Incidence, Risk Factors and Outcome of Pre-engraftment Gram-Negative Bacteremia after Allogeneic and Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation: An Italian Prospective Multicenter Survey

Background Gram-negative bacteremia (GNB) is a major cause of illness and death after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), and updated epidemiological investigation is advisable. Methods We prospectively evaluated the epidemiology of pre-engraftment GNB in 1118 allogeneic HSCTs (allo-HSCTs) and 1625 autologous HSCTs (auto-HSCTs) among 54 transplant centers during 2014 (SIGNB-GITMO-AMCLI study). Using logistic regression methods. we identified risk factors for GNB and evaluated the impact of GNB on the 4-month overall-survival after transplant. Results The cumulative incidence of pre-engraftment GNB was 17.3% in allo-HSCT and 9% in auto-HSCT. Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa were the most common isolates. By multivariate analysis, variables associated with GNB were a diagnosis of acute leukemia, a transplant from a HLA-mismatched donor and from cord blood, older age, and duration of severe neutropenia in allo-HSCT, and a diagnosis of lymphoma, older age, and no antibacterial prophylaxis in auto-HSCT. A pretransplant infection by a resistant pathogen was significantly associated with an increased risk of posttransplant infection by the same microorganism in allo-HSCT. Colonization by resistant gram-negative bacteria was significantly associated with an increased rate of infection by the same pathogen in both transplant procedures. GNB was independently associated with increased mortality at 4 months both in allo-HSCT (hazard ratio, 2.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.45-3.13; P <.001) and auto-HSCT (2.43; 1.22-4.84; P =.01). Conclusions Pre-engraftment GNB is an independent factor associated with increased mortality rate at 4 months after auto-HSCT and allo-HSCT. Previous infectious history and colonization monitoring represent major indicators of GNB. Clinical Trials registration NCT02088840

May-Hegglin Anomaly, Sebastian Syndrome, Fechtner Syndrome, and Epstein Syndrome Are not Distinct Entities but Represent a Variable Expression of a Single Illness

May-Hegglin anomaly, Sebastian syndrome, Fechtner syndrome, and Epstein syndrome are autosomal dominant macrothrombocytopenias distinguished by different combinations of clinical and laboratory signs, such as sensorineural hearing loss, cataract, nephritis, and polymorphonuclear Döhle-like bodies. Mutations in the MYH9 gene encoding for the nonmuscle myosin heavy chain IIA (NMMHC-IIA) have been identified in all these syndromes. To understand the role of the MYH9 mutations, we report the molecular defects in 12 new cases, which together with our previous works represent a cohort of 19 families. Since no genotype-phenotype correlation was established, we performed an accurate clinical and biochemical re-evaluation of patients. In addition to macrothrombocytopenia, an abnormal distribution of NMMHC-IIA within leukocytes was observed in all individuals, including those without Döhle-like bodies. Selective, high-tone hearing deficiency and cataract was diagnosed in 83% and 23%, respectively, of patients initially referred as having May-Hegglin anomaly or Sebastian syndrome. Kidney abnormalities, such as hematuria and proteinuria, affected not only patients referred as Fechtner syndrome and Epstein syndrome but also those referred as May-Hegglin anomaly and Sebastian syndrome. These findings allowed us to conclude that May-Hegglin anomaly, Sebastian syndrome, Fechtner syndrome, and Epstein syndrome are not distinct entities but rather a single disorder with a continuous clinical spectrum varying from mild macrothrombocytopenia with leukocyte inclusions to a severe form complicated by hearing loss, cataracts, and renal failure. For this new nosologic entity, we propose the term "MHY9-related disease," which better interprets the recent knowledge in this field and identifies all patients at risk of developing renal, hearing, or visual defects

Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Darunavir/Cobicistat in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: Findings From the Multicenter Italian CORIST Study

