Clinical Microbiology and Infection最新文献

Objectives: To evaluate posaconazole (POS) gastro-resistant tablets for preventing invasive fungal disease (IFD) in haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) patients and analyse POS plasma concentrations.

Methods: A single-arm trial was designed with a historical cohort as a control. Patients aged 13 years and older undergoing HSCT at the HSCT Center of Blood Diseases Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences between December 2020 and May 2022 were enrolled, prospectively taking POS gastro-resistant tablets orally from day 1 to day 90 post-transplant and monitoring plasma concentrations. We also identified a retrospective cohort treated with alternative antifungal prophylaxis between January 2018 and December 2020, matched using propensity score methods. The primary outcome was the cumulative incidence of IFD at day 90 post-transplant.

Results: The prospective study involved 144 patients receiving POS gastro-resistant tablets for IFD prevention, contrasting with 287 patients receiving non-POS tablets. By day 90 post-transplant, the POS tablet group exhibited a significantly lower cumulative incidence of IFD (2.81%; 95% CI, 0.09-5.50% vs. 7.69%; 95% CI, 4.60-10.78%; p 0.044). Adverse events were comparable between the groups with liver changes in 33/144 (22.92%) vs. 84/287 (29.27%) (p 0.162), and renal injuries in 15/144 (10.41%) vs. 37/287 (12.89%) (p 0.457). Mean POS plasma concentrations on days 4, 8, 15, and 22 post-administration were 930.97 ng/mL, 1143.97 ng/mL, 1569.8 ng/mL, and 1652.57 ng/mL, respectively.

Discussion: Patients administered POS gastro-resistant tablets for antifungal prophylaxis experienced a lower cumulative incidence of IFD. POS plasma concentrations in HSCT patients stabilized by day 15 of medication.

Objectives: We aimed to evaluate the prevalence and perception of scientific misconduct in infectious diseases (ID) and clinical microbiology (CM), as reported by the ID/CM community.

Methods: An anonymous online European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases survey circulated among society members from October 2023 to June 2024; the questionnaire included data on participants' views on their own and their colleagues' scientific misconduct in the last 5 years.

Results: The survey received 220 responses. Responders were 73% ID physicians, 52% men, 56% aged 35-54 years, and represented 48 countries, mainly European (126 participants). The vast majority of participants (78%) reported that they did not personally commit scientific misconduct, whereas 54% reported witnessing misconduct by colleagues in their field. The most commonly committed misconduct by both responders and their colleagues was misconduct of authorship rules, 14% and 41%, respectively. Overall, 18% reported witnessing misleading reporting and 14% reported witnessing nonaccurate reporting of conflict of interest. Nevertheless, the majority (>60%) of responders reported high confidence in the integrity of published work in the field of ID/CM. Approximately one-third of responders were not aware of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases ethics advisory committee as an authority to which members can report misconduct.

Discussion: Scientific misconduct, mostly related to violation of authorship rules, seems to be common in ID/CM. Efforts to improve scientific integrity should be made to keep trust in the scientific process.

Scope: This European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases guideline provides evidence-based recommendations to support a selection of appropriate antibiotic use practices for patients seen in the emergency department (ED) and guidance for their implementation. The topics addressed in this guideline are (a) Do biomarkers or rapid pathogen tests improve antibiotic prescribing and/or clinical outcomes? (b) Does taking blood cultures in common infectious syndromes improve antibiotic prescribing and/or clinical outcomes? (c) Does watchful waiting without antibacterial therapy or with delayed antibiotic prescribing reduce antibiotic prescribing without worsening clinical outcomes in patients with specific infectious syndromes? (d) Do structured culture follow-up programs in patients discharged from the ED with cultures pending improve antibiotic prescribing?

Methods: An expert panel was convened by European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases and the guideline chair. The panel selected in consensus the four most relevant antimicrobial stewardship topics according to pre-defined relevance criteria. For each main question for the four topics, a systematic review was performed, including randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Both clinical outcomes and stewardship process outcomes related to antibiotic use were deemed relevant. The literature searches were conducted between May 2021 and March 2022. In April 2022, the panel members were formally asked to suggest additional studies that were not identified in the initial searches. Data were summarized in a meta-analysis if possible or otherwise summarized narratively. The certainty of the evidence was classified according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria. The guideline panel reviewed the evidence per topic critically appraising the evidence and formulated recommendations through a consensus-based process. The strength of the recommendations was classified as strong or weak. To substantiate the implementation process, implementation trials or observational studies describing facilitators/barriers for implementation were identified from the same searches and were summarized narratively.

