Comparison of new and emerging SARS-CoV-2 variant transmissibility through active contact testing. A comparative cross-sectional household seroprevalence study.

Historically SARS-CoV-2 secondary attack rates (SAR) have been based on PCR positivity on screening symptomatic contacts; this misses transmission events and identifies only symptomatic contacts who are PCR positive at the time of sampling. We used serology to detect the relative transmissibility of Alpha Variant of Concern (VOC) to non-VOC SARS-CoV-2 to calculate household secondary attack rates. We identified index patients diagnosed with Alpha and non-VOC SARS-CoV-2 across two London Hospitals between November 2020 and January 2021 during a prolonged and well adhered national lockdown. We completed a household seroprevalence survey and found that 61.8% of non-VOC exposed household contacts were seropositive compared to 82.1% of Alpha exposed household contacts. The odds of infection doubled with exposure to an index diagnosed with Alpha. There was evidence of transmission events in almost all households. Our data strongly support that estimates of SAR should include serological data to improve accuracy and understanding.

Evaluating the equity impact and cost-effectiveness of digital adherence technologies with differentiated care to support tuberculosis treatment adherence in Ethiopia: protocol and analysis plan for the health economics component of a cluster randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Tuberculosis remains a leading infectious cause of death in resource-limited settings. Effective treatment is the cornerstone of tuberculosis control, reducing mortality, recurrence and transmission. Supporting treatment adherence through facility-based observations of medication taking can be costly to providers and patients. Digital adherence technologies (DATs) may facilitate treatment monitoring and differentiated care. The ASCENT-Ethiopia study is a three-arm cluster randomised trial assessing two DATs with differentiated care for supporting tuberculosis treatment adherence in Ethiopia. This study is part of the ASCENT consortium, assessing DATs in South Africa, the Philippines, Ukraine, Tanzania and Ethiopia. The aim of this study is to determine the costs, cost-effectiveness and equity impact of implementing DATs in Ethiopia. METHODS AND DESIGN: A total of 78 health facilities have been randomised (1:1:1) into one of two intervention arms or a standard-of-care arm. Approximately 50 participants from each health facility will be enrolled on the trial. Participants in facilities randomised to the intervention arms are offered a DAT linked to the ASCENT adherence platform for daily adherence monitoring and differentiated response for those who have missed doses. Participants at standard-of-care facilities receive routine care. Treatment outcomes and resource utilisation will be measured for each participant. The primary effectiveness outcome is a composite index of unfavourable end-of-treatment outcomes (lost to follow-up, death or treatment failure) or treatment recurrence within 6 months of end-of-treatment. For the cost-effectiveness analysis, end-of-treatment outcomes will be used to estimate disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted. Provider and patient cost data will be collected from a subsample of 5 health facilities per study arm, 10 participants per facility (n = 150). We will conduct a societal cost-effectiveness analysis using Bayesian hierarchical models that account for the individual-level correlation between costs and outcomes as well as intra-cluster correlation. An equity impact analysis will be conducted to summarise equity efficiency trade-offs. DISCUSSION: Trial enrolment is ongoing. This paper follows the published trial protocol and describes the protocol and analysis plan for the health economics work package of the ASCENT-Ethiopia trial. This analysis will generate economic evidence to inform the implementation of DATs in Ethiopia and globally. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Pan African Clinical Trial Registry (PACTR) PACTR202008776694999. Registered on 11 August 2020,  https://pactr.samrc.ac.za/TrialDisplay.aspx?TrialID=12241 .

TB-PRACTECAL: study protocol for a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase II-III trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of regimens containing bedaquiline and pretomanid for the treatment of adult patients with pulmonary multidrug-resistant tuberculosis.

