Resistance to first-line antibiotic therapy among patients with uncomplicated acute cystitis in Melbourne, Australia: prevalence, predictors and clinical impact.

Background: Australian guidelines recommend trimethoprim or nitrofurantoin as first-line agents for uncomplicated urinary tract infections (UTIs). Laboratory surveillance indicates high rates of trimethoprim resistance among urinary bacterial isolates, but there are scant local clinical data about risk factors and impact of trimethoprim resistance. Objectives: To determine the prevalence, risk factors, mechanism and impact of resistance to first-line antibiotic therapy for uncomplicated UTIs in the community setting. Methods: A prospective observational study from October 2019 to November 2021 in four general practices in Melbourne, Australia. Female adult patients prescribed an antibiotic for suspected or confirmed uncomplicated acute cystitis were eligible. Primary outcome was urine isolates with resistance to trimethoprim and/or nitrofurantoin. Results: We recruited 87 participants across 102 UTI episodes with median (IQR) age of 63 (47-76) years. Escherichia coli was the most common uropathogen cultured (48/62; 77%); 27% (13/48) were resistant to trimethoprim (mediated by a dfrA gene) and none were resistant to nitrofurantoin. Isolates with resistance to a first-line therapy were more common among patients reporting a history of recurrent UTIs [risk ratio (RR): 2.08 (95% CI: 1.24-3.51)] and antibiotic use in the previous 6 months [RR: 1.89 (95% CI: 1.36-2.62)]. Uropathogen resistance to empirical therapy was not associated with worse clinical outcomes. Conclusions: Resistance to trimethoprim is common in uncomplicated UTIs in Australia but may not impact clinical outcomes. Further research is warranted on the appropriateness of trimethoprim as empirical therapy, particularly for patients with antimicrobial resistance risk factors.

Antimicrobial resistance and its detection in Staphylococcus saprophyticus urinary isolates.

The aim of this study was to describe the antibiotic susceptibility of clinical Staphylococcus saprophyticus isolates collected prospectively from urine specimens over a 2-month period from September to October 2022 at a single centre in Melbourne, Australia. Species identification was performed by MALDI-TOF MS. All isolates underwent phenotypic antibiotic susceptibility testing by disc diffusion using European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) and Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) guidelines and VITEK2, and mecA polymerase chain reaction. A total of 302 S. saprophyticus isolates from 298 patients were included in this study. Most specimens (91.1%) were referred by community general practitioners from non-hospitalised patients. Antimicrobial resistance to non-ß-lactam antibiotics was uncommon; trimethoprim susceptibility was 97%; trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, 98%; nitrofurantoin, 100%; and ciprofloxacin, 100% (100% ciprofloxacin susceptible, increased exposure by EUCAST breakpoints). Methicillin resistance (by mecA detection) was the most common form of urinary antibiotic resistance at 5.6%. VITEK2 susceptibility testing for methicillin resistance had a poor specificity of 61.8% (95% CI 55.8-67.4%) compared to mecA detection. These findings indicate that empiric antibiotic recommendations of trimethoprim, trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, and nitrofurantoin for treatment of urinary S. saprophyticus remain appropriate.

Efficacy of a Clinical Decision Rule to Enable Direct Oral Challenge in Patients With Low-Risk Penicillin Allergy: The PALACE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Fewer than 5% of patients labeled with a penicillin allergy are truly allergic. The standard of care to remove the penicillin allergy label in adults is specialized testing involving prick and intradermal skin testing followed by an oral challenge with penicillin. Skin testing is resource intensive, limits practice to specialist-trained physicians, and restricts the global population who could undergo penicillin allergy delabeling. Objective: To determine whether a direct oral penicillin challenge is noninferior to the standard of care of penicillin skin testing followed by an oral challenge in patients with a low-risk penicillin allergy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This parallel, 2-arm, noninferiority, open-label, multicenter, international randomized clinical trial occurred in 6 specialized centers, 3 in North America (US and Canada) and 3 in Australia, from June 18, 2021, to December 2, 2022. Eligible adults had a PEN-FAST score lower than 3. PEN-FAST is a prospectively derived and internationally validated clinical decision rule that enables point-of-care risk assessment for adults reporting penicillin allergies. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to either direct oral challenge with penicillin (intervention arm) or a standard-of-care arm of penicillin skin testing followed by oral challenge with penicillin (control arm). Main Outcome and Measure: The primary outcome was a physician-verified positive immune-mediated oral penicillin challenge within 1 hour postintervention in the intention-to-treat population. Noninferiority was achieved if a 1-sided 95% CI of the risk difference (RD) did not exceed 5 percentage points (pp). Results: A total of 382 adults were randomized, with 377 patients (median [IQR] age, 51 [35-65] years; 247 [65.5%] female) included in the analysis: 187 in the intervention group and 190 in the control group. Most patients had a PEN-FAST score of 0 or 1. The primary outcome occurred in 1 patient (0.5%) in the intervention group and 1 patient (0.5%) in the control group, with an RD of 0.0084 pp (90% CI, -1.22 to 1.24 pp). The 1-sided 95% CI was below the noninferiority margin of 5 pp. In the 5 days following the oral penicillin challenge, 9 immune-mediated adverse events were recorded in the intervention group and 10 in the control group (RD, -0.45 pp; 95% CI, -4.87 to 3.96 pp). No serious adverse events occurred. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, direct oral penicillin challenge in patients with a low-risk penicillin allergy was noninferior compared with standard-of-care skin testing followed by oral challenge. In patients with a low-risk history, direct oral penicillin challenge is a safe procedure to facilitate the removal of a penicillin allergy label. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04454229.

