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.

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.

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.

Safety and immunogenicity of seven COVID-19 vaccines as a third dose (booster) following two doses of ChAdOx1 nCov-19 or BNT162b2 in the UK (COV-BOOST): a blinded, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Few data exist on the comparative safety and immunogenicity of different COVID-19 vaccines given as a third (booster) dose. To generate data to optimise selection of booster vaccines, we investigated the reactogenicity and immunogenicity of seven different COVID-19 vaccines as a third dose after two doses of ChAdOx1 nCov-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca; hereafter referred to as ChAd) or BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNtech, hearafter referred to as BNT). METHODS: COV-BOOST is a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial of third dose booster vaccination against COVID-19. Participants were aged older than 30 years, and were at least 70 days post two doses of ChAd or at least 84 days post two doses of BNT primary COVID-19 immunisation course, with no history of laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. 18 sites were split into three groups (A, B, and C). Within each site group (A, B, or C), participants were randomly assigned to an experimental vaccine or control. Group A received NVX-CoV2373 (Novavax; hereafter referred to as NVX), a half dose of NVX, ChAd, or quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MenACWY)control (1:1:1:1). Group B received BNT, VLA2001 (Valneva; hereafter referred to as VLA), a half dose of VLA, Ad26.COV2.S (Janssen; hereafter referred to as Ad26) or MenACWY (1:1:1:1:1). Group C received mRNA1273 (Moderna; hereafter referred to as m1273), CVnCov (CureVac; hereafter referred to as CVn), a half dose of BNT, or MenACWY (1:1:1:1). Participants and all investigatory staff were blinded to treatment allocation. Coprimary outcomes were safety and reactogenicity and immunogenicity of anti-spike IgG measured by ELISA. The primary analysis for immunogenicity was on a modified intention-to-treat basis; safety and reactogenicity were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary outcomes included assessment of viral neutralisation and cellular responses. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 73765130. FINDINGS: Between June 1 and June 30, 2021, 3498 people were screened. 2878 participants met eligibility criteria and received COVID-19 vaccine or control. The median ages of ChAd/ChAd-primed participants were 53 years (IQR 44-61) in the younger age group and 76 years (73-78) in the older age group. In the BNT/BNT-primed participants, the median ages were 51 years (41-59) in the younger age group and 78 years (75-82) in the older age group. In the ChAd/ChAD-primed group, 676 (46·7%) participants were female and 1380 (95·4%) were White, and in the BNT/BNT-primed group 770 (53·6%) participants were female and 1321 (91·9%) were White. Three vaccines showed overall increased reactogenicity: m1273 after ChAd/ChAd or BNT/BNT; and ChAd and Ad26 after BNT/BNT. For ChAd/ChAd-primed individuals, spike IgG geometric mean ratios (GMRs) between study vaccines and controls ranged from 1·8 (99% CI 1·5-2·3) in the half VLA group to 32·3 (24·8-42·0) in the m1273 group. GMRs for wild-type cellular responses compared with controls ranged from 1·1 (95% CI 0·7-1·6) for ChAd to 3·6 (2·4-5·5) for m1273. For BNT/BNT-primed individuals, spike IgG GMRs ranged from 1·3 (99% CI 1·0-1·5) in the half VLA group to 11·5 (9·4-14·1) in the m1273 group. GMRs for wild-type cellular responses compared with controls ranged from 1·0 (95% CI 0·7-1·6) for half VLA to 4·7 (3·1-7·1) for m1273. The results were similar between those aged 30-69 years and those aged 70 years and older. Fatigue and pain were the most common solicited local and systemic adverse events, experienced more in people aged 30-69 years than those aged 70 years or older. Serious adverse events were uncommon, similar in active vaccine and control groups. In total, there were 24 serious adverse events: five in the control group (two in control group A, three in control group B, and zero in control group C), two in Ad26, five in VLA, one in VLA-half, one in BNT, two in BNT-half, two in ChAd, one in CVn, two in NVX, two in NVX-half, and one in m1273. INTERPRETATION: All study vaccines boosted antibody and neutralising responses after ChAd/ChAd initial course and all except one after BNT/BNT, with no safety concerns. Substantial differences in humoral and cellular responses, and vaccine availability will influence policy choices for booster vaccination. FUNDING: UK Vaccine Taskforce and National Institute for Health Research.

Impact of introducing procalcitonin testing on antibiotic usage in acute NHS hospitals during the first wave of COVID-19 in the UK: a controlled interrupted time series analysis of organization-level data.

