Central nervous system infections in the tropics.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Emerging and re-emerging central nervous system (CNS) infections are a major public health concern in the tropics. The reasons for this are myriad; climate change, rainfall, deforestation, increased vector density combined with poverty, poor sanitation and hygiene. This review focuses on pathogens, which have emerged and re-emerged, with the potential for significant morbidity and mortality. RECENT FINDINGS: In recent years, multiple acute encephalitis outbreaks have been caused by Nipah virus, which carries a high case fatality. Arboviral infections, predominantly dengue, chikungunya and Zika are re-emerging increasingly especially in urban areas due to changing human habitats, vector behaviour and viral evolution. Scrub typhus, another vector borne disease caused by the bacterium Orientia tsutsugamushi , is being established as a leading cause of CNS infections in the tropics. SUMMARY: A syndromic and epidemiological approach to CNS infections in the tropics is essential to plan appropriate diagnostic tests and management. Rapid diagnostic tests facilitate early diagnosis and thus help prompt initiation and focusing of therapy to prevent adverse outcomes. Vector control, cautious urbanization and deforestation, and reducing disturbance of ecosystems can help prevent spread of vector-borne diseases. Regional diagnostic and treatment approaches and specific vaccines are required to avert morbidity and mortality.

Diagnostic markers of acute encephalitis syndrome and COVID-associated multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children from Southern India.

Acute encephalitis syndrome (AES) in children poses a significant public health challenge in India. This study aims to explore the utility of host inflammatory mediators and neurofilament (NfL) levels in distinguishing etiologies, assessing disease severity, and predicting outcomes in AES. We assessed 12 mediators in serum (n = 58) and 11 in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) (n = 42) from 62 children with AES due to scrub typhus, viral etiologies, and COVID-associated multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C) in Southern India. Additionally, NfL levels in serum (n = 20) and CSF (n = 18) were examined. Clinical data, including Glasgow coma scale (GCS) and Liverpool outcome scores, were recorded. Examining serum and CSF markers in the three AES etiology groups revealed notable distinctions, with scrub typhus differing significantly from viral and MIS-C causes. Viral causes had elevated serum CCL11 and CCL2 compared with scrub typhus, while MIS-C cases showed higher HGF levels than scrub typhus. However, CSF analysis showed a distinct pattern with the scrub typhus group exhibiting elevated levels of IL-1RA, IL-1ß, and TNF compared with MIS-C, and lower CCL2 levels compared with the viral group. Modeling the characteristic features, we identified that age ≥3 years with serum CCL11 < 180 pg/mL effectively distinguished scrub typhus from other AES causes. Elevated serum CCL11, HGF, and IL-6:IL-10 ratio were associated with poor outcomes (p = 0.038, 0.005, 0.02). Positive CSF and serum NfL correlation, and negative GCS and serum NfL correlation were observed. Median NfL levels were higher in children with abnormal admission GCS and poor outcomes. Measuring immune mediators and brain injury markers in AES provides valuable diagnostic insights, with the potential to facilitate rapid diagnosis and prognosis. The correlation between CSF and serum NfL, along with distinctive serum cytokine profiles across various etiologies, indicates the adequacy of blood samples alone for assessment and monitoring. The association of elevated levels of CCL11, HGF, and an increased IL-6:IL-10 ratio with adverse outcomes suggests promising avenues for therapeutic exploration, warranting further investigation.

Neurological manifestations of COVID-19 in adults and children.

Different neurological manifestations of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in adults and children and their impact have not been well characterized. We aimed to determine the prevalence of neurological manifestations and in-hospital complications among hospitalized COVID-19 patients and ascertain differences between adults and children. We conducted a prospective multicentre observational study using the International Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infection Consortium (ISARIC) cohort across 1507 sites worldwide from 30 January 2020 to 25 May 2021. Analyses of neurological manifestations and neurological complications considered unadjusted prevalence estimates for predefined patient subgroups, and adjusted estimates as a function of patient age and time of hospitalization using generalized linear models. Overall, 161 239 patients (158 267 adults; 2972 children) hospitalized with COVID-19 and assessed for neurological manifestations and complications were included. In adults and children, the most frequent neurological manifestations at admission were fatigue (adults: 37.4%; children: 20.4%), altered consciousness (20.9%; 6.8%), myalgia (16.9%; 7.6%), dysgeusia (7.4%; 1.9%), anosmia (6.0%; 2.2%) and seizure (1.1%; 5.2%). In adults, the most frequent in-hospital neurological complications were stroke (1.5%), seizure (1%) and CNS infection (0.2%). Each occurred more frequently in intensive care unit (ICU) than in non-ICU patients. In children, seizure was the only neurological complication to occur more frequently in ICU versus non-ICU (7.1% versus 2.3%, P < 0.001). Stroke prevalence increased with increasing age, while CNS infection and seizure steadily decreased with age. There was a dramatic decrease in stroke over time during the pandemic. Hypertension, chronic neurological disease and the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation were associated with increased risk of stroke. Altered consciousness was associated with CNS infection, seizure and stroke. All in-hospital neurological complications were associated with increased odds of death. The likelihood of death rose with increasing age, especially after 25 years of age. In conclusion, adults and children have different neurological manifestations and in-hospital complications associated with COVID-19. Stroke risk increased with increasing age, while CNS infection and seizure risk decreased with age.

