Search

Blastomycosis, caused by Blastomyces spp., is an endemic mycosis capable of causing significant disease throughout the body. Higher rates of infection are seen in the Mississippi and Ohio River valleys, the Great Lakes region of the United States and Canada, much of Africa, and, to a lesser extent, in India and the Middle East. Limited reporting inhibits our true understanding of the geographic distribution of blastomycosis. An estimated 50% of those infected remain asymptomatic. Of those who present with symptomatic disease, pulmonary involvement is most common, while the most common extrapulmonary sites are the skin, bones, genitourinary system, and central nervous system. Itraconazole is the standard therapy for mild–moderate disease. Data for other azoles are limited. Amphotericin is used for severe disease, and corticosteroids are occasionally used in severe disease, but evidence for this practice is limited. Despite increasing incidence and geographic reach in recent years, there are still significant knowledge gaps in our understanding of blastomycosis. Here, we provide an updated review of the epidemiology, clinical presentations, and diagnostic and therapeutic approaches for this infection. We also discuss areas needing further research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic evolved, it was apparent that well designed and rapidly conducted randomized clinical trials were urgently needed. However, traditional clinical trial design presented several challenges. Notably, disease prevalence initially varied by time and region, and the pockets of outbreaks evolved geographically over time. Coupled with an occupational hazard from in-person study visits, timely recruitment would prove difficult in a traditional in-person clinical trial. Thus, our team opted to launch nationwide internet-based clinical trials using patient-reported outcome measures. In total, 2795 participants were recruited using traditional and social media, with screening and enrollment performed via an online data capture system. Follow-up surveys and survey reminders were similarly managed through this online system with manual participant outreach in the event of missing data. In this report, we present a narrative of our experience running internet-based clinical trials and provide recommendations for the design of future clinical trials during a world pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background In cryptococcal meningitis phase 2 clinical trials, early fungicidal activity (EFA) of Cryptococcus clearance from cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) is used as a surrogate endpoint for all-cause mortality. The Food and Drug Administration allows for using surrogate endpoints for accelerated regulatory approval, but EFA as a surrogate endpoint requires further validation. We examined the relationship between rate of CSF Cryptococcus clearance (EFA) and mortality through 18 weeks. Methods We pooled individual-level CSF data from 3 sequential cryptococcal meningitis clinical trials conducted during 2010–2017. All 738 subjects received amphotericin + fluconazole induction therapy and had serial quantitative CSF cultures. The log10-transformed colony-forming units (CFUs) per mL CSF were analyzed by general linear regression versus day of culture over the first 10 days. Results Mortality through 18 weeks was 37% for EFA > = 0.60 (n = 170), 36% for 0.40–0.59 (n = 182), 39% for 0.30–0.39 (n = 112), 35% for 0.20–0.29 (n = 87), and 50% for those with EFA < 0.20 CFU/mL/day (n = 187). The hazard ratio for 18-week mortality, comparing those with EFA < 0.20 to those with EFA > = 0.20, was 1.60 (95% confidence interval, 1.25, 2.04; P  = .002). The lowest EFA group had lower median CD4 T-cell counts (P  < .01) and lower proportion of patients with CSF pleocytosis (P  < .001). Conclusions EFA is associated with all-cause mortality in cryptococcal meningitis. An EFA threshold of > = 0.20 log10 CFU/mL/day was associated with similar 18-week mortality (37%) compared to 50% mortality with EFA < 0.20. This EFA threshold may be considered a target for a surrogate endpoint. This builds upon existing studies to validate EFA as a surrogate endpoint. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a novel pathogen causing the current worldwide coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Due to insufficient diagnostic testing in the United States, there is a need for clinical decision-making algorithms to guide testing prioritization. Methods We recruited participants nationwide for a randomized clinical trial. We categorized participants into 3 groups: (1) those with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, (2) those with probable SARS-CoV-2 infection (pending test or not tested but with a confirmed COVID-19 contact), and (3) those with possible SARS-CoV-2 infection (pending test or not tested and with a contact for whom testing was pending or not performed). We compared the frequency of self-reported symptoms in each group and categorized those