A retrospective propensity-score-matched cohort study of the impact of procalcitonin testing on antibiotic use in hospitalized patients during the first wave of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Procalcitonin (PCT) is a blood marker used to help diagnose bacterial infections and guide antibiotic treatment. PCT testing was widely used/adopted during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. OBJECTIVES: Primary: to measure the difference in length of early (during first 7 days) antibiotic prescribing between patients with COVID-19 who did/did not have baseline PCT testing during the first wave of the pandemic. Secondary: to measure differences in length of hospital/ICU stay, mortality, total days of antibiotic prescribing and resistant bacterial infections between these groups. METHODS: Multi-centre, retrospective, observational, cohort study using patient-level clinical data from acute hospital Trusts/Health Boards in England/Wales. Inclusion: patients ≥16 years, admitted to participating Trusts/Health Boards and with a confirmed positive COVID-19 test between 1 February 2020 and 30 June 2020. RESULTS: Data from 5960 patients were analysed: 1548 (26.0%) had a baseline PCT test and 4412 (74.0%) did not. Using propensity-score matching, baseline PCT testing was associated with an average reduction in early antibiotic prescribing of 0.43 days [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.22-0.64 days, P < 0.001) and of 0.72 days (95% CI: 0.06-1.38 days, P = 0.03] in total antibiotic prescribing. Baseline PCT testing was not associated with increased mortality or hospital/ICU length of stay or with the rate of antimicrobial-resistant secondary bacterial infections. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline PCT testing appears to have been an effective antimicrobial stewardship tool early in the pandemic: it reduced antibiotic prescribing without evidence of harm. Our study highlights the need for embedded, rapid evaluations of infection diagnostics in the National Health Service so that even in challenging circumstances, introduction into clinical practice is supported by evidence for clinical utility. STUDY REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN66682918.

Evaluation of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for the prevention of COVID-19 (COPCOV): A double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has proved ineffective in treating patients hospitalised with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), but uncertainty remains over its safety and efficacy in chemoprevention. Previous chemoprevention randomised controlled trials (RCTs) did not individually show benefit of HCQ against COVID-19 and, although meta-analysis did suggest clinical benefit, guidelines recommend against its use. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Healthy adult participants from the healthcare setting, and later from the community, were enrolled in 26 centres in 11 countries to a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial of COVID-19 chemoprevention. HCQ was evaluated in Europe and Africa, and chloroquine (CQ) was evaluated in Asia, (both base equivalent of 155 mg once daily). The primary endpoint was symptomatic COVID-19, confirmed by PCR or seroconversion during the 3-month follow-up period. The secondary and tertiary endpoints were: asymptomatic laboratory-confirmed Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection; severity of COVID-19 symptoms; all-cause PCR-confirmed symptomatic acute respiratory illness (including SARS-CoV-2 infection); participant reported number of workdays lost; genetic and baseline biochemical markers associated with symptomatic COVID-19, respiratory illness and disease severity (not reported here); and health economic analyses of HCQ and CQ prophylaxis on costs and quality of life measures (not reported here). The primary and safety analyses were conducted in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. Recruitment of 40,000 (20,000 HCQ arm, 20,000 CQ arm) participants was planned but was not possible because of protracted delays resulting from controversies over efficacy and adverse events with HCQ use, vaccine rollout in some countries, and other factors. Between 29 April 2020 and 10 March 2022, 4,652 participants (46% females) were enrolled (HCQ/CQ n = 2,320; placebo n = 2,332). The median (IQR) age was 29 (23 to 39) years. SARS-CoV-2 infections (symptomatic and asymptomatic) occurred in 1,071 (23%) participants. For the primary endpoint the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 was 240/2,320 in the HCQ/CQ versus 284/2,332 in the placebo arms (risk ratio (RR) 0.85 [95% confidence interval, 0.72 to 1.00; p = 0.05]). For the secondary and tertiary outcomes asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections occurred in 11.5% of HCQ/CQ recipients and 12.0% of placebo recipients: RR: 0.96 (95% CI, 0.82 to 1.12; p = 0.6). There were no differences in the severity of symptoms between the groups and no severe illnesses. HCQ/CQ chemoprevention was associated with fewer PCR-confirmed all-cause respiratory infections (predominantly SARS-CoV-2): RR 0.61 (95% CI, 0.42 to 0.88; p = 0.009) and fewer days lost to work because of illness: 104 days per 1,000 participants over 90 days (95% CI, 12 to 199 days; p < 0.001). The prespecified meta-analysis of all published pre-exposure RCTs indicates that HCQ/CQ prophylaxis provided a moderate protective benefit against symptomatic COVID-19: RR 0.80 (95% CI, 0.71 to 0.91). Both drugs were well tolerated with no drug-related serious adverse events (SAEs). Study limitations include the smaller than planned study size, the relatively low number of PCR-confirmed infections, and the lower comparative accuracy of serology endpoints (in particular, the adapted dried blood spot method) compared to the PCR endpoint. The COPCOV trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov; number NCT04303507. INTERPRETATION: In this large placebo-controlled, double-blind randomised trial, HCQ and CQ were safe and well tolerated in COVID-19 chemoprevention, and there was evidence of moderate protective benefit in a meta-analysis including this trial and similar RCTs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04303507; ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN10207947.

