Narrative Matters: Hidden LIVE - Adam's story - a mental health theatre production as an example of participatory principles and practices.

This article presents the co-production principles underpinning the co-creation of a multimedia theatre production on young people's mental health.

"Take a walk in someone else's shoes": the role of participatory arts for health research development and training.

Participatory arts are increasingly recognised as a valuable and accessible mechanism for giving a voice to the experiences of individuals' health and healthcare. In recent years, there has been a move towards embedding participatory arts-based models into public engagement processes. Here, we contribute to the existing literature on the use of participatory arts-based approaches and their role in health research and healthcare practise, focusing on two interlinked approaches, the creation of personas and storytelling. We draw on two recent projects which have utilised these approaches to inform subsequent healthcare research and as a professional training tool to improve patient experience in a healthcare setting. We add to emerging literature to outline the benefits of these approaches in supporting research and training in healthcare settings, with a focus towards the co-produced foundations of these approaches. We demonstrate how such approaches can be utilised to capture different forms of voices, experiences and perspectives to help inform healthcare research and training, rooted in the lived experience of individuals who are directly involved in the creative process of developing personas via storytelling. These approaches challenge the listener to "walk in someone else's shoes", using their own homes and lives as a theatrical set in which to envisage someone else's story, involving the listener in the creative process through (re)imagining the stories and experiences of the characters. Greater use of immersive, co-produced participatory art-based approaches should be used in PPIE to inform research and training in healthcare settings as a means of centring those with lived experience through co-production. Involving those with lived experience, particularly from groups who are traditionally excluded from research, via a process which is based on co-creation and co-production, reorientates the researcher-participant dynamic to fully centre those involved in the research at the heart of the tools used to guide health and healthcare research. In this way, it may also aid in trust and relationship building between institutions and communities in a way which is focused around positive, creative methods to aid health research and healthcare processes. Such approaches may help to break down barriers between academic institutions, healthcare sites and communities.

This article describes how storytelling and the creation of personas, as two forms of participatory arts-based approaches, may be used to inform health research and healthcare practise, including training of healthcare professionals. We draw on two recent projects which have been created with members of diverse local communities, detailing how creative methods can be used in this way. This model of creating art with communities and people with lived experience of health conditions enables ownership of these processes and encourages participants and users to 'take a walk in someone else's shoes'. We suggest that using such approaches helps to further break down barriers between academic institutions, healthcare sites and communities and may boost trust between different stakeholders. Greater use of immersive, co-created participatory arts-based approaches can be used to inform research and training in healthcare settings as a means of centring those with lived experience through co-production. Involving those with lived experience, particularly from groups who are traditionally excluded from research, helps to shift power dynamics, and, in this way, may aid in trust and relationship building between institutions and communities in a way that encourages empathy generated from creative methods to aid health research and healthcare processes.

A 'train the trainers' approach to infection prevention and control training in pandemic conditions.

Background: The first wave of the SARS-CoV-2 global pandemic in early 2020 required a rapid roll-out of infection prevention and control (IPC) training for healthcare workers (HCW), including use of appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE). Education about respiratory droplet and aerosol transmission was of paramount importance to ensure safe working practices and improve confidence. Methods: A joint working group of Infectious Diseases and IPC staff developed a 'train the trainers' programme, to be rapidly deployed over a three-week period. This model utilised a snowballing approach, training selected staff with the intention that they would train their teams, facilitating swift cascading of information. Targeted invitations prompted staff from diverse departments of the hospital to attend. Pre- and post-session questionnaires evaluated staff confidence with regard to appropriate PPE use. Results: The programme trained 130 HCW over a three week period, was well received and led to increased confidence with PPE use amongst staff. Real-time evaluation ensured content could be adapted to the specific needs of HCW involved. We highlight perceived gaps in training despite existing and enhanced training structures. Conclusion: Provision of face-to-face training in transmission-based precautions, including PPE use, is required to maintain confidence in safe and appropriate IPC amongst hospital staff. We highlight the importance of including non-clinical staff in PPE educational programmes, recognising that these roles are vital for patient care and are frequently patient-facing. We recommend adopting the train the trainers model to facilitate rapid dissemination of education, with interactive multidisciplinary training in future outbreaks to improve HCW confidence and effective IPC.

Tratamiento con atovacuona-proguanil para casos de malaria por Plasmodium falciparum sin complicaciones / Atovaquone-proguanil for treating uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria

Pregunta. ¿Cuáles son los beneficios y los riesgos de la atovacuona-proguanil para tratar los casos sin complicaciones de malaria provocada por el parásito Plasmodium falciparum?Fundamento. El tipo de malaria más común y grave es el causado por Plasmodium falciparum. En su forma menos agresiva (sin complicaciones), los síntomas son fiebre, dolores de cabeza, dolor muscular y vómitos. La enfermedad puede convertirse en grave y mortal si no se la trata con rapidez o con la medicación adecuada. Esta revisión tiene por objetivo descubrir si la atovacuona-proguanil es efectiva y segura para tratar los casos de malaria por Plasmodium falciparum sin complicaciones. El procedimiento fue comparar los resultados de estudios que comparaban la atovacuona-proguanil con otros tratamientos. Como mensajes clave destacamos que la atovacuona-proguanil es tan efectiva para tratar los casos sin complicación de malaria por Plasmodium falciparum como el artesunato-mefloquina. Puede resultar menos efectiva que el artemeter-lumefantrine, artesunato-amodiaquino y artesunato-atovacuona-proguanil, pero hacen falta evidencias más robustas para confirmarlo. Los efectos secundarios parecen similares con la atovacuona-proguanil.Fecha de investigación. Las evidencias de esta revisión están actualizadas hasta el 30 de enero de 2020. (AU)

