Search

Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA loads in patient specimens may act as a clinical outcome predictor in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods We evaluated the predictive value of viral RNA loads and courses in the blood compared with the upper and lower respiratory tract loads of critically ill COVID-19 patients. Daily specimen collection and viral RNA quantification by reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction were performed in all consecutive 170 COVID-19 patients between March 2020 and February 2021 during the entire intensive care unit (ICU) stay (4145 samples analyzed). Patients were grouped according to their 90-day outcome as survivors (n=100) or nonsurvivors (n=70). Results In nonsurvivors, blood SARS-CoV-2 RNA loads were significantly higher at the time of admission to the ICU (P=.0009). Failure of blood RNA clearance was observed in 33/50 (66%) of the nonsurvivors compared with 12/64 (19%) survivors (P Conclusions Blood SARS-CoV-2 load is an important independent outcome predictor and should be further evaluated for treatment allocation and patient monitoring.

Objectives: Intestinal carriage with extended spectrum β-lactamase Enterobacteriaceae (ESBL-E) and carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (CPE) can persist for months. We aimed to evaluate whether oral antibiotics followed by faecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) can eradicate intestinal carriage with ESBL-E/CPE.Methods: Randomized, open-label, superiority trial in four tertiary-care centres (Geneva (G), Paris (P), Utrecht (U), Tel Aviv (T)). Non-immunocompromised adult patients were randomized 1: 1 to either no intervention (control) or a 5-day course of oral antibiotics (colistin sulphate 2 × 106 IU 4×/day; neomycin sulphate 500 mg 4×/day) followed by frozen FMT obtained from unrelated healthy donors. The primary outcome was detectable intestinal carriage of ESBL-E/CPE by stool culture 35-48 days after randomization (V4). ClinicalTrials.govNCT02472600. The trial was funded by the European Commission (FP7).Results: Thirty-nine patients (G = 14; P = 16; U = 7; T = 2) colonized by ESBL-E (n = 36) and/or CPE (n = 11) were enrolled between February 2016 and June 2017. In the intention-to-treat analysis 9/22 (41%) patients assigned to the intervention arm were negative for ESBL-E/CPE at V4 (1/22 not receiving the intervention imputed as positive) whereas in the control arm 5/17 (29%) patients were negative (one lost to follow up imputed as negative) resulting in an OR for decolonization success of 1.7 (95% CI 0.4-6.4). Study drugs were well tolerated overall but three patients in the intervention group prematurely stopped the study antibiotics because of diarrhoea (all received FMT).Conclusions: Non-absorbable antibiotics followed by FMT slightly decreased ESBL-E/CPE carriage compared with controls; this difference was not statistically significant, potentially due to early trial termination. Further clinical investigations seem warranted.

Summary Introduction The large number of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections necessitates general screening of employees. We evaluate the performance of a SARS-CoV-2 screening program in asymptomatic healthcare-workers (HCW), utilizing self-sampled gargling-solution and sample pooling for RT-qPCR. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional retrospective study to collect real-life data on the performance of a screening-workflow based on automated-pooling and high-throughput qPCR testing over a 3-month-period at the University Hospital Hamburg. Results Matrix validation reveals that lower limit of detection for SARS-CoV-2 RNA in gargling-solution was 180 copies/mL (5-sample-pool). A total of 55,122 self-collected gargle samples (= 7513 HCWs) was analyzed. The median time to result was 8.5 hours (IQR 7.2–10.8). Of 11,192 pools analyzed, 11,041 (98.7%) were negative, 69 (0.6%) were positive and 82 (0.7%) were invalid. Individual testing of pool participants revealed 57 SARS-CoV-2 previously unrecognized infections. All 57 HCWs were either pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic (prevalence 0.76%,CI95%0.58–0.98%). Accuracy based on HCWs with gargle-solution and NP-swab available within 3-day-interval (N = 521) was 99.5% (CI95%98.3–99.9%), sensitivity 88.9% (CI95%65.3–98.6%) while specificity 99.8% (CI95%98.9–99.9). Conclusion This workflow was highly effective in identifying SARS-CoV-2 positive HCWs, thereby lowering the potential of inter-HCW and HCW-patient transmissions. Automated-sample-pooling helped to conserve qPCR reagents and represents a promising alternative strategy to antigen testing in mass-screening programs.

