Search

Abstract The UK observed a marked increase in scarlet fever and invasive group A streptococcal infection in 2022 with severe outcomes in children and similar trends worldwide. Here we report lineage M1UK to be the dominant source of invasive infections in this upsurge. Compared with ancestral M1global strains, invasive M1UK strains exhibit reduced genomic diversity and fewer mutations in two-component regulator genes covRS. The emergence of M1UK is dated to 2008. Following a bottleneck coinciding with the COVID-19 pandemic, three emergent M1UK clades underwent rapid nationwide expansion, despite lack of detection in previous years. All M1UK isolates thus-far sequenced globally have a phylogenetic origin in the UK, with dispersal of the new clades in Europe. While waning immunity may promote streptococcal epidemics, the genetic features of M1UK point to a fitness advantage in pathogenicity, and a striking ability to persist through population bottlenecks.

Increasing reports of invasive Streptococcus pyogenes infections mandate surveillance for toxigenic lineage M1UK. An allele-specific PCR was developed to distinguish M1UK from other emm1 strains. The M1UK lineage represented 91% of invasive emm1 isolates in England in 2020. Allele-specific PCR will permit surveillance for M1UK without need for genome sequencing.

Summary: Background: Emergency admissions for infection often lack initial diagnostic certainty. COVID-19 has highlighted a need for novel diagnostic approaches to indicate likelihood of viral infection in a pandemic setting. We aimed to derive and validate a blood transcriptional signature to detect viral infections, including COVID-19, among adults with suspected infection who presented to the emergency department. Methods: Individuals (aged ≥18 years) presenting with suspected infection to an emergency department at a major teaching hospital in the UK were prospectively recruited as part of the Bioresource in Adult Infectious Diseases (BioAID) discovery cohort. Whole-blood RNA sequencing was done on samples from participants with subsequently confirmed viral, bacterial, or no infection diagnoses. Differentially expressed host genes that met additional filtering criteria were subjected to feature selection to derive the most parsimonious discriminating signature. We validated the signature via RT-qPCR in a prospective validation cohort of participants who presented to an emergency department with undifferentiated fever, and a second case-control validation cohort of emergency department participants with PCR-positive COVID-19 or bacterial infection. We assessed signature performance by calculating the area under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCs), sensitivities, and specificities. Findings: A three-gene transcript signature, comprising HERC6, IGF1R, and NAGK, was derived from the discovery cohort of 56 participants with bacterial infections and 27 with viral infections. In the validation cohort of 200 participants, the signature differentiated bacterial from viral infections with an AUROC of 0·976 (95% CI 0·919−1·000), sensitivity of 97·3% (85·8−99·9), and specificity of 100% (63·1−100). The AUROC for C-reactive protein (CRP) was 0·833 (0·694−0·944) and for leukocyte count was 0·938 (0·840−0·986). The signature achieved higher net benefit in decision curve analysis than either CRP or leukocyte count for discriminating viral infections from all other infections. In the second validation analysis, which included SARS-CoV-2-positive participants, the signature discriminated 35 bacterial infections from 34 SARS-CoV-2-positive COVID-19 infections with AUROC of 0·953 (0·893−0·992), sensitivity 88·6%, and specificity of 94·1%. Interpretation: This novel three-gene signature discriminates viral infections, including COVID-19, from other emergency infection presentations in adults, outperforming both leukocyte count and CRP, thus potentially providing substantial clinical utility in managing acute presentations with infection. Funding: National Institute for Health Research, Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, and EU-FP7.

Background: Bone and joint infections are becoming increasingly common and are usually treated with surgery and a course of intravenous antibiotics. However, there is no evidence to support the superiority of intravenous therapy and there is a growing body of literature showing that oral therapy is effective in treating these infections. Given this lack of evidence the clinical trial ‘Oral Versus Intravenous Antibiotics’ (OVIVA) was designed to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of intravenous versus oral antibiotics for the treatment of bone and joint infections, using a non-inferiority design. Clinical results from the trial indicate that oral antibiotics are non-inferior to intravenous antibiotics. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of intravenous compared to oral antibiotics for treating bone and joint infections, using data from OVIVA. Methods: A cost-utility analysis was carried out, the main economic outcome measure was the quality adjusted life-year, measured using the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire, combined with costs to estimate cost-effectiveness over 12-months follow-up. Results: Results show that costs were significantly lower in the oral arm compared to the intravenous arm, a difference of £2,740 (95% confidence interval £1,488 to £3,992). Results of four sensitivity analyses were consistent with the base-case results. QALYs were marginally higher in the oral arm, however this difference was not statistically significant; -0.007 (95% confidence interval -0.045 to 0.031). Conclusions: Treating patients with bone and joint infections for the first six weeks of therapy with oral antibiotics is both less costly and does not result in detectable differences in quality of life compared to treatment with intravenous antibiotics. Adopting a practice of treating bone and joint infections with oral antibiotics early in the course of therapy could potentially save the UK National Health Service over £17 million annually.

