Panton-Valentine leukocidin-induced neutrophil extracellular traps lack antimicrobial activity and are readily induced in patients with recurrent PVL + -Staphylococcus aureus infections.

Staphylococcus aureus strains that produce the toxin Panton-Valentine leukocidin (PVL-SA) frequently cause recurrent skin and soft tissue infections. PVL binds to and kills human neutrophils, resulting in the formation of neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs), but the pathomechanism has not been extensively studied. Furthermore, it is unclear why some individuals colonized with PVL-SA experience recurring infections whereas others are asymptomatic. We thus aimed to (1) investigate how PVL exerts its pathogenicity on neutrophils and (2) identify factors that could help to explain the predisposition of patients with recurring infections. We provide genetic and pharmacological evidence that PVL-induced NET formation is independent of NADPH oxidase and reactive oxygen species production. Moreover, through NET proteome analysis we identified that the protein content of PVL-induced NETs is different from NETs induced by mitogen or the microbial toxin nigericin. The abundance of the proteins cathelicidin (CAMP), elastase (NE), and proteinase 3 (PRTN3) was lower on PVL-induced NETs, and as such they were unable to kill S. aureus. Furthermore, we found that neutrophils from affected patients express higher levels of CD45, one of the PVL receptors, and are more susceptible to be killed at a low PVL concentration than control neutrophils. Neutrophils from patients that experience recurring PVL-positive infections may thus be more sensitive to PVL-induced NET formation, which might impair their ability to combat the infection.

Outbreak of Pandoraea commovens Infections among Non-Cystic Fibrosis Intensive Care Patients, Germany, 2019-2021.

Pandoraea spp. are gram-negative, nonfermenting rods mainly known to infect patients with cystic fibrosis (CF). Outbreaks have been reported from several CF centers. We report a Pandoraea spp. outbreak comprising 24 non-CF patients at a large university hospital and a neighboring heart center in Germany during July 2019-December 2021. Common features in the patients were critical illness, invasive ventilation, antimicrobial pretreatment, and preceding surgery. Complicated and relapsing clinical courses were observed in cases with intraabdominal infections but not those with lower respiratory tract infections. Genomic analysis of 15 isolates identified Pandoraea commovens as the genetically most similar species and confirmed the clonality of the outbreak strain, designated P. commovens strain LB-19-202-79. The strain exhibited resistance to most antimicrobial drugs except ampicillin/sulbactam, imipenem, and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole. Our findings suggest Pandoraea spp. can spread among non-CF patients and underscore that clinicians and microbiologists should be vigilant in detecting and assessing unusual pathogens.

[Antibiotic stewardship]. / Antibiotic Stewardship.

The spread of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is one of the greatest threats to global health and causes very many deaths. Also in the context of sepsis-the severest complication of certain infectious diseases-does AMR play a role. Wise use of anti-infectives and application of antibiotic stewardship (AMS) principles can reduce the spread of AMR and improve the quality of management of patients with infectious diseases. Correct use of anti-infective agents includes the correct diagnostic approach and documentation of the (suspected) diagnosis, guideline-conform diagnostic workup and treatment selection, re-evaluation and tailoring during the course of treatment, a focus on treatment de-escalation depending on clinical response and microbiology results, dose optimization, and, if possible, conversion to oral therapy, and early termination of treatment if the suspected diagnosis is not confirmed. Particularly adherence to the guideline-conform treatment duration can reduce unnecessary use of anti-infectives. Prevention of infections via adherence to vaccination recommendations also contributes to a reduction in the use of anti-infectives. Interdisciplinary collaboration with infectious diseases and AMS specialists, as recommended for sepsis, also improves treatment quality and patient outcomes. Particularly for complex infections such as endocarditis cases should be discussed in multidisciplinary teams including specialists in infectious diseases. In this manner, decisive steps against the spread of AMR and towards maintenance of the efficacy of available anti-infective drugs can be taken.

[New developments in the fight against bacterial infections : Update on antiobiotic research, development and treatment]. / Neue Entwicklungen in der Bekämpfung bakterieller Infektionen : Update Antiobiotikaforschung, - entwicklung und -therapie.

