Wolbachia-carrying Aedes mosquitoes for preventing dengue infection.

BACKGROUND: Dengue is a global health problem of high significance, with 3.9 billion people at risk of infection. The geographic expansion of dengue virus (DENV) infection has resulted in increased frequency and severity of the disease, and the number of deaths has increased in recent years. Wolbachia,an intracellular bacterial endosymbiont, has been under investigation for several years as a novel dengue-control strategy. Some dengue vectors (Aedes mosquitoes) can be transinfected with specific strains of Wolbachia, which decreases their fitness (ability to survive and mate) and their ability to reproduce, inhibiting the replication of dengue. Both laboratory and field studies have demonstrated the potential effect of Wolbachia deployments on reducing dengue transmission, and modelling studies have suggested that this may be a self-sustaining strategy for dengue prevention, although long-term effects are yet to be elucidated. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of Wolbachia-carrying Aedes speciesdeployments (specifically wMel-, wMelPop-, and wAlbB- strains of Wolbachia) for preventing dengue virus infection. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, four other databases, and two trial registries up to 24 January 2024. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), including cluster-randomized controlled trials (cRCTs), conducted in dengue endemic or epidemic-prone settings were eligible. We sought studies that investigated the impact of Wolbachia-carrying Aedes deployments on epidemiological or entomological dengue-related outcomes, utilizing either the population replacement or population suppression strategy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected eligible studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. We used odds ratios (OR) with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) as the effect measure for dichotomous outcomes. For count/rate outcomes, we planned to use the rate ratio with 95% CI as the effect measure. We used adjusted measures of effect for cRCTs. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: One completed cRCT met our inclusion criteria, and we identified two further ongoing cRCTs. The included trial was conducted in an urban setting in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. It utilized a nested test-negative study design, whereby all participants aged three to 45 years who presented at healthcare centres with a fever were enrolled in the study provided they had resided in the study area for the previous 10 nights. The trial showed that wMel-Wolbachia infected Ae aegypti deployments probably reduce the odds of contracting virologically confirmed dengue by 77% (OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.35; 1 trial, 6306 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The cluster-level prevalence of wMel Wolbachia-carrying mosquitoes remained high over two years in the intervention arm of the trial, reported as 95.8% (interquartile range 91.5 to 97.8) across 27 months in clusters receiving wMel-Wolbachia Ae aegypti deployments, but there were no reliable comparative data for this outcome. Other primary outcomes were the incidence of virologically confirmed dengue, the prevalence of dengue ribonucleic acid in the mosquito population, and mosquito density, but there were no data for these outcomes. Additionally, there were no data on adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The included trial demonstrates the potential significant impact of wMel-Wolbachia-carrying Ae aegypti mosquitoes on preventing dengue infection in an endemic setting, and supports evidence reported in non-randomized and uncontrolled studies. Further trials across a greater diversity of settings are required to confirm whether these findings apply to other locations and country settings, and greater reporting of acceptability and cost are important.

Prevalence, risk factors, and antimicrobial resistance of endemic healthcare-associated infections in Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare-associated infections (HCAI) place a significant burden on healthcare systems globally. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the prevalence, risk factors, and aetiologic agents of endemic HCAI in Africa. METHODS: MEDLINE/PubMed, CINAHL, and Global Health databases (EBSCOhost interface) were searched for studies published in English and French describing HCAI in Africa from 2010 to 2022. We extracted data on prevalence of HCAI, risk factors, aetiologic agents, and associated antimicrobial resistance patterns. We used random-effects models to estimate parameter values with 95% confidence intervals for risk factors associated with HCAI. This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022374559) and followed PRISMA 2020 guidelines. RESULTS: Of 2541 records screened, 92 were included, comprising data from 81,968 patients. Prevalence of HCAI varied between 1.6 and 90.2% with a median of 15% across studies. Heterogeneity (I2) varied from 93 to 99%. Contaminated wound (OR: 1.75, 95% CI: 1.31-2.19), long hospital stay (OR: 1.39, 95% CI: 0.92-1.80), urinary catheter (OR: 1.57, 95% CI: 0.35-2.78), intubation and ventilation (OR: 1.53, 95% CI: 0.85-2.22), vascular catheters (OR: 1.49, 95% CI: 0.52-2.45) were among risk factors associated with HCAI. Bacteria reported from included studies comprised 6463 isolates, with E. coli (18.3%, n = 1182), S. aureus (17.3%, n = 1118), Klebsiella spp. (17.2%, n = 1115), Pseudomonas spp. (10.3%, n = 671), and Acinetobacter spp. (6.8%, n = 438) being most common. Resistance to multiple antibiotics was common; 70.3% (IQR: 50-100) of Enterobacterales were 3rd -generation cephalosporin resistant, 70.5% (IQR: 58.8-80.3) of S. aureus were methicillin resistant and 55% (IQR: 27.3-81.3) Pseudomonas spp. were resistant to all agents tested. CONCLUSIONS: HCAI is a greater problem in Africa than other regions, however, there remains a paucity of data to guide local action. There is a clear need to develop and validate sustainable HCAI definitions in Africa to support the implementation of routine HCAI surveillance and inform implementation of context appropriate infection prevention and control strategies.

