Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia in people living with HIV: a review.

Pneumocystis jirovecii is a ubiquitous opportunistic fungus that can cause life-threatening pneumonia. People with HIV (PWH) who have low CD4 counts are one of the populations at the greatest risk of Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia (PCP). While guidelines have approached the diagnosis, prophylaxis, and management of PCP, the numerous studies of PCP in PWH are dominated by the 1980s and 1990s. As such, most studies have included younger male populations, despite PCP affecting both sexes and a broad age range. Many studies have been small and observational in nature, with an overall lack of randomized controlled trials. In many jurisdictions, and especially in low- and middle-income countries, the diagnosis can be challenging due to lack of access to advanced and/or invasive diagnostics. Worldwide, most patients will be treated with 21 days of high-dose trimethoprim sulfamethoxazole, although both the dose and the duration are primarily based on historical practice. Whether treatment with a lower dose is as effective and less toxic is gaining interest based on observational studies. Similarly, a 21-day tapering regimen of prednisone is used for patients with more severe disease, yet other doses, other steroids, or shorter durations of treatment with corticosteroids have not been evaluated. Now with the widespread availability of antiretroviral therapy, improved and less invasive PCP diagnostic techniques, and interest in novel treatment strategies, this review consolidates the scientific body of literature on the diagnosis and management of PCP in PWH, as well as identifies areas in need of more study and thoughtfully designed clinical trials.

Proteomic Evolution from Acute to Post-COVID-19 Conditions.

Many COVID-19 survivors have post-COVID-19 conditions, and females are at a higher risk. We sought to determine (1) how protein levels change from acute to post-COVID-19 conditions, (2) whether females have a plasma protein signature different from that of males, and (3) which biological pathways are associated with COVID-19 when compared to restrictive lung disease. We measured protein levels in 74 patients on the day of admission and at 3 and 6 months after diagnosis. We determined protein concentrations by multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) using a panel of 269 heavy-labeled peptides. The predicted forced vital capacity (FVC) and diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) were measured by routine pulmonary function testing. Proteins associated with six key lipid-related pathways increased from admission to 3 and 6 months; conversely, proteins related to innate immune responses and vasoconstriction-related proteins decreased. Multiple biological functions were regulated differentially between females and males. Concentrations of eight proteins were associated with FVC, %, and they together had c-statistics of 0.751 (CI:0.732-0.779); similarly, concentrations of five proteins had c-statistics of 0.707 (CI:0.676-0.737) for DLCO, %. Lipid biology may drive evolution from acute to post-COVID-19 conditions, while activation of innate immunity and vascular regulation pathways decreased over that period. (ProteomeXchange identifiers: PXD041762, PXD029437).

Clinical Outcomes and Management of NAAT-Positive/Toxin-Negative Clostridioides difficile Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Standalone nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) are frequently used to diagnose Clostridioides difficile infections (CDI), although they may be unable to distinguish colonization from disease. A 2-stage algorithm pairing NAATs with toxin immunoassays (Toxin) may improve specificity. We evaluated clinical outcomes of patients who were NAAT+/Toxin+ versus NAAT+/Toxin- and treated versus untreated NAAT+/Toxin- cases through systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched EMBASE and MEDLINE from inception to April 1, 2023 for articles comparing CDI outcomes among symptomatic patients tested by NAAT and Toxin tests. The risk differences (RD) of all-cause mortality and CDI recurrence were computed by random effects meta-analysis between patients who were NAAT+/Toxin+ and NAAT+/Toxin-, as well as between patients who were NAAT+/Toxin- and treated or untreated. RESULTS: Twenty-six observational studies comprising 12 737 patients were included. The 30-day all-cause mortality was not significantly different between those who were NAAT+/Toxin+ (8.4%) and NAAT+/Toxin- (6.7%) (RD = 0.41%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -.67, 1.49). Recurrence at 60 days was significantly higher among patients who were NAAT+/Toxin+ (19.8%) versus NAAT+/Toxin- (11.0%) (RD = 7.65%, 95% CI = 4.60, 10.71). Among treated compared to untreated NAAT+/Toxin- cases, the all-cause 30-day mortalities were 5.0% and 12.7%, respectively (RD = -7.45%, 95% CI = -12.29, -2.60), but 60-day recurrence was not significantly different (11.6% vs 7.0%, respectively; RD = 5.25%, 95% CI -1.71, 12.22). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of patients who were NAAT+/Toxin- was associated with reduced all-cause mortality but not recurrence. Although subject to the inherent limitations of observational studies, these results suggest that some patients who are NAAT+/Toxin- may benefit from treatment.

