A Randomized Trial of Hydroxychloroquine as Postexposure Prophylaxis for Covid-19

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) occurs after exposure to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). For persons who are exposed, the standard of care is observation and quarantine. Whether hydroxychloroquine can prevent symptomatic infection after SARS-CoV-2 exposure is unknown.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial across the United States and parts of Canada testing hydroxychloroquine as postexposure prophylaxis. We enrolled adults who had household or occupational exposure to someone with confirmed Covid-19 at a distance of less than 6 ft for more than 10 minutes while wearing neither a face mask nor an eye shield (high-risk exposure) or while wearing a face mask but no eye shield (moderate-risk exposure). Within 4 days after exposure, we randomly assigned participants to receive either placebo or hydroxychloroquine (800 mg once, followed by 600 mg in 6 to 8 hours, then 600 mg daily for 4 additional days). The primary outcome was the incidence of either laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 or illness compatible with Covid-19 within 14 days.

RESULTS

We enrolled 821 asymptomatic participants. Overall, 87.6% of the participants (719 of 821) reported a high-risk exposure to a confirmed Covid-19 contact. The incidence of new illness compatible with Covid-19 did not differ significantly between participants receiving hydroxychloroquine (49 of 414 [11.8%]) and those receiving placebo (58 of 407 [14.3%]); the absolute difference was -2.4 percentage points (95% confidence interval, -7.0 to 2.2; P = 0.35). Side effects were more common with hydroxychloroquine than with placebo (40.1% vs. 16.8%), but no serious adverse reactions were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

After high-risk or moderate-risk exposure to Covid-19, hydroxychloroquine did not prevent illness compatible with Covid-19 or confirmed infection when used as postexposure prophylaxis within 4 days after exposure. (Funded by David Baszucki and Jan Ellison Baszucki and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04308668.).

American Society of Hematology 2018 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: prophylaxis for hospitalized and nonhospitalized medical patients

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is the third most common vascular disease. Medical inpatients, long-term care residents, persons with minor injuries, and long-distance travelers are at increased risk.

OBJECTIVE

These evidence-based guidelines from the American Society of Hematology (ASH) intend to support patients, clinicians, and others in decisions about preventing VTE in these groups.

METHODS

ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel balanced to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline-development process, including updating or performing systematic evidence reviews. The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and adult patients. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment.

RESULTS

The panel agreed on 19 recommendations for acutely ill and critically ill medical inpatients, people in long-term care facilities, outpatients with minor injuries, and long-distance travelers.

CONCLUSIONS

Strong recommendations included provision of pharmacological VTE prophylaxis in acutely or critically ill inpatients at acceptable bleeding risk, use of mechanical prophylaxis when bleeding risk is unacceptable, against the use of direct oral anticoagulants during hospitalization, and against extending pharmacological prophylaxis after hospital discharge. Conditional recommendations included not to use VTE prophylaxis routinely in long-term care patients or outpatients with minor VTE risk factors. The panel conditionally recommended use of graduated compression stockings or low-molecular-weight heparin in long-distance travelers only if they are at high risk for VTE.

Antiretroviral Drugs for Treatment and Prevention of HIV Infection in Adults: 2016 Recommendations of the International Antiviral Society-USA Panel

IMPORTANCE

New data and therapeutic options warrant updated recommendations for the use of antiretroviral drugs (ARVs) to treat or to prevent HIV infection in adults.

OBJECTIVE

To provide updated recommendations for the use of antiretroviral therapy in adults (aged ≥18 years) with established HIV infection, including when to start treatment, initial regimens, and changing regimens, along with recommendations for using ARVs for preventing HIV among those at risk, including preexposure and postexposure prophylaxis.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

A panel of experts in HIV research and patient care convened by the International Antiviral Society-USA reviewed data published in peer-reviewed journals, presented by regulatory agencies, or presented as conference abstracts at peer-reviewed scientific conferences since the 2014 report, for new data or evidence that would change previous recommendations or their ratings. Comprehensive literature searches were conducted in the PubMed and EMBASE databases through April 2016. Recommendations were by consensus, and each recommendation was rated by strength and quality of the evidence.

FINDINGS

Newer data support the widely accepted recommendation that antiretroviral therapy should be started in all individuals with HIV infection with detectable viremia regardless of CD4 cell count. Recommended optimal initial regimens for most patients are 2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) plus an integrase strand transfer inhibitor (InSTI). Other effective regimens include nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors or boosted protease inhibitors with 2 NRTIs. Recommendations for special populations and in the settings of opportunistic infections and concomitant conditions are provided. Reasons for switching therapy include convenience, tolerability, simplification, anticipation of potential new drug interactions, pregnancy or plans for pregnancy, elimination of food restrictions, virologic failure, or drug toxicities. Laboratory assessments are recommended before treatment, and monitoring during treatment is recommended to assess response, adverse effects, and adherence. Approaches are recommended to improve linkage to and retention in care are provided. Daily tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine is recommended for use as preexposure prophylaxis to prevent HIV infection in persons at high risk. When indicated, postexposure prophylaxis should be started as soon as possible after exposure.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Antiretroviral agents remain the cornerstone of HIV treatment and prevention. All HIV-infected individuals with detectable plasma virus should receive treatment with recommended initial regimens consisting of an InSTI plus 2 NRTIs. Preexposure prophylaxis should be considered as part of an HIV prevention strategy for at-risk individuals. When used effectively, currently available ARVs can sustain HIV suppression and can prevent new HIV infection. With these treatment regimens, survival rates among HIV-infected adults who are retained in care can approach those of uninfected adults.

