in conjunction with evaluating risk factors for exposure. METHODS Consenting participants attending clinics and wards of Groote Schuur, Red Cross Children's Hospital and their affiliated teaching hospitals in Cape Town, South Africa, were sampled. Healthy adults attending blood donor clinics were also recruited. Patients with known liver disease were excluded and all major ethnic/race groups were included to broadly represent local demographics. Relevant demographic data was captured at the time of sampling using an interviewer-administered confidential questionnaire. Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) status was self-disclosed. HEV IgG testing was performed using the Wantai assay. RESULTS HEV is endemic in the region with a seroprevalence of 27.9% (n = 324/1161) 95%CI: 25.3%-30.5% (21.9% when age-adjusted) with no significant differences between ethnic groups or HIV status. Seroprevalence in children is low but rapidly increases in early adulthood. With univariate analysis, age ? 30 years old, pork and bacon/ham consumption suggested risk. In the multivariate analysis, the highest risk factor for HEV IgG seropositivity (OR = 7.679, 95%CI: 5.38-10.96, p < 0.001) was being 30 years or older followed by pork consumption (OR = 2.052, 95%CI: 1.39-3.03, p < 0.001). A recent clinical case demonstrates that HEV genotype 3 may be currently circulating in the Western Cape. CONCLUSION Hepatitis E seroprevalence was considerably higher than previously thought suggesting that hepatitis E warrants consideration in any patient pre

The Complete Genome Sequence of ‘Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum’, the Bacterium Associated with Potato Zebra Chip Disease

Zebra Chip (ZC) is an emerging plant disease that causes aboveground decline of potato shoots and generally results in unusable tubers. This disease has led to multi-million dollar losses for growers in the central and western United States over the past decade and impacts the livelihood of potato farmers in Mexico and New Zealand. ZC is associated with ‘Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum’, a fastidious alpha-proteobacterium that is transmitted by a phloem-feeding psyllid vector, Bactericera cockerelli Sulc. Research on this disease has been hampered by a lack of robust culture methods and paucity of genome sequence information for ‘Ca. L. solanacearum’. Here we present the sequence of the 1.26 Mbp metagenome of ‘Ca. L. solanacearum’, based on DNA isolated from potato psyllids. The coding inventory of the ‘Ca. L. solanacearum’ genome was analyzed and compared to related Rhizobiaceae to better understand ‘Ca. L. solanacearum’ physiology and identify potential targets to develop improved treatment strategies. This analysis revealed a number of unique transporters and pathways, all potentially contributing to ZC pathogenesis. Some of these factors may have been acquired through horizontal gene transfer. Taxonomically, ‘Ca. L. solanacearum’ is related to ‘Ca. L. asiaticus’, a suspected causative agent of citrus huanglongbing, yet many genome rearrangements and several gene gains/losses are evident when comparing these two Liberibacter. species. Relative to ‘Ca. L. asiaticus’, ‘Ca. L. solanacearum’ probably has reduced capacity for nucleic acid modification, increased amino acid and vitamin biosynthesis functionalities, and gained a high-affinity iron transport system characteristic of several pathogenic microbes

Design and study protocol of the maternal smoking cessation during pregnancy study, (M-SCOPE)

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Maternal smoking is the most significant cause of preventable complications during pregnancy, with smoking cessation during pregnancy shown to increase birth weight and reduce preterm birth among pregnant women who quit smoking. Taking into account the fact that the number of women who smoke in Greece has increased steadily throughout the previous decade and that the prevalence of smoking among Greek females is one of the highest in the world, smoking cessation should be a top priority among Greek health care professionals.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>The Maternal Smoking Cessation during Pregnancy Study (M-SCOPE), is a Randomized Control Trial (RCT) that aims to test whether offering Greek pregnant smokers a high intensity intervention increases smoking cessation during the third trimester of pregnancy, when compared to a low intensity intervention. Prospective participants will be pregnant smokers of more than 5 cigarettes per week, recruited up to the second trimester of pregnancy. Urine samples for biomarker analysis of cotinine will be collected at three time points: at baseline, at around the 32^ndweek of gestation and at six months post partum. The control group/low intensity intervention will include: brief advice for 5 minutes and a short leaflet, while the experimental group/intensive intervention will include: 30 minutes of individualized cognitive-behavioural intervention provided by a trained health professional and a self-help manual especially tailored for smoking cessation during pregnancy, while counselling will be based on the ''5 As.'' After childbirth, the infants' birth weight, gestational age and any other health related complications during pregnancy will be recorded. A six months post-partum a follow up will be performed in order to re-assess the quitters smoking status.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>If offering pregnant smokers a high intensity intervention for smoking cessation increases the rate of smoking cessation in comparison to a usual care low intensity intervention in Greek pregnant smokers, such a scheme if beneficial could be implemented successfully within clinical practice in Greece.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01210118">NCT01210118</a></p

The cost-effectiveness of procalcitonin for guiding antibiotic prescribing in individuals hospitalized with COVID-19: part of the PEACH study

Background Many hospitals introduced procalcitonin (PCT) testing to help diagnose bacterial coinfection in individuals with COVID-19, and guide antibiotic decision-making during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. Objectives Evaluating cost-effectiveness of using PCT to guide antibiotic decisions in individuals hospitalized with COVID-19, as part of a wider research programme. Methods Retrospective individual-level data on patients hospitalized with COVID-19 were collected from 11 NHS acute hospital Trusts and Health Boards from England and Wales, which varied in their use of baseline PCT testing during the first COVID-19 pandemic wave. A matched analysis (part of a wider analysis reported elsewhere) created groups of patients whose PCT was/was not tested at baseline. A model was created with combined decision tree/Markov phases, parameterized with quality-of-life/unit cost estimates from the literature, and used to estimate costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Cost-effectiveness was judged at a £20 000/QALY threshold. Uncertainty was characterized using bootstrapping. Results People who had baseline PCT testing had shorter general ward/ICU stays and spent less time on antibiotics, though with overlap between the groups’ 95% CIs. Those with baseline PCT testing accrued more QALYs (8.76 versus 8.62) and lower costs (£9830 versus £10 700). The point estimate was baseline PCT testing being dominant over no baseline testing, though with uncertainty: the probability of cost-effectiveness was 0.579 with a 1 year horizon and 0.872 with a lifetime horizon. Conclusions Using PCT to guide antibiotic therapy in individuals hospitalized with COVID-19 is more likely to be cost-effective than not, albeit with uncertainty

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK.

BACKGROUND: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. METHODS: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0-75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4-97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8-80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3-4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK

Background A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. Methods This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. Findings Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0–75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4–97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8–80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3–4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. Interpretation ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials

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