Actinomyces funkei bacteraemia and infected pulmonary cavities in an intravenous drug user: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Actinomyces spp. are most commonly found in human commensal flora; however, they have also been shown to cause suppurative infections. We present a case of a rare Actinomyces funkei bacteraemia from an infected deep vein thrombosis in a patient who went on to develop pulmonary cavities secondary to septic emboli. Infected thrombi and septic emboli have been associated with other Actinomyces spp. in the literature, often posing a diagnostic challenge and, in some cases, causing drastic clinical deterioration in patients. The literature regarding Actinomyces funkei is scarce and to our knowledge there are no reports of a relationship between this Actinomyces subspecies and infected thrombi or septic emboli. CASE PRESENTATION: The patient was a 39-year-old known intravenous drug user who presented with a groin injecting site sinus and systemic symptoms. The bacteria was first observed by gram staining of a blood culture sample after 48 h of incubation and the species was identified using matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization time-of-flight (MALDI-TOF) as Actinomyces funkei. Sputum cytology/histology with cell block revealed a branching gram-positive species suspicious of slow growing bacteria or fungus. CT imaging of his lower limb and chest revealed an extensive DVT with inflammatory changes and pulmonary cavities respectively. The patient was treated with Ceftriaxone before being discharged with a 6-month course of Linezolid. He made a good recovery with reduction in size of the cavitating lung lesions on follow-up imaging. CONCLUSIONS: This case report presents a difficult-to-diagnose bacterial infection in an intravenous drug user, complicated by bacteraemia and secondary septic emboli. Relatively little is known about Actinomyces funkei, and therefore this report aims to increase clinician awareness of diagnosis, management, and complications.

Antibiotic prophylaxis for leptospirosis.

BACKGROUND: Leptospirosis is a global zoonotic and waterborne disease caused by pathogenic Leptospira species. Antibiotics are used as a strategy for prevention of leptospirosis, in particular in travellers and high-risk groups. However, the clinical benefits are unknown, especially when considering possible treatment-associated adverse effects. This review assesses the use of antibiotic prophylaxis in leptospirosis and is an update of a previously published review in the Cochrane Library (2009, Issue 3). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of antibiotic prophylaxis for human leptospirosis. SEARCH METHODS: We identified randomised clinical trials through electronic searches of the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded, and other resources. We searched online clinical trial registries to identify unpublished or ongoing trials. We checked reference lists of the retrieved studies for further trials. The last date of search was 17 April 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included ⁠⁠randomised clinical trials of any trial design, assessing antibiotics for prevention of leptospirosis, and with no restrictions on age, sex, occupation, or comorbidity of trial participants. We looked for trials assessing antibiotics irrespective of route of administration, dosage, and schedule versus placebo or no intervention. We also included trials assessing antibiotics versus other antibiotics using these criteria, or the same antibiotic but with another dose or schedule. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed Cochrane methodology. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, laboratory-confirmed leptospirosis regardless of the presence of an identified clinical syndrome (inclusive of asymptomatic cases), clinical diagnosis of leptospirosis regardless of the presence of laboratory confirmation, clinical diagnosis of leptospirosis confirmed by laboratory diagnosis (exclusive of asymptomatic cases), and serious adverse events. The secondary outcomes were quality of life and the proportion of people with non-serious adverse events. We assessed the risk of bias of the included trials using the RoB 2 tool and the certainty of evidence using GRADE. We presented dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RR) and continuous outcomes as mean difference (MD), with their 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used a random-effects model for our main analyses and the fixed-effect model for sensitivity analyses. Our primary outcome analyses included trial data at the longest follow-up. MAIN RESULTS: We identified five randomised clinical trials comprising 2593 participants that compared antibiotics (doxycycline, azithromycin, or penicillin) with placebo, or one antibiotic compared with another. Four trials assessed doxycycline with different durations, one trial assessed azithromycin, and one trial assessed penicillin. One trial had three intervention groups: doxycycline, azithromycin, and placebo. Three trials assessed pre-exposure prophylaxis, one trial assessed postexposure prophylaxis, and one did not report this clearly. Four trials recruited residents in endemic areas, and one trial recruited soldiers who experienced limited time exposure. The participants' ages in the included trials were 10 to 80 years. Follow-up ranged from one to three months. Antibiotics versus placebo Doxycycline compared with placebo may result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.83; 1 trial, 782 participants; low-certainty evidence). Prophylactic antibiotics may have little to no effect on laboratory-confirmed leptospirosis, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.26; 5 trials, 2593 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Antibiotics may result in little to no difference in the clinical diagnosis of leptospirosis regardless of laboratory confirmation (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.08; 4 trials, 1653 participants; low-certainty evidence) and the clinical diagnosis of leptospirosis with laboratory confirmation (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.26; 4 trials, 1653 participants; low-certainty evidence). Antibiotics compared with placebo may increase non-serious adverse events, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 10.13, 95% CI 2.40 to 42.71; 3 trials, 1909 participants; very low-certainty evidence). One antibiotic versus another antibiotic One trial assessed doxycycline versus azithromycin but did not report mortality. Compared to azithromycin, doxycycline may have little to no effect on laboratory-confirmed leptospirosis regardless of the presence of an identified clinical syndrome (RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.51 to 4.32; 1 trial, 137 participants), on the clinical diagnosis of leptospirosis regardless of the presence of laboratory confirmation (RR 4.18, 95% CI 0.94 to 18.66; 1 trial, 137 participants), on the clinical diagnosis of leptospirosis confirmed by laboratory diagnosis (RR 4.18, 95% CI 0.94 to 18.66; 1 trial, 137 participants), and on non-serious adverse events (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.36 to 3.48; 1 trial, 137 participants), but the evidence is very uncertain. The certainty of evidence for all the outcomes was very low. None of the five included trials reported serious adverse events or assessed quality of life. One study is awaiting classification. Funding Four of the five trials included statements disclosing their funding/supporting sources, and the remaining trial did not include this. Three of the four trials that disclosed their supporting sources received the supply of trial drugs directly from the same pharmaceutical company, and the remaining trial received financial support from a governmental source. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We do not know if antibiotics versus placebo or another antibiotic has little or have no effect on all-cause mortality or leptospirosis infection because the certainty of evidence is low or very low. We do not know if antibiotics versus placebo may increase the overall risk of non-serious adverse events because of very low-certainty evidence. We lack definitive rigorous data from randomised trials to support the use of antibiotics for the prophylaxis of leptospirosis infection. We lack trials reporting data on clinically relevant outcomes.