The Who, What, When, and Where of Inpatient Direct Oral Penicillin Challenge-Implications for Health Services Implementation.

Inpatient direct oral challenge programs are increasingly deployed as part of antimicrobial stewardship initiatives to reduce the burden and impacts of penicillin allergy labels on antibiotic prescribing. Using data from a prospective, multicenter cohort inpatient penicillin allergy program, we identify the key targets for delabeling to aid health service implementation.

Study protocol for PREPARE: a phase II feasibility/safety randomised controlled trial on PeRiopErative Penicillin AlleRgy TEsting.

INTRODUCTION: Patient-reported antibiotic allergy labels (AALs) are common. These labels have been demonstrated to have a negative impact on use of appropriate antibiotics and patient-related health outcomes. These patients are more likely to receive suboptimal antibiotics, have increased rates of surgical site infections and are more likely to be colonised with multidrug-resistant organisms. Increasing recognition that antibiotic allergy forms a key part of good antimicrobial stewardship has led to calls for greater access to antibiotic allergy assessment.PREPARE is a pilot randomised controlled trial of beta-lactam allergy assessment and point of care delabelling in perioperative patients utilising a validated antibiotic allergy assessment tool that has been repurposed into a smartphone application. The aim of the study is to assess the feasibility and safety of this approach in the perioperative outpatient setting. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Adult participants requiring elective surgery and are likely to require prophylactic intravenous antibiotics will be recruited. During the intervention phase, participants will be randomised to the intervention or control arm, with control patients receiving usual standard of care. Those randomised to intervention undertake a risk assessment via the smartphone application, with those deemed low risk proceeding to direct oral provocation with either a penicillin or cephalosporin. Study outcomes will be evaluated in the postintervention phase, 30 and 90 days after surgery.Feasibility of intervention delivery and recruitment will be reported as proportions with respective 95% CIs. Participants who experience an antibiotic adverse event will be reported by group with respective 95% CIs and compared using modified Poisson regression model with robust SE estimation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This protocol has received approval from the Austin Health human research and ethics committee, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia (HREC/17/Austin/575). Results will be disseminated via publication in peer-reviewed journals as well as presentation at international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12620001295932.

Penicillin Allergy Delabeling Program: an exploratory economic evaluation in the Australian context.

BACKGROUND: Internationally, clinical and economic advantages of low-risk penicillin delabelling have been explored, supporting changes to healthcare delivery systems where penicillin delabelling is embedded into inpatient usual care. AIMS: To determine if economic advantages of low-risk inpatient penicillin delabelling, described in the international literature, are realised in the Australian context. METHODS: This explorative economic evaluation had prospective patient data collection between January and August 2019, across two Australian health services. Part 1: determine the cost per effectively delabelled patient for Penicillin Allergy Delabeling Program inpatients (PADP cohort) compared with Outpatient Antibiotic Allergy Testing Service outpatients (OAATS cohort). Part 2: a cost analysis to compare hospital costs for inpatients with low-risk penicillin allergy who did (PADP cohort) and did not (usual care cohort) undergo PADP delabelling. RESULTS: Part 1: the PADP (n = 350) and OAATS (n = 27 patients, n = 36 individual visits) cohorts were comparable. In PADP, costs/proportion delabelled was $20.10/0.98, equating to $20.51 per effectively delabelled patient; in OAATS, it was $181.24/0.50, equating to $362. Compared with OAATS, PADP was associated with savings of $341.97 per effectively delabelled patient, indicating the outpatient testing was the dominated strategy, being more costly and less effective. Part 2: the PADP (n = 218) and usual care (n = 32) cohorts were comparable. Significantly favouring the delabelled PADP cohort, the mean difference per patient was -4.41 days (95% confidence interval: -7.64, -1.18) and -$9467.72 (95% confidence interval: -$15 419.98, -$3515.46). CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with international literature, delabelling low-risk penicillin allergies in the inpatient setting had economic advantages in the Australian context. Fully powered economic evaluations are urgently required to consolidate these findings.