Increasing anti-S antibody testing: a quality improvement initiative with evolving COVID-19 guidelines.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 management guidelines are constantly evolving, making them difficult to implement practically. Ronapreve was a neutralising monoclonal antibody introduced into UK COVID-19 guidelines in 2021. It reduces mortality in seronegative patients infected with non-omicron variants. Antibody testing on admission is therefore vital in ensuring patients could be considered for Ronapreve as inpatients. LOCAL PROBLEM: We found that on our COVID-19 ward, 31.4% of patients were not having anti-S tests despite fulfilling the other criteria to be eligible for Ronapreve. This was identified as an important target to improve; by not requesting anti-S tests, we were forgoing the opportunity to use an intervention that could improve outcomes. METHODS: We analysed patient records for patients with COVID-19 admitted to our ward over 4 months to observe if awareness of the need to request anti-S increased through conducting plan-do-study-act (PDSA) cycles. INTERVENTIONS: Our first intervention was an multidisciplinary team (MDT) discussion at our departmental audit meeting highlighting our baseline findings and the importance of anti-S requesting. Our second intervention was to hang printed posters in both the doctors' room and the ward as a visual reminder to staff. Our final intervention was trust-wide communications of updated local COVID-19 guidance that included instructions for anti-S requesting on admission. RESULTS: Our baseline data showed that only 68.6% of patients with symptomatic COVID-19 were having anti-S antibody tests requested. This increased to 95.0% following our three interventions. There was also a reduction in the amount of anti-S requests being 'added on', from 57.1% to 15.8%. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 guidelines are constantly evolving and require interventions that can be quickly and easily implemented to improve adherence. Sustained reminders through different approaches allowed a continued increase in requesting. This agrees with research that suggests a mixture of educational sessions and visual reminders of guidelines increase their application in clinical practice.

Accuracy of measures for antiretroviral adherence in people living with HIV.

BACKGROUND: Good patient adherence to antiretroviral (ART) medication determines effective HIV viral suppression, and thus reduces the risk of progression and transmission of HIV. With accurate methods to monitor treatment adherence, we could use simple triage to target adherence support interventions that could help in the community or at health centres in resource-limited settings. OBJECTIVES: To determine the accuracy of simple measures of ART adherence (including patient self-report, tablet counts, pharmacy records, electronic monitoring, or composite methods) for detecting non-suppressed viral load in people living with HIV and receiving ART treatment. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Information Specialists searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, CINAHL, African-Wide information, and Web of Science up to 22 April 2021. They also searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing studies. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies of all designs that evaluated a simple measure of adherence (index test) such as self-report, tablet counts, pharmacy records or secondary database analysis, or both, electronic monitoring or composite measures of any of those tests, in people living with HIV and receiving ART treatment. We used a viral load assay with a limit of detection ranging from 10 copies/mL to 400 copies/mL as the reference standard. We created 2 × 2 tables to calculate sensitivity and specificity. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using QUADAS-2 independently and in duplicate. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE method. The results of estimated sensitivity and specificity were presented using paired forest plots and tabulated summaries. We encountered a high level of variation among studies which precluded a meaningful meta-analysis or comparison of adherence measures. We explored heterogeneity using pre-defined subgroup analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We included 51 studies involving children and adults with HIV, mostly living in low- and middle-income settings, conducted between 2003 and 2021. Several studies assessed more than one index test, and the most common measure of adherence to ART was self-report. - Self-report questionnaires (25 studies, 9211 participants; very low-certainty): sensitivity ranged from 10% to 85% and specificity ranged from 10% to 99%. - Self-report using a visual analogue scale (VAS) (11 studies, 4235 participants; very low-certainty): sensitivity ranged from 0% to 58% and specificity ranged from 55% to 100%. - Tablet counts (12 studies, 3466 participants; very low-certainty): sensitivity ranged from 0% to 100% and specificity ranged from 5% to 99%. - Electronic monitoring devices (3 studies, 186 participants; very low-certainty): sensitivity ranged from 60% to 88% and the specificity ranged from 27% to 67%. - Pharmacy records or secondary databases (6 studies, 2254 participants; very low-certainty): sensitivity ranged from 17% to 88% and the specificity ranged from 9% to 95%. - Composite measures (9 studies, 1513 participants; very low-certainty): sensitivity ranged from 10% to 100% and specificity ranged from 49% to 100%. Across all included studies, the ability of adherence measures to detect viral non-suppression showed a large variation in both sensitivity and specificity that could not be explained by subgroup analysis. We assessed the overall certainty of the evidence as very low due to risk of bias, indirectness, inconsistency, and imprecision. The risk of bias and the applicability concerns for patient selection, index test, and reference standard domains were generally low or unclear due to unclear reporting. The main methodological issues identified were related to flow and timing due to high numbers of missing data. For all index tests, we assessed the certainty of the evidence as very low due to limitations in the design and conduct of the studies, applicability concerns and inconsistency of results. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We encountered high variability for all index tests, and the overall certainty of evidence in all areas was very low. No measure consistently offered either a sufficiently high sensitivity or specificity to detect viral non-suppression. These concerns limit their value in triaging patients for viral load monitoring or enhanced adherence support interventions.

