The latent tuberculosis infection cascade of care during the COVID-19 pandemic response in a Mid-Sized US city.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic response may unintentionally disrupt multiple public health services, including tuberculosis control programs. We aimed to assess differences in the cascade of care for latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) in a Midwest U.S. city during the COVID-19 pandemic response. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult patients who presented for LTBI evaluation at the Hamilton County Public Health Tuberculosis Clinic in Ohio between 2019 and 2020. The pre-COVID-19 response period was defined as 01/2019 to 02/2020, and the COVID-19 pandemic response period (first wave) was defined as 04/2020 to 12/2020. We reviewed electronic medical records to extract sociodemographic information, medical history, follow-up and treatment data to define steps within the LTBI cascade of care. Logistic regressions were used to assess factors associated with LTBI treatment acceptance and completion, adjusted by potential confounders and COVID-19 period. Results: Data from 312 patients were included. There was a significant decrease in the number of monthly LTBI referrals (median, 18 vs. 8, p = 0.02) and LTBI evaluations (median, 17.5 vs. 7, p < 0.01) during the first wave of COVID-19. The proportion for whom immigration was listed as the indication for LTBI testing also declined (30% vs. 9%; p < 0.01) during COVID-19. More LTBI diagnoses were based on interferon-gamma release assay (IGRA; 30% vs. 49%; p < 0.01) during the COVID-19 response period. The proportion of people in the clinic for whom treatment for LTBI was recommended was similar before and during COVID-19 (76% vs. 81%, p = 0.41), as was LTBI treatment acceptance rates (56% vs. 64%, p = 0.28), and completion rates (65% vs. 63%, p = 0.85). In multivariate analysis, LTBI treatment acceptance was associated with Hispanic ethnicity, younger age, male sex, IGRA being used for diagnosis, and non-healthcare occupation, independent of COVID-19 period. LTBI treatment completion was associated with taking a rifamycin-containing regimen, independent of COVID-19 period. Conclusion: We observed a significant decline in the number of monthly LTBI referrals and evaluations during the first wave of COVID-19, revealing an unintended negative impact of the COVID-19 response in our region. However, LTBI treatment acceptance and completion rates were not affected during COVID-19.

The latent tuberculosis infection cascade of care during the COVID-19 pandemic response in a Mid-Sized US city

Background The COVID-19 pandemic response may unintentionally disrupt multiple public health services, including tuberculosis control programs. We aimed to assess differences in the cascade of care for latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) in a Midwest U.S. city during the COVID-19 pandemic response. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult patients who presented for LTBI evaluation at the Hamilton County Public Health Tuberculosis Clinic in Ohio between 2019 and 2020. The pre-COVID-19 response period was defined as 01/2019 to 02/2020, and the COVID-19 pandemic response period (first wave) was defined as 04/2020 to 12/2020. We reviewed electronic medical records to extract sociodemographic information, medical history, follow-up and treatment data to define steps within the LTBI cascade of care. Logistic regressions were used to assess factors associated with LTBI treatment acceptance and completion, adjusted by potential confounders and COVID-19 period. Results Data from 312 patients were included. There was a significant decrease in the number of monthly LTBI referrals (median, 18 vs. 8, p = 0.02) and LTBI evaluations (median, 17.5 vs. 7, p < 0.01) during the first wave of COVID-19. The proportion for whom immigration was listed as the indication for LTBI testing also declined (30% vs. 9%;p < 0.01) during COVID-19. More LTBI diagnoses were based on interferon-gamma release assay (IGRA;30% vs. 49%;p < 0.01) during the COVID-19 response period. The proportion of people in the clinic for whom treatment for LTBI was recommended was similar before and during COVID-19 (76% vs. 81%, p = 0.41), as was LTBI treatment acceptance rates (56% vs. 64%, p = 0.28), and completion rates (65% vs. 63%, p = 0.85). In multivariate analysis, LTBI treatment acceptance was associated with Hispanic ethnicity, younger age, male sex, IGRA being used for diagnosis, and non-healthcare occupation, independent of COVID-19 period. LTBI treatment completion was associated with taking a rifamycin-containing regimen, independent of COVID-19 period. Conclusion We observed a significant decline in the number of monthly LTBI referrals and evaluations during the first wave of COVID-19, revealing an unintended negative impact of the COVID-19 response in our region. However, LTBI treatment acceptance and completion rates were not affected during COVID-19.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 Convalescent Plasma Outpatient Therapy to Prevent Outpatient Hospitalization: A Meta-Analysis of Individual Participant Data From 5 Randomized Trials.