Objective The impact of the M184V/I mutation on the virological failure (VF) rate in HIV-positive patients with suppressed viremia switching to an abacavir/lamivudine/dolutegravir regimen has been poorly evaluated. Method This is an observational study from 5 European HIV cohorts among treatment-experienced adults with ≤50 copies/mL of HIV-1 RNA who switched to abacavir/lamivudine/dolutegravir. Primary outcome was the time to first VF (2 consecutive HIV-1 RNA >50 copies/mL or single HIV-1 RNA >50 copies/mL accompanied by change in antiretroviral therapy [ART]). We also analyzed a composite outcome considering the presence of VF and/or virological blips. We report also the results of an inverse probability weighting analysis on a restricted population with a prior history of VF on any ART regimen to calculate statistics standardized to the disparate sampling population. Results We included 1626 patients (median follow-up, 288.5 days; interquartile range, 154–441). Patients with a genotypically documented M184V/I mutation (n = 137) had a lower CD4 nadir and a longer history of antiviral treatment. The incidence of VF was 29.8 cases (11.2–79.4) per 1000 person-years in those with a previously documented M184V/I, and 13.6 cases (8.4–21.8) in patients without documented M184V/I. Propensity score weighting in a restricted population (n = 580) showed that M184V/I was not associated with VF or the composite endpoint (hazard ratio [HR], 1.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35–4.59 and HR 1.66; 95% CI, 0.81–3.43, respectively). Conclusions In ART-experienced patients switching to an abacavir/lamivudine/dolutegravir treatment, we observed few VFs and found no evidence for an impact of previously-acquired M184V/I mutation on this outcome. Additional analyses are required to demonstrate whether these findings will remain robust during a longer follow-up., In antiretroviral therapy-experienced patients on abacavir/lamivudine/dolutegravir, we observed few virological failures and found no evidence for an impact of previously-acquired M184V/I mutation on this outcome. Additional analyses are required to demonstrate whether these findings will remain robust during a longer follow-up.

Background SARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnostics is facing material shortages and long turnaround times due to exponential increase of testing demand. Objective We evaluated the analytic performance and handling of four rapid Antigen Point of Care Tests (AgPOCTs) I-IV (Distributors: (I) Roche, (II) Abbott, (III) MEDsan and (IV) Siemens). Methods 100 RT-PCR negative and 84 RT-PCR positive oropharyngeal swabs were prospectively collected and used to determine performance and accuracy of these AgPOCTs. Handling was evaluated by 10 healthcare workers/users through a questionnaire. Results The median duration from symptom onset to sampling was 6 days (IQR 2–12 days). The overall respective sensitivity were 49.4 % (CI95 %: 38.9–59.9), 44.6 % (CI95 %: 34.3–55.3), 45.8 % (CI95 %: 35.5–56.5) and 54.9 % (CI95 %: 43.4−65.9) for tests I, II, III and IV, respectively. In the high viral load subgroup (containing >106 copies of SARS-CoV-2 /swab, n = 26), AgPOCTs reached sensitivities of 92.3 % or more (range 92.3 %–100 %). Specificity was 100 % for tests I, II (CI95 %: 96.3–100 for both tests) and IV (CI95 %: 96.3–100) and 97 % (CI95 %: 91.5–98.9) for test III. Regarding handling, test I obtained the overall highest scores, while test II was considered to have the most convenient components. Of note, users considered all assays, with the exception of test I, to pose a significant risk for contamination by drips or spills. Discussion Besides some differences in sensitivity and handling, all four AgPOCTs showed acceptable performance in high viral load samples. However, due to the significantly lower sensitivity compared to RT-qPCR, a careful consideration of pro and cons of AgPOCT has to be taken into account before clinical implementation.

Objective We aim to describe the epidemiological, clinical and microbiological characteristics of the linezolid- and vancomycin- resistant Enterococcus faecium (LVRE) in a tertiary care hospital in Germany. Methods We conducted a retrospective analysis of 196 LVRE cases observed from 1st January 2012 to 31th December 2018. Patients’ medical charts were reviewed and available LVRE (n = 102) were subjected to whole-genome-sequencing. Antibiotic consumption was measured in defined daily dose (DDD)/100 bed-days (BD). Results The prevalence of LVRE isolates among VRE was 6.3 % in 2018. Most patients had an onco-hematological disease (134/196, 68.4 %). From 2012–2018 an increase of +356.7 % of linezolid defined daily dose/100 bed-days was observed. In 71.4 % (90/126, 70 missing values) of the patients, linezolid was prescribed in the previous 6 months. The median exposure to linezolid was 15 days (Interquartile, IQR 9–23). 42/196 (21.4 %) patients had an LVRE-related infection with an overall 30-day mortality rate of 33 %. In 121/196 (61.7 %) patients, linezolid-susceptible VREfm were isolated before LVRE, suggesting secondary acquisition of linezolid resistance. Genetic analysis revealed that most isolates belonged to ST117 (64/102 available isolates, 62.7 %). The G2576T 23S rDNA mutation was identified as the most common resistance mechanism (96/102, 94.1 %). poxtA was identified in two isolates, while cfr, and optrA were not detected. Conclusions Incidence of LVRE related to 23S rDNA mutations is rising and probably associated with antibiotic consumption. Restrictions in the use of linezolid may be needed in order to retain therapeutic options in VRE.

BackgroundSARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnostics is facing material shortages and long turnaround times due to exponential increase of testing demand.ObjectiveWe evaluated the analytic performance and handling of four rapid Antigen Point of Care Tests (AgPOCTs) I-IV (Distributors: (I) Roche, (II) Abbott, (III) MEDsan and (IV) Siemens).Methods100 RT-PCR negative and 84 RT-PCR positive oropharyngeal swabs were prospectively collected and used to determine performance and accuracy of these AgPOCTs. Handling was evaluated by 10 healthcare workers/users through a questionnaire.ResultsThe median duration from symptom onset to sampling was 6 days (IQR 2-12 days). The overall relative sensitivity was 49.4%, 44.6%, 45.8% and 54.9 % for tests I, II, III and IV, respectively. In the high viral load subgroup (containing >106 copies of SARS-CoV-2 /swab, n=26), AgPOCTs reached sensitivities of 92.3% or more (range 92.3%-100%). Specificity was 100% for tests I, II and IV and 97% for test III. Regarding handling, test I obtained the overall highest scores, while test II was considered to have the most convenient components. Of note, users considered all assays, with the exception of test I, to pose a significant risk for contamination by drips or spills.DiscussionBesides some differences in sensitivity and handling, all four AgPOCTs showed acceptable performance in high viral load samples. However, due to the significantly lower sensitivity compared to RT-qPCR, a careful consideration of pro and cons of AgPOCT has to be taken into account before clinical implementation.

Background The emergence of antibiotic-resistant species calls for fast and reliable phenotypic susceptibility testing to adapt clinical management as fast as possible. Objectives We assessed the real-life performance of EUCAST rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing (RAST) and analysed its impact on patient management. Methods RAST was performed on clinical blood cultures containing Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa or Acinetobacter baumannii complex. Categorical agreement with VITEK2 was analysed. A pre-post quasi-experimental observational study was designed to compare antibiotic treatment in sepsis patients in the RAST patient group (n = 51) and a historical control cohort (n = 54). Results In total, 436 isolates, corresponding to 2314 disc diameters, were measured; 18.4% of these measurements were in the area of technical uncertainty. For the 81.6% categorical results, which could be compared, 94.7% were in agreement, whereas 5.3% of the results were not. In the RAST group, optimal therapy was initiated on the same day as blood culture positivity, while this was the case in the historical group after 24 h. In six cases, RAST allowed for rapid antibiotic escalation. The 30 day mortality rate was lower in the RAST group, although this was not statistically significant. Conclusions RAST provides a reliable tool to improve clinical management of sepsis patients by providing rapid phenotypic susceptibility data. While not necessarily being an instrument for de-escalation, especially in areas of low prevalence, early detection allows for timely coverage of resistant isolates. Thus, RAST significantly adds to successful antibiotic stewardship programmes.

Item does not contain fulltext BACKGROUND: Use of nitrofurantoin has increased significantly since its recent repositioning as a first-line agent for uncomplicated cystitis by multiple guidelines. However, current dosing regimens were developed in an era before robust pharmacokinetic testing and may not be optimal. Furthermore, formulations have been modified over the years. OBJECTIVES: To reassess the plasma and urinary pharmacokinetic profile of macrocrystalline nitrofurantoin in two commonly used dosing regimens. METHODS: In this open-label, randomized crossover pharmacokinetic trial, 12 healthy adult female volunteers were randomized to receive oral nitrofurantoin 100 mg q8h on days 1 and 2 and, after a washout period, 50 mg q6h on days 30 and 31, or the same dosing schemes in reversed order. Urine and blood were collected at steady state and analysed by UPLC. Pharmacokinetic analysis was performed by WinNonlin. RESULTS: Plasma peak concentrations were low (mean 0.33 mg/L, SD 0.08, and 0.69 mg/L, SD 0.35, after 50 and 100 mg, respectively) and dose dependent. The AUC0-24 was higher (6.49 versus 4.43 mg.h/L, P=0.021) for the 100 mg q8h dosing regimen, but the dose-normalized AUC was similar for the two regimens. In contrast, urinary concentrations were dose independent: increasing the nitrofurantoin dose delayed the time to peak urinary concentration, while steady-state AUC0-24 values remained unchanged (943.49 and 855.95 mg.h/L at 50 mg q6h and 100 mg q8h, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Plasma concentrations were relatively low and dose dependent. The dose-independent urinary concentrations suggest that excretion of nitrofurantoin into the urine is saturable. Pharmacodynamic studies are urgently required to determine the impact of these findings.