Favipiravir for treating COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues to challenge the health workforce and societies worldwide. Favipiravir was suggested by some experts to be effective and safe to use in COVID-19. Although this drug has been evaluated in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), it is still unclear if it has a definite role in the treatment of COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of favipiravir compared to no treatment, supportive treatment, or other experimental antiviral treatment in people with acute COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, MEDLINE, Embase, the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, and three other databases, up to 18 July 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for RCTs evaluating the efficacy of favipiravir in treating people with COVID-19. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures for data collection and analysis. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included 25 trials that randomized 5750 adults (most under 60 years of age). The trials were conducted in Bahrain, Brazil, China, India, Iran, Kuwait, Malaysia, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, the UK, and the USA. Most participants were hospitalized with mild to moderate disease (89%). Twenty-two of the 25 trials investigated the role of favipiravir compared to placebo or standard of care, whilst lopinavir/ritonavir was the comparator in two trials, and umifenovir in one trial. Most trials (24 of 25) initiated favipiravir at 1600 mg or 1800 mg twice daily for the first day, followed by 600 mg to 800 mg twice a day. The duration of treatment varied from five to 14 days. We do not know whether favipiravir reduces all-cause mortality at 28 to 30 days, or in-hospital (risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 1.46; 11 trials, 3459 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We do not know if favipiravir reduces the progression to invasive mechanical ventilation (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.09; 8 trials, 1383 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Favipiravir may make little to no difference in the need for admission to hospital (if ambulatory) (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.46; 4 trials, 670 participants; low-certainty evidence). We do not know if favipiravir reduces the time to clinical improvement (defined as time to a 2-point reduction in patients' admission status on the WHO's ordinal scale) (hazard ratio (HR) 1.13, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.83; 4 trials, 721 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Favipiravir may make little to no difference to the progression to oxygen therapy (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.75; 2 trials, 543 participants; low-certainty evidence). Favipiravir may lead to an overall increased incidence of adverse events (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.54; 18 trials, 4699 participants; low-certainty evidence), but may result in little to no difference inserious adverse eventsattributable to the drug (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.42; 12 trials, 3317 participants; low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The low- to very low-certainty evidence means that we do not know whether favipiravir is efficacious in people with COVID-19 illness, irrespective of severity or admission status. Treatment with favipiravir may result in an overall increase in the incidence of adverse events but may not result in serious adverse events.

Association of Scrub Typhus in Children with Acute Encephalitis Syndrome and Meningoencephalitis, Southern India.

Scrub typhus is an established cause of acute encephalitis syndrome (AES) in northern states of India. We systematically investigated 376 children with AES in southern India, using a stepwise diagnostic strategy for the causative agent of scrub typhus, Orientia tsutsugamushi, including IgM and PCR testing of blood and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) to grade its association with AES. We diagnosed scrub typhus in 87 (23%) children; of those, association with AES was confirmed in 16 (18%) cases, probable in 55 (63%), and possible in 16 (18%). IgM detection in CSF had a sensitivity of 93% and specificity of 82% compared with PCR. Our findings suggest scrub typhus as an emerging common treatable cause of AES in children in southern India and highlight the importance of routine testing for scrub typhus in diagnostic algorithms. Our results also suggest the potential promise of IgM screening of CSF for diagnosis of AES resulting from scrub typhus.

Consensus Clinical Guidance for Diagnosis and Management of Adult COVID-19 Encephalopathy Patients.

Encephalopathy, a common condition among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, can be a challenge to manage and negatively affect prognosis. While encephalopathy may present clinically as delirium, subsyndromal delirium, or coma and may be a result of systemic causes such as hypoxia, COVID-19 has also been associated with more prolonged encephalopathy due to less common but nevertheless severe complications, such as inflammation of the brain parenchyma (with or without cerebrovascular involvement), demyelination, or seizures, which may be disproportionate to COVID-19 severity and require specific management. Given the large number of patients hospitalized with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 infection, even these relatively unlikely complications are increasingly recognized and are particularly important because they require specific management. Therefore, the aim of this review is to provide pragmatic guidance on the management of COVID-19 encephalopathy through consensus agreement of the Global COVID-19 Neuro Research Coalition. A systematic literature search of MEDLINE, medRxiv, and bioRxiv was conducted between January 1, 2020, and June 21, 2021, with additional review of references cited within the identified bibliographies. A modified Delphi approach was then undertaken to develop recommendations, along with a parallel approach to score the strength of both the recommendations and the supporting evidence. This review presents analysis of contemporaneous evidence for the definition, epidemiology, and pathophysiology of COVID-19 encephalopathy and practical guidance for clinical assessment, investigation, and both acute and long-term management.