Background: Protease inhibitors have been considered as possible therapeutic agents for COVID-19 patients. Objectives: To describe the association between lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) or darunavir/cobicistat (DRV/c) use and in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients. Study Design: Multicenter observational study of COVID-19 patients admitted in 33 Italian hospitals. Medications, preexisting conditions, clinical measures, and outcomes were extracted from medical records. Patients were retrospectively divided in three groups, according to use of LPV/r, DRV/c or none of them. Primary outcome in a time-to event analysis was death. We used Cox proportional-hazards models with inverse probability of treatment weighting by multinomial propensity scores. Results: Out of 3,451 patients, 33.3% LPV/r and 13.9% received DRV/c. Patients receiving LPV/r or DRV/c were more likely younger, men, had higher C-reactive protein levels while less likely had hypertension, cardiovascular, pulmonary or kidney disease. After adjustment for propensity scores, LPV/r use was not associated with mortality (HR = 0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.13), whereas treatment with DRV/c was associated with a higher death risk (HR = 1.89, 1.53 to 2.34, E-value = 2.43). This increased risk was more marked in women, in elderly, in patients with higher severity of COVID-19 and in patients receiving other COVID-19 drugs. Conclusions: In a large cohort of Italian patients hospitalized for COVID-19 in a real-life setting, the use of LPV/r treatment did not change death rate, while DRV/c was associated with increased mortality. Within the limits of an observational study, these data do not support the use of LPV/r or DRV/c in COVID-19 patients

Multiple Myeloma Treatment in Real-world Clinical Practice : Results of a Prospective, Multinational, Noninterventional Study

Funding Information: The authors would like to thank all patients and their families and all the EMMOS investigators for their valuable contributions to the study. The authors would like to acknowledge Robert Olie for his significant contribution to the EMMOS study. Writing support during the development of our report was provided by Laura Mulcahy and Catherine Crookes of FireKite, an Ashfield company, a part of UDG Healthcare plc, which was funded by Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc, and Janssen Global Services, LLC. The EMMOS study was supported by research funding from Janssen Pharmaceutical NV and Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Funding Information: The authors would like to thank all patients and their families and all the EMMOS investigators for their valuable contributions to the study. The authors would like to acknowledge Robert Olie for his significant contribution to the EMMOS study. Writing support during the development of our report was provided by Laura Mulcahy and Catherine Crookes of FireKite, an Ashfield company, a part of UDG Healthcare plc, which was funded by Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc, and Janssen Global Services, LLC. The EMMOS study was supported by research funding from Janssen Pharmaceutical NV and Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Funding Information: M.M. has received personal fees from Janssen, Celgene, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sanofi, Novartis, and Takeda and grants from Janssen and Sanofi during the conduct of the study. E.T. has received grants from Janssen and personal fees from Janssen and Takeda during the conduct of the study, and grants from Amgen, Celgene/Genesis, personal fees from Amgen, Celgene/Genesis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, and Glaxo-Smith Kline outside the submitted work. M.V.M. has received personal fees from Janssen, Celgene, Amgen, and Takeda outside the submitted work. M.C. reports honoraria from Janssen, outside the submitted work. M. B. reports grants from Janssen Cilag during the conduct of the study. M.D. has received honoraria for participation on advisory boards for Janssen, Celgene, Takeda, Amgen, and Novartis. H.S. has received honoraria from Janssen-Cilag, Celgene, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, and Takeda outside the submitted work. V.P. reports personal fees from Janssen during the conduct of the study and grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Amgen, grants and personal fees from Sanofi, and personal fees from Takeda outside the submitted work. W.W. has received personal fees and grants from Amgen, Celgene, Novartis, Roche, Takeda, Gilead, and Janssen and nonfinancial support from Roche outside the submitted work. J.S. reports grants and nonfinancial support from Janssen Pharmaceutical during the conduct of the study. V.L. reports funding from Janssen Global Services LLC during the conduct of the study and study support from Janssen-Cilag and Pharmion outside the submitted work. A.P. reports employment and shareholding of Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) during the conduct of the study. C.C. reports employment at Janssen-Cilag during the conduct of the study. C.F. reports employment at Janssen Research and Development during the conduct of the study. F.T.B. reports employment at Janssen-Cilag during the conduct of the study. The remaining authors have stated that they have no conflicts of interest. Publisher Copyright: © 2018 The AuthorsMultiple myeloma (MM) remains an incurable disease, with little information available on its management in real-world clinical practice. The results of the present prospective, noninterventional observational study revealed great diversity in the treatment regimens used to treat MM. Our results also provide data to inform health economic, pharmacoepidemiologic, and outcomes research, providing a framework for the design of protocols to improve the outcomes of patients with MM. Background: The present prospective, multinational, noninterventional study aimed to document and describe real-world treatment regimens and disease progression in multiple myeloma (MM) patients. Patients and Methods: Adult patients initiating any new MM therapy from October 2010 to October 2012 were eligible. A multistage patient/site recruitment model was applied to minimize the selection bias; enrollment was stratified by country, region, and practice type. The patient medical and disease features, treatment history, and remission status were recorded at baseline, and prospective data on treatment, efficacy, and safety were collected electronically every 3 months. Results: A total of 2358 patients were enrolled. Of these patients, 775 and 1583 did and did not undergo stem cell transplantation (SCT) at any time during treatment, respectively. Of the patients in the SCT and non-SCT groups, 49%, 21%, 14%, and 15% and 57%, 20%, 12% and 10% were enrolled at treatment line 1, 2, 3, and ≥ 4, respectively. In the SCT and non-SCT groups, 45% and 54% of the patients had received bortezomib-based therapy without thalidomide/lenalidomide, 12% and 18% had received thalidomide/lenalidomide-based therapy without bortezomib, and 30% and 4% had received bortezomib plus thalidomide/lenalidomide-based therapy as frontline treatment, respectively. The corresponding proportions of SCT and non-SCT patients in lines 2, 3, and ≥ 4 were 45% and 37%, 30% and 37%, and 12% and 3%, 33% and 27%, 35% and 32%, and 8% and 2%, and 27% and 27%, 27% and 23%, and 6% and 4%, respectively. In the SCT and non-SCT patients, the overall response rate was 86% to 97% and 64% to 85% in line 1, 74% to 78% and 59% to 68% in line 2, 55% to 83% and 48% to 60% in line 3, and 49% to 65% and 36% and 45% in line 4, respectively, for regimens that included bortezomib and/or thalidomide/lenalidomide. Conclusion: The results of our prospective study have revealed great diversity in the treatment regimens used to manage MM in real-life practice. This diversity was linked to factors such as novel agent accessibility and evolving treatment recommendations. Our results provide insight into associated clinical benefits.publishersversionPeer reviewe

