Guidelines for Diagnosis and Management of Infective Endocarditis in Adults: A WikiGuidelines Group Consensus Statement.

Importance: Practice guidelines often provide recommendations in which the strength of the recommendation is dissociated from the quality of the evidence. Objective: To create a clinical guideline for the diagnosis and management of adult bacterial infective endocarditis (IE) that addresses the gap between the evidence and recommendation strength. Evidence Review: This consensus statement and systematic review applied an approach previously established by the WikiGuidelines Group to construct collaborative clinical guidelines. In April 2022 a call to new and existing members was released electronically (social media and email) for the next WikiGuidelines topic, and subsequently, topics and questions related to the diagnosis and management of adult bacterial IE were crowdsourced and prioritized by vote. For each topic, PubMed literature searches were conducted including all years and languages. Evidence was reported according to the WikiGuidelines charter: clear recommendations were established only when reproducible, prospective, controlled studies provided hypothesis-confirming evidence. In the absence of such data, clinical reviews were crafted discussing the risks and benefits of different approaches. Findings: A total of 51 members from 10 countries reviewed 587 articles and submitted information relevant to 4 sections: establishing the diagnosis of IE (9 questions); multidisciplinary IE teams (1 question); prophylaxis (2 questions); and treatment (5 questions). Of 17 unique questions, a clear recommendation could only be provided for 1 question: 3 randomized clinical trials have established that oral transitional therapy is at least as effective as intravenous (IV)-only therapy for the treatment of IE. Clinical reviews were generated for the remaining questions. Conclusions and Relevance: In this consensus statement that applied the WikiGuideline method for clinical guideline development, oral transitional therapy was at least as effective as IV-only therapy for the treatment of IE. Several randomized clinical trials are underway to inform other areas of practice, and further research is needed.

Choosing patients over placebos: oral transitional therapy vs. IV-only therapy for bacteraemia and infective endocarditis.

BACKGROUND: The belief that antibiotics must be administered intravenously (IV) to treat bacteraemia and endocarditis has its origins 70 years ago and has engrained itself in the psyche of the medical community and the public at large. This has led to hesitancy in adopting evidence-based strategies utilizing oral transitional therapy for the treatment of these infections. We aim to reframe the narrative around this debate, focusing on patient safety over vestigial psychology. OBJECTIVES: This narrative review summarizes the current state of the literature regarding the use of oral transitional therapy for the treatment of bacteraemia and infective endocarditis, focusing on studies comparing it to the traditional, IV-only approach. SOURCES: Relevant studies and abstracts from PubMed reviewed in April 2023. CONTENT: Treating bacteraemia with oral transitional therapy has been studied in 9 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), totalling 625 patients, as well as numerous large, retrospective cohorts, including 3 published in the last 5 years alone, totalling 4763 patients. We identified 3 large, retrospective cohort studies; one quasi-experimental, pre-post study, and 3 RCTs of patients with endocarditis, totalling 748 patients in the retrospective cohorts and 815 patients in prospective, controlled studies. In all these studies, no worse outcomes were observed in the oral transitional therapy arm as compared with IV-only therapy. The main difference has consistently been longer durations of inpatient hospitalization and increased risk of catheter-related adverse events like venous thrombosis and line-associated blood stream infections in the IV-only groups. IMPLICATIONS: There are ample data showing that choosing oral therapy reduces hospital stay and has fewer adverse events for patients than IV-only therapy, all with similar or better outcomes. In selected patients, choosing IV-only therapy may serve more as an anxiolytic "placebo" for the patient and provider rather than a necessity for treating the actual infection.