Cerebral venous thrombosis after vaccination against COVID-19 in the UK: a multicentre cohort study.

BACKGROUND: A new syndrome of vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) has emerged as a rare side-effect of vaccination against COVID-19. Cerebral venous thrombosis is the most common manifestation of this syndrome but, to our knowledge, has not previously been described in detail. We aimed to document the features of post-vaccination cerebral venous thrombosis with and without VITT and to assess whether VITT is associated with poorer outcomes. METHODS: For this multicentre cohort study, clinicians were asked to submit all cases in which COVID-19 vaccination preceded the onset of cerebral venous thrombosis, regardless of the type of vaccine, interval between vaccine and onset of cerebral venous thrombosis symptoms, or blood test results. We collected clinical characteristics, laboratory results (including the results of tests for anti-platelet factor 4 antibodies where available), and radiological features at hospital admission of patients with cerebral venous thrombosis after vaccination against COVID-19, with no exclusion criteria. We defined cerebral venous thrombosis cases as VITT-associated if the lowest platelet count recorded during admission was below 150 × 109 per L and, if the D-dimer was measured, the highest value recorded was greater than 2000 µg/L. We compared the VITT and non-VITT groups for the proportion of patients who had died or were dependent on others to help them with their activities of daily living (modified Rankin score 3-6) at the end of hospital admission (the primary outcome of the study). The VITT group were also compared with a large cohort of patients with cerebral venous thrombosis described in the International Study on Cerebral Vein and Dural Sinus Thrombosis. FINDINGS: Between April 1 and May 20, 2021, we received data on 99 patients from collaborators in 43 hospitals across the UK. Four patients were excluded because they did not have definitive evidence of cerebral venous thrombosis on imaging. Of the remaining 95 patients, 70 had VITT and 25 did not. The median age of the VITT group (47 years, IQR 32-55) was lower than in the non-VITT group (57 years; 41-62; p=0·0045). Patients with VITT-associated cerebral venous thrombosis had more intracranial veins thrombosed (median three, IQR 2-4) than non-VITT patients (two, 2-3; p=0·041) and more frequently had extracranial thrombosis (31 [44%] of 70 patients) compared with non-VITT patients (one [4%] of 25 patients; p=0·0003). The primary outcome of death or dependency occurred more frequently in patients with VITT-associated cerebral venous thrombosis (33 [47%] of 70 patients) compared with the non-VITT control group (four [16%] of 25 patients; p=0·0061). This adverse outcome was less frequent in patients with VITT who received non-heparin anticoagulants (18 [36%] of 50 patients) compared with those who did not (15 [75%] of 20 patients; p=0·0031), and in those who received intravenous immunoglobulin (22 [40%] of 55 patients) compared with those who did not (11 [73%] of 15 patients; p=0·022). INTERPRETATION: Cerebral venous thrombosis is more severe in the context of VITT. Non-heparin anticoagulants and immunoglobulin treatment might improve outcomes of VITT-associated cerebral venous thrombosis. Since existing criteria excluded some patients with otherwise typical VITT-associated cerebral venous thrombosis, we propose new diagnostic criteria that are more appropriate. FUNDING: None.

Chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine for prevention and treatment of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in substantial mortality. Some specialists proposed chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for treating or preventing the disease. The efficacy and safety of these drugs have been assessed in randomized controlled trials. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of chloroquine (CQ) or hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for 1) treating people with COVID-19 on death and time to clearance of the virus; 2) preventing infection in people at risk of SARS-CoV-2 exposure; 3) preventing infection in people exposed to SARS-CoV-2. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Current Controlled Trials (www.controlled-trials.com), and the COVID-19-specific resources www.covid-nma.com and covid-19.cochrane.org, for studies of any publication status and in any language. We performed all searches up to 15 September 2020. We contacted researchers to identify unpublished and ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine in people with COVID-19, people at risk of COVID-19 exposure, and people exposed to COVID-19. Adverse events (any, serious, and QT-interval prolongation on electrocardiogram) were also extracted. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed eligibility of search results, extracted data from the included studies, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We contacted study authors for clarification and additional data for some studies. We used risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We performed meta-analysis using a random-effects model for outcomes where pooling of effect estimates was appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: 1. Treatment of COVID-19 disease We included 12 trials involving 8569 participants, all of whom were adults. Studies were from China (4); Brazil, Egypt, Iran, Spain, Taiwan, the UK, and North America (each 1 study); and a global study in 30 countries (1 study). Nine were in hospitalized patients, and three from ambulatory care. Disease severity, prevalence of comorbidities, and use of co-interventions varied substantially between trials. We found potential risks of bias across all domains for several trials. Nine trials compared HCQ with standard care (7779 participants), and one compared HCQ with placebo (491 participants); dosing schedules varied. HCQ makes little or no difference to death due to any cause (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.19; 8208 participants; 9 trials; high-certainty evidence). A sensitivity analysis using modified intention-to-treat results from three trials did not influence the pooled effect estimate.  HCQ may make little or no difference to the proportion of people having negative PCR for SARS-CoV-2 on respiratory samples at day 14 from enrolment (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.10; 213 participants; 3 trials; low-certainty evidence). HCQ probably results in little to no difference in progression to mechanical ventilation (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.37; 4521 participants; 3 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). HCQ probably results in an almost three-fold increased risk of adverse events (RR 2.90, 95% CI 1.49 to 5.64; 1394 participants; 6 trials; moderate-certainty evidence), but may make little or no difference to the risk of serious adverse events (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.79; 1004 participants; 6 trials; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about the effect of HCQ on time to clinical improvement or risk of prolongation of QT-interval on electrocardiogram (very low-certainty evidence). One trial (22 participants) randomized patients to CQ versus lopinavir/ritonavir, a drug with unknown efficacy against SARS-CoV-2, and did not report any difference for clinical recovery or adverse events. One trial compared HCQ combined with azithromycin against standard care (444 participants). This trial did not detect a difference in death, requirement for mechanical ventilation, length of hospital admission, or serious adverse events. A higher risk of adverse events was reported in the HCQ-and-azithromycin arm; this included QT-interval prolongation, when measured. One trial compared HCQ with febuxostat, another drug with unknown efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 (60 participants). There was no difference detected in risk of hospitalization or change in computed tomography (CT) scan appearance of the lungs; no deaths were reported. 2. Preventing COVID-19 disease in people at risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 Ongoing trials are yet to report results for this objective. 3. Preventing COVID-19 disease in people who have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 One trial (821 participants) compared HCQ with placebo as a prophylactic agent in the USA (around 90% of participants) and Canada. Asymptomatic adults (66% healthcare workers; mean age 40 years; 73% without comorbidity) with a history of exposure to people with confirmed COVID-19 were recruited. We are very uncertain about the effect of HCQ on the primary outcomes, for which few events were reported: 20/821 (2.4%) developed confirmed COVID-19 at 14 days from enrolment, and 2/821 (0.2%) were hospitalized due to COVID-19 (very low-certainty evidence). HCQ probably increases the risk of adverse events compared with placebo (RR 2.39, 95% CI 1.83 to 3.11; 700 participants; 1 trial; moderate-certainty evidence). HCQ may result in little or no difference in serious adverse events (no RR: no participants experienced serious adverse events; low-certainty evidence). One cluster-randomized trial (2525 participants) compared HCQ with standard care for the prevention of COVID-19 in people with a history of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 in Spain. Most participants were working or residing in nursing homes; mean age was 49 years. There was no difference in the risk of symptomatic confirmed COVID-19 or production of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 between the two study arms. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: HCQ for people infected with COVID-19 has little or no effect on the risk of death and probably no effect on progression to mechanical ventilation. Adverse events are tripled compared to placebo, but very few serious adverse events were found. No further trials of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for treatment should be carried out. These results make it less likely that the drug is effective in protecting people from infection, although this is not excluded entirely. It is probably sensible to complete trials examining prevention of infection, and ensure these are carried out to a high standard to provide unambiguous results.

Emerging concepts in the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of travelers' diarrhea.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Traveller's diarrhea, though not life-threatening. is often a vexing problem, which impacts overall function of the traveller while on holiday. Increasing data is available regarding molecular diagnostic techniques, which may help obtain an early etiologic diagnosis. Use of antibiotics for traveller's diarrhea is controversial in this era of multidrug resistance and microbiome disruption. RECENT FINDINGS: Travel to the tropics promotes gut colonization with drug-resistant bacteria and this risk increases after treatment with antibiotics, leading to potential ecological impacts in the country of residence. SUMMARY: Traveller's diarrhea is common and can impact a traveller's itinerary leading to significant inconvenience, and occasional longer term sequelae. Though bacterial causes predominate, recommended treatment is conservative in mild-to-moderate cases. Molecular techniques for early diagnosis of traveller's diarrhea may help with appropriate management. Treatment with antibiotics is sometimes required but is associated with gut colonization by multidrug-resistant bacteria.

Linezolid for drug-resistant pulmonary tuberculosis.