Pyronaridine-artesunate for treating uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs) to treat uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria. Concerns about artemisinin resistance have led to global initiatives to develop new partner drugs to protect artemisinin derivatives in ACT. Pyronaridine-artesunate is a novel ACT. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of pyronaridine-artesunate compared to alternative ACTs for treating people with uncomplicated P falciparum malaria, and to evaluate the safety of pyronaridine-artesunate and other pyronaridine treatments compared to alternative treatments. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), published in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE; Embase; and LILACS. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and the ISRCTN registry for ongoing or recently completed trials. The date of the last search was 27 October 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: For the efficacy analysis, we included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of pyronaridine-artesunate for treating uncomplicated P falciparum malaria. For the safety analysis, we included RCTs that used pyronaridine alone or in combination with any other antimalarials. In addition to these analyses, we conducted a separate systematic review summarizing data on safety from non-randomized studies (NRS) of any patient receiving pyronaridine (NRS safety review).  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted all data and assessed the certainty of the evidence. We meta-analysed data to calculate risk ratios (RRs) for treatment failures between comparisons, and for safety outcomes between and across comparisons. MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 relevant RCTs. Seven RCTs were co-funded by Shin Poong Pharmaceuticals, and three were funded by government agencies. Efficacy analysis (RCTs) For the efficacy analysis, we identified five RCTs comprising 5711 participants. This included 4465 participants from 13 sites in Africa, and 1246 participants from five sites in Asia. The analysis included 541 children aged less than five years. Overall, pyronaridine-artesunate had a polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-adjusted treatment failure rate of less than 5%. We evaluated pyronaridine-artesunate versus the following. • Artemether-lumefantrine. Pyronaridine artesunate may perform better for PCR-adjusted failures at day 28 (RR 0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 1.31; 4 RCTs, 3068 participants, low-certainty evidence); for unadjusted failures at day 28 (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.58; 4 RCTs, 3149 participants, low-certainty evidence); and for unadjusted failures at day 42 (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.82; 4 RCTs, 3080 participants, low-certainty evidence). For PCR-adjusted failures at day 42, there may be little or no difference between groups (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.51; 4 RCTs, 2575 participants, low-certainty evidence). • Artesunate-amodiaquine. Pyronaridine artesunate may perform better for PCR-adjusted failures at day 28 (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.77; 1 RCT, 1245 participants, low-certainty evidence); probably performs better for unadjusted failures at day 28 (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.81; 1 RCT, 1257 participants, moderate-certainty evidence); may make little or no difference for PCR-adjusted failures at day 42 (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.20 to 4.83; 1 RCT, 1091 participants, low-certainty evidence); and probably makes little or no difference for unadjusted failures at day 42 (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.23; 1 RCT, 1235 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). • Mefloquine plus artesunate. Pyronaridine artesunate may perform better for PCR-adjusted failures at day 28 (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.05; 1 RCT, 1117 participants, low-certainty evidence); probably performs better for unadjusted failures at day 28 (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.78; 1 RCT, 1120 participants, moderate-certainty evidence); may make little or no difference for unadjusted failures at day 42 (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.31; 1 RCT, 1059 participants, low-certainty evidence); but may lead to higher PCR-adjusted failures at day 42 (RR 1.80, 95% CI 0.90 to 3.57; 1 RCT, 1037 participants, low-certainty evidence). Safety analysis (RCTs) For the RCT safety analysis, we identified eight RCTs, one of which was delineated by study site, comparing pyronaridine-artesunate to other antimalarials. Pyronaridine-artesunate was associated with raised liver enzymes compared to other antimalarials: alanine aminotransferase (ALT) (RR 3.59, 95% CI 1.76 to 7.33; 8 RCTS, 6669 participants, high-certainty evidence) and aspartate transaminase (AST) (RR 2.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 4.41; 8 RCTs, 6669 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). No such effect was demonstrated with bilirubin (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.18; 7 RCTs, 6384 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). There was one reported case in which raised ALT occurred with raised bilirubin. No study reported severe drug-induced liver injury. Electrocardiograph (ECG) abnormalities were less common with pyronaridine-artesunate compared to other antimalarials. We identified no other safety concerns. NRS safety review A review on safety in NRS allowed us to increase the population within which safety was assessed. We included seven studies with 9546 participants: five single-arm observational studies, one cohort event monitoring study, and one dose-escalation study. All studies provided data on adverse event frequency, with a small number of participants experiencing serious adverse events and adverse effects related to pyronaridine: serious adverse events average 0.37%; drug-related 9.0%. In two studies reporting elevations in liver enzymes, small percentages of participants (2.4% and 14.1% respectively) experienced increases in either ALT, AST, or bilirubin on day 7; however, these were small increases that returned to normal by day 42.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Pyronaridine-artesunate was efficacious against uncomplicated P falciparum malaria; achieved a PCR-adjusted treatment failure rate of less than 5% at days 28 and 42; and may be at least as good as, or better than, other marketed ACTs. Pyronaridine-artesunate increases the risk of episodes of abnormally raised ALT. The observational data did not signal an excess of clinically important adverse effects.

