Respiratory Syncytial Virus Sequelae Among Adults in High-Income Countries: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) can cause severe respiratory infections in adults; however, information on associated sequelae is limited. This systematic literature review aimed to identify sequelae in adults within 1 year following RSV-related hospitalization or resolution of acute infection. METHODS: Studies were identified from Embase, MEDLINE, LILACS, SciELO, and grey literature. Random-effects meta-analyses using restricted maximum likelihood were used to calculate the proportions and relative risks of sequelae in patients with RSV compared with controls (patients with RSV-negative influenza-like illness, influenza, and parainfluenza) per follow-up period, population, and treatment setting, where possible. RESULTS: Twenty-one relevant studies covering the period from 1990 to 2019 were included. Among the general population, the most frequent clinical sequela was sustained function loss (33.5% [95% CI 27.6-39.9]). Decline in lung function and cardiovascular event or congestive heart failure were also identified. Utilization sequelae were readmission (highest at > 6 months after discharge) and placement in a skilled nursing facility. The only subpopulation with data regarding sequelae was transplant patients. Among lung transplant patients, the most frequently reported clinical sequelae were decline in lung function, followed by graft dysfunction and bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome. Pooled relative risks were calculated for the following sequela with controls (primarily influenza-positive patients): cardiovascular event (general population) and pulmonary impairment (hematogenic-transplant patients) both 1.4 (95% CI 1.0-2.0) and for readmission (general population) 1.2 (95% CI 1.1-1.3). CONCLUSIONS: Although less data are available for RSV than for influenza or other lower respiratory tract infections, RSV infection among adults is associated with medically important sequelae, with a prevalence similar to other respiratory pathogens. RSV sequelae should be included in disease burden estimates.

Effect of pneumococcal conjugate vaccines on viral respiratory infections: a systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: In addition to preventing pneumococcal disease, emerging evidence indicates that pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCVs) might indirectly reduce viral respiratory tract infections (RTI) by affecting pneumococcal-viral interactions. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of interventional and observational studies published during 2000-2022 on vaccine efficacy/adjusted effectiveness (VE) and overall effect of PCV7, PCV9, PCV10, or PCV13 against viral RTI. RESULTS: Sixteen of 1671 records identified were included. Thirteen publications described effects of PCVs against viral RTIs in children. VE against influenza ranged between 41-86% (n=4), except for the 2010-2011 influenza season. In a randomized controlled trial, PCV9 displayed efficacy against any viral RTI, human seasonal coronavirus, parainfluenza, and human metapneumovirus. Data in adults were limited (n=3). PCV13 VE ranged between 4-25% against viral lower RTI, 32-35% against COVID-19 outcomes, 24-51% against human seasonal coronavirus, and 13-36% against influenza A lower RTI, with some 95%CI spanning zero. No protection was found against adenovirus or rhinovirus in children or adults. CONCLUSIONS: PCVs were associated with protection against some viral RTI, with the strongest evidence for influenza in children. Limited evidence for adults was generally consistent with pediatric data. Restricting public health evaluations to confirmed pneumococcal outcomes may underestimate the full impact of PCVs.

Best Practices for Identifying Hospitalized Lower Respiratory Tract Infections Using Administrative Data: A Systematic Literature Review of Validation Studies.

INTRODUCTION: Estimating the burden of lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) increasingly relies on administrative databases using International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes, but no standard methodology exists. We defined best practices for ICD-based algorithms that estimate LRTI incidence in adults. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of validation studies assessing the use of ICD code-based algorithms to identify hospitalized LRTIs in adults, published in Medline, EMBASE, and LILACS between January 1996 and January 2022, according to PRISMA guidelines. We assessed sensitivity, specificity, and other accuracy measures of different algorithms. RESULTS: We included 26 publications that used a variety of ICD code-based algorithms and gold standard criteria, and 18 reported sensitivity and/or specificity. Sensitivity was below 80% in 72% (38/53) of algorithms and specificity exceeded 90% in 77% (37/48). Algorithms for all-cause LRTI (n = 18) that included only pneumonia codes in primary position (n = 3) had specificity greater than 90% but low sensitivity (55-72%). Sensitivity increased by 5-15%, with minimal loss in specificity, with the addition of primary codes for severe pneumonia (e.g. sepsis) while pneumonia codes were in secondary position, and by 13% with codes from LRTI-related infections (e.g. viral) or other respiratory diseases (e.g. empyema). Sensitivity increased by 8% when pneumonia codes were in any position, but specificity was not reported. In hospital-acquired pneumonia and pneumococcal-specific pneumonia, algorithms containing only nosocomial- or pathogen-specific ICD codes had poor sensitivity, which improved when broader pneumonia codes were added, in particular codes for unspecified organisms. CONCLUSION: Our systematic review highlights that most ICD code-based algorithms are relatively specific, but miss a substantial number of hospitalized LRTI adult cases. Best practices to estimate LRTI incidence in this population include the use of all pneumonia ICD codes for any LRTI outcome and, to a lesser extent, those for other LRTI-related infections or respiratory diseases.

Characterization of type-specific HPV prevalence in a population of persistent cutaneous warts in Flanders, Belgium.

