International study to evaluate PCR methods for detection of Trypanosoma cruzi DNA in blood samples from Chagas disease patients

A century after its discovery, Chagas disease, caused by the parasite Trypanosoma cruzi, still represents a major neglected tropical threat. Accurate diagnostics tools as well as surrogate markers of parasitological response to treatment are research priorities in the field. The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) has been proposed as a sensitive laboratory tool for detection of T. cruzi infection and monitoring of parasitological treatment outcome. However, high variation in accuracy and lack of international quality controls has precluded reliable applications in the clinical practice and comparisons of data among cohorts and geographical regions. In an effort towards harmonization of PCR strategies, 26 expert laboratories from 16 countries evaluated their current PCR procedures against sets of control samples, composed by serial dilutions of T.cruzi DNA from culture stocks belonging to different lineages, human blood spiked with parasite cells and blood samples from Chagas disease patients. A high variability in sensitivities and specificities was found among the 48 reported PCR tests. Out of them, four tests with best performance were selected and further evaluated. This study represents a crucial first step towards device of a standardized operative procedure for T. cruzi PCR.Fil: Schijman, Alejandro G. Instituto de Investigaciones en Ingeniería Genética y Biología Molecular (INGEBI-CONICET). Laboratorio de Biología Molecular de la Enfermedad de Chagas (LabMECh); Argentina.Fil: Bisio, Margarita. Instituto de Investigaciones en Ingeniería Genética y Biología Molecular (INGEBI-CONICET). Laboratorio de Biología Molecular de la Enfermedad de Chagas (LabMECh); Argentina.Fil: Orellana, Liliana. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Instituto de Cálculo; Argentina.Fil: Sued, Mariela. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Instituto de Cálculo; Argentina.Fil: Duffy, Tomás. Instituto de Investigaciones en Ingeniería Genética y Biología Molecular (INGEBI-CONICET). Laboratorio de Biología Molecular de la Enfermedad de Chagas (LabMECh); Argentina.Fil: Mejia Jaramillo, Ana M. Universidad de Antioquia. Grupo Chagas; Colombia.Fil: Cura, Carolina. Instituto de Investigaciones en Ingeniería Genética y Biología Molecular (INGEBI-CONICET). Laboratorio de Biología Molecular de la Enfermedad de Chagas (LabMECh); Argentina.Fil: Auter, Frederic. French Blood Services; Francia.Fil: Veron, Vincent. Universidad de Parasitología. Laboratorio Hospitalario; Guayana Francesa.Fil: Qvarnstrom, Yvonne. Centers for Disease Control. Department of Parasitic Diseases; Estados Unidos.Fil: Deborggraeve, Stijn. Institute of Tropical Medicine; Bélgica.Fil: Hijar, Gisely. Instituto Nacional de Salud; Perú.Fil: Zulantay, Inés. Facultad de Medicina; Chile.Fil: Lucero, Raúl Horacio. Universidad Nacional del Nordeste; Argentina.Fil: Velázquez, Elsa. ANLIS Dr.C.G.Malbrán. Instituto Nacional de Parasitología Dr. Mario Fatala Chaben; Argentina.Fil: Tellez, Tatiana. Universidad Mayor de San Simon. Centro Universitario de Medicina Tropical; Bolivia.Fil: Sanchez Leon, Zunilda. Universidad Nacional de Asunción. Instituto de Investigaciones en Ciencias de la Salud; Paraguay.Fil: Galvão, Lucia. Faculdade de Farmácia; Brasil.Fil: Nolder, Debbie. Hospital for Tropical Diseases. London School of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene Department of Clinical Parasitology; Reino Unido.Fil: Monje Rumi, María. Universidad Nacional de Salta. Laboratorio de Patología Experimental; Argentina.Fil: Levi, José E. Hospital Sirio Libanês. Blood Bank; Brasil.Fil: Ramirez, Juan D. Universidad de los Andes. Centro de Investigaciones en Microbiología y Parasitología Tropical; Colombia.Fil: Zorrilla, Pilar. Instituto Pasteur; Uruguay.Fil: Flores, María. Instituto de Salud Carlos III. Centro de Mahahonda; España.Fil: Jercic, Maria I. Instituto Nacional De Salud. Sección Parasitología; Chile.Fil: Crisante, Gladys. Universidad de los Andes. Centro de Investigaciones Parasitológicas J.F. Torrealba; Venezuela.Fil: Añez, Néstor. Universidad de los Andes. Centro de Investigaciones Parasitológicas J.F. Torrealba; Venezuela.Fil: De Castro, Ana M. Universidade Federal de Goiás. Instituto de Patologia Tropical e Saúde Pública (IPTSP); Brasil.Fil: Gonzalez, Clara I. Universidad Industrial de Santander. Grupo de Inmunología y Epidemiología Molecular (GIEM); Colombia.Fil: Acosta Viana, Karla. Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán. Departamento de Biomedicina de Enfermedades Infecciosas y Parasitarias Laboratorio de Biología Celular; México.Fil: Yachelini, Pedro. Universidad Católica de Santiago del Estero. Instituto de Biomedicina; Argentina.Fil: Torrico, Faustino. Universidad Mayor de San Simon. Centro Universitario de Medicina Tropical; Bolivia.Fil: Robello, Carlos. Instituto Pasteur; Uruguay.Fil: Diosque, Patricio. Universidad Nacional de Salta. Laboratorio de Patología Experimental; Argentina.Fil: Triana Chavez, Omar. Universidad de Antioquia. Grupo Chagas; Colombia.Fil: Aznar, Christine. Universidad de Parasitología. Laboratorio Hospitalario; Guayana Francesa.Fil: Russomando, Graciela. Universidad Nacional de Asunción. Instituto de Investigaciones en Ciencias de la Salud; Paraguay.Fil: Büscher, Philippe. Institute of Tropical Medicine; Bélgica.Fil: Assal, Azzedine. French Blood Services; Francia.Fil: Guhl, Felipe. Universidad de los Andes. Centro de Investigaciones en Microbiología y Parasitología Tropical; Colombia.Fil: Sosa Estani, Sergio. ANLIS Dr.C.G.Malbrán. Centro Nacional de Diagnóstico e Investigación en Endemo-Epidemias; Argentina.Fil: DaSilva, Alexandre. Centers for Disease Control. Department of Parasitic Diseases; Estados Unidos.Fil: Britto, Constança. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz/FIOCRUZ. Laboratório de Biologia Molecular e Doenças Endêmicas; Brasil.Fil: Luquetti, Alejandro. Laboratório de Pesquisa de Doença de Chagas; Brasil.Fil: Ladzins, Janis. World Health Organization (WHO). Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (TDR); Suiza

