Interpretations of Studies on SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination and Post-acute COVID-19 Sequelae.

This article discusses causal interpretations of epidemiologic studies of the effects of vaccination on sequelae after acute severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection. To date, researchers have tried to answer several different research questions on this topic. While some studies assessed the impact of postinfection vaccination on the presence of or recovery from post-acute coronavirus disease 2019 syndrome, others quantified the association between preinfection vaccination and postacute sequelae conditional on becoming infected. However, the latter analysis does not have a causal interpretation, except under the principal stratification framework-that is, this comparison can only be interpreted as causal for a nondiscernible stratum of the population. As the epidemiology of coronavirus disease 2019 is now nearly entirely dominated by reinfections, including in vaccinated individuals, and possibly caused by different Omicron subvariants, it has become even more important to design studies on the effects of vaccination on postacute sequelae that address precise causal questions and quantify effects corresponding to implementable interventions.

Diagnostic tests for human Schistosoma mansoni and Schistosoma haematobium infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Accurate diagnosis is pivotal for implementing strategies for surveillance, control, and elimination of schistosomiasis. Despite their low sensitivity in low-endemicity areas, microscopy-based urine filtration and the Kato-Katz technique are considered as reference diagnostic tests for Schistosoma haematobium and Schistosoma mansoni infections, respectively. We aimed to collate all available evidence on the accuracy of other proposed diagnostic techniques. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and LILACS for studies published from database inception to Dec 31, 2022, investigating the sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic tests for S haematobium and S mansoni infections against Kato-Katz thick smears or urine microscopy (reference tests) involving adults (aged ≥18 years), school-aged children (aged 7 to 18 years), or preschool-aged children (aged 1 month to 7 years). We extracted raw data on true positives, true negatives, false positives, and false negatives for the diagnostic tests and data on the number of participants, study authors, publication year, journal, study design, participants' age and sex, prevalence of Schistosoma infection, and treatment status. To account for imperfect reference tests, we used a hierarchical Bayesian latent class meta-analysis to model test accuracy. FINDINGS: Overall, we included 121 studies, assessing 28 different diagnostic techniques. Most studies (103 [85%] of 121) were done in Africa, 14 (12%) in South America, one (1%) in Asia, and one (1%) in an unknown country. Compared with the reference test, Kato-Katz thick smears, circulating cathodic antigen urine cassette assay version 1 (CCA1, 36 test comparisons) had excellent sensitivity (95% [95% credible interval 88-99]) and reasonable specificity (74% [63-83]) for S mansoni. ELISA-based tests had a performance comparable to circulating cathodic antigen, but there were few available test comparisons. For S haematobium, proteinuria (42 test comparisons, sensitivity 73% [62-82]; specificity 94% [89-98]) and haematuria (75 test comparisons, sensitivity 85% [80-90]; specificity 96% [92-99]) reagent strips showed high specificity, with haematuria reagent strips having better sensitivity. Despite limited data, nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs; eg, PCR or loop-mediated isothermal amplification [LAMP]) showed promising results with sensitivity estimates above 90%. We found an unclear risk of bias of about 70% in the use of the reference or index tests and of 50% in patient selection. All analyses showed substantial heterogeneity (I2>80%). INTERPRETATION: Although NAATs and immunological diagnostics show promise, the limited information available precludes drawing definitive conclusions. Additional research on diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness is needed before the replacement of conventional tests can be considered. FUNDING: WHO and Luxembourg Institute of Health.

Long-Term Efficacy of Insecticidal Wall Painting for Controlling Visceral Leishmaniasis Vectors in Bangladesh.