Cutaneous warts are benign skin lesions caused by the human papillomavirus (HPV). Even though they are considered benign, they can have a considerable impact on the quality of life and cause serious illness in certain immunocompromised populations. Studies have shown that the efficacy of wart treatment is dependent on the causative HPV type. Therefore, in this article, we aim to determine the HPV genotype-specific prevalence in cutaneous warts of a Flemish population as part of the Omnivirol-Salycilic acid randomized controlled trial. Swab samples of cutaneous warts (n = 269) were collected during enrollment. The DNA extraction was performed on the automated NucliSENS® easyMAG® system (bioMérieux). The samples were analyzed with two separate in-house PCR assays capable of detecting the most prevalent cutaneous HPV types (i.e. wart-associated HPV qPCR) as well as the most relevant mucosal types (i.e. RIATOL qPCR assay). In total, the type-specific prevalence of 30 distinct HPV genotypes was determined. The beta-globin gene was used as a cellularity control and for viral load quantification. Data concerning wart persistence, previous treatment, wart type, and other relevant wart and patient characteristics was collected through a baseline questionnaire. The study population consisted mostly of persistent warts considering that 98% (n = 263) of the sampled skin lesions were older than six months and 92% (n = 247) had undergone previous treatment. The most prominent wart type was the mosaic verruca plantaris (42%, n = 113). The most prevalent HPV types were cutaneous HPV types 27 (73%, n = 195), 57 (63%, n = 169), and 2 (42%, n = 113). Only 2% (n = 6) of the lesions was HPV negative. The highest median viral loads were observed with HPV27 and 57 (i.e. 6.29E+04 and 7.47E+01 viral copies per cell respectively). The multivariate analysis found significant associations between wart persistence and certain wart types, the number of warts, and HPV genotypes. Based on these findings, persistent warts are more likely to: (1) be verruca vulgaris, verruca plantaris simple or mosaic, (2) to manifest as multiple warts, (3) and to be negative for HPV type 2 or 4. These characteristics can be useful in the clinical setting for future risk stratification when considering treatment triage and management. Trial registration: NCT05862441, 17/05/2023 (retrospectively registered).

Geographic and Population Distributions of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV)-1 and HIV-2 Circulating Subtypes: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-analysis (2010-2021).

BACKGROUND: HIV poses significant challenges for vaccine development due to its high genetic mutation and recombination rates. Understanding the distribution of HIV subtypes (clades) across regions and populations is crucial. In this study, a systematic review of the past decade was conducted to characterize HIV-1/HIV-2 subtypes. METHODS: A comprehensive search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, and CABI Global Health, yielding 454 studies from 91 countries. RESULTS: Globally, circulating recombinant forms (CRFs)/unique recombinant forms (URFs) accounted for 29% of HIV-1 strains, followed by subtype C (23%) and subtype A (17%). Among studies reporting subtype breakdowns in key populations, 62% of HIV infections among men who have sex with men (MSM) and 38% among people who inject drugs (PWIDs) were CRF/URFs. Latin America and the Caribbean exhibited a 25% increase in other CRFs (excluding CRF01_AE or CRF02_AG) prevalence between 2010-2015 and 2016-2021. CONCLUSIONS: This review underscores the global distribution of HIV subtypes, with an increasing prevalence of CRFs and a lower prevalence of subtype C. Data on HIV-2 were limited. Understanding subtype diversity is crucial for vaccine development, which need to elicit immune responses capable of targeting various subtypes. Further research is needed to enhance our knowledge and address the challenges posed by HIV subtype diversity.

Pediatric Respiratory Syncytial Virus Diagnostic Testing Performance: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Adding additional specimen types (eg, serology or sputum) to nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) increases respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) detection among adults. We assessed if a similar increase occurs in children and quantified underascertainment associated with diagnostic testing. METHODS: We searched databases for studies involving RSV detection in persons <18 years using ≥2 specimen types or tests. We assessed study quality using a validated checklist. We pooled detection rates by specimen and diagnostic tests and quantified performance. RESULTS: We included 157 studies. Added testing of additional specimens to NP aspirate (NPA), NPS, and/or nasal swab (NS) RT-PCR resulted in statistically nonsignificant increases in RSV detection. Adding paired serology testing increased RSV detection by 10%, NS by 8%, oropharyngeal swabs by 5%, and NPS by 1%. Compared to RT-PCR, direct fluorescence antibody tests, viral culture, and rapid antigen tests were 87%, 76%, and 74% sensitive, respectively (pooled specificities all ≥98%). Pooled sensitivity of multiplex versus singleplex RT-PCR was 96%. CONCLUSIONS: RT-PCR was the most sensitive pediatric RSV diagnostic test. Adding multiple specimens did not substantially increase RSV detection, but even small proportional increases could result in meaningful changes in burden estimates. The synergistic effect of adding multiple specimens should be evaluated.

Interleukin-6 blocking agents for treating COVID-19: a living systematic review.