Clinical features and management of human monkeypox: a retrospective observational study in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Cases of human monkeypox are rarely seen outside of west and central Africa. There are few data regarding viral kinetics or the duration of viral shedding and no licensed treatments. Two oral drugs, brincidofovir and tecovirimat, have been approved for treatment of smallpox and have demonstrated efficacy against monkeypox in animals. Our aim was to describe the longitudinal clinical course of monkeypox in a high-income setting, coupled with viral dynamics, and any adverse events related to novel antiviral therapies. METHODS: In this retrospective observational study, we report the clinical features, longitudinal virological findings, and response to off-label antivirals in seven patients with monkeypox who were diagnosed in the UK between 2018 and 2021, identified through retrospective case-note review. This study included all patients who were managed in dedicated high consequence infectious diseases (HCID) centres in Liverpool, London, and Newcastle, coordinated via a national HCID network. FINDINGS: We reviewed all cases since the inception of the HCID (airborne) network between Aug 15, 2018, and Sept 10, 2021, identifying seven patients. Of the seven patients, four were men and three were women. Three acquired monkeypox in the UK: one patient was a health-care worker who acquired the virus nosocomially, and one patient who acquired the virus abroad transmitted it to an adult and child within their household cluster. Notable disease features included viraemia, prolonged monkeypox virus DNA detection in upper respiratory tract swabs, reactive low mood, and one patient had a monkeypox virus PCR-positive deep tissue abscess. Five patients spent more than 3 weeks (range 22-39 days) in isolation due to prolonged PCR positivity. Three patients were treated with brincidofovir (200 mg once a week orally), all of whom developed elevated liver enzymes resulting in cessation of therapy. One patient was treated with tecovirimat (600 mg twice daily for 2 weeks orally), experienced no adverse effects, and had a shorter duration of viral shedding and illness (10 days hospitalisation) compared with the other six patients. One patient experienced a mild relapse 6 weeks after hospital discharge. INTERPRETATION: Human monkeypox poses unique challenges, even to well resourced health-care systems with HCID networks. Prolonged upper respiratory tract viral DNA shedding after skin lesion resolution challenged current infection prevention and control guidance. There is an urgent need for prospective studies of antivirals for this disease. FUNDING: None.

Rapid versus standard antimicrobial susceptibility testing to guide treatment of bloodstream infection.

BACKGROUND: Rapid antimicrobial susceptibility tests are expected to reduce the time to clinically important results of a blood culture. This might enable clinicians to better target therapy to a person's needs, and thereby, improve health outcomes (mortality, length of hospital stay), and reduce unnecessary prescribing of broad-spectrum antibiotics; thereby reducing antimicrobial resistance rates. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of rapid susceptibility testing versus standard susceptibility testing for bloodstream infections (BSIs). SEARCH METHODS: To identify studies with selected outcomes, we searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, LILACS, and two trials registries, between 1987 and October 2020. We used 'bloodstream infection' and 'antimicrobial susceptibility tests' as search terms. We had no language or publication status limitations. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing (with a time-to-result of ≤ 8 hours) versus conventional antimicrobial susceptibility testing in people with a BSI caused by any bacteria, as identified by a positive blood culture. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened references, full-text reports of potentially relevant studies, extracted data from the studies, and assessed risk of bias. Any disagreement was discussed and resolved with a third review author. For mortality, a dichotomous outcome, we extracted the number of events in each arm, and presented a risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) to compare rapid susceptibility testing to conventional methods. We used Review Manager 5.4 to meta-analyse the data. For other outcomes, which are time-to-event outcomes (time-to-discharge from hospital, time-to-first appropriate antibiotic change), we conducted qualitative narrative synthesis, due to heterogeneity of outcome measures.  MAIN RESULTS: We included six trials, with 1638 participants. For rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing compared to conventional methods, there was little or no difference in mortality between groups (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.46; 6 RCTs, 1638 participants; low-certainty evidence). In subgroup analysis, for rapid genotypic or molecular antimicrobial susceptibility testing compared to conventional methods, there was little or no difference in mortality between groups (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.49; 4 RCTs, 1074 participants; low-certainty evidence). For phenotypic rapid susceptibility testing compared to conventional methods, there was little or no difference in mortality between groups  (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.35; 2 RCTs, 564 participants; low-certainty evidence). In qualitative analysis, rapid susceptibility testing may make little or no difference in time-to-discharge (4 RCTs, 1165 participants; low-certainty evidence). In qualitative analysis, rapid genotypic susceptibility testing compared to conventional testing may make little or no difference in time-to-appropriate antibiotic (3 RCTs, 929 participants; low-certainty evidence). In subgroup analysis, rapid phenotypic susceptibility testing compared to conventional testing may improve time-to-appropriate antibiotic (RR -17.29, CI -45.05 to 10.47; 2 RCTs, 564 participants; low-certainty evidence).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The theoretical benefits of rapid susceptibility testing have not been demonstrated to directly improve mortality, time-to-discharge, or time-to-appropriate antibiotic in these randomized studies. Future large prospective studies should be designed to focus on the most clinically meaningful outcomes, and aim to optimize blood culture pathways.

What do people hospitalised with COVID-19 think about their care? Results of a satisfaction survey during the first wave of COVID-19 in Liverpool.

