Search

Objectives: Australia has made significant progress towards achieving the UNAIDS's 95‐95‐95 cascade targets including HIV viral suppression. To investigate the burden of HIV viraemia, we assessed viral blips, low‐level viraemia (LLV) and virologic failure (VF) in an Australian cohort. Methods: We studied the proportion of people with viral suppression, viral blips, LLV and VF in the Australian HIV observational database (AHOD) between 2010 and 2021. The association between blips or LLV, and VF was investigated using Cox regression, and predictors of viral blips and LLV were assessed using repeated‐measured logistic regression. Results: Among 2544 AHOD participants who were in follow‐up and on antiretroviral therapy (ART) from 1 January 2010 (88.7% male), 444 had experienced VF (incidence rate: 2.45 [95% CI: 2.23–2.69] per 100 person‐years [PY]) during 18,125 PY of follow‐up (a median of 7.6 years). The proportion of people with VF decreased over time, whereas rates of blips and LLV remained stable. Participants with blips (hazard ratio, 2.89; 95% CI: 2.31–3.61) and LLV (4.46; 95% CI: 3.38–5.89) were at increased risk of VF. Hepatitis B co‐infection, longer documented treatment interruption duration, younger age and lower CD4 at ART initiation, and protease inhibitors‐based initial regimen were associated with an increased risk of VF. Common predictors of blips and LLV such as higher HIV‐1 RNA and lower CD4 at ART initiation, longer treatment interruption, more VL testing and types of care settings (hospitals vs. sexual health services) were identified. Conclusions: Blips and LLV predict subsequent VF development. We identified important predictors of HIV viraemia including VF among individuals on INSTI‐based regimens to help direct HIV management plans. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is now well-recognised that antimicrobial resistance (AMR), or the ability of organisms to resist currently available antibiotics and other antimicrobial drugs, represents one of the greatest dangers to human health in the 21st Century. As of 2022, AMR is a top-10 global public health threat. Various national and transnational initiatives have been implemented to address accelerating AMR, and the pressure to find local and global solutions is increasing. Despite this urgency, surprisingly limited progress is being made in rolling back or even slowing resistance. A multitude of perspectives exist regarding why this is the case. Key concerns include an enduring dependency on market-driven drug development, the lacklustre governance and habitual over-prescribing of remaining antimicrobial resources, and rampant short-termism across societies. While rarely presented in such terms, these disparate issues all speak to the social production of vulnerability. Yet vulnerability is rarely discussed in the AMR literature, except in terms of 'disproportionate effects' of AMR. In this paper, we offer a reconceptualisation of vulnerability as manifest in the AMR scene, showing that vulnerability is both a predictable consequence of AMR and, critically, productive of AMR to begin with. We underline why comprehending vulnerability as embodied, assembled, multivalent and reproduced through surveillance matters for international efforts to combat resistance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Much has been written about the problem of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and the action required to rein in this emerging global health threat. Addressing AMR is often operationalised as requiring 'behavior change' of clinicians and of patients, in combination with improving the drug development pipeline. Few have approached AMR as a challenge fundamentally embedded within the cultural fabric of modern societies and the (varied) ways they are organised economically, socially and politically. Here, drawing on a decade of work across a range of health contexts, we approach the problem of AMR as one of values and culture rather than of individual behavior. We reframe AMR as a social and political concern resulting from a confluence of factors and practices including: temporal myopia, individualisation, marketisation, and human exceptionalism. To effectively tackle AMR, we advocate solidaristic models that espouse collective responsibility and recognise relative opportunity to act rather than a continuation of the individualistic behavioural models that have, so far, proven largely ineffective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Tunnelled central venous dialysis catheter use is significantly limited by the occurrence of catheter-related infections. This randomised controlled trial assessed the efficacy of a 48 hour 70% ethanol lock vs heparin locks in prolonging the time to the first episode of catheter related blood stream infection (CRBSI). Methods Patients undergoing haemodialysis (HD) via a tunnelled catheter were randomised 1:1 to once per week ethanol locks (with two heparin locks between other dialysis sessions) vs thrice per week heparin locks. Results Observed catheter days in the heparin (n=24) and ethanol (n=25) groups were 1814 and 3614 respectively. CRBSI occurred at a rate of 0.85 vs. 0.28 per 1000 catheter days in the heparin vs ethanol group by intention to treat analysis (incident rate ratio (IRR) for ethanol vs. heparin 0.17; 95%CI 0.02-1.63; p=0.12). Flow issues requiring catheter removal occurred at a rate of 1.6 vs 1.4 per 1000 catheter days in the heparin and ethanol groups respectively (IRR 0.85; 95% CI 0.20-3.5 p =0.82 (for ethanol vs heparin). Conclusions Catheter survival and catheter-related blood stream infection were not significantly different but there was a trend towards a reduced rate of infection in the ethanol group. This study establishes proof of concept and will inform an adequately powered multicentre trial to definitively examine the efficacy and safety of ethanol locks as an alternative to current therapies used in the prevention of catheter-associated blood stream infections in patients dialysing with tunnelled catheters. Trial Registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12609000493246

Abstract Background Catheter-related bacteraemias (CRBs) contribute significantly to morbidity, mortality and health care costs in dialysis populations. Despite international guidelines recommending avoidance of catheters for haemodialysis access, hospital admissions for CRBs have doubled in the last decade. The primary aim of the study is to determine whether weekly instillation of 70% ethanol prevents CRBs compared with standard heparin saline. Methods/design The study will follow a prospective, open-label, randomized controlled design. Inclusion criteria are adult patients with incident or prevalent tunneled intravenous dialysis catheters on three times weekly haemodialysis, with no current evidence of catheter infection and no personal, cultural or religious objection to ethanol use, who are on adequate contraception and are able to give informed consent. Patients will be randomized 1:1 to receive 3 mL of intravenous-grade 70% ethanol into each lumen of the catheter once a week and standard heparin locks for other dialysis days, or to receive heparin locks only. The primary outcome measure will be time to the first episode of CRB, which will be defined using standard objective criteria. Secondary outcomes will include adverse reactions, incidence of CRB caused by different pathogens, time to infection-related catheter removal, time to exit site infections and costs. Prospective power calculations indicate that the study will have 80% statistical power to detect a clinically significant increase in median infection-free survival from 200 days to 400 days if 56 patients are recruited into each arm. Discussion This investigator-initiated study has been designed to provide evidence to help nephrologists reduce the incidence of CRBs in haemodialysis patients with tunnelled intravenous catheters. Trial Registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry Number: ACTRN12609000493246

The transmission behaviour of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is still being defined. It is likely that it is transmitted predominantly by droplets and direct contact and it is possible that there is at least opportunistic airborne transmission. In order to protect healthcare staff adequately it is necessary that we establish whether aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) increase the risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Where we do not have evidence relating to SARS-CoV-2, guidelines for safely conducting these procedures should consider the risk of transmitting related pathogens. Currently there is very little evidence detailing the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 associated with any specific procedures. Regarding AGPs and respiratory pathogens in general, there is still a large knowledge gap that will leave clinicians unsure of the risk to themselves when offering these procedures. This review aimed to summarize the evidence (and gaps in evidence) around AGPs and SARS-CoV-2. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]