Clinical outcomes in patients with piperacillin/tazobactam-non-susceptible but ceftriaxone-susceptible E. coli or K. pneumoniae bloodstream infection.

BACKGROUND: A small proportion of Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae demonstrate in vitro non-susceptibility to piperacillin/tazobactam but retain susceptibility to ceftriaxone. Uncertainty remains regarding how best to treat these isolates. OBJECTIVES: We sought to compare clinical outcomes between patients with piperacillin/tazobactam-non-susceptible but ceftriaxone-susceptible E. coli or K. pneumoniae bloodstream infection receiving definitive therapy with ceftriaxone versus an alternative effective antibiotic. METHODS: We retrospectively identified patients with a positive blood culture for piperacillin/tazobactam-non-susceptible but ceftriaxone-susceptible E. coli or K. pneumoniae between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2022. Patients were divided into one of two definitive treatment groups: ceftriaxone or alternative effective antibiotic. Our primary outcome was a composite of 90 day all-cause mortality, hospital readmission, or recurrence of infection. We used Cox proportional hazards models to compare time with the composite outcome between groups. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients were included in our analysis. Overall, median age was 63 years (IQR 49.5-71.0), the most common source of infection was intra-abdominal (25/62; 40.3%) and the median total duration of therapy was 12.0 days (IQR 9.0-16.8). A total of 9/22 (40.9%) patients in the ceftriaxone treatment group and 18/40 (45.0%) patients in the alternative effective antibiotic group met the composite endpoint. In an adjusted time-to-event analysis, there was no difference in the composite endpoint between groups (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.30-1.50). The adjusted Bayesian posterior probability that the HR was less than or equal to 1 (i.e. ceftriaxone is as good or better than alternative therapy) was 85%. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that ceftriaxone can be used to effectively treat bloodstream infections with E. coli or K. pneumoniae that are non-susceptible to piperacillin/tazobactam but susceptible to ceftriaxone.

Effect of Montelukast vs Placebo on Time to Sustained Recovery in Outpatients with COVID-19: The ACTIV-6 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The effect of montelukast in reducing symptom duration among outpatients with mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is uncertain. Objective: To assess the effectiveness of montelukast compared with placebo in treating outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. Design Setting and Participants: The ACTIV-6 platform randomized clinical trial aims to evaluate the effectiveness of repurposed medications in treating mild to moderate COVID-19. Between January 27, 2023, and June 23, 2023, 1250 participants ≥30 years of age with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and ≥2 acute COVID-19 symptoms for ≤7 days, were included across 104 US sites to evaluate the use of montelukast. Interventions: Participants were randomized to receive montelukast 10 mg once daily or matched placebo for 14 days. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery (defined as at least 3 consecutive days without symptoms). Secondary outcomes included time to death; time to hospitalization or death; a composite of hospitalization, urgent care visit, emergency department visit, or death; COVID clinical progression scale; and difference in mean time unwell. Results: Among participants who were randomized and received study drug, the median age was 53 years (IQR 42-62), 60.2% were female, 64.6% identified as Hispanic/Latino, and 56.3% reported ≥2 doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Among 628 participants who received montelukast and 622 who received placebo, differences in time to sustained recovery were not observed (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.02; 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.92-1.12; P(efficacy) = 0.63]). Unadjusted median time to sustained recovery was 10 days (95% confidence interval 10-11) in both groups. No deaths were reported and 2 hospitalizations were reported in each group; 36 participants reported healthcare utilization events (a priori defined as death, hospitalization, emergency department/urgent care visit); 18 in the montelukast group compared with 18 in the placebo group (HR 1.01; 95% CrI 0.45-1.84; P(efficacy)=0.48). Five participants experienced serious adverse events (3 with montelukast and 2 with placebo). Conclusions and Relevance: Among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment with montelukast does not reduce duration of COVID-19 symptoms. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT04885530 ).

Who Benefits? An Assessment of Resident Benefits at Top 50 Academic Institutions.