The success of the visceral leishmaniasis (VL) elimination program largely depends on cost-effective vector control measures. Our goal was to investigate the longevity of the efficacy of insecticidal wall painting (IWP), a new vector control tool, compared with a routine indoor residual spraying (IRS) program for reducing the VL vector density in Bangladesh. This study is the extension of our recent IWP study for VL vector management in Bangladesh, which was undertaken in seven highly VL endemic villages of the Mymensingh district with a 12-month follow-up. In this 24-months follow-up study, we collected sand flies additionally at 15, 18, 21, and 24 months since the interventions from the IWP and control (where the program did routine IRS) clusters to examine the longevity of the efficacy of IWP on sand fly density reduction and mortality. The difference-in-differences regression models were used to estimate the effect of IWP on sand fly reduction against Program IRS. The IWP showed excellent performance in reducing sand fly density and increasing sand fly mortality compared with Program IRS. The effect of IWP for controlling sand flies was statistically significant for up to at least 24 months. The mean female Phlebotomus argentipes density reduction ranged from -56% to -83%, and the P. argentipes sand fly mortality ranged from 81% to 99.5% during the 24-month follow-up period. Considering the duration of the efficacy of IWP for controlling VL vectors, Bangladesh National Kala-azar Elimination Program may consider IWP as the best alternative to IRS for the subsequent phases of the program.

A multi-country analysis of COVID-19 hospitalizations by vaccination status.

BACKGROUND: Individuals vaccinated against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), when infected, can still develop disease that requires hospitalization. It remains unclear whether these patients differ from hospitalized unvaccinated patients with regard to presentation, coexisting comorbidities, and outcomes. METHODS: Here, we use data from an international consortium to study this question and assess whether differences between these groups are context specific. Data from 83,163 hospitalized COVID-19 patients (34,843 vaccinated, 48,320 unvaccinated) from 38 countries were analyzed. FINDINGS: While typical symptoms were more often reported in unvaccinated patients, comorbidities, including some associated with worse prognosis in previous studies, were more common in vaccinated patients. Considerable between-country variation in both in-hospital fatality risk and vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated difference in this outcome was observed. CONCLUSIONS: These findings will inform allocation of healthcare resources in future surges as well as design of longer-term international studies to characterize changes in clinical profile of hospitalized COVID-19 patients related to vaccination history. FUNDING: This work was made possible by the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and Wellcome (215091/Z/18/Z, 222410/Z/21/Z, 225288/Z/22/Z, and 220757/Z/20/Z); the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (OPP1209135); and the philanthropic support of the donors to the University of Oxford's COVID-19 Research Response Fund (0009109). Additional funders are listed in the "acknowledgments" section.

Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with severe COVID-19 registered in the ISARIC WHO clinical characterization protocol: A prospective, multinational, observational study.

PURPOSE: To determine its cumulative incidence, identify the risk factors associated with Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events (MACE) development, and its impact clinical outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study from the ISARIC database. We used bivariate and multivariate logistic regressions to explore the risk factors related to MACE development and determine its impact on 28-day and 90-day mortality. RESULTS: 49,479 patients were included. Most were male 63.5% (31,441/49,479) and from high-income countries (84.4% [42,774/49,479]); however, >6000 patients were registered in low-and-middle-income countries. MACE cumulative incidence during their hospital stay was 17.8% (8829/49,479). The main risk factors independently associated with the development of MACE were older age, chronic kidney disease or cardiovascular disease, smoking history, and requirement of vasopressors or invasive mechanical ventilation at admission. The overall 28-day and 90-day mortality were higher among patients who developed MACE than those who did not (63.1% [5573/8829] vs. 35.6% [14,487/40,650] p < 0.001; 69.9% [6169/8829] vs. 37.8% [15,372/40,650] p < 0.001, respectively). After adjusting for confounders, MACE remained independently associated with higher 28-day and 90-day mortality (Odds Ratio [95% CI], 1.36 [1.33-1.39];1.47 [1.43-1.50], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with severe COVID-19 frequently develop MACE, which is independently associated with worse clinical outcomes.

