Prevalence of Pneumocystis jirovecii Colonization in Non-Critical Immunocompetent COVID-19 Patients: A Single-Center Prospective Study (JiroCOVID Study).

BACKGROUND: Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia (PJP) is an invasive fungal infection (IFI) that occurs mainly in immunocompromised hosts. After observing a high prevalence of PJP as a complication of COVID-19 in immunocompetent patients, we conducted a study to evaluate the prevalence of P. jirovecii colonization with PCR on oral washing samples (OWS) among non-immunocompromised and non-critical patients admitted with COVID-19 pneumonia at our university hospital. METHODS: All patients over 18 years of age admitted to the Infectious Diseases Unit for SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia between July 2021 and December 2022 were included. Patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation or ECMO, those with risk factors for developing PJP, and those receiving prophylaxis for P. jirovecii were excluded. Samples were collected by gargling with 10 mL of 0.9% NaCl on day 14 of the hospital stay or at discharge. RESULTS: Of 290 screened patients, 59 (20%) met the inclusion criteria and were enrolled. Only 1 of 59 patients (1.7%) tested positive for P. jirovecii detection with PCR, and the same patient was the only one to develop PJP in the follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: Our results are in line with the previous findings of other studies that confirmed a very low prevalence of P. jirovecii colonization on OWS in the immunocompetent population. Despite the limitations of the study, the fact that the only patient who tested positive for P. jirovecii was the only one in our cohort to develop PJP leads us to reflect on the role of this non-invasive sample in predicting the risk of PJP in patients with COVID-19.

Sepsis Outcome after Major Abdominal Surgery Does Not Seem to Be Improved by the Use of Pentameric Immunoglobulin IgM: A Single-Center Retrospective Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis still represents a major public health issue worldwide, and the immune system plays a main role during infections; therefore, its activity is mandatory to resolve this clinical condition. In this report, we aimed to retrospectively verify in a real-life setting the possible usefulness of pentameric IgM plus antibiotics in recovering patients with sepsis after major abdominal surgery. MATERIALS/METHODS: We reviewed, from January 2013 until December 2019, all adult patients admitted to the ICU for sepsis or septic shock (2) after major abdominal surgery. Among these patients, were identified those that, according to legal indication and licenses in Italy, were treated with pentameric IgM plus antibiotics (Group A) or with antibiotics alone (Group B). The following parameters were evaluated: blood gas analysis, lactate, CRP, procalcitonin, endotoxin activity, liver and renal function, coagulation and blood cell count at different time points (every 48 h for at least 7 days). Differences between groups were analyzed using Fisher's exact test or a chi-square test for categorical variables. A Mann-Whitney U test or Kruskal-Wallis test were instead been performed to compare continuous variables. Univariate and multivariate analysis were also performed. RESULTS: Over a period of 30 months, 24 patients were enrolled in Group A and 20 patients in Group B. In those subjects, no statistical differences were found in terms of bacterial or fungal infection isolates, when detected in a blood culture test, or according to inflammatory index, a score, lactate levels and mortality rate. A 48 h response was statistically more frequent in Group B than in Group A, while no differences were found in other clinical and laboratory evaluations. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our results, the use of pentameric IgM does not seem to give any clinical advantages in preventing sepsis after major abdominal surgery.

Retrospective Analysis of a Real-Life Use of Tixagevimab-Cilgavimab plus SARS-CoV-2 Antivirals for Treatment of COVID-19.

Tixagevimab-cilgavimab is effective for the treatment of early COVID-19 in outpatients with risk factors for progression to severe illness, as well as for primary prevention and post-exposure prophylaxis. We aimed to retrospectively evaluate the hospital stay (expressed in days), prognosis, and negativity rate for COVID-19 in patients after treatment with tixagevimab-cilgavimab. We enrolled 42 patients who were nasal swab-positive for SARS-CoV-2 (antigenic and molecular)-both vaccinated and not vaccinated for COVID-19-hospitalized at the first division of the Cotugno Hospital in Naples who had received a single intramuscular dose of tixagevimab-cilgavimab (300 mg/300 mg). All patient candidates for tixagevimab-cilgavimab had immunocompromised immune systems either due to chronic degenerative disorders (Group A: 27 patients) or oncohematological diseases (Group B: 15 patients). Patients enrolled in group A came under our observation after 10 days of clinical symptoms and 5 days after testing positivite for COVID-19, unlike the other patients enrolled in the study. The mean stay in hospital for the patients in Group A was 21 ± 5 days vs. 25 ± 5 days in Group B. Twenty patients tested negative after a median hospitalization stay of 16 days (IQR: 18-15.25); of them, five (25%) patients belonged to group B. Therefore, patients with active hematological malignancy had a lower negativization rate when treated 10 days after the onset of clinical symptoms and five days after their first COVID-19 positive nasal swab.