Limited Awareness and Low Immediate Uptake of Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis among Men Who Have Sex with Men Using an Internet Social Networking Site

BACKGROUND

In 2010, the iPrEx trial demonstrated that oral antiretroviral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) reduced the risk of HIV acquisition among high-risk men who have sex with men (MSM). The impact of iPrEx on PrEP knowledge and actual use among at-risk MSM is unknown. Online surveys were conducted to assess PrEP awareness, interest and experience among at-risk MSM before and after iPrEx, and to determine demographic and behavioral factors associated with these measures.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

Cross-sectional, national, internet-based surveys were administered to U.S. based members of the most popular American MSM social networking site 2 months before (n = 398) and 1 month after (n = 4 558) publication of iPrEx results. Comparisons were made between these samples with regards to PrEP knowledge, interest, and experience. Data were collected on demographics, sexual risk, and experience with post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP). Regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with PrEP awareness, interest, and experience post-iPrEx. Most participants were white, educated, and indicated high-risk sexual behaviors. Awareness of PrEP was limited pre- and post-iPrEx (13% vs. 19%), whereas interest levels after being provided with a description of PrEP remained high (76% vs. 79%). PrEP use remained uncommon (0.7% vs. 0.9%). PrEP use was associated with PEP awareness (OR 7.46; CI 1.52-36.6) and PEP experience (OR 34.2; CI 13.3-88.4). PrEP interest was associated with older age (OR 1.01; CI 1.00-1.02), unprotected anal intercourse with ≥1 male partner in the prior 3 months (OR 1.40; CI 1.10-1.77), and perceiving oneself at increased risk for HIV acquisition (OR 1.20; CI 1.13-1.27).

CONCLUSIONS

Among MSM engaged in online networking, awareness of PrEP was limited 1 month after the iPrEx data were released. Utilization was low, although some MSM who reported high-risk behaviors were interested in using PrEP. Studies are needed to understand barriers to PrEP utilization by at-risk MSM.

In vivo monoclonal antibody efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 variant strains

Rapidly emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants jeopardize antibody-based countermeasures. Although cell culture experiments have demonstrated a loss of potency of several anti-spike neutralizing antibodies against variant strains of SARS-CoV-21-3, the in vivo importance of these results remains uncertain. Here we report the in vitro and in vivo activity of a panel of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), which correspond to many in advanced clinical development by Vir Biotechnology, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Regeneron and Lilly, against SARS-CoV-2 variant viruses. Although some individual mAbs showed reduced or abrogated neutralizing activity in cell culture against B.1.351, B.1.1.28, B.1.617.1 and B.1.526 viruses with mutations at residue E484 of the spike protein, low prophylactic doses of mAb combinations protected against infection by many variants in K18-hACE2 transgenic mice, 129S2 immunocompetent mice and hamsters, without the emergence of resistance. Exceptions were LY-CoV555 monotherapy and LY-CoV555 and LY-CoV016 combination therapy, both of which lost all protective activity, and the combination of AbbVie 2B04 and 47D11, which showed a partial loss of activity. When administered after infection, higher doses of several mAb cocktails protected in vivo against viruses with a B.1.351 spike gene. Therefore, many-but not all-of the antibody products with Emergency Use Authorization should retain substantial efficacy against the prevailing variant strains of SARS-CoV-2.

HIV-Related Stigma Among Healthcare Providers in the Deep South

Stigma towards people living with HIV (PLWH) in healthcare settings is a barrier to optimal treatment. However, our understanding of attitudes towards PLWH from healthcare providers' perspective in the United States is limited and out-of-date. We assessed HIV-related stigma among healthcare staff in Alabama and Mississippi, using online questionnaires. Participants included 651 health workers (60 % White race; 83 % female). Multivariate regression suggests that several factors independently predict stigmatizing attitudes: Protestant compared to other religions (β = 0.129, p ≤ 0.05), White race compared to other races (β = 0.162, p ≤ 0.001), type of clinic (HIV/STI clinic: β = 0.112, p ≤ 0.01), availability of post-exposure prophylaxis (yes: β = -0.107, p ≤ 0.05), and perceptions of policy enforcement (policies not enforced: β = 0.058, p = p ≤ 0.05). These findings may assist providers wishing to improve the quality care for PLWH. Enforcement of policies prohibiting discrimination may be a useful strategy for reducing HIV-related stigma among healthcare workers.