Infection prevention and control measures to reduce the transmission of mpox: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To make inferences regarding the effectiveness of respiratory interventions and case isolation measures in reducing or preventing the transmission of mpox based on synthesis of available literature. METHODS: The WHO Clinical Management and Infection Prevention and Control 2022 guideline and droplet precautions in healthcare facilities and home isolation infection prevention control measures for patients with mpox. We conducted a systematic review that included a broad search of five electronic databases. In a two-stage process, we initially sought only randomized controlled trials and observational comparative studies; when the search failed to yield eligible studies, the subsequent search included all study designs including clinical and environmental sampling studies. RESULTS: No studies were identified that directly addressed airborne and droplet precautions and home isolation infection prevention control measures. To inform the review questions the review team synthesized route of transmission data in mpox. There were 2366/4309 (54.9%) cases in which investigators identified mpox infection occurring following transmission through direct physical sexual contact. There were no reported mpox cases in which investigators identified inhalation as a single route of transmission. There were 2/4309 cases in which investigators identified fomite as a single route of transmission. Clinical and environmental sampling studies isolated mpox virus in a minority of saliva, oropharangeal swabs, mpox skin lesions, and hospital room air. CONCLUSIONS: Current findings provide compelling evidence that transmission of mpox occurs through direct physical contact. Because investigators have not reported any cases of transmission via inhalation alone, the impact of airborne and droplet infection prevention control measures in reducing transmission will be minimal. Avoiding physical contact with others, covering mpox lesions and wearing a medical mask is likely to reduce onward mpox transmission; there may be minimal reduction in transmission from additionally physically isolating patients with mild disease at home.

Plasmapheresis to remove amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles for treating the post-COVID-19 condition.

BACKGROUND: The post-COVID-19 condition (PCC) consists of a wide array of symptoms including fatigue and impaired daily living. People seek a wide variety of approaches to help them recover. A new belief, arising from a few laboratory studies, is that 'microclots' cause the symptoms of PCC. This belief has been extended outside these studies, suggesting that to recover people need plasmapheresis (an expensive process where blood is filtered outside the body). We appraised the laboratory studies, and it was clear that the term 'microclots' is incorrect to describe the phenomenon being described. The particles are amyloid and include fibrin(ogen); amyloid is not a part of a thrombus which is a mix of fibrin mesh and platelets. Initial acute COVID-19 infection is associated with clotting abnormalities; this review concerns amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles in PCC only. We have reported here our appraisal of laboratory studies investigating the presence of amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles in PCC, and of evidence that plasmapheresis may be an effective therapy to remove amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles for treating PCC. OBJECTIVES: Laboratory studies review To summarize and appraise the research reports on amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles related to PCC. Randomized controlled trials review To assess the evidence of the safety and efficacy of plasmapheresis to remove amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles in individuals with PCC from randomized controlled trials. SEARCH METHODS: Laboratory studies review We searched for all relevant laboratory studies up to 27 October 2022 using a comprehensive search strategy which included the search terms 'COVID', 'amyloid', 'fibrin', 'fibrinogen'. Randomized controlled trials review We searched the following databases on 21 October 2022: Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register; MEDLINE (Ovid); Embase (Ovid); and BIOSIS Previews (Web of Science). We also searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov for trials in progress. SELECTION CRITERIA: Laboratory studies review Laboratory studies that investigate the presence of amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles in plasma samples from patients with PCC were eligible. This included studies with or without controls. Randomized controlled trials review Studies were eligible if they were of randomized controlled design and investigated the effectiveness or safety of plasmapheresis for removing amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles for treating PCC. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors applied study inclusion criteria to identify eligible studies and extracted data. Laboratory studies review We assessed the risk of bias of included studies using pre-developed methods for laboratory studies. We planned to perform synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) as described in our protocol. Randomized controlled trials review We planned that if we identified any eligible studies, we would assess risk of bias and report results with 95% confidence intervals. The primary outcome was recovery, measured using the Post-COVID-19 Functional Status Scale (absence of symptoms related to the illness, ability to do usual daily activities, and a return to a previous state of health and mind). MAIN RESULTS: Laboratory studies review We identified five laboratory studies. Amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles were identified in participants across all studies, including those with PCC, healthy individuals, and those with diabetes. The results of three studies were based on visual images of amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles, which did not quantify the amount or size of the particles identified. Formal risk of bias assessment showed concerns in how the studies were conducted and reported. This means the results were insufficient to support the belief that amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles are associated with PCC, or to determine whether there is a difference in the amount or size of amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles in the plasma of people with PCC compared to healthy controls. Randomized controlled trials review We identified no trials meeting our inclusion criteria. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of reliable research showing that amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles contribute to the pathophysiology of PCC, there is no rationale for plasmapheresis to remove amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles in PCC. Plasmapheresis for this indication should not be used outside the context of a well-conducted randomized controlled trial.

Therapeutics for treating mpox in humans.

BACKGROUND: Mpox was declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) by the World Health Organization (WHO) on 23 July 2022, following the identification of thousands of cases in several non-endemic countries in previous months. There are currently no licenced therapeutics for treating mpox; however, some medications may be authorized for use in an outbreak. The efficacy and safety of possible therapeutic options has not been studied in humans with mpox. There is a need to investigate the evidence on safety and effectiveness of treatments for mpox in humans; should any therapeutic option be efficacious and safe, it may be approved for use around the world. OBJECTIVES: There are two parts to this Cochrane Review: a review of evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and a narrative review of safety data from non-randomized studies. Randomized controlled trials review To systematically review the existing evidence on the effectiveness of therapeutics for mpox infection in humans compared to: a) another different therapeutic for mpox, or b) placebo, or c) supportive care, defined as the treatment of physical and psychological symptoms arising from the disease. Non-randomized studies review To assess the safety of therapeutics for mpox infection from non-randomized studies (NRS). SEARCH METHODS: Randomized controlled trials review We searched the following databases up to 25 January 2023: MEDLINE (OVID), Embase (OVID), Biosis previews (Web of Science), CAB Abstracts (Web of science), and Cochrane CENTRAL (Issue 1 2023). We conducted a search of trial registries (Clinicaltrials.gov and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP)) on 25 January 2023. There were no date or language limits placed on the search. We undertook a call to experts in the field for relevant studies or ongoing trials to be considered for inclusion in the review. Non-randomized studies review We searched the following databases on 22 September 2022: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Issue 9 of 12, 2022), published in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (Ovid); Embase (Ovid); and Scopus (Elsevier). We also searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov for trials in progress. SELECTION CRITERIA: For the RCT review and the narrative review, any therapeutic for the treatment of mpox in humans was eligible for inclusion, including tecovirimat, brincidofovir, cidofovir, NIOCH-14, immunomodulators, and vaccine immune globulin. Randomized controlled trials review Studies were eligible for the main review if they were of randomized controlled design and investigated the effectiveness or safety of therapeutics in human mpox infection. Non-randomized studies review Studies were eligible for inclusion in the review of non-randomized studies if they were of non-randomized design and contained data concerning the safety of any therapeutic in human mpox infection. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Randomized controlled trials review Two review authors independently applied study inclusion criteria to identify eligible studies. If we had identified any eligible studies, we planned to assess the risk of bias, and report results with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The critical outcomes were serious adverse events, development of disease-related complications, admission to hospital for non-hospitalized participants, pain as judged by any visual or numerical pain scale, level of virus detected in clinical samples, time to healing of all skin lesions, and mortality. We planned to perform subgroup analysis to explore whether the effect of the therapeutic on the planned outcomes was modified by disease severity and days from symptom onset to therapeutic administration. We also intended to explore the following subgroups of absolute effects: immunosuppression, age, and pre-existing skin disease. Non-randomized studies review One review author applied study inclusion criteria to identify eligible studies and extracted data. Studies of a non-randomized design containing data on the safety of therapeutics could not be meta-analyzed due to the absence of a comparator; we summarized these data narratively in an appendix. MAIN RESULTS: Randomized controlled trials review We did not identify any completed RCTs investigating the effectiveness of therapeutics for treating mpox for the main review. We identified five ongoing trials that plan to assess the effectiveness of one therapeutic option, tecovirimat, for treating mpox in adults and children. One of these ongoing trials intends to include populations with, or at greater risk of, severe disease, which will allow an assessment of safety in more vulnerable populations. Non-randomized studies review Three non-randomized studies met the inclusion criteria for the narrative review, concerning data on the safety of therapeutics in mpox. Very low-certainty evidence from non-randomized studies of small numbers of people indicates no serious safety signals emerging for the use of tecovirimat in people with mpox infection, but a possible safety signal for brincidofovir. All three participants who received brincidofovir had raised alanine aminotransferase (ALT), but not bilirubin, suggesting mild liver injury. No study reported severe drug-induced liver injury with brincidofovir. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Randomized controlled trials review This review found no evidence from randomized controlled trials concerning the efficacy and safety of therapeutics in humans with mpox. Non-randomized studies review Very low-certainty evidence from non-randomized studies indicates no serious safety signals emerging for the use of tecovirimat in people with mpox infection. In contrast, very low-certainty evidence raises a safety signal that brincidofovir may cause liver injury. This is also suggested by indirect evidence from brincidofovir use in smallpox. This warrants further investigation and monitoring. This Cochrane Review will be updated as new evidence becomes available to assist policymakers, health professionals, and consumers in making appropriate decisions for the treatment of mpox.

Antibody tests for identification of current and past infection with SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND: The diagnostic challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in rapid development of diagnostic test methods for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection. Serology tests to detect the presence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 enable detection of past infection and may detect cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection that were missed by earlier diagnostic tests. Understanding the diagnostic accuracy of serology tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection may enable development of effective diagnostic and management pathways, inform public health management decisions and understanding of SARS-CoV-2 epidemiology. OBJECTIVES: To assess the accuracy of antibody tests, firstly, to determine if a person presenting in the community, or in primary or secondary care has current SARS-CoV-2 infection according to time after onset of infection and, secondly, to determine if a person has previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Sources of heterogeneity investigated included: timing of test, test method, SARS-CoV-2 antigen used, test brand, and reference standard for non-SARS-CoV-2 cases. SEARCH METHODS: The COVID-19 Open Access Project living evidence database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) was searched on 30 September 2020. We included additional publications from the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre) 'COVID-19: Living map of the evidence' and the Norwegian Institute of Public Health 'NIPH systematic and living map on COVID-19 evidence'. We did not apply language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated commercially produced serology tests, targeting IgG, IgM, IgA alone, or in combination. Studies must have provided data for sensitivity, that could be allocated to a predefined time period after onset of symptoms, or after a positive RT-PCR test. Small studies with fewer than 25 SARS-CoV-2 infection cases were excluded. We included any reference standard to define the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests (RT-PCR), clinical diagnostic criteria, and pre-pandemic samples). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We use standard screening procedures with three reviewers. Quality assessment (using the QUADAS-2 tool) and numeric study results were extracted independently by two people. Other study characteristics were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test and, for meta-analysis, we fitted univariate random-effects logistic regression models for sensitivity by eligible time period and for specificity by reference standard group. Heterogeneity was investigated by including indicator variables in the random-effects logistic regression models. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and summarised results for tests that were evaluated in 200 or more samples and that met a modification of UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) target performance criteria. MAIN RESULTS: We included 178 separate studies (described in 177 study reports, with 45 as pre-prints) providing 527 test evaluations. The studies included 64,688 samples including 25,724 from people with confirmed SARS-CoV-2; most compared the accuracy of two or more assays (102/178, 57%). Participants with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were most commonly hospital inpatients (78/178, 44%), and pre-pandemic samples were used by 45% (81/178) to estimate specificity. Over two-thirds of studies recruited participants based on known SARS-CoV-2 infection status (123/178, 69%). All studies were conducted prior to the introduction of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and present data for naturally acquired antibody responses. Seventy-nine percent (141/178) of studies reported sensitivity by week after symptom onset and 66% (117/178) for convalescent phase infection. Studies evaluated enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) (165/527; 31%), chemiluminescent assays (CLIA) (167/527; 32%) or lateral flow assays (LFA) (188/527; 36%). Risk of bias was high because of participant selection (172, 97%); application and interpretation of the index test (35, 20%); weaknesses in the reference standard (38, 21%); and issues related to participant flow and timing (148, 82%). We judged that there were high concerns about the applicability of the evidence related to participants in 170 (96%) studies, and about the applicability of the reference standard in 162 (91%) studies. Average sensitivities for current SARS-CoV-2 infection increased by week after onset for all target antibodies. Average sensitivity for the combination of either IgG or IgM was 41.1% in week one (95% CI 38.1 to 44.2; 103 evaluations; 3881 samples, 1593 cases), 74.9% in week two (95% CI 72.4 to 77.3; 96 evaluations, 3948 samples, 2904 cases) and 88.0% by week three after onset of symptoms (95% CI 86.3 to 89.5; 103 evaluations, 2929 samples, 2571 cases). Average sensitivity during the convalescent phase of infection (up to a maximum of 100 days since onset of symptoms, where reported) was 89.8% for IgG (95% CI 88.5 to 90.9; 253 evaluations, 16,846 samples, 14,183 cases), 92.9% for IgG or IgM combined (95% CI 91.0 to 94.4; 108 evaluations, 3571 samples, 3206 cases) and 94.3% for total antibodies (95% CI 92.8 to 95.5; 58 evaluations, 7063 samples, 6652 cases). Average sensitivities for IgM alone followed a similar pattern but were of a lower test accuracy in every time slot. Average specificities were consistently high and precise, particularly for pre-pandemic samples which provide the least biased estimates of specificity (ranging from 98.6% for IgM to 99.8% for total antibodies). Subgroup analyses suggested small differences in sensitivity and specificity by test technology however heterogeneity in study results, timing of sample collection, and smaller sample numbers in some groups made comparisons difficult. For IgG, CLIAs were the most sensitive (convalescent-phase infection) and specific (pre-pandemic samples) compared to both ELISAs and LFAs (P < 0.001 for differences across test methods). The antigen(s) used (whether from the Spike-protein or nucleocapsid) appeared to have some effect on average sensitivity in the first weeks after onset but there was no clear evidence of an effect during convalescent-phase infection. Investigations of test performance by brand showed considerable variation in sensitivity between tests, and in results between studies evaluating the same test. For tests that were evaluated in 200 or more samples, the lower bound of the 95% CI for sensitivity was 90% or more for only a small number of tests (IgG, n = 5; IgG or IgM, n = 1; total antibodies, n = 4). More test brands met the MHRA minimum criteria for specificity of 98% or above (IgG, n = 16; IgG or IgM, n = 5; total antibodies, n = 7). Seven assays met the specified criteria for both sensitivity and specificity. In a low-prevalence (2%) setting, where antibody testing is used to diagnose COVID-19 in people with symptoms but who have had a negative PCR test, we would anticipate that 1 (1 to 2) case would be missed and 8 (5 to 15) would be falsely positive in 1000 people undergoing IgG or IgM testing in week three after onset of SARS-CoV-2 infection. In a seroprevalence survey, where prevalence of prior infection is 50%, we would anticipate that 51 (46 to 58) cases would be missed and 6 (5 to 7) would be falsely positive in 1000 people having IgG tests during the convalescent phase (21 to 100 days post-symptom onset or post-positive PCR) of SARS-CoV-2 infection. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Some antibody tests could be a useful diagnostic tool for those in whom molecular- or antigen-based tests have failed to detect the SARS-CoV-2 virus, including in those with ongoing symptoms of acute infection (from week three onwards) or those presenting with post-acute sequelae of COVID-19. However, antibody tests have an increasing likelihood of detecting an immune response to infection as time since onset of infection progresses and have demonstrated adequate performance for detection of prior infection for sero-epidemiological purposes. The applicability of results for detection of vaccination-induced antibodies is uncertain.

