Background Australia has maintained low rates of SARS-COV-2 (COVID-19) infection, due to geographic location and strict public health restrictions. However, the financial and social impacts of these restrictions can negatively affect parents’ and children’s mental health. In an existing cohort of mothers recruited for their experience of adversity, this study examined: 1) families’ experiences of the COVID-19 pandemic and public health restrictions in terms of clinical exposure, financial hardship family stress, and family resilience (termed ‘COVID-19 impacts’); and 2) associations between COVID-19 impacts and maternal and child mental health. Methods Participants were mothers recruited during pregnancy (2013–14) across two Australian states (Victoria and Tasmania) for the ‘right@home’ trial. A COVID-19 survey was conducted from May-December 2020, when children were 5.9–7.2 years old. Mothers reported COVID-19 impacts, their own mental health (Depression, Anxiety, Stress Scales short-form) and their child’s mental health (CoRonavIruS Health and Impact Survey subscale). Associations between COVID-19 impacts and mental health were examined using regression models controlling for pre-COVID-19 characteristics. Results 319/406 (79%) mothers completed the COVID-19 survey. Only one reported having had COVID-19. Rates of self-quarantine (20%), job or income loss (27%) and family stress (e.g., difficulty managing children’s at-home learning (40%)) were high. Many mothers also reported family resilience (e.g., family found good ways of coping (49%)). COVID-19 impacts associated with poorer mental health (standardised coefficients) included self-quarantine (mother: β = 0.46, child: β = 0.46), financial hardship (mother: β = 0.27, child: β = 0.37) and family stress (mother: β = 0.49, child: β = 0.74). Family resilience was associated with better mental health (mother: β = -0.40, child: β = -0.46). Conclusions The financial and social impacts of Australia’s public health restrictions have substantially affected families experiencing adversity, and their mental health. These impacts are likely to exacerbate inequities arising from adversity. To recover from COVID-19, policy investment should include income support and universal access to family health services.

ObjectivesTo investigate the additional programme cost and cost-effectiveness of ‘right@home’ Nurse Home Visiting (NHV) programme in relation to improving maternal and child outcomes at child age 3 years compared with usual care.DesignA cost–utility analysis from a government-as-payer perspective alongside a randomised trial of NHV over 3-year period. Costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were discounted at 5%. Analysis used an intention-to-treat approach with multiple imputation.SettingThe right@home was implemented from 2013 in Victoria and Tasmania states of Australia, as a primary care service for pregnant women, delivered until child age 2 years.Participants722 pregnant Australian women experiencing adversity received NHV (n=363) or usual care (clinic visits) (n=359).Primary and secondary outcome measuresFirst, a cost–consequences analysis to compare the additional costs of NHV over usual care, accounting for any reduced costs of service use, and impacts on all maternal and child outcomes assessed at 3 years. Second, cost–utility analysis from a government-as-payer perspective compared additional costs to maternal QALYs to express cost-effectiveness in terms of additional cost per additional QALY gained.ResultsWhen compared with usual care at child age 3 years, the right@home intervention cost $A7685 extra per woman (95% CI $A7006 to $A8364) and generated 0.01 more QALYs (95% CI −0.01 to 0.02). The probability of right@home being cost-effective by child age 3 years is less than 20%, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $A50 000 per QALY.ConclusionsBenefits of NHV to parenting at 2 years and maternal health and well-being at 3 years translate into marginal maternal QALY gains. Like previous cost-effectiveness results for NHV programmes, right@home is not cost-effective at 3 years. Given the relatively high up-front costs of NHV, long-term follow-up is needed to assess the accrual of health and economic benefits over time.Trial registration numberISRCTN89962120.

Background Australia has maintained low rates of SARS-COV-2 (COVID-19) infection, due to geographic location and strict public health restrictions. However, the financial and social impacts of these restrictions can negatively affect parents’ and children’s mental health. Families who were already experiencing adversity before the COVID-19 pandemic are likely to be disproportionately affected. In an existing cohort of mothers recruited for their experience of adversity, this study examined: 1) families’ experiences of the COVID-19 pandemic and public health restrictions in terms of clinical exposure, changes to financial circumstances, financial hardship, family stress, and family resilience (termed ‘COVID-19 impacts’); and 2) associations between these COVID-19 impacts and maternal and child mental health. Methods Participants were mothers recruited during pregnancy (2013-14) across two Australian states (Victoria and Tasmania) for the ‘right@home’ trial. A COVID-19 survey was opportunistically conducted from May-December 2020, when children were 5.9–7.2 years old. Mothers reported COVID-19 impacts (drawn from the Coronavirus Health and Impact Survey (CRISIS), Australian Temperament Project, and Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey); their own mental health (Depression, Anxiety, Stress Scales short-form) and their child’s mental health (CRISIS subscale). Associations between COVID-19 impacts and mental health were examined using regression models controlling for pre-COVID-19 characteristics. Results 319/406 (79%) mothers completed the COVID-19 survey. Only one reported having had COVID-19. In contrast, self-quarantine (20%), financial changes (job/income loss (27%)) and family stress (e.g., difficulty managing children’s at-home learning (40%)) were high. Many mothers also reported family resilience (e.g., family found good ways of coping (49%)). COVID-19 impacts associated with poorer mental health (all standardised coefficients) included self-quarantine (mother: β = 0.48, child: β = 0.47), financial hardship or change (mother: β = 0.27, child: β = 0.37) and family stress (mother: β = 0.49, child: β = 0.73). Family resilience was associated with better mental health (mother: β=-0.39, child: β=-0.47). Conclusions The financial and social impacts of Australia’s public health restrictions have substantially affected families experiencing adversity, and their mental health. Unless these impacts are addressed, the inequities arising from adversity are likely to be exacerbated. To recover from COVID-19, policy investment should include income support and universal access to family health services.

Reactivation of latent tuberculosis following solid organ transplantation has serious consequences for the recipient. The most useful diagnostic test for latent TB is not clear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the relative test performance of interferon gamma release assays (IGRAs) and the tuberculin skin test (TST) in people undergoing solid organ transplantation. The clinical or radiological risk factors were used as the proxy reference standard. Test performance was expressed as an odd ratio (OR). We identified 24 studies (N = 7811), 12 studies compared IGRAs with TST directly, nine studies evaluated only TST and three studies only IGRAs. Direct comparison between tests and clinical risk factors indicated both tests were strongly associated with the presence of clinical risk factors for TB (TST: OR 3.17; 95%CI 1.55-6.48, IGRA: OR 2.78; 95%CI 1.55-5.01), and radiological evidence of past TB (TST: OR 3.26; 95%CI 1.85-5.73, IGRA: OR 3.85; 95%CI 2.16-6.86). Relative comparison indicated IGRAs positivity was more strongly associated with presence of radiological evidence of TB than TST (relative OR: 3.24; 95%CI 1.10-9.56). While there is no strong evidence in supporting use of IGRAs over TST for diagnosing latent TB, IGRAs positivity is more associated with the presence of radiological evidence of previous TB. K E Y W O R D S interferon gamma release assay, latent tuberculosis, solid organ transplantation, testing, tuberculin skin test S U PP O RTI N G I N FO R M ATI O N Additional supporting information may be found online in the Supporting Information section at the end of the article. How to cite this article: Maung Myint T, Rogerson TE, Noble K, Craig JC, Webster AC. Tests for latent tuberculosis in candidates for solid organ transplantation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Transplant. 2019;33:e13643.