Despite huge advances in vaccines, testing and treatments for COVID-19, there is negligible evidence on the perceptions of people hospitalised with COVID-19 about the care they received. To address this, we developed a satisfaction survey for people with COVID-19 admitted to our hospital during the first COVID-19 wave in Liverpool. Of those invited, 98/160 (61%) responded, of whom 94/98 (96%) completed the survey. Respondents rated overall care highly (mean 4.7/5) and 89/94 (95%) reported that they would recommend the hospital to friends and/or family. Most respondents felt safe on the ward (94%), with privacy maintained (93%) and pain well managed (90%). Fewer than two-thirds (63%) of respondents considered themselves adequately consulted regarding medications and side effects. Sleep and food/drink quality were also highlighted as areas for improvement. To overcome the issues raised, we generated a 'COVID-19 practice pointers' poster within an integrated educational bundle on COVID-19 wards. The impact of the bundle on perceptions of people hospitalised with COVID-19 will be evaluated in people hospitalised with COVID-19 in Liverpool in 2021. Whether hospitalised for COVID-19 or other conditions, our survey results are a timely reminder of the importance of involving patients in shaping the care that they receive.

Summary of Guidelines for Managing Histoplasmosis among People Living with HIV.

Histoplasmosis is a frequent fungal opportunistic infection in people living with HIV (PLHIV), associated every year to a total of 5% to 15% of AIDS-related deaths among this population. In 2020, the first global guidelines for diagnosing and managing disseminated histoplasmosis among PLHIV was published. This document recommends (1) detection of circulating Histoplasma antigens as the recommended laboratory assay to diagnose histoplasmosis among PLHIV; (2) the use of liposomal amphotericin for induction therapy in severe or moderately severe disease, followed by a maintenance therapy with itraconazole for 12 months; a shorter maintenance therapy could be considered if the patient is clinically stable and if immune status has improved; (3) antiretroviral therapy initiation as soon as possible among patients with histoplasmosis without involvement of central nervous system; and (4) that for the treatment of co-infection with histoplasmosis and tuberculosis (TB), treatment of TB should be initiated according to the World Health Organization treatment guidelines. Appropriate health education of providers, supportive supervision, and policy guidance for the care of PLHIV are required.

Atovaquone-proguanil for treating uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) in 2015 stated atovaquone-proguanil can be used in travellers, and is an option in malaria-endemic areas in combination with artesunate, as an alternative treatment where first-line artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT) is not available or effective. This review is an update of a Cochrane Review undertaken in 2005. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of atovaquone-proguanil (alone and in combination with artemisinin drugs) versus other antimalarial drugs for treating uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria in adults and children. SEARCH METHODS: The date of the last trial search was 30 January 2020. Search locations for published trials included the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. To include recently published and unpublished trials, we also searched ClinicalTrials.gov, the metaRegister of Controlled Trials and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting efficacy and safety data for atovaquone-proguanil or atovaquone-proguanil with a partner drug compared with at least one other antimalarial drug for treating uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum infection. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: For this update, two review authors re-extracted data and assessed certainty of evidence. We meta-analyzed data to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for treatment failures between comparisons, and for safety outcomes between and across comparisons. Outcome measures include unadjusted treatment failures and polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-adjusted treatment failures. PCR adjustment differentiates new infection from recrudescent infection. MAIN RESULTS: Seventeen RCTs met our inclusion criteria providing 4763 adults and children from Africa, South-America, and South-East Asia. Eight trials reported PCR-adjusted data to distinguish between new and recrudescent infection during the follow-up period. In this abstract, we report only the comparisons against the three WHO-recommended antimalarials which were included within these trials. There were two comparisons with artemether-lumefantrine, one trial from 2008 in Ethiopia with 60 participants had two failures with atovaquone-proguanil compared to none with artemether-lumefantrine (PCR-adjusted treatment failures at day 28). A second trial from 2012 in Colombia with 208 participants had one failure in each arm (PCR-adjusted treatment failures at day 42). There was only one comparison with artesunate-amodiaquine from a 2014 trial conducted in Cameroon. There were six failures with atovaquone-proguanil at day 28 and two with artesunate-amodiaquine (PCR-adjusted treatment failures at day 28: 9.4% with atovaquone-proguanil compared to 2.9% with artesunate-amodiaquine; RR 3.19, 95% CI 0.67 to 15.22; 1 RCT, 132 participants; low-certainty evidence), although there was a similar number of PCR-unadjusted treatment failures (9 (14.1%) with atovaquone-proguanil and 8 (11.8%) with artesunate-amodiaquine; RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.91; 1 RCT, 132 participants; low-certainty evidence). There were two comparisons with artesunate-mefloquine from a 2012 trial in Colombia and a 2002 trial in Thailand where there are high levels of multi-resistant malaria. There were similar numbers of PCR-adjusted treatment failures between groups at day 42 (2.7% with atovaquone-proguanil compared to 2.4% with artesunate-mefloquine; RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.34; 2 RCTs, 1168 participants; high-certainty evidence). There were also similar PCR-unadjusted treatment failures between groups (5.3% with atovaquone-proguanil compared to 6.6% with artesunate-mefloquine; RR 0.8, 95% CI 0.5 to 1.3; 1 RCT, 1063 participants; low-certainty evidence). When atovaquone-proguanil was combined with artesunate, there were fewer treatment failures with and without PCR-adjustment at day 28 (PCR-adjusted treatment failures at day 28: 2.16% with atovaquone-proguanil compared to no failures with artesunate-atovaquone-proguanil; RR 5.14, 95% CI 0.61 to 43.52; 2 RCTs, 375 participants, low-certainty evidence) and day 42 (PCR-adjusted treatment failures at day 42: 3.82% with atovaquone-proguanil compared to 2.05% with artesunate-atovaquone-proguanil (RR 1.84, 95% CI 0.95 to 3.56; 2 RCTs, 1258 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). In the 2002 trial in Thailand, there were fewer treatment failures in the artesunate-atovaquone-proguanil group compared to the atovaquone-proguanil group at day 42 with PCR-adjustment. Whilst there were some small differences in which adverse events were more frequent in the atovaquone-proguanil groups compared to comparator drugs, there were no recurrent associations to suggest that atovaquone-proguanil is strongly associated with any specific adverse event. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Atovaquone-proguanil was effective against uncomplicated P falciparum malaria, although in some instances treatment failure rates were between 5% and 10%. The addition of artesunate to atovaquone-proguanil may reduce treatment failure rates. Artesunate-atovaquone-proguanil and the development of parasite resistance may represent an area for further research.

