Treatment of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 with remdesivir is associated with lower likelihood of 30-day readmission: a retrospective observational study.

Aim: This observational study investigated the association between remdesivir treatment during hospitalization for COVID-19 and 30-day COVID-19-related and all-cause readmission across different variants time periods. Patients & methods: Hospitalization records for adult patients discharged from a COVID-19 hospitalization between 1 May 2020 to 30 April 2022 were extracted from the US PINC AI Healthcare Database. Likelihood of 30-day readmission was compared among remdesivir-treated and nonremdesivir-treated patients using multivariable logistic regression models adjusted for age, corticosteroid treatment, Charlson comorbidity index and intensive care unit stay during the COVID-19 hospitalization. Analyses were stratified by maximum supplemental oxygen requirement and variant time period (pre-Delta, Delta and Omicron). Results: Of the 440,601 patients discharged alive after a COVID-19 hospitalization, 248,785 (56.5%) patients received remdesivir. Overall, remdesivir patients had a 30-day COVID-19-related readmission rate of 3.0% and all-cause readmission rate of 6.3% compared with 5.4% and 9.1%, respectively, for patients who did not receive remdesivir during their COVID-19 hospitalization. After adjusting for demographics and clinical characteristics, remdesivir treatment was associated with significantly lower odds of 30-day COVID-19-related readmission (odds ratio 0.60 [95% confidence interval: 0.58-0.62]), and all-cause readmission (0.73 [0.72-0.75]). Significantly lower odds of 30-day readmission in remdesivir-treated patients was observed across all variant time periods. Conclusion: Treating patients hospitalized for COVID-19 with remdesivir is associated with a statistically significant reduction in 30-day COVID-19-related and all-cause readmission across variant time periods. These findings indicate that the clinical benefit of remdesivir may extend beyond the COVID-19 hospitalization.

Immunomodulators for immunocompromised patients hospitalized for COVID-19: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Background: Although immunomodulators have established benefit against the new coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in general, it is uncertain whether such agents improve outcomes without increasing the risk of secondary infections in the specific subgroup of previously immunocompromised patients. We assessed the effect of immunomodulators on outcomes of immunocompromised patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Methods: The protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022335397). MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and references of relevant articles were searched up to 01-06-2022. Authors of potentially eligible randomized controlled trials were contacted to provide data on immunocompromised patients randomized to immunomodulators vs control (i.e., placebo or standard-of-care). Findings: Eleven randomized controlled trials involving 397 immunocompromised patients hospitalized for COVID-19 were included. Ten trials had low risk of bias. There was no difference between immunocompromised patients randomized to immunomodulators vs control regarding mortality [30/182 (16.5%) vs 41/215 (19.1%); RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.61-1.41; p = 0.74], secondary infections (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.64-1.58; p = 0.99) and change in World Health Organization ordinal scale from baseline to day 15 (weighed mean difference 0.27, 95% CI -0.09-0.63; p = 0.15). In subgroup analyses including only patients with hematologic malignancy, only trials with low risk of bias, only trials administering IL-6 inhibitors, or only trials administering immunosuppressants, there was no difference between comparators regarding mortality. Interpretation: Immunomodulators, compared to control, were not associated with harmful or beneficial outcomes, including mortality, secondary infections, and change in ordinal scale, when administered to immunocompromised patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Funding: Hellenic Foundation for Research and Innovation.

Choosing immunomodulating therapies for the treatment of COVID-19: recommendations based on placebo-controlled trial evidence.