OBJECTIVE: Residency serves as a crucial time in the professional and personal development of young physicians. Extensive effort is devoted to the clinical training of residents across the country. However, many residents report concerns with compensation, quality of life, and benefits during their clinical training. We sought to evaluate the benefits packages of resident physicians in comparison with other full-time employees at their institutions. SETTING: "Top 50" Residency programs in Medicine, Surgery, and Pediatrics in the United States. DESIGN: To accomplish this task we selected the, "Top-50," institutions for medicine, pediatrics, and surgery using Doximity's Residency Navigator and compared the benefits of residents at these institutions with full-time employees by accessing benefits offerings listed on institutional websites. RESULTS: We found that residents were more likely to receive parking benefits and gym memberships, while full-time employees were more likely to be offered flexible spending accounts, retirement benefits, and tuition support. CONCLUSIONS: Residents receive different benefits packages than their colleagues employed in full time positions at the same institutions. Further discussion regarding the benefits offered to physicians, and the role that benefits play in resident wellbeing is warranted in light of these findings.

Higher-Dose Fluvoxamine and Time to Sustained Recovery in Outpatients With COVID-19: The ACTIV-6 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The effect of higher-dose fluvoxamine in reducing symptom duration among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19 remains uncertain. Objective: To assess the effectiveness of fluvoxamine, 100 mg twice daily, compared with placebo, for treating mild to moderate COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: The ACTIV-6 platform randomized clinical trial aims to evaluate repurposed medications for mild to moderate COVID-19. Between August 25, 2022, and January 20, 2023, a total of 1175 participants were enrolled at 103 US sites for evaluating fluvoxamine; participants were 30 years or older with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and at least 2 acute COVID-19 symptoms for 7 days or less. Interventions: Participants were randomized to receive fluvoxamine, 50 mg twice daily on day 1 followed by 100 mg twice daily for 12 additional days (n = 601), or placebo (n = 607). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery (defined as at least 3 consecutive days without symptoms). Secondary outcomes included time to death; time to hospitalization or death; a composite of hospitalization, urgent care visit, emergency department visit, or death; COVID-19 clinical progression scale score; and difference in mean time unwell. Follow-up occurred through day 28. Results: Among 1208 participants who were randomized and received the study drug, the median (IQR) age was 50 (40-60) years, 65.8% were women, 45.5% identified as Hispanic/Latino, and 76.8% reported receiving at least 2 doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Among 589 participants who received fluvoxamine and 586 who received placebo included in the primary analysis, differences in time to sustained recovery were not observed (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.99 [95% credible interval, 0.89-1.09]; P for efficacy = .40]). Additionally, unadjusted median time to sustained recovery was 10 (95% CI, 10-11) days in both the intervention and placebo groups. No deaths were reported. Thirty-five participants reported health care use events (a priori defined as death, hospitalization, or emergency department/urgent care visit): 14 in the fluvoxamine group compared with 21 in the placebo group (HR, 0.69 [95% credible interval, 0.27-1.21]; P for efficacy = .86) There were 7 serious adverse events in 6 participants (2 with fluvoxamine and 4 with placebo) but no deaths. Conclusions and Relevance: Among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment with fluvoxamine does not reduce duration of COVID-19 symptoms. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04885530.

Disparities in Mpox Vaccination Among Priority Populations During the 2022 Outbreak.

