Factors associated with the development of septic shock in patients with candidemia: A post hoc analysis from two prospective cohorts

Background: Almost one third of the patients with candidemia develop septic shock. The understanding why some patients do and others do not develop septic shock is very limited. The objective of this study was to identify variables associated with septic shock development in a large population of patients with candidemia. Methods: A post hoc analysis was performed on two prospective, multicenter cohort of patients with candidemia from 12 hospitals in Spain and Italy. All episodes occurring from September 2016 to February 2018 were analyzed to assess variables associated with septic shock development defined according to The Third International Consensus Definition for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). Results: Of 317 candidemic patients, 99 (31.2%) presented septic shock attributable to candidemia. Multivariate logistic regression analysis identifies the following factors associated with septic shock development: age > 50 years (OR 2.57, 95% CI 1.03-6.41, p = 0.04), abdominal source of the infection (OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.04-4.55, p = 0.04), and admission to a general ward at the time of candidemia onset (OR 0.21, 95% CI, 0.12-0.44, p = 0.001). Septic shock development was independently associated with a greater risk of 30-day mortality (OR 2.14, 95% CI 1.08-4.24, p = 0.02). Conclusions: Age and abdominal source of the infection are the most important factors significantly associated with the development of septic shock in patients with candidemia. Our findings suggest that host factors and source of the infection may be more important for development of septic shock than intrinsic virulence factors of organisms

X chromosome inactivation does not necessarily determine the severity of the phenotype in Rett syndrome patients

Rett syndrome (RTT) is a severe neurological disorder usually caused by mutations in the MECP2 gene. Since the MECP2 gene is located on the X chromosome, X chromosome inactivation (XCI) could play a role in the wide range of phenotypic variation of RTT patients; however, classical methylation-based protocols to evaluate XCI could not determine whether the preferentially inactivated X chromosome carried the mutant or the wild-type allele. Therefore, we developed an allele-specific methylation-based assay to evaluate methylation at the loci of several recurrent MECP2 mutations. We analyzed the XCI patterns in the blood of 174 RTT patients, but we did not find a clear correlation between XCI and the clinical presentation. We also compared XCI in blood and brain cortex samples of two patients and found differences between XCI patterns in these tissues. However, RTT mainly being a neurological disease complicates the establishment of a correlation between the XCI in blood and the clinical presentation of the patients. Furthermore, we analyzed MECP2 transcript levels and found differences from the expected levels according to XCI. Many factors other than XCI could affect the RTT phenotype, which in combination could influence the clinical presentation of RTT patients to a greater extent than slight variations in the XCI pattern

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK.

BACKGROUND: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. METHODS: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0-75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4-97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8-80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3-4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK

Background A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. Methods This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. Findings Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0–75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4–97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8–80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3–4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. Interpretation ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials

Clinical Phenotypes Associated to Engrailed 2 Gene Alterations in a Series of Neuropediatric Patients

The engrailed homeobox protein (EN) plays an important role in the regionalization of the neural tube. EN distribution regulates the cerebellum and midbrain morphogenesis, as well as retinotectal synaptogenesis. In humans, the EN1 and EN2 genes code for the EN family of transcription factors. Genetic alterations in the expression of EN2 have been related to different neurologic conditions and more particularly to autism spectrum disorders (ASD). We aimed to study and compare the phenotypes of three series of patients: (1) patients with encephalic structural anomalies (ESA) and abnormalities in the genomic (DNA) and/or transcriptomic (RNAm) of EN2 (EN2-g), (2) ESA patients having other gene mutations (OG-g), and (3) ESA patients free of these mutations (NM-g).Subjects and Methods: We have performed a descriptive study on 109 patients who suffer from mental retardation (MR), cerebral palsy (CP), epilepsy (EP), and behavioral disorders (BD), showing also ESA in their encephalic MRI. We studied genomic DNA and transcriptional analysis (cDNA) on EN2 gene (EN2), and in other genes (OG): LIS1, PTAFR, PAFAH1B2, PAFAH1B3, FGF8, PAX2, D17S379, D17S1866, and SMG6 (D17S5), as a routine genetic diagnosis in ESA patients.Results: From 109 patients, fifteen meet the exclusion criteria. From the remaining 94 patients, 12 (12.8%) showed mutations in EN2 (EN2-g), 20 showed mutations in other studied genes (OG-g), and 62 did not showed any mutation (NM-g). All EN2-g patients, suffered from MR, nine EP, seven BD and four CP. The proportions of these phenotypes in EN2-g did not differ from those in the OG-g, but it was significantly higher when comparing EN2-g with NM-g (MR: p = 0.013; EP: p = 0.001; BD: p = 0.0001; CP: p = 0.07, ns). Groups EN2-g and OG-g showed a 100 and a 70% of comorbidity, respectively, being significantly (p = 0.04) greater than NM-group (62.9%).Conclusion: Our series reflects a significant effect of EN2 gene alterations in neurodevelopmental abnormalities associated to ESA. Conversely, although these EN2 related anomalies might represent a predisposition to develop brain diseases, our results did not support direct relationship between EN2 mutations and specific clinical phenotypes