BACKGROUND: Immunomodulatory therapy has been extensively studied in randomized clinical trials for the treatment of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 with inconsistent findings. Guideline committees, reviewing the same clinical trial data, have generated different recommendations for immunomodulatory therapy. OBJECTIVES: We hypothesize that trial design differences, specifically whether the study utilized an open-label or placebo-controlled design, accounted for the inconsistent mortality effects reported in clinical trials of immunomodulator therapies for COVID-19. SOURCES: We reviewed COVID-19 treatment guidelines (World Health Organization [WHO], Infectious Diseases Society of America [IDSA] and The National Institutes of Health [NIH]) and identified the meta-analyses associated with glucocorticoids, IL-6 inhibitors, JAK kinase inhibitors, and complement C5a inhibitors that were available to the guideline authors at the time recommendations were either made or updated. CONTENT: We identified a meta-analysis for each of the immunomodulator classes that are included in current COVID-19 treatment guidelines: glucocorticoids [WHO Rapid Evidence Appraisal for COVID-19 Therapies (REACT) Working Group; Shankar-Hari M, Vale CL, Godolphin PJ, Fisher D, Higgins JPT, et al. Association between administration of IL-6 antagonists and mortality among patients hospitalized for COVID-19: A meta-analysis. JAMA. 2021;326:499-518] (cited 419), IL-6 antagonists [WHO Rapid Evidence Appraisal for COVID-19 Therapies (REACT) Working Group; Shankar-Hari M, Vale CL, Godolphin PJ, Fisher D, Higgins JPT, et al. Association between administration of IL-6 antagonists and mortality among patients hospitalized for COVID-19: A meta-analysis. JAMA. 2021;326:499-518] (cited 419), JAK inhibitors [Kramer A, Prinz C, Fichtner F, Fischer AL, Thieme V, Grundeis F, et al. Janus kinase inhibitors for the treatment of COVID-19. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022;6:CD015209] (cited 34), and complement C5a inhibitors [Tsai CL, Lai CC, Chen CY, Lee HS. The efficacy and safety of complement C5a inhibitors for patients with severe COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2023;21:77-86] (cited 1). Using the same randomized clinical trials, we evaluated the four meta-analyses accounting for trial design: placebo-controlled or open-label. Glucocorticoids (Risk Ratio [RR] 0.91 [95% CI, 0.49-1.69]), IL-6 inhibitors sarilumab (RR 1.17 [95% CI, 0.96-01.43]), and tocilizumab (RR 0.95 [95% CI, 0.76-1.19]) did not reduce mortality in placebo-controlled trials, whereas baricitinib did confer a large survival benefit (RR 0.65 [95% CI, 0.52-0.81]). The complement C5a inhibitor, vilobelimab, also reduced mortality in a single placebo-controlled trial (RR 0.76 [95% CI, 0.57-1.0]). IMPLICATIONS: Placebo-controlled trial evidence indicates that baricitinib should be the first choice immunomodulator for patients hospitalized for COVID-19 who require any form of oxygen support-low- or high-flow oxygen, non-invasive or invasive ventilation. Vilobelimab warrants study in a large placebo-controlled trial. Treatment guidelines for future pandemics should prioritize the results of placebo-controlled trials.

Management of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia: Guidelines.

Two recent major guidelines on diagnosis and treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) recommend consideration of local antibiotic resistance patterns and individual patient risks for resistant pathogens when formulating an initial empiric antibiotic regimen. One recommends against invasive diagnostic techniques with quantitative cultures to determine the cause of VAP; the other recommends either invasive or noninvasive techniques. Both guidelines recommend short-course therapy be used for most patients with VAP. Although neither guideline recommends use of procalcitonin as an adjunct to clinical judgment when diagnosing VAP, they differ with respect to use of serial procalcitonin to shorten the length of antibiotic treatment.

How to use biomarkers of infection or sepsis at the bedside: guide to clinicians.

Sepsis is defined as a life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection. In this context, biomarkers could be considered as indicators of either infection or dysregulated host response or response to treatment and/or aid clinicians to prognosticate patient risk. More than 250 biomarkers have been identified and evaluated over the last few decades, but no biomarker accurately differentiates between sepsis and sepsis-like syndrome. Published data support the use of biomarkers for pathogen identification, clinical diagnosis, and optimization of antibiotic treatment. In this narrative review, we highlight how clinicians could improve the use of pathogen-specific and of the most used host-response biomarkers, procalcitonin and C-reactive protein, to improve the clinical care of patients with sepsis. Biomarker kinetics are more useful than single values in predicting sepsis, when making the diagnosis and assessing the response to antibiotic therapy. Finally, integrated biomarker-guided algorithms may hold promise to improve both the diagnosis and prognosis of sepsis. Herein, we provide current data on the clinical utility of pathogen-specific and host-response biomarkers, offer guidance on how to optimize their use, and propose the needs for future research.