Revisiting the Evidence Base Informing the Use of Adjunctive Therapy for Enterococcus faecalis Endocarditis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend adjunctive gentamicin for the treatment of Enterococcus faecalis infective endocarditis (EFIE) despite a risk of toxicity. We sought to revisit the evidence for adjunctive therapy in EFIE and to synthesize the comparative safety and effectiveness of adjunctive use of the aminoglycosides versus ceftriaxone by systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: For historical context, we reviewed the seminal case series and in vitro studies informing the evolution from penicillin monotherapy to modern-day regimens for EFIE. Next, we searched MEDLINE and Embase from inception to January 16, 2024 for studies of EFIE comparing 1) adjunctive aminoglycosides versus ceftriaxone or 2) adjunctive therapy versus monotherapy. Where possible, clinical outcomes were compared between regimens by random-effects meta-analysis. Otherwise, data were narratively summarized. RESULTS: Results for the systematic review and meta-analysis were limited to 10 observational studies totaling 911 patients. All studies were at high risk of bias. Relative to adjunctive ceftriaxone, gentamicin had similar all-cause mortality (Risk Difference [RD]=-0.8%, 95% Confidence interval [95%CI]=-5.0, 3.5), relapse (RD=-0.1%, 95%CI=-2.4, 2.3), and treatment failure (RD=1.1%, 95%CI=-1.6, 3.7), but higher discontinuation due to toxicity (RD=26.3%, 95%CI=19.8, 32.7). The 3 studies comparing adjunctive therapy to monotherapy included only 30 monotherapy patients and heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. CONCLUSION: Adjunctive therapy with ceftriaxone appeared to be equally effective and less toxic than gentamicin for the treatment of EFIE. The existing evidence does not clearly establish the superiority of either adjunctive therapy or monotherapy. Pending randomized evidence, if adjunctive therapy is to be used, ceftriaxone appears to be a reasonable option.

Does Adjunctive Clindamycin Have a Role in Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia? A Protocol for the Adjunctive Treatment Domain of the Staphylococcus aureus Network Adaptive Platform (SNAP) Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: The use of adjunctive antibiotics directed against exotoxin production in Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB) is widespread, and it is recommended in many guidelines, but this is based on limited evidence. Existing guidelines are based on the theoretical premise of toxin suppression, as many strains of S. aureus produce toxins such as leukocidins (eg, Panton-Valentine leukocidin, toxic shock syndrome toxin 1, exfoliative toxins, and various enterotoxins). Many clinicians therefore believe that limiting exotoxin production release by S. aureus could reduce its virulence and improve clinical outcomes. Clindamycin, a protein synthesis inhibitor antibiotic, is commonly used for this purpose. We report the domain-specific protocol, embedded in a large adaptive, platform trial, seeking to definitively answer this question. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Staphylococcus aureus Network Adaptive Platform (SNAP) trial is a pragmatic, randomized, multicenter adaptive platform trial that aims to compare different SAB therapies, simultaneously, for 90-day mortality rates. The adjunctive treatment domain aims to test the effectiveness of adjunctive antibiotics, initially comparing clindamycin to no adjunctive antibiotic, but future adaptations may include other agents. Individuals will be randomized to receive either 5 days of adjunctive clindamycin (or lincomycin) or no adjunctive antibiotic therapy alongside standard-of-care antibiotics. Most participants with SAB (within 72 hours of index blood culture and with no contraindications) will be eligible to participate in this domain. Prespecified analyses are defined in the statistical appendix to the core protocol, and domain-specific secondary analyses will be adjusted for resistance to clindamycin, disease phenotype (complicated or uncomplicated SAB) and Panton-Valentine leukocidin-positive isolate.

