Minimally Invasive Tissue Sampling Findings in 12 Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive tissue sampling (MITS), a postmortem procedure that uses core needle biopsy samples and does not require opening the body, may be a valid alternative to complete autopsy (CA) in highly infectious diseases such as coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19). This study aimed to (1) compare the performance of MITS and CA in a series of COVID-19 deaths and (2) evaluate the safety of the procedure. METHODS: From October 2020 to February 2021, MITS was conducted in 12 adults who tested positive before death for COVID-19, in a standard, well-ventilated autopsy room, where personnel used reinforced personal protective equipment. In 9 cases, a CA was performed after MITS. A thorough histological evaluation was conducted, and the presence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was evaluated by real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and immunohistochemistry. RESULTS: The diagnoses provided by MITS and CA matched almost perfectly. In 9 patients, COVID-19 was in the chain of events leading to death, being responsible for diffuse alveolar damage and mononuclear T-cell inflammatory response in the lungs. No specific COVID-19 features were identified. Three deaths were not related to COVID-19. All personnel involved in MITS repeatedly tested negative for COVID-19. SARS-CoV-2 was identified by RT-PCR and immunohistochemistry in the MITS samples, particularly in the lungs. CONCLUSIONS: MITS is useful for evaluating COVID-19-related deaths in settings where a CA is not feasible. The results of this simplified and safer technique are comparable to those of CA.

Minimally Invasive Tissue Sampling: A Tool to Guide Efforts to Reduce AIDS-Related Mortality in Resource-Limited Settings.

BACKGROUND: Available information on the causes of death among people living with human immunodeficiency virus (PLHIV) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) remains scarce. We aimed to provide data on causes of death in PLHIV from two LMICs, Brazil and Mozambique, to assess the impact of clinical misdiagnosis on mortality rates and to evaluate the accuracy of minimally invasive tissue sampling (MITS) in determining the cause of death in PLHIV. METHODS: We performed coupled MITS and complete autopsy on 164 deceased PLHIV (18 children, 36 maternal deaths, and 110 adults). HIV antibody levels and HIV RNA viral loads were determined from postmortem serum samples. RESULTS: Tuberculosis (22.7%), toxoplasmosis (13.9%), bacterial infections (13.9%), and cryptococcosis (10.9%) were the leading causes of death in adults. In maternal deaths, tuberculosis (13.9%), bacterial infections (13.9%), cryptococcosis (11.1%), and cerebral malaria (8.3%) were the most frequent infections, whereas viral infections, particularly cytomegalovirus (38.9%), bacterial infections (27.8%), pneumocystosis (11.1%), and HIV-associated malignant neoplasms (11.1%) were the leading cause among children. Agreement between the MITS and the complete autopsy was 100% in children, 91% in adults, and 78% in maternal deaths. The MITS correctly identified the microorganism causing death in 89% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: Postmortem studies provide highly granular data on the causes of death in PLHIV. The inaccuracy of clinical diagnosis may play a significant role in the high mortality rates observed among PLHIV in LMICs. MITS might be helpful in monitoring the causes of death in PLHIV and in highlighting the gaps in the management of the infections.

Minimally Invasive Autopsy Practice in COVID-19 Cases: Biosafety and Findings.

Postmortem studies are crucial for providing insight into emergent diseases. However, a complete autopsy is frequently not feasible in highly transmissible diseases due to biohazard challenges. Minimally invasive autopsy (MIA) is a needle-based approach aimed at collecting samples of key organs without opening the body, which may be a valid alternative in these cases. We aimed to: (a) provide biosafety guidelines for conducting MIAs in COVID-19 cases, (b) compare the performance of MIA versus complete autopsy, and (c) evaluate the safety of the procedure. Between October and December 2020, MIAs were conducted in six deceased patients with PCR-confirmed COVID-19, in a basic autopsy room, with reinforced personal protective equipment. Samples from the lungs and key organs were successfully obtained in all cases. A complete autopsy was performed on the same body immediately after the MIA. The diagnoses of the MIA matched those of the complete autopsy. In four patients, COVID-19 was the main cause of death, being responsible for the different stages of diffuse alveolar damage. No COVID-19 infection was detected in the personnel performing the MIAs or complete autopsies. In conclusion, MIA might be a feasible, adequate and safe alternative for cause of death investigation in COVID-19 cases.

