Candida Colonization Index in Patients Admitted to an ICU

Multiple-site colonization with Candida spp. is commonly recognized as a risk factor for invasive fungal infection in critically ill patients. We carried out a study to determine the relationship between Candida colonization and invasive infection in neurological patients admitted to an ICU. At admission (T0) and every three days for two weeks, different samples (pharynx swab, tracheal secretions, stomach contents, etc.) were collected for mycological surveillance. Candida mannan antigen and Candida anti-mannan antibodies were assayed. The Colonization Index (CI) and Corrected Colonization Index were calculated for each time point. Of all patients 70% was already colonized by Candida spp. at T0 and six of them had CI ≥ 0.5. Three patients developed candidemia; they had CI ≥ 0.5 before infection. Positive values of Candida mannan antigen and anti-mannan antibodies were found only in the patients with candidemia. The sensitivity and specificity of the Candida mannan test were 66.6% and 100%, respectively, while the sensitivity and specificity of the anti-mannan antibody test were 100%. In accordance with other authors, we find the surveillance cultures are useful to monitor the Candida colonization in ICU patients. In addition, the sequential observation of anti-mannan antibodies could contribute to early diagnosis of candidiasis more than Candida mannan antigen in immunocompetent patients

Diagnosis of invasive candidiasis in the ICU

Invasive candidiasis ranges from 5 to 10 cases per 1,000 ICU admissions and represents 5% to 10% of all ICU-acquired infections, with an overall mortality comparable to that of severe sepsis/septic shock. A large majority of them are due to Candida albicans, but the proportion of strains with decreased sensitivity or resistance to fluconazole is increasingly reported. A high proportion of ICU patients become colonized, but only 5% to 30% of them develop an invasive infection. Progressive colonization and major abdominal surgery are common risk factors, but invasive candidiasis is difficult to predict and early diagnosis remains a major challenge. Indeed, blood cultures are positive in a minority of cases and often late in the course of infection. New nonculture-based laboratory techniques may contribute to early diagnosis and management of invasive candidiasis. Both serologic (mannan, antimannan, and betaglucan) and molecular (Candida-specific PCR in blood and serum) have been applied as serial screening procedures in high-risk patients. However, although reasonably sensitive and specific, these techniques are largely investigational and their clinical usefulness remains to be established. Identification of patients susceptible to benefit from empirical antifungal treatment remains challenging, but it is mandatory to avoid antifungal overuse in critically ill patients. Growing evidence suggests that monitoring the dynamic of Candida colonization in surgical patients and prediction rules based on combined risk factors may be used to identify ICU patients at high risk of invasive candidiasis susceptible to benefit from prophylaxis or preemptive antifungal treatment

The prevalence, antibiotic resistance and mecA characterization of coagulase negative staphylococci recovered from non-healthcare settings in London, UK

Background Coagulase negative staphylococci (CoNS) are important reservoirs of antibiotic resistance genes and associated mobile genetic elements and are believed to contribute to the emergence of successful methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) clones. Although, these bacteria have been linked to various ecological niches, little is known about the dissemination and genetic diversity of antibiotic resistant CoNS in general public settings. Methods Four hundred seventy-nine samples were collected from different non-healthcare/general public settings in various locations (n = 355) and from the hands of volunteers (n = 124) in London UK between April 2013 and Nov 2014. Results Six hundred forty-three staphylococcal isolates belonging to 19 staphylococcal species were identified. Five hundred seventy-two (94%) isolates were resistant to at least one antibiotic, and only 34 isolates were fully susceptible. Sixty-eight (11%) mecA positive staphylococcal isolates were determined in this study. SCCmec types were fully determined for forty-six isolates. Thirteen staphylococci (19%) carried SCCmec V, followed by 8 isolates carrying SCCmec type I (2%), 5 SCCmec type IV (7%), 4 SCCmec type II (6%), 1 SCCmec type III (2%), 1 SCCmec type VI (2%), and 1 SCCmec type VIII (2%). In addition, three isolates harboured a new SCCmec type 1A, which carried combination of class A mec complex and ccr type 1. MLST typing revealed that all S. epidermidis strains possess new MLST types and were assigned the following new sequence types: ST599, ST600, ST600, ST600, ST601, ST602, ST602, ST603, ST604, ST605, ST606, ST607 and ST608. Conclusions The prevalence of antibiotic resistant staphylococci in general public settings demonstrates that antibiotics in the natural environments contribute to the selection of antibiotic resistant microorganisms. The finding of various SCCmec types in non-healthcare associated environments indicates the complexity of SCCmec. We also report on new MLST types that were assigned for all S. epidermidis isolates, which demonstrates the genetic variability of these isolates

