Search

BackgroundRevised diagnostic criteria for infective endocarditis (IE), the 2023 Duke-ISCVID criteria, were recently presented and need validation. Here, we compare the 2000 modified Duke criteria for IE with Duke-ISCVID among patients with bacteremia and relate the diagnostic classification to IE-treatment.MethodsWe reanalyzed patient cohorts with Stapylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus lugdunensis, non-beta-hemolytic streptococci, Streptococcus-like bacteria, Streptococcus dysgalactiae, Enterococcus faecalis and HACEK bacteremia. Episodes were classified as definite, possible or rejected IE with the modified Duke and Duke-ISCVID criteria. Reclassification included the microbiology criteria, PET-CT and cardiac implanted elect-ronical devices. To calculate sensitivity, patients treated as IE were considered as having IE.ResultsIn 4050 episodes of bacteremia, the modified Duke criteria criteria assigned 307episodes (7.6%) as definite IE, 1190 episodes (29%) as possible IE and 2553 episodes (63%) as rejected IE. Using the Duke-ISCVID criteria, 13 episodes (0.3%) were reclassified from possible to definite IE and 475 episodes (12%) were reclassified from rejected to possible IE. With the modified Duke criteria, 79 episodes that were treated as IE were classified as possible IE and eleven of these episodes were reclassified to definite IE with Duke-ISCVID. Applying the decision to treat for IE as reference standard, the sensitivity of the Duke-ISCVID criteria was 80%. None of the 475 episodes reclassified to possible IE were treated as IE.ConclusionsThe Duke-ISCVID criteria reclassified a small proportion of episodes to definite IE at the expense of more episodes of possible IE. Future criteria should minimize the possible group while keeping or improving sensitivity.

Qdenga®; has been approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for individuals > 4 years of age and for use according to national recommendations. The vaccine shows high efficacy against virologically confirmed dengue and severe dengue in clinical studies on 4-16-year old's living in endemic areas. For individuals 16-60 years old only serological data exists and there is no data for individuals > 60 years. Its use as a travel vaccine is still unclear. We present the studies behind the approval and the recommendations for travelers as issued by the Swedish Society for Infectious Diseases Physicians.

Background: Immunosuppressed patients are particularly vulnerable to severe infection from the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), risking prolonged viremia and symptom duration. In this study we describe clinical and virological treatment outcomes in a heterogeneous group of patients with severe immunosuppression due to various causes suffering from COVID-19 infection, who were all treated with convalescent plasma (CCP) along with standard treatment. Methods: We performed an observational, retrospective case series between May 2020 to March 2021 at three sites in Skåne, Sweden, with a population of nearly 1.4 million people. All patients hospitalized for COVID-19 who received CCP with the indication severe immunosuppression as defined by the treating physician were included in the study (n = 28). Results: In total, 28 severely immunocompromised patients, half of which previously had been treated with rituximab, who had received in-hospital convalescent plasma treatment of COVID-19 were identified. One week after CCP treatment, 13 of 28 (46%) patients had improved clinically defined as a decrease of at least one point at the WHO-scale. Three patients had increased score points of whom two had died. For 12 patients, the WHO-scale was unchanged. Conclusion: As one of only few studies on CCP treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients with severe immunosuppression, this study adds descriptive data. The study design prohibits conclusions on safety and efficacy, and the results should be interpreted with caution. Prospective, randomized trials are needed to investigate this further.