Trends in imported infections among migrants and travellers to Spain: a decade of analysis through the +Redivi network (2012-2022)

BACKGROUND

High-speed global travel, increased trade, world population growth, migration, urbanisation and climate change have favoured the emergence and spread of pathogens. We aimed to analyse the evolution of imported infections in Spain during 2012-2022 and the potential impact of some of the abovementioned factors on differential morbidity patterns.

METHODS

In this retrospective study (January/2012 to December/2022), we analysed data collected by the +Redivi network across 25 health centres. The network's standardised database records new cases of imported infections, including patient demographics, travel history, pre-travel advice and diagnostic information. To assess outcome rates over time and potential interactions, we constructed penalised weighted models to reduce the bias related to a low event rate and used weighted logistic regression for morbidity outcomes.

RESULTS

We recorded 25 632 episodes, comprising 13 913 migrants, 4047 visiting friends and relatives (VFR) immigrants, 392 VFR travellers and 7280 travellers. Most immigrants came from South America (48.3%), Sub-Saharan Africa (28.5%), North Africa (6.6%), South Central Asia (5.4%) and Central America/Caribbean (5.3%). The most common regions visited by travellers were Sub-Saharan Africa (33.5%), South America (24.5%), Central America/Caribbean (13.5%), Southeast Asia (12%) and South Central Asia (10%). The proportion of diagnoses of malaria, strongyloidiasis and unspecified self-limiting febrile syndrome < 3 weeks remained unchanged during the study period. An increased frequency of diagnosis was reported for schistosomiasis, blastocystosis, giardiasis, dengue, diarrhoea, new cases of HIV, latent and pulmonary tuberculosis; a decrease was reported for syphilis, chikungunya fever, Chagas disease and eosinophilia. We detected interactions between time and sex or type of participant across the different diagnoses.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study underscores the importance of epidemiological data in understanding infectious diseases dynamics among travellers and migrants, emphasising how demographic shifts, migration trends and healthcare policies affect disease profiles. Comprehensive data play an essential role in enhancing public health policies and travel advice.

Cloxacillin plus fosfomycin versus cloxacillin alone for methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: a randomized trial

Treatment failure occurs in about 25% of patients with methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) bacteremia. We assessed whether cloxacillin plus fosfomycin achieves better treatment success than cloxacillin alone in hospitalized adults with MSSA bacteremia. We conducted a multicenter, open-label, phase III-IV superiority randomized clinical trial. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to receive 2 g of intravenous cloxacillin alone every 4 h or with 3 g of intravenous fosfomycin every 6 h for the initial 7 days. The primary endpoint was treatment success at day 7, a composite endpoint with the following criteria: patient alive, stable or with improved quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, afebrile and with negative blood cultures for MSSA, adjudicated by an independent committee blinded to treatment allocation. We randomized 215 patients, of whom 105 received cloxacillin plus fosfomycin and 110 received cloxacillin alone. We analyzed the primary endpoint with the intention-to-treat approach in 214 patients who received at least 1 day of treatment. Treatment success at day 7 after randomization was achieved in 83 (79.8%) of 104 patients receiving combination treatment versus 82 (74.5%) of 110 patients receiving monotherapy (risk difference 5.3%; 95% confidence interval (CI), -5.95-16.48). Secondary endpoints, including mortality and adverse events, were similar in the two groups except for persistent bacteremia at day 3, which was less common in the combination arm. In a prespecified interim analysis, the independent committee recommended stopping recruitment for futility prior to meeting the planned randomization of 366 patients. Cloxacillin plus fosfomycin did not achieve better treatment success at day 7 of therapy than cloxacillin alone in MSSA bacteremia. Further trials should consider the intrinsic heterogeneity of the infection by using a more personalized approach. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT03959345 .

Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate/Emtricitabine and Baricitinib for Patients at High Risk of Severe Coronavirus Disease 2019: The PANCOVID Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

This study was designed to evaluate if patients with high risk for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) would benefit from treatment with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) followed by baricitinib in case of hypoxemia and systemic inflammation.

METHODS

PANCOVID is an open-label, double-randomized, phase 3 pragmatic clinical trial including adults with symptomatic COVID-19 with ≥2 comorbidities or aged ≥60 years and was conducted between 10 October 2020 and 23 September 2021. In the first randomization, patients received TDF/FTC or no TDF/FTC. In the second randomization, patients with room air oxygen saturation <95% and at least 1 increased inflammatory biomarker received baricitinib plus dexamethasone or dexamethasone alone. The primary endpoint was 28-day mortality. Main secondary endpoint was 28-day disease progression or critical care unit admission or mortality. The trial was stopped before reaching planned sample size due to the decrease in the number of cases and a mortality rate substantially lower than expected.

RESULTS

Of the 355 included participants, 97% were hospitalized at baseline. Overall, 28-day mortality was 3.1%. The 28-day mortality relative risk (RR) for participants treated with TDF/FTC was 1.76 (95% confidence interval [CI], .52-5.91; P = .379); it was 0.42 (95% CI, .11-1.59; P = .201) for those treated with baricitinib. The 28-day RR for the main secondary combined endpoint for participants treated with TDF/FTC was 0.95 (95% CI, .66-1.40; P = .774); it was 0.90 (95% CI, .61-1.33; P = .687) for those treated with baricitinib.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results do not suggest a beneficial effect of TDF/FTC; nevertheless, they are compatible with the beneficial effect of baricitinib already established by other clinical trials.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

EudraCT: 2020-001156-18.