Infections caused by pathogens with antimicrobial resistance (AMR) pose a threat to modern healthcare and have triggered the development of comprehensive national and global action plans against the spread of AMR. These include an increasing global network with the focus on rational antibiotic use, innovative strategies on antibiotic research and development, and new therapeutic approaches in antibacterial drug research. In Europe 671,689 infections associated with AMR pathogens and 33,110 deaths directly related to AMR were counted in just 1 year. Globally, resistant Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, pneumococci, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumannii, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa are the most common pathogens in the context of these deaths. Resistance to antibiotics in major drug classes such as beta-lactams and fluoroquinolones is particularly common. Strategies for overcoming the global AMR crisis address research on AMR emergence and spread, promoting campaigns for responsible antibiotic use, and improving infection prevention. The identification of new antibiotics and treatment approaches and the development of new strategies to contain the spread of AMR are essential. Newly approved substances include delafloxacin, lefamulin, and meropenem-vaborbactam. New antibiotics that are well advanced in clinical trials are aztreonam-avibactam, sulbactam-durlobactam, omadacycline, and type II topoisomerase inhibitors. Much interest is also being shown in the development of new therapeutic approaches such as bacteriophage treatment.

Antiplatelet agents for the treatment of adults with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can cause thrombotic events that lead to severe complications or death. Antiplatelet agents, such as acetylsalicylic acid, have been shown to effectively reduce thrombotic events in other diseases: they could influence the course of COVID-19 in general. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of antiplatelets given with standard care compared to no treatment or standard care (with/without placebo) for adults with COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which comprises MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, medRxiv, CENTRAL), Web of Science, WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease and the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform to identify completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions to December 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating antiplatelet agents for the treatment of COVID-19 in adults with COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, gender or ethnicity. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB 2) for RCTs. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: Antiplatelets plus standard care versus standard care (with/without placebo) Adults with a confirmed diagnosis of moderate to severe COVID-19 We included four studies (17,541 participants) that recruited hospitalised people with a confirmed diagnosis of moderate to severe COVID-19. A total of 8964 participants were analysed in the antiplatelet arm (either with cyclooxygenase inhibitors or P2Y12 inhibitors) and 8577 participants in the control arm. Most people were older than 50 years and had comorbidities such as hypertension, lung disease or diabetes. The studies were conducted in high- to lower middle-income countries prior to wide-scale vaccination programmes. Antiplatelets compared to standard care: - probably result in little to no difference in 28-day mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 1.05; 3 studies, 17,249 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this means that for every 177 deaths per 1000 people not receiving antiplatelets, there were 168 deaths per 1000 people who did receive the intervention (95% CI 151 to 186 per 1000 people); - probably result in little to no difference in worsening (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death up to day 28) (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.01; 2 studies, 15,266 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); - probably result in little to no difference in improvement (participants discharged alive up to day 28) (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.04; 2 studies, 15,454 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); - probably result in a slight reduction of thrombotic events at longest follow-up (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.02; 4 studies, 17,518 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); - may result in a slight increase in serious adverse events at longest follow-up (Peto odds ratio (OR) 1.57, 95% CI 0.48 to 5.14; 1 study, 1815 participants; low-certainty evidence), but non-serious adverse events during study treatment were not reported; - probably increase the occurrence of major bleeding events at longest follow-up (Peto OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.19; 4 studies, 17,527 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Adults with a confirmed diagnosis of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection or mild COVID-19 We included two RCTs allocating participants, of whom 4209 had confirmed mild COVID-19 and were not hospitalised. A total of 2109 participants were analysed in the antiplatelet arm (treated with acetylsalicylic acid) and 2100 participants in the control arm. No study included people with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Antiplatelets compared to standard care: - may result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality at day 45 (Peto OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.22; 2 studies, 4209 participants; low-certainty evidence); - may slightly decrease the incidence of new thrombotic events up to day 45 (Peto OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.46; 2 studies, 4209 participants; low-certainty evidence); - may make little or no difference to the incidence of serious adverse events up to day 45 (Peto OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.64; 1 study, 3881 participants; low-certainty evidence), but non-serious adverse events were not reported. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of antiplatelets on the following outcomes (compared to standard care plus placebo): - admission to hospital or death up to day 45 (Peto OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.10; 2 studies, 4209 participants; very low-certainty evidence); - major bleeding events up to longest follow-up (no event occurred in 328 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Quality of life and adverse events during study treatment were not reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In people with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease, we found moderate-certainty evidence that antiplatelets probably result in little to no difference in 28-day mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, but probably result in a slight reduction in thrombotic events. They probably increase the occurrence of major bleeding events. Low-certainty evidence suggests that antiplatelets may result in a slight increase in serious adverse events. In people with confirmed COVID-19 and mild symptoms, we found low-certainty evidence that antiplatelets may result in little to no difference in 45-day mortality and serious adverse events, and may slightly reduce thrombotic events. The effects on the combined outcome admission to hospital or death up to day 45 and major bleeding events are very uncertain. Quality of life was not reported. Included studies were conducted in high- to lower middle-income settings using antiplatelets prior to vaccination roll-outs. We identified a lack of evidence concerning quality of life assessments, adverse events and people with asymptomatic infection. The 14 ongoing and three completed, unpublished RCTs that we identified in trial registries address similar settings and research questions as in the current body of evidence. We expect to incorporate the findings of these studies in future versions of this review.