Thromboembolic Events after COVID-19 Vaccination: An Italian Retrospective Real-World Safety Study.

INTRODUCTION: Real-world safety studies can provide important evidence on the thromboembolic risk associated with COVID-19 vaccines, considering that millions of people have been already vaccinated against COVID-19. In this study, we aimed to estimate the incidence of thromboembolic events after COVID-19 vaccination and to compare the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine with other COVID-19 vaccines. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective real-world safety study using data from two different data sources: the Italian Pharmacovigilance database (Rete Nazionale di Farmacovigilanza, RNF) and the Campania Region Health system (Sistema INFOrmativo saNità CampanIA, SINFONIA). From the start date of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign (27 December 2021) to 27 September 2022, information on COVID-19 vaccinations and thromboembolic events were extracted from the two databases. The reporting rate (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (95%CI) of thromboembolic events for 10,000 doses was calculated for each COVID-19 vaccine. Moreover, the odds of being vaccinated with the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine vs. the other COVID-19 vaccines in cases with thromboembolic events vs. controls without thromboembolic events were computed. RESULTS: A total of 12,692,852 vaccine doses were administered in the Campania Region, of which 6,509,475 (51.28%) were in females and mostly related to the Pfizer-BioNtech vaccine (65.05%), followed by Moderna (24.31%), Oxford-AstraZeneca (9.71%), Janssen (0.91%), and Novavax (0.02%) vaccines. A total of 641 ICSRs with COVID-19 vaccines and vascular events were retrieved from the RNF for the Campania Region, of which 453 (70.67%) were in females. Most ICSRs reported the Pfizer-BioNtech vaccine (65.05%), followed by Oxford-AstraZeneca (9.71%), Moderna (24.31%), and Janssen (0.91%). A total of 2451 events were reported in the ICSRs (3.8 events for ICSRs), of which 292 were thromboembolic events. The higher RRs of thromboembolic events were found with the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine (RR: 4.62, 95%CI: 3.50-5.99) and Janssen vaccine (RR: 3.45, 95%CI: 0.94-8.82). Thromboembolic events were associated with a higher likelihood of exposure to the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine compared to Pfizer-BioNtech (OR: 6.06; 95%CI: 4.22-8.68) and Moderna vaccines (OR: 6.46; 95%CI: 4.00-10.80). CONCLUSION: We observed a higher reporting of thromboembolic events with viral-vector-based vaccines (Oxford-AstraZeneca and Janssen) and an increased likelihood of being exposed to the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine compared to the mRNA vaccines (Pfizer-BioNtech and Moderna) among thromboembolic cases.

Decolonization of drug-resistant Enterobacteriaceae carriers: A scoping review of the literature.

The ESCMID-EUCIC guideline on decolonization of multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria carriers does not recommend routine decolonization and highlights the necessity of well-powered and designed randomized clinical trials. Based on this limited evidence, we decided to conduct a scoping review with the aim of describing and discussing the last published studies investigating the efficacy and safety of decolonization therapies in drug-resistant Enterobacteriaceae carriers. Studies published in PubMed from January 1, 2017 to December 28, 2021 were retrieved. A PICO (population, intervention, comparator, outcome) framework was used for article selection as follows: Population defined as any patient of any age in any setting with screening sample yielding for drug-resistant Enterobacteriaceae; Intervention defined as any decolonization; Controls defined as patients receiving no intervention (spontaneous decolonization) or a different decolonization therapy; Outcomes defined as a microbiological, clinical, epidemiological and adverse event. A total of 679 records were initially identified, of which 647 were excluded because they were not related to decolonization therapies. Other 18 records were excluded because not related to our aims, target bacteria, or study design. A total of 12 clinical studies were included, of which 4 were randomized clinical trials and 8 were non-randomized studies. The majority of studies evaluated selective decontamination of the digestive tract or selective oropharyngeal decontamination regimens. Selected studies were characterized by high heterogeneity. Further high-quality studies with proper design and sample size calculation are warranted.

Casirivimab/imdevimab + remdesivir in hospitalized patients with severe Covid-19: A single centre experience.