Incidence, recurrence, and outcomes of herpes simplex virus eye disease in Olmsted County, Minnesota, 1976-2007: the effect of oral antiviral prophylaxis

OBJECTIVES

To provide an estimate of the incidence of herpes simplex virus (HSV) eye disease in a community-based cohort, and to investigate the effect of prophylactic oral antiviral therapy on HSV recurrences and outcomes.

METHODS

All Olmsted County, Minnesota, residents diagnosed with ocular HSV from 1976 through 2007 were retrospectively reviewed. The frequency of recurrences and adverse outcomes, such as vision loss or need for surgery, were compared between untreated patients and those treated prophylactically with oral antiviral medication.

RESULTS

Three hundred ninety-four patients with ocular HSV were identified, yielding an annual incidence of 11.8 per 100,000 people (95% confidence interval [CI], 10.6-13.0). No trends in incidence or adverse outcomes were identified during the 32-year period. Oral antiviral therapy was prescribed in 175 patients. Patients were 9.4 times more likely (95% CI, 5.0-17.9) to have a recurrence of epithelial keratitis, 8.4 times more likely (95% CI, 5.2-13.7) to have a recurrence of stromal keratitis, and 34.5 times more likely (95% CI, 10.8-111.1) to have a recurrence of blepharitis or conjunctivitis if not being treated prophylactically at the time of the recurrence. Twenty patients experienced adverse outcomes, and 17 (85%) were not being treated with oral antiviral medications immediately preceding the adverse event.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral antiviral prophylaxis was associated with a decreased risk of recurrence of epithelial keratitis, stromal keratitis, conjunctivitis, and blepharitis due to HSV. Patients with adverse outcomes due to ocular HSV were usually not being treated with oral antiviral prophylaxis.

HIV prevention in clinical care settings: 2014 recommendations of the International Antiviral Society-USA Panel

IMPORTANCE

Emerging data warrant the integration of biomedical and behavioral recommendations for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention in clinical care settings.

OBJECTIVE

To provide current recommendations for the prevention of HIV infection in adults and adolescents for integration in clinical care settings.

DATA SOURCES, STUDY SELECTION, AND DATA SYNTHESIS

Data published or presented as abstracts at scientific conferences (past 17 years) were systematically searched and reviewed by the International Antiviral (formerly AIDS) Society-USA HIV Prevention Recommendations Panel. Panel members supplied additional relevant publications, reviewed available data, and formed recommendations by full-panel consensus.

RESULTS

Testing for HIV is recommended at least once for all adults and adolescents, with repeated testing for those at increased risk of acquiring HIV. Clinicians should be alert to the possibility of acute HIV infection and promptly pursue diagnostic testing if suspected. At diagnosis of HIV, all individuals should be linked to care for timely initiation of antiretroviral therapy (ART). Support for adherence and retention in care, individualized risk assessment and counseling, assistance with partner notification, and periodic screening for common sexually transmitted infections (STIs) is recommended for HIV-infected individuals as part of care. In HIV-uninfected patients, those persons at high risk of HIV infection should be prioritized for delivery of interventions such as preexposure prophylaxis and individualized counseling on risk reduction. Daily emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate is recommended as preexposure prophylaxis for persons at high risk for HIV based on background incidence or recent diagnosis of incident STIs, use of injection drugs or shared needles, or recent use of nonoccupational postexposure prophylaxis; ongoing use of preexposure prophylaxis should be guided by regular risk assessment. For persons who inject drugs, harm reduction services should be provided (needle and syringe exchange programs, supervised injection, and available medically assisted therapies, including opioid agonists and antagonists); low-threshold detoxification and drug cessation programs should be made available. Postexposure prophylaxis is recommended for all persons who have sustained a mucosal or parenteral exposure to HIV from a known infected source and should be initiated as soon as possible.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Data support the integration of biomedical and behavioral approaches for prevention of HIV infection in clinical care settings. A concerted effort to implement combination strategies for HIV prevention is needed to realize the goal of an AIDS-free generation.

Antiviral agents and HIV prevention: controversies, conflicts, and consensus

Antiviral agents can be used to prevent HIV transmission before exposure as preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP), after exposure as postexposure prophylaxis, and as treatment of infected people for secondary prevention. Considerable research has shed new light on antiviral agents for PrEP and for prevention of secondary HIV transmission. While promising results have emerged from several PrEP trials, the challenges of poor adherence among HIV-negative clients and possible increase in sexual risk behaviors remain a concern. In addition, a broader pipeline of antiviral agents for PrEP that focuses on genital tract pharmacology and safety and resistance issues must be developed. Antiretroviral drugs have also been used to prevent HIV transmission from HIV-infected patients to their HIV-discordant sexual partners. The HIV Prevention Trials Network 052 trial demonstrated nearly complete prevention of HIV transmission by early treatment of infection, but the generalizability of the results to other risk groups - including intravenous drug users and MSM - has not been determined. Most importantly, the best strategy for use of antiretroviral agents to reduce the spread of HIV at either the individual level or the population level has not been developed, and remains the ultimate goal of this area of investigation.

