Effectiveness of testing, contact tracing and isolation interventions among the general population on reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2: a systematic review.

We conducted a systematic literature review of general population testing, contact tracing, case isolation and contact quarantine interventions to assess their effectiveness in reducing SARS-CoV-2 transmission, as implemented in real-world settings. We designed a broad search strategy and aimed to identify peer-reviewed studies of any design provided there was a quantitative measure of effectiveness on a transmission outcome. Studies that assessed the effect of testing or diagnosis on disease outcomes via treatment, but did not assess a transmission outcome, were not included. We focused on interventions implemented among the general population rather than in specific settings; these were from anywhere in the world and published any time after 1 January 2020 until the end of 2022. From 26 720 titles and abstracts, 1181 were reviewed as full text, and 25 met our inclusion criteria. These 25 studies included one randomized control trial (RCT) and the remaining 24 analysed empirical data and made some attempt to control for confounding. Studies included were categorized by the type of intervention: contact tracing (seven studies); specific testing strategies (12 studies); strategies for isolating cases/contacts (four studies); and 'test, trace, isolate' (TTI) as a part of a package of interventions (two studies). None of the 25 studies were rated at low risk of bias and many were rated as serious risk of bias, particularly due to the likely presence of uncontrolled confounding factors, which was a major challenge in assessing the independent effects of TTI in observational studies. These confounding factors are to be expected from observational studies during an on-going pandemic, when the emphasis was on reducing the epidemic burden rather than trial design. Findings from these 25 studies suggested an important public health role for testing followed by isolation, especially where mass and serial testing was used to reduce transmission. Some of the most compelling analyses came from examining fine-grained within-country data on contact tracing; while broader studies which compared behaviour between countries also often found TTI led to reduced transmission and mortality, this was not universal. There was limited evidence for the benefit of isolation of cases/contacts away from the home environment. One study, an RCT, showed that daily testing of contacts could be a viable strategy to replace lengthy quarantine of contacts. Based on the scarcity of robust empirical evidence, we were not able to draw any firm quantitative conclusions about the quantitative impact of TTI interventions in different epidemic contexts. While the majority of studies found that testing, tracing and isolation reduced transmission, evidence for the scale of this impact is only available for specific scenarios and hence is not necessarily generalizable. Our review therefore emphasizes the need to conduct robust experimental studies that help inform the likely quantitative impact of different TTI interventions on transmission and their optimal design. Work is needed to support such studies in the context of future emerging epidemics, along with assessments of the cost-effectiveness of TTI interventions, which was beyond the scope of this review but will be critical to decision-making. This article is part of the theme issue 'The effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions on the COVID-19 pandemic: the evidence'.

Effectiveness and safety of tenofovir alafenamide in children and adolescents living with HIV: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) is approved for paediatric use in fixed-dose combination tablets, but efficacy and safety data in children are limited. We conducted a systematic review on the efficacy/effectiveness and safety of TAF in infants, children and adolescents living with HIV. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, clinical trial registries, reference lists and relevant conferences to identify literature published January 2009-March 2021. We included clinical trials and observational studies assessing the efficacy/effectiveness or safety of TAF through ≥6 months of treatment in participants aged 0-19 years. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Overall 3626 abstracts and 371 full papers were screened. Four single-arm, innovator-funded trials (341 participants) and a pooled analysis of those trials were identified. All four trials included treatment-experienced and virally suppressed children or adolescents. One trial also included treatment-naïve adolescents with baseline viral load >1000 copies/ml. The risk of bias was rated as low in one study and unclear in the other three owing to missing data on study design (all conference presentations). At 48 weeks, 92% (46/50) of treatment-naïve participants were virally suppressed (one trial). Among treatment-experienced participants with viral load at 48 weeks, 214 of 224 participants were virally suppressed. Across the studies, one grade 3/4 adverse event was considered drug-related (intermediate uveitis). There were three discontinuations for adverse events (grade 2 anxiety and insomnia, grade 1 iridocyclitis [drug-related] and grade 1 pulmonary tuberculosis [unrelated to treatment]). One accidental death occurred across the four studies. In the pooled analysis of 223 participants, the median change in bone mineral density z-score (height- and age-adjusted) from baseline to 48 weeks was -0.12 (interquartile range [IQR] -0.46, 0.17) to 0.05 (IQR not reported) for spine, and -0.09 (IQR -0.33, 0.07) to 0.09 (IQR not reported) for total body less head. Weight-for-age z-scores increased by 0.25 from baseline to 48 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Four single-arm trials were identified in this systematic review, with initial evidence suggesting good viral suppression and no obvious safety concerns in children and adolescents on TAF-containing regimens over 24-48 weeks. However, further comparative and longer-term safety data are needed in children and adolescents, including on weight and metabolic changes.