Real-World Application of Oral Therapy for Infective Endocarditis: A Multicenter, Retrospective, Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: We sought to compare the outcomes of patients treated with intravenous (IV)-only vs oral transitional antimicrobial therapy for infective endocarditis (IE) after implementing a new expected practice within the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services (LAC DHS). METHODS: We conducted a multicentered, retrospective cohort study of adults with definite or possible IE treated with IV-only vs oral therapy at the 3 acute care public hospitals in the LAC DHS system between December 2018 and June 2022. The primary outcome was clinical success at 90 days, defined as being alive and without recurrence of bacteremia or treatment-emergent infectious complications. RESULTS: We identified 257 patients with IE treated with IV-only (n = 211) or oral transitional (n = 46) therapy who met study inclusion criteria. Study arms were similar for many demographics; however, the IV cohort was older, had more aortic valve involvement, were hemodialysis patients, and had central venous catheters present. In contrast, the oral cohort had a higher percentage of IE caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. There was no significant difference between the groups in clinical success at 90 days or last follow-up. There was no difference in recurrence of bacteremia or readmission rates. However, patients treated with oral therapy had significantly fewer adverse events. Multivariable regression adjustments did not find significant associations between any selected variables and clinical success across treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate similar outcomes of real-world use of oral vs IV-only therapy for IE, in accord with prior randomized, controlled trials and meta-analyses.

Mpox in people with advanced HIV infection: a global case series.

BACKGROUND: People living with HIV have accounted for 38-50% of those affected in the 2022 multicountry mpox outbreak. Most reported cases were in people who had high CD4 cell counts and similar outcomes to those without HIV. Emerging data suggest worse clinical outcomes and higher mortality in people with more advanced HIV. We describe the clinical characteristics and outcomes of mpox in a cohort of people with HIV and low CD4 cell counts (CD4 <350 cells per mm3). METHODS: A network of clinicians from 19 countries provided data of confirmed mpox cases between May 11, 2022, and Jan 18, 2023, in people with HIV infection. Contributing centres completed deidentified structured case report sheets to include variables of interest relevant to people living with HIV and to capture more severe outcomes. We restricted this series to include only adults older than 18 years living with HIV and with a CD4 cell count of less than 350 cells per mm3 or, in settings where a CD4 count was not always routinely available, an HIV infection clinically classified as US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stage C. We describe their clinical presentation, complications, and causes of death. Analyses were descriptive. FINDINGS: We included data of 382 cases: 367 cisgender men, four cisgender women, and ten transgender women. The median age of individuals included was 35 (IQR 30-43) years. At mpox diagnosis, 349 (91%) individuals were known to be living with HIV; 228 (65%) of 349 adherent to antiretroviral therapy (ART); 32 (8%) of 382 had a concurrent opportunistic illness. The median CD4 cell count was 211 (IQR 117-291) cells per mm3, with 85 (22%) individuals with CD4 cell counts of less than 100 cells per mm3 and 94 (25%) with 100-200 cells per mm3. Overall, 193 (51%) of 382 had undetectable viral load. Severe complications were more common in people with a CD4 cell count of less than 100 cells per mm3 than in those with more than 300 cells per mm3, including necrotising skin lesions (54% vs 7%), lung involvement (29% vs 0%) occasionally with nodules, and secondary infections and sepsis (44% vs 9%). Overall, 107 (28%) of 382 were hospitalised, of whom 27 (25%) died. All deaths occurred in people with CD4 counts of less than 200 cells per mm3. Among people with CD4 counts of less than 200 cells per mm3, more deaths occurred in those with high HIV viral load. An immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome to mpox was suspected in 21 (25%) of 85 people initiated or re-initiated on ART, of whom 12 (57%) of 21 died. 62 (16%) of 382 received tecovirimat and seven (2%) received cidofovir or brincidofovir. Three individuals had laboratory confirmation of tecovirimat resistance. INTERPRETATION: A severe necrotising form of mpox in the context of advanced immunosuppression appears to behave like an AIDS-defining condition, with a high prevalence of fulminant dermatological and systemic manifestations and death. FUNDING: None.

Monkeypox: Clinical Considerations, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Diagnostics.

