Search

Background: Limited data are available describing the effects of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections on the plasma proteome. Methods: PCR-positive SARS-CoV-2 patients, enrolled in a natural history study, underwent analysis of the plasma proteome. A prospective cohort of 66 unvaccinated and 24 vaccinated persons with different degrees of infection severity were evaluated acutely (within 40 days of symptom onset), and at three and ten months. Comparisons based on vaccination status alone and unsupervised hierarchical clustering were performed. A second cohort of vaccinated Omicron patients were evaluated acutely and at ten months. Results: Acutely, unvaccinated patients manifested overexpression of proteins involved in immune and inflammatory responses, while vaccinated patients exhibited adaptive immune responses without significant inflammation. At three and ten months, only unvaccinated patients had diminished but sustained inflammatory (C3b, CCL15, IL17RE) and immune responses (DEFA5, TREM1). Both groups had underexpression of pathways essential for cellular function, signaling, and angiogenesis (AKT1, MAPK14, HSPB1) across phases. Unsupervised clustering, based on protein expression, identified four groups of patients with variable vaccination rates demonstrating that additional clinical factors influence the plasma proteome. The proteome of vaccinated Omicron patients did not differ from vaccinated pre-Omicron patients. Conclusions: Vaccination attenuates the inflammatory response to SARS-CoV-2 infection across phases. However, at ten months after symptom onset, changes in the plasma proteome persist in both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, which may be relevant to post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 and other viral infections associated with post-acute infection syndromes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Drug-resistant bacteria remain an ever-present danger to patients and patient safety. Understanding whether and how clinicians use recently approved gram-negative antibiotics might help prioritize the patient in future antibiotic development. This study sought to determine use patterns of recently approved gram-negative antibiotics and identify factors associated with their preferential use in patients with gram-negative infections. The study found that despite approval of 7 next-generation gram-negative antibiotics, clinicians still frequently treat resistant gram-negative infections with older, generic antibiotics with suboptimal safety–efficacy profiles. Visual Abstract. Assessing Clinician Utilization of Next-Generation Antibiotics Against Resistant Gram-Negative Infections in U.S. Hospitals: Drug-resistant bacteria remain an ever-present danger to patients and patient safety. Understanding whether and how clinicians use recently approved gram-negative antibiotics might help prioritize the patient in future antibiotic development. This study sought to determine use patterns of recently approved gram-negative antibiotics and identify factors associated with their preferential use in patients with gram-negative infections. The study found that despite approval of 7 next-generation gram-negative antibiotics, clinicians still frequently treat resistant gram-negative infections with older, generic antibiotics with suboptimal safety–efficacy profiles. Background: The U.S. antibiotic market failure has threatened future innovation and supply. Understanding when and why clinicians underutilize recently approved gram-negative antibiotics might help prioritize the patient in future antibiotic development and potential market entry rewards. Objective: To determine use patterns of recently U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved gram-negative antibiotics (ceftazidime–avibactam, ceftolozane–tazobactam, meropenem–vaborbactam, plazomicin, eravacycline, imipenem–relebactam–cilastatin, and cefiderocol) and identify factors associated with their preferential use (over traditional generic agents) in patients with gram-negative infections due to pathogens displaying difficult-to-treat resistance (DTR; that is, resistance to all first-line antibiotics). Design: Retrospective cohort. Setting: 619 U.S. hospitals. Participants: Adult inpatients. Measurements: Quarterly percentage change in antibiotic use was calculated using weighted linear regression. Machine learning selected candidate variables, and mixed models identified factors associated with new (vs. traditional) antibiotic use in DTR infections. Results: Between quarter 1 of 2016 and quarter 2 of 2021, ceftolozane–tazobactam (approved 2014) and ceftazidime–avibactam (2015) predominated new antibiotic usage whereas subsequently approved gram-negative antibiotics saw relatively sluggish uptake. Among gram-negative infection hospitalizations, 0.7% (2551 [2631 episodes] of 362 142) displayed DTR pathogens. Patients were treated exclusively using traditional agents in 1091 of 2631 DTR episodes (41.5%), including "reserve" antibiotics such as polymyxins, aminoglycosides, and tigecycline in 865 of 1091 episodes (79.3%). Patients with bacteremia and chronic diseases had greater adjusted probabilities and those with do-not-resuscitate status, acute liver failure, and Acinetobacter baumannii complex and other nonpseudomonal nonfermenter pathogens had lower adjusted probabilities of receiving newer (vs. traditional) antibiotics for DTR infections, respectively. Availability of susceptibility testing for new antibiotics increased probability of usage. Limitation: Residual confounding. Conclusion: Despite FDA approval of 7 next-generation gram-negative antibiotics between 2014 and 2019, clinicians still frequently treat resistant gram-negative infections with older, generic antibiotics with suboptimal safety–efficacy profiles. Future antibiotics with innovative mechanisms targeting untapped pathogen niches, widely available susceptibility testing, and evidence demonstrating improved outcomes in resistant infections might enhance utilization. Primary Funding Source: U.S. Food and Drug Administration; NIH Intramural Research Program. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bispectral index (BIS) provides an objective measure of sedation; however, the role of BIS is not well defined in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. The weak correlation between BIS during paralysis and RASS after paralysis highlight that BIS is a poor predictor of the level of sedation in critically ill patients on NMBA and may lead to under-sedation of patients receiving NMBA. [Extracted from the article]

Background: Data on cellular immune responses in persons with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection following vaccination are limited. The evaluation of these patients with SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections may provide insight into how vaccinations limit the escalation of deleterious host inflammatory responses., Methods: We conducted a prospective study of peripheral blood cellular immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection in 21 vaccinated patients, all with mild disease, and 97 unvaccinated patients stratified based on disease severity., Results: We enrolled 118 persons (aged 50 years [SD 14.5 years], 52 women) with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Compared to unvaccinated patients, vaccinated patients with breakthrough infections had a higher percentage of antigen-presenting monocytes (HLA-DR+), mature monocytes (CD83+), functionally competent T cells (CD127+), and mature neutrophils (CD10+); and lower percentages of activated T cells (CD38+), activated neutrophils (CD64+), and immature B cells (CD127+CD19+). These differences widened with increased disease severity in unvaccinated patients. Longitudinal analysis showed that cellular activation decreased over time but persisted in unvaccinated patients with mild disease at 8-month follow-up., Conclusions: Patients with SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections exhibit cellular immune responses that limit the progression of inflammatory responses and suggest mechanisms by which vaccination limits disease severity. These data may have implications for developing more effective vaccines and therapies. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT04401449., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. All authors: No reported conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America 2023.)