Efficacy of interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir compared with remdesivir alone in hospitalised adults with COVID-19: a double-bind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Functional impairment of interferon, a natural antiviral component of the immune system, is associated with the pathogenesis and severity of COVID-19. We aimed to compare the efficacy of interferon beta-1a in combination with remdesivir compared with remdesivir alone in hospitalised patients with COVID-19. METHODS: We did a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial at 63 hospitals across five countries (Japan, Mexico, Singapore, South Korea, and the USA). Eligible patients were hospitalised adults (aged ≥18 years) with SARS-CoV-2 infection, as confirmed by a positive RT-PCR test, and who met one of the following criteria suggestive of lower respiratory tract infection: the presence of radiographic infiltrates on imaging, a peripheral oxygen saturation on room air of 94% or less, or requiring supplemental oxygen. Patients were excluded if they had either an alanine aminotransferase or an aspartate aminotransferase concentration more than five times the upper limit of normal; had impaired renal function; were allergic to the study product; were pregnant or breast feeding; were already on mechanical ventilation; or were anticipating discharge from the hospital or transfer to another hospital within 72 h of enrolment. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous remdesivir as a 200 mg loading dose on day 1 followed by a 100 mg maintenance dose administered daily for up to 9 days and up to four doses of either 44 µg interferon beta-1a (interferon beta-1a group plus remdesivir group) or placebo (placebo plus remdesivir group) administered subcutaneously every other day. Randomisation was stratified by study site and disease severity at enrolment. Patients, investigators, and site staff were masked to interferon beta-1a and placebo treatment; remdesivir treatment was given to all patients without masking. The primary outcome was time to recovery, defined as the first day that a patient attained a category 1, 2, or 3 score on the eight-category ordinal scale within 28 days, assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as all randomised patients who were classified according to actual clinical severity. Safety was assessed in the as-treated population, defined as all patients who received at least one dose of the assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04492475. FINDINGS: Between Aug 5, 2020, and Nov 11, 2020, 969 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group (n=487) or to the placebo plus remdesivir group (n=482). The mean duration of symptoms before enrolment was 8·7 days (SD 4·4) in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group and 8·5 days (SD 4·3) days in the placebo plus remdesivir group. Patients in both groups had a time to recovery of 5 days (95% CI not estimable) (rate ratio of interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group vs placebo plus remdesivir 0·99 [95% CI 0·87-1·13]; p=0·88). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of mortality at 28 days was 5% (95% CI 3-7%) in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group and 3% (2-6%) in the placebo plus remdesivir group (hazard ratio 1·33 [95% CI 0·69-2·55]; p=0·39). Patients who did not require high-flow oxygen at baseline were more likely to have at least one related adverse event in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group (33 [7%] of 442 patients) than in the placebo plus remdesivir group (15 [3%] of 435). In patients who required high-flow oxygen at baseline, 24 (69%) of 35 had an adverse event and 21 (60%) had a serious adverse event in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group compared with 13 (39%) of 33 who had an adverse event and eight (24%) who had a serious adverse event in the placebo plus remdesivir group. INTERPRETATION: Interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir was not superior to remdesivir alone in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Patients who required high-flow oxygen at baseline had worse outcomes after treatment with interferon beta-1a compared with those given placebo. FUNDING: The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (USA).

Baricitinib plus Remdesivir for Hospitalized Adults with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is associated with dysregulated inflammation. The effects of combination treatment with baricitinib, a Janus kinase inhibitor, plus remdesivir are not known. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial evaluating baricitinib plus remdesivir in hospitalized adults with Covid-19. All the patients received remdesivir (≤10 days) and either baricitinib (≤14 days) or placebo (control). The primary outcome was the time to recovery. The key secondary outcome was clinical status at day 15. RESULTS: A total of 1033 patients underwent randomization (with 515 assigned to combination treatment and 518 to control). Patients receiving baricitinib had a median time to recovery of 7 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 6 to 8), as compared with 8 days (95% CI, 7 to 9) with control (rate ratio for recovery, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.32; P = 0.03), and a 30% higher odds of improvement in clinical status at day 15 (odds ratio, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0 to 1.6). Patients receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation at enrollment had a time to recovery of 10 days with combination treatment and 18 days with control (rate ratio for recovery, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.10 to 2.08). The 28-day mortality was 5.1% in the combination group and 7.8% in the control group (hazard ratio for death, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.39 to 1.09). Serious adverse events were less frequent in the combination group than in the control group (16.0% vs. 21.0%; difference, -5.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -9.8 to -0.3; P = 0.03), as were new infections (5.9% vs. 11.2%; difference, -5.3 percentage points; 95% CI, -8.7 to -1.9; P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Baricitinib plus remdesivir was superior to remdesivir alone in reducing recovery time and accelerating improvement in clinical status among patients with Covid-19, notably among those receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation. The combination was associated with fewer serious adverse events. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04401579.).

