Explore the vast range of titles available.

Simplified treatment regimens for HIV management may increase adherence. In this open-label, randomized, controlled trial, longer-acting (monthly) injectable cabotegravir plus rilpivirine was compared with standard oral treatment. At 48 weeks, similar viral suppression was seen with the two regimens.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an infectious disease caused by SARS-CoV-2 primarily affecting the respiratory system which can damage vessels walls virtually in any body district. Changes affecting retinal vessels are a good marker for systemic vascular alterations. This study investigated retinal vessels during the acute phase of COVID-19 and after patients recovery. Fifty-nine eyes from 32 COVID-19 patients and 80 eyes from 53 unexposed subjects were included. Mean arteries diameter (MAD) and mean veins diameter (MVD) were assessed through semi-automatic analysis on fundus color photos at baseline and 6 months later in patients and subjects unexposed to the virus. At baseline MAD and MVD were significantly higher in COVID-19 patients compared to unexposed subjects (p < 0.0001). Both MAD and MVD significantly decreased in COVID-19 patients at follow-up (from 97.5 ± 10.9 to 92.2 ± 11.4 µm, p < 0.0001 and from 133.1 ± 19.3 to 124.6 ± 16.1 µm, p < 0.0001, respectively). Despite this reduction vessels diameter remained significantly higher in severe COVID-19 patients compared to unexposed subjects. Transient retinal vessels dilation could serve a biomarker for systemic inflammation while long-lasting alterations seen in severe COVID-19 likely reflect irreversible structural damage to the vessels walls and should be further investigated for their possible effects on tissues perfusion and function.

Among previously untreated patients with HCV genotype 1 infection, three new antiviral agents, with or without ribavirin, resulted in high rates of sustained virologic response. Omission of ribavirin resulted in reduced response in genotype 1a infection but not in genotype 1b infection. Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is a worldwide health issue, with 3 million to 4 million new infections yearly and infection rates as high as 5% in some countries. 1 Chronic infection leads to liver disease, cirrhosis, or liver cancer in a large proportion of infected persons, and hepatitis C accounts for 25% of all liver cancers, representing the leading indication for liver transplantation. 1 – 3 Genotype 1 is the most common HCV genotype worldwide and includes 11 subgenotypes, of which 1a and 1b are responsible for the vast majority of infections. 4 Genotype 1b infection is the most prevalent form worldwide, particularly . . .

SARS-CoV-2 viremia has been found to be a potential prognostic factor in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. We aimed to assess the association between SARS-CoV-2 viremia and mortality in COVID-19 hospitalized patients during different epidemic periods. A prospective COVID-19 registry was queried to extract all COVID-19 patients with an available SARS-CoV-2 viremia performed at hospital admission between March 2020 and January 2022. SARS-CoV-2 viremia was assessed by means of GeneFinderTM COVID-19 Plus RealAmp Kit assay and SARS-CoV-2 ELITe MGB® Kit using <45 cycle threshold to define positivity. Uni and multivariable logistic regression model were built to assess the association between SARS-CoV-2 positive viremia and death. Four hundred and forty-five out of 2,822 COVID-19 patients had an available SARS-CoV-2 viremia, prevalently males (64.9%) with a median age of 65 years (IQR 55-75). Patients with a positive SARS-CoV-2 viremia (86/445; 19.3%) more frequently presented with a severe or critical disease (67.4% vs 57.1%) when compared to those with a negative SARS-CoV-2 viremia. Deceased subjects (88/445; 19.8%) were older [75 (IQR 68-82) vs 63 (IQR 54-72)] and showed more frequently a detectable SARS-CoV-2 viremia at admission (60.2% vs 22.7%) when compared to survivors. In univariable analysis a positive SARS-CoV-2 viremia was associated with a higher odd of death [OR 5.16 (95% CI 3.15-8.45)] which was confirmed in the multivariable analysis adjusted for age, biological sex and, disease severity [AOR 6.48 (95% CI 4.05-10.45)]. The association between positive SARS-CoV-2 viremia and death was consistent in the period 1 February 2021-31 January 2022 [AOR 5.86 (95% CI 3.43-10.16)] and in subgroup analysis according to disease severity: mild/moderate [AOR 6.45 (95% CI 2.84-15.17)] and severe/critical COVID-19 patients [AOR 6.98 (95% CI 3.68-13.66)]. SARS-CoV-2 viremia resulted associated to COVID-19 mortality and should be considered in the initial assessment of COVID-19 hospitalized patients.

