Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy最新文献

Background: Procalcitonin (PCT) is a blood marker used to help diagnose bacterial infections and guide antibiotic treatment. PCT testing was widely used/adopted during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK.

Objectives: Primary: to measure the difference in length of early (during first 7 days) antibiotic prescribing between patients with COVID-19 who did/did not have baseline PCT testing during the first wave of the pandemic. Secondary: to measure differences in length of hospital/ICU stay, mortality, total days of antibiotic prescribing and resistant bacterial infections between these groups.

Methods: Multi-centre, retrospective, observational, cohort study using patient-level clinical data from acute hospital Trusts/Health Boards in England/Wales. Inclusion: patients ≥16 years, admitted to participating Trusts/Health Boards and with a confirmed positive COVID-19 test between 1 February 2020 and 30 June 2020.

Results: Data from 5960 patients were analysed: 1548 (26.0%) had a baseline PCT test and 4412 (74.0%) did not. Using propensity-score matching, baseline PCT testing was associated with an average reduction in early antibiotic prescribing of 0.43 days [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.22-0.64 days, P < 0.001) and of 0.72 days (95% CI: 0.06-1.38 days, P = 0.03] in total antibiotic prescribing. Baseline PCT testing was not associated with increased mortality or hospital/ICU length of stay or with the rate of antimicrobial-resistant secondary bacterial infections.

Conclusions: Baseline PCT testing appears to have been an effective antimicrobial stewardship tool early in the pandemic: it reduced antibiotic prescribing without evidence of harm. Our study highlights the need for embedded, rapid evaluations of infection diagnostics in the National Health Service so that even in challenging circumstances, introduction into clinical practice is supported by evidence for clinical utility.

Study registration number: ISRCTN66682918.

Background: There are limited treatment options for prosthetic joint infections (PJI) due to multidrug-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis (MDRSE). Fosfomycin (FOF) has gained attention as a potential therapy, but there is a paucity of information on the phenotypic and genotypic susceptibility amongst S. epidermidis, including MDRSE.

Objectives: To investigate phenotypical and genotypical susceptibility to FOF in S. epidermidis isolates prospectively collected from PJIs in Sweden.

Methods: MIC determination was performed using in-house agar dilution (AD) and a commercial AD panel. Genes and gene variants associated with FOF resistance were analysed.

Results: Multidrug resistance was common [74/89 (83%) isolates were MDRSE].FOF inhibited all isolates except one, which had an MIC > 256 mg/L. The commercial AD panel demonstrated good overall performance but tended to overestimate the MIC, resulting in 84% essential agreement with the gold standard. Genomic analysis with publically available tools for whole-genome sequencing (WGS) data suggested genotypic FOF resistance in all isolates, but in-depth analysis revealed that fosB, associated with FOF resistance, was only present in the phenotypically resistant isolate. No other genes or gene variants associated with FOF resistance were detected.

Conclusions: Phenotypic resistance to FOF and presence of fosB were rare in this collection, indicating FOF's potential as a treatment option for S. epidermidis. The commercial AD panel demonstrated high reproducibility, but EA with the reference method was less than optimal. Findings of genotypic FOF resistance using common tools for WGS data should be critically evaluated and appropriately verified with relevant fosB references for S. epidermidis.

Background: The antiviral efficacy of Evusheld (AZD7442) in patients hospitalized for SARS-CoV-2 is unknown.

Methods: We analysed the evolution of both the nasopharyngeal viral load and the serum neutralization activity against the variant of infection in 199 hospitalized patients (109 treated with Evusheld, 90 treated with placebo) infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus and included in the randomized, double-blind, trial DisCoVeRy (NCT04315948). Using a mechanistic mathematical model, we reconstructed the trajectories of viral kinetics and how they are modulated by the increase in serum neutralization activity during Evusheld treatment.

