A phase 2A trial of the safety and tolerability of increased dose rifampicin and adjunctive linezolid, with or without aspirin, for HIV-associated tuberculous meningitis (The LASER-TBM Trial) (preprint)

ABSTRACT Background Drug regimens which include intensified antibiotics alongside effective anti-inflammatory therapies may improve outcomes in Tuberculous Meningitis (TBM). Safety data on their use in combination and in the context of HIV is needed to inform clinical trial design. Methods We conducted a phase 2 open-label parallel-design RCT to assess safety of high-dose rifampicin, linezolid and aspirin in HIV-associated TBM. Participants were randomised (1.4:1:1) to three treatment arms (arm 1, standard of care (SOC); arm 2 SOC + additional rifampicin (up to 35mg/kg/day)) + linezolid 1200mg/day reducing after 28/7 to 600mg/day; arm 3, as per arm 2 + aspirin 1000mg/day) for 56 days, when the primary outcome of adverse events of special interest (AESI) or death was assessed. Results 52 participants were randomised. 59% had mild disease (MRC Grade 1) vs 39% (Grade 2) vs 2% (Grade 3). 33% of participants had microbiologically-confirmed TBM; vs 41% ‘possible’ or 25% ‘probable’. AESI or death occurred in 10/16 (arm 3) vs 4/14 (arm 2) vs 6/20 (arm 1) ( p=0 . 083 ). The cumulative proportion of AESI or death (Kaplan-Meier method) demonstrated worse outcomes in arm 3 vs arm 1 ( p=0 . 04 ), however only one event in arm 3 was attributable to aspirin and was mild. There was no difference in efficacy (Modified Rankin Scale) at day 56 between the three arms. Conclusions High-dose rifampicin and adjunctive linezolid can safely be added to SOC in HIV-associated TBM. Larger studies are required to evaluate whether potential toxicity associated with these interventions, particularly aspirin, is outweighed by mortality or morbidity benefit. SUMMARY In this phase 2a randomised control trial we demonstrate that high-doserifampicin and adjunctive linezolid is safe in adult HIV-associated tuberculous meningitis. Larger studies are required to evaluate potential toxicity with aspirin, in relation to benefit on morbidity and mortality.

Outcomes of laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection during resurgence driven by Omicron lineages BA.4 and BA.5 compared with previous waves in the Western Cape Province, South Africa (preprint)

ObjectiveWe aimed to compare clinical severity of Omicron BA.4/BA.5 infection with BA.1 and earlier variant infections among laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases in the Western Cape, South Africa, using timing of infection to infer the lineage/variant causing infection. MethodsWe included public sector patients aged [≥]20 years with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 between 1-21 May 2022 (BA.4/BA.5 wave) and equivalent prior wave periods. We compared the risk between waves of (i) death and (ii) severe hospitalization/death (all within 21 days of diagnosis) using Cox regression adjusted for demographics, comorbidities, admission pressure, vaccination and prior infection. ResultsAmong 3,793 patients from the BA.4/BA.5 wave and 190,836 patients from previous waves the risk of severe hospitalization/death was similar in the BA.4/BA.5 and BA.1 waves (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.12; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.93; 1.34). Both Omicron waves had lower risk of severe outcomes than previous waves. Prior infection (aHR 0.29, 95% CI 0.24; 0.36) and vaccination (aHR 0.17; 95% CI 0.07; 0.40 for boosted vs. no vaccine) were protective. ConclusionDisease severity was similar amongst diagnosed COVID-19 cases in the BA.4/BA.5 and BA.1 periods in the context of growing immunity against SARS-CoV-2 due to prior infection and vaccination, both of which were strongly protective.

