Public health case for microbiome-sparing antibiotics and new opportunities for drug development.

Although antibiotics remain a cornerstone of modern medicine, the issues of widespread antibiotic resistance and collateral damage to the microbiome from antibiotic use are driving a need for drug developers to consider more tailored, patient-directed products to avoid antibiotic-induced perturbations of the structure and function of the indigenous microbiota. This perspective summarizes a cascade of microbiome health effects that is initiated by antibiotic-mediated microbiome disruption at an individual level and ultimately leads to infection and transmission of multidrug-resistant pathogens across patient populations. The scientific evidence behind each of the key steps of this cascade is presented. The interruption of this cascade through the use of highly targeted, microbiome-sparing antibiotics aiming to improve health outcomes is discussed. Further, this perspective reflects on some key clinical trial design and reimbursement considerations to be addressed as part of the drug development path.

Impact of interventions to reduce nosocomial transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in English NHS Trusts: a computational modelling study.

BACKGROUND: Prior to September 2021, 55,000-90,000 hospital inpatients in England were identified as having a potentially nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infection. This includes cases that were likely missed due to pauci- or asymptomatic infection. Further, high numbers of healthcare workers (HCWs) are thought to have been infected, and there is evidence that some of these cases may also have been nosocomially linked, with both HCW to HCW and patient to HCW transmission being reported. From the start of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic interventions in hospitals such as testing patients on admission and universal mask wearing were introduced to stop spread within and between patient and HCW populations, the effectiveness of which are largely unknown. MATERIALS/METHODS: Using an individual-based model of within-hospital transmission, we estimated the contribution of individual interventions (together and in combination) to the effectiveness of the overall package of interventions implemented in English hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic. A panel of experts in infection prevention and control informed intervention choice and helped ensure the model reflected implementation in practice. Model parameters and associated uncertainty were derived using national and local data, literature review and formal elicitation of expert opinion. We simulated scenarios to explore how many nosocomial infections might have been seen in patients and HCWs if interventions had not been implemented. We simulated the time period from March-2020 to July-2022 encompassing different strains and multiple doses of vaccination. RESULTS: Modelling results suggest that in a scenario without inpatient testing, infection prevention and control measures, and reductions in occupancy and visitors, the number of patients developing a nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infection could have been twice as high over the course of the pandemic, and over 600,000 HCWs could have been infected in the first wave alone. Isolation of symptomatic HCWs and universal masking by HCWs were the most effective interventions for preventing infections in both patient and HCW populations. Model findings suggest that collectively the interventions introduced over the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in England averted 400,000 (240,000 - 500,000) infections in inpatients and 410,000 (370,000 - 450,000) HCW infections. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions to reduce the spread of nosocomial infections have varying impact, but the package of interventions implemented in England significantly reduced nosocomial transmission to both patients and HCWs over the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

Case Series: Efficacy of Polyclonal Intravenous Immunoglobulin for Refractory Clostridioides difficile Infection.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) for Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) no longer features in treatment guidelines. However, IVIg is still used by some clinicians for severe or recurrent CDI (rCDI) cases. The main objective of this study was to investigate the efficacy of IVIg and to identify possible predictors of disease resolution post IVIg administration for patients with CDI. METHODS: This retrospective observational cohort study of patients ≥2 years old hospitalised with severe, relapsing, or rCDI treated with IVIg therapy was performed in a large UK tertiary hospital between April 2018 and March 2023. Scanned electronic notes from patient admissions and clinical reporting systems were used to collect relevant data. RESULTS: In total, 20/978 patients diagnosed with CDI over the 5-year study were treated with IVIg. Twelve (60%) had hospital-onset CDI. Eleven of the twenty patients (55%) responded to treatment, with a mean of 8.6 (SD 10.7) days to disease resolution. Sixteen (80%) patients were treated for severe CDI and four (20%) for rCDI (n = 3) and relapsing CDI (n = 1). There were no statistically significant differences in possible independent predictors of disease resolution post IVIg administration between groups. There was an average of 6.2 (4.9) days to IVIg administration after diagnosis with no difference between responders and non-responders (p = 0.88) and no further significant difference in additional indicators. Four (36%) of the responders were immunosuppressed compared to just one (11%) of the non-responders (p = 0.15). Six of the responders (two with recurrent and four with severe CDI) improved rapidly within 2 days, and three of these were immunosuppressed. CONCLUSION: We observed disease resolution post IVIg therapy in over 50% of patients with refractory CDI. Our data also support a potential enhanced effect of IVIg in immunosuppressed individuals. Thus, the role of IVIg for CDI treatment, particularly in the immunosuppressed, warrants future case-control studies coupled to mechanistic investigations to improve care for this ongoing significant healthcare-associated infection.

European Practice for CDI Treatment.

Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Historically, two antibiotics (metronidazole and vancomycin) and a recent third (fidaxomicin) have been used for CDI treatment; convincing data are now available showing that metronidazole is the least efficacious agent. The European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) management guidance for CDI were updated in 2021. This guidance document outlines the treatment options for a variety of CDI clinical scenarios and for non-antimicrobial management (e.g., faecal microbiota transplantation, FMT). One of the main changes is that metronidazole is no longer recommended as first-line CDI treatment. Rather, fidaxomicin is preferred on the basis of reduced recurrence rates with vancomycin as an acceptable alternative. Recommended options for recurrent CDI now include bezlotoxumab as well as FMT.A 2017 survey of 20 European countries highlighted variation internationally in CDI management strategies. A variety of restrictions were in place in 65% countries prior to use of new anti-CDI treatments, including committee/infection specialist approval or economic review/restrictions. This survey was repeated in November 2022 to assess the current landscape of CDI management practices in Europe. Of 64 respondents from 17 countries, national CDI guidelines existed in 14 countries, and 11 have already/plan to incorporate the ESCMID 2021 CDI guidance, though implementation has not been surveyed in 6. Vancomycin is the most commonly used first-line agent for the treatment of CDI (n = 42, 66%), followed by fidaxomicin (n = 30, 47%). Six (9%) respondents use metronidazole as first-line agent for CDI treatment, whereas 22 (34%) only in selected low-risk patient groups. Fidaxomicin is more likely to be used in high-risk patient groups. Availability of anti-CDI therapy influenced prescribing in six respondents (9%). Approval pre-prescription was required before vancomycin (n = 3, 5%), fidaxomicin (n = 10, 6%), bezlotoxumab (n = 11, 17%) and FMT (n = 10, 6%). Implementation of CDI guidelines is rarely audited.Novel anti-CDI agents are being evaluated; it is not yet clear what will be the roles of these agents. The treatment of recurrent CDI is particularly troublesome, and several different live biotherapeutics are being developed, in addition to FMT.