Background: The 2022 mpox outbreak disproportionately affected men who have sex with men and persons living with HIV (PLWH). A 2-dose mpox vaccine series was deployed in mid-2022. Structural racism and insurance status may have affected equitable vaccination. Methods: We defined 3 cohorts: PLWH with at least 1 clinic visit between 1 July 2021 and 1 July 2022 (n = 2066), HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) recipients as of 1 January 2022 (n = 262), and all mpox-vaccinated patients in our health system between 1 July 2022 and 30 November 2022 (n = 807). We identified patients with prior diagnosed sexually transmitted infections (STIs) as having a positive test result for gonorrhea, chlamydia, or syphilis between 1 July 2021-1 July 2022. The primary outcome was receipt of at least 1 dose of mpox vaccine. Results: We identified 224 (10.8%) PLWH and 50 (19.0%) PrEP patients who received at least 1 dose of mpox vaccine. Among PLWH, White race (odds ratio [OR], 1.55; 95% CI, 1.11-2.16), private insurance (OR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.01-3.34), prior STI (OR, 3.04; 95% CI, 2.16-4.27), prior COVID-19 vaccination (OR, 3.17; 95% CI, 1.93-5.20), and prior influenza vaccination (OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.30-1.96) independently predicted mpox vaccination. Within the PrEP cohort, prior COVID-19 vaccination and seasonal influenza vaccination predicted mpox vaccination. Uninsured patients were vaccinated later in the outbreak than patients with private insurance (median time to vaccination, 41 days in the privately insured group vs 83 days in the uninsured group; P < .0001). Conclusions: Race, insurance status, prior STI, and previous receipt of other vaccines influenced uptake of mpox vaccine. Addressing health disparities and vaccine acceptance will be essential in improving future outbreak response.

Concurrent Sexually Transmitted Infection Testing Among Patients Tested for Mpox at a Tertiary Healthcare System.

Coinfection with sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and mpox is common. We evaluated concurrent STI testing among Duke Health patients tested for mpox. We found that most patients tested for mpox were not comprehensively tested for STIs, despite concurrent STIs being diagnosed in 15% of patients when testing was performed.

Scoping review of percutaneous mechanical aspiration for valvular and cardiac implantable electronic device infective endocarditis.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous mechanical aspiration (PMA) of intravascular vegetations is a novel strategy for management of patients with infective endocarditis (IE) who are at high risk of poor outcomes with conventional cardiac surgery. However, clear indications for its use as well as patient outcomes are largely unknown. OBJECTIVES: To conduct a scoping review of the literature to summarize patient characteristics and outcomes of those undergoing PMA for management of IE. METHODS: Two independent reviewers screened abstracts and full text for inclusion and independently extracted data. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies published until February 21, 2023, describing the use of PMA for management of patients with cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) or valvular IE were included. ASSESSMENT OF RISK OF BIAS: As this was a scoping review, risk of bias assessment was not performed. METHODS OF DATA SYNTHESIS: Descriptive data was reported. RESULTS: We identified 2252 titles, of which 1442 abstracts were screened, and 125 full text articles were reviewed for inclusion. Fifty-one studies, describing a total of 294 patients who underwent PMA for IE were included in our review. Over 50% (152/294) of patients underwent PMA to debulk cardiac implantable electronic device lead vegetations prior to extraction (152/294), and 38.8% (114/294) of patients had a history of drug use. Patient outcomes were inconsistently reported, but few had procedural complications, and all-cause in-hospital mortality was 6.5% (19/294). CONCLUSIONS: While PMA is a promising advance in the care of patients with IE, higher quality data regarding patient outcomes are needed to better inform the use of this procedure.