The cost-effectiveness of procalcitonin for guiding antibiotic prescribing in individuals hospitalized with COVID-19: part of the PEACH study.

BACKGROUND: Many hospitals introduced procalcitonin (PCT) testing to help diagnose bacterial coinfection in individuals with COVID-19, and guide antibiotic decision-making during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. OBJECTIVES: Evaluating cost-effectiveness of using PCT to guide antibiotic decisions in individuals hospitalized with COVID-19, as part of a wider research programme. METHODS: Retrospective individual-level data on patients hospitalized with COVID-19 were collected from 11 NHS acute hospital Trusts and Health Boards from England and Wales, which varied in their use of baseline PCT testing during the first COVID-19 pandemic wave. A matched analysis (part of a wider analysis reported elsewhere) created groups of patients whose PCT was/was not tested at baseline. A model was created with combined decision tree/Markov phases, parameterized with quality-of-life/unit cost estimates from the literature, and used to estimate costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Cost-effectiveness was judged at a £20 000/QALY threshold. Uncertainty was characterized using bootstrapping. RESULTS: People who had baseline PCT testing had shorter general ward/ICU stays and spent less time on antibiotics, though with overlap between the groups' 95% CIs. Those with baseline PCT testing accrued more QALYs (8.76 versus 8.62) and lower costs (£9830 versus £10 700). The point estimate was baseline PCT testing being dominant over no baseline testing, though with uncertainty: the probability of cost-effectiveness was 0.579 with a 1 year horizon and 0.872 with a lifetime horizon. CONCLUSIONS: Using PCT to guide antibiotic therapy in individuals hospitalized with COVID-19 is more likely to be cost-effective than not, albeit with uncertainty.

Evidence of quality of life for hospitalised patients with COVID-19: a scoping review.

Background: Information on the quality of life of people hospitalised with COVID-19 is important, both in assessing the burden of disease and the cost-effectiveness of treatments. However, there were potential barriers to collecting such evidence. Objective: To review the existing evidence on quality of life for people hospitalised with COVID-19, with a focus on the amount of evidence available and methods used. Design: A scoping review with systematic searches. Results: A total of 35 papers were selected for data extraction. The most common study type was economic evaluation (N = 13), followed by cross-sectional (N = 10). All economic evaluations used published utility values for other conditions to represent COVID-19 inpatients' quality of life. The most popular quality-of-life survey measure was the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (N = 8). There were 12 studies that used a mental health-related survey and 12 that used a sleep-related survey. Five studies used EQ-5D, but only one collected responses from people in the acute phase of COVID-19. Studies reported a negative impact on quality of life for people hospitalised with COVID-19, although many studies did not include a formal comparison group. Limitations: Although it used systematic searches, this was not a full systematic review. Conclusion: Quality-of-life data were collected from people hospitalised with COVID-19 from relatively early in the pandemic. However, there was a lack of consensus as to what survey measures to use, and few studies used generic health measures. Economic evaluations for COVID-19 treatments did not use utilities collected from people with COVID-19. In future health crises, researchers should be vigilant for opportunities to collect quality-of-life data from hospitalised patients but should try to co-ordinate as well as ensuring generic health measures are used more. Funding: This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme as award number NIHR132254.

Quality of life can be measured using short, simple surveys. It is important to assess quality of life in this way, as it can show how health conditions affect people. Quality-of-life surveys can also be used to measure how treatments benefit people and to judge whether it is cost-effective to fund them. COVID-19 is a new disease, with new treatments developed to treat it. COVID-19 also created possible barriers to collecting quality-of-life survey data, especially from people in hospital at the start of the pandemic. This paper reviews studies which report data on quality of life for people hospitalised with COVID-19, especially how much evidence is available and how the studies were carried out. There were 35 studies included in the review. Of these, 13 assessed how cost-effective treatments for COVID-19 were. None of them collected survey responses directly from patients. Instead, they used data previously collected from people with other conditions such as influenza to represent people with COVID-19's quality of life. The studies which did collect data from patients used a wide variety of different surveys, which made comparing their results difficult. Mental health-related surveys were used by 12 studies, and a further 12 used sleep-related surveys. Relatively few studies used general surveys which could assess the overall effect of COVID-19 on people's quality of life. In future health crises, we recommend using more general quality-of-life measures. We also recommend that researchers co-ordinate to reduce the number of different surveys they use, as this will make comparing results easier.