Monkeypox virus (MPXV) has garnered recent attention as outbreaks are continually reported outside historic regions of endemicity in Africa. Consequently, MPXV is becoming routinely included in the differential diagnosis of rash illnesses, requiring clinicians and laboratorians alike to quickly adapt to a new public health emergency. This review discusses the epidemiology, clinical presentation, and laboratory testing of MPXV in the context of recent outbreaks.

How to change the course: practical aspects of implementing shorter is better.

BACKGROUND: Based on multiple randomized-controlled clinical trials, shorter antibiotic courses are equally effective as traditional longer courses for many types of infections. However, longer courses are still being used widely in the clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: To describe four components involved in the successful implementation of shorter antibiotic courses in our health care institutions, including an academic, public hospital and a community hospital staffed primarily by private practitioners. SOURCES: Clinical trials and peer-reviewed publications. CONTENT: We provide practical advice on how to support the change in clinical practice to shorten antibiotic duration. Specifically, we list the steps that we have successfully used to develop and implement an institutional practice change regarding the duration of antibiotic therapy: (a) establishing consensus documents outlining a data-driven expected practice for using antibiotics, (b) antibiotic stewardship programme support, (c) provider education, and (d) reinforcing behaviour through psychological and other tools. The implementation of these processes has successfully led to shorter antibiotic courses and decreased antibiotic use in our diverse practice settings. IMPLICATIONS: Intentional improvement in decreasing the duration of antibiotic therapy can be achieved by a specific antibiotic stewardship programme strategy and tactics. The implementation of shorter antibiotic courses has effects at individual and societal levels in an era of increasing antibacterial resistance and health care costs.

Use of Novel Strategies to Develop Guidelines for Management of Pyogenic Osteomyelitis in Adults: A WikiGuidelines Group Consensus Statement.

Importance: Traditional approaches to practice guidelines frequently result in dissociation between strength of recommendation and quality of evidence. Objective: To construct a clinical guideline for pyogenic osteomyelitis management, with a new standard of evidence to resolve the gap between strength of recommendation and quality of evidence, through the use of a novel open access approach utilizing social media tools. Evidence Review: This consensus statement and systematic review study used a novel approach from the WikiGuidelines Group, an open access collaborative research project, to construct clinical guidelines for pyogenic osteomyelitis. In June 2021 and February 2022, authors recruited via social media conducted multiple PubMed literature searches, including all years and languages, regarding osteomyelitis management; criteria for article quality and inclusion were specified in the group's charter. The GRADE system for evaluating evidence was not used based on previously published concerns regarding the potential dissociation between strength of recommendation and quality of evidence. Instead, the charter required that clear recommendations be made only when reproducible, prospective, controlled studies provided hypothesis-confirming evidence. In the absence of such data, clinical reviews were drafted to discuss pros and cons of care choices. Both clear recommendations and clinical reviews were planned with the intention to be regularly updated as new data become available. Findings: Sixty-three participants with diverse expertise from 8 countries developed the group's charter and its first guideline on pyogenic osteomyelitis. These participants included both nonacademic and academic physicians and pharmacists specializing in general internal medicine or hospital medicine, infectious diseases, orthopedic surgery, pharmacology, and medical microbiology. Of the 7 questions addressed in the guideline, 2 clear recommendations were offered for the use of oral antibiotic therapy and the duration of therapy. In addition, 5 clinical reviews were authored addressing diagnosis, approaches to osteomyelitis underlying a pressure ulcer, timing for the administration of empirical therapy, specific antimicrobial options (including empirical regimens, use of antimicrobials targeting resistant pathogens, the role of bone penetration, and the use of rifampin as adjunctive therapy), and the role of biomarkers and imaging to assess responses to therapy. Conclusions and Relevance: The WikiGuidelines approach offers a novel methodology for clinical guideline development that precludes recommendations based on low-quality data or opinion. The primary limitation is the need for more rigorous clinical investigations, enabling additional clear recommendations for clinical questions currently unresolved by high-quality data.

SARS-CoV-2 cycle threshold (Ct) values predict future COVID-19 cases.

