Impact of Inflammatory Response Modifiers on the Incidence of Hospital-Acquired Infections in Patients with COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: The study aim was to assess the influence of inflammatory response modifiers, including anti-interleukin-6 (IL-6) biologics and corticosteroids, on the incidence of hospital-acquired infections in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: Case-control study performed at a university hospital from February 26 to May 26, 2020. Cases were defined as patients with COVID-19 who developed hospital-acquired infections. For each case, two controls were selected among patients without infections. Cases and controls were matched obeying three criteria in a hierarchical sequence: length of hospital stay up until the first infection; comorbidity; and need for Intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Conditional logistic regression analysis was used to estimate the association of exposures with being a case. RESULTS: A total of 71 cases and 142 controls were included. Independent predictors for acquiring a hospital infection were chronic liver disease [odds ratio (OR) 16.56, 95% CI 1.87-146.5, p = 0.012], morbid obesity (OR 6.11, 95% CI 1.06-35.4, p = 0.043), current or past smoking (OR 4.15, 95% CI 1.45-11.88, p = 0.008), exposure to hydroxychloroquine (OR 0.2, 95% CI 0.041-1, p = 0.053), and invasive mechanical ventilation (OR 61.5, 95% CI 11.08-341, p ≤ 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Inflammatory response modifiers had no influence on acquisition of nosocomial infections in admitted patients with COVID-19. Hospital-acquired infections primarily occurred in the critically ill and invasive mechanical ventilation was the main exposure conferring risk.

Clostridium difficile Infection in Special High-Risk Populations.

Antibiotic use continues to be the most important risk factor for the development of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) through disruption of the indigenous microbiota of the colon. This factor, together with environmental contamination, makes hospital and other healthcare facilities the perfect breeding ground for the infection. Several groups of patients are exposed to the hospital environment and, at the same time, affected by conditions that can make CDI more prevalent, more severe or make it present a different clinical picture. The list of such conditions appears too extensive to be reviewed in a single article. Nevertheless, several groups, including the critically ill, oncological patients, solid organ and hematopoietic transplant recipients, patients with inflammatory bowel disease, patients with kidney disease and pregnant women, have generated more attention and have been studied in more detail. On the other hand, pediatric patients constitute a controversial group because the large number of asymptomatic carriers makes interpretation of clinical findings and diagnostic tests difficult, as is the development of an appropriate approach to treatment. We present an in-depth discussion of CDI in these high-risk populations and we also review the issue of CDI in pediatric patients.

Characteristics of Clostridium difficile infection in patients with discordant diagnostic test results.

BACKGROUND: Clinical features of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) cases diagnosed by detection of polymerase chain reaction (PCR), with negative toxin enzyme immunoassay results (EIA) have not been fully elucidated. The purpose of this study was to determine the magnitude of CDI patients who had negative EIA toxin determinations but positive PCR tests, and their differences in clinical presentation. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study comparing the clinical features of CDI cases detected by EIA (toxins A + B) with cases detected by PCR (toxin negative, PCR positive) over a 16-month period. Only patients with an initial Clostridium difficile infection episode that fulfilled a standardized definition were included. RESULTS: During the study period, 107 episodes of CDI were detected. Seventy-four patients (69%) had positive glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) antigen and EIA determinations (EIA positive patients). Thirty-three patients (31%) had GDH positive, negative toxin EIA and positive PCR determination (PCR positive patients). PCR positive patients were younger, 57 (27) years (mean [SD]), than EIA positive patients, 71 (16) years, (p < 0.001). Fewer PCR positive patients were receiving proton pump inhibitors (21 patients, 64%) than EIA positive patients (61 patients, 82%, p = 0.034). The clinical presentation was similar in both groups. In the multivariate analysis, lower age was identified as the only independent variable associated with PCR positive patients. CONCLUSIONS: One third of Clostridium difficile infection patients present negative toxin EIA and PCR positive tests. Performing PCR determination after the negative EIA test is more relevant in younger patients.