PLoS Medicine最新文献

Patricia Mabry and coauthors discuss application of systems approaches in cancer research.

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is an important risk factor for ischaemic stroke, and AF incidence is expected to increase. Guidelines recommend using oral anticoagulants (OACs) to prevent the development of stroke. However, studies have reported the frequent underuse of OACs in AF patients. The objective of this study is to describe nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) incidence in England and assess the clinical and socioeconomic factors associated with the underprescribing of OACs.

Methods and findings: We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study using the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) database to identify patients with NVAF aged ≥18 years and registered in English general practices between 2009 and 2019. Annual incidence rate of NVAF by age, deprivation quintile, and region was estimated. OAC prescribing status was explored for patients at risk for stroke and classified into the following: OAC, aspirin only, or no treatment. We used a multivariable multinomial logistic regression model to estimate relative risk ratios (RRRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the factors associated with OAC or aspirin-only prescribing compared to no treatment in patients with NVAF who are recommended to take OAC. The multivariable regression was adjusted for age, sex, comorbidities, socioeconomic status, baseline treatment, frailty, bleeding risk factors, and takes into account clustering by general practice. Between 2009 and 2019, 12,517,191 patients met the criteria for being at risk of developing NVAF. After a median follow-up of 4.6 years, 192,265 patients had an incident NVAF contributing a total of 647,876 person-years (PYR) of follow-up. The overall age-adjusted incidence of NVAF per 10,000 PYR increased from 20.8 (95% CI: 20.4; 21.1) in 2009 to 25.5 (25.1; 25.9) in 2019. Higher incidence rates were observed for older ages and males. Among NVAF patients eligible for anticoagulation, OAC prescribing rose from 59.8% (95% CI: 59.0; 60.6) in 2009 to 83.2% (95% CI: 83.0; 83.4) in 2019. Several conditions were associated with lower risk of OAC prescribing: dementia [RRR 0.52 (0.47; 0.59)], liver disease 0.58 (0.50; 0.67), malignancy 0.74 (0.72; 0.77), and history of falls 0.82 (0.78; 0.85). Compared to white ethnicity, patients from black and other ethnic minorities were less likely to receive OAC; 0.78 (0.65; 0.94) and 0.76 (0.64; 0.91), respectively. Patients living in the most deprived areas were less likely to receive OAC 0.85 (0.79; 0.91) than patients living in the least deprived areas. Practices located in the East of England were associated with higher risk of prescribing aspirin only over no treatment than practices in London (RRR 1.22; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.45). The main limitation of this study is that these findings depends on accurate recording of conditions by health professionals and the inevitable residual confounding due to lack of data on certain factors that cou

Background: Comprehensive information about the accuracy of antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is essential to guide public health decision makers in choosing the best tests and testing policies. In August 2021, we published a systematic review and meta-analysis about the accuracy of Ag-RDTs. We now update this work and analyze the factors influencing test sensitivity in further detail.

Methods and findings: We registered the review on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42020225140). We systematically searched preprint and peer-reviewed databases for publications evaluating the accuracy of Ag-RDTs for SARS-CoV-2 until August 31, 2021. Descriptive analyses of all studies were performed, and when more than 4 studies were available, a random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity with reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing as a reference. To evaluate factors influencing test sensitivity, we performed 3 different analyses using multivariable mixed-effects meta-regression models. We included 194 studies with 221,878 Ag-RDTs performed. Overall, the pooled estimates of Ag-RDT sensitivity and specificity were 72.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 69.8 to 74.2) and 98.9% (95% CI 98.6 to 99.1). When manufacturer instructions were followed, sensitivity increased to 76.3% (95% CI 73.7 to 78.7). Sensitivity was markedly better on samples with lower RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values (97.9% [95% CI 96.9 to 98.9] and 90.6% [95% CI 88.3 to 93.0] for Ct-values <20 and <25, compared to 54.4% [95% CI 47.3 to 61.5] and 18.7% [95% CI 13.9 to 23.4] for Ct-values ≥25 and ≥30) and was estimated to increase by 2.9 percentage points (95% CI 1.7 to 4.0) for every unit decrease in mean Ct-value when adjusting for testing procedure and patients' symptom status. Concordantly, we found the mean Ct-value to be lower for true positive (22.2 [95% CI 21.5 to 22.8]) compared to false negative (30.4 [95% CI 29.7 to 31.1]) results. Testing in the first week from symptom onset resulted in substantially higher sensitivity (81.9% [95% CI 77.7 to 85.5]) compared to testing after 1 week (51.8%, 95% CI 41.5 to 61.9). Similarly, sensitivity was higher in symptomatic (76.2% [95% CI 73.3 to 78.9]) compared to asymptomatic (56.8% [95% CI 50.9 to 62.4]) persons. However, both effects were mainly driven by the Ct-value of the sample. With regards to sample type, highest sensitivity was found for nasopharyngeal (NP) and combined NP/oropharyngeal samples (70.8% [95% CI 68.3 to 73.2]), as well as in anterior nasal/mid-turbinate samples (77.3% [95% CI 73.0 to 81.0]). Our analysis was limited by the included studies' heterogeneity in viral load assessment and sample origination.

Conclusions: Ag-RDTs detect most of the individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2, and almost all (>90%) when high viral loads are pr

Background: Debate about the level of asymptomatic Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection continues. The amount of evidence is increasing and study designs have changed over time. We updated a living systematic review to address 3 questions: (1) Among people who become infected with SARS-CoV-2, what proportion does not experience symptoms at all during their infection? (2) What is the infectiousness of asymptomatic and presymptomatic, compared with symptomatic, SARS-CoV-2 infection? (3) What proportion of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in a population is accounted for by people who are asymptomatic or presymptomatic?

Methods and findings: The protocol was first published on 1 April 2020 and last updated on 18 June 2021. We searched PubMed, Embase, bioRxiv, and medRxiv, aggregated in a database of SARS-CoV-2 literature, most recently on 6 July 2021. Studies of people with PCR-diagnosed SARS-CoV-2, which documented symptom status at the beginning and end of follow-up, or mathematical modelling studies were included. Studies restricted to people already diagnosed, of single individuals or families, or without sufficient follow-up were excluded. One reviewer extracted data and a second verified the extraction, with disagreement resolved by discussion or a third reviewer. Risk of bias in empirical studies was assessed with a bespoke checklist and modelling studies with a published checklist. All data syntheses were done using random effects models. Review question (1): We included 130 studies. Heterogeneity was high so we did not estimate a mean proportion of asymptomatic infections overall (interquartile range (IQR) 14% to 50%, prediction interval 2% to 90%), or in 84 studies based on screening of defined populations (IQR 20% to 65%, prediction interval 4% to 94%). In 46 studies based on contact or outbreak investigations, the summary proportion asymptomatic was 19% (95% confidence interval (CI) 15% to 25%, prediction interval 2% to 70%). (2) The secondary attack rate in contacts of people with asymptomatic infection compared with symptomatic infection was 0.32 (95% CI 0.16 to 0.64, prediction interval 0.11 to 0.95, 8 studies). (3) In 13 modelling studies fit to data, the proportion of all SARS-CoV-2 transmission from presymptomatic individuals was higher than from asymptomatic individuals. Limitations of the evidence include high heterogeneity and high risks of selection and information bias in studies that were not designed to measure persistently asymptomatic infection, and limited information about variants of concern or in people who have been vaccinated.

Conclusions: Based on studies published up to July 2021, most SARS-CoV-2 infections were not persistently asymptomatic, and asymptomatic infections were less infectious than symptomatic infections. Summary estimates from meta-analysis may be misleading when variability between studies is extreme and predi