Factors affecting the purchase of private label food products

none4noPurpose – This research paper aims to understand which factors influence the purchase of private label food products, by measuring the importance of 14 variables for purchasing frequency. Design/methodology/approach – Data were collected through questionnaires to a sample of consumers. They have been analysed according to the extra tree classifier methodology, which allows providing a more reliable classification – compared to previous studies – of factors affecting consumers’ choices of private label products. Findings – Results show that consumers’ choices related to private label food products are influenced by groups of heterogeneous variables related to their perception on products, satisfaction of post-consumption, store’s role and trust built over time by retailers. Research limitations/implications – Data have been collected through an online survey, which could generate the bias of self-selection; the sampling method is non-probabilistic. Practical implications – The study provides useful indications on the role of private labels in retailer management policies and on marketing competences and skills that are necessary for managing retailers’ assortments. Originality/value – The existing literature lacks clarity on the factors that influence the frequency of purchasing private label food products. By considering a higher number of variables than previous studies, it has been possible to classify and measure the importance of each variable included in the analysis framework adopted, also in case of correlation between variables. Keywords Private label, Purchase frequency, Food products, Consumer behaviour Paper type Research papermixedMarcello Sansone; Fabio Musso; Annarita Colamatteo; Maria Anna PagnanelliSansone, Marcello; Musso, Fabio; Colamatteo, Annarita; Anna Pagnanelli, Mari

Mediating Processes in the Relations of Parental Monitoring and School Climate With Cyberbullying: The Role of Moral Disengagement

In recent years, studies have extensively explored both personal and environmental predictors of cyberbullying. Among these predictors, parental monitoring and school climate were often expected to be associated with cyberbullying behaviors. However, little is known about the mediating mechanisms through which these relations may develop. The present study aimed to expand the current research by testing a theoretical model including the mediating role of moral disengagement in the relations between parental monitoring (including less collaborative vs. more collaborative strategies), school climate, and cyberbullying behaviors. Five hundred and seventy-one Italian adolescents (54.5% male) aged 14 to 20 years were recruited from high schools. Measures included demographics and parental monitoring, school climate, moral disengagement and cyberbullying scales. To test the hypothesized model, we estimated full and partial mediation models by structural equation modeling. Results showed negative indirect links of parental monitoring (but only the more collaborative strategies) and school climate with cyberbullying via moral disengagement. Less collaborative strategies of parental monitoring were neither directly nor indirectly related to cyberbullying. The findings revealed moral disengagement as an important process in explaining how ecological factors, such as parenting behaviors and school environments, are associate with cyberbullying. Limitations, strengths, and implications for practice are presented