Favipiravir in early symptomatic COVID-19, a randomised placebo-controlled trial.

Background: Well tolerated antivirals administered early in the course of COVID-19 infection when the viremia is highest could prevent progression to severe disease. Favipiravir inhibits SARS-CoV-2 viral replication in vitro with evidence of clinical benefit in open label trials. Placebo controlled studies of people with early symptomatic COVID-19 with regular assessments of SARS-CoV-2 viral load can determine if it has an antiviral effect and improves clinical outcomes. Methods: People with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 and 5 days or less of symptoms were randomised 1:1 to favipiravir 1800 mg on day 1, then 800 mg twice daily or matched placebo for 14 days. SARS-CoV-2 viral load was quantitated from second daily self-collected nose-throat swabs while receiving study drug. The primary endpoint was time to virological cure defined as 2 successive swabs negative for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR and secondary outcomes were progression of disease severity, symptom resolution and safety. Findings: Between 31 July 2020 and 19 September 2021, 200 people were enrolled (199 in the community, 1 in hospital) with 190 receiving one or more doses of drug (modified intention to treat [mITT] population). There was no difference in time to virological cure (Log-rank p=0.6 comparing Kaplan Meier curves), progression to hospitalisation (14 favipiravir, 9 placebo; p=0.38), time to symptom resolution (cough, fever, sore throat) and there were no deaths. 51 people related an adverse event that was possibly drug related, but these were evenly distributed (n=24 favipiravir, n=27 placebo). Sensitivity analyses where the definition of virological cure was changed to: a single negative PCR, exclude datapoints based on the presence or absence of human DNA in the swab, a SARS-CoV-2 viral load < 300 copies/mL being considered negative all demonstrated no difference between arms. Interpretation: Favipiravir does not improve the time to virological cure or clinical outcomes and shows no evidence of an antiviral effect when treating early symptomatic COVID-19 infection. Funding: The study was supported in part by grants from the Commonwealth Bank Australia, the Lord Mayor's Charitable Foundation, Melbourne Australia and the Orloff Family Charitable Trust, Melbourne, Australia. JHM is supported by the Medical Research Future Fund, AYP, JT are supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

Use of a penicillin allergy clinical decision rule to enable direct oral penicillin provocation: an international multicentre randomised control trial in an adult population (PALACE): study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Penicillin allergies are highly prevalent in the healthcare setting and associated with the prescription of second-line inferior antibiotics. More than 85% of all penicillin allergy labels can be removed by skin testing and 96%-99% of low-risk penicillin allergy labels can be removed by direct oral challenge. An internally and externally validated clinical assessment tool for penicillin allergy, PEN-FAST, can identify a low-risk penicillin allergy without the need for skin testing; a score of less than 3 has a negative predictive value of 96.3% (95% CI, 94.1 to 97.8) for the presence of a penicillin allergy. It is hypothesised that PEN-FAST is a safe and effective tool for assessing penicillin allergy in an outpatient clinic setting. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is an international, multicentre randomised control trial using the PEN-FAST tool to risk-stratify penicillin allergy labels in adult outpatients. The study's primary objective is to evaluate the non-inferiority of using PEN-FAST score-guided management with direct oral challenge compared with standard care (defined as prick and intradermal skin testing followed by oral penicillin challenge). Participants will be randomised 1:1 to the intervention arm (direct oral penicillin challenge) or standard of care arm (skin testing followed by oral penicillin challenge, if skin testing is negative). The sample size of 380 randomised patients (190 per treatment arm) is required to demonstrate non-inferiority. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study will be performed according to the guidelines of the Helsinki Declaration and is approved by the Austin Health Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/62425/Austin-2020) in Melbourne Australia, Vanderbilt University Institutional Review Board (IRB #202174) in Tennessee, USA, Duke University Institutional Review Board (IRB #Pro00108461) in North Carolina, USA and McGill University Health Centre Research Ethics Board in Canada (PALACE/2022-7605). The results of this study will be published and presented in various scientific forums. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04454229.