BACKGROUND: Globally rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis disease affects around 460,000 people each year. Currently recommended regimens are 9-24 months duration, have poor efficacy and carry significant toxicity. A shorter, less toxic and more efficacious regimen would improve outcomes for people with rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis. METHODS: TB-PRACTECAL is an open-label, randomised, controlled, phase II/III non-inferiority trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of 24-week regimens containing bedaquiline and pretomanid to treat rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis. Conducted in Uzbekistan, South Africa and Belarus, patients aged 15 and above with rifampicin-resistant pulmonary tuberculosis and requiring a new course of therapy were eligible for inclusion irrespective of HIV status. In the first stage, equivalent to a phase IIB trial, patients were randomly assigned one of four regimens, stratified by site. Investigational regimens include oral bedaquiline, pretomanid and linezolid. Additionally, two of the regimens also included moxifloxacin (arm 1) and clofazimine (arm 2) respectively. Treatment was administered under direct observation for 24 weeks in investigational arms and 36 to 96 weeks in the standard of care arm. The second stage of the study was equivalent to a phase III trial, investigating the safety and efficacy of the most promising regimen/s. The primary outcome was the percentage of unfavourable outcomes at 72 weeks post-randomisation. This was a composite of early treatment discontinuation, treatment failure, recurrence, lost-to-follow-up and death. The study is being conducted in accordance with ICH-GCP and full ethical approval was obtained from Médecins sans Frontières ethical review board, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine ethical review board as well as ERBs and regulatory authorities at each site. DISCUSSION: TB-PRACTECAL is an ambitious trial using adaptive design to accelerate regimen assessment and bring novel treatments that are effective and safe to patients quicker. The trial took a patient-centred approach, adapting to best practice guidelines throughout recruitment. The implementation faced significant challenges from the COVID-19 pandemic. The trial was terminated early for efficacy on the advice of the DSMB and will report on data collected up to the end of recruitment and, additionally, the planned final analysis at 72 weeks after the end of recruitment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02589782. Registered on 28 October 2015.

Tuberculosis screening among ambulatory people living with HIV: a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The WHO-recommended tuberculosis screening and diagnostic algorithm in ambulatory people living with HIV is a four-symptom screen (known as the WHO-recommended four symptom screen [W4SS]) followed by a WHO-recommended molecular rapid diagnostic test (eg Xpert MTB/RIF [hereafter referred to as Xpert]) if W4SS is positive. To inform updated WHO guidelines, we aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of alternative screening tests and strategies for tuberculosis in this population. METHODS: In this systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis, we updated a search of PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, the Cochrane Library, and conference abstracts for publications from Jan 1, 2011, to March 12, 2018, done in a previous systematic review to include the period up to Aug 2, 2019. We screened the reference lists of identified pieces and contacted experts in the field. We included prospective cross-sectional, observational studies and randomised trials among adult and adolescent (age ≥10 years) ambulatory people living with HIV, irrespective of signs and symptoms of tuberculosis. We extracted study-level data using a standardised data extraction form, and we requested individual participant data from study authors. We aimed to compare the W4SS with alternative screening tests and strategies and the WHO-recommended algorithm (ie, W4SS followed by Xpert) with Xpert for all in terms of diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity and specificity), overall and in key subgroups (eg, by antiretroviral therapy [ART] status). The reference standard was culture. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020155895. FINDINGS: We identified 25 studies, and obtained data from 22 studies (including 15 666 participants; 4347 [27·7%] of 15 663 participants with data were on ART). W4SS sensitivity was 82% (95% CI 72-89) and specificity was 42% (29-57). C-reactive protein (≥10 mg/L) had similar sensitivity to (77% [61-88]), but higher specificity (74% [61-83]; n=3571) than, W4SS. Cough (lasting ≥2 weeks), haemoglobin (<10 g/dL), body-mass index (<18·5 kg/m2), and lymphadenopathy had high specificities (80-90%) but low sensitivities (29-43%). The WHO-recommended algorithm had a sensitivity of 58% (50-66) and a specificity of 99% (98-100); Xpert for all had a sensitivity of 68% (57-76) and a specificity of 99% (98-99). In the one study that assessed both, the sensitivity of sputum Xpert Ultra was higher than sputum Xpert (73% [62-81] vs 57% [47-67]) and specificities were similar (98% [96-98] vs 99% [98-100]). Among outpatients on ART (4309 [99·1%] of 4347 people on ART), W4SS sensitivity was 53% (35-71) and specificity was 71% (51-85). In this population, a parallel strategy (two tests done at the same time) of W4SS with any chest x-ray abnormality had higher sensitivity (89% [70-97]) and lower specificity (33% [17-54]; n=2670) than W4SS alone; at a tuberculosis prevalence of 5%, this strategy would require 379 more rapid diagnostic tests per 1000 people living with HIV than W4SS but detect 18 more tuberculosis cases. Among outpatients not on ART (11 160 [71·8%] of 15 541 outpatients), W4SS sensitivity was 85% (76-91) and specificity was 37% (25-51). C-reactive protein (≥10 mg/L) alone had a similar sensitivity to (83% [79-86]), but higher specificity (67% [60-73]; n=3187) than, W4SS and a sequential strategy (both test positive) of W4SS then C-reactive protein (≥5 mg/L) had a similar sensitivity to (84% [75-90]), but higher specificity than (64% [57-71]; n=3187), W4SS alone; at 10% tuberculosis prevalence, these strategies would require 272 and 244 fewer rapid diagnostic tests per 1000 people living with HIV than W4SS but miss two and one more tuberculosis cases, respectively. INTERPRETATION: C-reactive protein reduces the need for further rapid diagnostic tests without compromising sensitivity and has been included in the updated WHO tuberculosis screening guidelines. However, C-reactive protein data were scarce for outpatients on ART, necessitating future research regarding the utility of C-reactive protein in this group. Chest x-ray can be useful in outpatients on ART when combined with W4SS. The WHO-recommended algorithm has suboptimal sensitivity; Xpert for all offers slight sensitivity gains and would have major resource implications. FUNDING: World Health Organization.