Distinct patterns of vital sign and inflammatory marker responses in adults with suspected bloodstream infection.

OBJECTIVES: To identify patterns in inflammatory marker and vital sign responses in adult with suspected bloodstream infection (BSI) and define expected trends in normal recovery. METHODS: We included patients ≥16 y from Oxford University Hospitals with a blood culture taken between 1-January-2016 and 28-June-2021. We used linear and latent class mixed models to estimate trajectories in C-reactive protein (CRP), white blood count, heart rate, respiratory rate and temperature and identify CRP response subgroups. Centile charts for expected CRP responses were constructed via the lambda-mu-sigma method. RESULTS: In 88,348 suspected BSI episodes; 6908 (7.8%) were culture-positive with a probable pathogen, 4309 (4.9%) contained potential contaminants, and 77,131(87.3%) were culture-negative. CRP levels generally peaked 1-2 days after blood culture collection, with varying responses for different pathogens and infection sources (p < 0.0001). We identified five CRP trajectory subgroups: peak on day 1 (36,091; 46.3%) or 2 (4529; 5.8%), slow recovery (10,666; 13.7%), peak on day 6 (743; 1.0%), and low response (25,928; 33.3%). Centile reference charts tracking normal responses were constructed from those peaking on day 1/2. CONCLUSIONS: CRP and other infection response markers rise and recover differently depending on clinical syndrome and pathogen involved. However, centile reference charts, that account for these differences, can be used to track if patients are recovering line as expected and to help personalise infection.

Endothelial and inflammatory pathophysiology in dengue shock: New insights from a prospective cohort study in Vietnam.

Dengue shock (DS) is the most severe complication of dengue infection; endothelial hyperpermeability leads to profound plasma leakage, hypovolaemia and extravascular fluid accumulation. At present, the only treatment is supportive with intravenous fluid, but targeted endothelial stabilising therapies and host immune modulators are needed. With the aim of prioritising potential therapeutics, we conducted a prospective observational study of adults (≥16 years) with DS in Vietnam from 2019-2022, comparing the pathophysiology underlying circulatory failure with patients with septic shock (SS), and investigating the association of biomarkers with clinical severity (SOFA score, ICU admission, mortality) and pulmonary vascular leak (daily lung ultrasound for interstitial and pleural fluid). Plasma was collected at enrolment, 48 hours later and hospital discharge. We measured biomarkers of inflammation (IL-6, ferritin), endothelial activation (Ang-1, Ang-2, sTie-2, VCAM-1) and endothelial glycocalyx breakdown (hyaluronan, heparan sulfate, endocan, syndecan-1). We enrolled 135 patients with DS (median age 26, median SOFA score 7, 34 required ICU admission, 5 deaths), together with 37 patients with SS and 25 healthy controls. Within the DS group, IL-6 and ferritin were associated with admission SOFA score (IL-6: ßeta0.70, p<0.001 & ferritin: ßeta0.45, p<0.001), ICU admission (IL-6: OR 2.6, p<0.001 & ferritin: OR 1.55, p<0.001) and mortality (IL-6: OR 4.49, p = 0.005 & ferritin: OR 13.8, p = 0.02); both biomarkers discriminated survivors and non-survivors at 48 hours and all patients who died from DS had pre-mortem ferritin ≥100,000ng/ml. IL-6 most strongly correlated with severity of pulmonary vascular leakage (R = 0.41, p<0.001). Ang-2 correlated with pulmonary vascular leak (R = 0.33, p<0.001) and associated with SOFA score (ß 0.81, p<0.001) and mortality (OR 8.06, p = 0.002). Ang-1 was associated with ICU admission (OR 1.6, p = 0.005) and mortality (OR 3.62, p = 0.006). All 4 glycocalyx biomarkers were positively associated with SOFA score, but only syndecan-1 was associated with ICU admission (OR 2.02, p<0.001) and mortality (OR 6.51, p<0.001). This study highlights the central role of hyperinflammation in determining outcomes from DS; the data suggest that anti-IL-1 and anti-IL-6 immune modulators and Tie2 agonists may be considered as candidates for therapeutic trials in severe dengue.

Target enrichment improves culture-independent detection of Neisseria gonorrhoeae and antimicrobial resistance determinants direct from clinical samples with Nanopore sequencing.