Rabies situation in Cambodia

Background

Rabies, a fatal but preventable zoonosis, is a major public health problem in developing countries. In Cambodia the disease burden is largely underestimated because patients with encephalitis following dog bites are rarely hospitalized and die at home. Since 1998 Institut Pasteur in Cambodia (IPC), Phnom Penh has been the only source of free post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) and post-mortem diagnosis.

Methods

The 1998–2007 data compiled by IPC was analyzed to describe all treated patients for PEP, results of human testing and confirmed rabies cases, and results of animal testing. From dog bites' characteristics, we defined a suspected rabid dog bite injury (SRDBI) in humans as a bite that was unprovoked, from a dog that died spontaneously, or from a dog that was reported sick. We applied a deterministic probability model to estimate 2007 rabies human mortality nationwide from the estimated incidence of rabid dog bites, the body distribution of bite wounds, and the probability of PEP access.

Results

During 1998–2007, 124,749 patients received PEP at IPC (average 12,470; range 8,907–14,475), and 63 fatal human cases presenting with encephalitis following a dog bite were reported, in which 73% were confirmed positive for rabies by direct immunofluorescence assay or by reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. During 1998–2007, IPC tested 1,255 animal brain samples; 1,214 (97%) were from dogs including 610 (49%) positive samples. In 2007, 14,475 patients received PEP (100 PEP/100,000 people in Cambodia) including 95% who resided in Phnom Penh (615 PEP/100,000) or five neighboring provinces. The predictive model estimated 810 human rabies deaths would occur in 2007 (95%confidence interval [CI] 394–1,607), an incidence of 5.8/100,000 (95% CI 2.8–11.5).

Conclusions

Access to PEP is only sufficient for Phnom Penh residents. In 2007, the estimated rabies related mortality exceeded that of malaria and that of dengue. A national rabies control program is needed to improve surveillance and access to PEP, and to initiate vaccination campaigns in dogs.

In Cambodia, rabies still elicits fear in the communities. Since 1998 the Institut Pasteur in Cambodia (IPC), Phnom Penh has been the only source of free post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) and post mortem diagnosis. During 1998–2007, on average ∼12,400 patients received PEP annually at IPC (range 8,907–14,475) and 63 fatal human cases presenting with encephalitis following a dog bite were reported including 73% who tested positive by fluorescent-antibody test on brain samples or/and by reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction on skin, cerebrospinal fluid, or urine. In 2007, 14,475 patients received PEP (100 PEP/100,000 people in Cambodia) including 95% who resided in Phnom Penh city (615 PEP/100,000) or five neighboring provinces. Using a step-by-step probability model, we estimated that 810 human rabies deaths would occur in 2007 (95% confidence interval [CI] 394–1,607); an incidence of 5.8/100,000 (95%CI 2.8–11.5). As a result, despite high attendance at the IPC's PEP center most Cambodians living in peripheral provinces in Cambodia may not have adequate access to PEP. Finally, the model generated one of the highest incidences of rabies worldwide. A national rabies control program is needed to improve surveillance and access to PEP, and to initiate vaccination campaigns in dogs.

Awareness of Post-Exposure Prophylaxis (PEP) and Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) Is Low but Interest Is High Among Men Engaging in Condomless Anal Sex With Men in Boston, Pittsburgh, and San Juan

This study examines awareness of and experiences with post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) and pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) among 228 men recruited in Boston, Pittsburgh, and San Juan between 12/2010 and 6/2012. All of them reported having condomless anal sex with a man in the prior year. Overall, 41% had heard of PEP, ranging from 16% in San Juan to 64% in Boston. Only 21% had heard of PrEP, ranging from 8% in San Juan to 36% in Boston. Three had used PEP, and none had used PrEP. After the methods were described to participants, interest in both was high, with intentions to use PEP and PrEP respectively at 9.1 and 7.7 (10-point scale). Increased public education is needed to raise awareness of these HIV prevention methods, especially among MSM who acknowledge potential risk behavior. It also seems likely that many such men would use these methods once they become aware of them.

Epidemiological investigations of human rabies in China

BACKGROUND

The epidemic of rabies showed a rising trend in China in recent years. To identify the potential factors involved in the emergence, we investigated and analyzed the status and characteristics of human rabies between 1996 and 2008. Moreover, the status of rabies infection and vaccination in dogs, and prophylaxis of humans after rabies exposure were analyzed.

METHODS

Human rabies data in China between 1996 and 2008 collected from the annual reports of Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (China CDC) were analyzed. To investigate the status of dogs and postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) of humans, brain specimens of domestic dogs were collected and detected, and the demographic details, exposure status and PEP of rabies patients were obtained in 2005 and 2006 in Guangxi, Hunan and Guizhou provinces.