Results: Our model identified that the neutralization activity was associated with viral kinetics. Reflecting the variant-dependent neutralization activity of Evusheld, the antiviral activity of Evusheld was larger in patients infected with pre-Omicron or Omicron BA.2 variants than in patients infected with Omicron BA.1 variant. More specifically, the model predicted that Evusheld reduced the median time to viral clearance compared with placebo-treated patients by more than 5 days in patients infected by pre-Omicron (median: 5.9; 80% PI: 2.1-13.6) or Omicron BA.2 (median: 5.4; 80% PI: 2.0-12.4), respectively. The effect was more modest in patients infected by the Omicron BA.1 variant, reducing the median time to viral clearance by 2 days (median: 2.2; 80% PI: 0.4-8.9).

Conclusions: Hospitalized patients treated with Evusheld had a shorter median time to SARS-CoV-2 viral clearance. As Evusheld antiviral activity is mediated by the level of neutralization activity, its impact on viral clearance varies largely according to the variant of infection.

Background: The CDC reported a 35% increase in hospital-onset (HO) carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) infections during the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated patient outcomes following HO and community-onset (CO) CRE bloodstream infections (BSI).

Methods: Patients prospectively enrolled in CRACKLE-2 from 56 hospitals in 10 countries between 30 April 2016 and 30 November 2019 with a CRE BSI were eligible. Infections were defined as CO or HO by CDC guidelines, and clinical characteristics and outcomes were compared. The primary outcome was desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) 30 days after index culture. Difference in 30-day mortality was calculated with 95% CI.

Results: Among 891 patients with CRE BSI, 65% were HO (582/891). Compared to those with CO CRE, patients with HO CRE were younger [median 60 (Q1 42, Q3 70) years versus 65 (52, 74); P < 0.001], had fewer comorbidities [median Charlson comorbidity index 2 (1, 4) versus 3 (1, 5); P = 0.002] and were more acutely ill (Pitt bacteraemia score ≥4: 47% versus 32%; P < 0.001). The probability of a better DOOR outcome in a randomly selected patient with CO BSI compared to a patient with HO BSI was 60.6% (95% CI: 56.8%-64.3%). Mortality at 30-days was 12% higher in HO BSI (192/582; 33%) than CO BSI [66/309 (21%); P < 0.001].

Conclusion: We found a disproportionately greater impact on patient outcomes with HO compared to CO CRE BSIs; thus, the recently reported increases in HO CRE infections by CDC requires rigorous surveillance and infection prevention methods to prevent added mortality.

Objectives: To evaluate polypharmacy, anticholinergic burden (ACB) and drug-drug interactions (DDIs) in people with four-class-resistant HIV (4DR-PWH).

Methods: We performed a cross-sectional study, including 4DR-PWH from the PRESTIGIO Registry taking at least one non-antiretroviral drug. Polypharmacy was defined as taking five or more non-antiretroviral drugs. ACB was calculated using the ACB scale: 0 = no AC effect, 1-2 = low/moderate risk, ≥3 = high AC risk. Participants' characteristics by ACB score were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test, and Spearman's correlation coefficient was used to assess linear relationships. DDIs were evaluated using the Liverpool database.

Results: Overall, 172 4DR-PLWH were evaluated: 75.6% males, median age 49.9 years (IQR = 45.6-56), 62 (27.1%) on polypharmacy, 124 (72.1%) using a boosting agent and 72 (41.8%) with four or more antiretrovirals. Based on ACB, 128 (74.45%), 33 (19.2%) and 11 (6.4%) had a no, low/moderate and high AC risk, respectively. The most common AC drugs were β-blockers (12.2%), diuretics (8.7%) and antidepressants (8.7%). The high ACB was significantly related to the number of drugs/person (r = 0.33, P < 0.0001) and the number of clinical events (r = 0.222, P = 0.004). Overall, 258 DDIs were found between antiretrovirals and co-medications in 115 (66.8%) PWH, and 14 (8.1%) PWH received contraindicated drug combinations.

Conclusions: In 4DR-PWH, polypharmacy, DDIs and the proportion of people with moderate/high AC burden were high. In 4DR-PWH undetectability achievement and maintenance is the priority and use of boosted PIs is common. A strict collaboration (infectious diseases specialists, virologists, pharmacologists) is needed to limit the risk of ACB and DDIs and to explore the advantages of new antiretrovirals.