The Path of More Resistance: a Comparison of National Healthcare Safety Network and Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute Criteria in Developing Cumulative Antimicrobial Susceptibility Test Reports and Institutional Antibiograms.

In the absence of antimicrobial susceptibility data, the institutional antibiogram is a valuable tool to guide clinicians in the empirical treatment of infections. However, there is a misunderstanding about how best to prepare cumulative antimicrobial susceptibility testing reports (CASTRs) to guide empirical therapy (e.g., routine antibiogram) versus monitoring antimicrobial resistance, with the former following guidance from the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) and the latter from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN). These criteria vary markedly in their exclusion or inclusion of isolates cultured repeatedly from the same patient. We compared rates of nonsusceptibility (NS) using annual data from a large teaching health care system subset to isolates eligible by either NHSN criteria or CLSI criteria. For a panel of the three most prevalent Gram-negative pathogens in combination with clinically relevant antimicrobial agents (or priority pathogen-agent combinations [PPACs]), we found that the inclusion of duplicate isolates by NHSN criteria yielded higher NS rates than when CLSI criteria (for which duplicate isolates are not included) were applied. Patients with duplicate isolates may not be representative of antimicrobial resistance within a population. For this reason, users of CASTR data should carefully consider that the criteria used to generate these reports can impact resulting NS rates and, therefore, maintain the distinction between CASTRs created for different purposes.

Forecasting life expectancy, years of life lost, and all-cause and cause-specific mortality for 250 causes of death: reference and alternative scenarios for 2016-40 for 195 countries and territories.

BACKGROUND: Understanding potential trajectories in health and drivers of health is crucial to guiding long-term investments and policy implementation. Past work on forecasting has provided an incomplete landscape of future health scenarios, highlighting a need for a more robust modelling platform from which policy options and potential health trajectories can be assessed. This study provides a novel approach to modelling life expectancy, all-cause mortality and cause of death forecasts -and alternative future scenarios-for 250 causes of death from 2016 to 2040 in 195 countries and territories. METHODS: We modelled 250 causes and cause groups organised by the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) hierarchical cause structure, using GBD 2016 estimates from 1990-2016, to generate predictions for 2017-40. Our modelling framework used data from the GBD 2016 study to systematically account for the relationships between risk factors and health outcomes for 79 independent drivers of health. We developed a three-component model of cause-specific mortality: a component due to changes in risk factors and select interventions; the underlying mortality rate for each cause that is a function of income per capita, educational attainment, and total fertility rate under 25 years and time; and an autoregressive integrated moving average model for unexplained changes correlated with time. We assessed the performance by fitting models with data from 1990-2006 and using these to forecast for 2007-16. Our final model used for generating forecasts and alternative scenarios was fitted to data from 1990-2016. We used this model for 195 countries and territories to generate a reference scenario or forecast through 2040 for each measure by location. Additionally, we generated better health and worse health scenarios based on the 85th and 15th percentiles, respectively, of annualised rates of change across location-years for all the GBD risk factors, income per person, educational attainment, select intervention coverage, and total fertility rate under 25 years in the past. We used the model to generate all-cause age-sex specific mortality, life expectancy, and years of life lost (YLLs) for 250 causes. Scenarios for fertility were also generated and used in a cohort component model to generate population scenarios. For each reference forecast, better health, and worse health scenarios, we generated estimates of mortality and YLLs attributable to each risk factor in the future. FINDINGS: Globally, most independent drivers of