Sepsis in Immunocompromised Patients Without Human Immunodeficiency Virus.

Sepsis remains among the most common complications from infectious diseases worldwide. The morbidity and mortality rates associated with sepsis range from 20% to 50%. The advances in care for patients with an immunocompromised status have been remarkable over the last 2 decades, but sepsis continues to be a major cause of death in this population Immunocompromised patients who are recipients of a solid organ or hematopoietic stem cell transplant are living longer with a better quality of life. However, some of these patients need lifelong treatment with immunosuppressive medications to maintain their transplant status. A consequence of the need for this permanent immunosuppression is the high risk of opportunistic, community, and hospital-acquired infections, all of which can lead to sepsis. In addition, the detection of serious infections may be more challenging owing to patients' lower ability to mount the clinical symptoms that usually accompany sepsis. This article provides an update on the current knowledge of sepsis in immunocompromised patients without human immunodeficiency virus. It reviews the most pertinent causes of sepsis in this population, and addresses the specific diagnostic and therapeutic challenges in neutropenia and solid organ and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 - Final Report.

BACKGROUND: Although several therapeutic agents have been evaluated for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), no antiviral agents have yet been shown to be efficacious. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of intravenous remdesivir in adults who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either remdesivir (200 mg loading dose on day 1, followed by 100 mg daily for up to 9 additional days) or placebo for up to 10 days. The primary outcome was the time to recovery, defined by either discharge from the hospital or hospitalization for infection-control purposes only. RESULTS: A total of 1062 patients underwent randomization (with 541 assigned to remdesivir and 521 to placebo). Those who received remdesivir had a median recovery time of 10 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 9 to 11), as compared with 15 days (95% CI, 13 to 18) among those who received placebo (rate ratio for recovery, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.49; P<0.001, by a log-rank test). In an analysis that used a proportional-odds model with an eight-category ordinal scale, the patients who received remdesivir were found to be more likely than those who received placebo to have clinical improvement at day 15 (odds ratio, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2 to 1.9, after adjustment for actual disease severity). The Kaplan-Meier estimates of mortality were 6.7% with remdesivir and 11.9% with placebo by day 15 and 11.4% with remdesivir and 15.2% with placebo by day 29 (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.52 to 1.03). Serious adverse events were reported in 131 of the 532 patients who received remdesivir (24.6%) and in 163 of the 516 patients who received placebo (31.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Our data show that remdesivir was superior to placebo in shortening the time to recovery in adults who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others; ACTT-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04280705.).

American College of Rheumatology Guidance for the Management of Rheumatic Disease in Adult Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Version 1.

OBJECTIVE: To provide guidance to rheumatology providers on the management of adult rheumatic disease in the context of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: A task force, including 10 rheumatologists and 4 infectious disease specialists from North America, was convened. Clinical questions were collated, and an evidence report was rapidly generated and disseminated. Questions and drafted statements were reviewed and assessed using a modified Delphi process. This included 2 rounds of asynchronous anonymous voting by e-mail and 3 webinars with the entire panel. Task force members voted on agreement with draft statements using a 1-9-point numerical scoring system, and consensus was determined to be low, moderate, or high based on the dispersion of votes. For approval, median votes were required to meet predefined levels of agreement (median values of 7-9, 4-6, and 1-3 defined as agreement, uncertainty, or disagreement, respectively) with either moderate or high levels of consensus. RESULTS: The task force approved 77 initial guidance statements: 36 with moderate and 41 with high consensus. These were combined, resulting in 25 final guidance statements. CONCLUSION: These guidance statements are provided to promote optimal care during the current pandemic. However, given the low level of available evidence and the rapidly evolving literature, this guidance is presented as a "living document," and future updates are anticipated.

Procalcitonin predicts the severity of cystic fibrosis pulmonary exacerbations and readmissions in adult patients: a prospective cohort study.

Patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) experience multiple pulmonary exacerbations throughout their lifetime, resulting in repeated antibiotic exposure and hospital admissions. Reliable diagnostic markers to guide antibiotic treatment in patients with CF, however, are lacking. Given that the CF airway is characterized by persistent and frequent bacterial infection, our goal was to determine if procalcitonin (PCT) could be used as a severity and prognostic marker of CF exacerbation. We enrolled 40 participants at the time of diagnosis of CF pulmonary exacerbation. Inclusion criteria: age ≥19 years with exacerbation requiring antibiotics as determined by the treating physician. Exclusion criteria: antibiotics initiated more than 48 hours prior to enrollment, and pregnancy. Blood samples were collected on enrollment day and after 7-10 days of treatment. Of the 40 patients enrolled, 23 (57.5%) had detectable levels of PCT (≥0.05 ng/mL). PCT levels were significantly associated with pulmonary exacerbation scores (p=0.01) and per cent decrease in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) (p=0.01) compared with the best in the last 12 months. Those who had worsening PCT during treatment had less improvement in FEV1 (p=0.001) and were more likely to be readmitted to the hospital sooner (p<0.0001). Likewise, those who had a detectable PCT at the time of admission were more likely to be readmitted sooner (p=0.03). PCT elevation during antibiotic treatment is associated with less improvement in FEV1 and earlier readmission. A detectable PCT level occurs only in more severe CF exacerbations. Multicenter trials are needed to confirm whether PCT may play a role in the clinical care of patients with CF.

Influenza virus-related critical illness: pathophysiology and epidemiology.

Influenza virus affects the respiratory tract by direct viral infection or by damage from the immune system response. In humans, the respiratory epithelium is the only site where the hemagglutinin (HA) molecule is effectively cleaved, generating infectious virus particles. Virus transmission occurs through a susceptible individual's contact with aerosols or respiratory fomites from an infected individual. The inability of the lung to perform its primary function of gas exchange can result from multiple mechanisms, including obstruction of the airways, loss of alveolar structure, loss of lung epithelial integrity from direct epithelial cell killing, and degradation of the critical extracellular matrix.Approximately 30-40% of hospitalized patients with laboratory-confirmed influenza are diagnosed with acute pneumonia. These patients who develop pneumonia are more likely to be < 5 years old, > 65 years old, Caucasian, and nursing home residents; have chronic lung or heart disease and history of smoking, and are immunocompromised.Influenza can primarily cause severe pneumonia, but it can also present in conjunction with or be followed by a secondary bacterial infection, most commonly by Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus pneumoniae. Influenza is associated with a high predisposition to bacterial sepsis and ARDS. Viral infections presenting concurrently with bacterial pneumonia are now known to occur with a frequency of 30-50% in both adult and pediatric populations. The H3N2 subtype has been associated with unprecedented high levels of intensive care unit (ICU) admission.Influenza A is the predominant viral etiology of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in adults. Risk factors independently associated with ARDS are age between 36 and 55 years old, pregnancy, and obesity, while protective factors are female sex, influenza vaccination, and infections with Influenza A (H3N2) or Influenza B viruses.In the ICU, particularly during the winter season, influenza should be suspected not only in patients with typical symptoms and epidemiology, but also in patients with severe pneumonia, ARDS, sepsis with or without bacterial co-infection, as well as in patients with encephalitis, myocarditis, and rhabdomyolysis.

Sepsis and Challenging Infections in the Immunosuppressed Patient in the Intensive Care Unit.

In 2017, most intensive care units (ICUs) worldwide are admitting a growing population of immunosuppressed patients. The most common causes of pre-ICU immunosuppression are solid organ transplantation, hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, and infection due to human immunodeficiency virus. In this article, the authors review the most frequent infections that cause critical care illness in each of these 3 immunosuppressed patient populations.

Clinical presentation and outcomes of norovirus infection in intestinal allograft compared to native intestine.

BACKGROUND: No data are available on clinical manifestations and course of norovirus gastroenteritis (NVE) in intestinal allograft (from intestinal and multivisceral transplant recipients, ITR) compared to native intestine (from other allograft recipients, nITR). METHODS: This was a retrospective study of solid organ transplant recipients with NVE at two centers from January 1, 2010 to April 1, 2014. Chi-square, t-test, linear and logistic regression analyses were done to compare NVE in ITR vs nITR patients. RESULTS: The ITR (45 patients) were compared to nITR (107 patients). ITR were younger (odds ratio [OR]=0.90; P<.0001), less likely to receive anti-lymphocyte induction therapy (OR=0.15; P<.0001), and had shorter time from transplant to NVE (OR=0.99; P=.008). On presentation ITR had less frequent nausea (OR=0.11; P<.0001) or vomiting (OR=0.36; P=.01), higher white blood cell count (OR=1.09; P=.001), and higher glomerular filtration rate (OR=1.02; P<.0001). ITR were less likely to receive anti-motility agents (OR=9.6; P<.0001). ITR were more likely to stay longer on intravenous (IV) fluids (OR=1.18; P<.0001); have recurrent NVE (OR=4.25; P<.0001); have longer hospital stay (OR=1.07; P<.0001); develop acute rejection (OR=5.1; P=.006); and have lower overall survival (OR=0.28; P=.006). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to nITR, the ITR with NVE were significantly younger, had less nausea and vomiting at presentation, received less anti-motility agents, required more IV fluids, and had longer hospital stay. A trend was seen for lower survival with NVE in ITR.