Multi-drug-resistant Neisseria gonorrhoeae infection is a significant public health risk. Rapidly detecting N. gonorrhoeae and antimicrobial-resistant (AMR) determinants by metagenomic sequencing of urine is possible, although high levels of host DNA and overgrowth of contaminating species hamper sequencing and limit N. gonorrhoeae genome coverage. We performed Nanopore sequencing of nucleic acid amplification test-positive urine samples and culture-positive urethral swabs with and without probe-based target enrichment, using a custom SureSelect panel, to investigate whether selective enrichment of N. gonorrhoeae DNA improves detection of both species and AMR determinants. Probes were designed to cover the entire N. gonorrhoeae genome, with tenfold enrichment of probes covering selected AMR determinants. Multiplexing was tested in a subset of samples. The proportion of sequence bases classified as N. gonorrhoeae increased in all samples after enrichment, from a median (IQR) of 0.05 % (0.01-0.1 %) to 76 % (42-82 %), giving a corresponding median improvement in fold genome coverage of 365 times (112-720). Over 20-fold coverage, required for robust AMR determinant detection, was achieved in 13/15(87 %) samples, compared to 2/15(13 %) without enrichment. The four samples multiplexed together also achieved >20-fold genome coverage. Coverage of AMR determinants was sufficient to predict resistance conferred by changes in chromosomal genes, where present, and genome coverage also enabled phylogenetic relationships to be reconstructed. Probe-based target enrichment can improve N. gonorrhoeae genome coverage when sequencing DNA extracts directly from urine or urethral swabs, allowing for detection of AMR determinants. Additionally, multiplexing prior to enrichment provided enough genome coverage for AMR detection and reduces the costs associated with this method.

Development and validation of the Baseline Recurrence Risk in Cellulitis (BRRISC) score.

OBJECTIVES: Cellulitis is often treated with antibiotics for longer than recommended by guidelines. Prolonged therapy may reduce recurrence in certain patients, but it is not known which patients are at greatest risk. Our objective was to develop and temporally validate a risk prediction score to identify patients attending hospital with cellulitis at highest risk of recurrence. METHODS: We included UK adult patients with cellulitis attending hospital in an electronic health records (EHR) study to identify demographic, comorbid, physiological, and laboratory factors predicting recurrence (before death) within 90 days, using multivariable logistic regression with backwards elimination in complete cases. A points-based risk score integerised model coefficients for selected predictors. Performance was assessed using the C-index in development and temporal validation samples. RESULTS: The final model included 4938 patients treated for median 8 days (IQR 6-11); 8.8% (n = 436) experienced hospitalisation-associated recurrence. A risk score using eight variables (age, heart rate, urea, platelets, albumin, previous cellulitis, venous insufficiency, and liver disease) ranged from 0-15, with C-index = 0.65 (95%CI: 0.63-0.68). Categorising as low (score 0-1), medium (2-5) and high (6-15) risk, recurrence increased fourfold; 3.2% (95%CI: 2.3-4.4%), 9.7% (8.7-10.8%), and 16.6% (13.3-20.4%). Performance was maintained in the validation sample (C-index = 0.63 (95%CI: 0.58-0.67)). Among patients at high risk, four distinct clinical phenotypes were identified using hierarchical clustering 1) young, acutely unwell with liver disease; 2) comorbid with previous cellulitis and venous insufficiency; 3) chronic renal disease with severe renal impairment; and 4) acute severe illness, with substantial inflammatory responses. CONCLUSIONS: Risk of cellulitis recurrence varies markedly according to individual patient factors captured in the Baseline Recurrence Risk in Cellulitis (BRRISC) score. Further work is needed to optimise the score, considering baseline and treatment response variables not captured in EHR data, and establish the utility of risk-based approaches to guide optimal antibiotic duration.

Developing a model for decision-making around antibiotic prescribing for patients with COVID-19 pneumonia in acute NHS hospitals during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic: qualitative results from the Procalcitonin Evaluation of Antibiotic use in COVID-19 Hospitalised patients (PEACH Study).

OBJECTIVE: To explore and model factors affecting antibiotic prescribing decision-making early in the pandemic. DESIGN: Semistructured qualitative interview study. SETTING: National Health Service (NHS) trusts/health boards in England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: Clinicians from NHS trusts/health boards in England and Wales. METHOD: Individual semistructured interviews were conducted with clinicians in six NHS trusts/health boards in England and Wales as part of the Procalcitonin Evaluation of Antibiotic use in COVID-19 Hospitalised patients study, a wider study that included statistical analysis of procalcitonin (PCT) use in hospitals during the first wave of the pandemic. Thematic analysis was used to identify key factors influencing antibiotic prescribing decisions for patients with COVID-19 pneumonia during the first wave of the pandemic (March to May 2020), including how much influence PCT test results had on these decisions. RESULTS: During the first wave of the pandemic, recommendations to prescribe antibiotics for patients with COVID-19 pneumonia were based on concerns about secondary bacterial infections. However, as clinicians gained more experience with COVID-19, they reported increasing confidence in their ability to distinguish between symptoms and signs caused by SARS-CoV-2 viral infection alone, and secondary bacterial infections. Antibiotic prescribing decisions were influenced by factors such as clinician experience, confidence, senior support, situational factors and organisational influences. A decision-making model was developed. CONCLUSION: This study provides insight into the decision-making process around antibiotic prescribing for patients with COVID-19 pneumonia during the first wave of the pandemic. The importance of clinician experience and of senior review of decisions as factors in optimising antibiotic stewardship is highlighted. In addition, situational and organisational factors were identified that could be optimised. The model presented in the study can be used as a tool to aid understanding of the complexity of the decision-making process around antibiotic prescribing and planning antimicrobial stewardship support in the context of a pandemic. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN66682918.