BACKGROUND: Blood biomarkers have the potential to help identify COVID-19 patients with bacterial coinfection in whom antibiotics are indicated. During the COVID-19 pandemic, procalcitonin testing was widely introduced at hospitals in the UK to guide antibiotic prescribing. We have determined the impact of this on hospital-level antibiotic consumption. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, controlled interrupted time series analysis of organization-level data describing antibiotic dispensing, hospital activity and procalcitonin testing for acute hospitals/hospital trusts in England and Wales during the first wave of COVID-19 (24 February to 5 July 2020). RESULTS: In the main analysis of 105 hospitals in England, introduction of procalcitonin testing in emergency departments/acute medical admission units was associated with a statistically significant decrease in total antibiotic use of -1.08 (95% CI: -1.81 to -0.36) DDDs of antibiotic per admission per week per trust. This effect was then lost at a rate of 0.05 (95% CI: 0.02-0.08) DDDs per admission per week. Similar results were found specifically for first-line antibiotics for community-acquired pneumonia and for COVID-19 admissions rather than all admissions. Introduction of procalcitonin in the ICU setting was not associated with any significant change in antibiotic use. CONCLUSIONS: At hospitals where procalcitonin testing was introduced in emergency departments/acute medical units this was associated with an initial, but unsustained, reduction in antibiotic use. Further research should establish the patient-level impact of procalcitonin testing in this population and understand its potential for clinical effectiveness.

A modified Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score for dengue: development, evaluation and proposal for use in clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Dengue is a neglected tropical disease, for which no therapeutic agents have shown clinical efficacy to date. Clinical trials have used strikingly variable clinical endpoints, which hampers reproducibility and comparability of findings. We investigated a delta modified Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (delta mSOFA) score as a uniform composite clinical endpoint for use in clinical trials investigating therapeutics for moderate and severe dengue. METHODS: We developed a modified SOFA score for dengue, measured and evaluated its performance at baseline and 48 h after enrolment in a prospective observational cohort of 124 adults admitted to a tertiary referral hospital in Vietnam with dengue shock. The modified SOFA score included pulse pressure in the cardiovascular component. Binary logistic regression, cox proportional hazard and linear regression models were used to estimate association between mSOFA, delta mSOFA and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: The analysis included 124 adults with dengue shock. 29 (23.4%) patients required ICU admission for organ support or due to persistent haemodynamic instability: 9/124 (7.3%) required mechanical ventilation, 8/124 (6.5%) required vasopressors, 6/124 (4.8%) required haemofiltration and 5/124 (4.0%) patients died. In univariate analyses, higher baseline and delta (48 h) mSOFA score for dengue were associated with admission to ICU, requirement for organ support and mortality, duration of ICU and hospital admission and IV fluid use. CONCLUSIONS: The baseline and delta mSOFA scores for dengue performed well to discriminate patients with dengue shock by clinical outcomes, including duration of ICU and hospital admission, requirement for organ support and death. We plan to use delta mSOFA as the primary endpoint in an upcoming host-directed therapeutic trial and investigate the performance of this score in other phenotypes of severe dengue in adults and children.

Accuracy of pancreatic stone protein for the diagnosis of infection in hospitalized adults: a systematic review and individual patient level meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Accurate biomarkers to diagnose infection are lacking. Studies reported good performance of pancreatic stone protein (PSP) to detect infection. The objective of the study was to determine the performance of PSP in diagnosing infection across hospitalized patients and calculate a threshold value for that purpose. METHODS: A systematic search across Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and MEDLINE databases (1966-March 2019) for studies on PSP published in English using 'pancreatic stone protein', 'PSP', 'regenerative protein', 'lithostatin' combined with 'infection' and 'sepsis' found 44 records. The search was restricted to the five trials that evaluated PSP for the initial detection of infection in hospitalized adults. Individual patient data were obtained from the investigators of all eligible trials. Data quality and validity was assessed according to PRISMA guidelines. We choose a fixed-effect model to calculate the PSP cut-off value that best discriminates infected from non-infected patients. RESULTS: Infection was confirmed in 371 of 631 patients. The median (IQR) PSP value of infected versus uninfected patients was 81.5 (30.0-237.5) versus 19.2 (12.6-33.57) ng/ml, compared to 150 (82.70-229.55) versus 58.25 (15.85-120) mg/l for C-reactive protein (CRP) and 0.9 (0.29-4.4) versus 0.15 (0.08-0.5) ng/ml for procalcitonin (PCT). Using a PSP cut-off of 44.18 ng/ml, the ROC AUC to detect infection was 0.81 (0.78-0.85) with a sensitivity of 0.66 (0.61-0.71), specificity of 0.83 (0.78-0.88), PPV of 0.85 (0.81-0.89) and NPV of 0.63 (0.58-0.68). When a model combining PSP and CRP was used, the ROC AUC improved to 0.90 (0.87-0.92) with higher sensitivity 0.81 (0.77-0.85) and specificity 0.84 (0.79-0.90) for discriminating infection from non-infection. Adding PCT did not improve the performance further. CONCLUSIONS: PSP is a promising biomarker to diagnose infections in hospitalized patients. Using a cut-off value of 44.18 ng/ml, PSP performs better than CRP or PCT across the considered studies. The combination of PSP with CRP further enhances its accuracy.