Intravenous aviptadil and remdesivir for treatment of COVID-19-associated hypoxaemic respiratory failure in the USA (TESICO): a randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: There is a clinical need for therapeutics for COVID-19 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure whose 60-day mortality remains at 30-50%. Aviptadil, a lung-protective neuropeptide, and remdesivir, a nucleotide prodrug of an adenosine analog, were compared with placebo among patients with COVID-19 acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure. METHODS: TESICO was a randomised trial of aviptadil and remdesivir versus placebo at 28 sites in the USA. Hospitalised adult patients were eligible for the study if they had acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure due to confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and were within 4 days of the onset of respiratory failure. Participants could be randomly assigned to both study treatments in a 2 × 2 factorial design or to just one of the agents. Participants were randomly assigned with a web-based application. For each site, randomisation was stratified by disease severity (high-flow nasal oxygen or non-invasive ventilation vs invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO]), and four strata were defined by remdesivir and aviptadil eligibility, as follows: (1) eligible for randomisation to aviptadil and remdesivir in the 2 × 2 factorial design; participants were equally randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to intravenous aviptadil plus remdesivir, aviptadil plus remdesivir matched placebo, aviptadil matched placebo plus remdesvir, or aviptadil placebo plus remdesivir placebo; (2) eligible for randomisation to aviptadil only because remdesivir was started before randomisation; (3) eligible for randomisation to aviptadil only because remdesivir was contraindicated; and (4) eligible for randomisation to remdesivir only because aviptadil was contraindicated. For participants in strata 2-4, randomisation was 1:1 to the active agent or matched placebo. Aviptadil was administered as a daily 12-h infusion for 3 days, targeting 600 pmol/kg on infusion day 1, 1200 pmol/kg on day 2, and 1800 pmol/kg on day 3. Remdesivir was administered as a 200 mg loading dose, followed by 100 mg daily maintenance doses for up to a 10-day total course. For participants assigned to placebo for either agent, matched saline placebo was administered in identical volumes. For both treatment comparisons, the primary outcome, assessed at day 90, was a six-category ordinal outcome: (1) at home (defined as the type of residence before hospitalisation) and off oxygen (recovered) for at least 77 days, (2) at home and off oxygen for 49-76 days, (3) at home and off oxygen for 1-48 days, (4) not hospitalised but either on supplemental oxygen or not at home, (5) hospitalised or in hospice care, or (6) dead. Mortality up to day 90 was a key secondary outcome. The independent data and safety monitoring board recommended stopping the aviptadil trial on May 25, 2022, for futility. On June 9, 2022, the sponsor stopped the trial of remdesivir due to slow enrolment. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04843761. FINDINGS: Between April 21, 2021, and May 24, 2022, we enrolled 473 participants in the study. For the aviptadil comparison, 471 participants were randomly assigned to aviptadil or matched placebo. The modified intention-to-treat population comprised 461 participants who received at least a partial infusion of aviptadil (231 participants) or aviptadil matched placebo (230 participants). For the remdesivir comparison, 87 participants were randomly assigned to remdesivir or matched placebo and all received some infusion of remdesivir (44 participants) or remdesivir matched placebo (43 participants). 85 participants were included in the modified intention-to-treat analyses for both agents (ie, those enrolled in the 2 x 2 factorial). For the aviptadil versus placebo comparison, the median age was 57 years (IQR 46-66), 178 (39%) of 461 participants were female, and 246 (53%) were Black, Hispanic, Asian or other (vs 215 [47%] White participants). 431 (94%) of 461 participants were in an intensive care unit at baseline, with 271 (59%) receiving high-flow nasal oxygen or non-invasive ventiliation, 185 (40%) receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, and five (1%) receiving ECMO. The odds ratio (OR) for being in a better category of the primary efficacy endpoint for aviptadil versus placebo at day 90, from a model stratified by baseline disease severity, was 1·11 (95% CI 0·80-1·55; p=0·54). Up to day 90, 86 participants in the aviptadil group and 83 in the placebo group died. The cumulative percentage who died up to day 90 was 38% in the aviptadil group and 36% in the placebo group (hazard ratio 1·04, 95% CI 0·77-1·41; p=0·78). The primary safety outcome of death, serious adverse events, organ failure, serious infection, or grade 3 or 4 adverse events up to day 5 occurred in 146 (63%) of 231 patients in the aviptadil group compared with 129 (56%) of 230 participants in the placebo group (OR 1·40, 95% CI 0·94-2·08; p=0·10). INTERPRETATION: Among patients with COVID-19-associated acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure, aviptadil did not significantly improve clinical outcomes up to day 90 when compared with placebo. The smaller than planned sample size for the remdesivir trial did not permit definitive conclusions regarding safety or efficacy. FUNDING: National Institutes of Health.

Dexamethasone for Inpatients With COVID-19 in a National Cohort.