International Study to Evaluate PCR Methods for Detection of Trypanosoma cruzi DNA in Blood Samples from Chagas Disease Patients

A century after its discovery, Chagas disease, caused by the parasite Trypanosoma cruzi, still represents a major neglected tropical threat. Accurate diagnostics tools as well as surrogate markers of parasitological response to treatment are research priorities in the field. The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) has been proposed as a sensitive laboratory tool for detection of T. cruzi infection and monitoring of parasitological treatment outcome. However, high variation in accuracy and lack of international quality controls has precluded reliable applications in the clinical practice and comparisons of data among cohorts and geographical regions. In an effort towards harmonization of PCR strategies, 26 expert laboratories from 16 countries evaluated their current PCR procedures against sets of control samples, composed by serial dilutions of T.cruzi DNA from culture stocks belonging to different lineages, human blood spiked with parasite cells and blood samples from Chagas disease patients. A high variability in sensitivities and specificities was found among the 48 reported PCR tests. Out of them, four tests with best performance were selected and further evaluated. This study represents a crucial first step towards device of a standardized operative procedure for T. cruzi PCR

Antimicrobial resistance among migrants in Europe: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Rates of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) are rising globally and there is concern that increased migration is contributing to the burden of antibiotic resistance in Europe. However, the effect of migration on the burden of AMR in Europe has not yet been comprehensively examined. Therefore, we did a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify and synthesise data for AMR carriage or infection in migrants to Europe to examine differences in patterns of AMR across migrant groups and in different settings. METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and Scopus with no language restrictions from Jan 1, 2000, to Jan 18, 2017, for primary data from observational studies reporting antibacterial resistance in common bacterial pathogens among migrants to 21 European Union-15 and European Economic Area countries. To be eligible for inclusion, studies had to report data on carriage or infection with laboratory-confirmed antibiotic-resistant organisms in migrant populations. We extracted data from eligible studies and assessed quality using piloted, standardised forms. We did not examine drug resistance in tuberculosis and excluded articles solely reporting on this parameter. We also excluded articles in which migrant status was determined by ethnicity, country of birth of participants' parents, or was not defined, and articles in which data were not disaggregated by migrant status. Outcomes were carriage of or infection with antibiotic-resistant organisms. We used random-effects models to calculate the pooled prevalence of each outcome. The study protocol is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42016043681. FINDINGS: We identified 2274 articles, of which 23 observational studies reporting on antibiotic resistance in 2319 migrants were included. The pooled prevalence of any AMR carriage or AMR infection in migrants was 25·4% (95% CI 19·1-31·8; I2 =98%), including meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (7·8%, 4·8-10·7; I2 =92%) and antibiotic-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (27·2%, 17·6-36·8; I2 =94%). The pooled prevalence of any AMR carriage or infection was higher in refugees and asylum seekers (33·0%, 18·3-47·6; I2 =98%) than in other migrant groups (6·6%, 1·8-11·3; I2 =92%). The pooled prevalence of antibiotic-resistant organisms was slightly higher in high-migrant community settings (33·1%, 11·1-55·1; I2 =96%) than in migrants in hospitals (24·3%, 16·1-32·6; I2 =98%). We did not find evidence of high rates of transmission of AMR from migrant to host populations. INTERPRETATION: Migrants are exposed to conditions favouring the emergence of drug resistance during transit and in host countries in Europe. Increased antibiotic resistance among refugees and asylum seekers and in high-migrant community settings (such as refugee camps and detention facilities) highlights the need for improved living conditions, access to health care, and initiatives to facilitate detection of and appropriate high-quality treatment for antibiotic-resistant infections during transit and in host countries. Protocols for the prevention and control of infection and for antibiotic surveillance need to be integrated in all aspects of health care, which should be accessible for all migrant groups, and should target determinants of AMR before, during, and after migration. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, Imperial College Healthcare Charity, the Wellcome Trust, and UK National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare-associated Infections and Antimictobial Resistance at Imperial College London

A collaboratively derived environmental research agenda for Galapagos

Galápagos is one of the most pristine archipelagos in the world and its conservation relies upon research and sensible management. In recent decades both the interest in, and the needs of, the islands have increased, yet the funds and capacity for necessary research have remained limited. It has become, therefore, increasingly important to identify areas of priority research to assist decision-making in Galápagos conservation. This study identified 50 questions considered priorities for future research and management. The exercise involved the collaboration of policy makers, practitioners and researchers from more than 30 different organisations. Initially, 360 people were consulted to generate 781 questions. An established process of preworkshop voting and three rounds to reduce and reword the questions, followed by a two-day workshop, was used to produce the final 50 questions. The most common issues raised by this list of questions were human population growth, climate change and the impact of invasive alien species. These results have already been used by a range of organisations and politicians and are expected to provide the basis for future research on the islands so that its sustainability may be enhanced. </jats:p

Hyperoxemia and excess oxygen use in early acute respiratory distress syndrome : Insights from the LUNG SAFE study

Publisher Copyright: © 2020 The Author(s). Copyright: Copyright 2020 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.Background: Concerns exist regarding the prevalence and impact of unnecessary oxygen use in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We examined this issue in patients with ARDS enrolled in the Large observational study to UNderstand the Global impact of Severe Acute respiratory FailurE (LUNG SAFE) study. Methods: In this secondary analysis of the LUNG SAFE study, we wished to determine the prevalence and the outcomes associated with hyperoxemia on day 1, sustained hyperoxemia, and excessive oxygen use in patients with early ARDS. Patients who fulfilled criteria of ARDS on day 1 and day 2 of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure were categorized based on the presence of hyperoxemia (PaO2 > 100 mmHg) on day 1, sustained (i.e., present on day 1 and day 2) hyperoxemia, or excessive oxygen use (FIO2 ≥ 0.60 during hyperoxemia). Results: Of 2005 patients that met the inclusion criteria, 131 (6.5%) were hypoxemic (PaO2 < 55 mmHg), 607 (30%) had hyperoxemia on day 1, and 250 (12%) had sustained hyperoxemia. Excess FIO2 use occurred in 400 (66%) out of 607 patients with hyperoxemia. Excess FIO2 use decreased from day 1 to day 2 of ARDS, with most hyperoxemic patients on day 2 receiving relatively low FIO2. Multivariate analyses found no independent relationship between day 1 hyperoxemia, sustained hyperoxemia, or excess FIO2 use and adverse clinical outcomes. Mortality was 42% in patients with excess FIO2 use, compared to 39% in a propensity-matched sample of normoxemic (PaO2 55-100 mmHg) patients (P = 0.47). Conclusions: Hyperoxemia and excess oxygen use are both prevalent in early ARDS but are most often non-sustained. No relationship was found between hyperoxemia or excessive oxygen use and patient outcome in this cohort. Trial registration: LUNG-SAFE is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02010073publishersversionPeer reviewe

Surgical site infection after gastrointestinal surgery in high-income, middle-income, and low-income countries: a prospective, international, multicentre cohort study