RESULTS

The results showed 19,806 human rabies cases were reported in China from 1996 to 2008, with an average of 1,524 cases each year, and the incidence almost was rising rapidly, with the peak in 2007 (3,300 cases). It was notable that nearly 50% of the total rabies cases nationwide were reported in Guangxi, Hunan and Guizhou provinces. In these three provinces, the rabies infection rate in dogs was 2.3%, and 60% investigated cities had a dog vaccination rate of below 70%; among the 315 recorded human cases, 66.3% did not receive any PEP at all, 27.6% received inadequate PEP, and only 6.0% received a full regime of PEP.

CONCLUSIONS

In recent years, rabies is reemerging and becoming a major public-health problem in China. Our analysis showed that unsuccessful control of dog rabies and inadequate PEP of patients were the main factors leading to the high incidence of human rabies in China, then there are following suggestions: (1) Strict control of free-ranging dogs and mandatory rabies vaccination should be enforced. (2)Establishing national animal rabies surveillance network is imperative. (3) PEP should be decided to initiate or withhold according to postmortem diagnosis of the biting animal. (4) The cost of PEP should be decreased or free, especially in rural areas. (5)Education of the public and health care staff should be enhanced.

Emergency postexposure vaccination with vesicular stomatitis virus-vectored Ebola vaccine after needlestick

IMPORTANCE

Safe and effective vaccines and drugs are needed for the prevention and treatment of Ebola virus disease, including following a potentially high-risk exposure such as a needlestick.

OBJECTIVE

To assess response to postexposure vaccination in a health care worker who was exposed to the Ebola virus.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Case report of a physician who experienced a needlestick while working in an Ebola treatment unit in Sierra Leone on September 26, 2014. Medical evacuation to the United States was rapidly initiated. Given the concern about potentially lethal Ebola virus disease, the patient was offered, and provided his consent for, postexposure vaccination with an experimental vaccine available through an emergency Investigational New Drug application. He was vaccinated on September 28, 2014.

INTERVENTIONS

The vaccine used was VSVΔG-ZEBOV, a replicating, attenuated, recombinant vesicular stomatitis virus (serotype Indiana) whose surface glycoprotein gene was replaced by the Zaire Ebola virus glycoprotein gene. This vaccine has entered a clinical trial for the prevention of Ebola in West Africa.

RESULTS

The vaccine was administered 43 hours after the needlestick occurred. Fever and moderate to severe symptoms developed 12 hours after vaccination and diminished over 3 to 4 days. The real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction results were transiently positive for vesicular stomatitis virus nucleoprotein gene and Ebola virus glycoprotein gene (both included in the vaccine) but consistently negative for Ebola virus nucleoprotein gene (not in the vaccine). Early postvaccination cytokine secretion and T lymphocyte and plasmablast activation were detected. Subsequently, Ebola virus glycoprotein-specific antibodies and T cells became detectable, but antibodies against Ebola viral matrix protein 40 (not in the vaccine) were not detected.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

It is unknown if VSVΔG-ZEBOV is safe or effective for postexposure vaccination in humans who have experienced a high-risk occupational exposure to the Ebola virus, such as a needlestick. In this patient, postexposure vaccination with VSVΔG-ZEBOV induced a self-limited febrile syndrome that was associated with transient detection of the recombinant vesicular stomatitis vaccine virus in blood. Strong innate and Ebola-specific adaptive immune responses were detected after vaccination. The clinical syndrome and laboratory evidence were consistent with vaccination response, and no evidence of Ebola virus infection was detected.

Vital Signs: Trends in Human Rabies Deaths and Exposures - United States, 1938-2018

Introduction

Each year, rabies causes approximately 59,000 deaths worldwide, including approximately two deaths in the United States. Before 1960, dogs were a common reservoir of rabies in the United States; however, increasingly, species of wildlife (e.g., bats, raccoons) are the main reservoirs. This report characterizes human rabies deaths, summarizes trends in rabies mortality, and highlights current rabies risks in the United States.

Methods

Rabies trends in the United States during 1938–2018 were analyzed using national rabies surveillance data. Data from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project for 2006–2014 were used to estimate the number of postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) visits per 100,000 persons during 2017–2018. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ average sales price data were used to estimate PEP costs.

Results

From 1960 to 2018, a total of 125 human rabies cases were reported in the United States; 36 (28%) were attributed to dog bites during international travel. Among the 89 infections acquired in the United States, 62 (70%) were attributed to bats. In 2018, approximately 55,000 persons sought PEP after contact with a potentially rabid animal.

Conclusions and Comments

In the United States, wildlife rabies, especially in bats, continues to pose a risk to humans. Travelers also might be exposed to canine rabies in countries where the disease is still present; increased awareness of rabies while traveling abroad is needed. Vaccinating pets, avoiding contact with wildlife, and seeking medical care if one is bitten or scratched by an animal are the most effective ways to prevent rabies. Understanding the need for timely administration of PEP to prevent death is critical.