Malaria patient spectrum representation in therapeutic clinical trials of uncomplicated malaria: a scoping review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: For the results of clinical trials to have external validity, the patients included in the study must be representative of the population presenting in the general clinical settings. A scoping literature review was performed to evaluate how the eligibility criteria used in anti-malarial efficacy and safety trials translate into patient selection. METHODS: A search of the WorldWide Antimalarial Resistance Network (WWARN) Clinical Trials Publication Library, MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov was conducted to identify trials investigating anti-malarial efficacy and safety, published between 14th April 2001 and 31st December 2017. An updated search using the WWARN Clinical Trial Publication Library was undertaken to identify eligible publications from 1st January 2018 to 31st July 2021. The review included studies in patients of any age with uncomplicated malaria and any pharmaceutical therapeutic intervention administered. The proportion of trials with malaria-positive patients excluded was calculated and linked to the reported reason for exclusion. A subgroup analysis on eligibility criteria and trial baseline demographics was conducted to assess whether criteria are complied with when recruiting patients. RESULTS: Out of 847 studies, 176 (21%) trials were included in the final synthesis, screening a total of 157,516 malaria-positive patients, of whom 56,293 (36%) were enrolled and treated. Across the 176 studies included, 84 different inclusion and exclusion criteria were identified. The reason for exclusion of patients who tested positive for malaria was reported in 144 (82%) studies. Three criteria account for about 70% of malaria-positive patients excluded: mixed-species malaria infections or other specific Plasmodium species, parasite counts outside the set study ranges, and refusal of consent. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly two-thirds of the malaria-positive subjects who present to health facilities are systematically excluded from anti-malarial treatment trials. Reasons for exclusions are largely under-reported. Anti-malarial treatment in the general population is informed by studies on a narrow selection of patients who do not fully represent the totality of those seeking antimalarial treatment in routine practice. While entry criteria ensure consistency across trials, pragmatic trials are also necessary to supplement the information currently available and improve the external validity of the findings of malaria clinical trials.

Addressing stigma in infectious disease outbreaks: a crucial step in pandemic preparedness.

There is a complex interplay between infectious disease outbreaks and the stigmatization of affected persons and communities. Outbreaks are prone to precipitating stigma due to the fear, uncertainty, moralisation, and abatement of freedoms associated with many infectious diseases. In turn, this stigma hampers outbreak control efforts. Understanding this relationship is crucial to improving coordinated outbreak response. This requires valid and reliable methods for assessing stigma towards and within impacted communities. We propose adopting a cross-outbreak model for developing the necessary assessment tools. A stigma-informed approach must then be integrated into outbreak preparedness and response efforts to safeguard public health and promote inclusivity and compassion in future outbreaks.

An international observational study to assess the impact of the Omicron variant emergence on the clinical epidemiology of COVID-19 in hospitalised patients.

Background: Whilst timely clinical characterisation of infections caused by novel SARS-CoV-2 variants is necessary for evidence-based policy response, individual-level data on infecting variants are typically only available for a minority of patients and settings. Methods: Here, we propose an innovative approach to study changes in COVID-19 hospital presentation and outcomes after the Omicron variant emergence using publicly available population-level data on variant relative frequency to infer SARS-CoV-2 variants likely responsible for clinical cases. We apply this method to data collected by a large international clinical consortium before and after the emergence of the Omicron variant in different countries. Results: Our analysis, that includes more than 100,000 patients from 28 countries, suggests that in many settings patients hospitalised with Omicron variant infection less often presented with commonly reported symptoms compared to patients infected with pre-Omicron variants. Patients with COVID-19 admitted to hospital after Omicron variant emergence had lower mortality compared to patients admitted during the period when Omicron variant was responsible for only a minority of infections (odds ratio in a mixed-effects logistic regression adjusted for likely confounders, 0.67 [95% confidence interval 0.61-0.75]). Qualitatively similar findings were observed in sensitivity analyses with different assumptions on population-level Omicron variant relative frequencies, and in analyses using available individual-level data on infecting variant for a subset of the study population. Conclusions: Although clinical studies with matching viral genomic information should remain a priority, our approach combining publicly available data on variant frequency and a multi-country clinical characterisation dataset with more than 100,000 records allowed analysis of data from a wide range of settings and novel insights on real-world heterogeneity of COVID-19 presentation and clinical outcome. Funding: Bronner P. Gonçalves, Peter Horby, Gail Carson, Piero L. Olliaro, Valeria Balan, Barbara Wanjiru Citarella, and research costs were supported by the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) and Wellcome [215091/Z/18/Z, 222410/Z/21/Z, 225288/Z/22/Z]; and Janice Caoili and Madiha Hashmi were supported by the UK FCDO and Wellcome [222048/Z/20/Z]. Peter Horby, Gail Carson, Piero L. Olliaro, Kalynn Kennon and Joaquin Baruch were supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1209135]; Laura Merson was supported by University of Oxford's COVID-19 Research Response Fund - with thanks to its donors for their philanthropic support. Matthew Hall was supported by a Li Ka Shing Foundation award to Christophe Fraser. Moritz U.G. Kraemer was supported by the Branco Weiss Fellowship, Google.org, the Oxford Martin School, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the European Union Horizon 2020 project MOOD (#874850). The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission. Contributions from Srinivas Murthy, Asgar Rishu, Rob Fowler, James Joshua Douglas, François Martin Carrier were supported by CIHR Coronavirus Rapid Research Funding Opportunity OV2170359 and coordinated out of Sunnybrook Research Institute. Contributions from Evert-Jan Wils and David S.Y. Ong were supported by a grant from foundation Bevordering Onderzoek Franciscus; and Andrea Angheben by the Italian Ministry of Health "Fondi Ricerca corrente-L1P6" to IRCCS Ospedale Sacro Cuore-Don Calabria. The data contributions of J.Kenneth Baillie, Malcolm G. Semple, and Ewen M. Harrison were supported by grants from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR; award CO-CIN-01), the Medical Research Council (MRC; grant MC_PC_19059), and by the NIHR Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections at University of Liverpool in partnership with Public Health England (PHE) (award 200907), NIHR HPRU in Respiratory Infections at Imperial College London with PHE (award 200927), Liverpool Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre (grant C18616/A25153), NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Imperial College London (award IS-BRC-1215-20013), and NIHR Clinical Research Network providing infrastructure support. All funders of the ISARIC Clinical Characterisation Group are listed in the appendix.

