Predictors of choice of initial antifungal treatment in intraabdominal candidiasis

Intraabdominal candidiasis (IAC) is the second most frequent form of invasive candidiasis, and is associated with high mortality rates. This study aims to identify current practices in initial antifungal treatment (IAT) in a real-world scenario and to define the predictors of the choice of echinocandins or azoles in IAC episodes. Secondary analysis was performed of a multinational retrospective cohort at 13 teaching hospitals in four countries (Italy, Greece, Spain and Brazil), over a 3-year period (2011\u20132013). IAC was identified in 481 patients, 323 of whom received antifungal therapy (classified as the treatment group). After excluding 13 patients given amphotericin B, the treatment group was further divided into the echinocandin group (209 patients; 64.7%) and the azole group (101 patients; 32.3%). Median APACHE II scores were significantly higher in the echinocandin group (p 0.013), but IAT did not differ significantly with regard to the Candida species involved. Logistic multivariate stepwise regression analysis, adjusted for centre effect, identified septic shock (adjusted OR (aOR) 1.54), APACHE II > 15 (aOR 1.16) and presence in surgical ward at diagnosis (aOR 1.16) as the top three independent variables associated with an empirical echinocandin regimen. No differences in 30-day mortality were observed between groups. Echinocandin regimen was the first choice for IAT in patients with IAC. No statistical differences in mortality were observed between regimens, but echinocandins were administered to patients with more severe disease. Some disagreements were identified between current clinical guidelines and prescription of antifungals for IAC at the bedside, so further educational measures are required to optimize therapies

Risk Factors for Intra-Abdominal Candidiasis in Intensive Care Units: Results from EUCANDICU Study

Introduction: Intra-abdominal infections represent the second most frequently acquired infection in the intensive care unit (ICU), with mortality rates ranging from 20% to 50%. Candida spp. may be responsible for up to 10–30% of cases. This study assesses risk factors for development of intra-abdominal candidiasis (IAC) among patients admitted to ICU. Methods: We performed a case–control study in 26 European ICUs during the period January 2015–December 2016. Patients at least 18 years old who developed an episode of microbiologically documented IAC during their stay in the ICU (at least 48 h after admission) served as the case cohort. The control group consisted of adult patients who did not develop episodes of IAC during ICU admission. Matching was performed at a ratio of 1:1 according to time at risk (i.e. controls had to have at least the same length of ICU stay as their matched cases prior to IAC onset), ICU ward and period of study. Results: During the study period, 101 case patients with a diagnosis of IAC were included in the study. On univariate analysis, severe hepatic failure, prior receipt of antibiotics, prior receipt of parenteral nutrition, abdominal drain, prior bacterial infection, anastomotic leakage, recurrent gastrointestinal perforation, prior receipt of antifungal drugs and higher median number of abdominal surgical interventions were associated with IAC development. On multivariate analysis, recurrent gastrointestinal perforation (OR 13.90; 95% CI 2.65–72.82, p = 0.002), anastomotic leakage (OR 6.61; 95% CI 1.98–21.99, p = 0.002), abdominal drain (OR 6.58; 95% CI 1.73–25.06, p = 0.006), prior receipt of antifungal drugs (OR 4.26; 95% CI 1.04–17.46, p = 0.04) or antibiotics (OR 3.78; 95% CI 1.32–10.52, p = 0.01) were independently associated with IAC. Conclusions: Gastrointestinal perforation, anastomotic leakage, abdominal drain and prior receipt of antifungals or antibiotics may help to identify critically ill patients with higher probability of developing IAC. Prospective studies are needed to identify which patients will benefit from early antifungal treatment

Modeling the Spread of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Nursing Homes for Elderly

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is endemic in many hospital settings, including nursing homes. It is an important nosocomial pathogen that causes mortality and an economic burden to patients, hospitals, and the community. The epidemiology of the bacteria in nursing homes is both hospital- and community-like. Transmission occurs via hands of health care workers (HCWs) and direct contacts among residents during social activities. In this work, mathematical modeling in both deterministic and stochastic frameworks is used to study dissemination of MRSA among residents and HCWs, persistence and prevalence of MRSA in a population, and possible means of controlling the spread of this pathogen in nursing homes. The model predicts that: without strict screening and decolonization of colonized individuals at admission, MRSA may persist; decolonization of colonized residents, improving hand hygiene in both residents and HCWs, reducing the duration of contamination of HCWs, and decreasing the resident∶staff ratio are possible control strategies; the mean time that a resident remains susceptible since admission may be prolonged by screening and decolonization treatment in colonized individuals; in the stochastic framework, the total number of colonized residents varies and may increase when the admission of colonized residents, the duration of colonization, the average number of contacts among residents, or the average number of contacts that each resident requires from HCWs increases; an introduction of a colonized individual into an MRSA-free nursing home has a much higher probability of leading to a major outbreak taking off than an introduction of a contaminated HCW

MRSA prevalence in european healthcare settings: a review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>During the past two decades, methicillin-resistant <it>Staphylococcus aureus </it>(MRSA) has become increasingly common as a source of nosocomial infections. Most studies of MRSA surveillance were performed during outbreaks, so that results are not applicable to settings in which MRSA is endemic. This paper gives an overview of MRSA prevalence in hospitals and other healthcare institutions in non-outbreak situations in Western Europe.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A keyword search was conducted in the Medline database (2000 through June 2010). Titles and abstracts were screened to identify studies on MRSA prevalence in patients in non-outbreak situations in European healthcare facilities. Each study was assessed using seven quality criteria (outcome definition, time unit, target population, participants, observer bias, screening procedure, swabbing sites) and categorized as 'good', 'fair', or 'poor'.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>31 observational studies were included in the review. Four of the studies were of good quality. Surveillance screening of MRSA was performed in long-term care (11 studies) and acute care (20 studies). Prevalence rates varied over a wide range, from less than 1% to greater than 20%. Prevalence in the acute care and long-term care settings was comparable. The prevalence of MRSA was expressed in various ways - the percentage of MRSA among patients (range between 1% and 24%), the percentage of MRSA among <it>S. aureus </it>isolates (range between 5% and 54%), and as the prevalence density (range between 0.4 and 4 MRSA cases per 1,000 patient days). The screening policy differed with respect to time points (on admission or during hospital stay), selection criteria (all admissions or patients at high risk for MRSA) and anatomical sampling sites.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This review underlines the methodological differences between studies of MRSA surveillance. For comparisons between different healthcare settings, surveillance methods and outcome calculations should be standardized.</p