Appraising research policy instrument mixes: a multicriteria mapping study in six European countries of diagnostic innovation to manage antimicrobial resistance.

This article provides prospective appraisal of key policy instruments intended to stimulate innovation to combat antimicrobial resistance (AMR). AMR refers to the ability of microbes to evolve resistance to those treatments designed to kill them, and is associated with the overuse or misuse of medicines such as antibiotics. AMR is an emerging global challenge with major implications for healthcare and society as a whole. Diagnostic tests for infectious diseases can guide decision making when prescribing medicines, so reducing inappropriate drug use. In the context of growing international interest in policies to stimulate innovation in AMR diagnostics, this study uses multicriteria mapping (MCM) to appraise a range of policy instruments in order to understand their potential performance while also highlighting the uncertainties that stakeholders hold about such interventions in complex contexts. A contribution of the article is the demonstration of a novel method to analyse and visualise MCM data in order to reveal stakeholder inclinations towards particular options while exploring interviewees' uncertainties about the effectiveness of each instrument's design or implementation. The article reports results from six European countries (Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and the UK). The findings reveal which policy instruments are deemed most likely to perform well, and why, across stakeholder groups and national settings, with areas of common ground and difference being identified. Importantly, the conclusions presented here differ from prominent policy discourse, with international implications for the design of mixes of policy instruments to combat AMR. Strategic and practical methodological implications also emerge for general appraisal of innovation policy instrument mixes.

Why do hospital prescribers continue antibiotics when it is safe to stop? Results of a choice experiment survey.

BACKGROUND: Deciding whether to discontinue antibiotics at early review is a cornerstone of hospital antimicrobial stewardship practice worldwide. In England, this approach is described in government guidance ('Start Smart then Focus'). However, < 10% of hospital antibiotic prescriptions are discontinued at review, despite evidence that 20-30% could be discontinued safely. We aimed to quantify the relative importance of factors influencing prescriber decision-making at review. METHODS: We conducted an online choice experiment, a survey method to elicit preferences. Acute/general hospital prescribers in England were asked if they would continue or discontinue antibiotic treatment in 15 hypothetical scenarios. Scenarios were described according to six attributes, including patients' presenting symptoms and whether discontinuation would conflict with local prescribing guidelines. Respondents' choices were analysed using conditional logistic regression. RESULTS: One hundred respondents completed the survey. Respondents were more likely to continue antibiotics when discontinuation would 'strongly conflict' with local guidelines (average marginal effect (AME) on the probability of continuing + 0.194 (p < 0.001)), when presenting symptoms more clearly indicated antibiotics (AME of urinary tract infection symptoms + 0.173 (p < 0.001) versus unclear symptoms) and when patients had severe frailty/comorbidities (AME = + 0.101 (p < 0.001)). Respondents were less likely to continue antibiotics when under no external pressure to continue (AME = - 0.101 (p < 0.001)). Decisions were also influenced by the risks to patient health of continuing/discontinuing antibiotic treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Guidelines that conflict with antibiotic discontinuation (e.g. pre-specify fixed durations) may discourage safe discontinuation at review. In contrast, guidelines conditional on patient factors/treatment response could help hospital prescribers discontinue antibiotics if diagnostic information suggesting they are no longer needed is available.

Optimizing DNA Extraction Methods for Nanopore Sequencing of Neisseria gonorrhoeae Directly from Urine Samples.