The available data concerning hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection in Uganda are limited, particularly in the case of people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWH). HBV is not routinely tested when starting antiretroviral therapy (ART). We aimed to determine the prevalence, the correlates of the risk of HBV infection, and the association with outcomes of ART among PLWH attending a busy HIV clinic in a referral hospital in Northern Uganda. From April to June 2016, a random sample of 1000 PLWH attending the outpatients' clinic of St. Mary's Hospital, Gulu, Uganda were systematically selected to undergo a rapid hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) test after administering a questionnaire in this cross-sectional study. HIV care parameters were obtained from client files. Multivariate logistic regression and general linear model were used for the analysis. 950 of the 985 evaluable patients (77% females; mean age 42.8 years) were receiving ART. The overall prevalence of HBsAg was 7.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.2-9.6%), and was significantly lower among the females (6.8% vs 11.7%; p = 0.020). The factors independently associated with higher HBV infection were having lived in an internally displaced persons' camp (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.76, 95% CI 1.03-2.98; p = 0.036) and having shared housing with HBV-infected people during childhood (aOR 3.30, 95% CI 1.49-7.32; p = 0.003). CD4+ T cell counts were significantly lower in HBV patients (p = 0.025), and co-infection was associated with a poorer CD4+ T cell response to ART (AOR 0.88; 95% CI 0.79-0.98; p = 0.030). The observed prevalence of HBV among the PLWH may be underestimated or a signal of HBV decline in the region. The factors favouring horizontal HBV transmission identified suggest extending HBV screening and vaccine prophylaxis among PLWH.

This paper describes how mortality among hospitalised COVID-19 patients changed during the first three waves of the epidemic in Italy. This prospective cohort study used the Kaplan-Meier method to analyse the time-dependent probability of death of all of the patients admitted to a COVID-19 referral centre in Milan, Italy, during the three consecutive periods of: 21 February-31 July 2020 (first wave, W1), 1 August 2020-31 January 2021 (second wave, W2), and 1 February-30 April 2021 (third wave, W3). Cox models were used to examine the association between death and the period of admission after adjusting for age, biological sex, the time from symptom onset to admission, disease severity upon admission, obesity, and the comorbidity burden. Of the 2,023 COVID-19 patients admitted to our hospital during the study period, 553 (27.3%) were admitted during W1, 838 (41.5%) during W2, and 632 (31.2%) during W3. The crude mortality rate during W1, W2 and W3 was respectively 21.3%, 23.7% and 15.8%. After adjusting for potential confounders, hospitalisation during W2 or W3 was independently associated with a significantly lower risk of death than hospitalisation during W1 (adjusted hazard ratios [AHRs]: 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.59-0.95, and 0.58, 95% CI 0.44-0.77). Among the patients aged >75 years, there was no significant difference in the probability of death during the three waves (AHRs during W2 and W3 vs W1: 0.93, 95% CI 0.65-1.33, and 0.88, 95% CI 0.59-1.32), whereas those presenting with critical disease during W2 and W3 were at significantly lower risk of dying than those admitted during W1 (AHRs 0.61, 95% CI 0.43-0.88, and 0.44, 95% CI 0.28-0.70). Hospitalisation during W2 and W3 was associated with a reduced risk of COVID-19 death in comparison with W1, but there was no difference in survival probability in patients aged >75 years.

Background: Pandemic influenza may cause substantial morbidity and mortality, especially in older adults and those with immunosuppressive conditions. Methods: In this phase 3, stratified, randomized, controlled, observer-blind, multicenter trial, we evaluated the safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of an adjuvanted H5N1 vaccine (aH5N1) vs. active control (MF59-adjuvanted trivalent seasonal inactivated influenza vaccine [aTIV]) in 539 adults aged 18–60 and ≥61 years. Participants were further stratified into subgroups that were healthy (18–60 years, n = 91; ≥61 years, n = 89) or had prespecified immunosuppressive conditions (18–60 years, n = 180; ≥61 years, n = 179). Antibody responses were measured with microneutralization and single radial hemolysis (SRH) assays. Results: aH5N1 increased antibody responses in healthy persons and those with immunosuppressive conditions in both age groups, with SRH geometric mean ratios (GMRs) > 2.5 and >2.0 in participants aged 18–60 and ≥61 years, respectively, meeting former Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) criteria. Responses measured with the microneutralization and SRH assays were consistent with previous studies of aH5N1. Conclusions: The aH5N1 vaccine had a clinically acceptable safety and tolerability profile with an AE profile comparable to that observed in previous aH5N1 studies. These findings support the viability of aH5N1 as a pre-pandemic influenza vaccine for the immunization of at-risk individuals when an antigenically matched pandemic influenza vaccine is not yet available.

Background Infective endocarditis (IE) is associated with high rates of mortality. Prolonged treatments with high-dose intravenous antibiotics often fail to eradicate the infection, frequently leading to high-risk surgical intervention. By providing a mechanism of antibiotic tolerance, which escapes conventional antibiotic susceptibility profiling, microbial biofilm represents a key diagnostic and therapeutic challenge for clinicians. This study aims at assessing a rapid biofilm identification assay and a targeted antimicrobial susceptibility profile of biofilm-growing bacteria in patients with IE, which were unresponsive to antibiotic therapy. Results Staphylococcus aureus was the most common isolate (50%), followed by Enterococcus faecalis (25%) and Streptococcus gallolyticus (25%). All microbial isolates were found to be capable of producing large, structured biofilms in vitro. As expected, antibiotic treatment either administered on the basis of antibiogram or chosen empirically among those considered first-line antibiotics for IE, including ceftriaxone, daptomycin, tigecycline and vancomycin, was not effective at eradicating biofilm-growing bacteria. Conversely, antimicrobial susceptibility profile of biofilm-growing bacteria indicated that teicoplanin, oxacillin and fusidic acid were most effective against S. aureus biofilm , while ampicillin was the most active against S. gallolyticus and E. faecalis biofilm, respectively. Conclusions This study indicates that biofilm-producing bacteria, from surgically treated IE, display a high tolerance to antibiotics, which is undetected by conventional antibiograms. The rapid identification and antimicrobial tolerance profiling of biofilm-growing bacteria in IE can provide key information for both antimicrobial therapy and prevention strategies.

