Determining reinfection rates by hepatitis C testing interval among key populations: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Detecting hepatitis C virus (HCV) reinfection among key populations helps prevent ongoing transmission. This systematic review aims to determine the association between different testing intervals during post-SVR follow-up on the detection of HCV reinfection among highest risk populations. METHODS: We searched electronic databases between January 2014 and February 2023 for studies that tested individuals at risk for HCV reinfection at discrete testing intervals and reported HCV reinfection incidence among key populations. Pooled estimates of reinfection incidence were calculated by population and testing frequency using random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: Forty-one single-armed observational studies (9453 individuals) were included. Thirty-eight studies (8931 individuals) reported HCV reinfection incidence rate and were included in meta-analyses. The overall pooled estimate of HCV reinfection incidence rate was 4.13 per 100 per person-years (py) (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.45-4.81). The pooled incidence estimate among people who inject drugs (PWID) was 2.84 per 100 py (95% CI: 2.19-3.50), among men who have sex with men (MSM) 7.37 per 100 py (95% CI: 5.09-9.65) and among people in custodial settings 7.23 per 100 py (95% CI: 2.13-16.59). The pooled incidence estimate for studies reporting a testing interval of ≤6 months (4.26 per 100 py; 95% CI: 2.86-5.65) was higher than studies reporting testing intervals >6 months (5.19 per 100 py; 95% CI: 3.92-6.46). CONCLUSIONS: HCV reinfection incidence was highest in studies of MSM and did not appear to change with retesting interval. Shorter testing intervals are likely to identify more reinfections, help prevent onward transmission where treatment is available and enable progress towards global HCV elimination, but additional comparative studies are required.

Laboratory evaluation of ELISA and indirect immunofluorescence assay in response to emergence of Japanese encephalitis virus genotype IV in Australia.

The unexpected recent emergence of Japanese encephalitis virus (JEV) genotype IV in multiple southern states of Australia necessitated an evaluation of JEV serological tests suitable for diagnosing acute infection and for seroprevalence studies. This study examined the analytical and clinical performance of two high-throughput JEV assays, Euroimmun immunofluorescence assay (IFA) and Euroimmun enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), across four cohorts; (1) surveillance of piggery workers in outbreak areas, (2) surveillance of residents in outbreak areas, (3) acute JEV infection and (4) post-JEV vaccination. ELISA and IFA IgM demonstrated minimal cross-reactivity (0-1.8%) with other endemic flaviviruses, with high sensitivity (100%) for acute JEV infection in this low endemicity setting. Differences in IgG serodynamics between the two assays suggest convalescent and paired testing with IgM are critical in diagnosing acute infection. High assay concordance was observed between ELISA and IFA when used in serosurveillance (97.4% agreement, Cohen' κ 0.74 [95% CI 0.614-0.860]) and vaccination cohorts (91.1% agreement, Cohen's κ 0.806 [95% CI 0.672-0.941]). In conclusion, this study highlights the clinical & epidemiological applications and limitations of these two commercial JEV assays.

Immediate treatment for recent hepatitis C infection in people with high-risk behaviors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) are almost exclusively approved for the treatment of chronic HCV. This poses a significant barrier to the treatment of recently acquired HCV because of the limited access to DAAs. This review seeks to address this issue by synthesizing evidence of the benefits and harms of immediate treatment after the detection of recently acquired HCV in people at higher risk of infection. APPROACH AND RESULTS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted reporting on populations with recently acquired HCV at higher risk of infection. Studies were included if they assessed standard duration DAA treatment regimens and reported on the benefits and harms of immediate treatment (within one year of diagnosis). Outcomes included sustained virological response at 12 weeks post-treatment (SVR12), incidence, treatment initiation and adherence, overtreatment, engagement in care, and adverse events. Eight cohort studies, 3 open-label trials, and 1 case series study were included, reporting on 2085 participants with recently acquired HCV infection. No studies included a comparison group. Eight studies assessed DAA treatment in either men who have sex with men or men who have sex with men with HIV, 2 studies assessed treatment in people who inject drugs, and 2 among people living with HIV. Immediate treatment of HCV was associated with a pooled SVR12 of 95.9% (95% CI, 92.6%-99.3%). Three studies reported on hepatitis C incidence, where most participants were treated in the chronic phase of infection. A treatment completion rate of 100% was reported in 2 studies, and only 1 serious adverse event was described. CONCLUSIONS: High rates of cure were achieved with the treatment of recently acquired hepatitis C in people at higher risk of infection. Serious adverse events were rare, highlighting individual benefits consistent with the treatment of chronic hepatitis C. The impact of immediate treatment on HCV incidence requires further evaluation.

