Clinical outcomes of patients with and without HIV hospitalized with COVID-19 in England during the early stages of the pandemic: a matched retrospective multi-centre analysis (RECEDE-C19 study).

BACKGROUND: The contribution of HIV to COVID-19 outcomes in hospitalized inpatients remains unclear. We conducted a multi-centre, retrospective matched cohort study of SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive hospital inpatients analysed by HIV status. METHODS: HIV-negative patients were matched to people living with HIV (PLWH) admitted from 1 February 2020 to 31 May 2020 up to a 3:1 ratio by the following: hospital site, SARS-CoV-2 test date ± 7 days, age ± 5 years, gender, and index of multiple deprivation decile ± 1. The primary objective was clinical improvement (two-point improvement or better on a seven-point ordinal scale) or hospital discharge by day 28, whichever was earlier. RESULTS: A total of 68 PLWH and 181 HIV-negative comparators were included. In unadjusted analyses, PLWH had a reduced hazard of achieving clinical improvement or discharge [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) = 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.39-0.85, p = 0.005], but this association was ameliorated (aHR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.43-1.17, p = 0.18) after additional adjustment for ethnicity, frailty, baseline hypoxaemia, duration of symptoms prior to baseline, body mass index (BMI) categories and comorbidities. Baseline frailty (aHR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.65-0.95, p = 0.011), malignancy (aHR = 0.37, 95% CI 0.17, 0.82, p = 0.014) remained associated with poorer outcomes. The PLWH were more likely to be of black, Asian and minority ethnic background (75.0% vs 48.6%, p = 0.0002), higher median clinical frailty score [3 × interquartile range (IQR): 2-5 vs, 2 × IQR: 1-4, p = 0.0069), and to have a non-significantly higher proportion of active malignancy (14.4% vs 9.9%, p = 0.29). CONCLUSIONS: Adjusting for confounding comorbidities and demographics in a matched cohort ameliorated differences in outcomes of PLWH hospitalized with COVID-19, highlighting the importance of an appropriate comparison group when assessing outcomes of PLWH hospitalized with COVID-19.

Local Antibiotic Delivery Systems: Current and Future Applications for Diabetic Foot Infections.

Foot infections are common among diabetic patients with peripheral neuropathy and/or peripheral arterial disease, and it can be the pivotal event leading to a minor or major amputation of the lower extremity. Treatment of diabetic foot infections, especially deep-seated ones, remains challenging, in part because impaired blood perfusion and the presence of biofilms can impair the effectiveness of systemic antibiotics. The local application of antibiotics is an emerging field in the treatment of diabetic foot infections, with demonstrable advantages. These include delivery of high concentrations of antibiotics in the affected area, limited systemic absorption, and thus negligible side effects. Biodegradable vehicles, such as calcium sulfate beads, are the prototypical system, providing a good elution profile and the ability to be impregnated with a variety of antibiotics. These have largely superseded the nonbiodegradable vehicles, but the strongest evidence available is for calcium bead implantation for osteomyelitis management. Natural polymers, such as collagen sponge, are an emerging class of delivery systems, although thus far, data on diabetic foot infections are limited. There is recent interest in the novel antimicrobial peptide pexiganan in the form of cream, which is active against most of the microorganisms isolated in diabetic foot infections. These are promising developments, but randomized trials are required to ascertain the efficacy of these systems and to define the indications for their use. Currently, the role of topical antibiotic agents in treating diabetic foot infections is limited and outside of routine practice.