Perioperative antibiotics for preventing post-surgical site infections in solid organ transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: Solid organ transplant recipients are at high risk for infections due to the complexity of surgical procedures combined with the impact of immunosuppression. No consensus exists on the role of antibiotics for surgical site infections in solid organ transplant recipients. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of prophylactic antimicrobial agents for preventing surgical site infections in solid organ transplant recipients. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies was searched up to 21 April 2020 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in any language assessing prophylactic antibiotics in preventing surgical site infections in solid organ transplant recipients at any time point after transplantation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently determined study eligibility, assessed quality, and extracted data. Primary outcomes were surgical site infections and antimicrobial resistance. Other outcomes included urinary tract infections, pneumonias and septicaemia, death (any cause), graft loss, graft rejection, graft function, adverse reactions to antimicrobial agents, and outcomes identified by the Standardised Outcomes of Nephrology Group (SONG), specifically graft health, cardiovascular disease, cancer and life participation. Summary effect estimates were obtained using a random-effects model and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). The quality of the evidence was assessed using the risk of bias and the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We identified eight eligible studies (718 randomised participants). Overall, five studies (248 randomised participants) compared antibiotics versus no antibiotics, and three studies (470 randomised participants) compared extended duration versus short duration antibiotics. Risk of bias was assessed as high for performance bias (eight studies), detection bias (eight studies) and attrition bias (two studies). It is uncertain whether antibiotics reduce the incidence of surgical site infections as the certainty of the evidence has been assessed as very low (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.85; 5 studies, 226 participants; I2 = 25%). The certainty of the evidence was very low for all other reported outcomes (death, graft loss, and other infections). It is uncertain whether extended duration antibiotics reduces the incidence of surgical site infections in either solid organ transplant recipients (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.48; 2 studies, 302 participants; I2 = 0%) or kidney-only transplant recipients (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.48; 1 study, 205 participants) as the certainty of the evidence has been assessed as very low. The certainty of the evidence was very low for all other reported outcomes (death, graft loss, and other infections). None of the eight included studies evaluated antimicrobial agent adverse reactions, graft health, cardiovascular disease, cancer, life participation, biochemical and haematological parameters, intervention cost, hospitalisation length, or overall hospitalisation costs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Due to methodological limitations, risk of bias and significant heterogeneity, the current evidence for the use of prophylactic perioperative antibiotics in transplantation is of very low quality. Further high quality, adequately powered RCTs would help better inform clinical practice.

Safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity of a human monoclonal antibody targeting the G glycoprotein of henipaviruses in healthy adults: a first-in-human, randomised, controlled, phase 1 study.

BACKGROUND: The monoclonal antibody m102.4 is a potent, fully human antibody that neutralises Hendra and Nipah viruses in vitro and in vivo. We aimed to investigate the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity of m102.4 in healthy adults. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, single-centre, dose-escalation, phase 1 trial of m102.4, we randomly assigned healthy adults aged 18-50 years with a body-mass index of 18·0-35·0 kg/m2 to one of five cohorts. A sentinel pair for each cohort was randomly assigned to either m102.4 or placebo. The remaining participants in each cohort were randomly assigned (5:1) to receive m102.4 or placebo. Cohorts 1-4 received a single intravenous infusion of m102.4 at doses of 1 mg/kg (cohort 1), 3 mg/kg (cohort 2), 10 mg/kg (cohort 3), and 20 mg/kg (cohort 4), and were monitored for 113 days. Cohort 5 received two infusions of 20 mg/kg 72 h apart and were monitored for 123 days. The primary outcomes were safety and tolerability. Secondary outcomes were pharmacokinetics and immunogenicity. Analyses were completed according to protocol. The study was registered on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12615000395538. FINDINGS: Between March 27, 2015, and June 16, 2016, 40 (52%) of 77 healthy screened adults were enrolled in the study. Eight participants were assigned to each cohort (six received m102.4 and two received placebo). 86 treatment-emergent adverse events were reported, with similar rates between placebo and treatment groups. The most common treatment-related event was headache (12 [40%] of 30 participants in the combined m102.4 group, and three [30%] of ten participants in the pooled placebo group). No deaths or severe adverse events leading to study discontinuation occurred. Pharmacokinetics based on those receiving m102.4 (n=30) were linear, with a median half-life of 663·3 h (range 474·3-735·1) for cohort 1, 466·3 h (382·8-522·3) for cohort 2, 397·0 h (333·9-491·8) for cohort 3, and 466·7 h (351·0-889·6) for cohort 4. The elimination kinetics of those receiving repeated dosing (cohort 5) were similar to those of single-dose recipients (median elimination half-time 472·0 [385·6-592·0]). Anti-m102.4 antibodies were not detected at any time-point during the study. INTERPRETATION: Single and repeated dosing of m102.4 were well tolerated and safe, displayed linear pharmacokinetics, and showed no evidence of an immunogenic response. This study will inform future dosing regimens for m102.4 to achieve prolonged exposure for systemic efficacy to prevent and treat henipavirus infections. FUNDING: Queensland Department of Health, the National Health and Medical Research Council, and the National Hendra Virus Research Program.

