Difference between SARS-CoV-2, seasonal coronavirus, influenza, and respiratory syncytial virus infection in solid organ transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has been raging since the end of 2019 and has shown worse outcomes in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients. The clinical differences as well as outcomes between respiratory viruses have not been well defined in this population. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of adult SOT recipients with nasopharyngeal swab or bronchoalveolar lavage PCR positive for either SARS-CoV-2, seasonal coronavirus, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) or influenza virus from January 2017 to October 2020. The follow up period was 3 months. Clinical characteristics and outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 377 recipients including 157 SARS-CoV-2, 70 seasonal coronavirus, 50 RSV and 100 influenza infections were identified. The most common transplanted organ was kidney 224/377 (59.4%). Lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) was found in 210/377 (55.7%) and the risk factors identified with multivariable analysis were SARS-CoV-2 infection, steroid use, and older age. Co- and secondary infections were seen in 77/377 (20.4%) recipients with bacterial pathogens as dominant. Hospital admission was seen in 266/377 (67.7%) recipients without significant statistical difference among viruses, however, ICU admission, mechanical ventilation and mortality were higher with SARS-CoV-2 infection. In the multivariable model, the risk factors for mortality were SARS-CoV-2 infection and older age. CONCLUSIONS: We found higher incidence of ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, and mortality among SARS-CoV-2 infected recipients. Older age was found to be the risk factor for lower respiratory tract infection and mortality for SARS-CoV-2, coronaviruses, RSV and influenza virus groups.

Reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 in solid-organ transplant recipients: Incidence density and convalescent immunity prior to reinfection.

BACKGROUND: Long-term protective immunity to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) remains poorly characterized, particularly in solid organ transplant (SOT) patients. METHOD: We determined the incidence density of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection in a cohort of adult SOT recipients initially infected between March 1st, 2020 and March 30th, 2021 and included those with initial infection before or after transplantation. Incidence density was the total cases divided by total days after initial diagnosis with active graft. RESULTS: Of 210 infected recipients, five (2.4%) developed reinfection, including two who had received full mRNA vaccination, but none developed hypoxia. The incidence density for reinfection was 9.4 (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.9-22.6) and for primary infection the density was 9.1 (95% CI 7.9-10.5) cases/100,000 patient days. Two recipients had immunity evaluated in the weeks prior to reinfection, by measuring immunoglobulin-G (IgG) antibody titer to the SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding domain and virus-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell reactivity following stimulation with SARS-CoV-2 peptide pools. Both mounted virus specific CD4 T-cell responses prior to reinfection (1.19% and 0.28% of total CD4 T cells) and both had reactive IgG testing (1.30 and 4.99 signal/cut off ratio). CONCLUSIONS: This suggests that SOT recipients infected with SARS-CoV-2 remain at high risk for reinfection even after generating cellular and humoral immune responses.

Successful Outcome after Treatment with Cidofovir, Vaccinia, and Extended Course of Tecovirimat in a Newly-Diagnosed HIV Patient with Severe Mpox: A Case Report.

PURPOSE: To report a case of severe mpox in a newly diagnosed HIV patient concerning for Immune Reconstitution Inflammatory Syndrome (IRIS) and/or tecovirimat resistance and to describe the management approach in the setting of refractory disease. CASE: 49-year-old man presented with 2 weeks of perianal lesions. He tested positive for mpox PCR in the emergency room and was discharged home with quarantine instructions. Three weeks later, the patient returned with disseminated firm, nodular lesions in the face, neck, scalp, mouth, chest, back, legs, arms, and rectum, with worsening pain and purulent drainage from the rectum. The patient reported being on 3 days of tecovirimat treatment, which was prescribed by the Florida department of health (DOH). During this admission, he was found to be HIV positive. A pelvic CT scan revealed a 2.5 cm perirectal abscess. Treatment with tecovirimat was continued for 14 days, along with an empiric course of antibiotics for treatment of possible superimposed bacterial infection upon discharge. He was seen in the outpatient clinic and initiated antiretroviral therapy (ART) with TAF/emtricitabine/bictegravir. Two weeks after starting ART, the patient was readmitted for worsening mpox rash and rectal pain. Urine PCR also returned positive for chlamydia, for which the patient was prescribed doxycycline. He was discharged on a second course of tecovirimat and antibiotic therapy. Ten days later, the patient was readmitted for the second time due to worsening symptoms and blockage of the nasal airway from progressing lesions. At this point, there were concerns for tecovirimat resistance, and after discussion with CDC, tecovirimat was reinitiated for the third time, with the addition of Cidofovir and Vaccinia, and showed an improvement in his symptoms. He received three doses of cidofovir and two doses of Vaccinia, and the patient was then discharged to complete 30 days of tecovirimat. Outpatient follow-up showed favorable outcomes and near resolution. CONCLUSION: We reported a challenging case of worsening mpox after Tecovirimat treatment in the setting of new HIV and ART initiation concerning IRIS vs. Tecovirimat resistance. Clinicians should consider the risk of IRIS and weigh the pros and cons of initiating or delaying ART. In patients not responding to first-line treatment with tecovirimat, resistance testing should be performed, and alternative options should be considered. Future research is needed to establish guidance on the role of Cidofovir and Vaccinia immune globulin and the continuation of tecovirimat for refractory mpox.

