Effectiveness of BNT162b2 Vaccination During Pregnancy in Preventing Hospitalization for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 in Infants.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical effectiveness of the BNT162b2 vaccine during pregnancy in preventing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) hospitalizations of infants. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective, multicenter, 1:3 case-control (test-negative) study. Symptomatic hospitalized infants less than 6 months of age, with a positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction test between January 3, 2021, and March 11, 2021, were matched by age and time to negative controls, hospitalized with symptoms compatible with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Mothers were defined as fully vaccinated who received 2 doses of BNT162b2 with the second given 2 weeks to 6 months before delivery; or partially vaccinated, if they received only 1 dose or 2 doses with the second given more than 6 months or less than 2 weeks before delivery. Severe SARS-CoV-2 was defined as a need for assisted ventilation. RESULTS: We matched 116 SARS-CoV-2 positive infants with 348 negative controls with symptoms compatible with SARS-CoV-2 infection. The effectiveness of fully vaccinated mothers was 61.6% (95% CI, 31.9-78.4) and the effectiveness of partially vaccinated mothers was not significant. Effectiveness was higher in infants 0-2 vs 3-6 months of age. The effectiveness (57.1%; 95% CI, 22.8-76.4) was similar when excluding mothers who were infected with SARS-CoV-2 during pregnancy. The OR of severe infection in infants born to unvaccinated vs fully vaccinated mothers was 5.8. CONCLUSIONS: At least 2 doses of BNT162b2 vaccine administered during the second or third trimester of pregnancy had an effectiveness of 61.6% in decreasing hospitalization for SARS-CoV-2 infection in infants less than 6 months of age.

External Validity of a Randomized Controlled Trial on Duration of Antibiotics for the Treatment of Gram-Negative Bacteremia.

INTRODUCTION: Reports regarding the external validity of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are scarce. We aimed to assess the population external validity of an investigator-initiated RCT on the duration of antibiotics for the treatment of Gram-negative bacteremia by comparing patients included in the RCT to patients that were not included in the trial. METHODS: Hospitalized patients with Gram-negative bacteremia were recruited into an RCT and randomized to receive 7 or 14 days of covering antibiotic therapy in Israel and Italy from 2013 to 2017. In a concomitant observational study, RCT participants were compared with patients who fulfilled the inclusion criteria but were not included in the trial due to participation in other trials, discharge before approached by researchers, refusal to participate, or unwillingness of the treating physician to allow participants' recruitment. RESULTS: Six hundred and four RCT patients were compared with 613 nonincluded patients. Almost 50% of nonincluded patients (288/613) were dependent on others for activities of daily living at baseline compared to 37.7% of RCT participants (228/604). Dementia was nearly 2-fold more frequent in nonincluded patients than those included (5.9% [36/613] versus 3.6% [22/604], p = 0.07). Patients who were not included in the RCT were more likely to acquire their infection in the hospital (53.3% [327/613] versus 29.1% [176/604], p < 0.001). The primary composite outcome of mortality, clinical failure, readmissions, or extended hospitalization at 90 days occurred in 353 of 613 nonincluded patients (57.6%) compared to 299 of 604 RCT participants (49.6%), p = 0.005. However, on multivariate analysis noninclusion in the RCT was not an independent risk factor for clinical failure and mortality. CONCLUSIONS: RCTs, even with broad eligibility criteria, do not represent the whole spectrum of patients and leave out a population with more severe illness for whom the evidence is lacking.