Respiratory support in patients with severe COVID-19 in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection (ISARIC) COVID-19 study: a prospective, multinational, observational study.

BACKGROUND: Up to 30% of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 require advanced respiratory support, including high-flow nasal cannulas (HFNC), non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV), or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). We aimed to describe the clinical characteristics, outcomes and risk factors for failing non-invasive respiratory support in patients treated with severe COVID-19 during the first two years of the pandemic in high-income countries (HICs) and low middle-income countries (LMICs). METHODS: This is a multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study embedded in the ISARIC-WHO COVID-19 Clinical Characterisation Protocol. Patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who required hospital admission were recruited prospectively. Patients treated with HFNC, NIV, or IMV within the first 24 h of hospital admission were included in this study. Descriptive statistics, random forest, and logistic regression analyses were used to describe clinical characteristics and compare clinical outcomes among patients treated with the different types of advanced respiratory support. RESULTS: A total of 66,565 patients were included in this study. Overall, 82.6% of patients were treated in HIC, and 40.6% were admitted to the hospital during the first pandemic wave. During the first 24 h after hospital admission, patients in HICs were more frequently treated with HFNC (48.0%), followed by NIV (38.6%) and IMV (13.4%). In contrast, patients admitted in lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs) were less frequently treated with HFNC (16.1%) and the majority received IMV (59.1%). The failure rate of non-invasive respiratory support (i.e. HFNC or NIV) was 15.5%, of which 71.2% were from HIC and 28.8% from LMIC. The variables most strongly associated with non-invasive ventilation failure, defined as progression to IMV, were high leukocyte counts at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 5.86 [4.83-7.10]), treatment in an LMIC (OR [95%CI]; 2.04 [1.97-2.11]), and tachypnoea at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 1.16 [1.14-1.18]). Patients who failed HFNC/NIV had a higher 28-day fatality ratio (OR [95%CI]; 1.27 [1.25-1.30]). CONCLUSIONS: In the present international cohort, the most frequently used advanced respiratory support was the HFNC. However, IMV was used more often in LMIC. Higher leucocyte count, tachypnoea, and treatment in LMIC were risk factors for HFNC/NIV failure. HFNC/NIV failure was related to worse clinical outcomes, such as 28-day mortality. Trial registration This is a prospective observational study; therefore, no health care interventions were applied to participants, and trial registration is not applicable.

Egg excretion indicators for the measurement of soil-transmitted helminth response to treatment.