Importance: Limited effective therapeutics are available to hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Clinical trials and observational studies have shown varying effects of systemic corticosteroids, including dexamethasone, in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, with limited descriptions of important patient subgroups. Objective: To examine the clinical use of dexamethasone for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 respiratory illness and to explore the heterogeneity of treatment outcomes across different subgroups. Design, Setting, and Participants: This is a retrospective, propensity score-weighted cohort study of adult patients hospitalized for at least 48 hours for COVID-19 respiratory illness between July 1, 2020, and October 31, 2021, at a large health care network of 156 hospitals across the US. Data analysis was performed from March 2022 to February 2023. Exposures: Systemic dexamethasone administered within 48 hours of either admission or escalation in oxygen support. Main Outcomes and Measures: All-cause in-hospital mortality or discharge to hospice. Results: A total of 80 699 patients who met the eligibility criteria were identified (median [IQR] age, 64 [52-76] years; 37 606 women [46.6%]); 13 230 patients (16.4%) identified as Black, 49 222 (60.9%) as White, 18 247 (22.6%) as other race, and 20 340 (25.2%) as Hispanic ethnicity. Of these patients, 13 040 (16.2%) did not require supplemental oxygen within 48 hours of admission, 56 368 (69.8%) required supplemental oxygen, 7618 (9.4%) required noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV), and 3673 (4.6%) required mechanical ventilation (MV) and/or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). After adjustment by propensity score overlap weighting, early use of dexamethasone was associated with reduction in a composite outcome of in-hospital mortality or discharge to hospice for patients receiving supplemental oxygen (aOR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.86-0.98) and MV and/or ECMO (aOR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.68-0.99). In contrast, all-cause inpatient mortality or discharge to hospice was not lower for patients who received dexamethasone in the no supplemental oxygen group (aOR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.78-1.03) and in the NIPPV group (aOR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.73-1.04). Importantly, patients with more comorbidities had greater benefit from dexamethasone use. Conclusions and Relevance: In this national multicenter cohort study of inpatients with COVID-19, early administration of dexamethasone was associated with significantly reduced odds of mortality or discharge to hospice in those requiring supplemental oxygen or MV and/or ECMO but not in those requiring no supplemental oxygen or NIPPV. These results support the continued use of systemic dexamethasone in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

The Association of Baseline Plasma SARS-CoV-2 Nucleocapsid Antigen Level and Outcomes in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Levels of plasma SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (N) antigen may be an important biomarker in patients with COVID-19 and enhance our understanding of the pathogenesis of COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether levels of plasma antigen can predict short-term clinical outcomes and identify clinical and viral factors associated with plasma antigen levels in hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study of baseline plasma antigen level from 2540 participants enrolled in the TICO (Therapeutics for Inpatients With COVID-19) platform trial from August 2020 to November 2021, with additional data on day 5 outcome and time to discharge. SETTING: 114 centers in 10 countries. PARTICIPANTS: Adults hospitalized for acute SARS-CoV-2 infection with 12 days or less of symptoms. MEASUREMENTS: Baseline plasma viral N antigen level was measured at a central laboratory. Delta variant status was determined from baseline nasal swabs using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. Associations between baseline patient characteristics and viral factors and baseline plasma antigen levels were assessed using both unadjusted and multivariable modeling. Association between elevated baseline antigen level of 1000 ng/L or greater and outcomes, including worsening of ordinal pulmonary scale at day 5 and time to hospital discharge, were evaluated using logistic regression and Fine-Gray regression models, respectively. RESULTS: Plasma antigen was below the level of quantification in 5% of participants at enrollment, and 1000 ng/L or greater in 57%. Baseline pulmonary severity of illness was strongly associated with plasma antigen level, with mean plasma antigen level 3.10-fold higher among those requiring noninvasive ventilation or high-flow nasal cannula compared with room air (95% CI, 2.22 to 4.34). Plasma antigen level was higher in those who lacked antispike antibodies (6.42 fold; CI, 5.37 to 7.66) and in those with the Delta variant (1.73 fold; CI, 1.41 to 2.13). Additional factors associated with higher baseline antigen level included male sex, shorter time since hospital admission, decreased days of remdesivir, and renal impairment. In contrast, race, ethnicity, body mass index, and immunocompromising conditions were not associated with plasma antigen levels. Plasma antigen level of 1000 ng/L or greater was associated with a markedly higher odds of worsened pulmonary status at day 5 (odds ratio, 5.06 [CI, 3.41 to 7.50]) and longer time to hospital discharge (median, 7 vs. 4 days; subhazard ratio, 0.51 [CI, 0.45 to 0.57]), with subhazard ratios similar across all levels of baseline pulmonary severity. LIMITATIONS: Plasma samples were drawn at enrollment, not hospital presentation. No point-of-care test to measure plasma antigen is currently available. CONCLUSION: Elevated plasma antigen is highly associated with both severity of pulmonary illness and clinically important patient outcomes. Multiple clinical and viral factors are associated with plasma antigen level at presentation. These data support a potential role of ongoing viral replication in the pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 in hospitalized patients. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. government Operation Warp Speed and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Lessons from an international trial evaluating vaccination strategies for recovered inpatients with COVID-19 (VATICO).