Empirical gonorrhea treatment at initial diagnosis reduces onward transmission. However, increasing resistance to multiple antibiotics may necessitate waiting for culture-based diagnostics to select an effective treatment. There is a need for same-day culture-free diagnostics that identify infection and detect antimicrobial resistance. We investigated if Nanopore sequencing can detect sufficient Neisseria gonorrhoeae DNA to reconstruct whole genomes directly from urine samples. We used N. gonorrhoeae-spiked urine samples and samples from gonorrhea infections to determine optimal DNA extraction methods that maximize the amount of N. gonorrhoeae DNA sequenced while minimizing contaminating host DNA. In simulated infections, the Qiagen UCP pathogen mini kit provided the highest ratio of N. gonorrhoeae to human DNA and the most consistent results. Depletion of human DNA with saponin increased N. gonorrhoeae yields in simulated infections but decreased yields in clinical samples. In 10 urine samples from men with symptomatic urethral gonorrhea, ≥92.8% coverage of an N. gonorrhoeae reference genome was achieved in all samples, with ≥93.8% coverage breath at ≥10-fold depth in 7 (70%) samples. In simulated infections, if ≥104 CFU/ml of N. gonorrhoeae was present, sequencing of the large majority of the genome was frequently achieved. N. gonorrhoeae could also be detected from urine in cobas PCR medium tubes and from urethral swabs and in the presence of simulated Chlamydia coinfection. Using Nanopore sequencing of urine samples from men with urethral gonorrhea, sufficient data can be obtained to reconstruct whole genomes in the majority of samples without the need for culture.

The impact of diagnostic microbiology on de-escalation of antimicrobial therapy in hospitalised adults.

BACKGROUND: Minimising antimicrobial overuse is needed to limit antimicrobial resistance. There is little evidence on how often microbiological testing informs antimicrobial de-escalation (e.g. stopping, shortening duration, switching to narrower spectrum or intravenous to oral switch) at 48-72 h "review and revise". We performed a patient level analysis of diagnostic microbiology and antimicrobial prescribing to determine the impact of microbiology results on antimicrobial review outcomes. METHODS: Antimicrobial prescribing data were collected for hospitalised adults from across Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust using routine monthly audits of prescribing practice from July 2016 to April 2017. Microbiology testing data for cultures of blood, urine, sputum and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) were gathered from the hospital pathology database and linked to prescriptions with matching patient identification codes. Antimicrobial prescriptions were grouped into "prescription episodes" (PEs), defined as one or more antimicrobials prescribed to the same patient for the same indication. Medical records were reviewed for all PEs with positive microbiology and a randomised sample of those with negative results to assess the impact of the microbiology result on the antimicrobial prescription(s). RESULTS: After excluding topical and prophylactic prescriptions, data were available for 382 inpatient antimicrobial prescriptions grouped into 276 prescription episodes. 162/276 (59%) had contemporaneous microbiology sent. After filtering likely contaminants, 33/276 (12%) returned relevant positive results, of which 20/33 (61%) had antimicrobials changed from empiric therapy as a result with 6/33 (18%) prompting de-escalation. Positive blood and CSF tended to have greater impact than urine or sputum cultures. 124/276 (45%) PEs returned only negative microbiology, and this was documented in the medical notes less often (9/40, 23%) than positive results (28/33, 85%). Out of 40 reviewed PEs with negative microbiology, we identified just one (~ 3%) in which antimicrobials were unambiguously de-escalated following the negative result. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of diagnostic microbiology tests sent to inform clinical management yielded negative results. However, negative microbiology contributed little to clinical decision making about antimicrobial de-escalation, perhaps reflecting a lack of trust in negative results by treating clinicians. Improving the negative predictive value of currently available diagnostic microbiology could help hospital prescribers in de-escalating antimicrobial therapy.