Objective Few industry-independent studies have been conducted to compare the relative costs and benefits of drugs to treat methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection. We performed a stochastic cost-effectiveness analysis comparing two treatment strategies—linezolid versus trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole plus rifampicin—for the treatment of MRSA infection. Methods We used cost and effectiveness data from a previously conducted clinical trial, complementing with other data from published literature, to compare the two regimens from a healthcare system perspective. Effectiveness was expressed in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Several sensitivity analyses were performed using Monte Carlo simulation, to measure the effect of potential parameter changes on the base-case model results, including potential differences related to type of infection and drug toxicity. Results Treatment of MRSA infection with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole plus rifampicin and linezolid were found to cost on average €146 and €2536, and lead to a gain of 0.916 and 0.881 QALYs, respectively. Treatment with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole plus rifampicin was found to be more cost-effective than linezolid in the base case and remained dominant over linezolid in most alternative scenarios, including different types of MRSA infection and potential disadvantages in terms of toxicity. With a willingness-to-pay threshold of €0, €50 000 and €200 000 per QALY gained, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole plus rifampicin was dominant in 100%, 96% and 85% of model iterations. A 95% discount on the current purchasing price of linezolid would be needed when it goes off-patent for it to represent better value for money compared with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole plus rifampicin. Conclusions Combined treatment of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole plus rifampicin is more cost-effective than linezolid in the treatment of MRSA infection.

Objectives: The therapeutic arsenal for MRSA infections is limited. The aim of this study was to assess the noninferiority of a combination of trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole plus rifampicin versus linezolid alone for the treatment of MRSA infection. Methods: We conducted a randomized, open-label, single-centre, non-inferiority trial comparing trimethoprim/ sulfamethoxazole (160 mg/800 mg three times daily) plus rifampicin (600 mg once a day) versus linezolid (600 mg twice a day) alone in adult patients with various types of MRSA infection. Patients were allocated 1:1 to either regimen. The primary outcome was clinical cure at 6 weeks after the end of treatment (non-inferiority margin 20%) assessed by both ITT and PP analyses. Secondary outcomes included the microbiologically documented persistence of MRSA in clinical cultures, mortality and adverse events. The study protocol has been registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00711854). Results: Overall, 150 patients were randomized to one of the two treatment arms between January 2009 and December 2013 and were included in the ITT analysis. Of these 56/75 (74.7%) in the linezolid group and 59/75 (78.7%) in the trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and rifampicin group experienced clinical success (risk difference 4%, 95% CI 29.7% to 17.6%). The results were confirmed by the PP analysis, with 54/66 (81.8%) cured patients in the linezolid group versus 52/59 (88.1%) in the trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and rifampicin group (risk difference 6.3%, 95% CI 26.8% to 19.2%). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in any of the secondary outcomes, including microbiologically documented failure. Four adverse drug reactions attributed to the study medication occurred in the linezolid group versus nine in the trimethoprim/ sulfamethoxazole and rifampicin group. Conclusions: Compared with linezolid, trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and rifampicin seems to be non-inferior in the treatment of MRSA infection.

BackgroundWe have recently shown a high prevalence of diabetes and obesity in rural Cameroon, despite an improved lifestyle. Diabetes in rural Africa remains underdiagnosed and its role in increasing risk of atherosclerosis in these populations is unknown. We investigated the prevalence of carotid atherosclerosis and cardiovascular risk factors in a population of subjects with recently-diagnosed diabetes from rural Cameroon.Methodology/principal findingsIn a case-control study, carotid intima-media thickness (IMT) was measured in 74 subjects with diabetes (diagnosed 0.9 mm was found in 4%, 45.9% and 20% of diabetic subjects at the common, bulb or internal carotid, respectively. Only 25% of patients had an HbA1c9%). The prevalence of diabetic subjects with abnormal levels of LDL-cholesterol, triglycerides, HDL-cholesterol or blood pressure was 45%, 16.6%, 15% and 65.7%, respectively.ConclusionsCarotid thickness is increased in subjects with diabetes from a rural area of Cameroon, despite the relatively recent diagnosis. These findings and the high rate of uncontrolled diabetes in this population support the increasing concern of diabetes and cardiovascular diseases in African countries and indicate the need for multifaceted health interventions in urban and rural settings.

The global epidemiology of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is heterogeneous.