ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: there is insufficient data regarding bacterial infections in patients with cirrhosis to support recommendations for empiric antibiotic treatments, particularly in Latin America. This study aimed to evaluate bacterial infection's clinical impact and microbiological characteristics, intending to serve as a platform to revise current practices. MATERIALS AND METHODS: multicenter prospective cohort study of patients with cirrhosis and bacterial infections from Argentina and Uruguay. Patient and infection-related information were collected, focusing on microbiology, antibiotic susceptibility patterns, and outcomes. RESULTS: 472 patients were included. Spontaneous bacterial infections and urinary tract infections (UTIs) were registered in 187 (39.6%) and 116 (24.6%) patients, respectively, representing the most common infections. Of the 256 culture-positive infections, 103 (40.2%) were caused by multidrug-resistant organisms (reaching 50% for UTI), and 181 (70.7%) received adequate initial antibiotic treatment. The coverage of cefepime and ceftriaxone was over 70% for the empirical treatment of community-acquired spontaneous infections, but ceftazidime´s coverage was only 40%. For all UTI cases and for healthcare-associated or nosocomial spontaneous bacterial infections, the lower-spectrum antibiotics that covered at least 70% of the isolations were imipenem and meropenem. During hospitalization, a second bacterial infection was diagnosed in 9.8% of patients, 23.9% required at least one organ support, and 19.5% died. CONCLUSIONS: short-term mortality of bacterial infections in patients with cirrhosis is very high, and a high percentage were caused by multidrug-resistant organisms, particularly in UTIs. The information provided might serve to adapt recommendations, particularly related to empirical antibiotic treatment in Argentina and Uruguay. The study was registered in Clinical Trials (NCT03919032).
Subject(s)
Bacterial Infections , Community-Acquired Infections , Cross Infection , Urinary Tract Infections , Humans , Prospective Studies , Argentina/epidemiology , Uruguay/epidemiology , Bacterial Infections/diagnosis , Bacterial Infections/drug therapy , Bacterial Infections/epidemiology , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Liver Cirrhosis/complications , Liver Cirrhosis/diagnosis , Liver Cirrhosis/drug therapy , Urinary Tract Infections/diagnosis , Urinary Tract Infections/drug therapy , Urinary Tract Infections/epidemiology , Bacteria , Cross Infection/diagnosis , Cross Infection/drug therapy , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Community-Acquired Infections/drug therapyABSTRACT
It is unclear whether norfloxacin predisposes to infections by multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs). We aimed to evaluate if patients with cirrhosis receiving norfloxacin prophylaxis at the time of the diagnosis of bacterial infections were more likely to present a multidrug-resistant isolate than those without prophylaxis. This is a cross-sectional study of hospitalized patients with cirrhosis and bacterial infections from Argentina and Uruguay (NCT03919032) from September 2018 to December 2020. The outcome variable was a multidrug-resistant bacterial infection. We used inverse probability of treatment weighting to estimate the odds ratio (OR) of norfloxacin on infection caused by MDROs considering potential confounders. Among the 472 patients from 28 centers, 53 (11%) were receiving norfloxacin at the time of the bacterial infection. Patients receiving norfloxacin had higher MELD-sodium, were more likely to have ascites or encephalopathy, to receive rifaximin, beta-blockers, and proton-pump inhibitors, to have a nosocomial or health-care-associated infection, prior bacterial infections, admissions to critical care units or invasive procedures, and to be admitted in a liver transplant center. In addition, we found that 13 (24.5%) patients with norfloxacin and 90 (21.5%) of those not receiving it presented infections caused by MDROs (adjusted OR 1.55; 95% CI: 0.60-4.03; p = 0.360). The use of norfloxacin prophylaxis at the time of the diagnosis of bacterial infections was not associated with multidrug resistance. These results help empiric antibiotic selection and reassure the current indication of norfloxacin prophylaxis in well-selected patients.Study registration number: NCT03919032.
Subject(s)
Bacterial Infections , Peritonitis , Humans , Norfloxacin/therapeutic use , Cross-Sectional Studies , Bacterial Infections/drug therapy , Bacterial Infections/prevention & control , Bacterial Infections/microbiology , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Liver Cirrhosis/complications , Liver Cirrhosis/microbiology , Peritonitis/microbiology , Drug Resistance, Multiple , Antibiotic Prophylaxis/adverse effectsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Iota-Carrageenan (I-C) is a sulfate polysaccharide synthesized by red algae, with demonstrated antiviral activity and clinical efficacy as nasal spray in the treatment of common cold. In vitro, I-C inhibits SARS-CoV-2 infection in cell culture. RESEARCH QUESTION: Can a nasal spray with Iota-Carrageenan be useful in the prophylaxis of COVID-19 in health care workers managing patients with COVID-19 disease? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This is a pilot pragmatic multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study assessing the use of a nasal spray containing I-C in the prophylaxis of COVID-19 in hospital personnel dedicated to care of COVID-19 patients. Clinically healthy physicians, nurses, kinesiologists and other health care providers managing patients hospitalized for COVID-19 were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive four daily doses of I-C spray or placebo for 21 days. The primary end point was clinical COVID-19, as confirmed by reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction testing, over a period of 21 days. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04521322). RESULTS: A total of 394 individuals were randomly assigned to receive I-C or placebo. Both treatment groups had similar baseline characteristics. The incidence of COVID-19 differs significantly between subjects receiving the nasal spray with I-C (2 of 196 [1.0%]) and those receiving placebo (10 of 198 [5.0%]). Relative risk reduction: 79.8% (95% CI 5.3 to 95.4; p=0.03). Absolute risk reduction: 4% (95% CI 0.6 to 7.4). INTERPRETATION: In this pilot study a nasal spray with I-C showed significant efficacy in preventing COVID-19 in health care workers managing patients with COVID-19 disease. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT04521322.