Interdisciplinary perspectives on computed tomography in sepsis: survey among medical doctors at a large university medical center.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to describe physicians' perspectives on the use of computed tomography (CT) in patients with sepsis. METHODS: In January 2022, physicians of a large European university medical center were surveyed using a web-based questionnaire asking about their views on the role of CT in sepsis. A total of 371 questionnaires met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed using work experience, workplace, and medical specialty of physicians as variables. Chi-square tests were performed. RESULTS: Physicians considered the ability to detect an unknown focus as the greatest benefit of CT scans in sepsis (70.9%, n = 263/371). Two clinical criteria - "signs of decreased vigilance" (89.2%, n = 331/371) and "increased catecholamine demand" (84.7%, n = 314/371) - were considered highly relevant for a CT request. Elevated procalcitonin (82.7%, n = 307/371) and lactate levels (83.6%, n = 310/371) were consistently found to be critical laboratory values to request a CT. As long as there is evidence of infection in one organ region, most physicians (42.6%, n = 158/371) would order a CT scan based on clinical assessment. Combined examination of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis was favored (34.8%, n = 129/371) in cases without clinical clues of an infection source. A time window of ≥ 1-6 h was preferred for both CT examinations (53.9%, n = 200/371) and CT-guided interventions (59.3%, n = 220/371) in patients with sepsis. CONCLUSION: Despite much consensus, there are significant differences in attitudes towards the use of CT in septic patients among physicians from different workplaces and medical specialties. Knowledge of these perspectives may improve patient management and interprofessional communication. KEY POINTS: Despite interdisciplinary consensus on the use of CT in sepsis, statistically significant differences in the responses are apparent among physicians from different workplaces and medical specialties. The detection of a previously unknown source of infection and the ability to plan interventions and/or surgery based on CT findings are considered key advantages of CT in septic patients. Timing of CT reflects the requirements of specific disciplines.

Efficacy and safety of molnupiravir for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The role of molnupiravir for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatment is unclear. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review until 1 November 2022 searching for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving COVID-19 patients comparing molnupiravir [±standard of care (SoC)] versus SoC and/or placebo. Data were pooled in random-effects meta-analyses. Certainty of evidence was assessed according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach. RESULTS: Nine RCTs were identified, eight investigated outpatients (29 254 participants) and one inpatients (304 participants). Compared with placebo/SoC, molnupiravir does not reduce mortality [risk ratio (RR) 0.27, 95% CI 0.07-1.02, high-certainty evidence] and probably does not reduce the risk for 'hospitalization or death' (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.55-1.20, moderate-certainty evidence) by Day 28 in COVID-19 outpatients. We are uncertain whether molnupiravir increases symptom resolution by Day 14 (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.02-1.41, very-low-certainty evidence) but it may make no difference by Day 28 (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.92-1.19, low-certainty evidence). In inpatients, molnupiravir may increase mortality by Day 28 compared with placebo (RR 3.78, 95% CI 0.50-28.82, low-certainty evidence). There is little to no difference in serious adverse and adverse events during the study period in COVID-19 inpatients/outpatients treated with molnupiravir compared with placebo/SoC (moderate- to high-certainty evidence). CONCLUSIONS: In a predominantly immunized population of COVID-19 outpatients, molnupiravir has no effect on mortality, probably none on 'hospitalization or death' and effects on symptom resolution are uncertain. Molnupiravir was safe during the study period in outpatients although a potential increase in inpatient mortality requires careful monitoring in ongoing clinical research. Our analysis does not support routine use of molnupiravir for COVID-19 treatment in immunocompetent individuals.