BACKGROUND: Linezolid was recently re-classified as a Group A drug by the World Health Organization (WHO) for treatment of multi-drug resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis (XDR-TB), suggesting that it should be included in the regimen for all patients unless contraindicated. Linezolid use carries a considerable risk of toxicity, with the optimal dose and duration remaining unclear. Current guidelines are mainly based on evidence from observational non-comparative studies. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of linezolid when used as part of a second-line regimen for treating people with MDR and XDR pulmonary tuberculosis, and to assess the prevalence and severity of adverse events associated with linezolid use in this patient group. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases: the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Specialized Register; CENTRAL; MEDLINE; Embase; and LILACS up to 13 July 2018. We also checked article reference lists and contacted researchers in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies in which some participants received linezolid, and others did not. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of linezolid for MDR and XDR pulmonary tuberculosis to evaluate efficacy outcomes. We added non-randomized cohort studies to evaluate adverse events.Primary outcomes were all-cause and tuberculosis-associated death, treatment failure, and cure. Secondary outcomes were treatment interrupted, treatment completed, and time to sputum culture conversion. We recorded frequency of all and serious adverse events, adverse events leading to drug discontinuation or dose reduction, and adverse events attributed to linezolid, particularly neuropathy, anaemia, and thrombocytopenia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors (BS and DC) independently assessed the search results for eligibility and extracted data from included studies. All review authors assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool for RCTs and the ROBINS-I tool for non-randomized studies. We contacted study authors for clarification and additional data when necessary.We were unable to perform a meta-analysis as one of the RCTs adopted a study design where participants in the study group received linezolid immediately and participants in the control group received linezolid after two months, and therefore there were no comparable data from this trial. We deemed meta-analysis of non-randomized study data inappropriate. MAIN RESULTS: We identified three RCTs for inclusion. One of these studies had serious problems with allocation of the study drug and placebo, so we could not analyse data for intervention effect from it. The remaining two RCTs recruited 104 participants. One randomized 65 participants to receive linezolid or not, in addition to a background regimen; the other randomized 39 participants to addition of linezolid to a background regimen immediately, or after a delay of two months. We included 14 non-randomized cohort studies (two prospective, 12 retrospective), with a total of 1678 participants.Settings varied in terms of income and tuberculosis burden. One RCT and 7 out of 14 non-randomized studies commenced recruitment in or after 2009. All RCT participants and 38.7% of non-randomized participants were reported to have XDR-TB.Dosing and duration of linezolid in studies were variable and reported inconsistently. Daily doses ranged from 300 mg to 1200 mg; some studies had planned dose reduction for all participants after a set time, others had incompletely reported dose reductions for some participants, and most did not report numbers of participants receiving each dose. Mean or median duration of linezolid therapy was longer than 90 days in eight of the 14 non-randomized cohorts that reported this information.Duration of participant follow-up varied between RCTs. Only five out of 14 non-randomized studies reported follow-up duration.Both RCTs were at low risk of reporting bias and unclear risk of selection bias. One RCT was at high risk of performance and detection bias, and low risk for attrition bias, for all outcomes. The other RCT was at low risk of detection and attrition bias for the primary outcome, with unclear risk of detection and attrition bias for non-primary outcomes, and unclear risk of performance bias for all outcomes. Overall risk of bias for the non-randomized studies was critical for three studies, and serious for the remaining 11.One RCT reported higher cure (risk ratio (RR) 2.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13 to 4.90, very low-certainty evidence), lower failure (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.70, very low-certainty evidence), and higher sputum culture conversion at 24 months (RR 2.10, 95% CI 1.30 to 3.40, very low-certainty evidence), amongst the linezolid-treated group than controls, with no differences in other primary and secondary outcomes. This study also found more anaemia (17/33 versus 2/32), nausea and vomiting, and neuropathy (14/33 versus 1/32) events amongst linezolid-receiving participants. Linezolid was discontinued early and permanently in two of 33 (6.1%) participants who received it.The other RCT reported higher sputum culture conversion four months after randomization (RR 2.26, 95% CI 1.19 to 4.28), amongst the group who received linezolid immediately compared to the group who had linezolid initiation delayed by two months. Linezolid was discontinued early and permanently in seven of 39 (17.9%) participants who received it.Linezolid discontinuation occurred in 22.6% (141/624; 11 studies), of participants in the non-randomized studies. Total, serious, and linezolid-attributed adverse events could not be summarized quantitatively or comparatively, due to incompleteness of data on duration of follow-up and numbers of participants experiencing events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found some evidence of efficacy of linezolid for drug-resistant pulmonary tuberculosis from RCTs in participants with XDR-TB but adverse events and discontinuation of linezolid were common. Overall, there is a lack of comparative data on efficacy and safety. Serious risk of bias and heterogeneity in conducting and reporting non-randomized studies makes the existing, mostly retrospective, data difficult to interpret. Further prospective cohort studies or RCTs in high tuberculosis burden low-income and lower-middle-income countries would be useful to inform policymakers and clinicians of the efficacy and safety of linezolid as a component of drug-resistant TB treatment regimens.