BACKGROUND: Periodic administration of anthelmintic drugs is a cost-effective intervention for morbidity control of soil-transmitted helminth (STH) infections. However, with programs expanding, drug pressure potentially selecting for drug-resistant parasites increases. While monitoring anthelmintic drug efficacy is crucial to inform country control program strategies, different factors must be taken into consideration that influence drug efficacy and make it difficult to standardize treatment outcome measures. We aimed to identify suitable approaches to assess and compare the efficacy of different anthelmintic treatments. METHODOLOGY: We built an individual participant-level database from 11 randomized controlled trials and two observational studies in which subjects received single-agent or combination therapy, or placebo. Eggs per gram of stool were calculated from egg counts at baseline and post-treatment. Egg reduction rates (ERR; based on mean group egg counts) and individual-patient ERR (iERR) were utilized to express drug efficacy and analyzed after log-transformation with a linear mixed effect model. The analyses were separated by follow-up duration (14-21 and 22-45 days) after drug administration. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The 13 studies enrolled 5,759 STH stool-positive individuals; 5,688 received active medication or placebo contributing a total of 11,103 STH infections (65% had two or three concurrent infections), of whom 3,904 (8,503 infections) and 1,784 (2,550 infections) had efficacy assessed at 14-21 days and 22-45 days post-treatment, respectively. Neither the number of helminth co-infections nor duration of follow-up affected ERR for any helminth species. The number of participants treated with single-dose albendazole was 689 (18%), with single-dose mebendazole 658 (17%), and with albendazole-based co-administrations 775 (23%). The overall mean ERR assessed by day 14-21 for albendazole and mebendazole was 94.5% and 87.4%, respectively on Ascaris lumbricoides, 86.8% and 40.8% on hookworm, and 44.9% and 23.8% on Trichuris trichiura. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommended criteria for efficacy were met in 50%, 62%, and 33% studies of albendazole for A. lumbricoides, T. trichiura, and hookworm, respectively and 25% of mebendazole studies. iERR analyses showed similar results, with cure achieved in 92% of A. lumbricoides-infected subjects treated with albendazole and 93% with mebendazole; corresponding figures for hookworm were 70% and 17%, and for T. trichiura 22% and 20%. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Combining the traditional efficacy assessment using group averages with individual responses provides a more complete picture of how anthelmintic treatments perform. Most treatments analyzed fail to meet the WHO minimal criteria for efficacy based on group means. Drug combinations (i.e., albendazole-ivermectin and albendazole-oxantel pamoate) are promising treatments for STH infections.

ISARIC-COVID-19 dataset: A Prospective, Standardized, Global Dataset of Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19.

The International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium (ISARIC) COVID-19 dataset is one of the largest international databases of prospectively collected clinical data on people hospitalized with COVID-19. This dataset was compiled during the COVID-19 pandemic by a network of hospitals that collect data using the ISARIC-World Health Organization Clinical Characterization Protocol and data tools. The database includes data from more than 705,000 patients, collected in more than 60 countries and 1,500 centres worldwide. Patient data are available from acute hospital admissions with COVID-19 and outpatient follow-ups. The data include signs and symptoms, pre-existing comorbidities, vital signs, chronic and acute treatments, complications, dates of hospitalization and discharge, mortality, viral strains, vaccination status, and other data. Here, we present the dataset characteristics, explain its architecture and how to gain access, and provide tools to facilitate its use.

Ribavirin for treating Lassa fever: A systematic review of pre-clinical studies and implications for human dosing.

Ribavirin is currently the standard of care for treating Lassa fever. However, the human clinical trial data supporting its use suffer from several serious flaws that render the results and conclusions unreliable. We performed a systematic review of available pre-clinical data and human pharmacokinetic data on ribavirin in Lassa. In in-vitro studies, the EC50 of ribavirin ranged from 0.6 µg/ml to 21.72 µg/ml and the EC90 ranged from 1.5 µg/ml to 29 µg/ml. The mean EC50 was 7 µg/ml and the mean EC90 was 15 µg/ml. Human PK data in patients with Lassa fever was sparse and did not allow for estimation of concentration profiles or pharmacokinetic parameters. Pharmacokinetic modelling based on healthy human data suggests that the concentration profiles of current ribavirin regimes only exceed the mean EC50 for less than 20% of the time and the mean EC90 for less than 10% of the time, raising the possibility that the current ribavirin regimens in clinical use are unlikely to reliably achieve serum concentrations required to inhibit Lassa virus replication. The results of this review highlight serious issues with the evidence, which, by today standards, would be unlikely to support the transition of ribavirin from pre-clinical studies to human clinical trials. Additional pre-clinical studies are needed before embarking on expensive and challenging clinical trials of ribavirin in Lassa fever.