Anakinra for the treatment of COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: At the end of 2021, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) expanded its approval for the recombinant human interleukin-1 (IL-1) receptor antagonist Anakinra for the treatment of COVID-19 patients with elevated soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR). However, the role of Anakinra in COVID-19 remains unanswered, especially in patients receiving different forms of respiratory support. Therefore, the objective of this systematic review is to assess the safety and effects of Anakinra compared to placebo or standard care alone on clinical outcomes in adult hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (comprising MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, medRxiv, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CCSR)) and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease database to identify completed and ongoing studies from inception of each database to December 13, 2021. Since then, we monitored new published studies weekly up to June 30, 2022 using the CCSR. We included RCTs comparing treatment with Anakinra to placebo or standard care alone in adult hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. RESULTS: We included five RCTs with 1,627 patients (nAnakinra = 888, ncontrol = 739, mean age 59.63 years, 64% male). Random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool data. We found that Anakinra makes little or no difference to all-cause mortality at up to day 28 compared to placebo or standard care alone (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.64-1.45; RD 9 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 84 fewer to 104 more; 4 studies, 1593 participants; I2 = 49%; low certainty of evidence). CONCLUSIONS: Anakinra has no effect on adult hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection regarding mortality, clinical improvement and worsening as well as on safety outcomes compared to placebo or standard care alone. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42021257552.

Post-treatment haemolysis is common following oral artemisinin combination therapy of uncomplicated malaria in travellers.

BACKGROUND: Artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT) for the treatment of malaria is highly effective, well tolerated and safe. Episodes of delayed haemolysis occur in up to 57.9% of patients with severe malaria treated with intravenous artesunate, mainly caused by 'pitting' of infected red blood cells in the spleen and the delayed loss of these once-infected RBCs (oiRBCs). Several reports indicate that post-treatment haemolysis (PTH) also occurs in uncomplicated malaria treated with oral ACT, calling for systematic investigation. METHODS: A prospective observational study to identify the incidence of PTH after oral ACT, defined as increased lactate dehydrogenase activity and low haptoglobin level on Day 14 after treatment. Patients were enrolled at two study centres in Germany and Italy. Study visits took place on Days 1, 3, 7, 14 and 28. Laboratory investigations included extended clinical routine laboratory tests, quantitative PfHRP2, anti-RBC antibodies and oiRBCs. The state of semi-immunity to malaria was assessed from childhood and ongoing exposure to Plasmodium spp. as per patient history. RESULTS: A total of 134 patients with uncomplicated malaria and 3-day ACT treatment were recruited. Thirty-seven (37.4%) of 99 evaluable patients with Pf and none of 9 patients with non-Pf malaria exhibited PTH on d14. Patients with PTH had higher initial parasitaemia, higher oiRBC counts on d3 and a 10-fold decrease in oiRBCs between d7 and d14 compared with patients without PTH. In patients with PTH, loss of haemoglobin was 4-fold greater in non-Africans than in Africans (-1.3 vs -0.3 g/dl). Semi-immune African patients with PTH showed markedly increased erythropoiesis on d14 compared with not semi-immune African and non-African patients with PTH. CONCLUSIONS: PTH is common in patients with uncomplicated malaria and oral ACT. While the observed loss of haemoglobin will often not be clinically relevant, it could aggravate pre-existing anaemia, warranting follow-up examinations in populations at risk.

Remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Remdesivir is an antiviral medicine approved for the treatment of mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This led to widespread implementation, although the available evidence remains inconsistent. This update aims to fill current knowledge gaps by identifying, describing, evaluating, and synthesising all evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the effects of remdesivir on clinical outcomes in COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of remdesivir and standard care compared to standard care plus/minus placebo on clinical outcomes in patients treated for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which comprises the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and medRxiv) as well as Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded and Emerging Sources Citation Index) and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies, without language restrictions. We conducted the searches on 31 May 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included RCTs evaluating remdesivir and standard care for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to standard care plus/minus placebo irrespective of disease severity, gender, ethnicity, or setting. We excluded studies that evaluated remdesivir for the treatment of other coronavirus diseases. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess risk of bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool for RCTs. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach for outcomes that were reported according to our prioritised categories: all-cause mortality, in-hospital mortality, clinical improvement (being alive and ready for discharge up to day 28) or worsening (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death up to day 28), quality of life, serious adverse events, and adverse events (any grade). We differentiated between non-hospitalised individuals with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection or mild COVID-19 and hospitalised individuals with moderate to severe COVID-19. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine RCTs with 11,218 participants diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection and a mean age of 53.6 years, of whom 5982 participants were randomised to receive remdesivir. Most participants required low-flow oxygen at baseline. Studies were mainly conducted in high- and upper-middle-income countries. We identified two studies that are awaiting classification and five ongoing studies. Effects of remdesivir in hospitalised individuals with moderate to severe COVID-19 With moderate-certainty evidence, remdesivir probably makes little or no difference to all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.06; risk difference (RD) 8 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 21 fewer to 6 more; 4 studies, 7142 participants), day 60 (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.05; RD 35 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 73 fewer to 12 more; 1 study, 1281 participants), or in-hospital mortality at up to day 150 (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.03; RD 11 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 25 fewer to 5 more; 1 study, 8275 participants). Remdesivir probably increases the chance of clinical improvement at up to day 28 slightly (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.17; RD 68 more per 1000, 95% CI 37 more to 105 more; 4 studies, 2514 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). It probably decreases the risk of clinical worsening within 28 days (hazard ratio (HR) 0.67, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.82; RD 135 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 198 fewer to 69 fewer; 2 studies, 1734 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). Remdesivir may make little or no difference to the rate of adverse events of any grade (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.18; RD 23 more per 1000, 95% CI 46 fewer to 104 more; 4 studies, 2498 participants; low-certainty evidence), or serious adverse events (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.07; RD 44 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 96 fewer to 19 more; 4 studies, 2498 participants; low-certainty evidence). We considered risk of bias to be low, with some concerns for mortality and clinical course. We had some concerns for safety outcomes because participants who had died did not contribute information. Without adjustment, this leads to an uncertain amount of missing values and the potential for bias due to missing data. Effects of remdesivir in non-hospitalised individuals with mild COVID-19 One of the nine RCTs was conducted in the outpatient setting and included symptomatic people with a risk of progression. No deaths occurred within the 28 days observation period. We are uncertain about clinical improvement due to very low-certainty evidence. Remdesivir probably decreases the risk of clinical worsening (hospitalisation) at up to day 28 (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.75; RD 46 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 57 fewer to 16 fewer; 562 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We did not find any data for quality of life. Remdesivir may decrease the rate of serious adverse events at up to 28 days (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.70; RD 49 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 60 fewer to 20 fewer; 562 participants; low-certainty evidence), but it probably makes little or no difference to the risk of adverse events of any grade (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.10; RD 42 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 111 fewer to 46 more; 562 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We considered risk of bias to be low for mortality, clinical improvement, and safety outcomes. We identified a high risk of bias for clinical worsening. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the available evidence up to 31 May 2022, remdesivir probably has little or no effect on all-cause mortality or in-hospital mortality of individuals with moderate to severe COVID-19. The hospitalisation rate was reduced with remdesivir in one study including participants with mild to moderate COVID-19. It may be beneficial in the clinical course for both hospitalised and non-hospitalised patients, but certainty remains limited. The applicability of the evidence to current practice may be limited by the recruitment of participants from mostly unvaccinated populations exposed to early variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus at the time the studies were undertaken.  Future studies should provide additional data on the efficacy and safety of remdesivir for defined core outcomes in COVID-19 research, especially for different population subgroups.

New Perspectives for Prosthetic Valve Endocarditis: Impact of Molecular Imaging by FISHseq Diagnostics.