The protection provided by natural versus hybrid immunity from COVID-19 is unclear. We reflect on the challenges from trying to conduct a randomized post-SARS-CoV-2 infection vaccination trial study with rapidly evolving scientific data, vaccination guidelines, varying international policies, difficulties with vaccine availability, vaccine hesitancy, and a constantly evolving virus.

Antiplatelet Therapy in Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia: No Time Like the Past?

In this invited commentary, we reflect on the accompanying study by A. R. Caffrey, H. J. Appaneal, K. L. LaPlante, V. V. Lopes, et al. (Antimicrob Agents Chemother 66:e02117-21, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1128/aac.02117-21), which analyzed the impact of clopidogrel use on clinical outcomes in Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia.

COVID-19 Trials: Who Participates and Who Benefits?

OBJECTIVES: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has disproportionately afflicted vulnerable populations. Older adults, particularly residents of nursing facilities, represent a small percentage of the population but account for 40% of mortality from COVID-19 in the United States. Racial and ethnic minority individuals, particularly Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous Americans have experienced higher rates of infection and death than the White population. Although there has been an unprecedented explosion of clinical trials to examine potential therapies, participation by members of these vulnerable communities is crucial to obtaining data generalizable to those communities. METHODS: We undertook an open-label, factorial randomized clinical trial examining hydroxychloroquine and/or azithromycin for hospitalized patients. RESULTS: Of 53 screened patients, 11 (21%) were enrolled. Ten percent (3/31) of Black patients were enrolled, 33% (7/21) of White patients, and 50% (6/12) of Hispanic patients. Forty-seven percent (25/53) of patients declined participation despite eligibility; 58%(18/31) of Black patients declined participation. Forty percent (21/53) of screened patients were from a nursing facility and 10% (2/21) were enrolled. Enrolled patients had fewer comorbidities than nonenrolled patients: median modified Charlson comorbidity score 2.0 (interquartile range 0-2.5), versus 4.0 (interquartile range 2-6) for nonenrolled patients (P = 0.006). The limitations of the study were the low participation rate and the multiple treatment trials concurrently recruiting at our institution. CONCLUSIONS: The high rate of nonparticipation in our trial of nursing facility residents and Black people emphasizes the concern that clinical trials for therapeutics may not target key populations with high mortality rates.

Mycoplasma pneumoniae-associated diffuse alveolar haemorrhage: an atypical presentation of a prevalent pathogen.

A transgender man in his late teens presented with signs of multisystem disease, including hepatitis, mucositis and bone marrow suppression. He later developed dyspnoea, leucocytosis and bilateral pulmonary infiltrates on chest radiograph. He was treated for community-acquired pneumonia. After several days of treatment, he developed hypoxaemic respiratory failure due to bronchoscopy-confirmed diffuse alveolar haemorrhage (DAH). The differential diagnosis and workup were extensive, and he was ultimately treated with intravenous steroids and five sessions of plasmapheresis for a presumed autoimmune aetiology. Investigations were remarkable only for elevated IgM and IgG to Mycoplasma pneumoniae (MP). This case represents a rare presentation of multisystem disease secondary to MP in adults. Clinicians should consider Mycoplasma infection in cases of multisystem disease and observe for DAH even after initiation of appropriate therapy.