BACKGROUND: It has been reported that people with COVID-19 and pre-existing autoantibodies against type I interferons are likely to develop an inflammatory cytokine storm responsible for severe respiratory symptoms. Since interleukin 6 (IL-6) is one of the cytokines released during this inflammatory process, IL-6 blocking agents have been used for treating people with severe COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: To update the evidence on the effectiveness and safety of IL-6 blocking agents compared to standard care alone or to a placebo for people with COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the Living OVerview of Evidence (L·OVE) platform, and the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register to identify studies on 7 June 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating IL-6 blocking agents compared to standard care alone or to placebo for people with COVID-19, regardless of disease severity. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of researchers independently conducted study selection, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for all critical and important outcomes. In this update we amended our protocol to update the methods used for grading evidence by establishing minimal important differences for the critical outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: This update includes 22 additional trials, for a total of 32 trials including 12,160 randomized participants all hospitalized for COVID-19 disease. We identified a further 17 registered RCTs evaluating IL-6 blocking agents without results available as of 7 June 2022.  The mean age range varied from 56 to 75 years; 66.2% (8051/12,160) of enrolled participants were men. One-third (11/32) of included trials were placebo-controlled. Twenty-two were published in peer-reviewed journals, three were reported as preprints, two trials had results posted only on registries, and results from five trials were retrieved from another meta-analysis. Eight were funded by pharmaceutical companies.  Twenty-six included studies were multicenter trials; four were multinational and 22 took place in single countries. Recruitment of participants occurred between February 2020 and June 2021, with a mean enrollment duration of 21 weeks (range 1 to 54 weeks). Nineteen trials (60%) had a follow-up of 60 days or more. Disease severity ranged from mild to critical disease. The proportion of participants who were intubated at study inclusion also varied from 5% to 95%. Only six trials reported vaccination status; there were no vaccinated participants included in these trials, and 17 trials were conducted before vaccination was rolled out. We assessed a total of six treatments, each compared to placebo or standard care. Twenty trials assessed tocilizumab, nine assessed sarilumab, and two assessed clazakizumab. Only one trial was included for each of the other IL-6 blocking agents (siltuximab, olokizumab, and levilimab). Two trials assessed more than one treatment. Efficacy and safety of tocilizumab and sarilumab compared to standard care or placebo for treating COVID-19 At day (D) 28, tocilizumab and sarilumab probably result in little or no increase in clinical improvement (tocilizumab: risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.11; 15 RCTs, 6116 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; sarilumab: RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.05; 7 RCTs, 2425 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). For clinical improvement at ≥ D60, the certainty of evidence is very low for both tocilizumab (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.48; 1 RCT, 97 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and sarilumab (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.63; 2 RCTs, 239 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The effect of tocilizumab on the proportion of participants with a WHO Clinical Progression Score (WHO-CPS) of level 7 or above remains uncertain at D28 (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.12; 13 RCTs, 2117 participants; low-certainty evidence) and that for sarilumab very uncertain (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.33; 5 RCTs, 886 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Tocilizumab reduces all cause-mortality at D28 compared to standard care/placebo (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.94; 18 RCTs, 7428 participants; high-certainty evidence). The evidence about the effect of sarilumab on this outcome is very uncertain (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.30; 9 RCTs, 3305 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is uncertain for all cause-mortality at ≥ D60 for tocilizumab (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.04; 9 RCTs, 2775 participants; low-certainty evidence) and very uncertain for sarilumab (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.07; 6 RCTs, 3379 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Tocilizumab probably results in little to no difference in the risk of adverse events (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.12; 9 RCTs, 1811 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence about adverse events for sarilumab is uncertain (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.28; 4 RCT, 860 participants; low-certainty evidence).  The evidence about serious adverse events is very uncertain for tocilizumab (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.07; 16 RCTs; 2974 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and uncertain for sarilumab (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.21; 6 RCTs; 2936 participants; low-certainty evidence). Efficacy and safety of clazakizumab, olokizumab, siltuximab and levilimab compared to standard care or placebo for treating COVID-19 The evidence about the effects of clazakizumab, olokizumab, siltuximab, and levilimab comes from only one or two studies for each blocking agent, and is uncertain or very uncertain. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In hospitalized people with COVID-19, results show a beneficial effect of tocilizumab on all-cause mortality in the short term and probably little or no difference in the risk of adverse events compared to standard care alone or placebo. Nevertheless, both tocilizumab and sarilumab probably result in little or no increase in clinical improvement at D28. Evidence for an effect of sarilumab and the other IL-6 blocking agents on critical outcomes is uncertain or very uncertain. Most of the trials included in our review were done before the waves of different variants of concern and before vaccination was rolled out on a large scale. An additional 17 RCTs of IL-6 blocking agents are currently registered with no results yet reported. The number of pending studies and the number of participants planned is low. Consequently, we will not publish further updates of this review.

Underascertainment of Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infection in Adults Due to Diagnostic Testing Limitations: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Most observational population-based studies identify respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) by nasal/nasopharyngeal swab reverse transcriptase real-time PCR (RT-PCR) only. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analyses to quantify specimen and diagnostic testing-based underascertainment of adult RSV infection. METHODS: EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science were searched (January 2000-December 2021) for studies including adults using/comparing >1 RSV testing approach. We quantified test performance and RSV detection increase associated with using multiple specimen types. RESULTS: Among 8066 references identified, 154 met inclusion. Compared to RT-PCR, other methods were less sensitive: rapid antigen detection test (RADT; pooled sensitivity, 64%), direct fluorescent antibody (DFA; 83%), and viral culture (86%). Compared to singleplex PCR, multiplex PCR's sensitivity was lower (93%). Compared to nasal/nasopharyngeal swab RT-PCR alone, adding another specimen type increased detection: sputum RT-PCR, 52%; 4-fold rise in paired serology, 44%; and oropharyngeal swab RT-PCR, 28%. Sensitivity was lower in estimates limited to only adults (for RADT, DFA, and viral culture), and detection rate increases were largely comparable. CONCLUSIONS: RT-PCR, particularly singleplex testing, is the most sensitive RSV diagnostic test in adults. Adding additional specimen types to nasopharyngeal swab RT-PCR testing increased RSV detection. Synergistic effects of using ≥3 specimen types should be assessed, as this approach may improve the accuracy of adult RSV burden estimates.

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is an important cause of illness and death among older adults. Most studies of how frequent RSV infection is among older adults use only nasal swab testing to identify RSV infection. These nasal swabs are checked for genetic material from the virus, known as polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing. We examined published studies from January 2000 to December 2021 to estimate how many RSV infections would be missed by using only this approach to RSV testing. We found 154 studies had information to answer our question. Compared to PCR testing of nasal swab alone, adding sputum specimen PCR testing (ie, testing cough mucus or phlegm for RSV genetic material) increased RSV infections found by 52%. Adding blood testing increased RSV infections found by 44%. Adding mouth/throat swab PCR testing, increased RSV infections by 28%. In summary, adding additional specimen types to nasal swab PCR testing increased RSV detection. Impact of using 3 or more specimen types at the same time should be assessed, as this approach may further improve accuracy.

Efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines.