Should all pregnant women take calcium supplements in Nepal? GRADE evidence to policy assessment.

BACKGROUND: The WHO recommends oral calcium supplementation (1.5-2.0 g) in pregnant women to reduce the risk of pre-eclampsia living in areas with low dietary calcium intake. Although maternal mortality is high in Nepal and eclampsia causes at least 20% of maternal deaths, implementing WHO recommendations would be a major undertaking. OBJECTIVE: This review aimed to assess whether the current evidence supports the blanket supplementation of calcium to prevent pre-eclampsia among pregnant women in Nepal. METHODS: We used a structured approach to appraise the evidence for calcium supplementation in Nepal. We identified what may influence the impact of calcium supplementation in Nepal and conducted a situation analysis in the country covering maternal mortality, pre-eclampsia occurrence, and existing government policy provisions for supplementation. We also consulted with experts and government officials to explore their perspectives and experience on supplementation. We then used AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) to appraise the Cochrane Systematic Review of calcium supplementation. Finally, we used these data in a GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation)-Evidence to Decision framework to reach a policy recommendation. RESULTS: Our assessment of the Cochrane Review showed that the recommendation made by the WHO is based on weak evidence and trial findings that are not consistent between studies. The Cochrane Review found low certainty of the evidence for benefit (reduction in pre-eclampsia and maternal mortality). Conversely, there is a high certainty of the evidence of undesirable effects (HELLP [haemolysis, elevated liver enzymes and low platelets] syndrome) although this is uncommon. The likely absolute reduction in maternal deaths projected to Nepal was estimated to be low, while the implementation costs were high. Stakeholders also raised several concerns regarding feasibility, acceptability, appropriate dosing, and risk communication. CONCLUSIONS: This review concludes that the blanket supplementation of calcium cannot be recommended in Nepal. A better approach may be to identify high-risk pregnant women and manage their antenatal visits and delivery to prevent mortality from pre-eclampsia.

House modifications for preventing malaria.