Conceptual frameworks for understanding the acceptability and feasibility of the minimally invasive autopsy to determine cause of death: Findings from the CADMIA Study in western Kenya.

Establishing the cause of death (CoD) is critical to better understanding health and prioritizing health investments, however the use of full post-mortem examination is rare in most low and middle-income counties for multiple reasons. The use of minimally invasive autopsy (MIA) approaches, such as needle biopsies, presents an alternate means to assess CoD. In order to understand the feasibility and acceptability of MIA among communities in western Kenya, we conducted focus groups and in-depth interviews with next-of-kin of recently deceased persons, community leaders and health care workers in Siaya and Kisumu counties. Results suggest two conceptual framework can be drawn, one with facilitating factors for acceptance of MIA due to the ability to satisfy immediate needs related to interest in learning CoD or protecting social status and honoring the deceased), and one framework covering barriers to acceptance of MIA, for reasons relating to the failure to serve an existing need, and/or the exacerbation of an already difficult time.

Socio-anthropological methods to study the feasibility and acceptability of the minimally invasive autopsy from the perspective of local communities: lessons learnt from a large multi-centre study.

The minimally invasive autopsy (MIA), an innovative approach for obtaining post-mortem samples of key organs, is increasingly being recognized as a robust methodology for cause of death (CoD) investigation, albeit so far limited to pilot studies and research projects. A better understanding of the real causes of death in middle- and low-income countries, where underlying causes of death are seldom determined, would allow improved health planning, more targeted prioritization of available resources and the implementation of coherent public health policies. This paper discusses lessons learnt from the implementation of a Feasibility and Acceptability (F&A) study evaluating the MIA approach in five countries: Gabon, Kenya, Mali, Mozambique and Pakistan. This article reports the methodological choices made to document sociocultural and religious norms around death, to examine community and relatives' attitudes and perceptions towards MIA, and to identify factors motivating the MIA's acceptance and refusal. We used ethnography, grounded theory and framework method approaches. In-depth and semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions with key informants, including next of kin of deceased individuals and healthcare providers, were conducted. Participant observation and direct observation of procedures and ceremonies around death were organized in all study sites. In Mozambique, MIA procedures were observed and case studies conducted. The implementation of this F&A protocol has provided critical lessons that could facilitate the future implementation of post-mortem procedures for CoD investigation. These include the need for early community engagement, staff training and preparedness, flexibility to adapt the protocol, gathering qualitative data from diverse sources, and triangulation of the data. We have applied a rigorous, effective and culturally sensitive methodological approach to assess the F&A of MIA in resource-constrained settings. We strongly recommend that such an approach is applied in settings where MIAs or similar post-mortem sensitive procedures are to be introduced.

Validity of a minimally invasive autopsy tool for cause of death determination in pediatric deaths in Mozambique: An observational study.

BACKGROUND: In recent decades, the world has witnessed unprecedented progress in child survival. However, our knowledge of what is killing nearly 6 million children annually in low- and middle-income countries remains poor, partly because of the inadequacy and reduced precision of the methods currently utilized in these settings to investigate causes of death (CoDs). The study objective was to validate the use of a minimally invasive autopsy (MIA) approach as an adequate and more acceptable substitute for the complete diagnostic autopsy (CDA) for pediatric CoD investigation in a poor setting. METHODS AND FINDINGS: In this observational study, the validity of the MIA approach in determining the CoD was assessed in 54 post-neonatal pediatric deaths (age range: ≥1 mo to 15 y) in a referral hospital of Mozambique by comparing the results of the MIA with those of the CDA. Concordance in the category of disease obtained by the two methods was evaluated by the Kappa statistic, and the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the MIA diagnoses were calculated. A CoD was identified in all cases in the CDA and in 52/54 (96%) of the cases in the MIA, with infections and malignant tumors accounting for the majority of diagnoses. The MIA categorization of disease showed a substantial concordance with the CDA categorization (Kappa = 0.70, 95% CI 0.49-0.92), and sensitivity, specificity, and overall accuracy were high. The ICD-10 diagnoses were coincident in up to 75% (36/48) of the cases. The MIA allowed the identification of the specific pathogen deemed responsible for the death in two-thirds (21/32; 66%) of all deaths of infectious origin. Discrepancies between the MIA and the CDA in individual diagnoses could be minimized with the addition of some basic clinical information such as those ascertainable through a verbal autopsy or clinical record. The main limitation of the analysis is that both the MIA and the CDA include some degree of expert subjective interpretation. CONCLUSIONS: The MIA showed substantial concordance with CDA for CoD identification in this series of pediatric deaths in Mozambique. This minimally invasive approach, simpler and more readily acceptable than the more invasive CDA, could provide robust data for CoD surveillance, especially in resource-limited settings, which could be helpful for guiding child survival strategies in the future.