Antiretroviral therapy as HIV prevention: status and prospects

As antiretroviral treatment of HIV infection has become increasingly accessible, attention has focused on whether these drugs can used for prevention because of increased tolerability of newer medications, decreased cost, and the limitations of other approaches. We review the status of antiretroviral HIV prevention, including chemoprophylaxis, as well as the effects of treatment of infected individuals on prevention. It is possible that the life-saving agents that have transformed the natural history of AIDS can be a critical component of HIV prevention efforts, but their ultimate role in affecting HIV transmission dynamics remains to be defined.

Ivermectin for preventing and treating COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Ivermectin, an antiparasitic agent used to treat parasitic infestations, inhibits the replication of viruses in vitro. The molecular hypothesis of ivermectin's antiviral mode of action suggests an inhibitory effect on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) replication in the early stages of infection. Currently, evidence on efficacy and safety of ivermectin for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 treatment is conflicting.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of ivermectin compared to no treatment, standard of care, placebo, or any other proven intervention for people with COVID-19 receiving treatment as inpatients or outpatients, and for prevention of an infection with SARS-CoV-2 (postexposure prophylaxis).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Web of Science (Emerging Citation Index and Science Citation Index), medRxiv, and Research Square, identifying completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions to 26 May 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ivermectin to no treatment, standard of care, placebo, or another proven intervention for treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, irrespective of disease severity, treated in inpatient or outpatient settings, and for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Co-interventions had to be the same in both study arms.  We excluded studies comparing ivermectin to other pharmacological interventions with unproven efficacy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed RCTs for bias, using the Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool. The primary analysis excluded studies with high risk of bias. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the following outcomes 1. to treat inpatients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, adverse events, quality of life, duration of hospitalization, and viral clearance; 2. to treat outpatients with mild COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, admission to hospital, adverse events, quality of life, and viral clearance; (3) to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection: SARS-CoV-2 infection, development of COVID-19 symptoms, adverse events, mortality, admission to hospital, and quality of life.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 14 studies with 1678 participants investigating ivermectin compared to no treatment, placebo, or standard of care. No study compared ivermectin to an intervention with proven efficacy. There were nine studies treating participants with moderate COVID-19 in inpatient settings and four treating mild COVID-19 cases in outpatient settings. One study investigated ivermectin for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Eight studies had an open-label design, six were double-blind and placebo-controlled. Of the 41 study results contributed by included studies, about one third were at overall high risk of bias.  Ivermectin doses and treatment duration varied among included studies.  We identified 31 ongoing and 18 studies awaiting classification until publication of results or clarification of inconsistencies. Ivermectin compared to placebo or standard of care for inpatient COVID-19 treatment We are uncertain whether ivermectin compared to placebo or standard of care reduces or increases mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 2.51; 2 studies, 185 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and clinical worsening up to day 28 assessed as need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.59; 2 studies, 185 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or need for supplemental oxygen (0 participants required supplemental oxygen; 1 study, 45 participants; very low-certainty evidence), adverse events within 28 days (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.97; 1 study, 152 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and viral clearance at day seven (RR 1.82, 95% CI 0.51 to 6.48; 2 studies, 159 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Ivermectin may have little or no effect compared to placebo or standard of care on clinical improvement up to 28 days (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.35; 1 study; 73 participants; low-certainty evidence) and duration of hospitalization (mean difference (MD) -0.10 days, 95% CI -2.43 to 2.23; 1 study; 45 participants; low-certainty evidence). No study reported quality of life up to 28 days. Ivermectin compared to placebo or standard of care for outpatient COVID-19 treatment We are uncertain whether ivermectin compared to placebo or standard of care reduces or increases mortality up to 28 days (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.05; 2 studies, 422 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and clinical worsening up to 14 days assessed as need for IMV (RR 2.97, 95% CI 0.12 to 72.47; 1 study, 398 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or non-IMV or high flow oxygen requirement (0 participants required non-IMV or high flow; 1 study, 398 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether ivermectin compared to placebo reduces or increases viral clearance at seven days (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 67.06; 1 study, 24 participants; low-certainty evidence). Ivermectin may have little or no effect compared to placebo or standard of care on the number of participants with symptoms resolved up to 14 days (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.21; 1 study, 398 participants; low-certainty evidence) and adverse events within 28 days (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.05; 2 studies, 422 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the studies reporting duration of symptoms were eligible for primary analysis. No study reported hospital admission or quality of life up to 14 days. Ivermectin compared to no treatment for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection We found one study. Mortality up to 28 days was the only outcome eligible for primary analysis. We are uncertain whether ivermectin reduces or increases mortality compared to no treatment (0 participants died; 1 study, 304 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study reported results for development of COVID-19 symptoms and adverse events up to 14 days that were included in a secondary analysis due to high risk of bias. No study reported SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospital admission, and quality of life up to 14 days.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the current very low- to low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain about the efficacy and safety of ivermectin used to treat or prevent COVID-19. The completed studies are small and few are considered high quality. Several studies are underway that may produce clearer answers in review updates. Overall, the reliable evidence available does not support the use ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID-19 outside of well-designed randomized trials.