Prophylaxis, empirical and preemptive treatment of invasive candidiasis.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Invasive candidiasis remains an important infection for ICU patients, associated with poor clinical outcomes. It has been increasingly recognized that the traditional paradigm of culture-directed antifungal treatment is unsatisfactory, and that earlier antifungal intervention strategies, such as prophylaxis, preemptive therapy, and empiric therapy, are required to improve patient outcomes. The purpose of this review is to summarize the recent supportive evidence for such strategies and to highlight the current challenges in their implementation. RECENT FINDINGS: Despite new antifungal agents and classes, the mortality from invasive candidiasis remains high. Antifungal prophylaxis remains the best-studied early antifungal intervention strategy; however, unless targeted to patients at highest risk, is inefficient. Recent data suggests that although risk predictive models, using a combination of clinical risk factors and Candida colonization parameters, may be a relatively simple and practical approach to guide prophylaxis or preemptive therapy, further validation of these models is required. A single trial has demonstrated that empiric antifungal therapy is not of benefit when instituted to patients with antibiotic-refractory fever alone. SUMMARY: On the basis of current knowledge, it is difficult to universally recommend antifungal prophylaxis, apart from patient groups with a known very high risk, such as those with necrotising pancreatitis or recurrent gastrointestinal perforations. Antifungal prophylaxis may also be reasonable where local incidence rates and epidemiology are compelling. Among stable patients with multifocal Candida colonization and/or a multitude of clinical-risk factors, preemptive therapy is currently not indicated, although the development of better risk predictive models may assist with such patients. Among patients with refractory fever despite broad-spectrum antibacterial therapy, empiric antifungal therapy may be reasonable where local incidence rates are high (e.g. >10%); however, a thorough search for alternate causes must be instituted.

Assessment of clinical risk predictive rules for invasive candidiasis in a prospective multicentre cohort of ICU patients.

PURPOSE: To assess the generalisability of published clinical risk predictive models for invasive candidiasis in ICU patients. METHODS: The performance characteristics of published clinical risk factor-only and Candida colonisation-only predictive models for invasive candidiasis were assessed in a multicentre cohort of Australian ICU patients. Clinical risk factors and Candida colonisation parameters were collected prospectively from patients. RESULTS: The two clinical risk factor-only predictive models applied to an Australian patient cohort (n = 615) performed less well than in published studies involving derivation populations. Model performance characteristics improved when Candida colonisation parameters were added post-hoc. CONCLUSIONS: Risk predictive models should factor in both clinical risk factors and Candida colonisation parameters. Integrating these models into therapeutic algorithms first requires external validation in different patient populations and settings.

Antifungals in the ICU.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Invasive fungal infections remain a serious complication for critically ill ICU patients. The aim of this article is to review recent efficacy data of newer antifungal agents for the treatment of invasive candidiasis. The influence that recent epidemiological trends, advances in diagnostic testing, and risk prediction methods exert on the optimization of antifungal therapy for critically ill ICU patients will also be reviewed. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent clinical trials have documented the clinical efficacy of the echinocandins and the newer triazoles for the management of invasive candidiasis. Thus far, resistance to echinocandins remains rare. Changes in the epidemiology of Candida spp. causing invasive candidiasis, such as an increasing relative proportion of non-albicans Candida spp., have not been universally reported, although they have important implications for the use of fluconazole as first-line therapy for invasive candidiasis. Efforts to improve the timeliness and accuracy of laboratory diagnostic techniques and clinical prediction models to allow early and accurately targeted antifungal intervention strategies continue. SUMMARY: Echinocandins, given their clinical efficacy, spectrum of activity, and favourable pharmacological properties, are likely to replace fluconazole as initial antifungal agents of choice among critically ill ICU patients. The optimization of patient outcomes will require more accurately targeted early antifungal intervention strategies based upon sensitive and specific biological and clinical markers of risk.

Optimizing therapy for Candida infections.

The problem of invasive candidiasis among ICU patients is an increasing and evolving one. Despite advances in supportive care, increasing numbers of critically ill and vulnerable patients are susceptible to infection, and the clinical consequences for those who do develop invasive candidiasis remain poor. Evolving epidemiological trends, particularly a relative increase in the incidence of fluconazole-resistant Candida spp., have further complicated management. The recent availability of antifungal agents, such as voriconazole, the echinocandins, and lipid-associated amphotericin B preparations, with improved safety profiles, extended spectra, and proven clinical efficacies, offers new therapeutic options. However, optimizing therapy requires the consideration of numerous factors: the differing pharmacological properties of these agents, cost, the clinical status and progress of the patient, estimates of the likelihood of resistance, and microbiological data as they become available. Because early institution of antifungal therapy appears an important determinant of favorable outcome, accurate early microbiological and clinical markers of invasive candidiasis to guide early antifungal interventions are desperately needed and remain an area of active investigation.