Search

Summary: A Delphi consensus-seeking procedure was conducted to validate a list of ICD-9-CM codes that could help identify hospital admissions in which antimicrobials are more likely to be prescribed. The panel agreed to include 2967 codes out of 16229 (18.28%). Such codes could support AMS strategies by large-scale monitoring of drug consumption.

Summary: Background: Severe and prolonged mpox courses have been described during the 2022–2023 outbreak. Identifying predictors of severe evolution is crucial for improving management and therapeutic strategies. We explored the predictors of mpox severity and tested the association between mpox severity and viral load in biological fluids. We also analysed the predictors of disease duration and kinetics of inflammatory markers and described the viral presence and duration of shedding in biological fluids. Methods: This multicentre historical cohort study included adults diagnosed with laboratory-confirmed mpox diagnosis between May 2022 and September 2023 at 15 Italian centres. Patients were followed up from the day of diagnosis until clinical recovery. Biological fluids (blood, urine, saliva, and oropharyngeal and rectal swabs) were collected from each subgroup during the course of the disease and after healing. The primary outcomes were disease severity (presence of mucosal involvement, extended rash, or need for hospitalisation) and its association with the cycle threshold value (Ct-value, surrogate of viral load) in biological fluids, using standard linear and linear mixed-effect logistic regression models. Among the secondary outcomes, predictors of disease duration were assessed using a linear regression model. Findings: A total of 541 patients were enrolled, including four (0.74%) women, with a median age of 38 years (IQR 33–44). Among the 235 people living with HIV (PLWH) (43.44%), 22 (4.07%) had a CD4 count lower than 350 cells/μL. Severe mpox was reported in 215 patients (39.74%). No patient died. Multivariable analysis showed that, severe mpox was more likely among Caucasians (OR 1.82; 95% CI 1.14–2.90, p = 0.012) and patients who had an onset of fever (1.95; 1.27–2.99, p = 0.002), lymphadenopathy (2.30; 1.52–3.48, p

Objective: Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) reduced Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) hospitalizations in people at risk of clinical worsening. Real-world descriptions are limited. Methods: CONDIVIDIAMO, a two-year multicenter observational study, consecutively enrolled SARS-CoV-2 outpatients with ≥1 risk factor for COVID-19 progression receiving mAbs. Demographic data, underlying medical condition, type of mAbs combination received, duration of symptoms before mAbs administration, COVID-19 vaccination history, were collected upon enrolment and centrally recorded. Data on outcomes (hospitalizations, reasons of hospitalization, deaths) were prospectively collected. The primary endpoint was the rate of hospitalization or death in a 28-day follow-up, whichever occurred first; subjects were censored at the day of last follow-up or up to 28 days. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate the incidence rate curve in time. The Cox regression model was used to assess potential risk factors for unfavorable outcome. Results were shown as hazard ratio (HR) along with the corresponding 95 % Confidence Interval (95%CI). Results: Among 1534 subjects (median [interquartile range, IQR] age 66.5 [52.4–74.9] years, 693 [45.2 %] women), 632 (41.2 %) received bamlanivimab ± etesevimab, 209 (13.6 %) casirivimab/imdevimab, 586 (38.2 %) sotrovimab, 107 (7.0 %) tixagevimab/cilgavimab. After 28-day follow-up, 87/1534 (5.6 %, 95%CI: 4.4%–6.8 %) met the primary outcome (85 hospitalizations, 2 deaths). Hospitalizations for COVID-19 (52, 3.4 %) occurred earlier than for other reasons (33, 2.1 %), after a median (IQR) of 3.5 (1–7) versus 8 (3–15) days (p = 0.006) from mAbs administration.In a multivariable Cox regression model, factors independently associated with increased hospitalization risk were age (hazard ratio [HR] 1.02, 95%CI 1.00–1.03, p = 0.021), immunodeficiency (HR 1.78, 95%CI 1.11–2.85, p = 0.017), pre-Omicron calendar period (HR 1.66, 95%CI 1.02–2.69, p = 0.041). Conclusions: MAbs real-world data over a 2-year changing pandemic landscape showed the feasibility of the intervention, although the hospitalization rate was not negligible. Immunosuppressed subjects remain more at risk of clinical worsening.

Once a patient has been diagnosed with severe COVID-19 pneumonia, treatment options have limited effectiveness. Opaganib is an oral treatment under investigation being evaluated for treatment of hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. A randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind phase 2/3 trial was conducted in 57 sites worldwide from August 2020 to July 2021. Patients received either opaganib (n = 230; 500 mg twice daily) or matching placebo (n = 233) for 14 days. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients no longer requiring supplemental oxygen by day 14. Secondary outcomes included changes in the World Health Organization Ordinal Scale for Clinical Improvement, viral clearance, intubation, and mortality at 28 and 42 days. Pre-specified primary and secondary outcome analyses did not demonstrate statistically significant benefit (except nominally for time to viral clearance). Post-hoc analysis revealed the fraction of inspired oxygen (FIO2) at baseline was prognostic for opaganib treatment responsiveness and corresponded to disease severity markers. Patients with FIO2 levels at or below the median value (≤60%) had better outcomes after opaganib treatment (n = 117) compared to placebo (n = 134). The proportion of patients with ≤60% FIO2 at baseline that no longer required supplemental oxygen (≥24 h) by day 14 of opaganib treatment increased (76.9% vs. 63.4%; nominal p-value = 0.033). There was a 62.6% reduction in intubation/mechanical ventilation (6.84% vs. 17.91%; nominal p-value = 0.012) and a clinically meaningful 62% reduction in mortality (5.98% vs. 16.7%; nominal p-value = 0.019) by day 42. No new safety concerns were observed. While the primary analyses were not statistically significant, post-hoc analysis suggests opaganib benefit for patients with severe COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen with an FIO2 of ≤60%. Further studies are warranted to prospectively confirm opaganib benefit in this subpopulation.

Hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) and ventilation-associated pneumonia (VAP) are challenging clinical conditions due to the challenging tissue penetrability of the lung. This study aims to evaluate the potential role of fosfomycin (FOS) associated with ceftazidime/avibactam (CZA) in improving the outcome in this setting. We performed a retrospective study including people with HAP or VAP treated with CZA or CZA+FOS for at least 72 h. Clinical data were collected from the SUSANA study, a multicentric cohort to monitor the efficacy and safety of the newer antimicrobial agents. A total of 75 nosocomial pneumonia episodes were included in the analysis. Of these, 34 received CZA alone and 41 in combination with FOS (CZA+FOS). People treated with CZA alone were older, more frequently male, received a prolonged infusion more frequently, and were less frequently affected by carbapenem-resistant infections (p = 0.01, p = 0.06, p < 0.001, p = 0.03, respectively). No difference was found in terms of survival at 28 days from treatment start between CZA and CZA+FOS at the multivariate analysis (HR = 0.32; 95% CI = 0.07–1.39; p = 0.128), while prolonged infusion showed a lower mortality rate at 28 days (HR = 0.34; 95% CI = 0.14–0.96; p = 0.04). Regarding safety, three adverse events (one acute kidney failure, one multiorgan failure, and one urticaria) were reported. Our study found no significant association between combination therapy and mortality. Further investigations, with larger and more homogeneous samples, are needed to evaluate the role of combination therapy in this setting.

Abstract Discontinuation of antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) and increased antibiotic use were described during SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. In order to measure COVID-19 impact on ASPs in a setting of high multidrug resistance organisms (MDRO) prevalence, a qualitative survey was designed. In July 2021, eighteen ID Units were asked to answer a questionnaire about their hospital characteristics, ASPs implementation status before the pandemic and impact of SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on ASPs after the 1st and 2nd pandemic waves in Italy. Nine ID centres (50%) reported a reduction of ASPs and in 7 cases (38.9%) these were suspended. After the early pandemic waves, the proportion of centres that restarted their ASPs was higher among the ID centres where antimicrobial stewardship was formally identified as a priority objective (9/11, 82%, vs 2/7, 28%). SARS-CoV-2 pandemic had a severe impact in ASPs in a region highly affected by COVID-19 and antimicrobial resistance but weaknesses related to the pre-existent ASPs might have played a role.

Background: Our aim was to estimate the rates of not achieving a robust/above-average humoral response to the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine in people living with HIV (PLWH) who received ≥2 doses and to investigate the role of the CD4 and CD4/CD8 ratio in predicting the humoral response. Methods: We evaluated the humoral anti-SARS-CoV-2 response 1-month after the second and third doses of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine as a proportion of not achieving a robust/above-average response using two criteria: (i) a humoral threshold identified as a correlate of protection against SARS-CoV-2 ( 200 cells/mm3 and a ratio > 0.6. Conclusions: A robust humoral response after a booster dose has not been reached by 50% of PLWH with CD4 < 200 cells mm3. In the absence of a validated correlate of protections in the Omicron era, the CD4 count remains the most solid marker to guide vaccination campaigns in PLWH.

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has represented an individual and collective trauma with an impact on mental health. COVID-19 survivors need to be screened for psychological distress regularly for timely intervention. After March 2020, an outpatients clinic for follow up of discharged COVID-19 patients was set up at Infectious Diseases Department of the Hospital of Lecco, Italy. Blood exams, specialistic visits were performed for each patients and IES-R and BDI scales were dispensed. 523 patients were referred to the clinic; 93 of them resulted positive at IES-R and/or BDI self-report and 58 agreed to have early interviews with psychologist specialist. Patients could receive only a short psychoeducation/psychological support intervention or in addition to the same, even a specific trauma-focused psychotherapeutic intervention with EMDR where clinically indicated. IES-R e BDI were administered pre- and post-intervention. The results show that the average of the post-traumatic stress scores detected at IES-R is above the clinical cut-off for the entire sample. There is an overall change in the decrease in mean scores on the IES and BDI scales before and after psychological intervention. Among the patients for whom psychopharmacological therapy was also necessary, those who had COVID-mourning in family improved the most at IES-R scale post- intervention. With respect to EMDR treatment, there is a significant improvement in depressive symptoms noticed at BDI for male patients who have received neither psychotropic drugs nor CPAP. Being hospitalized for coronavirus has a significant impact on the patient’s mental health and it is a priority to arrange early screening to intercept psychological distress and give it an early response.