A patient satisfaction survey and educational package to improve the care of people hospitalised with COVID-19: a quality improvement project, Liverpool, UK.

Background: The perspectives and experiences of people hospitalised with COVID-19 have been under-reported during the coronavirus pandemic. We developed and conducted a COVID-19 patient satisfaction survey in a large university-affiliated secondary healthcare centre in Liverpool, UK, during Europe's first coronavirus wave (April-June 2020). The survey found that care was rated highly, including among people of Black Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) background. However, sleep-quality and communication about medications and discharge-planning were identified as areas for improvement.   Methods: To improve care for people with COVID-19 admitted to our centre, we designed an educational package for healthcare professionals working on COVID-19 wards. The package, implemented in August 2020, included healthcare worker training sessions on providing holistic care and placement of "Practice Pointers" posters. Patient satisfaction was re-evaluated during the second/third COVID-19 waves in Liverpool (September 2020 - February 2021). Results: Across waves, most (95%) respondents reported that they would recommend our hospital to friends and/or family and rated overall care highly. Comparison of the responses of second/third-wave respondents (n=101) with first-wave respondents (n=94) suggested improved patient satisfaction across most care domains but especially those related to having worries and fears addressed and being consulted about medications and their side-effects. Conclusions: People admitted with COVID-19 to our centre in Liverpool, including those from BAME background, rated the care they received highly. A simple education package improved the feedback on care received by respondents between the first and second/third waves. These UK-first findings are informing regional strategies to improve person-centred care of hospitalised people with COVID-19.

Treating progressive disseminated histoplasmosis in people living with HIV.

BACKGROUND: Progressive disseminated histoplasmosis (PDH) is a serious fungal infection that affects people living with HIV. The best way to treat the condition is unclear. OBJECTIVES: We assessed evidence in three areas of equipoise. 1. Induction. To compare efficacy and safety of initial therapy with liposomal amphotericin B versus initial therapy with alternative antifungals. 2. Maintenance. To compare efficacy and safety of maintenance therapy with 12 months of oral antifungal treatment with shorter durations of maintenance therapy. 3. Antiretroviral therapy (ART). To compare the outcomes of early initiation versus delayed initiation of ART. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; Cochrane CENTRAL; MEDLINE (PubMed); Embase (Ovid); Science Citation Index Expanded, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science, and BIOSIS Previews (all three in the Web of Science); the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the ISRCTN registry, all up to 20 March 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We evaluated studies assessing the use of liposomal amphotericin B and alternative antifungals for induction therapy; studies assessing the duration of antifungals for maintenance therapy; and studies assessing the timing of ART. We included randomized controlled trials (RCT), single-arm trials, prospective cohort studies, and single-arm cohort studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors assessed eligibility and risk of bias, extracted data, and assessed certainty of evidence. We used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool to assess risk of bias in randomized studies, and ROBINS-I tool to assess risk of bias in non-randomized studies. We summarized dichotomous outcomes using risk ratios (RRs), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). MAIN RESULTS: We identified 17 individual studies. We judged eight studies to be at critical risk of bias, and removed these from the analysis. 1. Induction We found one RCT which compared liposomal amphotericin B to deoxycholate amphotericin B. Compared to deoxycholate amphotericin B, liposomal amphotericin B may have higher clinical success rates (RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.11; 1 study, 80 participants; low-certainty evidence). Compared to deoxycholate amphotericin B, liposomal amphotericin B has lower rates of nephrotoxicity (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.67; 1 study, 77 participants; high-certainty evidence). We found very low-certainty evidence to inform comparisons between amphotericin B formulations and azoles for induction therapy. 2. Maintenance We found no eligible study that compared less than 12 months of oral antifungal treatment to 12 months or greater for maintenance therapy. For both induction and maintenance, fluconazole performed poorly in comparison to other azoles. 3. ART We found one study, in which one out of seven participants in the 'early' arm and none of the three participants in the 'late' arm died. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Liposomal amphotericin B appears to be a better choice compared to deoxycholate amphotericin B for treating PDH in people with HIV; and fluconazole performed poorly compared to other azoles. Other treatment choices for induction, maintenance, and when to start ART have no evidence, or very low certainty evidence. PDH needs prospective comparative trials to help inform clinical decisions.

Maintaining relevance in HIV systematic reviews: an evaluation of Cochrane reviews.