Clinical Outcomes of Hospitalized Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variant vs. Influenza A During Influenza Season 2021 to 2022: A Retrospective Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Influenza and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are respiratory diseases with similar modes of transmission. In December 2021, influenza re-emerged after it had been undetected since March 2020 and the Omicron variant replaced the Delta variant. Data directly comparing the two diseases are scarce. OBJECTIVES: To compare the outcomes of patients with both the Omicron variant and influenza during 2021-2022. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study conducted in Beilinson hospital, Israel, from December 2021 to January 2022. We included all hospitalized patients with either laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 or influenza. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. RESULTS: We identified 167 patients diagnosed with Omicron and 221 diagnosed with Influenza A. The median age was 71 years for Omicron and 65 years for influenza. Patients with Omicron had a significantly higher Charlson Comorbidity Index score (4 vs. 3, P < 0.001). Patients with Omicron developed more respiratory failure that needed mechanical ventilation (7% vs. 2%, P = 0.05) and vasopressors (14% vs. 2%, P < 0.001) than patients with influenza. In a multivariate model, 30-day mortality was lower in patients diagnosed with influenza than in patients diagnosed with Omicron (19/221 [9%] vs. 44/167 [26%], hazard ratio 0.45, 95% confidence interval 0.25-0.81). CONCLUSIONS: Patients diagnosed with Omicron had higher mortality than patients diagnosed with seasonal influenza. This finding could be due to differences in co-morbidities, the virus pathogenicity, and host responses to infection.

Comparing Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic Waves in Hospitalized Patients: A Retrospective, Multicenter, Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 was first diagnosed in Israel at the end of February 2020. By the end of June 2021, there were 842 536 confirmed cases and 6428 deaths. Our aim in this multicenter, retrospective, cohort study is to describe the demographic and clinical characteristics of hospitalized patients and compare the pandemic waves before immunization. METHODS: Of 22 302 patients hospitalized in general medical centers, we randomly selected 6329 for the study. Of these, 3582 and 1106 were eligible for the study in the first period (first and second waves) and in the second period (third wave), respectively. RESULTS: Thirty-day mortality was higher in the second period than in the first period, 25.20% vs 13.68% (P < .001). Invasive mechanical ventilation supported 9.19% and 14.21% of patients in the first period and second period, respectively. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) was used more than twice as often in the second period. CONCLUSIONS: Invasive ventilation, use of ECMO, and mortality rate were 1.5 to 2 times higher in the second period than in the first period. In the second period, patients had a more severe presentation and higher mortality than those in the first period.

Immunogenicity of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in patients with primary brain tumors: a prospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: Immunogenicity of Covid-19 vaccines may be negatively impacted by anti-cancer treatment. The management of primary brain tumors (PBTs) routinely includes temozolomide and steroids, which are immune-suppressive. We aimed to determine the rate of seropositivity in PBT patients following receipt of two doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine. METHODS: We prospectively evaluated IgG levels against SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in 17 PBT patients following two doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine. IgG levels were collected at two time points: T1-after a median of 44 days from the second vaccine dose and T2-after a median of 130 days from the second dose. Titers were compared against a group of healthy controls (HC) comprised of patients' family members. RESULTS: At T1, 88.2% (15/17) of PBT patients achieved seroconversion, compared with 100% (12/12) of HCs. Median IgG titer was significantly lower in the PBT group (1908 AU/mL vs 8,198 AU/mL; p = 0.002). At T2, 80% (12/15) of PBT patients seroconverted, compared to 100% (10/10) of HCs. Median IgG titer remained significantly lower in the PBT group (410 AU/mLvs 1687 AU/mL; p = 0.002). During the peri-vaccination period, 15 patients received systemic treatment and 8 patients were treated with corticosteroids. All 3 patients who failed to seroconvert at T2 were treated with corticosteroids. In a univariate analysis, steroid use was negatively associated with antibody titer. CONCLUSION: Most PBT patients successfully seroconvert following two doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine, albeit with lower antibody titer compared to HCs. Steroid use during the vaccination period is associated with lower titer.

Risk factors for enterococcal urinary tract infections: a multinational, retrospective cohort study.

Complicated urinary tract infection (cUTI) is a frequent cause of morbidity. In this multinational retrospective cohort study, we aimed to demonstrate risk factors for enterococcal UTI. Univariate and multivariate analyses of risk factors for enterococcal infection were performed. Among 791 hospitalized patients with cUTI, enterococci accounted for approximately 10% of cases (78/791). Risk factors for enterococcal UTI in multivariable analysis were male gender, age range of 55-75 years, catheter-associated UTI, and urinary retention. This information may assist treating physicians in their decision-making on prescribing empiric anti-enterococcus treatment to hospitalized patients presenting with cUTI and thus improve clinical outcomes.