BACKGROUND: Malaria remains an important public health problem. Research in 1900 suggested house modifications may reduce malaria transmission. A previous version of this review concluded that house screening may be effective in reducing malaria. This update includes data from five new studies. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of house modifications that aim to reduce exposure to mosquitoes on malaria disease and transmission. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), published in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (PubMed); Embase (OVID); Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International (CAB) Abstracts (Web of Science); and the Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database (LILACS) up to 25 May 2022. We also searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the ISRCTN registry to identify ongoing trials up to 25 May 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials, including cluster-randomized controlled trials (cRCTs), cross-over studies, and stepped-wedge designs were eligible, as were quasi-experimental trials, including controlled before-and-after studies, controlled interrupted time series, and non-randomized cross-over studies. We sought studies investigating primary construction and house modifications to existing homes reporting epidemiological outcomes (malaria case incidence, malaria infection incidence or parasite prevalence). We extracted any entomological outcomes that were also reported in these studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected eligible studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. We used risk ratios (RR) to compare the effect of the intervention with the control for dichotomous data. For continuous data, we presented the mean difference; and for count and rate data, we used rate ratios. We presented all results with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: One RCT and six cRCTs met our inclusion criteria, with an additional six ongoing RCTs. We did not identify any eligible non-randomized studies. All included trials were conducted in sub-Saharan Africa since 2009; two randomized by household and four at the block or village level. All trials assessed screening of windows, doors, eaves, ceilings, or any combination of these; this was either alone, or in combination with roof modification or eave tube installation (an insecticidal "lure and kill" device that reduces mosquito entry whilst maintaining some airflow). In one trial, the screening material was treated with 2% permethrin insecticide. In five trials, the researchers implemented the interventions. A community-based approach was adopted in the other trial. Overall, the implementation of house modifications probably reduced malaria parasite prevalence (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.82; 5 trials, 5183 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), although an inconsistent effect was observed in a subpopulation of children in one study. House modifications reduced moderate to severe anaemia prevalence (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.89; 3 trials, 3643 participants; high-certainty evidence). There was no consistent effect on clinical malaria incidence, with rate ratios ranging from 0.38 to 1.62 (3 trials, 3365 participants, 4126.6 person-years). House modifications may reduce indoor mosquito density (rate ratio 0.63, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.30; 4 trials, 9894 household-nights; low-certainty evidence), although two studies showed little effect on this parameter. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: House modifications - largely screening, sometimes combined with insecticide and lure and kill devices - were associated with a reduction in malaria parasite prevalence and a reduction in people with anaemia. Findings on malaria incidence were mixed. Modifications were also associated with lower indoor adult mosquito density, but this effect was not present in some studies.

Pyronaridine-artesunate for treating uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs) to treat uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria. Concerns about artemisinin resistance have led to global initiatives to develop new partner drugs to protect artemisinin derivatives in ACT. Pyronaridine-artesunate is a novel ACT. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of pyronaridine-artesunate compared to alternative ACTs for treating people with uncomplicated P falciparum malaria, and to evaluate the safety of pyronaridine-artesunate and other pyronaridine treatments compared to alternative treatments. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), published in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE; Embase; and LILACS. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and the ISRCTN registry for ongoing or recently completed trials. The date of the last search was 27 October 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: For the efficacy analysis, we included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of pyronaridine-artesunate for treating uncomplicated P falciparum malaria. For the safety analysis, we included RCTs that used pyronaridine alone or in combination with any other antimalarials. In addition to these analyses, we conducted a separate systematic review summarizing data on safety from non-randomized studies (NRS) of any patient receiving pyronaridine (NRS safety review).  