BACKGROUND: Different forms of vaccines have been developed to prevent the SARS-CoV-2 virus and subsequent COVID-19 disease. Several are in widespread use globally.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines (as a full primary vaccination series or a booster dose) against SARS-CoV-2. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 L·OVE platform (last search date 5 November 2021). We also searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, regulatory agency websites, and Retraction Watch. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing COVID-19 vaccines to placebo, no vaccine, other active vaccines, or other vaccine schedules. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for all except immunogenicity outcomes.  We synthesized data for each vaccine separately and presented summary effect estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).  MAIN RESULTS: We included and analyzed 41 RCTs assessing 12 different vaccines, including homologous and heterologous vaccine schedules and the effect of booster doses. Thirty-two RCTs were multicentre and five were multinational. The sample sizes of RCTs were 60 to 44,325 participants. Participants were aged: 18 years or older in 36 RCTs; 12 years or older in one RCT; 12 to 17 years in two RCTs; and three to 17 years in two RCTs. Twenty-nine RCTs provided results for individuals aged over 60 years, and three RCTs included immunocompromized patients. No trials included pregnant women. Sixteen RCTs had two-month follow-up or less, 20 RCTs had two to six months, and five RCTs had greater than six to 12 months or less. Eighteen reports were based on preplanned interim analyses. Overall risk of bias was low for all outcomes in eight RCTs, while 33 had concerns for at least one outcome. We identified 343 registered RCTs with results not yet available.  This abstract reports results for the critical outcomes of confirmed symptomatic COVID-19, severe and critical COVID-19, and serious adverse events only for the 10 WHO-approved vaccines. For remaining outcomes and vaccines, see main text. The evidence for mortality was generally sparse and of low or very low certainty for all WHO-approved vaccines, except AD26.COV2.S (Janssen), which probably reduces the risk of all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.25, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.67; 1 RCT, 43,783 participants; high-certainty evidence). Confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 High-certainty evidence found that BNT162b2 (BioNtech/Fosun Pharma/Pfizer), mRNA-1273 (ModernaTx), ChAdOx1 (Oxford/AstraZeneca), Ad26.COV2.S, BBIBP-CorV (Sinopharm-Beijing), and BBV152 (Bharat Biotect) reduce the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 compared to placebo (vaccine efficacy (VE): BNT162b2: 97.84%, 95% CI 44.25% to 99.92%; 2 RCTs, 44,077 participants; mRNA-1273: 93.20%, 95% CI 91.06% to 94.83%; 2 RCTs, 31,632 participants; ChAdOx1: 70.23%, 95% CI 62.10% to 76.62%; 2 RCTs, 43,390 participants; Ad26.COV2.S: 66.90%, 95% CI 59.10% to 73.40%; 1 RCT, 39,058 participants; BBIBP-CorV: 78.10%, 95% CI 64.80% to 86.30%; 1 RCT, 25,463 participants; BBV152: 77.80%, 95% CI 65.20% to 86.40%; 1 RCT, 16,973 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence found that NVX-CoV2373 (Novavax) probably reduces the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 compared to placebo (VE 82.91%, 95% CI 50.49% to 94.10%; 3 RCTs, 42,175 participants). There is low-certainty evidence for CoronaVac (Sinovac) for this outcome (VE 69.81%, 95% CI 12.27% to 89.61%; 2 RCTs, 19,852 participants). Severe or critical COVID-19 High-certainty evidence found that BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, Ad26.COV2.S, and BBV152 result in a large reduction in incidence of severe or critical disease due to COVID-19 compared to placebo (VE: BNT162b2: 95.70%, 95% CI 73.90% to 99.90%; 1 RCT, 46,077 participants; mRNA-1273: 98.20%, 95% CI 92.80% to 99.60%; 1 RCT, 28,451 participants; AD26.COV2.S: 76.30%, 95% CI 57.90% to 87.50%; 1 RCT, 39,058 participants; BBV152: 93.40%, 95% CI 57.10% to 99.80%; 1 RCT, 16,976 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence found that NVX-CoV2373 probably reduces the incidence of severe or critical COVID-19 (VE 100.00%, 95% CI 86.99% to 100.00%; 1 RCT, 25,452 participants). Two trials reported high efficacy of CoronaVac for severe or critical disease with wide CIs, but these results could not be pooled. Serious adverse events (SAEs) mRNA-1273, ChAdOx1 (Oxford-AstraZeneca)/SII-ChAdOx1 (Serum Institute of India), Ad26.COV2.S, and BBV152 probably result in little or no difference in SAEs compared to placebo (RR: mRNA-1273: 0.92, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.08; 2 RCTs, 34,072 participants; ChAdOx1/SII-ChAdOx1: 0.88, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.07; 7 RCTs, 58,182 participants; Ad26.COV2.S: 0.92, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.22; 1 RCT, 43,783 participants); BBV152: 0.65, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.97; 1 RCT, 25,928 participants). In each of these, the likely absolute difference in effects was fewer than 5/1000 participants. Evidence for SAEs is uncertain for BNT162b2, CoronaVac, BBIBP-CorV, and NVX-CoV2373 compared to placebo (RR: BNT162b2: 1.30, 95% CI 0.55 to 3.07; 2 RCTs, 46,107 participants; CoronaVac: 0.97, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.51; 4 RCTs, 23,139 participants; BBIBP-CorV: 0.76, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.06; 1 RCT, 26,924 participants; NVX-CoV2373: 0.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.14; 4 RCTs, 38,802 participants). For the evaluation of heterologous schedules, booster doses, and efficacy against variants of concern, see main text of review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared to placebo, most vaccines reduce, or likely reduce, the proportion of participants with confirmed symptomatic COVID-19, and for some, there is high-certainty evidence that they reduce severe or critical disease. There is probably little or no difference between most vaccines and placebo for serious adverse events. Over 300 registered RCTs are evaluating the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, and this review is updated regularly on the COVID-NMA platform (covid-nma.com). Implications for practice Due to the trial exclusions, these results cannot be generalized to pregnant women, individuals with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection, or immunocompromized people. Most trials had a short follow-up and were conducted before the emergence of variants of concern. Implications for research Future research should evaluate the long-term effect of vaccines, compare different vaccines and vaccine schedules, assess vaccine efficacy and safety in specific populations, and include outcomes such as preventing long COVID-19. Ongoing evaluation of vaccine efficacy and effectiveness against emerging variants of concern is also vital.