Postoperative Staphylococcus aureus Infections in Patients With and Without Preoperative Colonization.

Importance: Staphylococcus aureus surgical site infections (SSIs) and bloodstream infections (BSIs) are important complications of surgical procedures for which prevention remains suboptimal. Contemporary data on the incidence of and etiologic factors for these infections are needed to support the development of improved preventive strategies. Objectives: To assess the occurrence of postoperative S aureus SSIs and BSIs and quantify its association with patient-related and contextual factors. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter cohort study assessed surgical patients at 33 hospitals in 10 European countries who were recruited between December 16, 2016, and September 30, 2019 (follow-up through December 30, 2019). Enrolled patients were actively followed up for up to 90 days after surgery to assess the occurrence of S aureus SSIs and BSIs. Data analysis was performed between November 20, 2020, and April 21, 2022. All patients were 18 years or older and had undergone 11 different types of surgical procedures. They were screened for S aureus colonization in the nose, throat, and perineum within 30 days before surgery (source population). Both S aureus carriers and noncarriers were subsequently enrolled in a 2:1 ratio. Exposure: Preoperative S aureus colonization. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was cumulative incidence of S aureus SSIs and BSIs estimated for the source population, using weighted incidence calculation. The independent association of candidate variables was estimated using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models. Results: In total, 5004 patients (median [IQR] age, 66 [56-72] years; 2510 [50.2%] female) were enrolled in the study cohort; 3369 (67.3%) were S aureus carriers. One hundred patients developed S aureus SSIs or BSIs within 90 days after surgery. The weighted cumulative incidence of S aureus SSIs or BSIs was 2.55% (95% CI, 2.05%-3.12%) for carriers and 0.52% (95% CI, 0.22%-0.91%) for noncarriers. Preoperative S aureus colonization (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 4.38; 95% CI, 2.19-8.76), having nonremovable implants (AHR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.15-3.49), undergoing mastectomy (AHR, 5.13; 95% CI, 1.87-14.08) or neurosurgery (AHR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.09-5.61) (compared with orthopedic surgery), and body mass index (AHR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.08 per unit increase) were independently associated with S aureus SSIs and BSIs. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of surgical patients, S aureus carriage was associated with an increased risk of developing S aureus SSIs and BSIs. Both modifiable and nonmodifiable etiologic factors were associated with this risk and should be addressed in those at increased S aureus SSI and BSI risk.

Discriminative performance of pancreatic stone protein in predicting ICU mortality and infection severity in adult patients with infection: a systematic review and individual patient level meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Several studies suggested pancreatic stone protein (PSP) as a promising biomarker to predict mortality among patients with severe infection. The objective of the study was to evaluate the performance of PSP in predicting intensive care unit (ICU) mortality and infection severity among critically ill adults admitted to the hospital for infection. METHODS: A systematic search across Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and MEDLINE databases (1966 to February 2022) for studies on PSP published in English using 'pancreatic stone protein', 'PSP', 'regenerative protein', 'lithostatin' combined with 'infection' and 'sepsis' found 46 records. The search was restricted to the five trials that measured PSP using the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay technique (ELISA). We used Bayesian hierarchical regression models for pooled estimates and to predict mortality or disease severity using PSP, C-Reactive Protein (CRP) and procalcitonin (PCT) as main predictor. We used statistical discriminative measures, such as the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and classification plots. RESULTS: Among the 678 patients included, the pooled ICU mortality was 17.8% (95% prediction interval 4.1% to 54.6%) with a between-study heterogeneity (I-squared 87%). PSP was strongly associated with ICU mortality (OR = 2.7, 95% credible interval (CrI) [1.3-6.0] per one standard deviation increase; age, gender and sepsis severity adjusted OR = 1.5, 95% CrI [0.98-2.8]). The AUC was 0.69 for PSP 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.64-0.74], 0.61 [0.56-0.66] for PCT and 0.52 [0.47-0.57] for CRP. The sensitivity was 0.96, 0.52, 0.30 for risk thresholds 0.1, 0.2 and 0.3; respective false positive rate values were 0.84, 0.25, 0.10. CONCLUSIONS: We found that PSP showed a very good discriminative ability for both investigated study endpoints ICU mortality and infection severity; better in comparison to CRP, similar to PCT. Combinations of biomarkers did not improve their predictive ability.