BACKGROUND: Outpatient monoclonal antibodies are no longer effective and antiviral treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) disease remain largely unavailable in many countries worldwide. Although treatment with COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) is promising, clinical trials among outpatients have shown mixed results. METHODS: We conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis from outpatient trials to assess the overall risk reduction for all-cause hospitalizations by day 28 in transfused participants. Relevant trials were identified by searching Medline, Embase, medRxiv, World Health Organization COVID-19 Research Database, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from January 2020 to September 2022. RESULTS: Five included studies from 4 countries enrolled and transfused 2620 adult patients. Comorbidities were present in 1795 (69%). The virus neutralizing antibody dilutional titer levels ranged from 8 to 14 580 in diverse assays. One hundred sixty of 1315 (12.2%) control patients were hospitalized, versus 111 of 1305 (8.5%) CCP-treated patients, yielding a 3.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3%-6.0%; P = .001) absolute risk reduction and 30.1% relative risk reduction for all-cause hospitalization. The hospitalization reduction was greatest in those with both early transfusion and high titer with a 7.6% absolute risk reduction (95% CI, 4.0%-11.1%; P = .0001) accompanied by at 51.4% relative risk reduction. No significant reduction in hospitalization was seen with treatment >5 days after symptom onset or in those receiving CCP with antibody titers below the median titer. CONCLUSIONS: Among outpatients with COVID-19, treatment with CCP reduced the rate of all-cause hospitalization and may be most effective when given within 5 days of symptom onset and when antibody titer is higher.

Transfusing convalescent plasma as post-exposure prophylaxis against SARS-CoV-2 infection: a double-blinded, phase 2 randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 convalescent plasma (CCP) for preventing infection in exposed, uninfected individuals is unknown. CCP might prevent infection when administered before symptoms or laboratory evidence of infection. METHODS: This double-blinded, phase 2 randomized, controlled trial (RCT) compared the efficacy and safety of prophylactic high titer (≥1:320 by Euroimmun ELISA) CCP with standard plasma. Asymptomatic participants aged ≥18 years with close contact exposure to a person with confirmed COVID-19 in the previous 120 hours and negative SARS-CoV-2 test within 24 hours before transfusion were eligible. The primary outcome was new SARS-CoV-2 infection. RESULTS: 180 participants were enrolled; 87 were assigned to CCP and 93 to control plasma, and 170 transfused at 19 sites across the United States from June 2020 to March 2021. Two were excluded for screening SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positivity. Of the remaining 168 participants, 12/81 (14·8%) CCP and 13/87 (14·9%) control recipients developed SARS-CoV-2 infection; 6 (7·4%) CCP and 7 (8%) control recipients developed COVID-19 (infection with symptoms). There were no COVID-19-related hospitalizations in CCP and 2 in control recipients. Efficacy by restricted mean infection free time (RMIFT) by 28 days for all SARS-CoV-2 infections (25·3 vs. 25·2 days; p = 0·49) and COVID-19 (26·3 vs. 25·9 days; p = 0·35) was similar for both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of high-titer CCP as post-exposure prophylaxis, while appearing safe, did not prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Convalescent plasma with a high level of virus-specific antibody effectively neutralizes SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern.

The ongoing evolution of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants severely limits available effective monoclonal antibody therapies. Effective drugs are also supply limited. COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) qualified for high antibody levels effectively reduces immunocompetent outpatient hospitalization. The Food and Drug Administration currently allows outpatient CCP for the immunosuppressed. Viral-specific antibody levels in CCP can range 10- to 100-fold between donors, unlike the uniform viral-specific monoclonal antibody dosing. Limited data are available on the efficacy of polyclonal CCP to neutralize variants. We examined 108 pre-δ/pre-ο donor units obtained before March 2021, 20 post-δ COVID-19/postvaccination units, and 1 pre-δ/pre-ο hyperimmunoglobulin preparation for variant-specific virus (vaccine-related isolate [WA-1], δ, and ο) neutralization correlated to Euroimmun S1 immunoglobulin G antibody levels. We observed a two- to fourfold and 20- to 40-fold drop in virus neutralization from SARS-CoV-2 WA-1 to δ or ο, respectively. CCP antibody levels in the upper 10% of the 108 donations as well as 100% of the post-δ COVID-19/postvaccination units and the hyperimmunoglobulin effectively neutralized all 3 variants. High-titer CCP neutralizes SARS-CoV-2 variants despite no previous donor exposure to the variants.

Early Outpatient Treatment for Covid-19 with Convalescent Plasma.

BACKGROUND: Polyclonal convalescent plasma may be obtained from donors who have recovered from coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). The efficacy of this plasma in preventing serious complications in outpatients with recent-onset Covid-19 is uncertain. METHODS: In this multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of Covid-19 convalescent plasma, as compared with control plasma, in symptomatic adults (≥18 years of age) who had tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, regardless of their risk factors for disease progression or vaccination status. Participants were enrolled within 8 days after symptom onset and received a transfusion within 1 day after randomization. The primary outcome was Covid-19-related hospitalization within 28 days after transfusion. RESULTS: Participants were enrolled from June 3, 2020, through October 1, 2021. A total of 1225 participants underwent randomization, and 1181 received a transfusion. In the prespecified modified intention-to-treat analysis that included only participants who received a transfusion, the primary outcome occurred in 17 of 592 participants (2.9%) who received convalescent plasma and 37 of 589 participants (6.3%) who received control plasma (absolute risk reduction, 3.4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, 1.0 to 5.8; P = 0.005), which corresponded to a relative risk reduction of 54%. Evidence of efficacy in vaccinated participants cannot be inferred from these data because 53 of the 54 participants with Covid-19 who were hospitalized were unvaccinated and 1 participant was partially vaccinated. A total of 16 grade 3 or 4 adverse events (7 in the convalescent-plasma group and 9 in the control-plasma group) occurred in participants who were not hospitalized. CONCLUSIONS: In participants with Covid-19, most of whom were unvaccinated, the administration of convalescent plasma within 9 days after the onset of symptoms reduced the risk of disease progression leading to hospitalization. (Funded by the Department of Defense and others; CSSC-004 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04373460.).