Mortality after Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock in Swedish Intensive Care Units 2008-2016 : A nationwide observational study

Background Recent studies have reported substantially decreased hospital mortality for sepsis, but data are scarcer on outcomes after hospital discharge. We studied mortality up to 1 year in Swedish intensive care unit (ICU) patients with and without sepsis. Methods Demographic and medical data for all registered adult general ICU patients admitted between 01‐01‐2008 and 30‐09‐2016 were retrieved from the Swedish Intensive Care Registry and linked with the National Patient Register for comorbidity data and the Cause of Death Register for death dates. The population was divided in two cohorts; (a) Patients with a diagnosis of severe sepsis or septic shock and (b) All other ICU patients. Crude yearly mortality was calculated, and logistic regression was used to analyse predictors of mortality. Results 28 886 sepsis and 221 941 nonsepsis ICU patients were identified. In the sepsis cohort, in 2008 unadjusted mortality was 32.6% at hospital discharge, 32.7% at 30 days, 39% at 90 days and 46.8% at 365 days. In 2016, mortality was 30.5% at hospital discharge, 31.9% at 30 days and 38% at 90 days. Mortality at 365 days was 45.3% in 2015. Corresponding nonsepsis mortality was 15.4%, 16.2%, 20% and 26% in 2008 and 15.6%, 17.1%, 20.7% and 26.7% in 2016/2015. No consistent decrease in odds of mortality was seen in the adjusted analysis. Conclusions Mortality in severe sepsis and septic shock is high, with more than one in three patients not surviving three months after ICU admission, and adjusted mortality has not decreased convincingly in Sweden 2008‐2016

Development and validation of a risk model for identification of non-neutropenic, critically ill adult patients at high risk of invasive Candida infection: the Fungal Infection Risk Evaluation (FIRE) Study.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing evidence that invasive fungal disease (IFD) is more likely to occur in non-neutropenic patients in critical care units. A number of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have evaluated antifungal prophylaxis in non-neutropenic, critically ill patients, demonstrating a reduction in the risk of proven IFD and suggesting a reduction in mortality. It is necessary to establish a method to identify and target antifungal prophylaxis at those patients at highest risk of IFD, who stand to benefit most from any antifungal prophylaxis strategy. OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate risk models to identify non-neutropenic, critically ill adult patients at high risk of invasive Candida infection, who would benefit from antifungal prophylaxis, and to assess the cost-effectiveness of targeting antifungal prophylaxis to high-risk patients based on these models. DESIGN: Systematic review, prospective data collection, statistical modelling, economic decision modelling and value of information analysis. SETTING: Ninety-six UK adult general critical care units. PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive admissions to participating critical care units. INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Invasive fungal disease, defined as a blood culture or sample from a normally sterile site showing yeast/mould cells in a microbiological or histopathological report. For statistical and economic modelling, the primary outcome was invasive Candida infection, defined as IFD-positive for Candida species. RESULTS: Systematic review: Thirteen articles exploring risk factors, risk models or clinical decision rules for IFD in critically ill adult patients were identified. Risk factors reported to be significantly associated with IFD were included in the final data set for the prospective data collection. DATA COLLECTION: Data were collected on 60,778 admissions between July 2009 and March 2011. Overall, 383 patients (0.6%) were admitted with or developed IFD. The majority of IFD patients (94%) were positive for Candida species. The most common site of infection was blood (55%). The incidence of IFD identified in unit was 4.7 cases per 1000 admissions, and for unit-acquired IFD was 3.2 cases per 1000 admissions. Statistical modelling: Risk models were developed at admission to the critical care unit, 24 hours and the end of calendar day 3. The risk model at admission had fair discrimination (c-index 0.705). Discrimination improved at 24 hours (c-index 0.823) and this was maintained at the end of calendar day 3 (c-index 0.835). There was a drop in model performance in the validation sample. Economic decision model: Irrespective of risk threshold, incremental quality-adjusted life-years of prophylaxis strategies compared with current practice were positive but small compared with the incremental costs. Incremental net benefits of each prophylaxis strategy compared with current practice were all negative. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves showed that current practice was the strategy most likely to be cost-effective. Across all parameters in the decision model, results indicated that the value of further research for the whole population of interest might be high relative to the research costs. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the Fungal Infection Risk Evaluation (FIRE) Study, derived from a highly representative sample of adult general critical care units across the UK, indicated a low incidence of IFD among non-neutropenic, critically ill adult patients. IFD was associated with substantially higher mortality, more intensive organ support and longer length of stay. Risk modelling produced simple risk models that provided acceptable discrimination for identifying patients at 'high risk' of invasive Candida infection. Results of the economic model suggested that the current most cost-effective treatment strategy for prophylactic use of systemic antifungal agents among non-neutropenic, critically ill adult patients admitted to NHS adult general critical care units is a strategy of no risk assessment and no antifungal prophylaxis. FUNDING: Funding for this study was provided by the Health Technology Assessment programme of the National Institute for Health Research