A randomized controlled trial to investigate the use of acute coronary syndrome therapy in patients hospitalized with COVID-19: the COVID-19 Acute Coronary Syndrome trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients hospitalized with COVID-19 suffer thrombotic complications. Risk factors for poor outcomes are shared with coronary artery disease. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the efficacy of an acute coronary syndrome regimen in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and coronary disease risk factors. METHODS: A randomized controlled, open-label trial across acute hospitals (United Kingdom and Brazil) added aspirin, clopidogrel, low-dose rivaroxaban, atorvastatin, and omeprazole to standard care for 28 days. Primary efficacy and safety outcomes were 30-day mortality and bleeding. The key secondary outcome was a daily clinical status (at home, in hospital, on intensive therapy unit admission, or death). RESULTS: Three hundred twenty patients from 9 centers were randomized. The trial terminated early due to low recruitment. At 30 days, there was no significant difference in mortality (intervention vs control, 11.5% vs 15%; unadjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.38-1.41; p = .355). Significant bleeds were infrequent and were not significantly different between the arms (intervention vs control, 1.9% vs 1.9%; p > .999). Using a Bayesian Markov longitudinal ordinal model, it was 93% probable that intervention arm participants were more likely to transition to a better clinical state each day (OR, 1.46; 95% credible interval [CrI], 0.88-2.37; Pr [beta > 0], 93%; adjusted OR, 1.50; 95% CrI, 0.91-2.45; Pr [beta > 0], 95%) and median time to discharge to home was 2 days shorter (95% CrI, -4 to 0; 2% probability that it was worse). CONCLUSION: Acute coronary syndrome treatment regimen was associated with a reduction in the length of hospital stay without an excess in major bleeding. A larger trial is needed to evaluate mortality.

Persistence of immune responses after heterologous and homologous third COVID-19 vaccine dose schedules in the UK: eight-month analyses of the COV-BOOST trial.

BACKGROUND: COV-BOOST is a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial of seven COVID-19 vaccines used as a third booster dose in June 2021. Monovalent messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccines were subsequently widely used for the third and fourth-dose vaccination campaigns in high-income countries. Real-world vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic infections following third doses declined during the Omicron wave. This report compares the immunogenicity and kinetics of responses to third doses of vaccines from day (D) 28 to D242 following third doses in seven study arms. METHODS: The trial initially included ten experimental vaccine arms (seven full-dose, three half-dose) delivered at three groups of six sites. Participants in each site group were randomised to three or four experimental vaccines, or MenACWY control. The trial was stratified such that half of participants had previously received two primary doses of ChAdOx1 nCov-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca; hereafter referred to as ChAd) and half had received two doses of BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNtech, hereafter referred to as BNT). The D242 follow-up was done in seven arms (five full-dose, two half-dose). The BNT vaccine was used as the reference as it was the most commonly deployed third-dose vaccine in clinical practice in high-income countries. The primary analysis was conducted using all randomised and baseline seronegative participants who were SARS-CoV-2 naïve during the study and who had not received a further COVID-19 vaccine for any reason since third dose randomisation. RESULTS: Among the 817 participants included in this report, the median age was 72 years (IQR: 55-78) with 50.7% being female. The decay rates of anti-spike IgG between vaccines are different among both populations who received initial doses of ChAd/ChAd and BNT/BNT. In the population that previously received ChAd/ChAd, mRNA vaccines had the highest titre at D242 following their vaccine dose although Ad26. COV2. S (Janssen; hereafter referred to as Ad26) showed slower decay. For people who received BNT/BNT as their initial doses, a slower decay was also seen in the Ad26 and ChAd arms. The anti-spike IgG became significantly higher in the Ad26 arm compared to the BNT arm as early as 3 months following vaccination. Similar decay rates were seen between BNT and half-BNT; the geometric mean ratios ranged from 0.76 to 0.94 at different time points. The difference in decay rates between vaccines was similar for wild-type live virus-neutralising antibodies and that seen for anti-spike IgG. For cellular responses, the persistence was similar between study arms. CONCLUSIONS: Heterologous third doses with viral vector vaccines following two doses of mRNA achieve more durable humoral responses compared with three doses of mRNA vaccines. Lower doses of mRNA vaccines could be considered for future booster campaigns.