Early versus late surgical intervention or medical management for infective endocarditis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Infective endocarditis is associated with high morbidity and mortality and optimal timing for surgical intervention is unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare early surgical intervention with conservative therapy in patients with infective endocarditis. METHODS: PubMed, Cochrane, EMBASE, CINAHL and Google-scholar databases were searched from January 1960 to April 2015. Randomised controlled trials, retrospective cohorts and prospective observational studies comparing outcomes between early surgery at 20 days or less and conservative management for infective endocarditis were analysed. RESULTS: A total of 21 studies were included. OR of all-cause mortality for early surgery was 0.61 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.74, p<0.001) in unmatched groups and 0.41 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.54, p<0.001) in the propensity-matched groups (matched for baseline variables). For patients who had surgical intervention at 7 days or less, OR of all-cause mortality was 0.61 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.96, p=0.034) and in those who had surgical intervention within 8-20 days, the OR of mortality was 0.64 (95% CI 0.48 to 0.86, p=0.003) compared with conservative management. In propensity-matched groups, the OR of mortality in patients with surgical intervention at 7 days or less was 0.30 (95% CI 0.16 to 0.54, p<0.001) and in the subgroup of patients who underwent surgery between 8 and 20 days was 0.51 (95% CI 0.35 to 0.72, p<0.001). There was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality, embolisation, heart failure and recurrence of endocarditis between the overall unmatched cohorts. CONCLUSION: The results of our meta-analysis suggest that early surgical intervention is associated with significantly lower risk of mortality in patients with infective endocarditis.

A Randomized 2x2 Factorial Clinical Trial of Renal Transplantation: Steroid-Free Maintenance Immunosuppression with Calcineurin Inhibitor Withdrawal after Six Months Associates with Improved Renal Function and Reduced Chronic Histopathology.

INTRODUCTION: The two most significant impediments to renal allograft survival are rejection and the direct nephrotoxicity of the immunosuppressant drugs required to prevent it. Calcineurin inhibitors (CNI), a mainstay of most immunosuppression regimens, are particularly nephrotoxic. Until less toxic antirejection agents become available, the only option is to optimize our use of those at hand. AIM: To determine whether intensive rabbit anti-thymocyte globulin (rATG) induction followed by CNI withdrawal would individually or combined improve graft function and reduce graft chronic histopathology-surrogates for graft and, therefore, patient survival. As previously reported, a single large rATG dose over 24 hours was well-tolerated and associated with better renal function, fewer infections, and improved patient survival. Here we report testing whether complete CNI discontinuation would improve renal function and decrease graft pathology. METHODS: Between April 20, 2004 and 4-14-2009 we conducted a prospective, randomized, non-blinded renal transplantation trial of two rATG dosing protocols (single dose, 6 mg/kg vs. divided doses, 1.5 mg/kg every other day x 4; target enrollment = 180). Subsequent maintenance immunosuppression consisted of tacrolimus, a CNI, and sirolimus, a mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor. We report here the outcome of converting patients after six months either to minimized tacrolimus/sirolimus or mycophenolate mofetil/sirolimus. Primary endpoints were graft function and chronic histopathology from protocol kidney biopsies at 12 and 24 months. RESULTS: CNI withdrawal (on-treatment analysis) associated with better graft function (p <0.001) and lower chronic histopathology composite scores in protocol biopsies at 12 (p = 0.003) and 24 (p = 0.013) months, without affecting patient (p = 0.81) or graft (p = 0.93) survival, or rejection rate (p = 0.17). CONCLUSION: CNI (tacrolimus) withdrawal at six months may provide a strategy for decreased nephrotoxicity and improved long-term function in steroid-free low immunological risk renal transplant patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00556933.