Clinical Infectious Diseases: An Official Publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America最新文献

Background: We evaluated a standardized interferon-γ (IFN-γ) release assay (IGRA) for detection of T-cell immune response after severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection or vaccination.

Methods: This prospective study included patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with different severity of illness and follow-up (FU), vaccinated subjects, and healthy unvaccinated persons. SARS-CoV-2 T-cell response was measured using a specific quantitative IGRA in whole blood (Euroimmun, Germany) and TrimericS-IgG and neutralizing antibodies with validated serological platforms. Positivity of reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction or vaccination was considered as the reference standard.

Results: A total of 239 individuals were included (152 convalescent, 54 vaccinated, and 33 uninfected unvaccinated). Overall sensitivity, specificity, and positive- and negative-predictive values (95% confidence interval) of the IGRA were 81.1% (74.9-86%), 90.9% (74.5-97.6%), 98.2% (94.5-99.5%), and 43.5% (31.8-55.9%), respectively. All vaccinated SARS-CoV-2-naive subjects had positive IGRA at 3 months. In convalescent subjects the magnitude of IFN-γ responses and IGRA accuracy varied according to disease severity and duration of FU, with the best performance in patients with severe COVID-19 at 3 months and the worst in those with mild disease at 12 months. The greatest contribution of IGRA to serological tests was observed in patients with mild disease and long-term FU (incremental difference, 30.4%).

Conclusions: The IGRA was a reliable method of quantifying T-cell response after SARS-COV-2 infection or vaccination. In convalescent patients, the sensitivity is largely dependent on disease severity and time since primary infection. The assay is more likely to add clinical value to serology in patients with mild infections.

Background: Several studies indicate that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is primarily transmitted within indoor spaces. Therefore, environmental characterization of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 viral load with respect to human activity, building parameters, and environmental mitigation strategies is critical to combat disease transmission.

Methods: We recruited 11 participants diagnosed with COVID-19 to individually occupy a controlled chamber and conduct specified physical activities under a range of environmental conditions; we collected human and environmental samples over a period of 3 days for each participant.

Results: Here we show that increased viral load, measured by lower RNA cycle threshold (CT) values, in nasal samples is associated with higher viral loads in environmental aerosols and on surfaces captured in both the near field (1.2 m) and far field (3.5 m). We also found that aerosol viral load in far field is correlated with the number of particles within the range of 1-2.5 µm. Furthermore, we found that increased ventilation and filtration significantly reduced aerosol and surface viral loads, while higher relative humidity resulted in lower aerosol and higher surface viral load, consistent with an increased rate of particle deposition at higher relative humidity. Data from near field aerosol trials with high expiratory activities suggest that respiratory particles of smaller sizes (0.3-1 µm) best characterize the variance of near field aerosol viral load.

Conclusions: Our findings indicate that building operation practices such as ventilation, filtration, and humidification substantially reduce the environmental aerosol viral load and therefore inhalation dose, and should be prioritized to improve building health and safety.

Background: Multidrug-resistant Enterobacterales (MDR-E) are important pathogens. People living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV; PLWH) may be at greater risk for MDR-E infection given relatively high antibiotic exposure and burden of comorbidities.

Methods: We analyzed data from 36 521 patients in a healthcare system in North Carolina who had a clinical culture with growth of an Enterobacterales species from 2000 to 2018; 440 were PLWH. We used generalized linear models to estimate prevalence ratios and differences, contrasting PLWH and people not living with HIV (PNLWH) for resistance to individual antibiotic classes, as well as MDR-E. We assessed trends in prevalence over time by calculating the 5-year moving average and fitting restricted cubic spline models.

Results: The overall prevalence of MDR-E was higher among PLWH (21.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 18.2%-25.1%) vs PNLWH (16.5%; 95% CI, 16.2%-16.9%), with an adjusted prevalence ratio of 1.38 (95% CI, 1.14-1.65). PLWH had higher rates of antimicrobial resistance than PNLWH for all antibiotic classes analyzed, including penicillins, penicillin/beta lactamase inhibitor combinations, and sulfonamides. MDR-E prevalence was 3 to 10 percentage points higher among PLWH than PNLWH throughout the study period based on the 5-year moving average.

Conclusions: In a large clinical study population in the southeastern United States from 2000 to 2018, the prevalence of antibacterial resistance among Enterobacterales was consistently higher among PLWH than PNLWH. These data highlight the importance of identifying and mitigating the factors that contribute to antimicrobial resistance in PLWH, given the potential clinical consequences of these resistant pathogens.

Background: Non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) are recommended for COVID-19 prevention. However, the effectiveness of NPIs in preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission remains poorly quantified.

Methods: We conducted a test-negative design case-control study enrolling cases (testing positive for SARS-CoV-2) and controls (testing negative) with molecular SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic test results reported to California Department of Public Health between 24 February-12 November, 2021. We used conditional logistic regression to estimate adjusted odds ratios (aORs) of case status among participants who reported contact with an individual known or suspected to have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 ("high-risk exposure") ≤14 days before testing.