Microbial diversity and antimicrobial resistance in faecal samples from acute medical patients assessed through metagenomic sequencing.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a threat to global public health. However, unsatisfactory approaches to directly measuring the AMR burden carried by individuals has hampered efforts to assess interventions aimed at reducing selection for AMR. Metagenomics can provide accurate detection and quantification of AMR genes within an individual person's faecal flora (their gut "resistome"). Using this approach, we aimed to test the hypothesis that differences in antimicrobial use across different hospitals in the United Kingdom will result in observable differences in the resistome of individual patients. Three National Health Service acute Hospital Trusts with markedly different antibiotic use and Clostridioides difficile infection rates collected faecal samples from anonymous patients which were discarded after C. difficile testing over a period of 9 to 15 months. Metagenomic DNA was extracted from these samples and sequenced using an Illumina NovaSeq 6000 platform. The resulting sequencing reads were analysed for taxonomic composition and for the presence of AMR genes. Among 683 faecal metagenomes we found huge variation between individuals in terms of taxonomic diversity (Shannon Index range 0.10-3.99) and carriage of AMR genes (Median 1.50 genes/cell/sample overall). We found no statistically significant differences in diversity (median Shannon index 2.16 (IQR 1.71-2.56), 2.15 (IQR 1.62-2.50) and 2.26 (IQR 1.55-2.51)) or carriage of AMR genes (median 1.37 genes/cell/sample (IQR 0.70-3.24), 1.70 (IQR 0.70-4.52) and 1.43 (IQR 0.55-3.71)) at the three trusts respectively. This was also the case across the sample collection period within the trusts. While we have not demonstrated differences over place or time using metagenomic sequencing of faecal discards, other sampling frameworks may be more suitable to determine whether organisational level differences in antibiotic use are associated with individual-level differences in burden of AMR carriage.

What is the Diagnostic Accuracy of Novel Urine Biomarkers for Urinary Tract Infection?

Background: Urinary tract infection (UTI) affects half of women at least once in their lifetime. Current diagnosis involves urinary dipstick and urine culture, yet both methods have modest diagnostic accuracy, and cannot support decision-making in patient populations with high prevalence of asymptomatic bacteriuria, such as older adults. Detecting biomarkers of host response in the urine of hosts has the potential to improve diagnosis. Objectives: To synthesise the evidence of the diagnostic accuracy of novel biomarkers for UTI, and of their ability to differentiate UTI from asymptomatic bacteriuria. Design: A systematic review. Data Sources and Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Web of Science for studies of novel biomarkers for the diagnosis of UTI. We excluded studies assessing biomarkers included in urine dipsticks as these have been well described previously. We included studies of adult patients (≥16 years) with a suspected or confirmed urinary tract infection using microscopy and culture as the reference standard. We excluded studies using clinical signs and symptoms, or urine dipstick only as a reference standard. Quality appraisal was performed using QUADAS-2. We summarised our data using point estimates and data accuracy statistics. Results: We included 37 studies on 4009 adults measuring 66 biomarkers. Study quality was limited by case-control design and study size; only 4 included studies had a prospective cohort design. IL-6 and IL-8 were the most studied biomarkers. We found plausible evidence to suggest that IL-8, IL-6, GRO-a, sTNF-1, sTNF-2 and MCR may benefit from more rigorous evaluation of their potential diagnostic value for UTI. Conclusions: There is insufficient evidence to recommend the use of any novel biomarker for UTI diagnosis at present. Further evaluation of the more promising candidates, is needed before they can be recommended for clinical use.

Antibiotic review kit for hospitals (ARK-Hospital): a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Strategies to reduce antibiotic overuse in hospitals depend on prescribers taking decisions to stop unnecessary antibiotic use. There is scarce evidence for how to support these decisions. We evaluated a multifaceted behaviour change intervention (ie, the antibiotic review kit) designed to reduce antibiotic use among adult acute general medical inpatients by increasing appropriate decisions to stop antibiotics at clinical review. METHODS: We performed a stepped-wedge, cluster (hospital)-randomised controlled trial using computer-generated sequence randomisation of eligible hospitals in seven calendar-time blocks in the UK. Hospitals were eligible for inclusion if they admitted adult non-elective general or medical inpatients, had a local representative to champion the intervention, and could provide the required study data. Hospital clusters were randomised to an implementation date occurring at 1-2 week intervals, and the date was concealed until 12 weeks before implementation, when local preparations were designed to start. The intervention effect was assessed using data from pseudonymised routine electronic health records, ward-level antibiotic dispensing, Clostridioides difficile tests, prescription audits, and an implementation process evaluation. Co-primary outcomes were monthly antibiotic defined daily doses per adult acute general medical admission (hospital-level, superiority) and all-cause mortality within 30 days of admission (patient level, non-inferiority margin of 5%). Outcomes were assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population (ie, excluding sites that withdrew before implementation). Intervention effects were assessed by use of interrupted time series analyses within each site, estimating overall effects through random-effects meta-analysis, with heterogeneity across prespecified potential modifiers assessed by use of meta-regression. This trial is completed and is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN12674243. FINDINGS: 58 hospital organisations expressed an interest in participating. Three pilot sites implemented the intervention between Sept 25 and Nov 20, 2017. 43 further sites were randomised to implement the intervention between Feb 12, 2018, and July 1, 2019, and seven sites withdrew before implementation. 39 sites were followed up for at least 14 months. Adjusted estimates showed reductions in total antibiotic defined daily doses per acute general medical admission (-4·8% per year, 95% CI -9·1 to -0·2) following the intervention. Among 7 160 421 acute general medical admissions, the ARK intervention was associated with an immediate change of -2·7% (95% CI -5·7 to 0·3) and sustained change of 3·0% (-0·1 to 6·2) in adjusted 30-day mortality. INTERPRETATION: The antibiotic review kit intervention resulted in sustained reductions in antibiotic use among adult acute general medical inpatients. The weak, inconsistent intervention effects on mortality are probably explained by the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Hospitals should use the antibiotic review kit to reduce antibiotic overuse. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Impact of adherence to individual quality-of-care indicators on the prognosis of bloodstream infection due to Staphylococcus aureus: a prospective observational multicentre cohort.

