Objectives: We evaluated the performance of a malaria rapid diagnostic test (MRDT) against blood smear microscopy (BSM) among HIV-positive patients in relation to anti-retroviral treatment (ART) status, CD4+ count, fever, cotrimoxazole prophylaxis and malaria density count.
Method: A cross-sectional study involving 1521 consenting randomly selected HIV-positive adults attending two ART clinics in Kano, Nigeria, between June 2015 and May 2016. Venous blood samples were collected for testing with MRDT, BSM, and CD4+ T cells count by cytometry. Biodata and other clinical details were extracted from patient folders into an Excel file, cleaned, validated, and exported for analysis into SPSS version 23.0. Sensitivity, specificity, predictive values of MRDT were compared with BSM with a 95% confidence interval.
Results: Malaria parasites were detected in 25.4% of enrollees by BSM and 16.4% by MRDT. Overall sensitivity of MRDT was 58% and specificity was 97%. Cotrimoxazole prophylaxis and fever status did not affect MRDT sensitivity and specificity. Unexpectedly, the sensitivity was highest at parasite density count of less than 500 cells/µL. At CD4+ T cells count over 500 cells/µL the sensitivity was higher (62.4%) compared to 56% at less than 500 cells/µL. In the non-ART group sensitivity was higher (65%) compared to those on ART (56%) but the specificity was similar. All differences were significant for all variables (p < 0.05).
Conclusion: Although the MRDT specificity was good, the sensitivity was poor, requiring further evaluation for use in malaria diagnosis among HIV-malaria co-infected persons in these settings.
METHODS: We did an individual participant data meta-analysis comparing balloon catheters and vaginal prostaglandins for cervical ripening before labour induction. We systematically identified published and unpublished randomised controlled trials that completed data collection between March 19, 2019, and May 1, 2021, by searching the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and PubMed. Further trials done before March 19, 2019, were identified through a recent Cochrane review. Data relating to the combined use of the two methods were not included, only data from women with a viable, singleton pregnancy were analysed, and no exclusion was made based on parity or membrane status. We contacted authors of individuals trials and participant-level data were harmonised and recoded according to predefined definitions of variables. Risk of bias was assessed with the ROB2 tool. The primary outcomes were caesarean delivery, indication for caesarean delivery, a composite adverse perinatal outcome, and a composite adverse maternal outcome. We followed the intention-to-treat principle for the main analysis. The primary meta-analysis used two-stage random-effects models and the sensitivity analysis used one-stage mixed models. All models were adjusted for maternal age and parity. This meta-analysis is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020179924).
FINDINGS: Individual participant data were available from 12 studies with a total of 5460 participants. Balloon catheters, compared with vaginal prostaglandins, did not lead to a significantly different rate of caesarean delivery (12 trials, 5414 women; crude incidence 27·0%; adjusted OR [aOR] 1·09, 95% CI 0·95-1·24; I2=0%), caesarean delivery for failure to progress (11 trials, 4601 women; aOR 1·20, 95% CI 0·91-1·58; I2=39%), or caesarean delivery for fetal distress (10 trials, 4441 women; aOR 0·86, 95% CI 0·71-1·04; I2=0%). The composite adverse perinatal outcome was lower in women who were allocated to balloon catheters than in those allocated to vaginal prostaglandins (ten trials, 4452 neonates, crude incidence 13·6%; aOR 0·80, 95% CI 0·70-0·92; I2=0%). There was no significant difference in the composite adverse maternal outcome (ten trials, 4326 women, crude incidence 22·7%; aOR 1·02, 95% CI 0·89-1·18; I2=0%).
INTERPRETATION: In induction of labour, balloon catheters and vaginal prostaglandins have comparable caesarean delivery rates and maternal safety profiles, but balloon catheters lead to fewer adverse perinatal events.
FUNDING: Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and Monash Health Emerging Researcher Fellowship.
METHODS: The current study is a substudy of the SEVARVIR prospective multicenter observational cohort study. Patients admitted to any of the 40 participating ICUs between November 17, 2022, and January 22, 2024, were eligible for inclusion in the SEVARVIR cohort study (NCT05162508) if they met the following inclusion criteria: age ≥ 18 years, SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by a positive reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) in nasopharyngeal swab samples, ICU admission for acute respiratory failure. The primary clinical endpoint of the study was day-28 mortality. Evaluation of the association between day-28 mortality and sublineage group was conducted by performing an exploratory multivariable logistic regression model, after systematically adjusting for predefined prognostic factors previously shown to be important confounders (i.e. obesity, immunosuppression, age and SOFA score) computing odds ratios (OR) along with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).
RESULTS: During the study period (November 2022-January 2024) 56 JN.1- and 126 XBB-infected patients were prospectively enrolled in 40 French intensive care units. JN.1-infected patients were more likely to be obese (35.7% vs 20.8%; p = 0.033) and less frequently immunosuppressed than others (20.4% vs 41.4%; p = 0.010). JN.1-infected patients required invasive mechanical ventilation support in 29.1%, 87.5% of them received dexamethasone, 14.5% tocilizumab and none received monoclonal antibodies. Only one JN-1 infected patient (1.8%) required extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support during ICU stay (vs 0/126 in the XBB group; p = 0.30). Day-28 mortality of JN.1-infected patients was 14.6%, not significantly different from that of XBB-infected patients (22.0%; p = 0.28). In univariable logistic regression analysis and in multivariable analysis adjusting for confounders defined a priori, we found no statistically significant association between JN.1 infection and day-28 mortality (adjusted OR 1.06 95% CI (0.17;1.42); p = 0.19). There was no significant between group difference regarding duration of stay in the ICU (6.0 [3.5;11.0] vs 7.0 [4.0;14.0] days; p = 0.21).
CONCLUSIONS: Critically-ill patients with Omicron JN.1 infection showed a different clinical phenotype than patients infected with the earlier XBB sublineage, including more frequent obesity and less immunosuppression. Compared with XBB, JN.1 infection was not associated with higher day-28 mortality.