Adjunctive rifampicin for Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia (ARREST): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia is a common cause of severe community-acquired and hospital-acquired infection worldwide. We tested the hypothesis that adjunctive rifampicin would reduce bacteriologically confirmed treatment failure or disease recurrence, or death, by enhancing early S aureus killing, sterilising infected foci and blood faster, and reducing risks of dissemination and metastatic infection. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, adults (≥18 years) with S aureus bacteraemia who had received ≤96 h of active antibiotic therapy were recruited from 29 UK hospitals. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a computer-generated sequential randomisation list to receive 2 weeks of adjunctive rifampicin (600 mg or 900 mg per day according to weight, oral or intravenous) versus identical placebo, together with standard antibiotic therapy. Randomisation was stratified by centre. Patients, investigators, and those caring for the patients were masked to group allocation. The primary outcome was time to bacteriologically confirmed treatment failure or disease recurrence, or death (all-cause), from randomisation to 12 weeks, adjudicated by an independent review committee masked to the treatment. Analysis was intention to treat. This trial was registered, number ISRCTN37666216, and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between Dec 10, 2012, and Oct 25, 2016, 758 eligible participants were randomly assigned: 370 to rifampicin and 388 to placebo. 485 (64%) participants had community-acquired S aureus infections, and 132 (17%) had nosocomial S aureus infections. 47 (6%) had meticillin-resistant infections. 301 (40%) participants had an initial deep infection focus. Standard antibiotics were given for 29 (IQR 18-45) days; 619 (82%) participants received flucloxacillin. By week 12, 62 (17%) of participants who received rifampicin versus 71 (18%) who received placebo experienced treatment failure or disease recurrence, or died (absolute risk difference -1·4%, 95% CI -7·0 to 4·3; hazard ratio 0·96, 0·68-1·35, p=0·81). From randomisation to 12 weeks, no evidence of differences in serious (p=0·17) or grade 3-4 (p=0·36) adverse events were observed; however, 63 (17%) participants in the rifampicin group versus 39 (10%) in the placebo group had antibiotic or trial drug-modifying adverse events (p=0·004), and 24 (6%) versus six (2%) had drug interactions (p=0·0005). INTERPRETATION: Adjunctive rifampicin provided no overall benefit over standard antibiotic therapy in adults with S aureus bacteraemia. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment.

Mathematical modelling for antibiotic resistance control policy: do we know enough?

BACKGROUND: Antibiotics remain the cornerstone of modern medicine. Yet there exists an inherent dilemma in their use: we are able to prevent harm by administering antibiotic treatment as necessary to both humans and animals, but we must be mindful of limiting the spread of resistance and safeguarding the efficacy of antibiotics for current and future generations. Policies that strike the right balance must be informed by a transparent rationale that relies on a robust evidence base. MAIN TEXT: One way to generate the evidence base needed to inform policies for managing antibiotic resistance is by using mathematical models. These models can distil the key drivers of the dynamics of resistance transmission from complex infection and evolutionary processes, as well as predict likely responses to policy change in silico. Here, we ask whether we know enough about antibiotic resistance for mathematical modelling to robustly and effectively inform policy. We consider in turn the challenges associated with capturing antibiotic resistance evolution using mathematical models, and with translating mathematical modelling evidence into policy. CONCLUSIONS: We suggest that in spite of promising advances, we lack a complete understanding of key principles. From this we advocate for priority areas of future empirical and theoretical research.

Impact of recurrent Clostridium difficile infection: hospitalization and patient quality of life.

Objectives: Data quantifying outcomes of recurrent Clostridium difficile infection (rCDI) are lacking. We sought to determine the UK hospital resource use and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) associated with rCDI hospitalizations. Patients and methods: A non-interventional study in six UK acute hospitals collected retrospective clinical and resource use data from medical records of 64 adults hospitalized for rCDI and 64 matched inpatient controls with a first episode only (f)CDI. Patients were observed from the index event (date rCDI/fCDI confirmed) for 28 days (or death, if sooner); UK-specific reference costs were applied. HRQoL was assessed prospectively in a separate cohort of 30 patients hospitalized with CDI, who completed the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire during their illness. Results: The median total management cost (post-index) was £7539 and £6294 for rCDI and fCDI, respectively (cost difference, P = 0.075); median length of stay was 21 days and 15.5 days, respectively (P = 0.269). The median cost difference between matched rCDI and fCDI cases was £689 (IQR=£1873-£3954). Subgroup analysis demonstrated the highest median costs (£8542/patient) in severe rCDI cases. CDI management costs were driven primarily by hospital length of stay, which accounted for >85% of costs in both groups. Mean EQ-5D index values were 46% lower in CDI patients compared with UK population values (0.42 and 0.78, respectively); EQ visual analogue scale scores were 38% lower (47.82 and 77.3, respectively). Conclusions: CDI has considerable impact on patients and healthcare resources. This multicentre study provides a contemporaneous estimate of the real-world UK costs associated with rCDI management, which are substantial and comparable to fCDI costs.

Re-emergence of methicillin susceptibility in a resistant lineage of Staphylococcus aureus.

