Search

BACKGROUND: Rapid on-site diagnosis facilitates tuberculosis control. Performing Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert) at point of care is feasible, even when performed by minimally trained health-care workers, and when compared with point-of-care smear microscopy, reduces time to diagnosis and pretreatment loss to follow-up. However, whether Xpert is cost-effective at point of care remains unclear. METHODS: We empirically collected cost (US$, 2014) and clinical outcome data from participants presenting to primary health-care facilities in four African countries (South Africa, Zambia, Zimbabwe, and Tanzania) during the TB-NEAT trial. Costs were determined using an bottom-up ingredients approach. Effectiveness measures from the trial included number of cases diagnosed, initiated on treatment, and completing treatment. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness of point-of-care Xpert relative to smear microscopy. The study was performed from the perspective of the health-care provider. FINDINGS: Using data from 1502 patients, we calculated that the mean Xpert unit cost was lower when performed at a centralised laboratory (Lab Xpert) rather than at point of care ($23·00 [95% CI 22·12-23·88] vs $28·03 [26·19-29·87]). Per 1000 patients screened, and relative to smear microscopy, point-of-care Xpert cost an additional $35 529 (27 054-40 025) and was associated with an additional 24·3 treatment initiations ([-20·0 to 68·5]; $1464 per treatment), 63·4 same-day treatment initiations ([27·3-99·4]; $511 per same-day treatment), and 29·4 treatment completions ([-6·9 to 65·6]; $1211 per completion). Xpert costs were most sensitive to test volume, whereas incremental outcomes were most sensitive to the number of patients initiating and completing treatment. The probability of point-of-care Xpert being cost-effective was 90% at a willingness to pay of $3820 per treatment completion. INTERPRETATION: In southern Africa, although point-of-care Xpert unit cost is higher than Lab Xpert, it is likely to offer good value for money relative to smear microscopy. With the current availability of point-of-care nucleic acid amplification platforms (eg, Xpert Edge), these data inform much needed investment and resource allocation strategies in tuberculosis endemic settings. FUNDING: European Union European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership.

BackgroundXpert MTB/RIF, the most widely used automated nucleic acid amplification test for tuberculosis, is available in more than 130 countries. Although diagnostic accuracy is well documented, anticipated improvements in patient outcomes have not been clearly identified. We performed an individual patient data meta-analysis to examine improvements in patient outcomes associated with Xpert MTB/RIF.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Pan African Clinical Trials Registry from inception to Feb 1, 2018, for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the use of Xpert MTB/RIF with sputum smear microscopy as tests for tuberculosis diagnosis in adults (aged 18 years or older). We excluded studies of patients with extrapulmonary tuberculosis, and studies in which mortality was not assessed. We used a two-stage approach for our primary analysis and a one-stage approach for the sensitivity analysis. To assess the primary outcome of cumulative 6-month all-cause mortality, we first performed logistic regression models (random effects for cluster randomised trials, with robust SEs for multicentre studies) for each trial, and then pooled the odds ratio (OR) estimates by a fixed-effects (inverse variance) or random-effects (Der Simonian Laird) meta-analysis. We adjusted for age and gender, and stratified by HIV status and previous tuberculosis-treatment history. The study protocol has been registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42014013394.FindingsOur search identified 387 studies, of which five RCTs were eligible for analysis. 8567 adult clinic attendees (4490 [63·5%] of 7074 participants for whom data were available were HIV-positive) were tested for tuberculosis with Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert group) versus sputum smear microscopy (sputum smear group), across five low-income and middle-income countries (South Africa, Brazil, Zimbabwe, Zambia, and Tanzania). The primary outcome (reported in three studies) occurred in 182 (4·5%) of 4050 patients in the Xpert group and 217 (5·3%) of 4093 patients in the smear group (pooled adjusted OR 0·88, 95% CI 0·68-1·14 [p=0·34]; for HIV-positive individuals OR 0·83, 0·65-1·05 [p=0·12]). Kaplan-Meier estimates showed a lower rate of death (12·73 per 100 person-years in the Xpert group vs 16·38 per 100 person-years in the sputum smear group) for HIV-positive patients (hazard ratio 0·76, 95% CI 0·60-0·97; p=0·03). The risk of bias was assessed as reasonable and the statistical heterogeneity across studies was low (I2