BACKGROUND: Research turnover in the HIV field is rapid, and as a result, maintaining high-quality, up-to-date, and relevant systematic reviews is a challenge. One approach is to frequently update published reviews. METHODS: We evaluated the methods and relevance of all HIV systematic reviews and protocols published in the Cochrane Library over a 16-year period (2000-2016) to determine the need to update published reviews or complete of reviews in progress. RESULTS: Of 148 published reviews and protocols, 129 (87%) were identified as not for updating or progression to publication, mostly due to research questions which were either entirely outdated or addressed questions in an outdated manner (N = 89; 60%); this was anticipated for older reviews, but was found also to be the case for recent publications. Some research questions were also inadequately conceptualized, particularly when complex pragmatic trials or behavioral interventions were included. CONCLUSIONS: We suggest that authors clearly characterize interventions and synthesis approaches in their review protocols. In research fields, such as HIV, where questions change frequently, systematic reviews and protocols should be regularly re-evaluated to ensure relevance to current questions. This process of re-evaluation should be incorporated into the methods of living systematic reviews.

Pyronaridine-artesunate for treating uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs) to treat uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum (P falciparum) malaria. Concerns about artemisinin resistance have led to global initiatives to develop new partner drugs to protect artemisinin derivatives in ACT. Pyronaridine-artesunate is a novel ACT. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of pyronaridine-artesunate compared to alternative ACTs for treating people with uncomplicated P falciparum malaria, and to evaluate the safety of pyronaridine-artesunate and other pyronaridine treatments compared to alternative treatments. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), published in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE; Embase; and LILACS. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal, and the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) registry for ongoing or recently completed trials. The date of the last search was 8 May 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: Efficacy analysis: randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of pyronaridine-artesunate for treating uncomplicated P falciparum malaria.Safety analysis: RCTs of pyronaridine-artesunate or pyronaridine for treating P falciparum or P vivax malaria. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: For this update, two review authors independently re-extracted all data and assessed certainty of evidence. We meta-analysed data to calculate risk ratios (RRs) for treatment failures between comparisons, and for safety outcomes between and across comparisons. MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 relevant studies. Seven studies were co-funded by Shin Poong Pharmaceuticals which manufactures the drug. Three studies were funded by government agencies.For efficacy analysis we identified five RCTs with 5711 participants. This included 4465 participants from 13 sites in Africa, and 1246 participants from five sites in Asia. It included 541 children aged less than five years.For polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-adjusted failures at day 28, pyronaridine-artesunate may have fewer failures compared to artemether-lumefantrine (RR 0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 1.31; 4 RCTs, 3068 participants, low-certainty evidence), artesunate-amodiaquine (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.77; 1 RCT, 1245 participants, low-certainty evidence), and mefloquine plus artesunate (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.05; 1 RCT, 1117 participants, low-certainty evidence).For unadjusted failures at day 28, pyronaridine-artesunate may have fewer failures compared to artemether-lumefantrine (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.58; 4 RCTs, 3149 participants, low-certainty evidence), and probably has fewer failures compared to artesunate-amodiaquine (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.81; 1 RCT, 1257 participants, moderate-certainty evidence) and mefloquine plus artesunate (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.78; 1 RCT, 1120 participants, moderate-certainty evidence).For PCR-adjusted failures at day 42, pyronaridine-artesunate may make little or no difference compared to artemether-lumefantrine (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.51; 4 RCTs, 2575 participants, low-certainty evidence) and artesunate-amodiaquine (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.20 to 4.83; 1 RCT, 1091 participants, low-certainty evidence), but may have higher failures than mefloquine plus artesunate (RR 1.80, 95% CI 0.90 to 3.57; 1 RCT, 1037 participants, low-certainty evidence). Overall, pyronaridine-artesunate had a PCR-adjusted treatment failure rate of less than 5%.For unadjusted failures at day 42, pyronaridine-artesunate may have fewer failures compared to artemether-lumefantrine (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.82; 4 RCTs, 3080 participants, low-certainty evidence), may make little or no difference compared to mefloquine plus artesunate (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.31; 1 RCT, 1059 participants, low-certainty evidence), and probably makes little or no difference compared to artesunate-amodiaquine (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.23; 1 RCT, 1235 participants, moderate-certainty evidence).For the safety analysis of severe adverse events and liver function, we identified eight RCTs with 6614 participants comparing pyronaridine-artesunate to other antimalarials, four of which were not in the previous version of this review. A further two RCTs, comparing pyronaridine alone to other treatments, contributed to the synthesis of all adverse events.Raised alanine aminotransferase (ALT) greater than five times the upper limit of normal (> 5 x ULN) is more frequent with pyronaridine-artesunate compared to other antimalarials (RR 3.34, 95% CI 1.63 to 6.84; 8 RCTS, 6581 participants, high-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference for raised bilirubin > 2.5 x ULN between pyronaridine-artesunate and other antimalarials (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.18; 7 RCTs, 6384 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). There was one reported case in which raised ALT occurred with raised bilirubin, meeting criteria for moderate drug-induced liver injury. No study reported severe drug-induced liver injury. Electrocardiograph (ECG) abnormalities were less common with pyronaridine-artesunate compared to other antimalarials. We identified no other safety concerns. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Pyronaridine-artesunate was efficacious against uncomplicated P falciparum malaria, achieved a PCR-adjusted treatment failure rate of less than 5% at days 28 and 42, and may be at least as good as, or better than other marketed ACTs.Pyronaridine-artesunate increases the risk of episodes of raised ALT > 5 x ULN. This meets criteria for mild drug-induced liver injury. On one instance this was linked to raised bilirubin, indicating moderate drug-induced liver injury. No episodes of severe drug-induced liver injury were reported. The findings of this review cannot fully inform a risk-benefit assessment for an unselected population. Readers should remain aware of this uncertainty when considering use of pyronaridine-artesunate in patients with known or suspected pre-existing liver dysfunction, and when co-administering with other medications which may cause liver dysfunction.