How do I implement an outpatient program for the administration of convalescent plasma for COVID-19?

Convalescent plasma, collected from donors who have recovered from a pathogen of interest, has been used to treat infectious diseases, particularly in times of outbreak, when alternative therapies were unavailable. The COVID-19 pandemic revived interest in the use of convalescent plasma. Large observational studies and clinical trials that were executed during the pandemic provided insight into how to use convalescent plasma, whereby high levels of antibodies against the pathogen of interest and administration early within the time course of the disease are critical for optimal therapeutic effect. Several studies have shown outpatient administration of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) to be both safe and effective, preventing clinical progression in patients when administered within the first week of COVID-19. The United States Food and Drug Administration expanded its emergency use authorization (EUA) to allow for the administration of CCP in an outpatient setting in December 2021, at least for immunocompromised patients or those on immunosuppressive therapy. Outpatient transfusion of CCP and infusion of monoclonal antibody therapies for a highly transmissible infectious disease introduces nuanced challenges related to infection prevention. Drawing on our experiences with the clinical and research use of CCP, we describe the logistical considerations and workflow spanning procurement of qualified products, infrastructure, staffing, transfusion, and associated management of adverse events. The purpose of this description is to facilitate the efforts of others intent on establishing outpatient transfusion programs for CCP and other antibody-based therapies.

TB Quantiferon Testing Predicts Mortality in Patients with COVID-19

Background Finding reliable clinical predictors for severity of COVID-19 has been challenging. Interferon gamma (IFNG) plays an important role in viral replication. QuantiFERON-TB (QFT) test relies on IFNG release in response to antigens. A positive or negative test signifies adequate IFNG response, whereas an indeterminate result is obtained when such a response is lacking. In this study, we have attempted to see if an indeterminate QFT result can provide prognostic information on patients with COVID–19. Survival Probability in patients with Covid - 19 and an indeterminate TB Quantiferon test result Methods This is a retrospective study of patients who were admitted at our institute with COVID–19 and had a QFT done within one month of the positive SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification test result. Patient charts were analyzed for clinical course and outcomes, including in-hospital mortality (primary outcome), 90-day mortality, respiratory failure, requirement for intubation and other complications that would portend a more severe disease course. Results A total of 120 patient charts were analyzed, out of which 43 (35.8%) had an indeterminate QFT. All the indeterminate results were due to an inadequate mitogen response. The indeterminate QFT group had a 41.86% (18/43) in-hospital mortality vs. 9.09% (7/77) in the negative or positive QFT group (p-value of < 0.001). The 90-day mortality was similar between the two groups. Patients with indeterminate QFT also had a higher incidence of respiratory failure (97.7% vs. 75.3%;p-value = 0.020), requirement for mechanical ventilation (55.8% vs. 23.4%;p-value < 0.001), requirement of ECMO (25.58% vs. 0%;p-vale < 0.001), requirement of pressor (48.83% vs. 14.28%;p-value < 0.001) and requirement for renal replacement therapy (32.5% vs. 1.3%;p-value < 0.001), when compared to patients with a negative or positive QFT. Patients in indeterminate group had a higher hospital length of stay than the other group (p-value = 0.035). Conclusion Our study indicates that patients with COVID-19 who fail to mount an adequate IFNG mitogen response in QFT assay have worse clinical outcomes and a more complicated and protracted clinical course. Evaluating cell-mediated immune responses through commercially available IFNG release assays may yield a promising strategy to predict COVID-19 clinical outcomes. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

COVID-19 case fatality rate and tuberculosis in a metropolitan setting.

In this study, we aimed to assess the relationship between tuberculosis case rate and COVID-19 case fatality rate (CFR) among districts within a tuberculosis-endemic metropolitan area. We analyzed data from 43 districts in Lima, Peru. We used districts as the units of observation. Linear regressions were used to investigate the relationship between COVID-19 CFRs and tuberculosis case rates. The mean COVID-19 CFR in each district for reporting Weeks 5-32 was used as the dependent variable. Independent variable was the mean rate of confirmed pulmonary tuberculosis cases for 2017-2019 period. Analyses were adjusted by population density, socioeconomic status, crowded housing, health facility density, and case rates of hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and HIV infection. The mean COVID-19 CFR in Lima was 4.0% ± 1.1%. The mean tuberculosis rate was 16.0 cases per 10,000 inhabitants. In multivariate analysis, tuberculosis case rate was associated with COVID-19 CFR (ß = 1.26; 95% confidence interval: 0.24-2.28; p = .02), after adjusting for potential confounders. We found that Lima districts with a higher burden of tuberculosis exhibited higher COVID-19 CFRs, independent of socioeconomic, and morbidity variables.