War wound treatment complications due to transfer of an IncN plasmid harboring bla(OXA-181) from Morganella morganii to CTX-M-27-producing sequence type 131 Escherichia coli.

A 22-year-old male developed a recurrent sacral abscess associated with embedded shrapnel following a blast injury. Cultures grew extended-spectrum ß-lactamase (ESBL)-producing, carbapenem-susceptible Escherichia coli. Ertapenem was administered, but the infection recurred after each course of antibiotics. Initial surgical interventions were unsuccessful, and subsequent cultures yielded E. coli and Morganella morganii, both nonsusceptible to carbapenems. The isolates were Carba NP test negative, gave ambiguous results with the modified Hodge test, and amplified the bla(OXA48)-like gene by real-time PCR. All E. coli isolates were sequence type 131 (ST131), carried nine resistance genes (including bla(CTX-M-27)) on an IncF plasmid, and were identical by genome sequencing, except for 150 kb of plasmid DNA in carbapenem-nonsusceptible isolates only. Sixty kilobases of this was shared by M. morganii and represented an IncN plasmid harboring bla(OXA-181). In M. morganii, the gene was flanked by IS3000 and ISKpn19, but in all but one of the E. coli isolates containing bla(OXA-181), a second copy of ISKpn19 had inserted adjacent to IS3000. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report of bla(OXA-181) in the virulent ST131 clonal group and carried by the promiscuous IncN family of plasmids. The tendency of M. morganii to have high MICs of imipenem, a bla(OXA-181) substrate profile that includes penicillins but not extended-spectrum cephalosporins, and weak carbapenemase activity almost resulted in the presence of bla(OXA-181) being overlooked. We highlight the importance of surveillance for carbapenem resistance in all species, even those with intrinsic resistances, and the value of advanced molecular techniques in detecting subtle genetic changes.

A 52-week placebo-controlled trial of evolocumab in hyperlipidemia.

BACKGROUND: Evolocumab, a monoclonal antibody that inhibits proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9), significantly reduced low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels in phase 2 studies. We conducted a phase 3 trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of 52 weeks of treatment with evolocumab. METHODS: We stratified patients with hyperlipidemia according to the risk categories outlined by the Adult Treatment Panel III of the National Cholesterol Education Program. On the basis of this classification, patients were started on background lipid-lowering therapy with diet alone or diet plus atorvastatin at a dose of 10 mg daily, atorvastatin at a dose of 80 mg daily, or atorvastatin at a dose of 80 mg daily plus ezetimibe at a dose of 10 mg daily, for a run-in period of 4 to 12 weeks. Patients with an LDL cholesterol level of 75 mg per deciliter (1.9 mmol per liter) or higher were then randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either evolocumab (420 mg) or placebo every 4 weeks. The primary end point was the percent change from baseline in LDL cholesterol, as measured by means of ultracentrifugation, at week 52. RESULTS: Among the 901 patients included in the primary analysis, the overall least-squares mean (±SE) reduction in LDL cholesterol from baseline in the evolocumab group, taking into account the change in the placebo group, was 57.0±2.1% (P<0.001). The mean reduction was 55.7±4.2% among patients who underwent background therapy with diet alone, 61.6±2.6% among those who received 10 mg of atorvastatin, 56.8±5.3% among those who received 80 mg of atorvastatin, and 48.5±5.2% among those who received a combination of 80 mg of atorvastatin and 10 mg of ezetimibe (P<0.001 for all comparisons). Evolocumab treatment also significantly reduced levels of apolipoprotein B, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, lipoprotein(a), and triglycerides. The most common adverse events were nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, influenza, and back pain. CONCLUSIONS: At 52 weeks, evolocumab added to diet alone, to low-dose atorvastatin, or to high-dose atorvastatin with or without ezetimibe significantly reduced LDL cholesterol levels in patients with a range of cardiovascular risks. (Funded by Amgen; DESCARTES ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01516879.).

Impact of high-dose atorvastatin in coronary heart disease patients age 65 to 78 years.

BACKGROUND: High-dose statin therapy may be underutilized in aged patients due to doubts about efficacy and safety. HYPOTHESIS: To investigate outcomes and safety in patients aged 65-78 years compared with patients aged < 65 years in the ALLIANCE study. METHODS: A total of 2,442 stable coronary heart disease (CHD) patients with dyslipidemia were randomized to either aggressive treatment (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol titration goal of < 80 mg/dL or maximum 80 mg/d of atorvastatin) or usual care (continuation of baseline lipid-lowering therapy, with changes and laboratory analyses directed by treating physicians). RESULTS: A total of 1,001 patients aged 65-78 years were followed for a median period of 53.9 mo. Older, aggressively treated atorvastatin patients experienced a 27% relative risk reduction for the primary composite endpoint of adverse cardiovascular outcomes (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.73; 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0.57-0.94; p = 0.016). In addition, significant risk reductions were observed for nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI; HR: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.23-0.79; p = 0.006), cardiac revascularization (HR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.48-0.93; p = 0.017), and the combined endpoint of cardiac death and nonfatal MI (HR: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.32-0.72; p = 0.001). The rate of significant liver transaminase elevations in atorvastatin patients was low and not age related. There were no cases of rhabdomyolysis. The rate of study discontinuations due to serious adverse events was higher in patients aged 65-78 years than in those younger than 65 years, but was similar between the treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our data support the efficacy and safety of aggressive lipid management with atorvastatin in older CHD patients.

Comparison of effects of nisoldipine-extended release and amlodipine in patients with systemic hypertension and chronic stable angina pectoris.

The efficacy and safety of nisoldipine-extended release (ER) and amlodipine were compared in a 6-week multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel group, titration-to-effect trial in patients with stage 1 to 2 systemic hypertension (90 to 109 mm Hg diastolic blood pressure [BP]) and chronic stable angina pectoris. After a 3-week placebo run-in period, patients (n = 120) were randomly assigned to active treatment with either nisoldipine-ER (20 to 40 mg) or amlodipine (5 to 10 mg) once daily, titrated as necessary after 2 weeks to achieve diastolic BP <90 mm Hg. After 6 weeks, the mean reduction in systolic/diastolic BP from baseline was 15/13 mm Hg with nisoldipine-ER and 13/11 mm Hg with amlodipine (p = NS/p = NS). Both drugs resulted in similar BP responder rates (diastolic BP <90 mm Hg in 87% of patients who received nisoldipine-ER and 78% of patients on amlodipine, p = NS) and anti-ischemic responder rates (increasing exercise time >20% in 20% and 27%, respectively [p = NS], and increasing exercise time >60 seconds in 32% and 29% of patients, respectively [p = NS]. Also, after 6 weeks of active therapy, there was a similar mean increase in total exercise duration (23 seconds in the nisoldipine-ER group and 21 seconds in the amlodipine group, p = NS). Neither drug increased heart rate and both decreased frequency of anginal episodes. Adverse events were infrequent, and typically were vasodilator-related effects (including headache and peripheral edema) that occurred with somewhat higher incidence in the nisoldipine-ER group. Thus, nisoldipine-ER and amlodipine provided comparable antihypertensive and anti-ischemic efficacy, and both were generally well tolerated.