A comparison of predictors for mortality and bacteraemia in patients suspected of infection.

BACKGROUND: Stratification by clinical scores of patients suspected of infection can be used to support decisions on treatment and diagnostic workup. Seven clinical scores, SepsisFinder (SF), National Early Warning Score (NEWS), Sequential Orgen Failure Assessment (SOFA), Mortality in Emergency Department Sepsis (MEDS), quick SOFA (qSOFA), Shapiro Decision Rule (SDR) and Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS), were evaluated for their ability to predict 30-day mortality and bacteraemia and for their ability to identify a low risk group, where blood culture may not be cost-effective and a high risk group where direct-from-blood PCR (dfbPCR) may be cost effective. METHODS: Retrospective data from two Danish and an Israeli hospital with a total of 1816 patients were used to calculate the seven scores. RESULTS: SF had higher Area Under the Receiver Operating curve than the clinical scores for prediction of mortality and bacteraemia, significantly so for MEDS, qSOFA and SIRS. For mortality predictions SF also had significantly higher area under the curve than SDR. In a low risk group identified by SF, consisting of 33% of the patients only 1.7% had bacteraemia and mortality was 4.2%, giving a cost of € 1976 for one positive result by blood culture. This was higher than the cost of € 502 of one positive dfbPCR from a high risk group consisting of 10% of the patients, where 25.3% had bacteraemia and mortality was 24.2%. CONCLUSION: This may motivate a health economic study of whether resources spent on low risk blood cultures might be better spent on high risk dfbPCR.

Excluded versus included patients in a randomized controlled trial of infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria: relevance to external validity.

BACKGROUND: Population external validity is the extent to which an experimental study results can be generalized from a specific sample to a defined population. In order to apply the results of a study, we should be able to assess its population external validity. We performed an investigator-initiated randomized controlled trial (RCT) (AIDA study), which compared colistin-meropenem combination therapy to colistin monotherapy in the treatment of patients infected with carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria. In order to examine the study's population external validity and to substantiate the use of AIDA study results in clinical practice, we performed a concomitant observational trial. METHODS: The study was conducted between October 1st, 2013 and January 31st, 2017 (during the RCTs recruitment period) in Greece, Israel and Italy. Patients included in the observational arm of the study have fulfilled clinical and microbiological inclusion criteria but were excluded from the RCT due to receipt of colistin for > 96 h, refusal to participate, or prior inclusion in the RCT. Non-randomized cases were compared to randomized patients. The primary outcome was clinical failure at 14 days of infection onset. RESULTS: Analysis included 701 patients. Patients were infected mainly with Acinetobacter baumannii [78.2% (548/701)]. The most common reason for exclusion was refusal to participate [62% (183/295)]. Non-randomized and randomized patients were similar in most of the demographic and background parameters, though randomized patients showed minor differences towards a more severe infection. Combination therapy was less common in non-randomized patients [31.9% (53/166) vs. 51.2% (208/406), p = 0.000]. Randomized patients received longer treatment of colistin [13 days (IQR 10-16) vs. 8.5 days (IQR 0-15), p = 0.000]. Univariate analysis showed that non-randomized patients were more inclined to clinical failure on day 14 from infection onset [82% (242/295) vs. 75.5% (307/406), p = 0.042]. After adjusting for other variables, non-inclusion was not an independent risk factor for clinical failure at day 14. CONCLUSION: The similarity between the observational arm and RCT patients has strengthened our confidence in the population external validity of the AIDA trial. Adding an observational arm to intervention studies can help increase the population external validity and improve implementation of study results in clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01732250 on November 22, 2012.

[NEUROLOGIC COMPLICATIONS AROUND THE DIAGNOSIS OF KIKUCHI-FUJIMOTO DISEASE: A RARE PRESENTATION OF THE DISEASE OR A HINT OF AN ADDITIONAL DIAGNOSIS?]