health were forecast to improve by 2040, but 36 were forecast to worsen. As shown by the better health scenarios, greater progress might be possible, yet for some drivers such as high body-mass index (BMI), their toll will rise in the absence of intervention. We forecasted global life expectancy to increase by 4·4 years (95% UI 2·2 to 6·4) for men and 4·4 years (2·1 to 6·4) for women by 2040, but based on better and worse health scenarios, trajectories could range from a gain of 7·8 years (5·9 to 9·8) to a non-significant loss of 0·4 years (-2·8 to 2·2) for men, and an increase of 7·2 years (5·3 to 9·1) to essentially no change (0·1 years [-2·7 to 2·5]) for women. In 2040, Japan, Singapore, Spain, and Switzerland had a forecasted life expectancy exceeding 85 years for both sexes, and 59 countries including China were projected to surpass a life expectancy of 80 years by 2040. At the same time, Central African Republic, Lesotho, Somalia, and Zimbabwe had projected life expectancies below 65 years in 2040, indicating global disparities in survival are likely to persist if current trends hold. Forecasted YLLs showed a rising toll from several non-communicable diseases (NCDs), partly driven by population growth and ageing. Differences between the reference forecast and alternative scenarios were most striking for HIV/AIDS, for which a potential increase of 120·2% (95% UI 67·2-190·3) in YLLs (nearly 118 million) was projected globally from 2016-40 under the worse health scenario. Compared with 2016, NCDs were forecast to account for a greater proportion of YLLs in all GBD regions by 2040 (67·3% of YLLs [95% UI 61·9-72·3] globally); nonetheless, in many lower-income countries, communicable, maternal, neonatal, and nutritional (CMNN) diseases still accounted for a large share of YLLs in 2040 (eg, 53·5% of YLLs [95% UI 48·3-58·5] in Sub-Saharan Africa). There were large gaps for many health risks between the reference forecast and better health scenario for attributable YLLs. In most countries, metabolic risks amenable to health care (eg, high blood pressure and high plasma fasting glucose) and risks best targeted by population-level or intersectoral interventions (eg, tobacco, high BMI, and ambient particulate matter pollution) had some of the largest differences between reference and better health scenarios. The main exception was sub-Saharan Africa, where many risks associated with poverty and lower levels of development (eg, unsafe water and sanitation, household air pollution, and child malnutrition) were projected to still account for substantive disparities between reference and better health scenarios in 2040. INTERPRETATION: With the present study, we provide a robust, flexible forecasting platform from which reference forecasts and alternative health scenarios can be explored in relation to a wide range of independent drivers of health. Our reference forecast points to overall improvements through 2040 in most countries, yet the range found across better and worse health scenarios renders a precarious vision of the future-a world with accelerating progress from technical innovation but with the potential for worsening health outcomes in the absence of deliberate policy action. For some causes of YLLs, large differences between the reference forecast and alternative scenarios reflect the opportunity to accelerate gains if countries move their trajectories toward better health scenarios-or alarming challenges if countries fall behind their reference forecasts. Generally, decision makers should plan for the likely continued shift toward NCDs and target resources toward the modifiable risks that drive substantial premature mortality. If such modifiable risks are prioritised today, there is opportunity to reduce avoidable mortality in the future. However, CMNN causes and related risks will remain the predominant health priority among lower-income countries. Based on our 2040 worse health scenario, there is a real risk of HIV mortality rebounding if countries lose momentum against the HIV epidemic, jeopardising decades of progress against the disease. Continued technical innovation and increased health spending, including development assistance for health targeted to the world's poorest people, are likely to remain vital components to charting a future where all populations can live full, healthy lives. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Delayed-Release Budesonide in a Patient With Progressive IgA Nephropathy and Stage 4 Chronic Kidney Disease: A Case Report.