Non-communicable diseases: ditch the label and recapture public awareness.

Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) are branded as the leading cause of global mortality. Global health thinking has dichotomised NCDs from communicable diseases to attract funding and end a dangerous neglect. However, NCDs can also have infectious disease risk factors, and mortality from NCDs is greatest in low- and middle-income countries, which face a syndemic burden of disease. As a non-term, attention is not immediately focused around key 'human-made' risk factors for chronic disease. By continuing to use this flawed and ambiguous label, policymakers risk enforcing an ideological approach, which fails to encourage global health researchers to work collaboratively and to capture the political and public awareness required to motivate sustainable change.

Antibiotics for treating scrub typhus.

BACKGROUND: Scrub typhus, an important cause of acute fever in Asia, is caused by Orientia tsutsugamushi, an obligate intracellular bacterium. Antibiotics currently used to treat scrub typhus include tetracyclines, chloramphenicol, macrolides, and rifampicin. OBJECTIVES: To assess and compare the effects of different antibiotic regimens for treatment of scrub typhus. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to 8 January 2018: the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group specialized trials register; CENTRAL, in the Cochrane Library (2018, Issue 1); MEDLINE; Embase; LILACS; and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT). We checked references and contacted study authors for additional data. We applied no language or date restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing antibiotic regimens in people with the diagnosis of scrub typhus based on clinical symptoms and compatible laboratory tests (excluding the Weil-Felix test). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: For this update, two review authors re-extracted all data and assessed the certainty of evidence. We meta-analysed data to calculate risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes when appropriate, and elsewhere tabulated data to facilitate narrative analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We included six RCTs and one quasi-RCT with 548 participants; they took place in the Asia-Pacific region: Korea (three trials), Malaysia (one trial), and Thailand (three trials). Only one trial included children younger than 15 years (N = 57). We judged five trials to be at high risk of performance and detection bias owing to inadequate blinding. Trials were heterogenous in terms of dosing of interventions and outcome measures. Across trials, treatment failure rates were low.Two trials compared doxycycline to tetracycline. For treatment failure, the difference between doxycycline and tetracycline is uncertain (very low-certainty evidence). Doxycycline compared to tetracycline may make little or no difference in resolution of fever within 48 hours (risk ratio (RR) 1.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 1.44, 55 participants; one trial; low-certainty evidence) and in time to defervescence (116 participants; one trial; low-certainty evidence). We were unable to extract data for other outcomes.Three trials compared doxycycline versus macrolides. For most outcomes, including treatment failure, resolution of fever within 48 hours, time to defervescence, and serious adverse events, we are uncertain whether study results show a difference between doxycycline and macrolides (very low-certainty evidence). Macrolides compared to doxycycline may make little or no difference in the proportion of patients with resolution of fever within five days (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.10; 185 participants; two trials; low-certainty evidence). Another trial compared azithromycin versus doxycycline or chloramphenicol in children, but we were not able to disaggregate date for the doxycycline/chloramphenicol group.One trial compared doxycycline versus rifampicin. For all outcomes, we are uncertain whether study results show a difference between doxycycline and rifampicin (very low-certainty evidence). Of note, this trial deviated from the protocol after three out of eight patients who had received doxycycline and rifampicin combination therapy experienced treatment failure.Across trials, mild gastrointestinal side effects appeared to be more common with doxycycline than with comparator drugs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Tetracycline, doxycycline, azithromycin, and rifampicin are effective treatment options for scrub typhus and have resulted in few treatment failures. Chloramphenicol also remains a treatment option, but we could not include this among direct comparisons in this review.Most available evidence is of low or very low certainty. For specific outcomes, some low-certainty evidence suggests there may be little or no difference between tetracycline, doxycycline, and azithromycin as treatment options. Given very low-certainty evidence for rifampicin and the risk of inducing resistance in undiagnosed tuberculosis, clinicians should not regard this as a first-line treatment option. Clinicians could consider rifampicin as a second-line treatment option after exclusion of active tuberculosis.Further research should consist of additional adequately powered trials of doxycycline versus azithromycin or other macrolides, trials of other candidate antibiotics including rifampicin, and trials of treatments for severe scrub typhus. Researchers should standardize diagnostic techniques and reporting of clinical outcomes to allow robust comparisons.

The recognition and management of sepsis and septic shock: a guide for non-intensivists.

Sepsis is common, often fatal and requires rapid interventions to improve outcomes. While the optimal management of sepsis in the intensive care setting is the focus of extensive research interest, the mainstay of the recognition and initial management of sepsis will occur outside the intensive care setting. Therefore, it is key that institutions and clinicians remain well informed of the current updates in sepsis management and continue to use them to deliver appropriate and timely interventions to enhance patient survival. This review discusses the latest updates in sepsis care including the new consensus definition of sepsis, the outcome of the proCESS, ProMISe and ARISE trials of early goal directed therapy (EGDT), and the most recent guidelines from the Surviving Sepsis Campaign.