Mobile phone-based interventions for improving contraception use.

BACKGROUND: Contraception provides significant benefits for women's and children's health, yet many women have an unmet need for contraception. Rapid expansion in the use of mobile phones in recent years has had a dramatic impact on interpersonal communication. Within the health domain text messages and smartphone applications offer means of communication between clients and healthcare providers. This review focuses on interventions delivered by mobile phone and their effect on use of contraception. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of mobile phone-based interventions for improving contraception use. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was August 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of mobile phone-based interventions to improve forms of contraception use amongst users or potential users of contraception. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. uptake of contraception, 2. uptake of a specific method of contraception, 3. adherence to contraception method, 4. safe method switching, 5. discontinuation of contraception and 6. pregnancy or abortion. Our secondary outcomes were 7. road traffic accidents, 8. any physical or psychological effect reported and 9. violence or domestic abuse. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-three RCTs (12,793 participants) from 11 countries met our inclusion criteria. Eleven studies were conducted in high-income resource settings and 12 were in low-income settings. Thirteen studies used unidirectional text messaging-based interventions, six studies used interactive text messaging, four used voice message-based interventions and two used mobile-phone apps to improve contraception use. All studies received funding from non-commercial bodies. Mobile phone-based interventions probably increase contraception use compared to the control (odds ratio (OR) 1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06 to 1.60; 16 studies, 8972 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference in rates of unintended pregnancy with the use of mobile phone-based interventions compared to control (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.38; 8 trials, 2947 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis assessing unidirectional mobile phone interventions versus interactive mobile phone interventions found evidence of a difference between the subgroups favouring interactive interventions (P = 0.003, I2 = 88.5%). Interactive interventions had an OR of 1.71 (95% CI 1.28 to 2.29; P = 0.0003, I2 = 63%; 8 trials, 3089 participants) whilst unidirectional interventions had an OR of 1.03 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.22; P = 0.72, I2 = 17%; 9 trials, 5883 participants). Subgroup analysis assessing high-income versus low-income trial settings found no difference between groups (subgroup difference test: P = 0.70, I2 = 0%). Only six trials reported on safety and unintended outcomes; one trial reported increased partner violence whilst another four trials reported no difference in physical violence rates between control and intervention groups. One trial reported no road traffic accidents with mobile phone intervention use. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review demonstrates there is evidence to support the use of mobile phone-based interventions in improving the use of contraception, with moderate-certainty evidence. Interactive mobile phone interventions appear more effective than unidirectional methods. The cost-effectiveness, cost benefits, safety and long-term effects of these interventions remain unknown, as does the evidence of this approach to support contraception use among specific populations. Future research should investigate the effectiveness and safety of mobile phone-based interventions with better quality trials to help establish the effects of interventions delivered by mobile phone on contraception use. This review is limited by the quality of the studies due to flaws in methodology, bias or imprecision of results.