The effect of BCG revaccination on all-cause mortality beyond infancy: 30-year follow-up of a population-based, double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial in Malawi.

BACKGROUND: Trials of BCG vaccination to prevent or reduce severity of COVID-19 are taking place in adults, some of whom have been previously vaccinated, but evidence of the beneficial, non-specific effects of BCG come largely from data on mortality in infants and young children, and from in-vitro and animal studies, after a first BCG vaccination. We assess all-cause mortality following a large BCG revaccination trial in Malawi. METHODS: The Karonga Prevention trial was a population-based, double-blind, randomised controlled in Karonga District, northern Malawi, that enrolled participants between January, 1986, and November, 1989. The trial compared BCG (Glaxo-strain) revaccination versus placebo to prevent tuberculosis and leprosy. 46 889 individuals aged 3 months to 75 years were randomly assigned to receive BCG revaccination (n=23 528) or placebo (n=23 361). Here we report mortality since vaccination as recorded during active follow-up in northern areas of the district in 1991-94, and in a demographic surveillance follow-up in the southern area in 2002-18. 7389 individuals who received BCG (n=3746) or placebo (n=3643) lived in the northern follow-up areas, and 5616 individuals who received BCG (n=2798) or placebo (n=2818) lived in the southern area. Year of death or leaving the area were recorded for those not found. We used survival analysis to estimate all-cause mortality. FINDINGS: Follow-up information was available for 3709 (99·0%) BCG recipients and 3612 (99·1%) placebo recipients in the northern areas, and 2449 (87·5%) BCG recipients and 2413 (85·6%) placebo recipients in the southern area. There was no difference in mortality between the BCG and placebo groups in either area, overall or by age group or sex. In the northern area, there were 129 deaths per 19 694 person-years at risk in the BCG group (6·6 deaths per 1000 person-years at risk [95% CI 5·5-7·8]) versus 133 deaths per 19 111 person-years at risk in the placebo group (7·0 deaths per 1000 person-years at risk [95% CI 5·9-8·2]; HR 0·94 [95% CI 0·74-1·20]; p=0·62). In the southern area, there were 241 deaths per 38 399 person-years at risk in the BCG group (6·3 deaths per 1000 person-years at risk [95% CI 5·5-7·1]) versus 230 deaths per 38 676 person-years at risk in the placebo group (5·9 deaths per 1000 person-years at risk [95% CI 5·2-6·8]; HR 1·06 [95% CI 0·88-1·27]; p=0·54). INTERPRETATION: We found little evidence of any beneficial effect of BCG revaccination on all-cause mortality. The high proportion of deaths attributable to non-infectious causes beyond infancy, and the long time interval since BCG for most deaths, might obscure any benefits. FUNDING: British Leprosy Relief Association (LEPRA); Wellcome Trust.

Exploring the promise and reality of ward-based primary healthcare outreach teams conducting TB household contact tracing in three districts of South Africa.