Objectives: MRSA is a leading cause of hospital-associated infection. Acquired resistance is encoded by the mecA gene or its homologue mecC , but little is known about the evolutionary dynamics involved in gain and loss of resistance. The objective of this study was to obtain an expanded understanding of Staphylococcus aureus methicillin resistance microevolution in vivo , by focusing on a single lineage. Methods: We compared the whole-genome sequences of 231 isolates from a single epidemic lineage [clonal complex 30 (CC30) and spa -type t018] of S. aureus that caused an epidemic in the UK. Results: We show that resistance to methicillin in this single lineage was gained on at least two separate occasions, one of which led to a clonal expansion around 1995 presumably caused by a selective advantage. Resistance was, however, subsequently lost in vivo by nine strains isolated between 2008 and 2012. We describe the genetic mechanisms involved in this loss of resistance and the imperfect relationship between genotypic and phenotypic resistance. Conclusions: The recent re-emergence of methicillin susceptibility in this epidemic lineage suggests a significant fitness cost of resistance and reduced selective advantage following the introduction in the mid-2000s of MRSA hospital control measures throughout the UK.

Antibiotic policies in acute English NHS trusts: implementation of 'Start Smart-Then Focus' and relationship with Clostridium difficile infection rates.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to establish how antibiotic prescribing policies at National Health Service (NHS) hospitals match the England Department of Health 'Start Smart-Then Focus' recommendations and relate to Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) rates. METHODS: Antibiotic pharmacists were surveyed regarding recommendations for empirical treatment of common syndromes ('Start Smart') and antimicrobial prescription reviews ('Focus') at their hospital trusts. If no response was provided, policy data were sought from trust websites and the MicroGuide app (Horizon Strategic Partners, UK). Empirical treatment recommendations were categorized as broad spectrum (a ß-lactam penicillin/ß-lactamase inhibitor, cephalosporin, quinolone or carbapenem) or narrow spectrum. CDI rates were gathered from the national mandatory surveillance system. RESULTS: Data were obtained for 105/145 English acute hospital trusts (72%). ß-Lactam/ß-lactamase inhibitor combinations were recommended extensively. Only for severe community-acquired pneumonia and pyelonephritis were narrow-spectrum agents recommended first line at a substantial number of trusts [42/105 (40%) and 50/105 (48%), respectively]. Policies commonly recommended dual therapy with aminoglycosides and ß-lactams for abdominal sepsis [40/93 trusts (43%)] and undifferentiated severe sepsis [54/94 trusts (57%)]. Most policies recommended treating for ≥ 7 days for most indications. Nearly all policies [100/105 trusts (95%)] recommended antimicrobial prescription reviews, but only 46/96 respondents (48%) reported monitoring compliance. Independent predictors of higher CDI rates were recommending a broad-spectrum regimen for community-acquired pneumonia (P=0.06) and, counterintuitively, a recommended treatment duration of <48 h for nosocomial pneumonia (P=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Hospital antibiotic policies in the NHS 'Start Smart' by recommending broad-spectrum antibiotics for empirical therapy, but this may have the unintended potential to increase the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics and risk of CDI unless better mechanisms are in place to improve 'Focus'.

Whole-genome sequencing shows that patient-to-patient transmission rarely accounts for acquisition of Staphylococcus aureus in an intensive care unit.

BACKGROUND: Strategies to prevent Staphylococcus aureus infection in hospitals focus on patient-to-patient transmission. We used whole-genome sequencing to investigate the role of colonized patients as the source of new S. aureus acquisitions, and the reliability of identifying patient-to-patient transmission using the conventional approach of spa typing and overlapping patient stay. METHODS: Over 14 months, all unselected patients admitted to an adult intensive care unit (ICU) were serially screened for S. aureus. All available isolates (n = 275) were spa typed and underwent whole-genome sequencing to investigate their relatedness at high resolution. RESULTS: Staphylococcus aureus was carried by 185 of 1109 patients sampled within 24 hours of ICU admission (16.7%); 59 (5.3%) patients carried methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA). Forty-four S. aureus (22 MRSA) acquisitions while on ICU were detected. Isolates were available for genetic analysis from 37 acquisitions. Whole-genome sequencing indicated that 7 of these 37 (18.9%) were transmissions from other colonized patients. Conventional methods (spa typing combined with overlapping patient stay) falsely identified 3 patient-to-patient transmissions (all MRSA) and failed to detect 2 acquisitions and 4 transmissions (2 MRSA). CONCLUSIONS: Only a minority of S. aureus acquisitions can be explained by patient-to-patient transmission. Whole-genome sequencing provides the resolution to disprove transmission events indicated by conventional methods and also to reveal otherwise unsuspected transmission events. Whole-genome sequencing should replace conventional methods for detection of nosocomial S. aureus transmission.

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.

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.