Sex Differences in Active Pulmonary Tuberculosis Outcomes in Mali, West Africa.

Men and women often respond differently to infectious diseases and their treatments. Tuberculosis (TB) is a life-threatening communicable disease that affects more men than women globally. Whether male sex is an independent risk factor for unfavorable TB outcomes, however, has not been rigorously investigated in an African context, where individuals are likely exposed to different microbial and environmental factors. We analyzed data collected from a cohort study in Mali by focusing on newly diagnosed active pulmonary TB individuals who were treatment naive. We gathered baseline demographic, clinical, and microbiologic characteristics before treatment initiation and also at three time points during treatment. More males than females were affected with TB, as evidenced by a male-to-female ratio of 2.4:1. In addition, at baseline, males had a significantly higher bacterial count and shorter time to culture positivity as compared with females. Male sex was associated with lower smear negativity rate after 2 months of treatment also known as the intensive phase of treatment, but not at later time points. There was no relationship between patients' sex and mortality from any cause during treatment. This study suggests that sex-based differences in TB outcomes exist, with sex-specific effects on disease outcomes being more pronounced before treatment initiation and during the intensive phase of treatment rather than at later phases of treatment.

Intravenous peramivir vs oral oseltamivir in high-risk emergency department patients with influenza: Results from a pilot randomized controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Peramivir offers a single-dose intravenous (IV) treatment option for influenza (vs 5-day oral dosing for oseltamivir). We sought to compare outcomes of emergency department (ED) patients at high risk for influenza complications treated with IV peramivir vs oral oseltamivir. METHODS: During the 2015-16 and 2016-17 influenza seasons, adult patients in two US EDs were randomized to either oral oseltamivir or IV peramivir treatment group. Eligibility included positive molecular influenza test; met CDC criteria for antiviral treatment; able to provide informed consent and agree to follow-up assessment. Outcomes were measured by clinical end-point indicators, including FLU-PRO Score, Ordinal Scale, Patient Global Impression on Severity Score, and Karnofsky Performance Scale for 14 days. Non-inferior t test was performed to assess comparative outcomes between the two groups. RESULTS: Five hundred and seventy-five (68%) of 847 influenza-positive patients were approached. Two hundred and eighty-four met enrollment criteria and 179 were enrolled; of these 95 (53%) were randomized to peramivir, and 84 to oseltamivir. Average FLU-PRO score at baseline was similar (peramivir: 2.67 vs oseltamivir: 2.52); the score decreased over time for both groups (day 5: peramivir: 1.71 vs oseltamivir: 1.62; day 10: peramivir: 1.48 vs oseltamivir: 1.37; day 14: peramivir: 1.40 vs oseltamivir: 1.33; all P < .05 for significantly non-inferior). Influenza-related complications were similar between two groups (All: peramivir: 31% vs oseltamivir: 21%, P > .05; pneumonia: peramivir: 11% vs oseltamivir: 14%, P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical outcomes of influenza-infected patients treated with single-dose IV peramivir were comparable to those treated with oral oseltamivir, suggesting potential utility of peramivir for influenza-infected patients in the ED.