CAR Immunotherapy for the treatment of infectious diseases: a systematic review.

Immunotherapy treatments aim to modulate the host's immune response to either mitigate it in inflammatory/autoimmune disease or enhance it against infection or cancer. Among different immunotherapies reaching clinical application during the last years, chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) immunotherapy has emerged as an effective treatment for cancer where different CAR T cells have already been approved. Yet their use against infectious diseases is an area still relatively poorly explored, albeit with tremendous potential for research and clinical application. Infectious diseases represent a global health challenge, with the escalating threat of antimicrobial resistance underscoring the need for alternative therapeutic approaches. This review aims to systematically evaluate the current applications of CAR immunotherapy in infectious diseases and discuss its potential for future applications. Notably, CAR cell therapies, initially developed for cancer treatment, are gaining recognition as potential remedies for infectious diseases. The review sheds light on significant progress in CAR T cell therapy directed at viral and opportunistic fungal infections.

Performance Assessment of Software to Detect and Assist Prescribers with Antimicrobial Drug Interactions: Are all of them Created Equal?

BACKGROUND: Detecting and managing antimicrobial drug interactions (ADIs) is one of the facets of prudent antimicrobial prescribing. Our aim is to compare the capability of several electronic drug-drug interaction (DDI) checkers to detect and report ADIs. METHODS: Six electronic DDI checking platforms were evaluated: Drugs.com®, Medscape®, Epocrates®, Medimecum®, iDoctus®, and Guía IF®. Lexicomp® Drug Interactions was selected as the gold standard. Ten ADIs addressing different mechanisms were evaluated with every electronic DDI checker. For each ADI, we assessed five dimensions and calculated an overall performance score (maximum possible score: 10 points). The explored dimensions were sensitivity (capability to detect ADI), clinical effect (type and severity), mechanism of interaction, recommended action(s), and documentation (quality of evidence and availability of references). RESULTS: The electronic DDI checkers did not detect a significant proportion of the ADI assessed. The overall performance score ranged between 4.4 (Medimecum) and 8.8 (Drugs.com). Drugs.com was the highest ranked platform in four out of five dimensions (sensitivity, effect, mechanism, and recommended action). CONCLUSIONS: There is significant variability in the performance of the available platforms in detecting and assessing ADI. Although some ADI checkers have proven to be very accurate, others missed almost half of the explored interactions.

Neumonía adquirida en la comunidad en un hospital terciario español: ¿cómo se comporta en pacientes provenientes de residencia? / Community acquired pneumonia in a Spanish tertiary hospital: how does it work in patients from residence?

No disponible