Results: 751 of 1448 cases (52%) and 255 of 1443 controls (18%) reported high-risk exposures ≤14 days before testing. Adjusted odds of case status were 3.02-fold (95% confidence interval: 1.75-5.22) higher when high-risk exposures occurred with household members (vs. other contacts), 2.10-fold (1.05-4.21) higher when exposures occurred indoors (vs. outdoors only), and 2.15-fold (1.27-3.67) higher when exposures lasted ≥3 hours (vs. shorter durations) among unvaccinated and partially-vaccinated individuals; excess risk associated with such exposures was mitigated among fully-vaccinated individuals. Cases were less likely than controls to report mask usage during high-risk exposures (aOR = 0.50 [0.29-0.85]). The adjusted odds of case status was lower for fully-vaccinated (aOR = 0.25 [0.15-0.43]) participants compared to unvaccinated participants. Benefits of mask usage were greatest among unvaccinated and partially-vaccinated participants, and in interactions involving non-household contacts or interactions occurring without physical contact.

Conclusions: NPIs reduced the likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection following high-risk exposure. Vaccine effectiveness was substantial for partially and fully vaccinated persons.

Background: Relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) are metrics commonly reported to compare absolute VE (aVE) of 2 vaccine products.

Methods: Estimates of rVE for enhanced influenza vaccines (eIV) vs standard inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) have been assessed across different seasons, influenza-specific endpoints, and nonspecific endpoints (eg, all-cause cardiovascular hospitalizations). To illustrate the challenges of comparability across studies, we conducted a scenario analysis to evaluate the effects of varying absolute VE (aVE) of IIV (ie, as compared with placebo) on the interpretation of rVE of eIV vs IIV.

Results: We show that estimates of rVE might not be comparable across studies because additional benefits commensurate with a given estimate of rVE are dependent on the aVE for the comparator vaccine, which can depend on factors such as host response to vaccine, virus type, and clinical endpoint evaluated.

Conclusions: These findings have implications for interpretation of rVE across studies and for sample size considerations in future trials.

Background: Whereas safe, curative treatments for hepatitis C virus (HCV) have been available since 2015, there are still 58 million infected persons worldwide, and global elimination may require new paradigms. We sought to understand the acceptability of approaches to long-acting HCV treatment.

Methods: A cross-sectional, 43-question survey was administered to 1457 individuals with or at risk of HCV at 28 sites in 9 countries to assess comparative interest in a variety of long-acting strategies in comparison with oral pills.

Results: Among HCV-positive participants, 37.7% most preferred an injection, 5.6% an implant, and 6% a gastric residence device, as compared with 50.8% who stated they would most prefer taking 1-3 pills per day. When compared directly to taking pills, differences were observed in the relative preference for an injection based on age (P<.001), location (P<.001), and prior receipt of HCV treatment (P=.005) but not sex. When an implant was compared with pills, greater preference was represented by women (P=.01) and adults of younger ages (P=.01 per 5 years). Among participants without HCV, 49.5% believed that injections are stronger than pills and 34.7% preferred taking injections to pills. Among those at-risk participants who had received injectable medications in the past, 123 of 137 (89.8%) expressed willingness to receive one in the future.

Conclusions: These data point to high acceptability of long-acting treatments, which for a substantial minority might even be preferred to pills for the treatment of HCV infection. Long-acting treatments for HCV infection might contribute to global efforts to eliminate hepatitis C.

Background: Pneumococcal serotypes differ in antimicrobial susceptibility. However, patterns and causes of this variation are not comprehensively understood.

Methods: We undertook a systematic review of epidemiologic studies of pneumococci isolated from carriage or invasive disease among children globally from 2000-2019. We evaluated associations of each serotype with nonsusceptibility to penicillin, macrolides, and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole. We evaluated differences in the prevalence of nonsusceptibility to major antibiotic classes across serotypes using random-effects meta-regression models and assessed changes in prevalence of nonsusceptibility after implementation of pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCVs). We also evaluated associations between biological characteristics of serotypes and their likelihood of nonsusceptibility to each drug.

Results: We included data from 129 studies representing 32 187 isolates across 52 countries. Within serotypes, the proportion of nonsusceptible isolates varied geographically and over time, in settings using and those not using PCVs. Factors predicting enhanced fitness of serotypes in colonization as well as enhanced pathogenicity were each associated with higher likelihood of nonsusceptibility to penicillin, macrolides, and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole. Increases in prevalence of nonsusceptibility following PCV implementation were evident among non-PCV serotypes, including 6A, 6C, 15A, 15B/C, 19A, and 35B; however, this pattern was not universally evident among non-PCV serotypes. Postvaccination increases in nonsusceptibility for serotypes 6A and 19A were attenuated in settings that implemented PCV13.

Conclusions: In pneumococci, nonsusceptibility to penicillin, macrolides, and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole is associated with more frequent opportunities for antibiotic exposure during both prolonged carriage episodes and when serotypes cause disease. These findings suggest multiple pathways leading to resistance selection in pneumococci.