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted all data and assessed the certainty of the evidence. We meta-analysed data to calculate risk ratios (RRs) for treatment failures between comparisons, and for safety outcomes between and across comparisons. MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 relevant RCTs. Seven RCTs were co-funded by Shin Poong Pharmaceuticals, and three were funded by government agencies. Efficacy analysis (RCTs) For the efficacy analysis, we identified five RCTs comprising 5711 participants. This included 4465 participants from 13 sites in Africa, and 1246 participants from five sites in Asia. The analysis included 541 children aged less than five years. Overall, pyronaridine-artesunate had a polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-adjusted treatment failure rate of less than 5%. We evaluated pyronaridine-artesunate versus the following. • Artemether-lumefantrine. Pyronaridine artesunate may perform better for PCR-adjusted failures at day 28 (RR 0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 1.31; 4 RCTs, 3068 participants, low-certainty evidence); for unadjusted failures at day 28 (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.58; 4 RCTs, 3149 participants, low-certainty evidence); and for unadjusted failures at day 42 (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.82; 4 RCTs, 3080 participants, low-certainty evidence). For PCR-adjusted failures at day 42, there may be little or no difference between groups (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.51; 4 RCTs, 2575 participants, low-certainty evidence). • Artesunate-amodiaquine. Pyronaridine artesunate may perform better for PCR-adjusted failures at day 28 (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.77; 1 RCT, 1245 participants, low-certainty evidence); probably performs better for unadjusted failures at day 28 (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.81; 1 RCT, 1257 participants, moderate-certainty evidence); may make little or no difference for PCR-adjusted failures at day 42 (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.20 to 4.83; 1 RCT, 1091 participants, low-certainty evidence); and probably makes little or no difference for unadjusted failures at day 42 (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.23; 1 RCT, 1235 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). • Mefloquine plus artesunate. Pyronaridine artesunate may perform better for PCR-adjusted failures at day 28 (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.05; 1 RCT, 1117 participants, low-certainty evidence); probably performs better for unadjusted failures at day 28 (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.78; 1 RCT, 1120 participants, moderate-certainty evidence); may make little or no difference for unadjusted failures at day 42 (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.31; 1 RCT, 1059 participants, low-certainty evidence); but may lead to higher PCR-adjusted failures at day 42 (RR 1.80, 95% CI 0.90 to 3.57; 1 RCT, 1037 participants, low-certainty evidence). Safety analysis (RCTs) For the RCT safety analysis, we identified eight RCTs, one of which was delineated by study site, comparing pyronaridine-artesunate to other antimalarials. Pyronaridine-artesunate was associated with raised liver enzymes compared to other antimalarials: alanine aminotransferase (ALT) (RR 3.59, 95% CI 1.76 to 7.33; 8 RCTS, 6669 participants, high-certainty evidence) and aspartate transaminase (AST) (RR 2.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 4.41; 8 RCTs, 6669 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). No such effect was demonstrated with bilirubin (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.18; 7 RCTs, 6384 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). There was one reported case in which raised ALT occurred with raised bilirubin. No study reported severe drug-induced liver injury. Electrocardiograph (ECG) abnormalities were less common with pyronaridine-artesunate compared to other antimalarials. We identified no other safety concerns. NRS safety review A review on safety in NRS allowed us to increase the population within which safety was assessed. We included seven studies with 9546 participants: five single-arm observational studies, one cohort event monitoring study, and one dose-escalation study. All studies provided data on adverse event frequency, with a small number of participants experiencing serious adverse events and adverse effects related to pyronaridine: serious adverse events average 0.37%; drug-related 9.0%. In two studies reporting elevations in liver enzymes, small percentages of participants (2.4% and 14.1% respectively) experienced increases in either ALT, AST, or bilirubin on day 7; however, these were small increases that returned to normal by day 42.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Pyronaridine-artesunate was efficacious against uncomplicated P falciparum malaria; achieved a PCR-adjusted treatment failure rate of less than 5% at days 28 and 42; and may be at least as good as, or better than, other marketed ACTs. Pyronaridine-artesunate increases the risk of episodes of abnormally raised ALT. The observational data did not signal an excess of clinically important adverse effects.

Is routine Vitamin A supplementation still justified for children in Nepal? Trial synthesis findings applied to Nepal national mortality estimates.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization has recommended Vitamin A supplementation for children in low- and middle-income countries for many years to reduce child mortality. Nepal still practices routine Vitamin A supplementation. We examined the potential current impact of these programs using national data in Nepal combined with an update of the mortality effect estimate from a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. METHODS: We used the 2017 Cochrane review as a template for an updated meta-analysis. We conducted fresh searches, re-applied the inclusion criteria, re-extracted the data for mortality and constructed a summary of findings table using GRADE. We applied the best estimate of the effect obtained from the trials to the national statistics of the country to estimate the impact of supplementation on under-five mortality in Nepal. RESULTS: The effect estimates from well-concealed trials gave a 9% reduction in mortality (Risk Ratio: 0.91, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.97, 6 trials; 1,046,829 participants; low certainty evidence). The funnel plot suggested publication bias, and a meta-analysis of trials published since 2000 gave a smaller effect estimate (Risk Ratio: 0.96, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.03, 2 trials, 1,007,587 participants), with the DEVTA trial contributing 55.1 per cent to this estimate. Applying the estimate from well-concealed trials to Nepal's under-five mortality rate, there may be a reduction in mortality, and this is small from 28 to 25 per 1000 live births; 3 fewer deaths (95% CI 1 to 4 fewer) for every 1000 children supplemented. CONCLUSIONS: Vitamin A supplementation may only result in a quantitatively unimportant reduction in child mortality. Stopping blanket supplementation seems reasonable given these data.