BACKGROUND: The microbial etiology of prosthetic valve infective endocarditis (PVE) can be difficult to identify. Our aim was to investigate the benefit of molecular imaging technique fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) combined with 16S rRNA-gene polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and sequencing (FISHseq) for the analysis of infected prosthetic heart valves. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated the diagnostic outcome of 113 prosthetic valves from 105 patients with suspected PVE, treated in 2003-2013 in the Department of Cardiac Surgery, Charité University Medicine Berlin. Each prosthetic valve underwent cultural diagnostics and was routinely examined by FISH combined with 16S rRNA gene PCR and sequencing. We compared classical microbiological culture outcomes (blood and valve cultures) with FISHseq results and evaluated the diagnostic impact of the molecular imaging technique. RESULTS: Conventional microbiological diagnostic alone turned out to be insufficient, as 67% of preoperative blood cultures were noninformative (negative, inconclusive, or not obtained) and 67% of valve cultures remained negative. FISHseq improved the conventional cultural diagnostic methods in PVE in 30% of the cases and increased diagnostic accuracy. Of the valve culture-negative PVE cases, FISHseq succeeded in identifying the causative pathogen in 35%. CONCLUSIONS: FISHseq improves PVE diagnostics, complementing conventional cultural methods. In addition to species identification, FISH provides information about the severity of PVE and state of the pathogens (eg, stage of biofilm formation, activity, and localization on and within the prosthetic material). As a molecular imaging technique, FISHseq enables the unambiguous discrimination of skin flora as contaminant or infectious agent.

Monkeypox in-patients with severe anal pain.

Berlin is amongst the cities most affected by the current monkeypox outbreak. Here, we report clinical characteristics of the first patients with confirmed monkeypox admitted to our center. We analyzed anamnestic, clinical, and laboratory data. Within a period of 2 weeks, six patients were hospitalized in our unit. All were MSM and had practiced condomless receptive anal intercourse in the weeks preceding admission. The chief complaint in all patients but one was severe anal pain unprecedented in severity. Investigations revealed proctitis, as well as anal and rectal ulcers with detection of monkeypox virus. Our findings support the hypothesis that sexual transmission plays a role in the current outbreak.

Is Vestibular Neuropathy Rather a Neuritis?

Background/objectives Vestibular neuritis (VN) is one of the most common causes of peripheral vestibular neuropathy. The goal of this study is to investigate the possible infectious causes of VN in a large cohort of patients. Material and methods In total, 98 consecutive VN patients were enrolled in this retrospective study over a four-year period (04/2015-04/2019). Diagnosis of VN was made by clinical examination and functional diagnostics. We focused on infectious causes such as neurotropic viruses and Lyme disease (LD) and evaluated infection parameters as well as the concomitant diseases. Results In this cohort, we found pathologically elevated leukocytes or C-reactive protein (CRP) levels, and/or acute herpes simplex virus (HSV) infection, cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection and LD in 42 patients (42.85%). Leukocytes were elevated in 39 of 98 patients (39.8%) and the mean count was 9717 ± 2991 /µl. The group comparison between patients with vestibular loss (n=42) and patients with vestibular hypofunction (n=45) revealed a significant difference in regard to elevated leukocytes (p=0.028). In total, 28 of 53 patients (52.8%) were positive for HSV immunoglobulin (Ig) G and four of 53 patients were positive for HSV IgM (7.5%). Six of 53 patients (11.3%) were positive for LD IgM. Conclusion In this cohort, there was a large number of VN patients with infectious signs; several patients tested positive for HSV and LD. Therefore we recommend testing VN patients not only for HSV but also for LD and other neurotropic viruses. This approach enables to complement the standard VN treatment with a specific treatment.

Systemic corticosteroids for the treatment of COVID-19: Equity-related analyses and update on evidence.