Effects of Losartan on Patients Hospitalized for Acute COVID-19: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) down-regulates angiotensin-converting enzyme 2, potentially increasing angiotensin II. We hypothesized that losartan compared to usual care decreases mortality and is safe in patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We aimed to evaluate the effect of losartan versus usual care on 28-day mortality in patients hospitalized for acute COVID-19. METHODS: Eligibility criteria included adults admitted for acute COVID-19. Exclusion criteria were hypotension, hyperkalemia, acute kidney injury, and use of angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors within 7 days. Participants were randomized to losartan 25-100 mg/day orally for the hospital duration or 3 months or the control arm (usual care) in 29 hospitals in Canada and France. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were hospital mortality, organ support, and serious adverse events (SAEs). RESULTS: The trial was stopped early because of a serious safety concern with losartan. In 341 patients, any SAE and hypotension were significantly higher in the losartan versus usual care groups (any SAE: 39.8% vs 27.2%, respectively, P = .01; hypotension: 30.4% vs 15.3%, respectively, P < .001) in both ward and intensive care patients. The 28-day mortality did not differ between losartan (6.5%) versus usual care (5.9%) (odds ratio, 1.11 [95% confidence interval, .47-2.64]; P = .81), nor did organ dysfunction or secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Caution is needed in deciding which patients to start or continue using ARBs in patients hospitalized with pneumonia to mitigate risk of hypotension, acute kidney injury, and other side effects. ARBs should not be added to care of patients hospitalized for acute COVID-19. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT04606563.

Low Versus High Blood Pressure Targets in Critically Ill and Surgical Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

OBJECTIVES: Hypotension is associated with adverse outcomes in critically ill and perioperative patients. However, these assumptions are supported by observational studies. This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials aims to compare the impact of lower versus higher blood pressure targets on mortality. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed, Cochrane, and Scholar from inception to February 10, 2024. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized trials comparing lower versus higher blood pressure targets in the management of critically ill and perioperative settings. DATA EXTRACTION: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at the longest follow-up available. This review was registered in the Prospective International Register of Systematic Reviews, CRD42023452928. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 2940 studies identified by the search string, 28 (12 in critically ill and 16 in perioperative settings) were included totaling 15,672 patients. Patients in the low blood pressure target group had lower mortality (23 studies included: 1019/7679 [13.3%] vs. 1103/7649 [14.4%]; relative risk 0.93; 95% CI, 0.87-0.99; p = 0.03; I2 = 0%). This corresponded to a 97.4% probability of any increase in mortality with a Bayesian approach. These findings were mainly driven by studies performed in the ICU setting and with treatment lasting more than 24 hours; however, the magnitude and direction of the results were similar in the majority of sensitivity analyses including the analysis restricted to low risk of bias studies. We also observed a lower rate of atrial fibrillation and fewer patients requiring transfusion in low-pressure target groups. No differences were found in the other secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Based on pooled randomized trial evidence, a lower compared with a higher blood pressure target results in a reduction of mortality, atrial fibrillation, and transfusion requirements. Lower blood pressure targets may be beneficial but there is ongoing uncertainty. However, the present meta-analysis does not confirm previous findings and recommendations. These results might inform future guidelines and promote the study of the concept of protective hemodynamics.

Development of a clinical risk score for the prediction of Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia in hospitalised patients.