Background: Bone and joint infections are becoming increasingly common and are usually treated with surgery and a course of intravenous antibiotics. However, there is no evidence to support the superiority of intravenous therapy and there is a growing body of literature showing that oral therapy is effective in treating these infections. Given this lack of evidence the clinical trial ‘Oral Versus Intravenous Antibiotics’ (OVIVA) was designed to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of intravenous versus oral antibiotics for the treatment of bone and joint infections, using a non-inferiority design. Clinical results from the trial indicate that oral antibiotics are non-inferior to intravenous antibiotics. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of intravenous compared to oral antibiotics for treating bone and joint infections, using data from OVIVA. Methods: A cost-utility analysis was carried out, the main economic outcome measure was the quality adjusted life-year, measured using the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire, combined with costs to estimate cost-effectiveness over 12-months follow-up. Results: Results show that costs were significantly lower in the oral arm compared to the intravenous arm, a difference of £2,740 (95% confidence interval £1,488 to £3,992). Results of four sensitivity analyses were consistent with the base-case results. QALYs were marginally higher in the oral arm, however this difference was not statistically significant; -0.007 (95% confidence interval -0.045 to 0.031). Conclusions: Treating patients with bone and joint infections for the first six weeks of therapy with oral antibiotics is both less costly and does not result in detectable differences in quality of life compared to treatment with intravenous antibiotics. Adopting a practice of treating bone and joint infections with oral antibiotics early in the course of therapy could potentially save the UK National Health Service over £17 million annually.

