Update on Outbreak of Fungal Meningitis among U.S. Residents who Received Epidural Anesthesia at Two Clinics in Matamoros, Mexico.

BACKGROUND: Public health officials are responding to an outbreak of fungal meningitis among patients who received procedures under epidural anesthesia at two clinics (River Side Surgical Center and Clinica K-3) in Matamoros, Mexico, during January 1-May 13, 2023. This report describes outbreak epidemiology and outlines interim diagnostic and treatment recommendations. METHODS: Interim recommendations for diagnosis and management were developed by the Mycoses Study Group Research Education and Consortium (MSGERC) based on the clinical experience of clinicians caring for patients during the current outbreak or during previous outbreaks of healthcare-associated fungal meningitis in Durango, Mexico, and the United States. RESULTS: As of July 7, 2023, the situation has evolved into a multistate and multinational fungal meningitis outbreak. A total of 185 residents in 22 U.S. states and jurisdictions have been identified who might be at risk of fungal meningitis because they received epidural anesthesia at the clinics of interest in 2023. Among these patients, 11 suspected, 10 probable, and 10 confirmed U.S. cases have been diagnosed, with severe vascular complications and eight deaths occurring. Fusarium solani species complex has been identified as the causative agent, with antifungal susceptibility testing of a single isolate demonstrating poor in vitro activity for most available antifungals. Currently, triple therapy with intravenous voriconazole, liposomal amphotericin B, and fosmanogepix is recommended. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts to understand the source of this outbreak and optimal treatment approaches are ongoing, but infectious diseases physicians should be aware of available treatment recommendations. New information will be available on CDC's website.

Efficacy of interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir compared with remdesivir alone in hospitalised adults with COVID-19: a double-bind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Functional impairment of interferon, a natural antiviral component of the immune system, is associated with the pathogenesis and severity of COVID-19. We aimed to compare the efficacy of interferon beta-1a in combination with remdesivir compared with remdesivir alone in hospitalised patients with COVID-19. METHODS: We did a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial at 63 hospitals across five countries (Japan, Mexico, Singapore, South Korea, and the USA). Eligible patients were hospitalised adults (aged ≥18 years) with SARS-CoV-2 infection, as confirmed by a positive RT-PCR test, and who met one of the following criteria suggestive of lower respiratory tract infection: the presence of radiographic infiltrates on imaging, a peripheral oxygen saturation on room air of 94% or less, or requiring supplemental oxygen. Patients were excluded if they had either an alanine aminotransferase or an aspartate aminotransferase concentration more than five times the upper limit of normal; had impaired renal function; were allergic to the study product; were pregnant or breast feeding; were already on mechanical ventilation; or were anticipating discharge from the hospital or transfer to another hospital within 72 h of enrolment. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous remdesivir as a 200 mg loading dose on day 1 followed by a 100 mg maintenance dose administered daily for up to 9 days and up to four doses of either 44 µg interferon beta-1a (interferon beta-1a group plus remdesivir group) or placebo (placebo plus remdesivir group) administered subcutaneously every other day. Randomisation was stratified by study site and disease severity at enrolment. Patients, investigators, and site staff were masked to interferon beta-1a and placebo treatment; remdesivir treatment was given to all patients without masking. The primary outcome was time to recovery, defined as the first day that a patient attained a category 1, 2, or 3 score on the eight-category ordinal scale within 28 days, assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as all randomised patients who were classified according to actual clinical severity. Safety was assessed in the as-treated population, defined as all patients who received at least one dose of the assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04492475. FINDINGS: Between Aug 5, 2020, and Nov 11, 2020, 969 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group (n=487) or to the placebo plus remdesivir group (n=482). The mean duration of symptoms before enrolment was 8·7 days (SD 4·4) in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group and 8·5 days (SD 4·3) days in the placebo plus remdesivir group. Patients in both groups had a time to recovery of 5 days (95% CI not estimable) (rate ratio of interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group vs placebo plus remdesivir 0·99 [95% CI 0·87-1·13]; p=0·88). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of mortality at 28 days was 5% (95% CI 3-7%) in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group and 3% (2-6%) in the placebo plus remdesivir group (hazard ratio 1·33 [95% CI 0·69-2·55]; p=0·39). Patients who did not require high-flow oxygen at baseline were more likely to have at least one related adverse event in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group (33 [7%] of 442 patients) than in the placebo plus remdesivir group (15 [3%] of 435). In patients who required high-flow oxygen at baseline, 24 (69%) of 35 had an adverse event and 21 (60%) had a serious adverse event in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group compared with 13 (39%) of 33 who had an adverse event and eight (24%) who had a serious adverse event in the placebo plus remdesivir group. INTERPRETATION: Interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir was not superior to remdesivir alone in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Patients who required high-flow oxygen at baseline had worse outcomes after treatment with interferon beta-1a compared with those given placebo. FUNDING: The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (USA).

Nosocomial outbreak of Exophiala jeanselmei fungemia associated with contamination of hospital water.

From December 1996 through September 1997, we diagnosed 19 cases of fungemia due to Exophiala jeanselmei. We conducted a matched case-control study in which we cultured specimens of blood products, intravenous solutions, and water from a hospital water system. Isolates from environmental cultures were compared to those recovered from patients by random amplification of polymorphic DNA (RAPD). Multivariate analysis showed that neutropenia, longer duration of hospitalization, and use of corticosteroids were risk factors for infection. Environmental cultures yielded E. jeanselmei from 3 of 85 sources: deionized water from the hospital pharmacy, 1 water tank, and water from a sink in a non-patient care area. Use of deionized pharmacy water to prepare antiseptic solutions was discontinued, and no additional cases of infection occurred. RAPD typing showed that isolates from case patients and isolates from the pharmacy water were highly related, whereas the patterns of isolates recovered from the 2 other sources of water were distinct.

Proteinase detection, DNA typing and antimycotic susceptibility of Candida isolates from Colombian women with vulvovaginal candidiasis.

Forty non-pregnant Colombian women (ages 18-45) with vulvovaginal candidiasis diagnosis (VVC) were enrolled in a blinded study to compare the efficacy of Itraconazole (ITRA) 400 mg vs. Fluconazole (FLU) 150 mg. Sexual partners received similar therapy. Proteinase detection by the Staib method and minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) for FLU and ITRA by Etest method were performed in all Candida isolates. Patients were followed one year to determine clinical evolution and recurrence of VVC (RVVC). The strain identity of the RVVC isolates was determined by contour-clamped homogeneous electric field (CHEF) gel electrophoresis karyotyping and restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP). Thirty patients (75%) had one or two episodes of VVC/year, 83% of these were due to Candida albicans, while ten patients (25%) developed RVVC (three or more episodes/year); seven of them were treated with FLU. Non-C. albicans Candida species were detected in five of 30 (17%) of the patients with VVC and in seven of ten (70%) patients with RVVC (p=0.003). Isolates from nineteen patients were proteinase positive. Proteinase production and type of treatment were not related to recurrence of VVC (p>0.05). DNA typing revealed that in this population RVVC might be due to the same strain, substrain shuffling or different strains and species.