BACKGROUND: The performance and availability of invasive and non-invasive investigations for the diagnosis of Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia (PCP) vary across clinical settings. Estimating the pre-test probability of PCP is essential to the optimal selection and interpretation of diagnostic tests, such as the 1,3-ß-D-glucan assay (BDG), for the prioritization of bronchoscopy, and to guide empiric treatment decisions. We aimed to develop a multivariable risk score to estimate the pre-test probability of PCP. METHODS: The score was developed from a cohort of 626 individuals who underwent bronchoscopy for the purposes of identifying PCP in a Canadian tertiary-care centre, between 2015 and 2018. We conducted a nested case-control study of 57 cases and 228 unmatched controls. Demographic, clinical, laboratory, and radiological data were included in a multivariable logistic regression model to estimate adjusted odds ratios for PCP diagnosis. A clinical risk score was derived from the multivariable model and discrimination was assessed by estimating the score's receiver operating characteristic curve. RESULTS: Participants had a median age of 60 years (interquartile range [IQR] 49-68) and 115 (40%) were female; 40 (14%) had HIV and 49 (17%) had a solid organ transplant (SOT). The risk score included prior SOT or HIV with CD4 ≤ 200/µL (+ 2), serum lactate dehydrogenase ≥ 265.5 IU/mL (+ 2), radiological pattern typical of PCP on chest x-ray (+ 2) or CT scan (+ 2.5), and PCP prophylaxis with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (-3) or other antimicrobials (-2). The median score was 4 points (IQR, 2-4.5) corresponding to a 28% probability of PCP. The risk prediction model had good discrimination with a c-statistic of 0.79 (0.71-0.84). Given the operating characteristics of the BDG assay, scores ≤ 3 in patients without HIV, and ≤ 5.5 in those with HIV, paired with a negative BDG, would be expected to rule out PCP with 95% certainty. CONCLUSION: We propose the PCP Score to estimate pre-test probability of PCP. Once validated, it should help clinicians determine which patients to refer for invasive investigations, when to rely on serological testing, and in whom to consider pre-emptive treatment.

Prevalence of medication overload among older people with HIV: a MedSafer study.

BACKGROUND: Older people with HIV (PWH) are at risk of polypharmacy (taking multiple medications). Most medications may be necessary and indicated to manage HIV (e.g., antiretroviral therapy [ART]) and HIV-associated comorbidities. However, some are potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs), defined as causing greater harm than benefit, which leads to medication overload. The objective of this study was to characterize polypharmacy (taking multiple medications) and medication overload (prescription of ≥ 1 PIMs) among older PWH. METHODS: This retrospective study included older PWH (aged ≥ 50 years old) attending the tertiary care HIV clinic at the McGill University Health Centre (Montreal, Canada), from June 2022-June 2023. Patient characteristics, medications, and select laboratory values (e.g., CD4 count, hemoglobin A1C) were entered into the MedSafer software identifying PIMs and classifying them according to risk of adverse drug event. We measured the prevalence of polypharmacy (≥ 5 medications prescribed, both including and excluding ART) and medication overload (≥ 1 PIMs). Multivariable logistic regression identified factors associated with medication overload. RESULTS: The study included 100 patients, with a median age of 59 years (IQR = 54-63; range 50-82); 42% female. Polypharmacy affected 89% of patients when including antiretroviral therapy (ART) and 60% when excluding ART. Medication overload was present in 58% of patients, and 37.4% of identified PIMs were classified as high-risk. Polypharmacy was the sole predictor of medication overload. CONCLUSION: Older PWH are at significant risk of medication overload and receiving higher risk PIMs. Deprescribing PIMs in this population could improve medication appropriateness while reducing the risk of ADEs.

Ketamine versus etomidate as an induction agent for tracheal intubation in critically ill adults: a Bayesian meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Tracheal intubation is a high-risk intervention commonly performed in critically ill patients. Due to its favorable cardiovascular profile, ketamine is considered less likely to compromise clinical outcomes. This meta-analysis aimed to assess whether ketamine, compared with other agents, reduces mortality in critically ill patients undergoing intubation. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from inception until April 27, 2023, for randomized controlled trials and matched observational studies comparing ketamine with any control in critically ill patients as an induction agent. The primary outcome was mortality at the longest follow-up available, and the secondary outcomes included Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, ventilator-free days at day 28, vasopressor-free days at day 28, post-induction mean arterial pressure, and successful intubation on the first attempt. For the primary outcome, we used a Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis on the risk ratio (RR) scale with a weakly informative neutral prior corresponding to a mean estimate of no difference with 95% probability; the estimated effect size will fall between a relative risk of 0.25 and 4. The RR and 95% credible interval (CrI) were used to estimate the probability of mortality reduction (RR < 1). The secondary outcomes were assessed with a frequentist random-effects model. We registered this study in Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/2vf79/ ). RESULTS: We included seven randomized trials and one propensity-matched study totaling 2978 patients. Etomidate was the comparator in all the identified studies. The probability that ketamine reduced mortality was 83.2% (376/1475 [25%] vs. 411/1503 [27%]; RR, 0.93; 95% CrI, 0.79-1.08), which was confirmed by a subgroup analysis excluding studies with a high risk of bias. No significant difference was observed in any secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: All of the included studies evaluated ketamine versus etomidate among critically ill adults requiring tracheal intubation. This meta-analysis showed a moderate probability that induction with ketamine is associated with a reduced risk of mortality.