Delayed-release (DR) budesonide received expedited approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a treatment for reducing proteinuria in individuals with primary IgA nephropathy (IgAN) who are at significant risk of disease progression. The approval was based on clinical trials primarily involving patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) greater than 30 mL/min/1.73 m2. However, the efficacy of DR budesonide in reducing kidney function decline, especially in patients with an eGFR less than 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 and proteinuria less than 1 g/d, remains unclear. We report the case of a 43-year-old man with a long-term history of hypertension and biopsy-proven IgAN who experienced a progressive increase in proteinuria and serum creatinine, along with a decline in eGFR to 28 mL/min/1.73 m2 despite maximal supportive management. Following therapy with DR budesonide, a decreasing trend in proteinuria and a stabilization of eGFR were observed in the recent measurements. While initial data suggested the effectiveness of DR budesonide primarily in patients with an eGFR over 30 mL/min/1.73 m2, our case demonstrates the potential of DR budesonide for use in scenarios beyond its currently approved indications. This underscores the need for additional research on patients with advanced stages of chronic kidney disease.

Assessment of Glomerular Filtration Rate in Patients with Cancer: A Statement from the American Society of Onco-Nephrology.

Accurate assessment of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) is crucial to guiding drug eligibility, dosing of systemic therapy, and minimizing the risks of both undertreatment and toxicity in patients with cancer. Up to 32% of cancer patients have baseline chronic kidney disease (CKD), and both malignancy and treatment may cause kidney injury and subsequent CKD. To date, there has been lack of guidance to standardize approaches to GFR estimation in the cancer population. In this two-part statement from the American Society of Onco-Nephrology, we present key messages for estimation of GFR in patients with cancer, including the choice of GFR estimating equation, use of race and body surface-area (BSA)-adjustment, and anticancer drug dose-adjustment in the setting of CKD. These key messages are based on a systematic review of studies assessing GFR estimating equations using serum creatinine and cystatin C in patients with cancer, against a measured GFR comparator. The preponderance of current data involving validated GFR estimating equations involves the CKD-EPI equations, with 2,508 patients in whom CKD-EPI using serum creatinine and cystatin C was assessed (8 studies) and 15,349 in whom CKD-EPI with serum creatinine was assessed (22 studies). The former may have improved performance metrics and be less susceptible to shortfalls of eGFR using serum creatinine alone. Since included studies were moderate quality or lower, the ASON Position Committee rated the certainty of evidence as low. Additional studies are needed to assess the accuracy of other validated eGFR equations in patients with cancer. Given the importance of accurate and timely eGFR assessment we advocate for the use of validated GFR estimating equations incorporating both serum creatinine and cystatin C in patients with cancer. Measurement of GFR via exogenous filtration markers should be considered in patients with cancer for whom eGFR results in borderline eligibility for therapies or clinical trials.

On variants and vaccines: The effectiveness of Covid-19 monoclonal antibody therapy during two distinct periods in the pandemic.

BACKGROUND: While Covid-19 monoclonal antibody therapies (Mab) have been available in the outpatient setting for over a year and a half, little is known about the impact of emerging variants and vaccinations on the effectiveness of Mab therapies. We sought to determine the effectiveness of Covid-19 Mab therapies during the first two waves of the pandemic in Los Angeles County and assess the impact of vaccines, variants, and other confounding factors. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We retrospectively examined records for 2209 patients of with confirmed positive molecular SARS-CoV2 test either referred for outpatient Mab therapy or receiving Mab treatment in the emergency department (ED) between December 2020 and 2021. Our primary outcome was the combined 30-day incidence of ED visit, hospitalization, or death following the date of referral. Additionally, SARS-CoV2 isolates of hospitalized patients receiving Mabs were sequenced. The primary outcome was significantly reduced with combination therapy compared to bamlanivimab or no treatment (aHR 0·60; 95% CI ·37, ·99), with greater benefit in unvaccinated, moderate-to-high-risk patients (aHR ·39; 95% CI ·20, ·77). Significant associations with the primary outcome included history of lung disease (HR 7·13; 95% CI 5·12, 9·95), immunocompromised state (HR 6·59; 95% CI 2·91-14·94), and high social vulnerability (HR 2·29, 95% CI 1·56-3·36). Two predominant variants were noted during the period of observation: the Epsilon variant and the Delta variant. CONCLUSIONS: Only select monoclonal antibody therapies significantly reduced ED visits, hospitalizations, and death due to COVID-19 during. Vaccination diminished effectiveness of Mabs. Variant data and vaccination status should be considered when assessing the benefit of novel COVID-19 treatments.

The Burden of Proof studies: assessing the evidence of risk.

Exposure to risks throughout life results in a wide variety of outcomes. Objectively judging the relative impact of these risks on personal and population health is fundamental to individual survival and societal prosperity. Existing mechanisms to quantify and rank the magnitude of these myriad effects and the uncertainty in their estimation are largely subjective, leaving room for interpretation that can fuel academic controversy and add to confusion when communicating risk. We present a new suite of meta-analyses-termed the Burden of Proof studies-designed specifically to help evaluate these methodological issues objectively and quantitatively. Through this data-driven approach that complements existing systems, including GRADE and Cochrane Reviews, we aim to aggregate evidence across multiple studies and enable a quantitative comparison of risk-outcome pairs. We introduce the burden of proof risk function (BPRF), which estimates the level of risk closest to the null hypothesis that is consistent with available data. Here we illustrate the BPRF methodology for the evaluation of four exemplar risk-outcome pairs: smoking and lung cancer, systolic blood pressure and ischemic heart disease, vegetable consumption and ischemic heart disease, and unprocessed red meat consumption and ischemic heart disease. The strength of evidence for each relationship is assessed by computing and summarizing the BPRF, and then translating the summary to a simple star rating. The Burden of Proof methodology provides a consistent way to understand, evaluate and summarize evidence of risk across different risk-outcome pairs, and informs risk analysis conducted as part of the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study.