Recommendations: The recommendations on the use of biomarkers and rapid pathogen diagnostic tests focus on the initiation of antibiotics in patients admitted through the ED. Their effect on the discontinuation or de-escalation of antibiotics during hospital stay was not reported, neither was their effect on hospital infection prevention and control practices. The recommendations on watchful waiting (i.e. withholding antibiotics with some form of follow-up) focus on specific infectious syndromes for which the primary care literature was also included. The recommendations on blood cultures focus on the indication in three common infectious syndromes in the ED

Background: Whether treatment during acute COVID-19 results in protective efficacy against long COVID incidence remains unclear.

Objectives: To assess the relationship between acute COVID-19 treatments of antivirals, corticosteroids, and monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and long COVID incidence, and their effects in different populations and individual symptoms.

Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data sources: Searches were conducted up to January 29, 2024 in PubMed, Medline, Web of Science, and Embase.

Study eligibility criteria: Articles that reported long COVID incidence post-acute COVID with a follow-up of at least 30 days with no language restrictions.

Participants: Patients with a COVID-19 diagnosis history.

Interventions: Patients treated with antivirals, corticosteroids or mAbs.

Assessment of risk of bias: Quality assessment was based on the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions-I and Cochrane risk of bias tool.

Methods of data synthesis: Basic characteristics were documented for each study. Random forest model and meta-regression were used to evaluate the correlation between treatments and long COVID.

Results: Our search identified 2363 records, 32 of which were included in the qualitative synthesis and 25 included into the meta-analysis. Effect size from 14 papers investigating acute COVID-19 antiviral treatment concluded its protective efficacy against long COVID (OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.48-0.79; p 0.0002); however, corticosteroid (OR, 1.57; 95% CI, 0.80-3.09; p 0.1913), and mAbs treatments (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.56-1.56; p 0.8012) did not generate such effect. Subsequent subgroup analysis revealed that antivirals provided stronger protection in the aged, male, unvaccinated and nondiabetic populations. Furthermore, antivirals effectively reduced 8 out of the 22 analysed long COVID symptoms.

Conclusions: Our meta-analysis determined that antivirals reduced long COVID incidence across populations and should thus be recommended for acute COVID-19 treatment. There was no relationship between mAbs treatment and long COVID, but studies should be conducted to clarify acute COVID-19 corticosteroids' potential harmful effects on the post-acute phase of COVID-19.

Objective: We aimed to assess the performance of common pneumonia severity scores, such as pneumonia severity index (PSI), CURB-65, CRB-65, A-DROP, and SMART-COP, in predicting adverse outcomes in elderly community-acquired pneumonia cohort and to determine the optimal scoring system for specific outcomes of interest.

Methods: A total of 822 elderly inpatients were included in the retrospective cohort study. Clinical and laboratory results on admission were used to calculate the above scores. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were in-hospital mortality, need for mechanical ventilation (MV) and ICU admission. Model discrimination was evaluated by the area under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs).

Results: The 30-day and in-hospital mortality rates were 6.8% (56/822) and 8.6% (71/822), respectively. One hundred and ninety-eight (24.0%) received MV and 111 (13.5%) were admitted to the ICU. All five scoring systems showed the same trend of increasing rates of each adverse outcome with increasing risk groups (all p < 0.001). PSI had the highest AUC, sensitivity, and negative predictive value (NPV) in predicting 30-day mortality and in-hospital mortality. SMART-COP had the highest AUC for predicting the need for MV and ICU admission, but PSI had the highest sensitivity and NPV for these two outcomes.

Discussion: PSI performed well in identifying elderly patients at risk for 30-day mortality and its high NPV is helpful in excluding patients who are not at risk. Considering their effectiveness and simplicity, SMART-COP and CURB-65 are easier to perform in clinical practice than PSI.