Comment: Sedation as part of secondary prophylaxis to prevent recurrent rheumatic fever in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples: time for a reset?

Australia's national clinical practice guidelines recommend intramuscular (IM) penicillin every 28 days for persons diagnosed with an initial episode of acute rheumatic fever (ARF). This antibiotic coverage is initiated to reduce recurrent ARF episodes by preventing repeat infections with the causative bacterium, group A Streptococcus. Because disease has already occurred, this regimen is known as secondary prophylaxis (SP), done in order to prevent more episodes of ARF (known as recurrences). In 2020, eight authors shared with readers of Rural and Remote Health their experience of introducing off-label an oral, centrally acting, alpha agonist sedative to the prescribed SP regimen of IM penicillin for each of three Aboriginal children previously diagnosed with ARF. The living environments of the three children increased their risk for repeat group A Streptococcus infections and subsequent recurrences of ARF. We find the clinical case report perpetuates a troubling academic tone about this singular priority for SP. Injecting a child with IM penicillin appears to supersede all other objectives. Off-label sedation in remote settings is legitimised in order to succeed in this imperative. Those articles that peer-reviewed medical journals choose to publish privilege directions for priorities, policy and practice. In this commentary, we present alternative perspectives and initiatives for consideration.

Ebola-negative neonates born to Ebola-infected mothers after monoclonal antibody therapy: a case series.

BACKGROUND: Few fetuses survive childbirth when the mother is positive for Ebola virus, with almost all being miscarried or stillborn, or dying shortly after birth. Before 2019, only two infants had been reported surviving past 28 days, of whom one tested positive for Ebola virus and subsequently received experimental therapies. Little is understood regarding the care of surviving neonates born to Ebola virus-positive mothers in the postnatal period and how novel anti-Ebola virus therapies might affect neonatal outcomes. METHODS: In this case series, we report on two neonates liveborn during the 2018-20 North Kivu Ebola epidemic in the Democratic Republic of the Congo who, along with their Ebola virus-positive mothers, received investigational monoclonal antibody treatment (mAB114 or REGN-EB3) as part of a randomised controlled trial (NCT03719586). FINDINGS: Both infants were born Ebola-negative and progressed well while in the Ebola Treatment Centre. Neither neonate developed evidence of Ebola virus disease during the course of the admission, and both were Ebola-negative at 21 days and remained healthy at discharge. INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge these neonates are the first documented as Ebola virus-negative at birth after being born to Ebola virus-positive mothers, and only the third and fourth neonates ever documented to have survived into infancy. Although no conclusions can be drawn from this small case series, and further research is required to investigate the neonatal effects of antibody therapies, these cases warrant review regarding whether post-delivery antibody therapy should be considered for all liveborn neonates of Ebola virus-positive mothers. In the context of a low resource setting, where survival of low-birthweight infants is poor, these cases also highlight the importance of adequate neonatal care. FUNDING: None.