Study protocol: Australasian Registry of Severe Cutaneous Adverse Reactions (AUS-SCAR).

INTRODUCTION: Severe cutaneous adverse reactions (SCAR) are a group of T cell-mediated hypersensitivities associated with significant morbidity, mortality and hospital costs. Clinical phenotypes include Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS), toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) and acute generalised exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP). In this Australasian, multicentre, prospective registry, we plan to examine the clinical presentation, drug causality, genomic predictors, potential diagnostic approaches, treatments and long-term outcomes of SCAR in Australia and New Zealand. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Adult and adolescent patients with SCAR including SJS, TEN, DRESS, AGEP and another T cell-mediated hypersensitivity, generalised bullous fixed drug eruption, will be prospectively recruited. A waiver of consent has been granted for some sites to retrospectively include cases which result in early mortality. DNA will be collected for all prospective cases. Blood, blister fluid and skin biopsy sampling is optional and subject to patient consent and site capacity. To develop culprit drug identification and prevention, genomic testing will be performed to confirm human leukocyte antigen (HLA) type and ex vivo testing will be performed via interferon-γ release enzyme linked immunospot assay using collected peripheral blood mononuclear cells. The long-term outcomes of SCAR will be investigated with a 12-month quality of life survey and examination of prescribing and mortality data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was reviewed and approved by the Austin Health Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/50791/Austin-19). Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12619000241134).

SARS-CoV-2 infection results in immune responses in the respiratory tract and peripheral blood that suggest mechanisms of disease severity.

Respiratory tract infection with SARS-CoV-2 results in varying immunopathology underlying COVID-19. We examine cellular, humoral and cytokine responses covering 382 immune components in longitudinal blood and respiratory samples from hospitalized COVID-19 patients. SARS-CoV-2-specific IgM, IgG, IgA are detected in respiratory tract and blood, however, receptor-binding domain (RBD)-specific IgM and IgG seroconversion is enhanced in respiratory specimens. SARS-CoV-2 neutralization activity in respiratory samples correlates with RBD-specific IgM and IgG levels. Cytokines/chemokines vary between respiratory samples and plasma, indicating that inflammation should be assessed in respiratory specimens to understand immunopathology. IFN-α2 and IL-12p70 in endotracheal aspirate and neutralization in sputum negatively correlate with duration of hospital stay. Diverse immune subsets are detected in respiratory samples, dominated by neutrophils. Importantly, dexamethasone treatment does not affect humoral responses in blood of COVID-19 patients. Our study unveils differential immune responses between respiratory samples and blood, and shows how drug therapy affects immune responses during COVID-19.

Blister fluid as a cellular input for ex vivo diagnostics in drug-induced severe cutaneous adverse reactions improves sensitivity and explores immunopathogenesis.

Background: Drug-induced severe cutaneous adverse reactions (SCARs) are presumed T-cell-mediated hypersensitivities associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Traditional in vivo testing methods, such as patch or intradermal testing, are limited by a lack of standardization and poor sensitivity. Modern approaches to testing include measurement of IFN-γ release from patient PBMCs stimulated with the suspected causative drug. Objective: We sought to improve ex vivo diagnostics for drug-induced SCARs by comparing enzyme-linked immunospot (ELISpot) sensitivities and flow cytometry-based intracellular cytokine staining and determination of the cellular composition of separate samples (PBMCs or blister fluid cells [BFCs]) from the same donor. Methods: ELISpot and flow cytometry analyses of IFN-γ release were performed on donor-matched PBMC and BFC samples from 4 patients with SCARs with distinct drug hypersensitivity. Results: Immune responses to suspected drugs were detected in both the PBMC and BFC samples of 2 donors (donor patient 1 in response to ceftriaxone and case patient 4 in response to oxypurinol), with BFCs eliciting stronger responses. For the other 2 donors, only BFC samples showed a response to meloxicam (case patient 2) or sulfamethoxazole and its 4-nitro metabolite (case patient 3). Consistently, flow cytometry revealed a greater proportion of IFN-γ-secreting cells in the BFCs than in the PBMCs. The BFCs from case patient 3 were also enriched for memory, activation, and/or tissue recruitment markers over the PBMCs. Conclusion: Analysis of BFC samples for drug hypersensitivity diagnostics offers a higher sensitivity for detecting positive responses than does analysis of PBMC samples. This is consistent with recruitment (and enrichment) of cytokine-secreting cells with a memory/activated phenotype into blisters.