INTRODUCTION: Neurologic symptoms are an extremely rare presentation of Kikuchi-Fujimoto disease. We report a case of a young female patient diagnosed with Kikuchi-Fujimoto disease, presenting with neurologic symptoms compatible with aseptic meningitis, along with radiographic findings which improved with steroidal treatment. Despite the rarity of these findings, they were reported as part of the disease manifestation, however, since Kikuchi-Fujimoto disease is associated with other diseases, such as systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), other diagnoses cannot be ruled out.

Risk Factors for Treatment Failure and Mortality Among Hospitalized Patients With Complicated Urinary Tract Infection: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study (RESCUING Study Group).

Background: Complicated urinary tract infections (cUTIs) are responsible for a major share of all antibiotic consumption in hospitals. We aim to describe risk factors for treatment failure and mortality among patients with cUTIs. Methods: A multinational, multicentre retrospective cohort study, conducted in 20 countries in Europe and the Middle East. Data were collected from patients' files on hospitalised patients with a diagnosis of cUTI during 2013-2014. Primary outcome was treatment failure, secondary outcomes included 30 days all-cause mortality,among other outcomes. Multivariable analysis using a logistic model and the hospital as a random variable was performed to identify independent predictors for these outcomes. Results: A total of 981 patients with cUTI were included. Treatment failure was observed in 26.6% (261/981), all cause 30-day mortality rate was 8.7% (85/976), most of these in patients with catheter related UTI (CaUTI). Risk factors for treatment failure in multivariable analysis were ICU admission (OR 5.07, 95% CI 3.18-8.07), septic shock (OR 1.92, 95% CI 0.93-3.98), corticosteroid treatment (OR 1.92, 95% CI 1.12-3.54), bedridden (OR 2.11, 95%CI 1.4-3.18), older age (OR 1.02, 95% CI 1.0071.03-), metastatic cancer (OR 2.89, 95% CI 1.46-5.73) and CaUTI (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.04-2.11). Management variables, such as inappropriate empirical antibiotic treatment or days to starting antibiotics were not associated with treatment failure or 30-day mortality. More patients with pyelonephritis were given appropriate empirical antibiotic therapy than other CaUTI [110/171; 64.3% vs. 116/270; 43%, p <0.005], nevertheless, this afforded no advantage in treatment failure rates nor mortality in these patients. Conclusions: In patients with cUTI we found no benefit of early appropriate empirical treatment on survival rates or other outcomes. Physicians might consider supportive treatment and watchful waiting in stable patients until the causative pathogen is defined.

Seven Versus 14 Days of Antibiotic Therapy for Uncomplicated Gram-negative Bacteremia: A Noninferiority Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Gram-negative bacteremia is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in hospitalized patients. Data to guide the duration of antibiotic therapy are limited. METHODS: This was a randomized, multicenter, open-label, noninferiority trial. Inpatients with gram-negative bacteremia, who were afebrile and hemodynamically stable for at least 48 hours, were randomized to receive 7 days (intervention) or 14 days (control) of covering antibiotic therapy. Patients with uncontrolled focus of infection were excluded. The primary outcome at 90 days was a composite of all-cause mortality; relapse, suppurative, or distant complications; and readmission or extended hospitalization (>14 days). The noninferiority margin was set at 10%. RESULTS: We included 604 patients (306 intervention, 298 control) between January 2013 and August 2017 in 3 centers in Israel and Italy. The source of the infection was urinary in 411 of 604 patients (68%); causative pathogens were mainly Enterobacteriaceae (543/604 [90%]). A 7-day difference in the median duration of covering antibiotics was achieved. The primary outcome occurred in 140 of 306 patients (45.8%) in the 7-day group vs 144 of 298 (48.3%) in the 14-day group (risk difference, -2.6% [95% confidence interval, -10.5% to 5.3%]). No significant differences were observed in all other outcomes and adverse events, except for a shorter time to return to baseline functional status in the short-course therapy arm. CONCLUSIONS: In patients hospitalized with gram-negative bacteremia achieving clinical stability before day 7, an antibiotic course of 7 days was noninferior to 14 days. Reducing antibiotic treatment for uncomplicated gram-negative bacteremia to 7 days is an important antibiotic stewardship intervention. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT01737320.