Efficacy and safety of thrice weekly DOTS in tuberculosis patients with and without HIV co-infection: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Despite the latest World Health Organization guidelines advocating daily therapy in HIV-TB co-infected individuals, there are few recent studies comparing outcomes of thrice-weekly anti-tuberculosis treatment in HIV-positive and HIV-negative patients with TB. The present study sets out to compare TB treatment outcomes in these two groups in the Indian national programme, which currently involves thrice-weekly therapy for all, regardless of HIV status. METHODS: HIV-positive and HIV-negative were consecutively screened for enrolment into this prospective observational study, carried out at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences hospital, New Delhi, India, between 2006 and 2010. Patients were given short-course thrice-weekly rifampicin-based therapy, with all HIV-positive patients being started on highly active antiretroviral therapy at least 14 days after commencing TB treatment. Patients were regularly followed-up for 24 months after completion of treatment. RESULTS: 150 HIV-positive, 155 HIV-negative patients were enrolled consecutively for the study. Significantly higher treatment success (93.5% vs. 76.7% at end of treatment, p < 0.001) and lower mortality (2.8% vs. 21.6% on follow up, p < 0.001) were observed in HIV-negative patients. No significant difference was found in treatment failure (p = 0.16), sputum smear (p = 0.58) and culture conversion (p = 0.55), and non-serious adverse event incidence (p = 0.851) between the two groups. Low baseline CD4 cell count (<100 cells/ mm3) was the only predictor of mortality in HIV-TB patients (odds ratio 8 · 43, p = 0 · 013). CONCLUSIONS: Thrice-weekly anti-tuberculosis therapy is more effective in HIV-negative than in HIV-positive patients. However, outcomes in this HIV co-infected cohort were found to be similar to those reported previously with daily therapy, with no safety concerns. This should prompt further study into whether intermittent or daily therapy should be used universally in resource-poor settings, using large well executed randomised controlled trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT No. 00698334.

Low serum vitamin D in North Indian multi-drug resistant pulmonary tuberculosis patients: the role of diet and sunlight.

Background: Tuberculosis (TB) and malnutrition are major global health problems, with multidrug-resistant (MDR) TB complicating international efforts. The role of vitamin D in susceptibility to and as an adjunctive treatment for TB is being studied extensively, although no study has included MDR-TB patients in context to dietary profile with vitamin D levels and sunlight exposure.Objective: This study aimed to estimate vitamin D serum levels and examine their association with dietary intake of vitamin D and sun exposure in patients with MDR-TB.Methods: North Indian participants were enrolled in three groups: MDR-TB, drug-susceptible pulmonary TB (DS-PTB), and healthy controls. All consenting participants underwent the estimation of macro- and micronutrient intake and sunlight exposure using structured questionnaires. Serum biochemistry, including 25-hydroxyvitamin D and calcium levels, was measured, and the correlation between variables was determined.Results: 747 participants were enrolled. Significant differences among the three groups were found in mean serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels, body mass index, macronutrient intake, dietary vitamin D and calcium content, and sun exposure index (SEI). All except sun exposure (SEI was highest in DS-PTB patients) were found to follow the trend: MDR-TB < DS-PTB < healthy controls. The mean serum vitamin D levels of all groups were deficient and correlated positively with dietary intake and SEI.Conclusion: In this study's we found significant association of serum vitamin D concentrations, dietary intake and sunlight exposure in MDR-TB, DS-PTB patients and healthy controls. Dietary intake may be more important than sun exposure in determining serum levels. However, the significance of this finding is uncertain. Further studies are required to confirm the association, direction, and potential for vitamin D supplementation to treat or prevent MDR-TB infection.

Profile of Acute Encephalitis Syndrome Patients from South India.

