Anatomical barriers against SARS-CoV-2 neuroinvasion at vulnerable interfaces visualized in deceased COVID-19 patients.

Can SARS-CoV-2 hitchhike on the olfactory projection and take a direct and short route from the nose into the brain? We reasoned that the neurotropic or neuroinvasive capacity of the virus, if it exists, should be most easily detectable in individuals who died in an acute phase of the infection. Here, we applied a postmortem bedside surgical procedure for the rapid procurement of tissue, blood, and cerebrospinal fluid samples from deceased COVID-19 patients infected with the Delta, Omicron BA.1, or Omicron BA.2 variants. Confocal imaging of sections stained with fluorescence RNAscope and immunohistochemistry afforded the light-microscopic visualization of extracellular SARS-CoV-2 virions in tissues. We failed to find evidence for viral invasion of the parenchyma of the olfactory bulb and the frontal lobe of the brain. Instead, we identified anatomical barriers at vulnerable interfaces, exemplified by perineurial olfactory nerve fibroblasts enwrapping olfactory axon fascicles in the lamina propria of the olfactory mucosa.

Clinical cure rate and cost-effectiveness of carbapenem-sparing beta-lactams vs. meropenem for Gram-negative infections: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and cost-effectiveness analysis.

The increasing incidence of infections caused by extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)/AmpC-producing bacteria leads to increasing use of carbapenems and risk of carbapenem resistance. Treatment success of carbapenem-sparing beta-lactams (CSBs) for ESBL infections is unclear. The aim of this study was to appraise the clinical cure rate and estimate the cost-effectiveness of meropenem vs. CSBs (piperacillin-tazobactam, temocillin, ceftazidime-avibactam, and ceftolozane-tazobactam) for urinary tract infections (UTIs) or intra-abdominal infections (IAIs) due to ESBL/AmpC-producing bacteria. A systematic literature search of the Cochrane library, EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science was conducted to identify studies assessing the clinical cure rate of the antibiotics. To assess the cost-effectiveness of CSBs vs. meropenem, a combined decision analytic and Markov model was probabilistically analysed over a 5-year period. The main outcome was presented as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and evaluated with a threshold of €20 000 per life year gained (LYG). From 656 identified articles, 17 and 14 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis and quantitative synthesis, respectively. A clinical cure of ceftazidime-avibactam and ceftolozane-tazobactam was comparable to meropenem in patients with complicated IAIs (cIAIs) due to ESBL (Risk ratio [RR]=1·04, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0·95-1·13). Both temocillin and ceftolozane-tazobactam were deemed cost-effective compared to meropenem with €157·58 and €13 398·34 per LYG, respectively, in patients with UTIs due to ESBL. However, only ceftazidime-avibactam (plus metronidazole) was cost-effective for the treatment of IAIs, with €16 916·77 per LYG. These results show that several CSBs can be considered as viable candidates for the treatment of UTIs and IAIs caused by ESBL.