Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection is prevalent worldwide and is associated with dramatic levels of morbidity and mortality. Isolated anti-HBc (IAHBc) is a particular serological pattern that is commonly found in immunocompromised patients. There is ongoing debate regarding the management of patients with IAHBc. Herein, we summarize the current guidelines and the newest evidence. The frequency of IAHBc is variable, with a higher prevalence in some populations, such as persons living with HIV and others immunocompromised patients. The risk of HBV reactivation depends on host factors (including immunosuppression) and viral factors. It is now well established that immunocompromised patients can be classified into three groups for risk according to the type of immunosuppression and/or treatment. In patients at high risk, HBV therapy has to be considered systematically. In patients at moderate risk, the decision is based on the level of HBV DNA (preemptive treatment or monitoring and vaccination). In patients with low risk, HBV vaccination is another possible approach, although further studies are needed to assess the type of preemptive strategy.

Dapsone is recommended as a second line therapy in immune thrombocytopenia (ITP), but is underused because of its potential side effects. The medical charts of 42 ITP patients treated with dapsone (100 mg/day) were retrospectively reviewed in order to assess its efficacy and safety in daily clinical practice. The overall response rate was 54.8% (n = 22, with a complete response in 38.1%) with a median time to response of 29 days (24–41 days). Patients with complete response had shorter disease duration whereas no difference was observed between responders and non-responders regarding age, sex or previous treatments received. Importantly, after dapsone withdrawal, a sustained response was observed in 5 patients, representing 12% of the whole cohort. Twenty percent of patients (n = 8) relapsed on therapy after 8.1 (6.5–13.6) months. Side effects occurred in 31% (n = 13) of patients, and required dapsone withdrawal in 22% (n = 9) or dosage reduction in 10% (n = 4) of the cases. Side effects resolved in all but one case. Overall, these data support dapsone as an interesting second line therapy in ITP, with a good safety and efficacy profile at a low cost.

Background: Debate continues regarding the usefulness and benefits of wide prescription of antibiotics in patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods: All patients hospitalized in the

Influenza remains a major cause of illness and death in geriatric populations. While the influenza vaccine has successfully reduced morbidity and mortality, its effectiveness is suspected to decrease with age. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of influenza vaccination on all-cause mortality in very old ambulatory subjects. We conducted a prospective cohort study from 1 July 2016 to 31 June 2017 in a large unselected ambulatory population aged over 80 years. We compared all-cause mortality in vaccinated versus unvaccinated subjects after propensity-score matching, to control for age, sex and comorbidities. Among the 9149 patients included, with mean age 86 years, 4380 (47.9%) were vaccinated against influenza. In total, 5253 (57.4%) had at least one chronic disease. The most commonly vaccinated patients were those with chronic respiratory failure (76.3%) and the least commonly vaccinated were those suffering from Parkinson’s disease (28.5%). Overall, 2084 patients (22.8%) died during the study. After propensity score matching, the mortality was evaluated at 20.9% in the vaccinated group and 23.9% in the unvaccinated group (OR = 0.84 [0.75–0.93], p = 0.001). This decrease in mortality in the vaccinated group persisted whatever the age and Charlson Comorbidity index. In conclusion, nearly a half of this ambulatory elderly population received Influenza vaccine. After adjustment on comorbidities, influenza vaccination was associated with a significant decrease in all-cause mortality, even in the eldest multimorbid population. Improving immunization coverage in this frail older population is urgently needed.

The rapidly increasing number of PCR-based SARS-CoV-2 tests as COVID-19 control measures has been leading not only to the discovery of positive results in asymptomatic individuals, but also to the re-testing of persons having contracted (proven or unproven) COVID-19 or having previously tested positive. In the face of interrogations as to the interpretation and management of these types of situations, and given the need to weigh collective and individual risks, we have carried out a review of the literature aimed at responding to the six following questions. Can PCR-based SARS-CoV-2 testing lead to false positives? For how long do the results remain positive? For how long can the results be associated with an actual risk of transmission / with infectivity in a symptomatic person? Is a newly positive PCR-based SARS-CoV-2 test result following one or more negative test results to be associated with a risk of transmission? Is a positive PCR-based SARS CoV-2 test result to be associated with a genuine risk of transmission / with infectivity in an asymptomatic person? Does the presence of antibodies detected by serology attest to control of the infection and consequently to non-contagiousness, even in the event of positive PCR-based SARS-CoV-2 test results? Having been initiated prior to the recently issued recommendations of the Haut Conseil de la Santé Publique (French public health council), this review is aimed at synthesizing practical proposals liable to evolve according to the advancement of scientific knowledge and the overall epidemic context.