ObjectiveTo define macro symptoms of long COVID and to identify predictive factors, with the aim of preventing the development of the long COVID syndrome.DesignA single-centre longitudinal prospective cohort study conducted from May 2020 to October 2022.SettingThe study was conducted at Luigi Sacco University Hospital in Milan (Italy). In May 2020, we activated the ARCOVID (Ambulatorio Rivalutazione COVID) outpatient service for the follow-up of long COVID.ParticipantsHospitalised and non-hospitalised patients previously affected by COVID-19 were either referred by specialists or general practitioners or self-referred.InterventionDuring the first visit, a set of questions investigated the presence and the duration of 11 symptoms (palpitations, amnesia, headache, anxiety/panic, insomnia, loss of smell, loss of taste, dyspnoea, asthenia, myalgia and telogen effluvium). The follow-up has continued until the present time, by sending email questionnaires every 3 months to monitor symptoms and health-related quality of life.Primary and secondary outcome measuresMeasurement of synthetic scores (aggregation of symptoms based on occurrence and duration) that may reveal the presence of long COVID in different clinical macro symptoms. To this end, a mixed supervised and empirical strategy was adopted. Moreover, we aimed to identify predictive factors for post-COVID-19 macro symptoms.ResultsIn the first and second waves of COVID-19, 575 and 793 patients (respectively) were enrolled. Three different post-COVID-19 macro symptoms (neurological, sensorial and physical) were identified. We found significant associations between post-COVID-19 symptoms and (1) the patients’ comorbidities, and (2) the medications used during the COVID-19 acute phase. ACE inhibitors (OR=2.039, 95% CI: 1.095 to 3.892), inhaled steroids (OR=4.08, 95% CI: 1.17 to 19.19) and COVID therapies were associated with increased incidence of the neurological macro symptoms. Age (OR=1.02, 95% CI: 1.01 to 1.04), COVID-19 severity (OR=0.42, 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.82), number of comorbidities (OR=1.22, 95% CI: 1.01 to 1.5), metabolic (OR=2.52, 95% CI: 1.25 to 5.27), pulmonary (OR=1.87, 95% CI: 1.10 to 3.32) and autoimmune diseases (OR=4.57, 95% CI: 1.57 to 19.41) increased the risk of the physical macro symptoms.ConclusionsBeing male was the unique protective factor in both waves. Other factors reflected different medical behaviours and the impact of comorbidities. Evidence of the effect of therapies adds valuable information that may drive future medical choices.

This NMA compared the efficacy and safety between IV antibiotics that are used in the current standard of care for managing adult patients (≥18 years of age) with ABSSSI. Comparators were chosen on the basis that both direct and indirect comparisons between the interventions of interest could be performed. Outcomes of the analysis were selected on the basis that they are frequently measured and reported in trials involving ABSSSI patients, and only published randomised control trials of any size and duration and with any blinding status were eligible for inclusion in the analysis. The NMA was performed using both a fixed-effect and random-effect model. Efficacy-related endpoints were (1) clinical treatment success and (2) microbiological success at TOC visit. Safety-related endpoints were (1) number of discontinuations due to AEs/SAEs, (2) patients experiencing AEs, (3) patients experiencing SAEs and (4) all-cause mortality. Study interventions included daptomycin, dalbavancin, linezolid and tigecycline. Vancomycin was the comparator in all studies, except in two where it was linezolid and teicoplanin. The NMA showed that irrespective of patient subgroup, the likelihood of clinical and microbiological success with dalbavancin was statistically similar to the comparators studied. No statistically significant differences were observed between dalbavancin and any of the comparators in the discontinuation rate due to AEs/SAEs. In contrast, dalbavancin was associated with a significantly lower likelihood of experiencing an AE than linezolid, a significantly lower likelihood of experiencing a SAE than vancomycin and daptomycin, and a significantly lower risk of all-cause mortality than vancomycin, linezolid and tigecycline. Dalbavancin affords a promising, new alternative IV antimicrobial agent which is as effective as traditional therapies, but with the added benefit of enabling clinicians to treat patients with ABSSSI in different organisational settings. Notwithstanding, any introduction of an effective treatment with a differential mode of administration into healthcare systems must be followed by a change in clinical practice and patient management in order to fully achieve desirable economic outcomes.