Interleukin-1 blocking agents for treating COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Interleukin-1 (IL-1) blocking agents have been used for treating severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), on the premise that their immunomodulatory effect might be beneficial in people with COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of IL-1 blocking agents compared with standard care alone or with placebo on effectiveness and safety outcomes in people with COVID-19. We will update this assessment regularly. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 L-OVE Platform (search date 5 November 2021). These sources are maintained through regular searches of MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, trial registers and other sources. We also checked the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, regulatory agency websites, Retraction Watch (search date 3 November 2021). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating IL-1 blocking agents compared with standard care alone or with placebo for people with COVID-19, regardless of disease severity. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed Cochrane methodology. The protocol was amended to reduce the number of outcomes considered. Two researchers independently screened and extracted data and assessed the risk of bias with the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the critical outcomes of clinical improvement (Day 28; ≥ D60); WHO Clinical Progression Score of level 7 or above (i.e. the proportion of participants with mechanical ventilation +/- additional organ support OR death) (D28; ≥ D60); all-cause mortality (D28; ≥ D60); incidence of any adverse events; and incidence of serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We identified four RCTs of anakinra (three published in peer-reviewed journals, one reported as a preprint) and two RCTs of canakinumab (published in peer-reviewed journals). All trials were multicentre (2 to 133 centres). Two trials stopped early (one due to futility and one as the trigger for inferiority was met). The median/mean age range varied from 58 to 68 years; the proportion of men varied from 58% to 77%. All participants were hospitalised; 67% to 100% were on oxygen at baseline but not intubated; between 0% and 33% were intubated at baseline. We identified a further 16 registered trials with no results available, of which 15 assessed anakinra (four completed, four terminated, five ongoing, three not recruiting) and one (completed) trial assessed canakinumab. Effectiveness of anakinra for people with COVID-19 Anakinra probably results in little or no increase in clinical improvement at D28 (risk ratio (RR) 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.20; 3 RCTs, 837 participants; absolute effect: 59 more per 1000 (from 22 fewer to 147 more); moderate-certainty evidence. The evidence is uncertain about an effect of anakinra on 1) the proportion of participants with a WHO Clinical Progression Score of level 7 or above at D28 (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.22; 2 RCTs, 722 participants; absolute effect: 55 fewer per 1000 (from 107 fewer to 37 more); low-certainty evidence) and ≥ D60 (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.96; 1 RCT, 606 participants; absolute effect: 47 fewer per 1000 (from 72 fewer to 4 fewer) low-certainty evidence); and 2) all-cause mortality at D28 (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.39; 2 RCTs, 722 participants; absolute effect: 32 fewer per 1000 (from 68 fewer to 40 more); low-certainty evidence).  The evidence is very uncertain about an effect of anakinra on 1) the proportion of participants with clinical improvement at ≥ D60 (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.12; 1 RCT, 115 participants; absolute effect: 59 fewer per 1000 (from 186 fewer to 102 more); very low-certainty evidence); and 2) all-cause mortality at ≥ D60 (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.56; 4 RCTs, 1633 participants; absolute effect: 8 more per 1000 (from 84 fewer to 147 more); very low-certainty evidence). Safety of anakinra for people with COVID-19 Anakinra probably results in little or no increase in adverse events (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.11; 2 RCTs, 722 participants; absolute effect: 14 more per 1000 (from 43 fewer to 78 more); moderate-certainty evidence).  The evidence is uncertain regarding an effect of anakinra on serious adverse events (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.56; 2 RCTs, 722 participants; absolute effect: 12 fewer per 1000 (from 104 fewer to 138 more); low-certainty evidence). Effectiveness of canakinumab for people with COVID-19 Canakinumab probably results in little or no increase in clinical improvement at D28 (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.14; 2 RCTs, 499 participants; absolute effect: 42 more per 1000 (from 33 fewer to 116 more); moderate-certainty evidence).  The evidence of an effect of canakinumab is uncertain on 1) the proportion of participants with a WHO Clinical Progression Score of level 7 or above at D28 (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.20; 2 RCTs, 499 participants; absolute effect: 35 fewer per 1000 (from 69 fewer to 25 more); low-certainty evidence); and 2) all-cause mortality at D28 (RR:0.75; 95% CI 0.39 to 1.42); 2 RCTs, 499 participants; absolute effect: 20 fewer per 1000 (from 48 fewer to 33 more); low-certainty evidence).  The evidence is very uncertain about an effect of canakinumab on all-cause mortality at ≥ D60 (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.91; 1 RCT, 45 participants; absolute effect: 112 fewer per 1000 (from 210 fewer to 227 more); very low-certainty evidence). Safety of canakinumab for people with COVID-19 Canakinumab probably results in little or no increase in adverse events (RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.86 to 1.21; 1 RCT, 454 participants; absolute effect: 11 more per 1000 (from 74 fewer to 111 more); moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence of an effect of canakinumab on serious adverse events is uncertain (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.13; 2 RCTs, 499 participants; absolute effect: 44 fewer per 1000 (from 94 fewer to 28 more); low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, we did not find evidence for an important beneficial effect of IL-1 blocking agents. The evidence is uncertain or very uncertain for several outcomes. Sixteen trials of anakinra and canakinumab with no results are currently registered, of which four are completed, and four terminated. The findings of this review are updated on the COVID-NMA platform (covid-nma.com).

Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on medication adherence: In the case of antiseizure medications, A scoping review.

Since early 2020, an unprecedented public global health emergency caused by coronavirus (COVID-19) resulted in national governments' imposing confinement measures. Lockdowns and isolation during pandemics complicate disease management and medication adherence. Chronic conditions, such as epilepsy, require linear adherence patterns to prevent breakthrough seizures and to reduce the risk of sudden unexpected death. Limited access to health care facilities for routine care and medicines management further hampers this. Social isolation exacerbates stress, depression and decreases social support, which may combine to reduce adherence to antiseizure medication (ASM) during the pandemic. METHODS: We conducted a literature scoping review to explore ASM adherence among people with epilepsy, non-infected or infected SARS-CoV-2 or recovered from COVID-19 during the pandemic and explore risk factors for adherence. We search Pubmed for articles up to 16 September 2021. Search terms included the thematic of ASM adherence and COVID-19. We adhered to the PRISMA guidelines for reporting scoping reviews. RESULTS: Six articles were retained after the screening, which covered four overarching themes: change of ASM compliance and as risk factors, lack of follow-up, difficulties accessing ASM, and behavioural risk factors. Our review underscores the lack of evidence on ASM adherence among people with epilepsy infected or recovered from COVID-19. No study retrieved took place in a low-income setting, warranting a cautionary approach to be employed when extrapolating findings on a global scale. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Missing information on past SARS-CoV2 infections impact people with epilepsy precludes exploring a direct effect of SARS-CoV2 on ASM adherence. A more comprehensive chronic disease model based on the burden of co-cardiovascular and neuro-behavioural comorbidities should be envisaged for this population in preparation for future pandemics. A monitoring algorithm needs to be in place to establish a telemedicine framework and community pharmacists' potential to contribute to the model recognised.