OBJECTIVES: To analyse the adherence and impact of quality-of-care indicators (QCIs) in the management of Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infection in a prospective and multicentre cohort. METHODS: Analysis of the prospective, multicentre international S. Aureus Collaboration cohort of S. Aureus bloodstream infection cases observed between January 2013 and April 2015. Multivariable analysis was performed to evaluate the impact of adherence to QCIs on 90-day mortality. RESULTS: A total of 1784 cases were included. Overall, 90-day mortality was 29.9% and mean follow-up period was 118 days. Adherence was 67% (n = 1180/1762) for follow-up blood cultures, 31% (n = 416/1342) for early focus control, 77.6% (n = 546/704) for performance of echocardiography, 75.5% (n = 1348/1784) for adequacy of targeted antimicrobial therapy, 88.6% (n = 851/960) for adequacy of treatment duration in non-complicated bloodstream infections and 61.2% (n = 366/598) in complicated bloodstream infections. Full bundle adherence was 18.4% (n = 328/1784). After controlling for immortal time bias and potential confounders, focus control (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.76; 95% CI, 0.59-0.99; p 0.038) and adequate targeted antimicrobial therapy (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.75; 95% CI, 0.61-0.91; p 0.004) were associated with low 90-day mortality. DISCUSSION: Adherence to QCIs in S. Aureus bloodstream infection did not reach expected rates. Apart from the benefits of application as a bundle, focus control and adequate targeted therapy were independently associated with low mortality.

Procalcitonin Evaluation of Antibiotic Use in COVID-19 Hospitalised Patients (PEACH): Protocol for a Retrospective Observational Study.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a novel virus responsible for the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Although COVID-19 is a viral illness, many patients admitted to hospital are prescribed antibiotics, based on concerns that COVID-19 patients may experience secondary bacterial infections, and the assumption that they may respond well to antibiotic therapy. This has led to an increase in antibiotic use for some hospitalised patients at a time when accumulating antibiotic resistance is a major global threat to health. Procalcitonin (PCT) is an inflammatory marker measured in blood samples and widely recommended to help diagnose bacterial infections and guide antibiotic treatment. The PEACH study will compare patient outcomes from English and Welsh hospitals that used PCT testing during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic with those from hospitals not using PCT. It will help to determine whether, and how, PCT testing should be used in the NHS in future waves of COVID-19 to protect patients from antibiotic overuse. PEACH is a retrospective observational cohort study using patient-level clinical data from acute hospital Trusts and Health Boards in England and Wales. The primary objective is to measure the difference in antibiotic use between COVID-19 patients who did or did not have PCT testing at the time of diagnosis. Secondary objectives include measuring differences in length of stay, mortality, intensive care unit admission, and resistant bacterial infections between these groups.

Where now for infection services in the NHS? How lessons from the pandemic should drive long-overdue integration of microbiology and infectious diseases.

In its first 2 decades, the NHS witnessed the near eradication of life-threatening community-acquired infections. However, medical advances have created different challenges (such as antimicrobial resistance and healthcare-associated infections) against a background of an increasingly ageing population. The recent COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted a lack of parity with regards to provision of NHS 'infection services' (infectious diseases, microbiology and virology) across the UK, which urgently needs to be addressed. We recommend a fundamental review of NHS infection service provision: divided into four key areas. Firstly, there should be a consideration of a single multidisciplinary specialty of infection medicine removing barriers to training and service delivery. Secondly, streamline infection training via a single pathway through to certificate of completion of training, encompassing all aspects of infection service provision, for example, infection diagnostics, clinical care (including inpatient, outpatient and community based care), and infection prevention and control. There should be flexibility within the training curriculum to facilitate combined training with general internal medicine (GIM) as well as out of programme activities. Innovative ways of providing clinical experience should be considered, acknowledging the roles that medical microbiologists working closely with GIM colleagues in district general hospitals can play in managing patients with infections. Thirdly, formally commission a national network of specialised infectious diseases units with the creation of service standards. This can facilitate future pandemic resilience using a hub-and-spoke model utilising local infection expertise. Lastly, standardise the NHS framework to lead and coordinate development of integrated infection services at the local level.