AIM: Anticipating local surges in COVID-19 cases has predominantly been based on observation of increasing cases. We sought to determine if temporal trends in SARS-CoV-2 Cycle threshold (Ct) values from clinical testing were predictive of future cases. METHODS: Data were collected from a large, safety-net hospital in Los Angeles, California. Ct values for all SARS-CoV-2 detections by the GeneXpert system (Cepheid) between October 2020 to March 2021 were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 2,114 SARS-CoV-2-positive samples were included. Cases increased dramatically in December 2020, peaking the first week of January, before returning to pre-surge numbers by mid-February. Ct values fell during this same period, with values in December and January (25.6 ± 7.8 and 27±7.9, respectively) significantly lower than those of the other months (30±9.3 to 37.7 ± 6.3). Average weekly Ct values for all patients negatively correlated with the number of tests run two weeks in the future (r= -0.74, p<0.0001), whereas Ct values for asymptomatic patients negatively correlated most strongly with total number of tests performed one month later (r= -0.88, p<0.0001). Predictive modeling using these Ct values correctly predicted whether cases would increase or decrease 65% of the time for a subsequent surge (May-July 2021). CONCLUSIONS: During the largest COVID-19 surge in Los Angeles to date, we observed significantly lower Ct values (representing higher levels of viral RNA) suggesting that increased transmission of COVID-19 was temporarily associated with higher viral loads. Decreasing Ct values appear to be a leading indicator for predicting future COVID-19 cases, which can facilitate improved hospital-level surge planning.

Factors Associated With Hospitalization Among Breast Cancer Patients With COVID-19: A Diverse Multi-Center Los Angeles Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The SARS-CoV-2 virus has infected and killed millions of people worldwide. Breast cancer is the most prevalent cancer in women and few studies have investigated the outcomes of patients with a history of breast cancer and COVID-19. We report the clinical outcomes of patients with invasive breast cancer who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, including hospitalization and death, and evaluate demographic and cancer-related factors associated with these outcomes. PATIENTS: Patients with a history of invasive breast cancer and positive SARS-CoV-2 test from January 1 to December 31, 2020 at two large, academic Los Angeles health systems were included. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of the electronic medical record was performed. Data for demographic and cancer-related factors were manually abstracted. Relationships between outcomes and clinical variables were evaluated using Fisher's exact test and linear regression analysis. RESULTS: Among a total of 132 patients, 40 (30.3%) were hospitalized, while 11 (8.3%) required intensive care support, and 8 patients (6.1%) died. Older age and presence of one or more additional comorbidities were associated with hospitalization and death (P = .010, P = .003, P = .034, P < .001). Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity was associated with hospitalization (P = .047). Cancer treatment was not associated with hospitalization or death. CONCLUSION: In our diverse, multi-center, breast cancer cohort, Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity, older age and presence of other comorbidities were associated with worse outcomes from COVID-19. Breast cancer treatment, including surgery, radiation, systemic therapy, and endocrine therapy, was not associated with hospitalization in our cohort. Further studies are needed to explore the relationship between breast cancer and COVID-19 outcomes.

Fosfomycin vs Ertapenem for Outpatient Treatment of Complicated Urinary Tract Infections: A Multicenter, Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: We sought to determine the comparative efficacy of fosfomycin vs ertapenem for outpatient treatment of complicated urinary tract infections (cUTIs). METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, retrospective cohort study involving patients with cUTI treated with outpatient oral fosfomycin vs intravenous ertapenem at 3 public hospitals in Los Angeles County between January 2018 and September 2020. The primary outcome was resolution of clinical symptoms 30 days after diagnosis. RESULTS: We identified 322 patients with cUTI treated with fosfomycin (n = 110) or ertapenem (n = 212) meeting study criteria. The study arms had similar demographics, although patients treated with ertapenem more frequently had pyelonephritis or bacteremia while fosfomycin-treated patients had more retained catheters, nephrolithiasis, or urinary obstruction. Most infections were due to extended-spectrum ß-lactamase-producing E. coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae, 80%-90% of which were resistant to other oral options. Adjusted odds ratios for clinical success at 30 days, clinical success at last follow-up, and relapse were 1.21 (95% CI, 0.68-2.16), 0.84 (95% CI, 0.46-1.52), and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.52-1.70) for fosfomycin vs ertapenem, respectively. Patients treated with fosfomycin had significant reductions in length of hospital stay and length of antimicrobial therapy and fewer adverse events (1 vs 10). Fosfomycin outcomes were similar irrespective of duration of lead-in intravenous (IV) therapy or fosfomycin dosing interval (daily, every other day, every third day). CONCLUSIONS: These results would support the conduct of a randomized controlled trial to verify efficacy. In the meantime, they suggest that fosfomycin may be a reasonable stepdown from IV antibiotics for cUTI.

