A 5-day course of oral antibiotics followed by faecal transplantation to eradicate carriage of multidrug-resistant Enterobacteriaceae: a randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: Intestinal carriage with extended spectrum ß-lactamase Enterobacteriaceae (ESBL-E) and carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (CPE) can persist for months. We aimed to evaluate whether oral antibiotics followed by faecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) can eradicate intestinal carriage with ESBL-E/CPE. METHODS: Randomized, open-label, superiority trial in four tertiary-care centres (Geneva (G), Paris (P), Utrecht (U), Tel Aviv (T)). Non-immunocompromised adult patients were randomized 1: 1 to either no intervention (control) or a 5-day course of oral antibiotics (colistin sulphate 2 × 106 IU 4×/day; neomycin sulphate 500 mg 4×/day) followed by frozen FMT obtained from unrelated healthy donors. The primary outcome was detectable intestinal carriage of ESBL-E/CPE by stool culture 35-48 days after randomization (V4). ClinicalTrials.govNCT02472600. The trial was funded by the European Commission (FP7). RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients (G = 14; P = 16; U = 7; T = 2) colonized by ESBL-E (n = 36) and/or CPE (n = 11) were enrolled between February 2016 and June 2017. In the intention-to-treat analysis 9/22 (41%) patients assigned to the intervention arm were negative for ESBL-E/CPE at V4 (1/22 not receiving the intervention imputed as positive) whereas in the control arm 5/17 (29%) patients were negative (one lost to follow up imputed as negative) resulting in an OR for decolonization success of 1.7 (95% CI 0.4-6.4). Study drugs were well tolerated overall but three patients in the intervention group prematurely stopped the study antibiotics because of diarrhoea (all received FMT). CONCLUSIONS: Non-absorbable antibiotics followed by FMT slightly decreased ESBL-E/CPE carriage compared with controls; this difference was not statistically significant, potentially due to early trial termination. Further clinical investigations seem warranted.

Dynamic changes of circulating miRNAs induced by the Ebola virus vaccine VSV-EBOV.

VSV-EBOV is a replication-competent Ebola virus (EBOV) vaccine, which was tested in clinical trials as response to the Ebola virus disease (EVD) outbreak 2013-2016. It is the most advanced EBOV candidate currently in the licensure process. The experimental vaccine was again administered as response to outbreaks in the Democratic Republic of Congo. However, underlying molecular mechanisms that convey protection remain incompletely understood. MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are known key regulators that influence gene expression on a post-transcriptional level. The miRNA-mediated control has emerged as a critical regulatory principle in the immune system, which strongly influences the balance of innate and adaptive immune responses by modulation of signaling pathways critical for differentiation of immune cells. We investigated expression levels of circulating miRNAs (c-miRNAs) in plasma from healthy vaccinees, as they may reflect cellular dynamics following VSV-EBOV immunization and additionally may serve as potential biomarkers for vaccine efficacy. As part of the WHO-led VEBCON consortium, we investigated safety and immunogenicity of VSV-EBOV in a phase I trial. A comprehensive analysis of expression levels on c-miRNAs from plasma samples following VSV-EBOV immunization (day 0, 1, 3 post vaccination) was conducted using RT-qPCR assays. Potential biological relevance was assessed using in silico analyses. Additionally, we correlated dynamics of miRNA expressions with our previously reported data on vaccine-induced antibody and cytokine responses and finally evaluated the prognostic power by generating ROC curves. We identified four promising miRNAs (hsa-miR-146a, hsa-miR-126, hsa-miR-199a, hsa-miR-484), showing a strong association with adaptive immune responses, exhibited favourable prognostic performance and are implicated in immunology-related functions. Our results provide evidence that miRNAs may serve as useful biomarkers for prediction of vaccine-induced immunogenicity. Furthermore, our unique data set provides insight into molecular mechanisms that underlie VSV-EBOV-mediated protective immune responses, which may help to decipher VSV-EBOV immune signature and accelerate strategic vaccine design or personalized approaches.

Clonal or not clonal? Investigating hospital outbreaks of KPC-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae with whole-genome sequencing.

OBJECTIVES: Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) is a promising tool for identifying transmission pathways in outbreaks caused by multidrug-resistant bacteria. However, it is uncertain how the data produced by WGS can be best integrated into epidemiologic investigations. METHODS: We tested various genomic analyses to identify clonal groups in two distinct outbreaks of Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase-producing K. pneumoniae that occurred in Switzerland in 2013 and 2015. In blinded fashion, we sequenced 12 strains involved in the two outbreaks, respectively, and six that were epidemiologically unrelated. We analysed genomic commonalities from conserved genes to plasmid-borne antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs) and contrasted these results with available epidemiologic evidence. RESULTS: Using WGS, blinded analysts correctly identified the two clusters of strains from the two outbreaks. Nonetheless, the 2015 index strain was found to be slightly different (1-3 single nucleotide variants) from the strains recovered from secondary cases, likely because prior long-term carriage (3 years) by the index patient allowed for genetic mutations over time. Also, we observed occasional loss of ARG-bearing plasmidic fragments in outbreak-causing strains. CONCLUSIONS: Retrospective WGS analysis was successful in identifying clonal groups in both outbreaks. Still, data should be analysed with caution in cases of previous long-term carriage of the studied bacteria.