Interleukin-6 blocking agents for treating COVID-19: a living systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Interleukin 6 (IL-6) blocking agents have been used for treating severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Their immunosuppressive effect might be valuable in patients with COVID-19 characterised by substantial immune system dysfunction by controlling inflammation and promoting disease tolerance. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of IL-6 blocking agents compared to standard care alone or with placebo on efficacy and safety outcomes in COVID-19. We will update this assessment regularly. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (up to 11 February 2021) and the L-OVE platform, and Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register to identify trials up to 26 February 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating IL-6 blocking agents compared with standard care alone or with placebo for people with COVID-19, regardless of disease severity. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. The protocol was amended to reduce the number of outcomes considered. Two review authors independently collected data and assessed the risk of bias with the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. We rated the certainty of evidence with the GRADE approach for the critical outcomes such as clinical improvement (defined as hospital discharge or improvement on the scale used by trialists to evaluate clinical progression or recovery) (day (D) 28 / ≥ D60); WHO Clinical Progression Score of level 7 or above (i.e. the proportion of participants with mechanical ventilation +/- additional organ support OR death) (D28 / ≥ D60); all-cause mortality (D28 / ≥ D60); incidence of any adverse events; and incidence of serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 10 RCTs with available data including one platform trial comparing tocilizumab and sarilumab with standard of care. These trials evaluated tocilizumab (nine RCTs including two platform trials; seven were reported as peer-reviewed articles, two as preprints; 6428 randomised participants); and two sarilumab (one platform trial reported as peer reviewed article, one reported as preprint, 880 randomised participants). All trials included were multicentre trials. They were conducted in Brazil, China, France, Italy, UK, USA, and four were multi-country trials. The mean age range of participants ranged from 56 to 65 years; 4572 (66.3%) of trial participants were male. Disease severity ranged from mild to critical disease. The reported proportion of participants on oxygen at baseline but not intubated varied from 56% to 100% where reported. Five trials reported the inclusion of intubated patients at baseline. We identified a further 20 registered RCTs of tocilizumab compared to placebo/standard care (five completed without available results, five terminated without available results, eight ongoing, two not recruiting); 11 RCTs of sarilumab (two completed without results, three terminated without available results, six ongoing); six RCTs of clazakisumab (five ongoing, one not recruiting); two RCTs of olokizumab (one completed, one not recruiting); one of siltuximab (ongoing) and one RCT of levilimab (completed without available results). Of note, three were cancelled (2 tocilizumab, 1 clazakisumab). One multiple-arm RCT evaluated both tocilizumab and sarilumab compared to standard of care, one three-arm RCT evaluated tocilizumab and siltuximab compared to standard of care and consequently they appear in each respective comparison. Tocilizumab versus standard care alone or with placebo a. Effectiveness of tocilizumab for patients with COVID-19 Tocilizumab probably results in little or no increase in the outcome of clinical improvement at D28 (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.13; I2 = 40.9%; 7 RCTs, 5585 participants; absolute effect: 31 more with clinical improvement per 1000 (from 0 fewer to 67 more); moderate-certainty evidence). However, we cannot exclude that some subgroups of patients could benefit from the treatment. We did not obtain data for longer-term follow-up (≥ D60). The effect of tocilizumab on the proportion of participants with a WHO Clinical Progression Score of level of 7 or above is uncertain at D28 (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.74; I2 = 64.4%; 3 RCTs, 712 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not obtain data for longer-term follow-up (≥ D60). Tocilizumab reduces all-cause mortality at D28 compared to standard care alone or placebo (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.97; I2 = 0.0%; 8 RCTs, 6363 participants; absolute effect: 32 fewer deaths per 1000 (from 52 fewer to 9 fewer); high-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests uncertainty around the effect on mortality at ≥ D60 (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.40; I2 = 0.0%; 2 RCTs, 519 participants; low-certainty evidence). b. Safety of tocilizumab for patients with COVID-19 The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of tocilizumab on adverse events (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.72; I2 = 86.4%; 7 RCTs, 1534 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Nevertheless, tocilizumab probably results in slightly fewer serious adverse events than standard care alone or placebo (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.06; I2 = 0.0%; 8 RCTs, 2312 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Sarilumab versus standard care alone or with placebo The evidence is uncertain about the effect of sarilumab on all-cause mortality at D28 (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.36; 2 RCTs, 880 participants; low certainty), on all-cause mortality at ≥ D60 (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.0; 1 RCT, 420 participants; low certainty), and serious adverse events (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.77; 2 RCTs, 880 participants; low certainty). It is unlikely that sarilumab results in an important increase of adverse events (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.25; 1 RCT, 420 participants; moderate certainty). However, an increase cannot be excluded No data were available for other critical outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: On average, tocilizumab reduces all-cause mortality at D28 compared to standard care alone or placebo and probably results in slightly fewer serious adverse events than standard care alone or placebo. Nevertheless, tocilizumab probably results in little or no increase in the outcome clinical improvement (defined as hospital discharge or improvement measured by trialist-defined scales) at D28. The impact of tocilizumab on other outcomes is uncertain or very uncertain. With the data available, we were not able to explore heterogeneity. Individual patient data meta-analyses are needed to be able to identify which patients are more likely to benefit from this treatment. Evidence for an effect of sarilumab is uncertain and evidence for other anti-IL6 agents is unavailable. Thirty-nine RCTs of IL-6 blocking agents with no results are currently registered, of which nine are completed and seven trials were terminated with no results available. The findings of this review will be updated as new data are made available on the COVID-NMA platform (covid-nma.com).

Onchocerca volvulus and epilepsy: A comprehensive review using the Bradford Hill criteria for causation.

