Feasibility of Continuous Infusion of Cefiderocol in Conjunction with the Establishment of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring in Patients with Extensively Drug-Resistant Gram-Negative Bacteria.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Resistance to antibacterial substances is a huge and still emerging issue, especially with regard to Gram-negative bacteria and in critically ill patients. We report a study in six patients infected with extensively drug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria in a limited outbreak who were successfully managed with a quasi-continuous infusion of cefiderocol. METHODS: Patients were initially treated with prolonged infusions of cefiderocol over 3 h every 8 h, and the application mode was then switched to a quasi-continuous infusion of 2 g over 8 h, i.e. 6 g in 24 h. Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) was established using an in-house liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) method. RESULTS: Determined trough plasma concentrations were a median of 50.00 mg/L [95% confidence interval (CI) 27.20, 74.60] and steady-state plasma concentrations were a median of 90.96 mg/L [95% CI 37.80, 124]. No significant differences were detected with respect to acute kidney injury/continuous renal replacement therapy. Plasma concentrations determined from different modes of storage were almost equal when frozen or cooled, but markedly reduced when stored at room temperature. CONCLUSIONS: (Quasi) continuous application of cefiderocol 6 g/24 h in conjunction with TDM is a feasible mode of application; the sample for TDM should either be immediately analyzed, cooled, or frozen prior to analysis.

Janus kinase inhibitors for the treatment of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: With potential antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors represent a potential treatment for symptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. They may modulate the exuberant immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Furthermore, a direct antiviral effect has been described. An understanding of the current evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of JAK inhibitors as a treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is required. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of systemic JAK inhibitors plus standard of care compared to standard of care alone (plus/minus placebo) on clinical outcomes in individuals (outpatient or in-hospital) with any severity of COVID-19, and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (comprising MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, medRxiv, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), Web of Science, WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, and the US Department of Veterans Affairs Evidence Synthesis Program (VA ESP) Covid-19 Evidence Reviews to identify studies up to February 2022. We monitor newly published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) weekly using the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and have incorporated all new trials from this source until the first week of April 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs that compared systemic JAK inhibitors plus standard of care to standard of care alone (plus/minus placebo) for the treatment of individuals with COVID-19. We used the WHO definitions of illness severity for COVID-19. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed risk of bias of primary outcomes using Cochrane's Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the following primary outcomes: all-cause mortality (up to day 28), all-cause mortality (up to day 60), improvement in clinical status: alive and without need for in-hospital medical care (up to day 28), worsening of clinical status: new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death (up to day 28), adverse events (any grade), serious adverse events, secondary infections. MAIN RESULTS: We included six RCTs with 11,145 participants investigating systemic JAK inhibitors plus standard of care compared to standard of care alone (plus/minus placebo). Standard of care followed local protocols and included the application of glucocorticoids (five studies reported their use in a range of 70% to 95% of their participants; one study restricted glucocorticoid use to non-COVID-19 specific indications), antibiotic agents, anticoagulants, and antiviral agents, as well as non-pharmaceutical procedures. At study entry, about 65% of participants required low-flow oxygen, about 23% required high-flow oxygen or non-invasive ventilation, about 8% did not need any respiratory support, and only about 4% were intubated. We also identified 13 ongoing studies, and 9 studies that are completed or terminated and where classification is pending. Individuals with moderate to severe disease Four studies investigated the single agent baricitinib (10,815 participants), one tofacitinib (289 participants), and one ruxolitinib (41 participants). Systemic JAK inhibitors probably decrease all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (95 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 131 of 1000 participants in the control group; risk ratio (RR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 0.91; 6 studies, 11,145 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and decrease all-cause mortality at up to day 60 (125 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 181 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.86; 2 studies, 1626 participants; high-certainty evidence). Systemic JAK inhibitors probably make little or no difference in improvement in clinical status (discharged alive or hospitalised, but no longer requiring ongoing medical care) (801 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 778 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 1.03, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.06; 4 studies, 10,802 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). They probably decrease the risk of worsening of clinical status (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death at day 28) (154 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 172 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.98; 2 studies, 9417 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Systemic JAK inhibitors probably make little or no difference in the rate of adverse events (any grade) (427 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 441 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.08; 3 studies, 1885 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably decrease the occurrence of serious adverse events (160 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 202 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.92; 4 studies, 2901 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). JAK inhibitors may make little or no difference to the rate of secondary infection (111 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 113 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.09; 4 studies, 10,041 participants; low-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis by severity of COVID-19 disease or type of JAK inhibitor did not identify specific subgroups which benefit more or less from systemic JAK inhibitors. Individuals with asymptomatic or mild disease We did not identify any trial for this population. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In hospitalised individuals with moderate to severe COVID-19, moderate-certainty evidence shows that systemic JAK inhibitors probably decrease all-cause mortality. Baricitinib was the most often evaluated JAK inhibitor. Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that they probably make little or no difference in improvement in clinical status. Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that systemic JAK inhibitors probably decrease the risk of worsening of clinical status and make little or no difference in the rate of adverse events of any grade, whilst they probably decrease the occurrence of serious adverse events. Based on low-certainty evidence, JAK inhibitors may make little or no difference in the rate of secondary infection. Subgroup analysis by severity of COVID-19 or type of agent failed to identify specific subgroups which benefit more or less from systemic JAK inhibitors. Currently, there is no evidence on the efficacy and safety of systemic JAK inhibitors for individuals with asymptomatic or mild disease (non-hospitalised individuals).