reporting symptoms in early infection (0–2 days), midinfection (3–5 days), and late infection (>5 days). Results Among 1252 symptomatic persons screened, 316 had confirmed, 393 had probable, and 543 had possible SARS-CoV-2 infection. In early infection, those with confirmed and probable SARS-CoV-2 infection shared similar symptom profiles, with fever most likely in confirmed cases (P  = .002). Confirmed cases did not show any statistically significant differences compared with unconfirmed cases in symptom frequency at any time point. The most commonly reported symptoms in those with confirmed infection were cough (82%), fever (67%), fatigue (62%), and headache (60%), with only 52% reporting both fever and cough. Conclusions Symptomatic persons with probable SARS-CoV-2 infection present similarly to those with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. There was no pattern of symptom frequency over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a case study related to 66-year-old man presented with several weeks of progressive right-sided chest pain, dyspnea, hemoptysis, and an unintentional 15-pound weight loss. Topics inlcude the oropharyngeal exam found no dental or gingival pathology, the Gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of the thoracic spine has showed a large paraspinal mass with circumferential epidural extension, and the heightened clinical concern for a primary pulmonary malignancy.

The article discusses the World Health Organization guidelines for recommending cryptococcal antigen (CrAg) screening in blood for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected persons, who do not receive effective antiretroviral therapy. It mention the asymptomatic CrAg-positive patients being enrolled in the ORCAS study during fluconazole therapy.

Background Prior randomized clinical trials have reported benefit of fluvoxamine ≥200 mg/d vs placebo for patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Methods This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, fully remote multisite clinical trial evaluated whether fluvoxamine prevents clinical deterioration in higher-risk outpatients with acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Between December 2020 and May 2021, nonhospitalized US and Canadian participants with confirmed symptomatic infection received fluvoxamine (50 mg on day 1, 100 mg twice daily thereafter) or placebo for 15 days. The primary modified intent-to-treat (mITT) population included participants who started the intervention within 7 days of symptom onset with a baseline oxygen saturation ≥92%. The primary outcome was clinical deterioration within 15 days of randomization, defined as having both (1) shortness of breath (severity ≥4 on a 0–10 scale or requiring hospitalization) and (2) oxygen saturation <92% on room air or need for supplemental oxygen. Results A total of 547 participants were randomized and met mITT criteria (n = 272 fluvoxamine, n = 275 placebo). The Data Safety Monitoring Board recommended stopping early for futility related to lower-than-predicted event rates and declining accrual concurrent with vaccine availability in the United States and Canada. Clinical deterioration occurred in 13 (4.8%) participants in the fluvoxamine group and 15 (5.5%) participants in the placebo group (absolute difference at day 15, 0.68%; 95% CI, −3.0% to 4.4%; log-rank P =.91). Conclusions This trial did not find fluvoxamine efficacious in preventing clinical deterioration in unvaccinated outpatients with symptomatic COVID-19. It was stopped early and underpowered due to low primary outcome rates. Clinical Trials Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04668950. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The World Health Organization recommends GeneXpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra), a fully automated polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay, as the initial tuberculous meningitis (TBM) diagnostic test. The assay's PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values represent the number of PCR cycles required for probe signal to be detected (low Ct value = high bacillary load) and may approximate tuberculosis (TB) bacillary load. We measured the relationship between cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) TB bacillary load with mortality. Methods We prospectively enrolled 102 human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)–positive Ugandans with probable or definite TBM from April 2015 to August 2019. Xpert Ultra Ct tertiles and semi-quantitative categories were separately analyzed as predictors of 2-week mortality. We investigated associations between Ct and baseline clinical and CSF parameters. Results Subjects with Ct values in the low tertile (ie, high bacillary load) had 57% 2-week mortality—worse than the intermediate (17%) and high (25%) Ct tertiles and Xpert Ultra–negative (30%) probable TBM cases (P  = .01). In contrast, the reported semi-quantitative Xpert Ultra categorization was less precise; with