Background: Surgical site infection (SSI) is one of the most common infections associated with health care, but its importance as a global health priority is not fully understood. We quantified the burden of SSI after gastrointestinal surgery in countries in all parts of the world. Methods: This international, prospective, multicentre cohort study included consecutive patients undergoing elective or emergency gastrointestinal resection within 2-week time periods at any health-care facility in any country. Countries with participating centres were stratified into high-income, middle-income, and low-income groups according to the UN's Human Development Index (HDI). Data variables from the GlobalSurg 1 study and other studies that have been found to affect the likelihood of SSI were entered into risk adjustment models. The primary outcome measure was the 30-day SSI incidence (defined by US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria for superficial and deep incisional SSI). Relationships with explanatory variables were examined using Bayesian multilevel logistic regression models. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02662231. Findings: Between Jan 4, 2016, and July 31, 2016, 13 265 records were submitted for analysis. 12 539 patients from 343 hospitals in 66 countries were included. 7339 (58·5%) patient were from high-HDI countries (193 hospitals in 30 countries), 3918 (31·2%) patients were from middle-HDI countries (82 hospitals in 18 countries), and 1282 (10·2%) patients were from low-HDI countries (68 hospitals in 18 countries). In total, 1538 (12·3%) patients had SSI within 30 days of surgery. The incidence of SSI varied between countries with high (691 [9·4%] of 7339 patients), middle (549 [14·0%] of 3918 patients), and low (298 [23·2%] of 1282) HDI (p < 0·001). The highest SSI incidence in each HDI group was after dirty surgery (102 [17·8%] of 574 patients in high-HDI countries; 74 [31·4%] of 236 patients in middle-HDI countries; 72 [39·8%] of 181 patients in low-HDI countries). Following risk factor adjustment, patients in low-HDI countries were at greatest risk of SSI (adjusted odds ratio 1·60, 95% credible interval 1·05–2·37; p=0·030). 132 (21·6%) of 610 patients with an SSI and a microbiology culture result had an infection that was resistant to the prophylactic antibiotic used. Resistant infections were detected in 49 (16·6%) of 295 patients in high-HDI countries, in 37 (19·8%) of 187 patients in middle-HDI countries, and in 46 (35·9%) of 128 patients in low-HDI countries (p < 0·001). Interpretation: Countries with a low HDI carry a disproportionately greater burden of SSI than countries with a middle or high HDI and might have higher rates of antibiotic resistance. In view of WHO recommendations on SSI prevention that highlight the absence of high-quality interventional research, urgent, pragmatic, randomised trials based in LMICs are needed to assess measures aiming to reduce this preventable complication

International Nosocomial Infection Control Consortium report, datasummary of 50 countries for 2010-2015 : Device-associated module

Q3Artículo original1495-1504Background: We report the results of International Nosocomial Infection Control Consortium (INICC) sur-veillance study from January 2010-December 2015 in 703 intensive care units (ICUs) in Latin America,Europe, Eastern Mediterranean, Southeast Asia, and Western Pacific.Methods:During the 6-year study period, using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Health-care Safety Network (CDC-NHSN) definitions for device-associated health care-associated infection (DA-HAI), we collected prospective data from 861,284 patients hospitalized in INICC hospital ICUs for an aggregateof 3,506,562 days.Results:Although device use in INICC ICUs was similar to that reported from CDC-NHSN ICUs, DA-HAIrates were higher in the INICC ICUs: in the INICC medical-surgical ICUs, the pooled rate of central line-associated bloodstream infection, 4.1 per 1,000 central line-days, was nearly 5-fold higher than the 0.8per 1,000 central line-days reported from comparable US ICUs, the overall rate of ventilator-associatedpneumonia was also higher, 13.1 versus 0.9 per 1,000 ventilator-days, as was the rate of catheter-associated urinary tract infection, 5.07 versus 1.7 per 1,000 catheter-days. From blood cultures samples,frequencies of resistance ofPseudomonasisolates to amikacin (29.87% vs 10%) and to imipenem (44.3%vs 26.1%), and ofKlebsiella pneumoniaeisolates to ceftazidime (73.2% vs 28.8%) and to imipenem (43.27%vs 12.8%) were also higher in the INICC ICUs compared with CDC-NHSN ICUs.Conclusions:Although DA-HAIs in INICC ICU patients continue to be higher than the rates reported inCDC-NSHN ICUs representing the developed world, we have observed a significant trend toward the re-duction of DA-HAI rates in INICC ICUs as shown in each international report. It is INICC’s main goal tocontinue facilitating education, training, and basic and cost-effective tools and resources, such as stan-dardized forms and an online platform, to tackle this problem effectively and systematically