BACKGROUND: The possibility that onchocerciasis may cause epilepsy has been suggested for a long time, but thus far, an etiological link has not been universally accepted. The objective of this review is to critically appraise the relationship between Onchocerca volvulus and epilepsy and subsequently apply the Bradford Hill criteria to further evaluate the likelihood of a causal association. METHODS: PubMed and gray literature published until September 15, 2020, were searched and findings from original research were synthesized. Adherence to the 9 Bradford Hill criteria in the context of onchocerciasis and epilepsy was determined to assess whether the criteria are met to strengthen the evidence base for a causal link between infection with O. volvulus and epilepsy, including the nodding syndrome. RESULTS: Onchocerciasis as a risk factor for epilepsy meets the following Bradford Hill criteria for causality: strength of the association, consistency, temporality, and biological gradient. There is weaker evidence supporting causality based on the specificity, plausibility, coherence, and analogy criteria. There is little experimental evidence. Considering the Bradford Hill criteria, available data suggest that under certain conditions (high microfilarial load, timing of infection, and perhaps genetic predisposition), onchocerciasis is likely to cause epilepsy including nodding and Nakalanga syndromes. CONCLUSION: Applying the Bradford Hill criteria suggests consistent epidemiological evidence that O. volvulus infection is a trigger of epilepsy. However, the pathophysiological mechanisms responsible for seizure induction still need to be elucidated.

Scale-up integrated care for diabetes and hypertension in Cambodia, Slovenia and Belgium (SCUBY): a study design for a quasi-experimental multiple case study.

Health systems worldwide struggle to manage the growing burden of type 2 diabetes and hypertension. Many patients receive suboptimal care, especially those most vulnerable. An evidence-based Integrated Care Package (ICP) with primary care-based diagnosis, treatment, education and self-management support and collaboration, leads to better health outcomes, but there is little knowledge of how to scale-up. The Scale-up integrated care for diabetes and hypertension project (SCUBY) aims to address this problem by roadmaps for scaling-up ICP in different types of health systems: a developing health system in a lower middle-income country (Cambodia); a centrally steered health system in a high-income country (Slovenia); and a publicly funded highly privatised health-care health system in a high-income country (Belgium). In a quasi-experimental multi-case design, country-specific scale-up strategies are developed, implemented and evaluated. A three-dimensional framework assesses scale-up along three axes: (1) increase in population coverage; (2) expansion of the ICP package; and (3) integration into the health system. The study includes a formative, intervention and evaluation phase. The intervention entails the development and implementation of an improved scale-up strategy through a roadmap with a minimum dataset to monitor proximal and distal outcomes. The SCUBY project is expected to result in three different roadmaps, tailored to the specific health system and country context, to progress scale-up of the ICP along three dimensions. These roadmaps can be adapted to other health systems with similar typology. Implementation is expected to increase the number of well-controlled patients with type 2 diabetes and hypertension in Cambodia, to reduce inequities in care and increase patient empowerment in Belgium and Slovenia.

The epidemiology of tuberculosis-associated hyperglycemia in individuals newly screened for type 2 diabetes mellitus: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is scarce evidence that tuberculosis (TB) can cause diabetes in those not previously known to be diabetic. Whilst the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends screening for Diabetes Mellitus (DM) at the onset of TB treatment, nevertheless, it remains to be elucidated which patients with TB-associated hyperglycemia are at higher risk for developing DM and stand to benefit from a more regular follow-up. This review aims to firstly quantify the reduction of newly detected hyperglycemia burden in TB patients who are on treatment over time; secondly, determine the burden of TB-associated hyperglycemia after follow-up, and thirdly, synthesize literature on risk factors for unresolved TB-associated hyperglycemia in previously undiagnosed individuals. METHODS: We searched PUBMED, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and Global Health for articles on TB-associated hyperglycemia up to September 30th, 2019. Search terms included Tuberculosis and hyperglycemia/DM, and insulin resistance. We appraised studies, extracted data, and conducted a meta-analysis to assess the change of the burden of hyperglycemia in prospective studies. The review is registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42019118173). RESULTS: Eleven studies were included in the meta-analysis yielding a total of 677 (27,3%) of patients with newly detected hyperglycemia at baseline. The mean quality score of eligible studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale was 7.1 out of 9 (range 6-9). The pooled unresolved new cases of hyperglycemia at the end of follow up was 50% (95% CI: 36-64%) and the total pooled burden of hyperglycemia at 3-6 months of follow up was 11% (95% CI: 7-16%), with both estimates displaying a high heterogeneity, which remained significant after performing a sub-analysis by DM diagnostic method and 3 months of follow up. As only 2 studies explored risk factors for unresolved hyperglycemia, no meta-analysis was performed on risk factors. CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis showed that although in half of the patients with newly observed hyperglycemia at baseline, it remained unresolved at a follow-up of 3 to 6 months, the total burden of hyperglycemia is slightly above 10%, 3 months after initiating TB treatment. Studies are warranted to assess whether risk factors including HIV positivity, smoking, and extensive pulmonary TB disease put patients at higher risk for DM.

Epilepsy management in pregnant HIV+ women in sub-Saharan Africa, clinical aspects to consider: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Since the introduction of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) related mortality has markedly declined. As HAART is becoming increasingly available, the infection with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV+) in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) is becoming a chronic condition. While pregnancy in HIV+ women in SSA has always been considered a challenging event for the mother and the fetus, for pregnant HIV+ women also diagnosed with epilepsy (WWE), there are additional risks as HIV increases the odds of developing seizures due to the vulnerability of the central nervous system to other infections, immune dysfunction, and overall metabolic disturbances. In light of a growing proportion of HIV+ WWE on HAART and an increasing number of pregnant women accessing mother-to-child transmission of HIV programs through provision of HAART in SSA, there is a need to develop contextualized and evidenced-based clinical strategies for the management of epilepsy in this population. In this study, we conduct a literature scoping review to identify issues that warrant consideration for clinical management. RESULT: Twenty-three articles were retained after screening, which covered six overarching clinical aspects: status epilepticus (SE), Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis (SJS/TEN), dyslipidemia, congenital malformation (CM), chronic kidney disease (CKD), and neurological development. No studies for our population of interest were identified, highlighting the need for a cautionary approach to be employed when extrapolating findings. CONCLUSION: High risks of CM and drug interactions with first-line antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) warrant measures to increase the accessibility and choices of safer second-line AEDs. To ensure evidence-based management of epilepsy within this population, the potential high prevalence of SE, CKD, dyslipidemia, and SJS/TEN and the cumulative effect of drug-drug interactions should be considered. Further understanding of the intersections between pregnancy and drug-drug interactions in SSA is needed to ensure evidenced-based management of epilepsy in pregnant HIV+ WWE. To prevent SE, the barriers for AED treatment adherence in pregnant HIV+ women should be explored. Our review underscores the need to conduct cohort studies of HIV+ WWE in reproductive age over time and across pregnancies to capture the cumulative effect of HAART and AED to inform clinical management.