Effect of mortality from COVID-19 on inpatient outcomes.

When hospitals first encountered coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), there was a dearth of therapeutic options and nearly 1 in 3 patients died from the disease. By the summer of 2020, as deaths from the disease declined nationally, multiple single-center studies began to report declining mortality of patients with COVID-19. To evaluate the effect of COVID-19 on hospital-based mortality, we searched the Vizient Clinical Data Base for outcomes data from approximately 600 participating hospitals, including 130 academic medical centers, from January 2017 through December 2020. More than 32 million hospital admissions were included in the analysis. After an initial spike, mortality from COVID-19 declined in all regions of the country to under 10% by June 2020 and remained constant for the remainder of the year. Despite this, inpatient, all-cause mortality has increased since the beginning of the pandemic, even those without respiratory failure. Inpatient mortality has particularly increased in elderly patients and in those requiring intubation for respiratory failure. Since June 2020, COVID-19 kills one in every 10 patients admitted to the hospital with this diagnosis. The addition of this new disease has raised overall hospital mortality especially those who require intubation for respiratory failure.

Oral Is the New IV. Challenging Decades of Blood and Bone Infection Dogma: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: We sought to determine if controlled, prospective clinical data validate the long-standing belief that intravenous (IV) antibiotic therapy is required for the full duration of treatment for 3 invasive bacterial infections: osteomyelitis, bacteremia, and infective endocarditis. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of published, prospective, controlled trials that compared IV-only to oral stepdown regimens in the treatment of these diseases. Using the PubMed database, we identified 7 relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of osteomyelitis, 9 of bacteremia, 1 including both osteomyelitis and bacteremia, and 3 of endocarditis, as well as one quasi-experimental endocarditis study. Study results were synthesized via forest plots and funnel charts (for risk of study bias), using RevMan 5.4.1 and Meta-Essentials freeware, respectively. RESULTS: The 21 studies demonstrated either no difference in clinical efficacy, or superiority of oral versus IV-only antimicrobial therapy, including for mortality; in no study was IV-only treatment superior in efficacy. The frequency of catheter-related adverse events and duration of inpatient hospitalization were both greater in IV-only groups. DISCUSSION: Numerous prospective, controlled investigations demonstrate that oral antibiotics are at least as effective, safer, and lead to shorter hospitalizations than IV-only therapy; no contrary data were identified. Treatment guidelines should be modified to indicate that oral therapy is appropriate for reasonably selected patients with osteomyelitis, bacteremia, and endocarditis.

Mortality and Readmission Rates Among Patients With COVID-19 After Discharge From Acute Care Setting With Supplemental Oxygen.