Chemoprophylaxis trial designs in epidemics: insights from a systematic review of COVID-19 study registrations.

BACKGROUND: Chemoprophylactics against emerging epidemic and pandemic infectious diseases offer potential for prevention but require efficacy and safety analysis before widespread use can be recommended. Chemoprophylaxis with repurposed drugs enables deployment ahead of development of novel vaccines. It may have particular utility as a stopgap ahead of vaccine deployment or when vaccines become less effective on virus variants, in countries where there may be structural inaccessibility to vaccines or in specific risk-groups. Rapid implementation of robust trial designs is a persistent challenge in epidemics. We systematically reviewed SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 chemoprophylaxis trial registrations from the first 21 weeks of the pandemic to critically appraise significant design features and alignment of study populations to clinical and public health uses, and describe candidate chemoprophylactic agents. METHODS: We searched online international trial databases from 31 Dec 2019 to 26 May 2020 using keywords "proph*" or "prevention". Trial protocols assessing efficacy of chemoprophylactic agents for COVID-19 were included. Trial components were screened for eligibility and relevant studies extracted. Key trial design features were assessed. RESULTS: We found 76 chemoprophylaxis study registrations, proposing enrolment of 208,367 people with median size of 490 (IQR 262-1710). A randomised design was specified for 63 trials, 61 included a control group and total proposed enrolment size was 197,010, median 600 (IQR 236-1834). Four protocols provided information on effect size sought. We estimate that for a control group attack rate of 10%, 66% of trials would be underpowered to detect a 50% effect size, and 97% of trials would be underpowered to detect a 30% effect size (at the 80% level). We found evidence of adaptive design in one trial registration only. Laboratory-confirmed infection with or without symptoms was the most common primary outcome. Polymerase chain reaction testing alone was used in 46% of trials, serological testing in 6.6% and 14.5% used both testing methods. Healthcare workers were the target population in 52/79 (65.8%) trials: 49 pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and 3 post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP). Sixteen trials (20.3%) planned PEP in close contacts. Five studies (6.3%) considered chemoprophylaxis in clinical-risk patients. Older adults were the focus of recruitment in only 3 (3.8%) studies (all long-term care facilities). Two (2.5%) studies of PrEP in the general population included older adults. Hydroxychloroquine was the most common candidate agent in 55/79 trials (69.6%), followed by chloroquine (4/79, 5.0%) and lopinavir/ritonavir (3/79, 3.8%). CONCLUSION: Many registered COVID-19 chemoprophylaxis efficacy trials were underpowered to detect clinically meaningful protection at epidemiologically informed attack rates. This, compounded with the time that has taken to organise these trials as compared to the rapid development of COVID-19 vaccines, has rendered these trials of marginal importance. International coordination mechanisms and collaboration is required. Supporting the design of feasible chemoprophylaxis trials, large enough to generate strong evidence, early on in an epidemic using adaptive platform trial designs will allow structured entry and exit of candidate agents and rapid stand-up of trial infrastructure. REVIEW PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: Our protocol is registered at https://www.osf.io/vp56f on May 20, 2020.