Efficacy and safety of intensified versus standard prophylactic anticoagulation therapy in patients with Covid-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis (preprint)

Background Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have reported inconsistent effects from intensified anticoagulation on clinical outcomes in Covid-19. We performed an aggregate data meta-analysis from available trials to quantify effect on non-fatal and fatal outcomes and identify subgroups who may benefit. Methods We searched multiple databases for RCTs comparing intensified (intermediate or therapeutic dose) versus standard prophylactic dose anticoagulation in adults with laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 through 19 January 2022. The primary efficacy outcome was all-cause mortality at end of follow-up or discharge. We used random effects meta-analysis to estimate pooled risk ratios for mortality, thrombotic, and bleeding events, and performed subgroup analysis for clinical setting and dose of intensified anticoagulation. Results Eleven RCTs were included (n = 5873). Intensified anticoagulation was not associated with a reduction in mortality for up to 45 days compared with prophylactic anticoagulation: 17.5% (501/2861) died in the intensified anticoagulation group and 18.8% (513/2734) died in the prophylactic anticoagulation group, relative risk (RR) 0.93; 95%CI, 0.79 - 1.10. On subgroup analysis, there was a possible signal of mortality reduction for inpatients admitted to general wards, although with low precision and high heterogeneity (5 studies; RR 0.84; 95% CI, 0.49 - 1.44; I2 = 75%) and not significantly different to studies performed in the ICU (interaction P = 0.51). Risk of venous thromboembolism was reduced with intensified anticoagulation compared with prophylaxis (8 studies; RR 0.53, 95%CI 0.41 - 0.69; I2 = 0%). This effect was driven by therapeutic rather than intermediate dosing on subgroup analysis (interaction P = 0.04). Major bleeding was increased with use of intensified anticoagulation (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.17 - 2.56) with no interaction for dosing and clinical setting. Conclusion Intensified anticoagulation has no effect on short term mortality among hospitalised adults with Covid-19 and is associated with increased risk of bleeding. The observed reduction in venous thromboembolism risk and trend towards reduced mortality in non-ICU hospitalised patients requires exploration in additional RCTs.

Assessing the clinical severity of the Omicron variant in the Western Cape Province, South Africa, using the diagnostic PCR proxy marker of RdRp target delay to distinguish between Omicron and Delta infections – a survival analysis (preprint)

Background Emerging data suggest that SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant of concern (VOC)is associated with reduced risk of severe disease. The extent to which this reflects a difference in the inherent virulence of Omicron, or just higher levels of population immunity, is currently not clear. Methods RdRp target delay (RTD: a difference in cycle threshold value of RdRp - E > 3.5) in the Seegene Allplex™ 2019-nCoV PCR assay is a proxy marker for the Delta VOC. The absence of this proxy marker in the period of transition to Omicron was used to identify suspected Omicron VOC infections. Cox regression was performed for the outcome of hospital admission in those who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 on the Seegene Allplex™ assay from 1 November to 14 December 2021 in the Western Cape Province, South Africa, public sector. Vaccination status at time of diagnosis, as well as prior diagnosed infection and comorbidities, were adjusted for. Results 150 cases with RTD (proxy for Delta) and 1486 cases without RTD (proxy for Omicron) were included. Cases without RTD had a lower hazard of admission (adjusted Hazard Ratio [aHR] of 0.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.34-0.91). Complete vaccination was protective of admission with an aHR of 0.45 (95%CI 0.26-0.77). Conclusion Omicron has resulted in a lower risk of hospital admission, compared to contemporaneous Delta infection in the Western Cape Province, when using the proxy marker of RTD. Under-ascertainment of reinfections with an immune escape variant like Omicron remains a challenge to accurately assessing variant virulence.

Outcomes of laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in the Omicron-driven fourth wave compared with previous waves in the Western Cape Province, South Africa (preprint)