Using a targeted metabolomics approach to explore differences in ARDS associated with COVID-19 compared to ARDS caused by H1N1 influenza and bacterial pneumonia.

RATIONALE: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a life-threatening critical care syndrome commonly associated with infections such as COVID-19, influenza, and bacterial pneumonia. Ongoing research aims to improve our understanding of ARDS, including its molecular mechanisms, individualized treatment options, and potential interventions to reduce inflammation and promote lung repair. OBJECTIVE: To map and compare metabolic phenotypes of different infectious causes of ARDS to better understand the metabolic pathways involved in the underlying pathogenesis. METHODS: We analyzed metabolic phenotypes of 3 ARDS cohorts caused by COVID-19, H1N1 influenza, and bacterial pneumonia compared to non-ARDS COVID-19-infected patients and ICU-ventilated controls. Targeted metabolomics was performed on plasma samples from a total of 150 patients using quantitative LC-MS/MS and DI-MS/MS analytical platforms. RESULTS: Distinct metabolic phenotypes were detected between different infectious causes of ARDS. There were metabolomics differences between ARDSs associated with COVID-19 and H1N1, which include metabolic pathways involving taurine and hypotaurine, pyruvate, TCA cycle metabolites, lysine, and glycerophospholipids. ARDSs associated with bacterial pneumonia and COVID-19 differed in the metabolism of D-glutamine and D-glutamate, arginine, proline, histidine, and pyruvate. The metabolic profile of COVID-19 ARDS (C19/A) patients admitted to the ICU differed from COVID-19 pneumonia (C19/P) patients who were not admitted to the ICU in metabolisms of phenylalanine, tryptophan, lysine, and tyrosine. Metabolomics analysis revealed significant differences between C19/A, H1N1/A, and PNA/A vs ICU-ventilated controls, reflecting potentially different disease mechanisms. CONCLUSION: Different metabolic phenotypes characterize ARDS associated with different viral and bacterial infections.

Amino Acid Infusion for Perioperative Functional Renal Protection: A Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common perioperative complication. To date, no single intervention has been proven effective for AKI prevention in this setting. However, intravenous amino acids (AA) administration may recruit renal functional reserve and, thereby, attenuate the perioperative loss of the glomerular filtration rate. DESIGN: We performed a meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of AA infusion for perioperative renal functional protection. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We performed a meta-analysis of controlled studies in perioperative patients evaluating intravenous AA infusion versus any comparator. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was AKI at longest follow-up. We performed a random effects meta-analysis on the relative risk (RR) scale to assess the effect of AA infusion. We used a Bayesian approach to estimate the probability of benefit (RR < 1) for the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included renal replacement therapy, serum creatinine, and estimated glomerular filtration rate. Tertiary outcomes included mechanical ventilation duration, intensive care unit and hospital length of stay and mortality (PROSPERO: CRD42024547225). RESULTS: We identified 15 studies (14 randomized controlled trials and 1 prospective before-after study) reporting at least one outcome of interest (4,544 patients), with 6 studies (4,084 patients) reporting the primary outcome. AKI occurred 504 of 2,041 (24.7%) in AA patients versus 614 of 2,041 (30.1%) in controls (RR, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.47-0.94; I2 = 50%; p = 0.02), which corresponded with a 99.1% probability of AKI reduction with AA. Moreover, consistent with these findings, AA decreased serum creatinine and hospital length of stay and increased the estimated glomerular filtration rate. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis suggests that AA administration likely decreased the perioperative incidence of AKI.

The Effects of Corticosteroids on Survival in Pediatric and Nonelderly Adult Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Studies.