BACKGROUND: Systemic corticosteroids are used to treat people with COVID-19 because they counter hyper-inflammation. Existing evidence syntheses suggest a slight benefit on mortality. Nonetheless, size of effect, optimal therapy regimen, and selection of patients who are likely to benefit most are factors that remain to be evaluated. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether and at which doses systemic corticosteroids are effective and safe in the treatment of people with COVID-19, to explore equity-related aspects in subgroup analyses, and to keep up to date with the evolving evidence base using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which includes PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and medRxiv), Web of Science (Science Citation Index, Emerging Citation Index), and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies to 6 January 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated systemic corticosteroids for people with COVID-19. We included any type or dose of systemic corticosteroids and the following comparisons: systemic corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care, different types, doses and timings (early versus late) of corticosteroids. We excluded corticosteroids in combination with other active substances versus standard care, topical or inhaled corticosteroids, and corticosteroids for long-COVID treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess the risk of bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' 2 tool for RCTs. We rated the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality up to 30 and 120 days, discharged alive (clinical improvement), new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death (clinical worsening), serious adverse events, adverse events, hospital-acquired infections, and invasive fungal infections. MAIN RESULTS: We included 16 RCTs in 9549 participants, of whom 8271 (87%) originated from high-income countries. A total of 4532 participants were randomised to corticosteroid arms and the majority received dexamethasone (n = 3766). These studies included participants mostly older than 50 years and male. We also identified 42 ongoing and 23 completed studies lacking published results or relevant information on the study design. Hospitalised individuals with a confirmed or suspected diagnosis of symptomatic COVID-19 Systemic corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care plus/minus placebo We included 11 RCTs (8019 participants), one of which did not report any of our pre-specified outcomes and thus our analyses included outcome data from 10 studies. Systemic corticosteroids plus standard care compared to standard care probably reduce all-cause mortality (up to 30 days) slightly (risk ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 0.97; 7898 participants; estimated absolute effect: 274 deaths per 1000 people not receiving systemic corticosteroids compared to 246 deaths per 1000 people receiving the intervention (95% CI 230 to 265 per 1000 people); moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect on all-cause mortality (up to 120 days) (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.34; 485 participants). The chance of clinical improvement (discharged alive at day 28) may slightly increase (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.11; 6786 participants; low-certainty evidence) while the risk of clinical worsening (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death) may slightly decrease (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.01; 5586 participants; low-certainty evidence). For serious adverse events (two RCTs, 678 participants), adverse events (three RCTs, 447 participants), hospital-acquired infections (four RCTs, 598 participants), and invasive fungal infections (one study, 64 participants), we did not perform any analyses beyond the presentation of descriptive statistics due to very low-certainty evidence (high risk of bias, heterogeneous definitions, and underreporting). Different types, dosages or timing of systemic corticosteroids We identified one RCT (86 participants) comparing methylprednisolone to dexamethasone, thus the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of methylprednisolone on all-cause mortality (up to 30 days) (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.07; 86 participants). None of the other outcomes of interest were reported in this study. We included four RCTs (1383 participants) comparing high-dose dexamethasone (12 mg or higher) to low-dose dexamethasone (6 mg to 8 mg). High-dose dexamethasone compared to low-dose dexamethasone may reduce all-cause mortality (up to 30 days) (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.04; 1269 participants; low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of high-dose dexamethasone on all-cause mortality (up to 120 days) (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.08; 1383 participants) and it may have little or no impact on clinical improvement (discharged alive at 28 days) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.09; 200 participants; low-certainty evidence). Studies did not report data on clinical worsening (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death). For serious adverse events, adverse events, hospital-acquired infections, and invasive fungal infections, we did not perform analyses beyond the presentation of descriptive statistics due to very low-certainty evidence. We could not identify studies for comparisons of different timing and systemic corticosteroids versus other active substances. Equity-related subgroup analyses We conducted the following subgroup analyses to explore equity-related factors: sex, age (< 70 years; ≥ 70 years), ethnicity (Black, Asian or other versus White versus unknown) and place of residence (high-income versus low- and middle-income countries). Except for age and ethnicity, no evidence for differences could be identified. For all-cause mortality up to 30 days, participants younger than 70 years seemed to benefit from systemic corticosteroids in comparison to those aged 70 years and older. The few participants from a Black, Asian, or other minority ethnic group showed a larger estimated effect than the many White participants. Outpatients with asymptomatic or mild disease There are no studies published in populations with asymptomatic infection or mild disease. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Systemic corticosteroids probably slightly reduce all-cause mortality up to 30 days in people hospitalised because of symptomatic COVID-19, while the evidence is very uncertain about the effect on all-cause mortality up to 120 days. For younger people (under 70 years of age) there was a potential advantage, as well as for Black, Asian, or people of a minority ethnic group; further subgroup analyses showed no relevant effects. Evidence related to the most effective type, dose, or timing of systemic corticosteroids remains immature. Currently, there is no evidence on asymptomatic or mild disease (non-hospitalised participants). Due to the low to very low certainty of the current evidence, we cannot assess safety adequately to rule out harmful effects of the treatment, therefore there is an urgent need for good-quality safety data. Findings of equity-related subgroup analyses should be interpreted with caution because of their explorative nature, low precision, and missing data. We identified 42 ongoing and 23 completed studies lacking published results or relevant information on the study design, suggesting there may be possible changes of the effect estimates and certainty of the evidence in the future.