Effectiveness and safety of dolutegravir and raltegravir for treating children and adolescents living with HIV: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Globally about 1.7 million children were living with HIV in 2020. Two integrase strand transfer inhibitors, dolutegravir and raltegravir, are increasingly used in children. We conducted a systematic review to assess the effectiveness and safety of dolutegravir and raltegravir in children and adolescents living with HIV, aged 0-19 years. METHODS: Sources included MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, clinical trial registries, abstracts from key conferences and reference list searching. Observational studies and clinical trials published January 2009-March 2021 were eligible. Outcomes included efficacy/effectiveness (CD4 counts and viral load) and/or safety outcomes (mortality, grade 3/4 adverse events and treatment discontinuation) through 6 months or more post-treatment initiation. Risk of bias was assessed using previously published tools appropriate for the study design. Narrative syntheses were conducted. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: In total, 3626 abstracts and 371 papers were screened. Eleven studies, including 2330 children/adolescents, reported data on dolutegravir: one randomized controlled trial (RCT; low risk of bias), one single-arm trial (unclear risk of bias) and nine cohort studies (three low risk of bias, two unclear risk and four high risk). Ten studies, including 649 children/adolescents receiving raltegravir, were identified: one RCT (low risk of bias), one single-arm trial (low risk of bias) and eight cohort studies (four low risk of bias, three unclear risk and one high risk). Viral suppression levels in children/adolescents at 12 months were high (>70%) in most studies assessing dolutegravir (mostly second- or subsequent-line, or mixed treatment lines), and varied from 42% (5/12) to 83% (44/53) at 12 months in studies assessing raltegravir (mostly second- or subsequent-line). Across all studies assessing dolutegravir or raltegravir, grade 3/4 adverse events (clinical and/or laboratory) were reported in 0-50% of subjects, few resulted in discontinuation, few were drug related and no deaths were attributed to either drug. CONCLUSIONS: These reassuring findings suggest that dolutegravir and raltegravir are effective and safe as preferred regimens in children and adolescents living with HIV. With the rollout of dolutegravir in paediatric populations already underway, it is critical that data are collected on safety and effectiveness in infants, children and adolescents, including on longer-term outcomes, such as weight and metabolic changes.

Safety and efficacy of abacavir for treating infants, children, and adolescents living with HIV: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Abacavir is a nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor recommended in paediatric HIV care. We assessed the safety and efficacy profile of abacavir used in first, second, or subsequent lines of treatment for infants, children, and adolescents living with HIV to inform 2021 WHO paediatric ART recommendations. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we included observational and experimental studies conducted in infants aged 0-1 year, children aged 1-10 years, and adolescents aged 10-19 years living with HIV; with data on safety or efficacy, or both, of abacavir-based antiretroviral therapy (ART); published in English or French between Jan 1, 2009, and Oct 1, 2020, plus an updated search to incorporate studies published between Oct 1, 2020, and May 15, 2022. Studies could be non-randomised or non-comparative and include patients who are treatment-naive or those who previously received abacavir (only if abacavir was combined with other ART). Case studies, studies in adults aged 18 years or older, and those assessing the effect of maternal ART exposure were excluded. We extracted data related to study identifier, study design, study period, setting, population characteristics, ART treatment, and safety (any hypersensitivity reaction, death, grade 3 or 4 adverse events, treatment discontinuation, any other morbidities, and serious adverse events), and efficacy outcomes (HIV viral load and CD4 counts reported at 6 and 12 months after ART initiation). Using random-effect models, we estimated weighted pooled incidence and relative risk (RR) of outcomes. The protocol is published in PROSPERO (CRD42022309230). FINDINGS: Of 1777 records identified, 1475 (83%) were screened after removing duplicates and a further 1421 (96%) were excluded. Of 54 full-text articles assessed for eligibility, 33 (61%) were excluded. Four records were identified from grey literature plus one duplicate from database searching, resulting in 24 studies included (two randomised controlled trials, one single-arm trial, 12 prospective cohorts, seven retrospective cohorts, and two cross-sectional studies). 19 studies described safety data and 15 described efficacy data. 18 (75%) studies were conducted in ART-naive participants. The risk of bias was considered moderate to high for most studies, and all outcomes had significant between-study heterogeneity. Data from 24 265 participants were included, of whom 7236 (30%) received abacavir. Abacavir hypersensitivity reaction was reported in nine (38%) studies, with an incidence ranging from 0·00% to 8·26% (I2=85%; p<0·0001). The incidence of death (reported in seven studies) following abacavir treatment varied from 0·00% to 5·49% (I2=58%; p=0·026). Viral suppression (<400 copies per mL) varied from 50% to 70% at 6 months (I2=92%, p<0·0001) and from 57% to 78% at 12 months (I2=88%, p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: Toxic effects due to abacavir use remain rare and manageable. Despite scarce data on efficacy, this meta-analysis supports the use of abacavir as a preferred first-line regimen for infants and children living with HIV. FUNDING: WHO.