Huge variation in obtaining ethical permission for a non-interventional observational study in Europe

BACKGROUND: Ethical approval (EA) must be obtained before medical research can start. We describe the differences in EA for an pseudonymous, non-interventional, observational European study. METHODS: Sixteen European national coordinators (NCs) of the international study on very old intensive care patients answered an online questionnaire concerning their experience getting EA. RESULTS: N = 8/16 of the NCs could apply at one single national ethical committee (EC), while the others had to apply to various regional ECs and/or individual hospital institutional research boards (IRBs). The time between applying for EA and the first decision varied between 7 days and 300 days. In 9/16 informed consent from the patient was not deemed necessary; in 7/16 informed consent was required from the patient or relatives. The upload of coded data to a central database required additional information in 14/16. In 4/16 the NCs had to ask separate approval to keep a subject identification code list to de-pseudonymize the patients if questions would occur. Only 2/16 of the NCs agreed that informed consent was necessary for this observational study. Overall, 6/16 of the NCs were satisfied with the entire process and 8/16 were (very) unsatisfied. 11/16 would welcome a European central EC that would judge observational studies for all European countries. DISCUSSION: Variations in the process and prolonged time needed to get EA for observational studies hampers inclusion of patients in some European countries. This might have a negative influence on the external validity. Further harmonization of ethical approval process across Europe is welcomed for low-risk observational studies. CONCLUSION: Getting ethical approval for low-risk, non-interventional, observational studies varies enormously across European countries

Huge variation in obtaining ethical permission for a non-interventional observational study in Europe

BACKGROUND: Ethical approval (EA) must be obtained before medical research can start. We describe the differences in EA for an pseudonymous, non-interventional, observational European study. METHODS: Sixteen European national coordinators (NCs) of the international study on very old intensive care patients answered an online questionnaire concerning their experience getting EA. RESULTS: N = 8/16 of the NCs could apply at one single national ethical committee (EC), while the others had to apply to various regional ECs and/or individual hospital institutional research boards (IRBs). The time between applying for EA and the first decision varied between 7 days and 300 days. In 9/16 informed consent from the patient was not deemed necessary; in 7/16 informed consent was required from the patient or relatives. The upload of coded data to a central database required additional information in 14/16. In 4/16 the NCs had to ask separate approval to keep a subject identification code list to de-pseudonymize the patients if questions would occur. Only 2/16 of the NCs agreed that informed consent was necessary for this observational study. Overall, 6/16 of the NCs were satisfied with the entire process and 8/16 were (very) unsatisfied. 11/16 would welcome a European central EC that would judge observational studies for all European countries. DISCUSSION: Variations in the process and prolonged time needed to get EA for observational studies hampers inclusion of patients in some European countries. This might have a negative influence on the external validity. Further harmonization of ethical approval process across Europe is welcomed for low-risk observational studies. CONCLUSION: Getting ethical approval for low-risk, non-interventional, observational studies varies enormously across European countries