Paediatric COVID-19 mortality: a database analysis of the impact of health resource disparity.

BACKGROUND: The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on paediatric populations varied between high-income countries (HICs) versus low-income to middle-income countries (LMICs). We sought to investigate differences in paediatric clinical outcomes and identify factors contributing to disparity between countries. METHODS: The International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infections Consortium (ISARIC) COVID-19 database was queried to include children under 19 years of age admitted to hospital from January 2020 to April 2021 with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis. Univariate and multivariable analysis of contributing factors for mortality were assessed by country group (HICs vs LMICs) as defined by the World Bank criteria. RESULTS: A total of 12 860 children (3819 from 21 HICs and 9041 from 15 LMICs) participated in this study. Of these, 8961 were laboratory-confirmed and 3899 suspected COVID-19 cases. About 52% of LMICs children were black, and more than 40% were infants and adolescent. Overall in-hospital mortality rate (95% CI) was 3.3% [=(3.0% to 3.6%), higher in LMICs than HICs (4.0% (3.6% to 4.4%) and 1.7% (1.3% to 2.1%), respectively). There were significant differences between country income groups in intervention profile, with higher use of antibiotics, antivirals, corticosteroids, prone positioning, high flow nasal cannula, non-invasive and invasive mechanical ventilation in HICs. Out of the 439 mechanically ventilated children, mortality occurred in 106 (24.1%) subjects, which was higher in LMICs than HICs (89 (43.6%) vs 17 (7.2%) respectively). Pre-existing infectious comorbidities (tuberculosis and HIV) and some complications (bacterial pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome and myocarditis) were significantly higher in LMICs compared with HICs. On multivariable analysis, LMIC as country income group was associated with increased risk of mortality (adjusted HR 4.73 (3.16 to 7.10)). CONCLUSION: Mortality and morbidities were higher in LMICs than HICs, and it may be attributable to differences in patient demographics, complications and access to supportive and treatment modalities.

Prospective validation of the 4C prognostic models for adults hospitalised with COVID-19 using the ISARIC WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol.

PURPOSE: To prospectively validate two risk scores to predict mortality (4C Mortality) and in-hospital deterioration (4C Deterioration) among adults hospitalised with COVID-19. METHODS: Prospective observational cohort study of adults (age ≥18 years) with confirmed or highly suspected COVID-19 recruited into the International Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infections Consortium (ISARIC) WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK (CCP-UK) study in 306 hospitals across England, Scotland and Wales. Patients were recruited between 27 August 2020 and 17 February 2021, with at least 4 weeks follow-up before final data extraction. The main outcome measures were discrimination and calibration of models for in-hospital deterioration (defined as any requirement of ventilatory support or critical care, or death) and mortality, incorporating predefined subgroups. RESULTS: 76 588 participants were included, of whom 27 352 (37.4%) deteriorated and 12 581 (17.4%) died. Both the 4C Mortality (0.78 (0.77 to 0.78)) and 4C Deterioration scores (pooled C-statistic 0.76 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.77)) demonstrated consistent discrimination across all nine National Health Service regions, with similar performance metrics to the original validation cohorts. Calibration remained stable (4C Mortality: pooled slope 1.09, pooled calibration-in-the-large 0.12; 4C Deterioration: 1.00, -0.04), with no need for temporal recalibration during the second UK pandemic wave of hospital admissions. CONCLUSION: Both 4C risk stratification models demonstrate consistent performance to predict clinical deterioration and mortality in a large prospective second wave validation cohort of UK patients. Despite recent advances in the treatment and management of adults hospitalised with COVID-19, both scores can continue to inform clinical decision making. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN66726260.

The impact of COVID-19 on clinical research for Neglected Tropical Diseases (NTDs): A case study of bubonic plague.