Since 2020, COVID-19 pandemic has spread worldwide causing a huge number of cases and casualties. Among direct anti SARS-CoV-2 agents available for the treatment of COVID-19, only remdesivir and casirivimab/imdevimab have been approved for severe disease. As they act at different levels in blocking viral replication, it is theoretically possible to combine them. In this case series we describe tolerability, safety and effectiveness in a small group of 14 patients of the combination of casirivimab/imdevimab monoclonal antibodies with the polymerase inhibitor remdesivir for the treatment of severe COVID-19. We conducted a retrospective study among consecutive patients admitted to the Infectious Disease ward of the University of Naples (Italy) Hospital for COVID-19 that received the combination of casirivimab/imdevimab and remdesivir for the treatment of severe COVID-19 from the August 1, 2021 to the November 30, 2021. During the study period, 78 patients were admitted for severe COVID-19. Fourteen patients (18%) received the combination casirivimab/imdevimab and remdesivir. They were five males and nine females with a median age of 54 years. Eight patients had significant comorbidities; three patients were in the immediate post-partum period. No adverse drug reaction was observed. All patients except one improved clinical condition and respiratory parameters within seven days following the therapy. All patients were discharged in good conditions.

Do Benzodiazepines Impair Motor and Nonmotor Symptoms in a Sample of Parkinson's Disease Patients?

Background Anxiety and sleep disturbances are prevalent in Parkinson's disease (PD). Benzodiazepines (BZDs) are commonly used to treat these symptoms; however, they are associated with unfavorable side effects such as falls and cognitive slowing in the general non-PD population. Examining the effects of BZDs in PD is imperative as these medications could pose an increased risk to PD patients who are already vulnerable to falls and cognitive deficits. Methods Eighty-four patients diagnosed with idiopathic PD, of which 60% were Hispanic, underwent clinical evaluations including the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) and comprehensive neuropsychological testing examining global cognition, language, visuospatial skills, memory, executive function, mood, and sleep quality. Thirty-six patients taking BZDs (BZD+) were compared to forty-eight patients not using any BZDs (BZD-) employing appropriate statistical tests depending on the measures' characteristics. Results BZD+ PD patients performed below the BZD- group on short-term memory but not on delayed recall, and performed better on a measure of visuospatial judgment. The BZD+ group endorsed more symptoms of anxiety and depression as well as poorer sleep quality. No significant differences were noted on other measures of cognition or motor function. Conclusion PD patients taking BZDs may experience select changes in cognition and mood. These changes are isolated and mild, and suggest that for some patients, BZDs may be a viable pharmacologic intervention that does not alter cognitive and motor function compared to those not taking these medications.

Revisiting eligibility for deep brain stimulation: Do preoperative mood symptoms predict outcomes in Parkinson's disease patients?

INTRODUCTION: Anxiety and depression are common in PD, occurring in an estimated 30%-40% of PD patients. However, the extent to which these emotional symptoms interfere with Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) outcomes is not well established. This study examined the association between pre-operative emotional well-being and postsurgical cognitive, emotional, and motor performance in PD. METHODS: Forty-nine PD patients underwent neurological, neuropsychological (global cognition, processing speed, language, visuospatial, memory), and emotional assessments pre- and post-DBS. Fifteen patients were administered the UPDRS. Patients were divided into Anxious (Anx; n = 21), Comorbid Anxious and Depressed (Anx + Dep; n = 15), and Emotionally Asymptomatic (EA; n = 13) based on BAI and BDI-II cutoffs, and compared on pre-post changes in neurocognitive, mood, and motor scores using analyses of covariance (ANCOVA), controlling for education, ethnicity, and disease duration. RESULTS: Pre-DBS, there were no significant differences between the three groups on any neuropsychological measure. Overall change from pre-to post-DBS revealed declines on multiple cognitive measures and lower symptom endorsement on the BAI among all participants. No group differences were observed on neurocognitive measures, mood, or UPDRS. CONCLUSIONS: PD patients with mild-moderate anxiety or comorbid anxiety/depression pre-DBS do not show greater cognitive, emotional, and motor changes post-DBS compared to emotionally asymptomatic patients. These data emphasize the importance of discussing potential DBS outcomes, while keeping in mind that psychiatric comorbidity should not necessarily exclude patients from DBS. The notion that premorbid mood symptoms could disqualify a candidate for surgery would be a disservice, as this group performs comparably to asymptomatic peers.