Echinocandins Compared to Fluconazole for Candidemia of a Urinary Tract Source: A Propensity Score Analysis

Background. Whether echinocandins could be used to treat candidemia of a urinary tract source (CUTS) is unknown. We aimed to provide current epidemiological information of CUTS and to compare echinocandin to fluconazole treatment on CUTS outcomes. Methods. A multicenter study of adult patients with candidemia was conducted in 9 hospitals. CUTS was defined as a candidemia with concomitant candiduria by the same organism associated with significant urological comorbidity. The primary outcome assessed was clinical failure (defined by 7-day mortality or persistent candidemia) in patients treated with either an echinocandin or fluconazole. A propensity score was calculated and then entered into a regression model. Results. Of 2176 episodes of candidemia, 128 were CUTS (5.88%). Most CUTS cases were caused by Candida albicans (52.7%), followed by Candida glabrata (25.6%) and Candida tropicalis (16.3%). Clinical failure occurred in 7 patients (20%) treated with an echinocandin and in 15 (17.1%) treated with fluconazole (P = .730). Acute renal failure (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 3.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-8.91; P = .047) was the only independent factor associated with clinical failure, whereas early urinary tract drainage procedures (surgical, percutaneous, or endoscopic) were identified as protective (AOR, 0.08; 95% CI, .02-.31; P < .001). Neither univariate nor multivariate analysis showed that echinocandin therapy altered the risk of clinical failure. Conclusions. Initial echinocandin therapy was not associated with clinical failure in patients with CUTS. Notably, acute renal failure predicted worse outcomes and performing an early urologic procedure was a protective measure

An evidence-based bundle improves the quality of care and outcomes of patients with candidaemia

Background: Candidaemia is a leading cause of bloodstream infections in hospitalized patients all over the world. It remains associated with high mortality. Objectives: To assess the impact of implementing an evidence-based package of measures (bundle) on the quality of care and outcomes of candidaemia. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify measures related to better outcomes in candidaemia. Eight quality-of-care indicators (QCIs) were identified and a set of written recommendations (early treatment, echinocandins in septic shock, source control, follow-up blood culture, ophthalmoscopy, echocardiography, de-escalation, length of treatment) was prospectively implemented. The study was performed in 11 tertiary hospitals in Spain. A quasi-experimental design before and during bundle implementation (September 2016 to February 2018) was used. For the pre-intervention period, data from the prospective national surveillance were used (May 2010 to April 2011). Results: A total of 385 and 263 episodes were included in the pre-intervention and intervention groups, respectively. Adherence to all QCIs improved in the intervention group. The intervention group had a decrease in early (OR 0.46; 95% CI 0.23-0.89; P = 0.022) and overall (OR 0.61; 95% CI 0.4-0.94; P = 0.023) mortality after controlling for potential confounders. Conclusions: Implementing a structured, evidence-based intervention bundle significantly improved patient care and early and overall mortality in patients with candidaemia. Institutions should embrace this objective strategy and use the bundle as a means to measure high-quality medical care of patients

Management of infection and febrile neutropenia in patients with solid cancer

An expert group from the Spanish Society of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology (SEIMC, for its acronym in Spanish) and the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM, for its acronym in Spanish) have reviewed the main aspects to be considered when evaluating patients with solid cancer and infectious complications contained in this article. Recommendations have, therefore, been put forth regarding the prophylaxis of the most prevalent infections in these patients, the use of vaccines, measures to control infection through vascular catheters, and preventing infection in light of certain surgical maneuvers. The following is a revision of the criteria for febrile neutropenia management and the use of colony-stimulating factors and closes with several guidelines for treating the cancer patient with serious infection. The document concludes with a series of measures to control hospital infection