BACKGROUND: Tuberculosis (TB) household contact tracing is a form of targeted active case-finding for which community health workers ('outreach teams') in South Africa are primarily responsible for its implementation. We conducted an exploratory qualitative study to understand the role of outreach teams in delivering TB household contact tracing. METHODS: The study took place in three districts of South Africa between May 2016 and February 2017. We conducted 78 in-depth interviews (IDI) (comprising 35 key stakeholders, 31 TB index patients and 12 HHCs) and five focus group discussions (FGD) (40 outreach team members in four FGDs and 12 community stakeholders in one FGD). RESULTS: Outreach teams contributed positively by working across health-related programmes, providing home-based care and assisting with tracing of persons lost to TB care. However, outreach teams had a limited focus on TB household contact tracing activities, likely due to the broad scope of their work and insufficient programmatic support. Outreach teams often confused TB household contact tracing activities with finding persons lost to TB care. The community also had some reservations on the role of outreach teams conducting TB household contact tracing activities. CONCLUSIONS: Creating awareness among outreach workers and clinic personnel about the importance of and activities related to TB household contact tracing would be required to strengthen the delivery of TB household contact tracing through the community-based primary health care teams. We need better monitoring and evaluation systems, stronger integration within a realistic scope of work, adequate training on TB household contact tracing and TB infection prevention control measures. Involving the community and educating them on the role of outreach teams could improve acceptance of future activities. These timely results and lessons learned should inform contact tracing approaches in the context of COVID-19.

Partner-delivered HIV self-test kits with and without financial incentives in antenatal care and index patients with HIV in Malawi: a three-arm, cluster-randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Secondary distribution of HIV self-testing (HIVST) kits by patients attending clinic services to their partners could improve the rate of HIV diagnosis. We aimed to investigate whether secondary administration of HIVST kits, with or without an additional financial incentive, via women receiving antenatal care (ANC) or via people newly diagnosed with HIV (ie, index patients) could improve the proportion of male partners tested or the number of people newly diagnosed with HIV. METHODS: We did a three-arm, open-label, pragmatic, cluster-randomised trial of 27 health centres (clusters), eligible if they were a government primary health centre providing ANC, HIV testing, and ART services, across four districts of Malawi. We recruited women (aged ≥18 years) attending their first ANC visit and whose male partner was available, not already taking ART, and not already tested for HIV during this pregnancy (ANC cohort), and people (aged ≥18 years) with newly diagnosed HIV during routine clinic HIV testing who had at least one sexual contact not already known to be HIV-positive (index cohort). Centres were randomly assigned (1:1:1), using a public selection of computer-generated random allocations, to enhanced standard of care (including an invitation for partners to attend HIV testing services), HIVST only, or HIVST plus a US$10 financial incentive for retesting. The primary outcome for the ANC cohort was the proportion of male partners reportedly tested, as ascertained by interview with women in this cohort at day 28. The primary outcome for the index cohort was the geometric mean number of new HIV-positive people identified per facility within 28 days of enrolment, as measured by observed HIV test results. Cluster-level summaries compared intervention with standard of care by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03705611. FINDINGS: Between Sept 8, 2018, and May 2, 2019, nine clusters were assigned to each trial arm, resulting in 4544 eligible women in the ANC cohort (1447 [31·8%] in the standard care group, 1465 [32·2%] in the HIVST only group, and 1632 [35·9%] in HIVST plus financial incentive group) and 708 eligible patients in the index cohort (234 [33·1%] in the standard care group, 169 [23·9%] in the HIVST only group, and 305 [42·9%] in the HIVST plus financial incentive group). 4461 (98·2%) of 4544 eligible women in the ANC cohort and 645 (91·1%) of 708 eligible patients in the index cohort were recruited, of whom 3378 (75·7%) in the ANC cohort and 439 (68·1%) in the index cohort were interviewed after 28 days. In the ANC cohort, the mean proportion of reported partner testing per cluster was 35·0% (SD 10·0) in the standard care group, 73·0% in HIVST only group (13·1, adjusted risk ratio [RR] 1·71, 95% CI 1·48-1·98; p<0·0001), and 65·2% in the HIVST plus financial incentive group (11·6, adjusted RR 1·62, 1·45-1·81; p<0·0001). In the index cohort, the geometric mean number of new HIV-positive sexual partners per cluster was 1·35 (SD 1·62) for the standard care group, 1·91 (1·78) for the HIVST only group (incidence rate ratio adjusted for number eligible as an offset in the negative binomial model 1·65, 95% CI 0·49-5·55; p=0·3370), and 3·20 (3·81) for the HIVST plus financial incentive group (3·11, 0·99-9·77; p=0·0440). Four self-resolving, temporary marital separations occurred due to disagreement in couples regarding HIV self-test kits. INTERPRETATION: Although administration of HIVST kits in the ANC cohort, even when offered alongside a financial incentive, did not identify significantly more male patients with HIV than did standard care, out-of-clinic options for HIV testing appear more acceptable to many male partners of women with HIV, increasing test uptake. Viewed in the current context, this approach might allow continuation of services despite COVID-19-related lockdowns. FUNDING: Unitaid, through the Self-Testing Africa Initiative.