Immune Reconstitution Inflammatory Syndrome with Recurrent Paradoxical Cerebellar HIV-Associated Progressive Multifocal Leukoencephalopathy.

Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML), presenting as immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome (IRIS), is a known complication of antiretroviral therapy (ART) in people living with HIV (PLWH). Typically preceded by ART initiation, IRIS may appear simultaneously/unmasked (PML-s-IRIS) or as a delayed/worsening/paradoxical (PML-d-IRIS) presentation of known PML disease. Primary cerebellar tropism continues to be a rare presentation, and paradoxical cerebellar involvement of PML-IRIS syndrome can be a challenge for both diagnosis and management. Steroids have been suggested as a possible therapy in severe cases but the duration of steroid therapy remain elusive. Our case is that of a 34-year-old man with newly diagnosed HIV simultaneously found to have cerebellar PML. His PML lesions however worsened after initiation of ART (PML-d-IRIS) with evidence of increased intracranial pressure. Despite initial favorable response to a short duration of steroids, he had multiple recurrence of his PML lesions after steroids were discontinued. The presence of predominant cerebellar lesions and the question of how long steroids should be provided to prevent or minimize PML recurrence is the highlight of our case. This report emphasizes the need for more controlled studies to assist clinicians in the optimal diagnosis and management of PML-IRIS in PLWH.

Correction: The fecal, oral, and skin microbiota of children with Chagas disease treated with benznidazole.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0212593.].

The fecal, oral, and skin microbiota of children with Chagas disease treated with benznidazole.

BACKGROUND: Chagas disease is still prevalent in rural areas of South America. In endemic areas of Bolivia, school children are screened for the program of Chagas disease eradication of the Ministry of Health, and positive children are treated. Here, we compared the fecal, oral and skin microbiomes of children with or without Chagas disease, and before and after benznidazol treatment of infected children. METHODS: A total of 543 Bolivian children (5-14 years old) were tested for Chagas disease, and 20 positive children were treated with Benznidazole. Fecal samples and oral and skin swabs were obtained before and after treatment, together with samples from a group of 35 uninfected controls. The 16S rRNA genes were sequenced and analyzed using QIIME to determine Alpha diversity differences and community distances, and linear discriminant analyses to determine marker taxa by infection status or treatment. RESULTS: Twenty out of 543 children screened were seropositive for Chagas disease (3.7%) and were included in the study, together with 35 control children that were seronegative for the disease. Fecal samples, oral and skin swabs were taken at the beginning of the study and after the anti-protozoa therapy with Benznidazole to the chagasic children. Infected children had higher fecal Firmicutes (Streptococcus, Roseburia, Butyrivibrio, and Blautia), and lower Bacteroides and also showed some skin -but not oral- microbiota differences. Treatment eliminated the fecal microbiota differences from control children, increasing Dialister (class Clostridia) and members of the Enterobacteriaceae, and decreasing Prevotella and Coprococcus, with minor effects on the oral and skin bacterial diversity. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study show differences in the fecal microbiota associated with Chagas disease in children, and also evidence that treatment normalizes fecal microbiota (makes it more similar to that in controls), but is associated with oral and skin microbiota differences from control children. Since microbiota impacts in children, it is important to determine the effect of drugs on the children microbiota, since dysbiosis could lead to physiological effects which might be avoidable with microbiota restoration interventions.