Prevalence of malaria parasitaemia in school-aged children and pregnant women in endemic settings of sub-Saharan Africa: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Despite increased malaria control efforts, school-aged children (5-14 years) have higher a malaria prevalence compared to children under-five. In high-transmission settings, up to 70% of school-aged children harbour malaria parasitaemia and therefore contribute significantly to the reservoir for transmission. A systematic review was performed to explore the correlation between the malaria parasite carriage in pregnant women and school-aged children living in similar endemic settings of sub Saharan Africa to inform strategies to improve targeted malaria control. In order to obtain data on malaria prevalence in pregnant women and school-aged children living in the same endemic setting, we searched the Malaria in Pregnancy Library, PubMed, Cochrane library and Web of Science in December 2018. We fit a fixed effect model to obtain a pooled risk ratio (PRR) of malaria in school-aged children versus pregnant women and used Poisson regression to estimate risk ratios in school-aged children for every increase in prevalence in pregnant women. We used data from six (out of 1096) sources that included 10 data points. There was a strong linear relation between the prevalence of malaria infection in pregnant women and school-aged children (r = 0·93, p < 0·0001). School-aged children were nearly twice at risk to carry parasites compared to pregnant women (RR = 1.95, 95% CI: 1·69-2.25, p < 0.01). Poisson regression showed that a 1% increase in prevalence of malaria infection in pregnant women was significantly associated with increase in risk in school-aged children by 4%. Malaria infection prevalence in school-aged children is strongly correlated with the prevalence in pregnant women living in the same community, and may be considered as alternative indicators to track temporal and spatial trends in malaria transmission intensity. Chemoprevention strategies targeting school-aged children should be explored to reduce malaria burden and transmission in school-aged children and its potential impact on communities.

Ivermectin as an adjuvant to anti-epileptic treatment in persons with onchocerciasis-associated epilepsy: A randomized proof-of-concept clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Recent findings from onchocerciasis-endemic foci uphold that increasing ivermectin coverage reduces the epilepsy incidence, and anecdotal evidence suggests seizure frequency reduction in persons with onchocerciasis-associated epilepsy, when treated with ivermectin. We conducted a randomized clinical trial to assess whether ivermectin treatment decreases seizure frequency. METHODS: A proof-of-concept randomized clinical trial was conducted in the Logo health zone in the Ituri province, Democratic Republic of Congo, to compare seizure frequencies in onchocerciasis-infected persons with epilepsy (PWE) randomized to one of two treatment arms: the anti-epileptic drug phenobarbital supplemented with ivermectin, versus phenobarbital alone. The primary endpoint was defined as the probability of being seizure-free at month 4. A secondary endpoint was defined as >50% reduction in seizure frequency at month 4, compared to baseline. Both endpoints were analyzed using multiple logistic regression. In longitudinal analysis, the probability of seizure freedom during the follow-up period was assessed for both treatment arms by fitting a logistic regression model using generalized estimating equations (GEE). RESULTS: Ninety PWE enrolled between October and November 2017 were eligible for analysis. A multiple logistic regression analysis showed a borderline association between ivermectin treatment and being seizure-free at month 4 (OR: 1.652, 95% CI 0.975-2.799; p = 0.062). There was no significant difference in the probability of experiencing >50% reduction of the seizure frequency at month 4 between the two treatment arms. Also, treatment with ivermectin did not significantly increase the odds of being seizure-free during the individual follow-up visits. CONCLUSION: Whether ivermectin has an added value in reducing the frequency of seizures in PWE treated with AED remains to be determined. A larger study in persons with OAE on a stable AED regimen and in persons with recent epilepsy onset should be considered to further investigate the potential beneficial effect of ivermectin treatment in persons with OAE. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registration: www.clinicaltrials.gov; NCT03052998.

Women with epilepsy in sub-Saharan Africa: A review of the reproductive health challenges and perspectives for management.

BACKGROUND: Epilepsy is one of the commonest neurological conditions affecting women of reproductive age. Epilepsy management during pregnancy is a clinical conundrum, requiring a balance between seizure control and risk minimization for the women with epilepsy (WWE) as well as for their fetuses. The objective of this comprehensive review is to explore the reproductive health challenges of WWE in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and ways to address them. METHOD: Relevant documentation published until June 2019 were retrieved via literature searches performed in PubMed and Google Scholar, as well as a manual search to identify grey literature. RESULTS: WWE in SSA are generally more stigmatized and sexually exploited than women without epilepsy. Contraception use among WWE was reported only in Senegal (51%) and Kenya (14.7%). Only two prospective studies (one in Senegal and one in Nigeria) investigated pregnancy outcomes for a total of 97 WWE. The prevalence of convulsive epilepsy in pregnancy was estimated at 3.33 per 1000. Among pregnant WWE treated with first line anti-epileptic drugs, 16.2% had miscarriages, 41.9% premature births, and 4.1% had babies with malformations. Carbamazepine, which is frequently prescribed to pregnant WWE in SSA, still entails a 2.1-fold increased risk of congenital malformation. No reports were found concerning pre-conceptual counseling and post-natal outcomes in WWE in SSA. CONCLUSION: Our review underscores the need for contextualized evidence-based clinical guidelines and a collaborative approach to treat WWE in SSA. High risks of congenital malformations and drug interactions with first line AED warrant the provision of safer second line alternatives.