CDC Clinical Guidelines on the Use of Doxycycline Postexposure Prophylaxis for Bacterial Sexually Transmitted Infection Prevention, United States, 2024

No vaccines and few chemoprophylaxis options exist for the prevention of bacterial sexually transmitted infections (STIs) (specifically syphilis, chlamydia, and gonorrhea). These infections have increased in the United States and disproportionately affect gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) and transgender women (TGW). In three large randomized controlled trials, 200 mg of doxycycline taken within 72 hours after sex has been shown to reduce syphilis and chlamydia infections by >70% and gonococcal infections by approximately 50%. This report outlines CDC's recommendation for the use of doxycycline postexposure prophylaxis (doxy PEP), a novel, ongoing, patient-managed biomedical STI prevention strategy for a selected population. CDC recommends that MSM and TGW who have had a bacterial STI (specifically syphilis, chlamydia, or gonorrhea) diagnosed in the past 12 months should receive counseling that doxy PEP can be used as postexposure prophylaxis to prevent these infections. Following shared decision-making with their provider, CDC recommends that providers offer persons in this group a prescription for doxy PEP to be self-administered within 72 hours after having oral, vaginal, or anal sex. The recommended dose of doxy PEP is 200 mg and should not exceed a maximum dose of 200 mg every 24 hours.Doxy PEP, when offered, should be implemented in the context of a comprehensive sexual health approach, including risk reduction counseling, STI screening and treatment, recommended vaccination and linkage to HIV PrEP, HIV care, or other services as appropriate. Persons who are prescribed doxy PEP should undergo bacterial STI testing at anatomic sites of exposure at baseline and every 3-6 months thereafter. Ongoing need for doxy PEP should be assessed every 3-6 months as well. HIV screening should be performed for HIV-negative MSM and TGW according to current recommendations.

Update: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices for Use of Hepatitis A Vaccine for Postexposure Prophylaxis and for Preexposure Prophylaxis for International Travel

Postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) with hepatitis A (HepA) vaccine or immune globulin (IG) effectively prevents infection with hepatitis A virus (HAV) when administered within 2 weeks of exposure. Preexposure prophylaxis against HAV infection through the administration of HepA vaccine or IG provides protection for unvaccinated persons traveling to or working in countries that have high or intermediate HAV endemicity. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Hepatitis Vaccines Work Group conducted a systematic review of the evidence for administering vaccine for PEP to persons aged >40 years and reviewed the HepA vaccine efficacy and safety in infants and the benefits of protection against HAV before international travel. The February 21, 2018, ACIP recommendations update and supersede previous ACIP recommendations for HepA vaccine for PEP and for international travel. Current recommendations include that HepA vaccine should be administered to all persons aged ≥12 months for PEP. In addition to HepA vaccine, IG may be administered to persons aged >40 years depending on the provider's risk assessment. ACIP also recommended that HepA vaccine be administered to infants aged 6-11 months traveling outside the United States when protection against HAV is recommended. The travel-related dose for infants aged 6-11 months should not be counted toward the routine 2-dose series. The dosage of IG has been updated where applicable (0.1 mL/kg). HepA vaccine for PEP provides advantages over IG, including induction of active immunity, longer duration of protection, ease of administration, and greater acceptability and availability.

Update I. A systematic review on the efficacy and safety of chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19

PURPOSE

To assess efficacy and safety of chloroquine (CQ)/hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for treatment or prophylaxis of COVID-19 in adult humans.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE and two pre-print repositories (bioRxiv, medRxiv) were searched from inception to 8th June 2020 for RCTs and nonrandomized studies (retrospective and prospective, including single-arm, studies) addressing the use of CQ/HCQ in any dose or combination for COVID-19.

RESULTS

Thirty-two studies were included (6 RCTs, 26 nonrandomized, 29,192 participants). Two RCTs had high risk, two 'some concerns' and two low risk of bias (Rob2). Among nonrandomized studies with comparators, nine had high risk and five moderate risk of bias (ROBINS-I). Data synthesis was not possible. Low and moderate risk of bias studies suggest that treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 with CQ/HCQ may not reduce risk of death, compared to standard care. High dose regimens or combination with macrolides may be associated with harm. Postexposure prophylaxis may not reduce the rate of infection but the quality of the evidence is low.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with COVID-19 should be treated with CQ/HCQ only if monitored and within the context of high quality RCTs. High quality data about efficacy/safety are urgently needed.