Background: Management of bone and joint infection commonly includes 4–6 weeks of intravenous (IV) antibiotics, but there is little evidence to suggest that oral (PO) therapy results in worse outcomes. Objective: To determine whether or not PO antibiotics are non-inferior to IV antibiotics in treating bone and joint infection. Design: Parallel-group, randomised (1 : 1), open-label, non-inferiority trial. The non-inferiority margin was 7.5%. Setting: Twenty-six NHS hospitals. Participants: Adults with a clinical diagnosis of bone, joint or orthopaedic metalware-associated infection who would ordinarily receive at least 6 weeks of antibiotics, and who had received ≤ 7 days of IV therapy from definitive surgery (or start of planned curative treatment in patients managed non-operatively). Interventions: Participants were centrally computer-randomised to PO or IV antibiotics to complete the first 6 weeks of therapy. Follow-on PO therapy was permitted in either arm. Main outcome measure: The primary outcome was the proportion of participants experiencing treatment failure within 1 year. An associated cost-effectiveness evaluation assessed health resource use and quality-of-life data. Results: Out of 1054 participants (527 in each arm), end-point data were available for 1015 (96.30%) participants. Treatment failure was identified in 141 out of 1015 (13.89%) participants: 74 out of 506 (14.62%) and 67 out of 509 (13.16%) of those participants randomised to IV and PO therapy, respectively. In the intention-to-treat analysis, using multiple imputation to include all participants, the imputed risk difference between PO and IV therapy for definitive treatment failure was –1.38% (90% confidence interval –4.94% to 2.19%), thus meeting the non-inferiority criterion. A complete-case analysis, a per-protocol analysis and sensitivity analyses for missing data each confirmed this result. With the exception of IV catheter complications [49/523 (9.37%) in the IV arm vs. 5/523 (0.96%) in the PO arm)], there was no significant difference between the two arms in the incidence of serious adverse events. PO therapy was highly cost-effective, yielding a saving of £2740 per patient without any significant difference in quality-adjusted life-years between the two arms of the trial. Limitations: The OVIVA (Oral Versus IntraVenous Antibiotics) trial was an open-label trial, but bias was limited by assessing all potential end points by a blinded adjudication committee. The population was heterogenous, which facilitated generalisability but limited the statistical power of subgroup analyses. Participants were only followed up for 1 year so differences in late recurrence cannot be excluded. Conclusions: PO antibiotic therapy is non-inferior to IV therapy when used during the first 6 weeks in the treatment for bone and joint infection, as assessed by definitive treatment failure within 1 year of randomisation. These findings challenge the current standard of care and provide an opportunity to realise significant benefits for patients, antimicrobial stewardship and the health economy. Future work: Further work is required to define the optimal total duration of therapy for bone and joint infection in the context of specific surgical interventions. Currently, wide variation in clinical practice suggests significant redundancy that likely contributes to the excess and unnecessary use of antibiotics. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN91566927. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 38. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Increasing reports of invasive Streptococcus pyogenes infections mandate surveillance for toxigenic lineage M1UK. An allele-specific PCR was developed to distinguish M1UK from other emm1 strains. The M1UK lineage represented 91% of invasive emm1 isolates in England in 2020. Allele-specific PCR will permit surveillance for M1UK without need for genome sequencing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. Streptococci are not an infrequent cause of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Management by debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) is thought to produce a good prognosis, but little is known about the real likelihood of success. Methods. A retrospective, observational, multicenter, international study was performed during 2003–2012. Eligible patients had a streptococcal PJI that was managed with DAIR. The primary endpoint was failure, defined as death related to infection, relapse/persistence of infection, or the need for salvage therapy. Results. Overall, 462 cases were included (median age 72 years, 50% men). The most frequent species was Streptococcus agalactiae (34%), and 52% of all cases were hematogenous. Antibiotic treatment was primarily using β-lactams, and 37% of patients received rifampin. Outcomes were evaluable in 444 patients: failure occurred in 187 (42.1%; 95% confidence interval, 37.5%–46.7%) after a median of 62 days from debridement; patients without failure were followed up for a median of 802 days. Independent predictors (hazard ratios) of failure were rheumatoid arthritis (2.36), late post-surgical infection (2.20), and bacteremia (1.69). Independent predictors of success were exchange of removable components (0.60), early use of rifampin (0.98 per day of treatment within the first 30 days), and long treatments (≥21 days) with β-lactams, either as monotherapy (0.48) or in combination with rifampin (0.34). Conclusions. This is the largest series to our knowledge of streptococcal PJI managed by DAIR, showing a worse prognosis than previously reported. The beneficial effects of exchanging the removable components and of β-lactams are confirmed and maybe also a potential benefit from adding rifampin. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Bone and joint infection in adults arises most commonly as a complication of joint replacement surgery, fracture fixation and diabetic foot infection. The associated morbidity can be devastating to patients and costs the National Health Service an estimated £20,000 to £40,000 per patient. Current standard of care in most UK centres includes a prolonged course (4-6 weeks) of intravenous antibiotics supported, if available, by an outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy service. Intravenous therapy carries with it substantial risks and inconvenience to patients, and the antibiotic-related costs are approximately ten times that of oral therapy. Despite this, there is no evidence to suggest that oral therapy results in inferior outcomes. We hypothesise that, by selecting oral agents with high bioavailability, good tissue penetration and activity against the known or likely pathogens, key outcomes in patients managed primarily with oral therapy are non-inferior to those in patients treated by intravenous therapy.Methods: The OVIVA trial is a parallel group, randomised (1:1), un-blinded, non-inferiority trial conducted in thirty hospitals across the UK. Eligible participants are adults (>18 years) with a clinical syndrome consistent with a bone, joint or metalware-associated infection who have received ≤7 days of intravenous antibiotic therapy from the date of definitive surgery (or the start of planned curative therapy in patients treated without surgical intervention). Participants are randomised to receive either oral or intravenous antibiotics, selected by a specialist infection physician, for the first 6 weeks of therapy. The primary outcome measure is definite treatment failure within one year of randomisation, as assessed by a blinded endpoint committee, according to pre-defined microbiological, histological and clinical criteria. Enrolling 1,050 subjects will provide 90 % power to demonstrate non-inferiority, defined as less than 7.5 % absolute increase in treatment failure rate in patients randomised to oral therapy as compared to intravenous therapy (one-sided alpha of 0.05).Discussion: If our results demonstrate non-inferiority of orally administered antibiotic therapy, this trial is likely to facilitate a dramatically improved patient experience and alleviate a substantial financial burden on healthcare services.Trial Registration: ISRCTN91566927 - 14/02/2013. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]