Validity of a Minimally Invasive Autopsy for Cause of Death Determination in Adults in Mozambique: An Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: There is an urgent need to identify tools able to provide reliable information on the cause of death in low-income regions, since current methods (verbal autopsy, clinical records, and complete autopsies) are either inaccurate, not feasible, or poorly accepted. We aimed to compare the performance of a standardized minimally invasive autopsy (MIA) approach with that of the gold standard, the complete diagnostic autopsy (CDA), in a series of adults who died at Maputo Central Hospital in Mozambique. METHODS AND FINDINGS: In this observational study, coupled MIAs and CDAs were performed in 112 deceased patients. The MIA analyses were done blindly, without knowledge of the clinical data or the results of the CDA. We compared the MIA diagnosis with the CDA diagnosis of cause of death. CDA diagnoses comprised infectious diseases (80; 71.4%), malignant tumors (16; 14.3%), and other diseases, including non-infectious cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, kidney, and lung diseases (16; 14.3%). A MIA diagnosis was obtained in 100/112 (89.2%) cases. The overall concordance between the MIA diagnosis and CDA diagnosis was 75.9% (85/112). The concordance was higher for infectious diseases and malignant tumors (63/80 [78.8%] and 13/16 [81.3%], respectively) than for other diseases (9/16; 56.2%). The specific microorganisms causing death were identified in the MIA in 62/74 (83.8%) of the infectious disease deaths with a recognized cause. The main limitation of the analysis is that both the MIA and the CDA include some degree of expert subjective interpretation. CONCLUSIONS: A simple MIA procedure can identify the cause of death in many adult deaths in Mozambique. This tool could have a major role in improving the understanding and surveillance of causes of death in areas where infectious diseases are a common cause of mortality.

Post-ART Symptoms Were Not the Problem: A Qualitative Study on Adherence to ART in HIV-Infected Patients in a Mozambican Rural Hospital.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this qualitative study was to explore how clinical symptoms may affect adherence to antiretroviral therapy (ART) in HIV patients, and to explore factors, perceptions and attitudes related to adherence to therapy. DESIGN: A qualitative study was carried out in the context of the prospective cohort study "Evaluation of Immune Reconstitution Following Initiation of Highly Active Antiretroviral Treatment in Manhiça, Mozambique". In-depth Interviews were conducted twice in a sub-sample of the study cohort (51 participants), at six-month intervals. RESULTS: Most participants (73%) knew that AIDS is a chronic disease and that ART does not cure it. Nine participants (18%) were non-adherent at some point and two (4%) abandoned ART. All participants but five reported having symptoms after starting ART, mainly attributed to pills needing time to act and body's reaction to the treatment. In spite of the perceived severity of the symptoms, only two people reported they discontinued the treatment due to symptoms. Almost all participants reported feeling comfortable with the HIV clinic organization and procedures, but afraid of staff being hostile if they did not follow the rules or if the health worker visited their home. Family was one of the most important source of support according participants. Almost all participants with children said that a decisive factor to follow the treatment was the desire to be able to look after them. CONCLUSIONS: Experiencing symptoms after starting treatment was not a barrier to adherence to ART. Factors related to adherence included control measures set up by the health facility (exhaustive follow up, support, information) and family and community support. Indirect ART-related expenses did jeopardise adherence.