Importance: To optimize patient outcomes and preserve critical acute care access during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services developed the SAFE @ HOME O2 Expected Practice (expected practice), enabling ambulatory oxygen management for COVID-19. Objective: To assess outcomes of patients with COVID-19 pneumonia discharged via the expected practice approach to home or quarantine housing with supplemental home oxygen. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study included 621 adult patients with COVID-19 pneumonia who were discharged from 2 large urban public hospitals caring primarily for patients receiving Medicaid from March 20 to August 19, 2020. Patients were included in the analysis cohort if they received emergency or inpatient care for COVID-19 and were discharged with home oxygen. Interventions: Patients receiving at least 3 L per minute of oxygen, stable without other indication for inpatient care, were discharged from either emergency or inpatient encounters with home oxygen equipment, educational resources, and nursing telephone follow-up within 12 to 18 hours of discharge. Nurses provided continued telephone follow up as indicated, always with physician back-up. Main Outcomes and Measures: All-cause mortality and all-cause 30-day return admission. Results: A total of 621 patients with COVID-19 pneumonia (404 male [65.1%] and 217 female [34.9%]) were discharged with home oxygen. Median age of these patients was 51 years (interquartile range, 45-61 years), with 149 (24.0%) discharged from the emergency department and 472 (76%) discharged from inpatient encounters. The all-cause mortality rate was 1.3% (95% CI, 0.6%-2.5%) and the 30-day return hospital admission rate was 8.5% (95% CI, 6.2%-10.7%) with a median follow-up time of 26 days (interquartile range, 15-55 days). No deaths occurred in the ambulatory setting. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, patients with COVID-19 pneumonia discharged on home oxygen had low rates of mortality and return admission within 30 days of discharge. Ambulatory management of COVID-19 with home oxygen has an acceptable safety profile, and the expected practice approach may help optimize outcomes, by ensuring right care in the right place at the right time and preserving access to acute care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

A Comparison of Methylprednisolone and Dexamethasone in Intensive Care Patients With COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: This study retrospectively compares the effectiveness of methylprednisolone to dexamethasone in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19) requiring intensive care. DESIGN: This is an institutional review board approved cohort study in patients with COVID-19 requiring intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Patients admitted and requiring oxygen supplementation were treated with no steroids, methylprednisolone, or dexamethasone. SETTING: This study takes place in the ICU's at a large, tertiary, public teaching hospital serving a primarily low-income community in urban Los Angeles. PATIENTS: All eligible patients admitted to the ICU for COVID-19 respiratory failure from March 1 to July 31, 2020 were included in this study. INTERVENTIONS: A total of 262 patients were grouped as receiving usual care (n = 75), methylprednisolone dosed at least at 1mg/kg/day for ≥ 3 days (n = 104), or dexamethasone dosed at least at 6 mg for ≥7 days (n = 83). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: All-cause mortality within 50 days of initial corticosteroid treatment as compared to usual care was calculated. The mortality effect was then stratified based on levels of respiratory support received by the patient. In this cohort of 262 patients with severe COVID-19, all-cause mortalities in the usual care, methylprednisolone, and dexamethasone groups were 41.3%, 16.4% and 26.5% at 50 days (P < 0.01) respectively. In patients requiring mechanical ventilation, mortality was 42% lower in the methylprednisolone group than in the dexamethasone group (hazard ratio 0.48, 95% CI: 0.235-0.956, P = 0.0385). CONCLUSIONS: In COVID-19 patients requiring mechanical ventilation, sufficiently dosed methylprednisolone can lead to a further decreased mortality as compared to dexamethasone.

Reducing Catheter-associated Urinary Tract Infections via Cost-saving Diagnostic Stewardship.

We conducted a quality improvement project at our large, public, tertiary-care, academic hospital to reduce the standardized infection ratio (SIR) of hospital-acquired catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs). Our diagnostic stewardship program, based on education and audit and feedback, significantly reduced inpatient urine culture orders and CAUTI SIR.

Impact of COVID-19 infection among cancer patients treated at the Los Angeles County Medical Center.