The Association Between Empirical Antibiotic Treatment and Mortality in Severe Infections Caused by Carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative Bacteria: A Prospective Study.

Background: Empirical colistin should be avoided. We aimed to evaluate the association between covering empirical antibiotics (EAT) and mortality for infections caused by carbapenem-resistant gram-negative bacteria (CRGNB). Methods: This was a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial, including adults with bloodstream infections, pneumonia, or urosepsis caused by CRGNB. All patients received EAT followed by covering targeted therapy. The exposure variable was covering EAT in the first 48 hours. The outcome was 28-day mortality. We adjusted the analyses by multivariable regression analysis and propensity score matching. Results: The study included 406 inpatients with severe CRGNB infections, mostly Acinetobacter baumannii (312/406 [77%]). Covering EAT was given to 209 (51.5%) patients, mostly colistin (n = 200). Patients receiving noncovering EAT were older, more frequently unconscious and dependent, carrying catheters, and mechanically ventilated with pneumonia. Mortality was 84 of 197 (42.6%) with noncovering vs 96 of 209 (45.9%) with covering EAT (P = .504). Covering EAT was not associated with survival in the adjusted analysis; rather, there was a weak association with mortality (odds ratio [OR], 1.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.84). Results were similar for colistin monotherapy and colistin-carbapenem combination EAT. In the propensity score-matched cohort (n = 338) covering antibiotics were not significantly associated with mortality (OR, 1.42; 95% CI, .91-2.22). Similar results were obtained in an analysis of 14-day mortality. Conclusions: Empirical use of colistin before pathogen identification, with or without a carbapenem, was not associated with survival following severe infections caused by CRGNBs, mainly A. baumannii.

Early double J stent removal in renal transplant patients to prevent urinary tract infection - systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Ureteral stents are routinely used in renal transplant and are associated with reduced urological complications but increased urinary tract infections (UTIs). There is no agreement on the preferred time to removal of stents after transplantation. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing stent duration of <14 days vs > =14 days. Electronic databases were searched to identify RCTs that compared early vs late stent removal. Primary outcome was urinary tract infections. Secondary outcomes included various urological complications. No significant difference in UTI rates was demonstrated between short and long stent duration (relative risk (RR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44-1.64), with significant heterogeneity (I2 = 86%). Sensitivity analysis evaluating studies with low risk of bias for allocation concealment demonstrated statistically significant lower rates of UTI with short stent duration (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.32-0.71) with no heterogeneity. No significant difference was demonstrated for the outcome of major urological complications (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.50-1.05), without heterogeneity. Ureteral stenosis rates were significantly lower in the short duration arm (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.18-0.98). Early removal of ureteral stents after renal transplant may be associated with reduced rates of UTI and ureteral stenosis. Additional RCTs are needed.

Secular trends in the appropriateness of empirical antibiotic treatment in patients with bacteremia: a comparison between three prospective cohorts.

The objective of this study was to explore whether the percentage of inappropriate empirical antibiotic treatment in patients with bacteremia changed over time and to understand the factors that brought on the change. Three prospective cohorts of patients with bacteremia in three different periods (January 1st, 1988 to December 31st, 1989; May 1st, 2004 to November 30, 2004; May 1st, 2010 to April 30, 2011) were compared. Analysis was performed on a total of 811 patients. In 2010-2011, 55.9% (76/136) of patients with bacteremia received inappropriate empirical treatment, compared with 34.5% (170/493) and 33.5% (55/164) in the first and second periods, respectively, in a significant upward trend (p = 0.001). Resistance to antibiotics increased significantly during the study period. The following variables were included in the multivariate analysis assessing risk factors for inappropriate empirical treatment: study period (third period) [odds ratio, OR = 2.766 (95% confidence interval, CI, 1.655-4.625)], gender (male) [OR = 1.511 (1.014-2.253)], pathogen carrying extended-spectrum beta-lactamases [OR = 10.426 (4.688-23.187)], multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii [OR = 5.428 (2.181-13.513)], and skin/soft infections [OR = 3.23 (1.148-9.084)]. A model excluding microbiological data included: gender (male) [OR = 1.648 (1.216-2.234)], study period (third period) [OR = 2.446 (1.653-3.620)], hospital-acquired infection [OR = 1.551 (1.060-2.270)], previous use of antibiotics [OR = 1.815 (1.247-2.642)], bedridden patient [OR = 2.019 (1.114-3.658)], and diabetes mellitus [OR = 1.620 (1.154-2.274)]. We have observed a worrisome increase in the rate of inappropriate empirical treatment of bacteremia. We need tools that will allow us better prediction of the pathogen and its susceptibilities during the first hours of managing a patient suspected of a severe bacterial infection.