Objectives: We aimed to compare COVID-19 outcomes in the Omicron-driven fourth wave with prior waves in the Western Cape, the contribution of undiagnosed prior infection to differences in outcomes in a context of high seroprevalence due to prior infection, and whether protection against severe disease conferred by prior infection and/or vaccination was maintained. Methods: In this cohort study, we included public sector patients aged [≥]20 years with a laboratory confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis between 14 November-11 December 2021 (wave four) and equivalent prior wave periods. We compared the risk between waves of the following outcomes using Cox regression: death, severe hospitalization or death and any hospitalization or death (all [≤]14 days after diagnosis) adjusted for age, sex, comorbidities, geography, vaccination and prior infection. Results: We included 5,144 patients from wave four and 11,609 from prior waves. Risk of all outcomes was lower in wave four compared to the Delta-driven wave three (adjusted Hazard Ratio (aHR) [95% confidence interval (CI)] for death 0.27 [0.19; 0.38]. Risk reduction was lower when adjusting for vaccination and prior diagnosed infection (aHR:0.41, 95% CI: 0.29; 0.59) and reduced further when accounting for unascertained prior infections (aHR: 0.72). Vaccine protection was maintained in wave four (aHR for outcome of death: 0.24; 95% CI: 0.10; 0.58). Conclusions: In the Omicron-driven wave, severe COVID-19 outcomes were reduced mostly due to protection conferred by prior infection and/or vaccination, but intrinsically reduced virulence may account for an approximately 25% reduced risk of severe hospitalization or death compared to Delta.

Severity and inpatient mortality of COVID-19 pneumonia from Beta variant infection: a clinical cohort study in Cape Town, South Africa (preprint)

ABSTRACT Background The SARS-CoV-2 Beta variant, associated with immune escape and higher transmissibility, drove a more severe second COVID-19 wave in South Africa. Individual patient level characteristics and outcomes with the Beta variant are not well characterized. Methods We performed a retrospective cohort study comparing disease severity and inpatient mortality of COVID-19 pneumonia between the first and second wave periods at a referral hospital in Cape Town, South Africa. Beta variant infection was confirmed by genomic sequencing. Outcomes were analyzed with logistic regression and accelerated failure time models. Results 1,182 patients were included: 571 during the first wave period and 611 from the second wave. Beta variant accounted for 97% of infections in the second wave. There was no difference in crude in-hospital mortality between wave periods (first wave 22.2%, second wave 22.1%; p = 0.9). Time to death was decreased with higher weekly hospital admissions (16%; 95% CI, 8 to 24 for every 50-patient increase), age (18%; 95% CI, 12 to 24 for every 10-year increase) and hypertension (31%; 95% CI, 12 to 46). Corticosteroid use delayed time to death by 2-fold (95% CI, 1.5 to 3.0). Admission during the second wave decreased time to death after adjustment for other predictors, but this did not reach statistical significance (24%; 95% CI, 47 to -2). There was no effect of HIV on survival. Conclusions There was a trend towards earlier mortality during the second COVID-19 wave driven by the Beta variant, suggesting a possible biological basis. Use of oral prednisone was strongly protective. Key points In Cape Town, South Africa, the second wave of COVID-19, dominated by the Beta variant, was associated with decreased time to inpatient death after adjustment for age, comorbidities, steroid use, and admission numbers. Use of oral prednisone was strongly protective.

Higher mortality associated with the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant in the Western Cape, South Africa, using RdRp target delay as a proxy (preprint)

A novel proxy for the Delta variant, RNA-dependent RNA polymerase target delay in the Seegene Allplex™ 2019-nCoV PCR assay, was associated with higher mortality (adjusted Odds Ratio 1.45 [95%CI 1.13-1.86]), compared to presumptive Beta infection, in the Western Cape, South Africa (April-July 2021). Prior diagnosed infection and vaccination were protective.

Bodily Rights in Personal Ventilators?

ABSTRACT This article asks whether personal ventilators should be redistributed to maximize lives saved in emergency condition, like the COVID‐19 pandemic. It begins by examining extant claims that items like ventilators are literally parts of their user's bodies. Arguments in favor of incorporation for ventilators fail to show that they meet valid sufficient conditions to be body parts, but arguments against incorporation also fail to show that they fail to meet clearly valid necessary conditions. Further progress on this issue awaits clarification of difficult normative, conceptual, and metaphysical questions about the possible boundaries of a person's body. Rather than relying solely on incorporation arguments, we propose an argument against reallocation from widely accepted anti‐discrimination principles. Possession of a personal ventilator is an obvious marker of disability identity;thus, reallocating ventilators from those that already possess them discriminates on the basis of a stigmatized trait – a paradigm case of presumptively wrongful discrimination. This discrimination claim, taken together with uncertainty about the bodily status of ventilators, yields a strong presumption against personal ventilator reallocation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Journal of Applied Philosophy is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Communicable and non-communicable co-morbidities and the presentation of COVID-19 in an African setting of high HIV-1 and tuberculosis prevalence (preprint)