We conducted a retrospective analysis of cancer patients who presented to the hospital with COVID-19 infection at a safety-net hospital in Los Angeles, California, from March 2020 to June 2020. From a list of 1,163 COVID-19+ adult patients, we selected the first 50 patients with malignancy for a preliminary analysis. There were 23 males (46.0%) and 27 females (54.0%); the median age was 60.5 years (IQR 47 - 72). Thirty-nine (78.0%) of the patients were Hispanic. The most prevalent cancers were genitourinary (14, 28.0%), hematologic (11, 22.0%), and gastrointestinal (10, 20.0%). Twenty-one (42.0%) patients had active disease at COVID-19 diagnosis, while 25 (50.0%) had no evidence of disease (NED), and 4 (8.0%) were unknown. Over 1 in 3 admitted patients experienced a "severe outcome," which was defined as critical level care (14, 34.1%), use of vasopressors (9, 22.0%), intubation (8, 19.5%), or death (5, 12.2%). Patients with severe outcomes were found to have statistically higher values of absolute neutrophil count (p = 0.005), aspartate aminotransferase (p = 0.049), high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, (p = 0.001) and lactate dehydrogenase (p = 0.040) on admission. Overall survival (OS) was not statistically different between those with hematologic versus solid malignancy nor between those with active disease versus remission (both p>0.05). Thirteen (81.3%) of the 16 patients who had cancer treatment in 2020 experienced delays in cancer therapy. Additional cases are being evaluated as the pandemic continues with the goal of identifying areas for potential intervention to improve outcomes in this at-risk population.

Pharmacology, Dosing, and Side Effects of Rifabutin as a Possible Therapy for Antibiotic-Resistant Acinetobacter Infections.

Acinetobacter baumannii has among the highest rates of antibiotic resistance encountered in hospitals. New therapies are critically needed. We found that rifabutin has previously unrecognized hyperactivity against most strains of A. baumannii. Here we review the pharmacology and adverse effects of rifabutin to inform potential oral dosing strategies in patients with A. baumannii infections. Rifabutin demonstrates dose-dependent increases in blood levels up to 900 mg per day, but plateaus thereafter. Furthermore, rifabutin induces its own metabolism after prolonged dosing, lowering its blood levels. Pending future development of an intravenous formulation, a rifabutin oral dose of 900-1200 mg per day for 1 week is a rational choice for adjunctive therapy of A. baumannii infections. This dosage maximizes AUC24 to drive efficacy while simultaneously minimizing toxicity. Randomized controlled trials will be needed to definitively establish the safety and efficacy of rifabutin to treat A. baumannii infections.

A needle in the haystack? Assessing the significance of envelope (E) gene-negative, nucleocapsid (N2) gene-positive SARS-CoV-2 detection by the Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-COV-2 assay.

The clinical significance of high crossing threshold (Ct) detection of SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR is inadequately defined. In the course of universal admission screening with the Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay at our institution, we observed that 3.9 % (44/1123) of SARS-CoV-2 positive results were negative for the envelope (E) gene target but positive for the nucleocapsid (N2) target. The overall SARS-CoV-2 positivity rate during the three-month study period was 15.4 % (1123/7285), spanning April-June 2020. The majority of patients with E-negative, N2-positive results were asymptomatic, with 29.5 % of patients symptomatic for COVID-19 at the time of presentation. Asymptomatic patients with E-negative, N2-positive results were significantly younger than symptomatic patients with the same results (average 37.6 vs. 58.4, p = 0.003). Similar proportions of prior SARS-CoV-2 positivity were noted among symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals (38.5 % vs. 33.3 %, p = 0.82). Among the 16 asymptomatic patients with radiographic imaging performed, four (25 %) had chest radiographic findings concerning for viral pneumonia. Interestingly, we observed an E-negative, N2-positive result in one patient with a previous SARS-CoV-2 by the Xpert Xpress that occurred 71 days prior. Critically, E-negative, N2-positive results were observed in 8 symptomatic patients with a new diagnosis of COVID-19. Thus, though concerns remain about extended SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positivity in some patients, the ability of clinical laboratories to detect patients with high Ct values (including E-negative, N2-positive results) is vital for retaining maximal sensitivity for diagnostic purposes. Our data show that a finding of E-positive, N2-negative SARS-CoV-2 should not be used to rule out the presence of subclinical infection.