Background: Extended-spectrum β-lactamases (ESBL) in Escherichia coli are a serious concern due to their role in developing multidrug resistance (MDR) and difficult-to-treat infections. Objective: This study aimed to identify ESBL-carrying E. coli strains from both clinical and environmental sources in Lusaka District, Zambia. Methods: This cross-sectional study included 58 ESBL-producing E. coli strains from hospital inpatients, outpatients, and non-hospital environments. Antimicrobial susceptibility was assessed using the Kirby–Bauer disk diffusion method and the VITEK® 2 Compact System, while genotypic analyses utilised the Illumina NextSeq 2000 sequencing platform. Results: Among the strains isolated strains, phylogroup B2 was the most common, with resistant MLST sequence types including ST131, ST167, ST156, and ST69. ESBL genes such as blaTEM-1B, blaCTX-M,blaOXA-1, blaNDM-5, and blaCMY were identified, with ST131 and ST410 being the most common. ST131 exhibited a high prevalence of blaCTX-M-15 and resistance to fluoroquinolones. Clinical and environmental isolates carried blaNDM-5 (3.4%), with clinical isolates showing a higher risk of carbapenemase resistance genes and the frequent occurrence of blaCTX-M and blaTEM variants, especially blaCTX-M-15 in ST131. Conclusions: This study underscores the public health risks of blaCTX-M-15- and blaNDM-5-carrying E. coli. The strengthening antimicrobial stewardship programmes and the continuous surveillance of AMR in clinical and environmental settings are recommended to mitigate the spread of resistant pathogens. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: A number of seroprevalence studies in Zambia document the extent of spread of acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, yet knowledge gaps still exist on symptoms and conditions that continue or develop after acute COVID-19 (long COVID). This is an important gap given the estimated prevalence of long COVID in other African countries. We assessed factors associated with long COVID at the initial visit to a post-acute COVID-19 (PAC-19) clinic and longitudinally among a cohort of patients with ≥2 review visits. Methods: We implemented a cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis of PAC-19 clinic patients from Aug-2020 to Jan-2023. The study outcome was long COVID; defined as the presence of new, relapsing, or persistent COVID-19 symptoms that interfere with the ability to function at home or work. Explanatory variables were demographic and clinical characteristics of patients which included sex, age group, presence of new onset medical conditions, presence of pre-existing comorbidities, vaccination status and acute COVID-19 episode details. We fitted logistic and mixed effects regression models to assess for associated factors and considered statistical significance at p<0.05. Results: Out of a total 1,359 PAC-19 clinic patients in the cross-sectional analysis, 548 (40.3%) patients with ≥2 PAC-19 clinic visits were in the longitudinal analysis. Patients' median age was 53 (interquartile range [IQR]: 41–63) years, 919 (67.6%) were hospitalized for acute COVID-19, and of whom 686 (74.6%) had severe acute COVID-19. Overall, 377 (27.7%) PAC-19 clinic patients had long COVID. Patients with hospital length of stay ≥15 days (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 5.37; 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 2.99–10.0), severe acute COVID-19 (aOR: 3.22; 95% CI: 1.68–6.73), and comorbidities (aOR:1.50; 95% CI: 1.02–2.21) had significantly higher chance of long COVID. Longitudinally, long COVID prevalence significantly (p<0.001) declined from 75.4% at the initial PAC-19 visit to 26.0% by the final visit. The median follow-up time was 7 (IQR: 4–12) weeks. Conclusion: Factors associated with long COVID in Zambia were consistent both cross-sectionally at the initial visit to PAC-19 clinics and longitudinally across subsequent review visits. This highlights the importance of ongoing monitoring and tailored interventions for patients with comorbidities and severe COVID-19 to mitigate the long-term impacts of COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The public health impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has motivated a rapid search for potential therapeutics, with some key successes. However, the potential impact of different treatments, and consequently research and procurement priorities, have not been clear. Methods Using a mathematical model of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission, COVID-19 disease and clinical care, we explore the public-health impact of different potential therapeutics, under a range of scenarios varying healthcare capacity, epidemic trajectories; and drug efficacy in the absence of supportive care. Results The impact of drugs like dexamethasone (delivered to the most critically-ill in hospital and whose therapeutic benefit is expected to depend on the availability of supportive care such as oxygen and mechanical ventilation) is likely to be limited in settings where healthcare capacity is lowest or where uncontrolled epidemics result in hospitals being overwhelmed. As such, it may avert 22% of deaths in high-income countries but only 8% in low-income countries (assuming R = 1.35). Therapeutics for different patient populations (those not in hospital, early in the course of infection) and types of benefit (reducing disease severity or infectiousness, preventing hospitalization) could have much greater benefits, particularly in resource-poor settings facing large epidemics. Conclusions Advances in the treatment of COVID-19 to date have been focused on hospitalized-patients and predicated on an assumption of adequate access to supportive care. Therapeutics delivered earlier in the course of infection that reduce the need for healthcare or reduce infectiousness could have significant impact, and research into their efficacy and means of delivery should be a priority. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]