the medium to low category trending toward worse 2-week survival (42%) compared with very low (28%), trace (26%), and negative (30%) categories (P  = .48). Ct tertile was significantly associated with baseline CSF lactate (P  = .03). Conclusions High CSF TB bacillary load, as measured by Xpert Ultra Ct tertile, is associated with an almost 2-fold higher 2-week mortality in HIV-associated TBM and is a better predictor than the reported Xpert Ultra semi-quantitative category. Xpert Ultra Ct values could identify TBM patients at increased risk of death who may benefit from enhanced supportive care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, clinical trials necessitated rapid testing to be performed remotely. Dried blood spot (DBS) techniques have enabled remote HIV virologic testing globally, and more recently, antibody testing as well. We evaluated DBS testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody testing in outpatients to assess seropositivity. Methods In 2020, we conducted 3 internet-based randomized clinical trials and offered serologic testing via self-collected DBS as a voluntary substudy. COVID-19 diagnosis was based on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention case definition with epidemiological link to cases. A minority reported polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing at an outside facility. We tested for anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin via antibody detection by agglutination–PCR (ADAP) and compared the results with enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Results Of 2727 participants in the primary studies, 60% (1648/2727) consented for serology testing; 56% (931/1648) returned a usable DBS sample. Of those who were asymptomatic, 5% (33/707) had positive ADAP serology. Of participants with a positive PCR, 67% (36/54) had positive SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. None of those who were PCR-positive and asymptomatic were seropositive (0/7). Of 77 specimens tested for concordance via ELISA, 83% (64/77) were concordant. The challenges of completing a remote testing program during a pandemic included sourcing and assembling collection kits, delivery and return of the kits, and troubleshooting testing. Self-collection was successful for >95% of participants. Delays in US mail with possible sample degradation and timing of DBS collection complicated the analysis. Conclusions We found remote antibody testing during a global pandemic feasible although challenging. We identified an association between symptomatic COVID-19 and positive antibody results at a similar prevalence as other outpatient cohorts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a rapidly emerging virus causing the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic with no known effective prophylaxis. We investigated whether hydroxychloroquine could prevent SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare workers at high risk of exposure. Methods We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial of healthcare workers with ongoing exposure to persons with SARS-CoV-2, including those working in emergency departments, intensive care units, COVID-19 hospital wards, and first responders. Participants across the United States and in the Canadian province of Manitoba were randomized to hydroxychloroquine loading dose then 400 mg once or twice weekly for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was confirmed or probable COVID-19–compatible illness. We measured hydroxychloroquine whole-blood concentrations. Results We enrolled 1483 healthcare workers, of whom 79% reported performing aerosol-generating procedures. The incidence of COVID-19 (laboratory-confirmed or symptomatic compatible illness) was 0.27 events/person-year with once-weekly and 0.28 events/person-year with twice-weekly hydroxychloroquine compared with 0.38 events/person-year with placebo. For once-weekly hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis, the hazard ratio was.72 (95% CI,.44–1.16; P =.18) and for twice-weekly was.74 (95% CI,.46–1.19; P =.22) compared with placebo. Median hydroxychloroquine concentrations in whole blood were 98 ng/mL (IQR, 82–120) with once-weekly and 200 ng/mL (IQR, 159–258) with twice-weekly dosing. Hydroxychloroquine concentrations did not differ between participants who developed COVID-19–compatible illness (154 ng/mL) versus participants without COVID-19 (133 ng/mL; P =.08). Conclusions Pre-exposure prophylaxis with hydroxychloroquine once or twice weekly did not significantly reduce laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 or COVID-19–compatible illness among healthcare workers. Clinical Trials Registration Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04328467. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Use of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), especially in combination with azithromycin, has raised safety concerns. Here, we report safety data from 3 outpatient randomized clinical trials. Methods We conducted 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials investigating hydroxychloroquine as pre-exposure prophylaxis, postexposure prophylaxis, and early treatment for COVID-19 using an internet-based design. We excluded individuals with contraindications to hydroxychloroquine. We collected side effects and serious adverse events. We report descriptive analyses of our findings. Results We enrolled 2795 participants. The median age of research participants (interquartile range) was 40 (34–49) years, and 59% (1633/2767) reported no chronic medical conditions. Overall 2544 (91%) participants reported side effect data, and 748 (29%) reported at least 1 medication side effect. Side effects were reported in 40% with once-daily, 36% with twice-weekly, 31% with once-weekly hydroxychloroquine, compared with 19% with placebo. The most common side effects were upset stomach or nausea (25% with once-daily, 19% with twice-weekly, and 18% with once-weekly hydroxychloroquine, vs 11% for placebo), followed by diarrhea, vomiting, or abdominal pain (23% for once-daily, 17% twice-weekly, and 13% once-weekly hydroxychloroquine, vs 7% for placebo). Two individuals were hospitalized for atrial arrhythmias, 1 on placebo and 1 on twice-weekly hydroxychloroquine. No sudden deaths occurred. Conclusions Data from 3 outpatient COVID-19 trials demonstrated that gastrointestinal side effects were common but mild with the use of hydroxychloroquine, while serious side effects were rare. No deaths occurred related to hydroxychloroquine. Randomized clinical trials, in cohorts of healthy outpatients, can safely investigate whether hydroxychloroquine is efficacious for COVID-19. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT04308668 for postexposure prophylaxis and early treatment trials; NCT04328467 for pre-exposure prophylaxis trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: No effective oral therapy exists for early coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).Objective: To investigate whether hydroxychloroquine could reduce COVID-19 severity in adult outpatients.Design: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted from 22 March through 20 May 2020. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04308668).Setting: Internet-based trial across the United States and Canada (40 states and 3 provinces).Participants: Symptomatic, nonhospitalized adults with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 or probable COVID-19 and high-risk exposure within 4 days of symptom onset.Intervention: Oral hydroxychloroquine (800 mg once, followed by 600 mg in 6 to 8 hours, then 600 mg daily for 4 more days) or masked placebo.Measurements: Symptoms and severity at baseline and then at days 3, 5, 10, and 14 using a 10-point visual analogue scale. The primary end point was change in overall symptom severity over 14 days.Results: Of 491 patients randomly assigned to a group, 423 contributed primary end point data. Of these, 341 (81%) had laboratory-confirmed infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or epidemiologically linked exposure to a person with laboratory-confirmed infection; 56% (236 of 423) were enrolled within 1 day of symptoms starting. Change in symptom severity over 14 days did not differ between the hydroxychloroquine and placebo groups (difference in symptom severity: relative, 12%; absolute, -0.27 point [95% CI, -0.61 to 0.07 point]; P = 0.117). At 14 days, 24% (49 of 201) of participants receiving hydroxychloroquine had ongoing symptoms compared with 30% (59 of 194) receiving placebo (P = 0.21). Medication adverse effects occurred in 43% (92 of 212) of participants receiving hydroxychloroquine versus 22% (46 of 211) receiving placebo (P < 0.001). With placebo, 10 hospitalizations occurred (2 non-COVID-19-related), including 1 hospitalized death. With hydroxychloroquine, 4 hospitalizations occurred plus 1 nonhospitalized death (P = 0.29).Limitation: Only 58% of participants received SARS-CoV-2 testing because of severe U.S. testing shortages.Conclusion: Hydroxychloroquine did not substantially reduce symptom severity in outpatients with early, mild COVID-19.Primary Funding Source: Private donors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a rapidly emerging viral infection causing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine have garnered unprecedented attention as potential therapeutic agents against COVID-19 following several small clinical trials, uncontrolled case series, and public figure endorsements. While there is a growing body of scientific data, there is also concern for harm, particularly QTc prolongation and cardiac arrhythmias. Here, we perform a rapid narrative review and discuss the strengths and limitations of existing in vitro and clinical studies. We call for additional randomized controlled trial evidence prior to the widespread incorporation of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine into national and international treatment guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]