Effectiveness and Safety of Atazanavir Use for the Treatment of Children and Adolescents Living With HIV: A Systematic Review.

Background: Atazanavir/ritonavir is recommended as a preferred second-line antiretroviral regimen in children older than 3 months, alternatively to lopinavir/ritonavir. We performed a systematic review to assess safety and effectiveness of atazanavir use in children and adolescents. Methods: We searched observational studies and clinical trials on Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL database between 2009/01/01 and 2020/10/01; as well as grey literature. We extracted safety (adverse events, grade 3 or 4 adverse events, treatment discontinuation) and effectiveness (CD4 cell counts and HIV viral load) outcomes. We estimated weighted summary pooled incidence with corresponding 95% confidence intervals. Results: Out of the 1,085 records screened, we included five studies (one comparative cohort, three single phase 2-3 trial arms, one retrospective cohort) reporting 975 children and adolescents, of whom 56% (544) received atazanavir. Three studies reported all-cause treatment discontinuation rates, yielding a pooled incidence of 19% [15-22] at 12 months. The comparative cohort compared atazanavir to darunavir, with few grade 3-4 adverse events, except transient hyperbilirubinemia, occurring in half (92/188) of the atazanavir patients. No death occurred (two studies reporting). Four studies described increased CD4 cell counts and decreased HIV viral load at 6 or 12 months. Conclusion: Few safety and effectiveness data were available for children and adolescents exposed to atazanavir. Transient grade 3-4 hyperbilirubinemia was the main adverse outcome reported. Immune and viral responses were descriptive. The use of atazanavir/ritonavir in children and adolescents needs further investigation, but remains a suitable option for a preferred second-line antiretroviral regimen. PROSPERO number: CRD42022309230.

BET 1: Everything in graduation: arterial/end-tidal CO2 gradient and the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism.

A short cut review was carried out to establish the diagnostic characteristics of alveolar dead space fraction (AVDSf) in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (PE). This is calculated from the arterial and end-tidal CO2 Three papers were selected to answer the clinical question. The author, study type, relevant outcomes, results and weaknesses are tabulated. It is concluded that there is good evidence to support the use of AVDSf within a clinical prediction model to exclude a PE in patients when there is a low pretest probability. However, the specificity is not sufficient to support it as a 'rule in' test.

The IDENTIFY study: the investigation and detection of urological neoplasia in patients referred with suspected urinary tract cancer - a multicentre observational study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the contemporary prevalence of urinary tract cancer (bladder cancer, upper tract urothelial cancer [UTUC] and renal cancer) in patients referred to secondary care with haematuria, adjusted for established patient risk markers and geographical variation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was an international multicentre prospective observational study. We included patients aged ≥16 years, referred to secondary care with suspected urinary tract cancer. Patients with a known or previous urological malignancy were excluded. We estimated the prevalence of bladder cancer, UTUC, renal cancer and prostate cancer; stratified by age, type of haematuria, sex, and smoking. We used a multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression to adjust cancer prevalence for age, type of haematuria, sex, smoking, hospitals, and countries. RESULTS: Of the 11 059 patients assessed for eligibility, 10 896 were included from 110 hospitals across 26 countries. The overall adjusted cancer prevalence (n = 2257) was 28.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 22.3-34.1), bladder cancer (n = 1951) 24.7% (95% CI 19.1-30.2), UTUC (n = 128) 1.14% (95% CI 0.77-1.52), renal cancer (n = 107) 1.05% (95% CI 0.80-1.29), and prostate cancer (n = 124) 1.75% (95% CI 1.32-2.18). The odds ratios for patient risk markers in the model for all cancers were: age 1.04 (95% CI 1.03-1.05; P < 0.001), visible haematuria 3.47 (95% CI 2.90-4.15; P < 0.001), male sex 1.30 (95% CI 1.14-1.50; P < 0.001), and smoking 2.70 (95% CI 2.30-3.18; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A better understanding of cancer prevalence across an international population is required to inform clinical guidelines. We are the first to report urinary tract cancer prevalence across an international population in patients referred to secondary care, adjusted for patient risk markers and geographical variation. Bladder cancer was the most prevalent disease. Visible haematuria was the strongest predictor for urinary tract cancer.