Announcement: Updated Guidelines for Antiretroviral Postexposure Prophylaxis after Sexual, Injection-Drug Use, or Other Nonoccupational Exposure to HIV - United States, 2016

New evidence-based guidelines, Updated Guidelines for Antiretroviral Postexposure Prophylaxis after Sexual, Injection-Drug Use, or Other Nonoccupational Exposure to HIV - United States, 2016, are now available online (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/guidelines/). The guidelines update and expand the 2005 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services recommendations for clinical care providers regarding nonoccupational postexposure prophylaxis (nPEP) for exposure to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) outside the health care setting for persons in the United States (1). Materials supporting nPEP guidelines implementation will also be posted online when they become available.

Rabies in the Americas: 1998-2014

Through national efforts and regional cooperation under the umbrella of the Regional Program for the Elimination of Rabies, dog and human rabies have decreased significantly in Latin America and Caribbean (LAC) countries over the last three decades. To achieve this decline, LAC countries had to develop national plans, and consolidate capabilities such as regular mass dog vaccination, opportune post-exposure prophylaxis and sensitive surveillance. This paper presents longitudinal data for 21 LAC countries on dog vaccination, PEP and rabies surveillance collected from the biannual regional meeting for rabies directors from 1998-2014 and from the Regional Epidemiologic Surveillance System for Rabies (SIRVERA). Differences in human and dog rabies incidence rates and dog vaccination rates were shown between low, middle and high-income countries. At the peak, over 50 million dogs were vaccinated annually in national campaigns in the countries represented. The reported number of animal exposures remained fairly stable during the study period with an incidence rate ranging from 123 to 191 reported exposures per 100,000 people. On average, over 2 million doses of human vaccine were applied annually. In the most recent survey, only 37% of countries reported that they had sufficient financial resources to meet the program objectives. The data show a sufficient and sustained effort of the LAC countries in the area of dog vaccination and provide understanding of the baseline effort required to reduce dog-mediated rabies incidence.

Japanese guideline for allergic conjunctival diseases

The definition, classification, pathogenesis, test methods, clinical findings, criteria for diagnosis, and therapies of allergic conjunctival disease are summarized based on the Guidelines for Clinical Management of Allergic Conjunctival Disease (Second Edition) revised in 2010. Allergic conjunctival disease is defined as "a conjunctival inflammatory disease associated with a Type I allergy accompanied by some subjective or objective symptoms." Allergic conjunctival disease is classified into allergic conjunctivitis, atopic keratoconjunctivitis, vernal keratoconjunctivitis, and giant papillary conjunctivitis. Representative subjective symptoms include ocular itching, hyperemia, and lacrimation, whereas objective symptoms include conjunctival hyperemia, swelling, folliculosis, and papillae. Patients with vernal keratoconjunctivitis, which is characterized by conjunctival proliferative changes called giant papilla accompanied by varying extents of corneal lesion, such as corneal erosion and shield ulcer, complain of foreign body sensation, ocular pain, and photophobia. In the diagnosis of allergic conjunctival diseases, it is required that type I allergic diathesis is present, along with subjective and objective symptoms accompanying allergic inflammation. The diagnosis is ensured by proving a type I allergic reaction in the conjunctiva. Given that the first-line drug for the treatment of allergic conjunctival disease is an antiallergic eye drop, a steroid eye drop will be selected in accordance with the severity. In the treatment of vernal keratoconjunctivitis, an immunosuppressive eye drop will be concomitantly used with the above mentioned drugs.

Decline in early life mortality in a high HIV prevalence rural area of South Africa: evidence of HIV prevention or treatment impact?

OBJECTIVE

We present early life mortality rates in a largely rural population with high antenatal HIV prevalence, and investigate temporal and spatial associations with a prevention of mother-to-child transmission (PMTCT) programme, an HIV treatment programme, and maternal HIV.

DESIGN

A retrospective cohort analysis.

METHODS

All births from January 2000 to January 2007 to women in the Africa Centre demographic surveillance were included. Under-two child mortality rates (U2MR) computed as deaths per 1000 live-births per year; factors associated with mortality risk assessed with Weibull regression. Availability of PMTCT (single-dose nevirapine; sdNVP) and antiretroviral therapy (ART) in a programme included in multivariable analysis.

RESULTS

Eight hundred and forty-eight (6.2%) of 13 583 children under 2 years died. Deaths in under-twos declined by 49% between 2001 and 2006, from 86.3 to 44.1 deaths per thousand live-births. Mortality was independently associated with birth season (adjusted hazard ratio 1.16, 95% confidence interval 1.02-1.33), maternal education (1.21, 1.02-1.43), maternal HIV (4.34, 3.11-6.04) and ART availability (0.46, 0.33-0.65). Children born at home (unlikely to have received sdNVP) had a 35% higher risk of dying than children born in a facility where sdNVP was available (1.35, 1.04-1.74). For 2005 births the availability of PMTCT and ART in public health programmes would have explained 8 and 31% of the decline in U2MR since 2000.

CONCLUSION

These findings confirm the importance of maternal survival, and highlight the importance of the PMTCT and especially maternal HIV treatment with direct benefits of improved survival of their young children.