Objectives To describe the presentation and outcome of SARS-CoV2 infection in an African setting of high non-communicable co-morbidity and also HIV-1 and tuberculosis prevalence. Design Case control analysis with cases stratified by HIV-1 and tuberculosis status. Setting A single-centre observational case-control study of adults admitted to a South African hospital with proven SARS-CoV-2 infection or alternative diagnosis. Participants 104 adults with RT-PCR-proven SARS-CoV2 infection of which 55 (52.9%) were male and 31 (29.8%) HIV-1 co-infected. 40 adults (35.7% male, 30.9% HIV-1 co-infected) admitted during the same period with no RT-PCR or serological evidence of SARS-CoV2 infection and assigned alternative diagnoses. Additional in vitro data from prior studies of 72 healthy controls and 118 HIV-1 uninfected and infected persons participants enrolled to a prior study with either immune evidence of tuberculosis sensitization but no symptoms or microbiologically confirmed pulmonary tuberculosis. Results Two or more co-morbidities were present in 57.7% of 104 RT-PCR proven COVID-19 presentations, the commonest being hypertension (48%), type 2 diabetes mellitus (39%), obesity (31%) but also HIV-1 (30%) and active tuberculosis (14%). Amongst patients dually infected by tuberculosis and SARS-CoV-2, clinical features could be dominated by either SARS-CoV-2 or tuberculosis: lymphopenia was exacerbated, and some markers of inflammation (D-dimer and ferritin) elevated in singly SARS-CoV-2 infected patients were even further elevated (p less than 0.05). HIV-1 and SARS-CoV2 co-infection resulted in lower absolute number and proportion of CD4 lymphocytes, with those in the lowest peripheral CD4 percentage strata exhibiting absent or lower antibody responses against SARS-CoV2. Death occurred in 30/104 (29%) of all COVID-19 patients and in 6/15 (40%) of patients with coincident SARS-CoV-2 and tuberculosis. Conclusions In this South African setting, HIV-1 and tuberculosis are common co-morbidities in patients presenting with COVID-19. In environments in which tuberculosis is common, SARS-CoV-2 and tuberculosis may co-exist with clinical presentation being typical of either disease. Clinical suspicion of exacerbation of co-existent tuberculosis accompanying SARS-CoV-2 should be high.

Profile of SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4 T cell response: Relationship with disease severity and impact of HIV-1 and active Mycobacterium tuberculosis co-infection (preprint)

T cells are involved in control of COVID-19, but limited knowledge is available on the relationship between antigen-specific T cell response and disease severity. Here, we assessed the magnitude, function and phenotype of SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4 T cells in 95 hospitalized COVID-19 patients (38 of them being HIV-1 and/or tuberculosis (TB) co-infected) and 38 non-COVID-19 patients, using flow cytometry. We showed that SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4 T cell attributes, rather than magnitude, associates with disease severity, with severe disease being characterized by poor polyfunctional potential, reduced proliferation capacity and enhanced HLA-DR expression. Moreover, HIV-1 and TB co-infection skewed the SARS-CoV-2 T cell response. HIV-1 mediated CD4 T cell depletion associated with suboptimal T cell and humoral immune responses to SARS-CoV-2; and a decrease in the polyfunctional capacity of SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4 T cells was observed in COVID-19 patients with active TB. Our results also revealed that COVID-19 patients displayed reduced frequency of Mtb-specific CD4 T cells, with possible implications for TB disease progression. There results corroborate the important role of SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells in COVID-19 pathogenesis and support the concept of altered T cell functions in patients with severe disease.