Copy Number and Prevalence of Porcine Endogenous Retroviruses (PERVs) in German Wild Boars.

Porcine endogenous retroviruses (PERVs) are integrated in the genome of pigs and are transmitted like cellular genes from parents to the offspring. Whereas PERV-A and PERV-B are present in all pigs, PERV-C was found to be in many, but not all pigs. When PERV-C is present, recombination with PERV-A may happen and the PERV-A/C recombinants are characterized by a high replication rate. Until now, nothing has been known about the copy number of PERVs in wild boars and little is known about the prevalence of the phylogenetically youngest PERV-C in ancient wild boars. Here we investigated for the first time the copy number of PERVs in different populations of wild boars in and around Berlin using droplet digital PCR. Copy numbers between 3 and 69 per genome have been measured. A lower number but a higher variability was found compared to domestic pigs, including minipigs reported earlier (Fiebig et al., Xenotransplantation, 2018). The wild boar populations differed genetically and had been isolated during the existence of the Berlin wall. Despite this, the variations in copy number were larger in a single population compared to the differences between the populations. PERV-C was found in all 92 analyzed animals. Differences in the copy number of PERV in different organs of a single wild boar indicate that PERVs are also active in wild boars, replicating and infecting new cells as has been shown in domestic pigs.

Transmission of Porcine Circovirus 3 (PCV3) by Xenotransplantation of Pig Hearts into Baboons.

Porcine circovirus 3 (PCV3) is a newly described member of the virus family Circoviridae. PCV3 is highly distributed among pigs and wild boars worldwide. A sudden introduction of PCV3 was recently observed in a herd of triple genetically modified pigs generated for xenotransplantation. These animals were used as donor pigs for orthotopic heart transplantation into baboons. In four cases, PCV3-positive hearts were transplanted, and transmission of PCV3 to the recipient was observed. PCV3 was found in all organs of the recipient baboons and a higher virus load was found in animals with a longer survival time of the transplant, indicating replication of the virus. This is the first report showing trans-species transmission of PCV3 to baboons by transplantation of a heart from a PCV3-positive donor pig. Sequence analysis showed that PCV3a and PCV3b were present in the infected pigs and were transmitted. Experiments to infect human 293 cells with PCV3 failed.

Detection of PCV3 in German wild boars.

BACKGROUND: Porcine circovirus 3 is a newly described circovirus circulating worldwide. PCV3 may play an etiologic role in different pig diseases. Two different genotypes of PCV3 were described, PCV3a and PCV3b. In order to analyse whether PCV3 is also present in wild boars, animals living in and near Berlin were studied. The animals had been analysed previously and were found to form two genetically distinct and geographically coherent clusters. METHODS: To detect PCV3 in wild boars, a PCR was performed, to analyse the virus in detail, parts of the sequence of the capsid protein were sequenced. In addition, a screening for PCV1 and PCV2 was performed using PCR. RESULTS: For the first time, PCV3 was detected in German wild boars, with 50% of the animals infected in one genetic cluster, and 23% in the second cluster. In both populations which were divided in the years of division of Berlin, PCV3b was detected, in one case also PCV3a was detected. In some animals, co-infections with PCV1 and PCV2 or triple infections were detected. CONCLUSION: The data show a high prevalence of PCV3 and co-infections with PCV1 and PCV2 in German wild boars. The finding of PCV3 in both clusters suggests that the virus was introduced into the animal populations before Berlin was divided. Furthermore, the methods used will be indispensable for screening for circoviruses in pigs genetically modified for xenotransplantation.