Late presentations and missed opportunities among newly diagnosed HIV patients presenting to a specialty clinic in Lebanon.

Late presentation to medical care of individuals infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is linked to poor outcomes and increased morbidity and mortality. Missed opportunities for a prompt diagnosis are frequently reported among late presenters. We aimed to estimate the proportion of late presenters and missed opportunities in diagnosis among newly diagnosed HIV-positive subjects presenting to a specialty clinic in Lebanon. This is a retrospective chart review of all newly diagnosed adult HIV-positive subjects presenting to clinic from 2012 to 2022. Demographic, laboratory, and clinical data were collected at initial HIV diagnosis or presentation to medical care. We defined late presentation as having a CD4 count < 350 or AIDS-defining event regardless of CD4 count. Advanced disease is defined as having a CD4 count below 200 cells/µL or the presence of an AIDS-defining illness, regardless of the CD4 count. A missed opportunity was defined as the presence of an indicator condition (IC) that suggests infection with HIV/AIDS during 3 years preceding the actual HIV diagnosis and not followed by a recommendation for HIV testing. The proportions for demographic, epidemiological, and clinical characteristics are calculated by excluding cases with missing information from the denominator. Our cohort included 150 subjects (92.7% males; 63.6% men who have sex with men (MSM); 33.3% heterosexuals; median age 30.5 years at diagnosis). 77 (51.3%) were late presenters and 53 (35.3% of all subjects, 68.8% of late presenters) had advanced HIV on presentation. Up to 76.5% of late presenters had a presentation with an HIV-related condition at a healthcare provider without getting HIV test within the previous 3 years. The most frequent ICs were weight loss, generalized lymphadenopathy, constitutional symptoms, and chronic idiopathic diarrhea. Overall mortality rate was 4% (6/150 individuals). All-cause mortality among those who presented with AIDS was 15.4% (6/39 subjects). In our setting, late presentations and missed opportunities for HIV diagnosis are common. In the Middle East, AIDS mortality remains high with a large gap in HIV testing. To effectively influence policies, comprehensive analyses should focus on estimating the preventable health and financial burdens of late HIV presentations. Another concern pertains to healthcare providers' attitudes and competencies.

Predictive Accuracy of Infant Clinical Sign Algorithms for Mortality in Young Infants Aged 0 to 59 Days: A Systematic Review.

CONTEXT: Clinical sign algorithms are a key strategy to identify young infants at risk of mortality. OBJECTIVE: Synthesize the evidence on the accuracy of clinical sign algorithms to predict all-cause mortality in young infants 0-59 days. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Global Index Medicus, and Cochrane CENTRAL Registry of Trials. STUDY SELECTION: Studies evaluating the accuracy of infant clinical sign algorithms to predict mortality. DATA EXTRACTION: We used Cochrane methods for study screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. We determined certainty of evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation. RESULTS: We included 11 studies examining 26 algorithms. Three studies from non-hospital/community settings examined sign-based checklists (n = 13). Eight hospital-based studies validated regression models (n = 13), which were administered as weighted scores (n = 8), regression formulas (n = 4), and a nomogram (n = 1). One checklist from India had a sensitivity of 98% (95% CI: 88%-100%) and specificity of 94% (93%-95%) for predicting sepsis-related deaths. However, external validation in Bangladesh showed very low sensitivity of 3% (0%-10%) with specificity of 99% (99%-99%) for all-cause mortality (ages 0-9 days). For hospital-based prediction models, area under the curve (AUC) ranged from 0.76-0.93 (n = 13). The Score for Essential Neonatal Symptoms and Signs had an AUC of 0.89 (0.84-0.93) in the derivation cohort for mortality, and external validation showed an AUC of 0.83 (0.83-0.84). LIMITATIONS: Heterogeneity of algorithms and lack of external validation limited the evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical sign algorithms may help identify at-risk young infants, particularly in hospital settings; however, overall certainty of evidence is low with limited external validation.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Clinical Sign Algorithms to Identify Sepsis in Young Infants Aged 0 to 59 Days: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: Accurate identification of possible sepsis in young infants is needed to effectively manage and reduce sepsis-related morbidity and mortality. OBJECTIVE: Synthesize evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of clinical sign algorithms to identify young infants (aged 0-59 days) with suspected sepsis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Global Index Medicus, and Cochrane CENTRAL Registry of Trials. STUDY SELECTION: Studies reporting diagnostic accuracy measures of algorithms including infant clinical signs to identify young infants with suspected sepsis. DATA EXTRACTION: We used Cochrane methods for study screening, data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and determining certainty of evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation. RESULTS: We included 19 studies (12 Integrated Management of Childhood Illness [IMCI] and 7 non-IMCI studies). The current World Health Organization (WHO) 7-sign IMCI algorithm had a sensitivity of 79% (95% CI 77%-82%) and specificity of 77% (95% CI 76%-78%) for identifying sick infants aged 0-59 days requiring hospitalization/antibiotics (1 study, N = 8889). Any IMCI algorithm had a pooled sensitivity of 84% (95% CI 75%-90%) and specificity of 80% (95% CI 64%-90%) for identifying suspected sepsis (11 studies, N = 15523). When restricting the reference standard to laboratory-supported sepsis, any IMCI algorithm had a pooled sensitivity of 86% (95% CI 82%-90%) and lower specificity of 61% (95% CI 49%-72%) (6 studies, N = 14278). LIMITATIONS: Heterogeneity of algorithms and reference standards limited the evidence. CONCLUSIONS: IMCI algorithms had acceptable sensitivity for identifying young infants with suspected sepsis. Specificity was lower using a reference standard of laboratory-supported sepsis diagnosis.

Is there a therapeutic potential in combining bupropion and naltrexone in schizophrenia?

INTRODUCTION: A sustained-release tablet composed of a combination of the dopamine and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor bupropion (BUP) and the µ-opioid receptor antagonist naltrexone (NAT) is marketed under the brand name Contrave by Orexigen Therapeutics for appetite control. Minimal literature is available regarding the use of combination bupropion and naltrexone (BUPNAT) in individuals with schizophrenia. AREAS COVERED: In this review, we propose a theoretical model where BUPNAT may have a therapeutic effect in the treatment of schizophrenia. We explore the pathways targeted by the constituent drugs BUP and NAT and summarize the literature on their efficacy and possible adverse effects. We then look at the potential use of BUPNAT in schizophrenia. EXPERT OPINION: Research has hinted that BUP's dopaminergic properties affect the same striatal pathways involved in schizophrenia. NAT, via opioid receptor antagonism, indirectly increases striatal dopamine release by disinhibiting nicotinic acetylcholine receptors. As such, we hypothesize that BUPNAT can have a therapeutic effect in schizophrenia, particularly on negative symptoms. We also suggest that it may ameliorate comorbidities frequently seen in this group of patients, including obesity, smoking, and substance use. Further research and clinical data are needed to elucidate the potential clinical benefits of BUPNAT in the treatment of schizophrenia.