Evaluating clinical characteristics studies produced early in the Covid-19 pandemic: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Clinical characterisation studies have been essential in helping inform research, diagnosis and clinical management efforts, particularly early in a pandemic. This systematic review summarises the early literature on clinical characteristics of patients admitted to hospital, and evaluates the quality of evidence produced during the initial stages of the pandemic. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE and Global Health databases were searched for studies published from January 1st 2020 to April 28th 2020. Studies which reported on at least 100 hospitalised patients with Covid-19 of any age were included. Data on clinical characteristics were independently extracted by two review authors. Study design specific critical appraisal tools were used to evaluate included studies: the Newcastle Ottawa scale for cohort and cross sectional studies, Joanna Briggs Institute checklist for case series and the Cochrane collaboration tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. RESULTS: The search yielded 78 studies presenting data on 77,443 people. Most studies (82%) were conducted in China. No studies included patients from low- and middle-income countries. The overall quality of included studies was low to moderate, and the majority of studies did not include a control group. Fever and cough were the most commonly reported symptoms early in the pandemic. Laboratory and imaging findings were diverse with lymphocytopenia and ground glass opacities the most common findings respectively. Clinical data in children and vulnerable populations were limited. CONCLUSIONS: The early Covid-19 literature had moderate to high risk of bias and presented several methodological issues. Early clinical characterisation studies should aim to include different at-risk populations, including patients in non-hospital settings. Pandemic preparedness requires collection tools to ensure observational studies are methodologically robust and will help produce high-quality data early on in the pandemic to guide clinical practice and public health policy. REVIEW REGISTRATION: Available at https://osf.io/mpafn.

Characterising long COVID: a living systematic review.

BACKGROUND: While it is now apparent clinical sequelae (long COVID) may persist after acute COVID-19, their nature, frequency and aetiology are poorly characterised. This study aims to regularly synthesise evidence on long COVID characteristics, to help inform clinical management, rehabilitation strategies and interventional studies to improve long-term outcomes. METHODS: A living systematic review. Medline, CINAHL (EBSCO), Global Health (Ovid), WHO Global Research on COVID-19 database, LitCovid and Google Scholar were searched till 17 March 2021. Studies including at least 100 people with confirmed or clinically suspected COVID-19 at 12 weeks or more post onset were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the tool produced by Hoy et al. Results were analysed using descriptive statistics and meta-analyses to estimate prevalence. RESULTS: A total of 39 studies were included: 32 cohort, 6 cross-sectional and 1 case-control. Most showed high or moderate risk of bias. None were set in low-income countries and few included children. Studies reported on 10 951 people (48% female) in 12 countries. Most included previously hospitalised people (78%, 8520/10 951). The longest mean follow-up time was 221.7 (SD: 10.9) days post COVID-19 onset. Over 60 physical and psychological signs and symptoms with wide prevalence were reported, most commonly weakness (41%; 95% CI 25% to 59%), general malaise (33%; 95% CI 15% to 57%), fatigue (31%; 95% CI 24% to 39%), concentration impairment (26%; 95% CI 21% to 32%) and breathlessness (25%; 95% CI 18% to 34%). 37% (95% CI 18% to 60%) of patients reported reduced quality of life; 26% (10/39) of studies presented evidence of reduced pulmonary function. CONCLUSION: Long COVID is a complex condition with prolonged heterogeneous symptoms. The nature of studies precludes a precise case definition or risk evaluation. There is an urgent need for prospective, robust, standardised, controlled studies into aetiology, risk factors and biomarkers to characterise long COVID in different at-risk populations and settings. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020211131.

What are the long-term symptoms and complications of COVID-19: a protocol for a living systematic review.

Although the majority of patients with COVID-19 will experience mild to moderate symptoms and will recover fully, there is now increasing evidence that a significant proportion will experience persistent symptoms for weeks or months after the acute phase of the illness. These symptoms include, among others, fatigue, problems in breathing, lack of smell and taste, headaches, and also depression and anxiety. It has also become clear that the virus has lasting effects not only on the respiratory system but also on other parts of the body, including the heart, liver, and the nervous system. In this paper we present a protocol for a living systematic review that aims to synthesize the evidence on the prevalence and duration of symptoms and clinical features of post-acute COVID-19 and its long-term complications. The living systematic review will be updated regularly, initially monthly with update cycles under continuous review as the pace of new evidence generated develops through the pandemic. We will include studies that follow up with COVID-19 patients who have experienced persistent mild, moderate or severe symptoms, with no restrictions regarding country, setting, or language. We will use descriptive statistics to analyse the data and our findings will be presented as infographics to facilitate transcription to lay audiences. Ultimately, we aim to support the work of policy makers, practitioners, and patients when planning rehabilitation for those recovering from COVID-19. The protocol has been registered with PROSPERO ( CRD42020211131, 25/09/2020).