Introduction: Encephalitis is a major public health problem worldwide that causes huge emotional and economic loss to humanity. Encephalitis, being a serious illness, affects people of all ages. The aim is to describe the sociodemographic, clinical, etiological, and neuroimaging profile among 101 acute encephalitis syndrome (AES) patients visiting a tertiary neuro-specialty care hospital in India. Methods: Record review of medical records of all patients attending neurology emergency and outpatient services at NIMHANS Hospital, diagnosed with AES in 2019, was conducted. Data were collected using standardized data collection forms for all cases in the study. Descriptive analyses (mean and standard deviation for continuous variables and proportions for categorical variables) were conducted. The Chi-square test/Fisher's exact test was used for the comparison of independent groups for categorical variables, and t-test for comparing means for continuous variables. Results: About 42.6% of AES patients had viral etiology, while in 57.4%, etiology was not ascertained. Common presenting symptoms were fever (96%), altered sensorium (64.4%), seizures (70.3%), headache (42.6%), and vomiting (27.7%). Herpes simplex was the most common (21.8%) identified viral encephalitis, followed by chikungunya (5%), arboviruses (chikungunya and dengue) (4%), Japanese encephalitis (4%), rabies (3%), dengue (1%), and varicella virus (1%). About 40% of AES patients showed cerebrospinal fluid pleocytosis (44%), increased protein (39.6%), abnormal computed tomography brain (44.6%), and magnetic resonance imaging abnormalities (41.6%). Conclusion: The study highlights the need to ascertain etiology and importance of evidence-based management of AES patients. A better understanding of opportunities and limitations in the management and implementation of standard laboratory and diagnostic algorithms can favor better diagnosis and management of AES.

Treatment of COVID-19 Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome With a Tabletop Noninvasive Ventilation Device in a Respiratory Intermediate Care Unit.

Objective: To study the outcomes of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) administered through a tabletop device for coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome in the respiratory intermediate care unit (RIMCU) at a tertiary care hospital in India. Patients and Methods: We retrospectively studied a cohort of hospitalized patients deteriorating despite low-flow oxygen support who received protocolized management with positive airway pressure using a tabletop NIV device in the RIMCU as a step-up rescue therapy from July 30, 2020 to November 14, 2020. Treatment was commenced on the continuous positive airway pressure mode up to a pressure of 10 cm of H2O, and if required, inspiratory pressures were added using the bilevel positive air pressure mode. Success was defined as weaning from NIV and stepping down to the ward, and failure was defined as escalation to the intensive care unit, the need for intubation, or death. Results: In total, 246 patients were treated in the RIMCU during the study period. Of these, 168 received respiratory support via a tabletop NIV device as a step-up rescue therapy. Their mean age was 54 years, and 83% were men. Diabetes mellitus (78%) and hypertension (44%) were the commonest comorbidities. Treatment was successful with tabletop NIV in 77% (129/168) of the patients; of them, 41% (69/168) received treatment with continuous positive airway pressure alone and 36% (60/168) received additional increased inspiratory pressure via the bilevel positive air pressure mode. Conclusion: Respiratory support using the tabletop NIV device was an effective and economical treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome. Further studies are required to assess the appropriate time of initiation for maximal benefits and judicious utilization of resources.

Guillain-Barré syndrome following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in the UK: a prospective surveillance study.

Objective: To investigate features of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) following SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and evaluate for a causal link between the two. Methods: We captured cases of GBS after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination through a national, open-access, online surveillance system. For each case, the certainty of GBS was graded using the Brighton criteria, and the relationship to the vaccine was examined using modified WHO Causality Assessment criteria. We compared age distribution of cases with that of prepandemic GBS cases and clinical features with the International GBS Outcome Study (IGOS). Results: Between 1 January and 30 June 2021, we received 67 reports of GBS following the ChAdOx1 vaccine (65 first doses) and three reports following the BNT162b2 vaccine (all first doses). The causal association with the vaccine was classified as probable for 56 (80%, all ChAdOx1), possible for 12 (17%, 10 ChAdOx1) and unlikely for two (3%, 1 ChAdOx1). A greater proportion of cases occurred in the 50-59 age group in comparison with prepandemic GBS. Most common clinical variants were sensorimotor GBS (n=55; 79%) and facial diplegia with paraesthesias (n=10; 14%). 10% (n=7/69) of patients reported an antecedent infection, compared with 77% (n=502/652) of the IGOS cohort (p<0.00001). Facial weakness (63% (n=44/70) vs 36% (n=220/620); p<0.00001) and sensory dysfunction (93% (n=63/68) vs 69% (n=408/588); p=0.00005) were more common but disease severity and outcomes were similar to the IGOS study. Interpretation: Most reports of GBS followed the first dose of ChAdOx1 vaccine. While our study cannot confirm or refute causation, this observation, together with the absence of alternative aetiologies, different than expected age distribution and the presence of unusual clinical features support a causal link. Clinicians and surveillance bodies should remain vigilant to the possibility of this very rare adverse event and its atypical variants.

COVID-19 vaccine associated demyelination & its association with MOG antibody.