The Tripeptide RER Mimics Secreted Amyloid Precursor Protein-Alpha in Upregulating LTP.

Secreted amyloid precursor protein-alpha (sAPPα), generated by enzymatic processing of the APP, possesses a range of neurotrophic and neuroprotective properties and plays a critical role in the molecular mechanisms of memory and learning. One of the key active regions of sAPPα is the central APP domain (E2) that contains within it the tripeptide sequence, RER. This sequence is exposed on the surface of a coiled coil substructure of E2. RER has by itself displayed memory-enhancing properties, and can protect newly formed engrams from interference in a manner similar to that displayed by sAPPα itself. In order to determine whether RER mimics other properties of sAPPα, we investigated the electrophysiological effects of the N-terminal protected acetylated RER (Ac-RER) and an isoform containing a chiral switch in the first amino acid from an l- to a d-orientation (Ac-rER), on synaptic plasticity. We found that, like sAPPα, exogenous perfusion with nanomolar concentrations of Ac-RER or Ac-rER enhanced the induction and stability of long-term potentiation (LTP) in area CA1 of rat and mouse hippocampal slices, in a protein synthesis- and trafficking-dependent manner. This effect did not occur with a control Ac-AAA or Ac-IFR tripeptide, nor with a full-length sAPPα protein where RER was substituted with AAA. Ac-rER also protected LTP against amyloid-beta (Aß25 - 35)-induced LTP impairment. Our findings provide further evidence that the RER-containing region of sAPPα is functionally significant and by itself can produce effects similar to those displayed by full length sAPPα, suggesting that this tripeptide, like sAPPα, may have therapeutic potential.

Efficacy and safety of primaquine and methylene blue for prevention of Plasmodium falciparum transmission in Mali: a phase 2, single-blind, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Primaquine and methylene blue are gametocytocidal compounds that could prevent Plasmodium falciparum transmission to mosquitoes. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of primaquine and methylene blue in preventing human to mosquito transmission of P falciparum among glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD)-normal, gametocytaemic male participants. METHODS: This was a phase 2, single-blind, randomised controlled trial done at the Clinical Research Centre of the Malaria Research and Training Centre (MRTC) of the University of Bamako (Bamako, Mali). We enrolled male participants aged 5-50 years with asymptomatic P falciparum malaria. G6PD-normal participants with gametocytes detected by blood smear were randomised 1:1:1:1 in block sizes of eight, using a sealed-envelope design, to receive either sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine and amodiaquine, sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine and amodiaquine plus a single dose of 0·25 mg/kg primaquine, dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine, or dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine plus 15 mg/kg per day methylene blue for 3 days. Laboratory staff, investigators, and insectary technicians were masked to the treatment group and gametocyte density of study participants. The study pharmacist and treating physician were not masked. Participants could request unmasking. The primary efficacy endpoint, analysed in all infected patients with at least one infectivity measure before and after treatment, was median within-person percentage change in mosquito infectivity 2 and 7 days after treatment, assessed by membrane feeding. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02831023. FINDINGS: Between June 27, 2016, and Nov 1, 2016, 80 participants were enrolled and assigned to the sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine and amodiaquine (n=20), sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine and amodiaquine plus primaquine (n=20), dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (n=20), or dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine plus methylene blue (n=20) groups. Among participants infectious at baseline (54 [68%] of 80), those in the sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine and amodiaquine plus primaquine group (n=19) had a median 100% (IQR 100 to 100) within-person reduction in mosquito infectivity on day 2, a larger reduction than was noted with sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine and amodiaquine alone (n=12; -10·2%, IQR -143·9 to 56·6; p<0·0001). The dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine plus methylene blue (n=11) group had a median 100% (IQR 100 to 100) within-person reduction in mosquito infectivity on day 2, a larger reduction than was noted with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine alone (n=12; -6·0%, IQR -126·1 to 86·9; p<0·0001). Haemoglobin changes were similar between gametocytocidal arms and their respective controls. After exclusion of blue urine, adverse events were similar across all groups (59 [74%] of 80 participants had 162 adverse events overall, 145 [90%] of which were mild). INTERPRETATION: Adding a single dose of 0·25 mg/kg primaquine to sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine and amodiaquine or 3 days of 15 mg/kg per day methylene blue to dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine was highly efficacious for preventing P falciparum transmission. Both primaquine and methylene blue were well tolerated. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, European Research Council.