BACKGROUND: Among the many collaterals of the COVID-19 pandemic is the disruption of health services and vital clinical research. COVID-19 has magnified the challenges faced in research and threatens to slow research for urgently needed therapeutics for Neglected Tropical Diseases (NTDs) and diseases affecting the most vulnerable populations. Here we explore the impact of the pandemic on a clinical trial for plague therapeutics and strategies that have been considered to ensure research efforts continue. METHODS: To understand the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the trial accrual rate, we documented changes in patterns of all-cause consultations that took place before and during the pandemic at health centres in two districts of the Amoron'I Mania region of Madagascar where the trial is underway. We also considered trends in plague reporting and other external factors that may have contributed to slow recruitment. RESULTS: During the pandemic, we found a 27% decrease in consultations at the referral hospital, compared to an 11% increase at peripheral health centres, as well as an overall drop during the months of lockdown. We also found a nation-wide trend towards reduced number of reported plague cases. DISCUSSION: COVID-19 outbreaks are unlikely to dissipate in the near future. Declining NTD case numbers recorded during the pandemic period should not be viewed in isolation or taken as a marker of things to come. It is vitally important that researchers are prepared for a rebound in cases and, most importantly, that research continues to avoid NTDs becoming even more neglected.

Ten months of temporal variation in the clinical journey of hospitalised patients with COVID-19: An observational cohort.

Background: There is potentially considerable variation in the nature and duration of the care provided to hospitalised patients during an infectious disease epidemic or pandemic. Improvements in care and clinician confidence may shorten the time spent as an inpatient, or the need for admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) or high dependency unit (HDU). On the other hand, limited resources at times of high demand may lead to rationing. Nevertheless, these variables may be used as static proxies for disease severity, as outcome measures for trials, and to inform planning and logistics. Methods: We investigate these time trends in an extremely large international cohort of 142,540 patients hospitalised with COVID-19. Investigated are: time from symptom onset to hospital admission, probability of ICU/HDU admission, time from hospital admission to ICU/HDU admission, hospital case fatality ratio (hCFR) and total length of hospital stay. Results: Time from onset to admission showed a rapid decline during the first months of the pandemic followed by peaks during August/September and December 2020. ICU/HDU admission was more frequent from June to August. The hCFR was lowest from June to August. Raw numbers for overall hospital stay showed little variation, but there is clear decline in time to discharge for ICU/HDU survivors. Conclusions: Our results establish that variables of these kinds have limitations when used as outcome measures in a rapidly evolving situation. Funding: This work was supported by the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and Wellcome [215091/Z/18/Z] and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1209135]. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Comparison of Novel Sandfly Control Interventions: A Pilot Study in Bangladesh.

In this pilot comparative study, we investigated and compared the effects of existing vector control tools on sandfly densities and mortality to inform and support the National Kala-azar Elimination Program (NKEP). The interventions included insecticidal wall painting (IWP), reduced-coverage insecticidal durable wall lining (DWL), insecticide-impregnated bednets (ITN), and indoor residual spraying with deltamethrin (IRS). Sakhua union with seven villages was the study area, which was the most highly endemic visceral leishmaniasis union in Trishal upazila, Bangladesh. Each cluster containing the different interventions included approximately 50 households. Study methods included random selection of clusters, collection of sandfly by CDC light trap and manual aspirator to determine sandfly density, and sandfly mortality determined by WHO cone bioassay test. Trained field research assistants interviewed household heads using structured questionnaires for sociodemographic information, as well as safety and acceptability of the interventions. Descriptive and analytical statistical methods measured interventions' effect and its duration on sandfly density reduction and mortality. We measured the relative efficacy of IWP on sandfly control against DWL, ITN, and IRS by the difference-in-difference regression model. We found that existing interventions were effective and safe for sandfly control with different duration of effect and acceptability. The relative efficacy of IWP for sandfly reduction varied by -59% to -91%, -75% to -81%, and -30% to -104% compared with DWL, ITN, and IRS, respectively, at different time points during the 12-month follow-up. These study results will guide the NKEP for selection of sandfly control tool(s) in its subsequent consolidation and maintenance phases.

Clinical characterization of Lassa fever: A systematic review of clinical reports and research to inform clinical trial design.