Comparing the cost-effectiveness of linezolid to trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole plus rifampicin for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection: a healthcare system perspective.

OBJECTIVE: Few industry-independent studies have been conducted to compare the relative costs and benefits of drugs to treat methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection. We performed a stochastic cost-effectiveness analysis comparing two treatment strategies-linezolid versus trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole plus rifampicin-for the treatment of MRSA infection. METHODS: We used cost and effectiveness data from a previously conducted clinical trial, complementing with other data from published literature, to compare the two regimens from a healthcare system perspective. Effectiveness was expressed in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Several sensitivity analyses were performed using Monte Carlo simulation, to measure the effect of potential parameter changes on the base-case model results, including potential differences related to type of infection and drug toxicity. RESULTS: Treatment of MRSA infection with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole plus rifampicin and linezolid were found to cost on average €146 and €2536, and lead to a gain of 0.916 and 0.881 QALYs, respectively. Treatment with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole plus rifampicin was found to be more cost-effective than linezolid in the base case and remained dominant over linezolid in most alternative scenarios, including different types of MRSA infection and potential disadvantages in terms of toxicity. With a willingness-to-pay threshold of €0, €50 000 and €200 000 per QALY gained, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole plus rifampicin was dominant in 100%, 96% and 85% of model iterations. A 95% discount on the current purchasing price of linezolid would be needed when it goes off-patent for it to represent better value for money compared with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole plus rifampicin. CONCLUSIONS: Combined treatment of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole plus rifampicin is more cost-effective than linezolid in the treatment of MRSA infection.

Randomized non-inferiority trial to compare trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole plus rifampicin versus linezolid for the treatment of MRSA infection.

OBJECTIVES: The therapeutic arsenal for MRSA infections is limited. The aim of this study was to assess the non-inferiority of a combination of trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole plus rifampicin versus linezolid alone for the treatment of MRSA infection. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, open-label, single-centre, non-inferiority trial comparing trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (160 mg/800 mg three times daily) plus rifampicin (600 mg once a day) versus linezolid (600 mg twice a day) alone in adult patients with various types of MRSA infection. Patients were allocated 1:1 to either regimen. The primary outcome was clinical cure at 6 weeks after the end of treatment (non-inferiority margin 20%) assessed by both ITT and PP analyses. Secondary outcomes included the microbiologically documented persistence of MRSA in clinical cultures, mortality and adverse events. The study protocol has been registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00711854). RESULTS: Overall, 150 patients were randomized to one of the two treatment arms between January 2009 and December 2013 and were included in the ITT analysis. Of these 56/75 (74.7%) in the linezolid group and 59/75 (78.7%) in the trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and rifampicin group experienced clinical success (risk difference 4%, 95% CI -9.7% to 17.6%). The results were confirmed by the PP analysis, with 54/66 (81.8%) cured patients in the linezolid group versus 52/59 (88.1%) in the trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and rifampicin group (risk difference 6.3%, 95% CI -6.8% to 19.2%). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in any of the secondary outcomes, including microbiologically documented failure. Four adverse drug reactions attributed to the study medication occurred in the linezolid group versus nine in the trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and rifampicin group. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with linezolid, trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and rifampicin seems to be non-inferior in the treatment of MRSA infection.

Vertebral Lesions from AIDS-Related Kaposi's Sarcoma.

BACKGROUND: Kaposi's sarcoma is commonly described in HIV/AIDS patients but usually manifests as overt skin lesions or visceral involvement. Bone involvement, particularly vertebral, is uncommon, especially when there is no adjacent cutaneous lesion but a small number of cases have been reported. Unlike many other diseases associated with HIV, Kaposi's sarcoma can occur despite a normal CD4 count. CASE PRESENTATION: A 44 year-old HIV positive Nigerian man presented with a 20 day history of severe, worsening lumbar back pain, nearly three years after an earlier diagnosis of a single cutaneous lesion consistent with Kaposi's sarcoma, for which he received chemo-radiotherapy. Despite varying previous compliance with his anti-retroviral therapy, he was thought to be taking his medications at time of presentation and his CD4 count was 408 cells/mm(3). No other organ involvement was found but a pathological fracture was seen on magnetic resonance imaging affecting L1 vertebra. A CT-guided needle aspiration biopsy was performed and a histological diagnosis subsequently confirmed Kaposi's sarcoma. The patient was treated with further courses of radiotherapy but had little clinical improvement. Indeed, a follow-up MRI four months later showed new involvement of a further four vertebrae, fortunately in the absence of progressive focal neurology. CONCLUSION: Vertebral Kaposi's sarcoma is a rare diagnosis but can be accurately diagnosed with CT or MRI imaging in conjunction with a histological diagnosis. An immunosuppressed patient presenting with bone pain should be thoroughly investigated for Kaposi's sarcoma as modern chemotherapeutic agents alongside anti-retroviral therapy may delay or prevent further devastating complications such as spinal cord compression.