72. Remdesivir vs Standard Care in Patients with Moderate covid-19

Background

Remdesivir (RDV) shortens time to recovery time in patients with severe COVID-19. Its effect in patients with moderate COVID-19 remains unclear.

Methods

We conducted an open-label, phase 3 trial (NCT04252664) involving hospitalized patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, evidence of pulmonary infiltrates, and oxygen saturation >94% on room air. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive up to 5d or 10d of RDV with standard of care (SoC), or SoC alone; patients could be discharged prior to completing per-protocol assigned treatment duration. RDV was dosed intravenously at 200 mg on d1, 100 mg daily thereafter. Patients were evaluated daily while hospitalized, and via telephone if discharged. The primary endpoint was clinical status on d11 assessed on a 7-point ordinal scale. Results regarding the primary endpoint are expected to be published before IDWeek 2020; we plan to present d28 results at the meeting.

Results

In total, 584 patients underwent randomization and started their assigned treatment (191, 5d RDV; 193, 10d RDV; 200, SoC). By d11, ³ 2 point improvement on the ordinal scale occurred in 70% of patients in the 5d arm, 65% in the 10d arm, and 61% in the SoC arm. Patients in the 5d RDV arm were significantly more likely to have an improvement in clinical status than those receiving SoC (odds ratio [OR], 1.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09–2.48; P=0.017); OR of improvement for the 10d RDV arm compared to SoC was 1.31 (95% CI, 0.88–1.95]; p=0.183). This improvement in the 5-day arm over the SOC arm was noted from d6 through d11. We observed a peak of discharges corresponding with the assigned treatment duration of RDV, with increased discharges at d6 in the 5-day arm and at d11 in the 10-day arm. A worsening of clinical status of ≥ 1 point in the ordinal scale was observed more commonly in the SoC am (n=19, 10%) versus the 5d RDV (n=7, 4%) and 10d RDV (n=9, 5%).

Conclusion

RDV for up to 5 days was superior to SoC in improving the clinical status of patients with moderate COVID-19 by d11. We will report d28 outcomes at the meeting.

Disclosures

Francisco M. Marty, MD, Allovir (Consultant)Amplyx (Consultant)Ansun (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Avir (Consultant)Cidara (Scientific Research Study Investigator)F2G (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator)Kyorin (Consultant)Merck (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator)New England Journal of Medicine (Other Financial or Material Support, Honorarium for Video)Regeneron (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator)ReViral (Consultant)Scynexis (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Symbio (Consultant)Takeda (Scientific Research Study Investigator)United Medical (Consultant)WHISCON (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Prashant Malhotra, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Robert L. Gottlieb, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Karen T. Tashima, MD, Bristol-Myers Squibb (Research Grant or Support)Gilead Sciences Inc. (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator)GlaxoSmithKline (Research Grant or Support)Merck (Research Grant or Support)Tibotec (Research Grant or Support)Viiv Healthcare (Research Grant or Support) Massimo Galli, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Other Financial or Material Support, Personal fees) Louis Yi Ann Chai, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Devi SenGupta, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Robert H. Hyland, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Hongyuan Wang, PhD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Lijie Zhong, PhD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Huyen Cao, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Anand Chokkalingam, PhD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Anu Osinusi, MD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Diana M. Brainard, MD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Michael Brown, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Ane Josune Goikoetxea, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Mamta Jain, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator, Research Grant or Support)GlaxoSmithKline (Advisor or Review Panel member)Janssen (Research Grant or Support)Merck (Research Grant or Support) David Shu Cheong Hui, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Enos Bernasconi, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Christoph Spinner, MD, AbbVie (Advisor or Review Panel member, Other Financial or Material Support, Travel)Bristol-Myers Squibb (Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member, Other Financial or Material Support, Travel)Gilead Sciences Inc. (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Other Financial or Material Support, Travel)Janssen (Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member, Other Financial or Material Support, Travel)MSD (Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member, Other Financial or Material Support, Travel)Viiv Healthcare (Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member, Other Financial or Material Support, Travel)

Clinicoepidemiological characteristics of viral hepatitis in migrants and travellers of the +Redivi network

BACKGROUND

Continuous growth of mobile populations has influenced the global epidemiology of infectious diseases, including chronic and acute viral hepatitis.

METHOD

A prospective observational multicentre study was performed in a Spanish network of imported infections. Viral hepatitis cases from January 2009 to September 2017 were included.

RESULTS

Of 14,546 records, 723 (4.97%) had imported viral hepatitis, including 48 (6.64%) acute cases and 675 (93.36%) chronic cases. Of the 48 acute cases, 31 were travellers and immigrants returning from visiting friends or relatives (VFR), while 19 (61%) were acute Hepatitis A or Hepatitis B. Only 18.2% of VFR immigrants and 35% of travellers received pre-travel advice. Acute hepatitis was more frequent in VFR immigrants (AOR 2.59, CI95% 1.20-5.60) and travellers (AOR 2.83, CI95% 1.46-5.50) than immigrants. Of the 675 Chronic cases, 570 were immigrants, and 439 (77%) had chronic Hepatitis B. Chronic hepatitis was more frequent in immigrants (AOR 20.22, CI95% 11.64-35.13) and VFR immigrants (AOR 11.12, CI95% 6.20-19.94) than travellers.

CONCLUSIONS

Chronic viral hepatitis was typical of immigrants, acute viral hepatitis was common among travellers, and VFR immigrants had mixed risk. Improving pre-travel consultation and screening of immigrants may contribute to preventing new cases of viral hepatitis and avoiding community transmission.