OBJECTIVE: Cardiac surgery can be complicated by the development of a systemic inflammatory response syndrome related to cardiopulmonary bypass. This potentially contributes to the occurrence of postoperative morbidity and mortality. Corticosteroids can be used to reduce such inflammation, but the overall balance between potential harm and benefit is unknown and may be age-dependent. The present meta-analysis aims to evaluate the effects of prophylactic corticosteroids in pediatric and non-elderly adult cardiac surgery patients. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. SETTING: Cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. PARTICIPANTS: Patients younger than 65 years old (pediatric and non-elderly adults). INTERVENTIONS: Perioperative use of corticosteroids versus placebo or standard care. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Two independent investigators searched PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library from inception to January 20, 2024. The primary outcome was mortality at the longest follow-up available. Secondary outcomes included acute kidney injury, atrial fibrillation, myocardial injury, cerebrovascular events, and infections. Our search strategy identified a total of 17 randomized trials involving 6,598 patients. Mortality was significantly reduced in the corticosteroid group (78/3321 [2.3%] vs. 116/3277 [3.5%]; risk ratio = 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.52 to 0.92; P = 0.01; I2 = 0%; NNT = 91). Moreover, the highest postoperative vasoactive inotropic score (VIS) was significantly lower in corticosteroid group (MD: -2.07, 95% CI -3.69 to -0.45, P = 0.01, I2 = 0%). No significant differences in secondary outcomes between the two treatment groups were recorded. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis of randomized trials highlights the potential benefits of corticosteroids on survival in cardiac surgery for patients younger than 65 years old.

Oral Fluvoxamine With Inhaled Budesonide for Treatment of Early-Onset COVID-19 : A Randomized Platform Trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous trials have demonstrated the effects of fluvoxamine alone and inhaled budesonide alone for prevention of disease progression among outpatients with COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the combination of fluvoxamine and inhaled budesonide would increase treatment effects in a highly vaccinated population. DESIGN: Randomized, placebo-controlled, adaptive platform trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04727424). SETTING: 12 clinical sites in Brazil. PARTICIPANTS: Symptomatic adults with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and a known risk factor for progression to severe disease. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned to either fluvoxamine (100 mg twice daily for 10 days) plus inhaled budesonide (800 mcg twice daily for 10 days) or matching placebos. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was a composite of emergency setting retention for COVID-19 for more than 6 hours, hospitalization, and/or suspected complications due to clinical progression of COVID-19 within 28 days of randomization. Secondary outcomes included health care attendance (defined as hospitalization for any cause or emergency department visit lasting >6 hours), time to hospitalization, mortality, patient-reported outcomes, and adverse drug reactions. RESULTS: Randomization occurred from 15 January to 6 July 2022. A total of 738 participants were allocated to oral fluvoxamine plus inhaled budesonide, and 738 received placebo. The proportion of patients observed in an emergency setting for COVID-19 for more than 6 hours or hospitalized due to COVID-19 was lower in the treatment group than the placebo group (1.8% [95% credible interval {CrI}, 1.1% to 3.0%] vs. 3.7% [95% CrI, 2.5% to 5.3%]; relative risk, 0.50 [95% CrI, 0.25 to 0.92]), with a probability of superiority of 98.7%. No relative effects were found between groups for any of the secondary outcomes. More adverse events occurred in the intervention group than the placebo group, but no important differences between the groups were detected. LIMITATION: Low event rate overall, consistent with contemporary trials in vaccinated populations. CONCLUSION: Treatment with oral fluvoxamine plus inhaled budesonide among high-risk outpatients with early COVID-19 reduced the incidence of severe disease requiring advanced care. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Latona Foundation, FastGrants, and Rainwater Charitable Foundation.