Gram-negative bloodstream infections in hemodialysis patients: A retrospective study
.

BACKGROUND: Bloodstream infections (BSIs) are an important cause of hospitalizations and mortality among hemodialysis (HD) patients. Epidemiology of these infections is changing, with increasing rates of Gram-negative pathogens, including resistant ones. Few studies have focused on the characteristics and outcomes of these infections. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to document the causative pathogens of BSIs in HD patients and their clinical outcomes during 2008 - 2015, and to compare risk factors, clinical features, appropriateness of therapy, and outcomes between patients with Gram-negative vs. Gram-positive BSIs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A single-center retrospective cohort study. Charts of 120 HD patients hospitalized with first BSI were reviewed. RESULTS: A total of 120 patients were included, 61 episodes of Gram-negative (51.8%) and 59 episodes of Gram-positive bacteria (49.2%). Source of infection was significantly more likely to be urinary or abdominal among patients with Gram-negative infection. Otherwise, no statistically significant differences were documented between groups in terms of baseline characteristics, presentation of infection and outcomes. Most Gram-negative BSIs were caused by enterobacteriaceae, followed by Pseudomonas spp. Previous clinical or surveillance cultures added little to accurate prediction of the causative organism. CONCLUSION: In a cohort of HD patients with BSI, no significant differences were found between Gram-negative and Gram-positive BSIs, besides source of infection. A urinary or abdominal source strongly suggests a Gram-negative pathogen. Otherwise, patient's characteristics, clinical presentation, and previous cultures, all cannot accurately predict the causative pathogen of BSI, and broad-spectrum antibiotics should be used empirically.
.

Influenza vaccines in immunosuppressed adults with cancer.