BACKGROUND: ChAdOx1-S (Covishield™/Vaxzervria, AstraZeneca) and BBV152 (Covaxin) SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are proven to be safe and effective, but rare complications have been reported. OBJECTIVE: To describe reports of central nervous system (CNS) demyelination following ChAdOx1-S and BBV152 vaccinations. METHODS & RESULTS: We report 29 (17 female; mean 38 years) cases of CNS demyelination; twenty-seven occurred in temporal association with ChAdOx1-S vaccine; two in association with BBV152 vaccine. Eleven patients had presentation with myelitis, six patients developed optic neuritis, five had acute demyelinating encephalomyelitis, three presented with brainstem demyelination, and four had multiaxial involvement. Myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein (MOG) antibodies were positive in ten patients. One patient with ADEM and tumefactive demyelinating lesions died after a prolonged intensive care unit stay and superimposed infection. As compared to the control group (87); the postvaccinial cases were found to have a significantly higher mean age, presence of encephalopathy (p value:0.0007), CSF pleocytosis (p value: 0.0094) and raised CSF protein (p value: 0.0062). CONCLUSIONS: It is difficult to establish a causal relationship between vaccination and neurological adverse events such as demyelination. The temporal association with the vaccination and the presence of MOG antibodies raises the possibility of an immunogenic process triggered by the vaccine in susceptible individuals.

Safety of COVID-19 vaccination and acute neurological events: A self-controlled case series in England using the OpenSAFELY platform.

INTRODUCTION: We investigated the potential association of COVID-19 vaccination with three acute neurological events: Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), transverse myelitis and Bell's palsy. METHODS: With the approval of NHS England we analysed primary care data from >17 million patients in England linked to emergency care, hospital admission and mortality records in the OpenSAFELY platform. Separately for each vaccine brand, we used a self-controlled case series design to estimate the incidence rate ratio for each outcome in the period following vaccination (4-42 days for GBS, 4-28 days for transverse myelitis and Bell's palsy) compared to a within-person baseline, using conditional Poisson regression. RESULTS: Among 7,783,441 ChAdOx1 vaccinees, there was an increased rate of GBS (N = 517; incidence rate ratio 2·85; 95% CI2·33-3·47) and Bell's palsy (N = 5,350; 1·39; 1·27-1·53) following a first dose of ChAdOx1 vaccine, corresponding to 11.0 additional cases of GBS and 17.9 cases of Bell's palsy per 1 million vaccinees if causal. For GBS this applied to the first, but not the second, dose. There was no clear evidence of an association of ChAdOx1 vaccination with transverse myelitis (N = 199; 1·51; 0·96-2·37). Among 5,729,152 BNT162b2 vaccinees, there was no evidence of any association with GBS (N = 283; 1·09; 0·75-1·57), transverse myelitis (N = 109; 1·62; 0·86-3·03) or Bell's palsy (N = 3,609; 0·89; 0·76-1·03). Among 255,446 mRNA-1273 vaccine recipients there was no evidence of an association with Bell's palsy (N = 78; 0·88, 0·32-2·42). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 vaccines save lives, but it is important to understand rare adverse events. We observed a short-term increased rate of Guillain-Barré syndrome and Bell's palsy after first dose of ChAdOx1 vaccine. The absolute risk, assuming a causal effect attributable to vaccination, was low.

Prognostic indicators and outcomes of hospitalised COVID-19 patients with neurological disease: An individual patient data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Neurological COVID-19 disease has been reported widely, but published studies often lack information on neurological outcomes and prognostic risk factors. We aimed to describe the spectrum of neurological disease in hospitalised COVID-19 patients; characterise clinical outcomes; and investigate factors associated with a poor outcome. METHODS: We conducted an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis of hospitalised patients with neurological COVID-19 disease, using standard case definitions. We invited authors of studies from the first pandemic wave, plus clinicians in the Global COVID-Neuro Network with unpublished data, to contribute. We analysed features associated with poor outcome (moderate to severe disability or death, 3 to 6 on the modified Rankin Scale) using multivariable models. RESULTS: We included 83 studies (31 unpublished) providing IPD for 1979 patients with COVID-19 and acute new-onset neurological disease. Encephalopathy (978 [49%] patients) and cerebrovascular events (506 [26%]) were the most common diagnoses. Respiratory and systemic symptoms preceded neurological features in 93% of patients; one third developed neurological disease after hospital admission. A poor outcome was more common in patients with cerebrovascular events (76% [95% CI 67-82]), than encephalopathy (54% [42-65]). Intensive care use was high (38% [35-41]) overall, and also greater in the cerebrovascular patients. In the cerebrovascular, but not encephalopathic patients, risk factors for poor outcome included breathlessness on admission and elevated D-dimer. Overall, 30-day mortality was 30% [27-32]. The hazard of death was comparatively lower for patients in the WHO European region. INTERPRETATION: Neurological COVID-19 disease poses a considerable burden in terms of disease outcomes and use of hospital resources from prolonged intensive care and inpatient admission; preliminary data suggest these may differ according to WHO regions and country income levels. The different risk factors for encephalopathy and stroke suggest different disease mechanisms which may be amenable to intervention, especially in those who develop neurological symptoms after hospital admission.