Revisiting the Evidence Base for Modern-Day Practice of the Treatment of Toxoplasmic Encephalitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Toxoplasmic encephalitis (TE) is an opportunistic infection of people with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) or other causes of immunosuppression. Guideline-recommended treatments for TE are pyrimethamine and sulfadiazine (P-S) or pyrimethamine and clindamycin (P-C); however, a substantial price increase has limited access to pyrimethamine. Consequently, some centers have transitioned to trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX), an inexpensive alternative treatment. We aimed to review the evidence on the efficacy and safety of pyrimethamine-containing therapies vs TMP-SMX. METHODS: We searched for and included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies of TE treatments, regardless of HIV status. Data for each therapy were pooled by meta-analysis to assess the proportions of patients who experienced clinical and radiologic responses to treatment, all-cause mortality, and discontinuation due to toxicity. Sensitivity analyses limited to RCTs directly compared therapies. RESULTS: We identified 6 RCTs/dose-escalation studies and 26 single-arm/observational studies. Identified studies included only persons with HIV, and most predated modern antiretroviral treatment. Pooled proportions of clinical and radiologic response and mortality were not significantly different between TMP-SMX and pyrimethamine-containing regimens (P > .05). Treatment discontinuation due to toxicity was significantly lower in TMP-SMX (7.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.7-11.4; I2 = 0.0%) vs P-S (30.5%; 95% CI, 27.1-34.2; I2 = 0.0%; P < .01) or P-C (13.7%; 95% CI, 9.8-18.8; I2 = 32.0%; P = .031). These results were consistent in analyses restricted to RCT data. CONCLUSIONS: TMP-SMX appears to be as effective and safer than pyrimethamine-containing regimens for TE. These findings support modern RCTs comparing TMP-SMX to pyrimethamine-based therapies and a revisiting of the guidelines.

Early oral antibiotic switch in Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia: The Staphylococcus aureus Network Adaptive Platform (SNAP) Trial Early Oral Switch Protocol.

BACKGROUND: Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infection (bacteraemia) is traditionally treated with at least two weeks of IV antibiotics in adults, 3-7 days in children, and often longer for those with complicated disease. The current practice of treating S. aureus bacteraemia (SAB) with prolonged IV antibiotics (rather than oral antibiotics) is based on historical observational research and expert opinion. Prolonged IV antibiotic therapy has significant disadvantages for patients and healthcare systems, and there is growing interest in whether a switch to oral antibiotics following an initial period of IV therapy is a safe alternative for clinically stable patients. PROTOCOL: The early oral switch (EOS) domain of the S. aureus Network Adaptive Platform (SNAP) trial will assess early switch to oral antibiotics compared with continued IV treatment in clinically stable patients with SAB. The primary endpoint is 90-day all-cause mortality. Hospitalised SAB patients are assessed at platform day 7 +/- 2 (uncomplicated SAB) and day 14 +/-2 (complicated SAB) to determine their eligibility for randomisation to EOS (intervention) or continued IV treatment (current standard of care). DISCUSSION: Recruitment is occurring to the EOS domain of the SNAP trial. As of August 2023, 21% of all SNAP participants had been randomised to the EOS domain, a total of 264 participants across 77 centres, with an aim to recruit at least 1000 participants. We describe challenges and facilitators to enrolment in this domain to aid those planning similar trials.

A Randomized Trial of Hydroxychloroquine as Postexposure Prophylaxis for Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) occurs after exposure to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). For persons who are exposed, the standard of care is observation and quarantine. Whether hydroxychloroquine can prevent symptomatic infection after SARS-CoV-2 exposure is unknown. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial across the United States and parts of Canada testing hydroxychloroquine as postexposure prophylaxis. We enrolled adults who had household or occupational exposure to someone with confirmed Covid-19 at a distance of less than 6 ft for more than 10 minutes while wearing neither a face mask nor an eye shield (high-risk exposure) or while wearing a face mask but no eye shield (moderate-risk exposure). Within 4 days after exposure, we randomly assigned participants to receive either placebo or hydroxychloroquine (800 mg once, followed by 600 mg in 6 to 8 hours, then 600 mg daily for 4 additional days). The primary outcome was the incidence of either laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 or illness compatible with Covid-19 within 14 days. RESULTS: We enrolled 821 asymptomatic participants. Overall, 87.6% of the participants (719 of 821) reported a high-risk exposure to a confirmed Covid-19 contact. The incidence of new illness compatible with Covid-19 did not differ significantly between participants receiving hydroxychloroquine (49 of 414 [11.8%]) and those receiving placebo (58 of 407 [14.3%]); the absolute difference was -2.4 percentage points (95% confidence interval, -7.0 to 2.2; P = 0.35). Side effects were more common with hydroxychloroquine than with placebo (40.1% vs. 16.8%), but no serious adverse reactions were reported. CONCLUSIONS: After high-risk or moderate-risk exposure to Covid-19, hydroxychloroquine did not prevent illness compatible with Covid-19 or confirmed infection when used as postexposure prophylaxis within 4 days after exposure. (Funded by David Baszucki and Jan Ellison Baszucki and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04308668.).