BACKGROUND: This is an update of the Cochrane review published in 2013, Issue 10.Immunosuppressed cancer patients are at increased risk of serious influenza-related complications. Guidelines, therefore, recommend influenza vaccination for these patients. However, data on vaccine effectiveness in this population are lacking, and the value of vaccination in this population remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of influenza vaccine in immunosuppressed adults with malignancies. The primary review outcome is all-cause mortality, preferably at the end of the influenza season. Influenza-like illness (ILI, a clinical definition), confirmed influenza, pneumonia, any hospitalisations, influenza-related mortality and immunogenicity were defined as secondary outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS databases up to May 2017. We searched the following conference proceedings: ICAAC, ECCMID, IDSA (infectious disease conferences), ASH, ASBMT, EBMT (haematological), and ASCO (oncological) between the years 2006 to 2017. In addition, we scanned the references of all identified studies and pertinent reviews. We searched the websites of the manufacturers of influenza vaccine. Finally, we searched for ongoing or unpublished trials in clinical trial registry databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), prospective and retrospective cohort studies and case-control studies were considered, comparing inactivated influenza vaccines versus placebo, no vaccination or a different vaccine, in adults (16 years and over) with cancer. We considered solid malignancies treated with chemotherapy, haematological cancer patients treated or not treated with chemotherapy, cancer patients post-autologous (up to six months after transplantation) or allogeneic (at any time) haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data from included studies adhering to Cochrane methodology. Meta-analysis could not be performed because of different outcome and denominator definitions in the included studies. MAIN RESULTS: We identified six studies with a total of 2275 participants: five studies comparing vaccination with no vaccination, and one comparing adjuvanted vaccine with non-adjuvanted vaccine. Three studies were RCTs, one was a prospective observational cohort study and two were retrospective cohort studies.For the comparison of vaccination with no vaccination we included two RCTs and three observational studies, including 2202 participants. One study reported results in person-years while the others reported results per person. The five studies were performed between 1993 and 2015 and included adults with haematological diseases (three studies), patients following bone marrow transplantation (BMT) (two studies) and solid malignancies (three studies).One RCT and two observational studies reported all-cause mortality; the RCT showed similar mortality rates in both arms (odds ratio (OR) 1.25 (95% CI 0.43 to 3.62; 1 study, 78 participants, low-certainty evidence)); and the observational studies demonstrated a significant association between vaccine receipt and lower risk of death, adjusted hazard ratio 0.88 (95% CI 0.78 to 1; 1 study, 1577 participants, very low-certainty evidence) in one study and OR 0.42 (95% CI 0.24 to 0.75; 1 study, 806 participants, very low-certainty evidence) in the other. One RCT reported a reduction in ILI with vaccination, while no difference was observed in one observational study. Confirmed influenza rates were lower with vaccination in one RCT and the three observational studies, the difference reaching statistical significance in one. Pneumonia was observed significantly less frequently with vaccination in one observational study, but no difference was detected in another or in the RCT. One RCT showed a reduction in hospitalisations following vaccination, while an observational study found no difference. No life-threatening or persistent adverse effects from vaccination were reported. The strength of evidence was limited by the low number of included studies and by their low methodological quality and the certainty of the evidence for the mortality outcome according to GRADE was low to very low.For the comparison of adjuvanted vaccine with non-adjuvanted vaccine, we identified one RCT, including 73 patients. No differences were found for the primary and all secondary outcomes assessed. Mortality risk ratio was 0.54 (95% CI 0.05 to 5.73; low-certainty evidence) in the adjuvanted vaccine group. The quality of evidence was low due to the small sample size and the large confidence intervals for all outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Observational data suggest lower mortality and infection-related outcomes with influenza vaccination. The strength of evidence is limited by the small number of studies and low grade of evidence. It seems that the evidence, although weak, shows that the benefits overweigh the potential risks when vaccinating adults with cancer against influenza. However, additional placebo or no-treatment controlled RCTs of influenza vaccination among adults with cancer is ethically questionable.There is no conclusive evidence regarding the use of adjuvanted versus non-adjuvanted influenza vaccine in this population.

Effect of 5-Day Nitrofurantoin vs Single-Dose Fosfomycin on Clinical Resolution of Uncomplicated Lower Urinary Tract Infection in Women: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The use of nitrofurantoin and fosfomycin has increased since guidelines began recommending them as first-line therapy for lower urinary tract infection (UTI). Objective: To compare the clinical and microbiologic efficacy of nitrofurantoin and fosfomycin in women with uncomplicated cystitis. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multinational, open-label, analyst-blinded, randomized clinical trial including 513 nonpregnant women aged 18 years and older with symptoms of lower UTI (dysuria, urgency, frequency, or suprapubic tenderness), a positive urine dipstick result (with detection of nitrites or leukocyte esterase), and no known colonization or previous infection with uropathogens resistant to the study antibiotics. Recruitment took place from October 2013 through April 2017 at hospital units and outpatient clinics in Geneva, Switzerland; Lodz, Poland; and Petah-Tiqva, Israel. Interventions: Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to oral nitrofurantoin, 100 mg 3 times a day for 5 days (n = 255), or a single 3-g dose of oral fosfomycin (n = 258). They returned 14 and 28 days after therapy completion for clinical evaluation and urine culture collection. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was clinical response in the 28 days following therapy completion, defined as clinical resolution (complete resolution of symptoms and signs of UTI without prior failure), failure (need for additional or change in antibiotic treatment due to UTI or discontinuation due to lack of efficacy), or indeterminate (persistence of symptoms without objective evidence of infection). Secondary outcomes included bacteriologic response and incidence of adverse events. Results: Among 513 patients who were randomized (median age, 44 years [interquartile range, 31-64]), 475 (93%) completed the trial and 377 (73%) had a confirmed positive baseline culture. Clinical resolution through day 28 was achieved in 171 of 244 patients (70%) receiving nitrofurantoin vs 139 of 241 patients (58%) receiving fosfomycin (difference, 12% [95% CI, 4%-21%]; P = .004). Microbiologic resolution occurred in 129 of 175 (74%) vs 103 of 163 (63%), respectively (difference, 11% [95% CI, 1%-20%]; P = .04). Adverse events were few and primarily gastrointestinal; the most common were nausea and diarrhea (7/248 [3%] and 3/248 [1%] in the nitrofurantoin group vs 5/247 [2%] and 5/247 [1%] in the fosfomycin group, respectively). Conclusions and Relevance: Among women with uncomplicated UTI, 5-day nitrofurantoin, compared with single-dose fosfomycin, resulted in a significantly greater likelihood of clinical and microbiologic resolution at 28 days after therapy completion. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01966653.

Trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole versus vancomycin in the treatment of healthcare/ventilator-associated MRSA pneumonia: a case-control study.

Objectives: Therapeutic options available to treat MRSA pneumonia are limited. Trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole is an attractive treatment because of its bactericidal anti-MRSA activity, oral and parenteral formulations and good penetration to the lung tissue. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole with vancomycin in the treatment of healthcare/ventilator-associated MRSA pneumonia. Methods: We carried out a retrospective case-control study of all consecutive hospitalized adult patients diagnosed with MRSA pneumonia at Beilinson Hospital during 2010-15 and treated with either vancomycin or trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality at 30 days and clinical failure at the end of treatment. In order to reduce bias affecting the decision to use a specific antibiotic and as a sensitivity analysis, a propensity-score model for choosing between vancomycin and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole was used. Results: We identified 42 patients with MRSA pneumonia treated with trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and 39 treated with vancomycin. There were no significant differences in the baseline characteristics between the groups. Vancomycin-treated patients showed significantly higher 30 day mortality on both multivariate analysis (HR = 5.28; 95% CI = 1.50-18.60; P < 0.05) and sensitivity analysis with propensity score [vancomycin 13/24 (54.1%) versus trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole 4/24 (16.7%); P < 0.05], and higher clinical failure rates [vancomycin 23/39 (59%) versus trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole 15/42 (35.7%); P < 0.05], also in the sensitivity analysis with propensity score [vancomycin 14/24 (58.3%) versus trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole 6/24 (25%); P < 0.05]. The rates of side effects in both arms were comparable. Conclusions: Trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole appears to be superior to vancomycin in the treatment of MRSA pneumonia. A large-scale randomized controlled trial is needed to evaluate these findings.

Time trends in Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia, 1988-2010, in a tertiary center with high methicillin resistance rates.

INTRODUCTION: Changes in the epidemiology of Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB) have been described in recent decades. Decreased mortality has been reported over time, mostly from countries with low methicillin resistance rates. We aimed to describe time trends in SAB in a tertiary center with high methicillin resistance rates. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 1692 patients with SAB, and compared between three time periods: 1988-1994 (342 patients), 1998-2004 (597 patients) and 2005-2010 (753 patients). RESULTS: In our cohort, 30 days mortality increased significantly with time, reaching 42.9 % during 2005-2010. The latter period was characterized by higher rates of older patients (35.1 % aged 80 years and older), with lower functional capacity (46.5 % bedridden) and higher rates of comorbidities (33.6 % renal disease, 24.8 % heart failure, 19.0 % dementia). These patients were more likely to be ventilated (18.7 %) and carry a urinary catheter at presentation (46.6 %); present with septic shock (15.9 %) and have pneumonia (20.5 %) or endocarditis (7.2 %) as source. Similar characteristics were found among patients younger than 50 years and with independent functional status. No significant increase in methicillin resistant Staph aureus (MRSA) rates or inappropriate empirical therapy was demonstrated during 2005-2010. CONCLUSIONS: In our cohort, increased mortality in recent years in patients with SAB can be explained by baseline condition of patients. MRSA or inappropriate empiric therapy did not explain the increase in mortality. The patients afflicted with SAB changed over time. Epidemiology and outcomes of SAB vary with time and according to geographical location. External validity of studies should be taken into consideration.