Social Disadvantage, Politics, and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Trends: A County-level Analysis of United States Data.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the epidemiology of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is essential for public health control efforts. Social, demographic, and political characteristics at the United States (US) county level might be associated with changes in SARS-CoV-2 case incidence. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of the relationship between the change in reported SARS-CoV-2 case counts at the US county level during 1 June-30 June 2020 and social, demographic, and political characteristics of the county. RESULTS: Of 3142 US counties, 1023 were included in the analysis: 678 (66.3%) had increasing and 345 (33.7%) nonincreasing SARS-CoV-2 case counts between 1 June and 30 June 2020. In bivariate analysis, counties with increasing case counts had a significantly higher Social Deprivation Index (median, 48 [interquartile range {IQR}, 24-72]) than counties with nonincreasing case counts (median, 40 [IQR, 19-66]; P = .009). Counties with increasing case counts were significantly more likely to be metropolitan areas of 250 000-1 million population (P < .001), to have a higher percentage of black residents (9% vs 6%; P = .013), and to have voted for the Republican presidential candidate in 2016 by a ≥10-point margin (P = .044). In the multivariable model, metropolitan areas of 250 000-1 million population, higher percentage of black residents, and a ≥10-point Republican victory were independently associated with increasing case counts. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing case counts of SARS-CoV-2 in the US during June 2020 were associated with a combination of sociodemographic and political factors. Addressing social disadvantage and differential belief systems that may correspond with political alignment will play a critical role in pandemic control.

Reduction in Expected Survival Associated With Nontuberculous Mycobacterial Pulmonary Disease.

BACKGROUND: Nontuberculous mycobacteria (NTM) are opportunistically pathogenic bacteria that are found abundantly in the soil and water. Susceptible individuals exposed to NTM-containing aerosols from environmental sources may develop NTM pulmonary disease (NTM-PD). Reported survival after NTM-PD diagnosis varies widely among existing studies. Prior work has suggested that mortality among persons with NTM-PD is primarily driven by comorbidities rather than NTM-PD. METHODS: We retrospectively identified a cohort of patients in the Duke University Health System who were diagnosed with NTM-PD between 1996 and 2015. Hospitalizations and survival were compared among patients with NTM-PD with and without other comorbidities. Additionally, survival among patients with NTM-PD was compared with standardized mortality data for a similar cohort of the general population. RESULTS: Patients with NTM-PD without other comorbidities had 0.65 hospitalizations/1000 patient-days compared with 1.37 hospitalizations/1000 patient-days for patients with other comorbidities. Compared with a cohort of the general population, expected survival decreased by approximately 4 years for a diagnosis of NTM-PD without comorbidities and 8.6 years for a diagnosis of NTM-PD with comorbidities. Mortality 5 years after diagnosis was 25.0% and 44.9% among NTM patients without and with comorbidities, respectively, compared with 5.7% in the general-population cohort. CONCLUSIONS: NTM-PD was associated with significant morbidity that was worse in patients with comorbidities. Patients with NTM-PD, even without comorbidities, had worse survival than expected.

COVID-19-associated brief psychotic disorder.

A 36-year-old previously healthy woman with no personal or family history of mental illness presented with new-onset psychosis after a diagnosis of symptomatic COVID-19. Her psychotic symptoms initially improved with antipsychotics and benzodiazepines and further improved with resolution of COVID-19 symptoms. This is the first case of COVID-19-associated psychosis in a patient with no personal or family history of a severe mood or psychotic disorder presenting with symptomatic COVID-19, highlighting the need for vigilant monitoring of neuropsychiatric symptoms in these individuals.