Microbiological characterization of Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia using quantitative PCR from nasopharyngeal specimens: a retrospective study in a Canadian province from 2019 to 2023.

Bronchoalveolar lavage is usually employed for molecular diagnosis of Pneumocystis jirovecii but requires a specialized procedure. By contrast, nasopharyngeal (NP) specimens are easily obtained. In this retrospective study of 35 patients with paired NP and bronchoscopy specimens, NP specimens had a 100% negative percent agreement (95% CI 80.5-100) but only 72.2% positive percent agreement (95% CI 46.5-90.3).

A multi-site, international laboratory study to assess the performance of penicillin susceptibility testing of Staphylococcus aureus.

OBJECTIVES: There is clinical uncertainty over the optimal treatment for penicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (PSSA) infections. Furthermore, there is concern that phenotypic penicillin susceptibility testing methods are not reliably able to detect some blaZ-positive S. aureus. METHODS: Nine S. aureus isolates, including six genetically diverse strains harbouring blaZ, were sent in triplicate to 34 participating laboratories from Australia (n = 14), New Zealand (n = 6), Canada (n = 12), Singapore (n = 1) and Israel (n = 1). We used blaZ PCR as the gold standard to assess susceptibility testing performance of CLSI (P10 disc) and EUCAST (P1 disc) methods. Very major errors (VMEs), major error (MEs) and categorical agreement were calculated. RESULTS: Twenty-two laboratories reported 593 results according to CLSI methodology (P10 disc). Nineteen laboratories reported 513 results according to the EUCAST (P1 disc) method. For CLSI laboratories, the categorical agreement and calculated VME and ME rates were 85% (508/593), 21% (84/396) and 1.5% (3/198), respectively. For EUCAST laboratories, the categorical agreement and calculated VME and ME rates were 93% (475/513), 11% (84/396) and 1% (3/198), respectively. Seven laboratories reported results for both methods, with VME rates of 24% for CLSI and 12% for EUCAST. CONCLUSIONS: The EUCAST method with a P1 disc resulted in a lower VME rate compared with the CLSI methods with a P10 disc. These results should be considered in the context that among collections of PSSA isolates, as determined by automated MIC testing, less than 10% harbour blaZ. Furthermore, the clinical relevance of phenotypically susceptible, but blaZ-positive S. aureus, remains unclear.

Propofol and survival: an updated meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Propofol is one of the most widely used hypnotic agents in the world. Nonetheless, propofol might have detrimental effects on clinically relevant outcomes, possibly due to inhibition of other interventions' organ protective properties. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to evaluate if propofol reduced survival compared to any other hypnotic agent in any clinical setting. METHODS: We searched eligible studies in PubMed, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Register of Clinical Trials. The following inclusion criteria were used: random treatment allocation and comparison between propofol and any comparator in any clinical setting. The primary outcome was mortality at the longest follow-up available. We conducted a fixed-effects meta-analysis for the risk ratio (RR). Using this RR and 95% confidence interval, we estimated the probability of any harm (RR > 1) through Bayesian statistics. We registered this systematic review and meta-analysis in PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42022323143). RESULTS: We identified 252 randomized trials comprising 30,757 patients. Mortality was higher in the propofol group than in the comparator group (760/14,754 [5.2%] vs. 682/16,003 [4.3%]; RR = 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.20; p = 0.03; I2 = 0%; number needed to harm = 235), corresponding to a 98.4% probability of any increase in mortality. A statistically significant mortality increase in the propofol group was confirmed in subgroups of cardiac surgery, adult patients, volatile agent as comparator, large studies, and studies with low mortality in the comparator arm. CONCLUSIONS: Propofol may reduce survival in perioperative and critically ill patients. This needs careful assessment of the risk versus benefit of propofol compared to other agents while planning for large, pragmatic multicentric randomized controlled trials to provide a definitive answer.