BACKGROUND: Research is urgently needed to reduce the morbidity and mortality of Lassa fever (LF), including clinical trials to test new therapies and to verify the efficacy and safety of the only current treatment recommendation, ribavirin, which has a weak clinical evidence base. To help establish a basis for the development of an adaptable, standardised clinical trial methodology, we conducted a systematic review to identify the clinical characteristics and outcomes of LF and describe how LF has historically been defined and assessed in the scientific literature. METHODOLOGY: Primary clinical studies and reports of patients with suspected and confirmed diagnosis of LF published in the peer-reviewed literature before 15 April 2021 were included. Publications were selected following a two-stage screening of abstracts, then full-texts, by two independent reviewers at each stage. Data were extracted, verified, and summarised using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: 147 publications were included, primarily case reports (36%), case series (28%), and cohort studies (20%); only 2 quasi-randomised studies (1%) were found. Data are mostly from Nigeria (52% of individuals, 41% of publications) and Sierra Leone (42% of individuals, 31% of publications). The results corroborate the World Health Organisation characterisation of LF presentation. However, a broader spectrum of presenting symptoms is evident, such as gastrointestinal illness and other nervous system and musculoskeletal disorders that are not commonly included as indicators of LF. The overall case fatality ratio was 30% in laboratory-confirmed cases (1896/6373 reported in 109 publications). CONCLUSION: Systematic review is an important tool in the clinical characterisation of diseases with limited publications. The results herein provide a more complete understanding of the spectrum of disease which is relevant to clinical trial design. This review demonstrates the need for coordination across the LF research community to generate harmonised research methods that can contribute to building a strong evidence base for new treatments and foster confidence in their integration into clinical care.

Visceral Leishmaniasis in pregnancy and vertical transmission: A systematic literature review on the therapeutic orphans.

BACKGROUND: Reports on the occurrence and outcome of Visceral Leishmaniasis (VL) in pregnant women is rare in published literature. The occurrence of VL in pregnancy is not systematically captured and cases are rarely followed-up to detect consequences of infection and treatment on the pregnant women and foetus. METHODS: A review of all published literature was undertaken to identify cases of VL infections among pregnant women by searching the following database: Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; World Health Organization Global Index Medicus: LILACS (Americas); IMSEAR (South-East Asia); IMEMR (Eastern Mediterranean); WPRIM (Western Pacific); ClinicalTrials.gov; and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Selection criteria included any clinical reports describing the disease in pregnancy or vertical transmission of the disease in humans. Articles meeting pre-specified inclusion criteria and non-primary research articles such as textbook, chapters, letters, retrospective case description, or reports of accidental inclusion in trials were also considered. RESULTS: The systematic literature search identified 272 unique articles of which 54 records were included in this review; a further 18 records were identified from additional search of the references of the included studies or from personal communication leading to a total of 72 records (71 case reports/case series; 1 retrospective cohort study; 1926-2020) describing 451 cases of VL in pregnant women. The disease was detected during pregnancy in 398 (88.2%), retrospectively confirmed after giving birth in 52 (11.5%), and the time of identification was not clear in 1 (0.2%). Of the 398 pregnant women whose infection was identified during pregnancy, 346 (86.9%) received a treatment, 3 (0.8%) were untreated, and the treatment status was not clear in the remaining 49 (12.3%). Of 346 pregnant women, Liposomal amphotericin B (L-AmB) was administered in 202 (58.4%) and pentavalent antimony (PA) in 93 (26.9%). Outcomes were reported in 176 pregnant women treated with L-AmB with 4 (2.3%) reports of maternal deaths, 5 (2.8%) miscarriages, and 2 (1.1%) foetal death/stillbirth. For PA, outcomes were reported in 88 of whom 4 (4.5%) died, 24 (27.3%) had spontaneous abortion, 2 (2.3%) had miscarriages. A total of 26 cases of confirmed, probable or suspected cases of vertical transmission were identified with a median detection time of 6 months (range: 0-18 months). CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes of VL treatment during pregnancy is rarely reported and under-researched. The reported articles were mainly case reports and case series and the reported information was often incomplete. From the studies identified, it is difficult to derive a generalisable information on outcomes for pregnant women and babies, although reported data favours the usage of liposomal amphotericin B for the treatment of VL in pregnant women.