Seafarers’ Health and Wellbeing during COVID-19: Lessons Learned

The maritime industry has long been a significant mode of transportation. It is essential since it contributes to 80% of the global trade. Nevertheless, the COVID-19 pandemic has affected the maritime sector and its workforce. Many countries implemented strict prevention measures like the No Sail Order, the closing of ports and movement restrictions. The study explored the potential effects of the COVID-19 restrictions on the health and well-being of seafarers with an aim to offer insight for policy recommendations. The study was cross-sectional. It took place during the period January–April 2021. The questionnaire developed by Stella Maris was used with permission. It was distributed to shipping companies and work unions and, through them, to seafarers. The sample was 106 individuals. The study features the findings of the questionnaire which were analyzed by descriptive and inferential statistics. SPSS was used for the analysis. Chi-square test and Fisher’s exact test were performed. Logistic regression was used to assess the impact of COVID-19 on physical, mental and financial aspects of seafarers’ lives. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed using the forward (conditional) stepwise regression method with probability for stepwise entry set at 10%. Statistical significance was considered at p  0.05. Seafarers were affected physically (38%), mentally (53%), and financially (40%) by the pandemic. The country of origin, the time onboard and the number of supportive family members had an influence on those effects. Among the participants, those who worked on tankers and officers with more than three family members were more likely to face mental, physical or financial problems. In addition, the study showed that only 24.5% of the respondents were on regular contracts, 16% had their contracts extended, 14.2% were about to be deployed but were grounded due to the pandemic, while about half of the sample 41.5% was waiting for a new contract. The results of this study may be used as a starting point by International Organisations including IMO and ILO, flag states, ports and the industry to increase emergency preparedness and to inform outbreak response plans in the event of future infectious disease outbreaks in the shipping domain

Poor timing and failure of source control are risk factors for mortality in critically ill patients with secondary peritonitis

Purpose: To describe data on epidemiology, microbiology, clinical characteristics and outcome of adult patients admitted in the intensive care unit (ICU) with secondary peritonitis, with special emphasis on antimicrobial therapy and source control. Methods: Post hoc analysis of a multicenter observational study (Abdominal Sepsis Study, AbSeS) including 2621 adult ICU patients with intra-abdominal infection in 306 ICUs from 42 countries. Time-till-source control intervention was calculated as from time of diagnosis and classified into 'emergency' (< 2 h), 'urgent' (2-6 h), and 'delayed' (> 6 h). Relationships were assessed by logistic regression analysis and reported as odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: The cohort included 1077 cases of microbiologically confirmed secondary peritonitis. Mortality was 29.7%. The rate of appropriate empiric therapy showed no difference between survivors and non-survivors (66.4% vs. 61.3%, p = 0.1). A stepwise increase in mortality was observed with increasing Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores (19.6% for a value ≤ 4-55.4% for a value > 12, p < 0.001). The highest odds of death were associated with septic shock (OR 3.08 [1.42-7.00]), late-onset hospital-acquired peritonitis (OR 1.71 [1.16-2.52]) and failed source control evidenced by persistent inflammation at day 7 (OR 5.71 [3.99-8.18]). Compared with 'emergency' source control intervention (< 2 h of diagnosis), 'urgent' source control was the only modifiable covariate associated with lower odds of mortality (OR 0.50 [0.34-0.73]). Conclusion: 'Urgent' and successful source control was associated with improved odds of survival. Appropriateness of empirical antimicrobial treatment did not significantly affect survival suggesting that source control is more determinative for outcome

Antimicrobial Lessons From a Large Observational Cohort on Intra-abdominal Infections in Intensive Care Units

evere intra-abdominal infection commonly requires intensive care. Mortality is high and is mainly determined by disease-specific characteristics, i.e. setting of infection onset, anatomical barrier disruption, and severity of disease expression. Recent observations revealed that antimicrobial resistance appears equally common in community-acquired and late-onset hospital-acquired infection. This challenges basic principles in anti-infective therapy guidelines, including the paradigm that pathogens involved in community-acquired infection are covered by standard empiric antimicrobial regimens, and second, the concept of nosocomial acquisition as the main driver for resistance involvement. In this study, we report on resistance profiles of Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Enterococcus faecalis and Enterococcus faecium in distinct European geographic regions based on an observational cohort study on intra-abdominal infections in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Resistance against aminopenicillins, fluoroquinolones, and third-generation cephalosporins in E. coli, K. pneumoniae and P. aeruginosa is problematic, as is carbapenem-resistance in the latter pathogen. For E. coli and K. pneumoniae, resistance is mainly an issue in Central Europe, Eastern and South-East Europe, and Southern Europe, while resistance in P. aeruginosa is additionally problematic in Western Europe. Vancomycin-resistance in E. faecalis is of lesser concern but requires vigilance in E. faecium in Central and Eastern and South-East Europe. In the subcohort of patients with secondary peritonitis presenting with either sepsis or septic shock, the appropriateness of empiric antimicrobial therapy was not associated with mortality. In contrast, failure of source control was strongly associated with mortality. The relevance of these new insights for future recommendations regarding empiric antimicrobial therapy in intra-abdominal infections is discussed.Severe intra-abdominal infection commonly requires intensive care. Mortality is high and is mainly determined by diseasespecific characteristics, i.e. setting of infection onset, anatomical barrier disruption, and severity of disease expression. Recent observations revealed that antimicrobial resistance appears equally common in community-acquired and late-onset hospital-acquired infection. This challenges basic principles in anti-infective therapy guidelines, including the paradigm that pathogens involved in community-acquired infection are covered by standard empiric antimicrobial regimens, and second, the concept of nosocomial acquisition as the main driver for resistance involvement. In this study, we report on resistance profiles of Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Enterococcus faecalis and Enterococcus faecium in distinct European geographic regions based on an observational cohort study on intra-abdominal infections in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Resistance against aminopenicillins, fluoroquinolones, and third-generation cephalosporins in E. coli, K. pneumoniae and P. aeruginosa is problematic, as is carbapenem-resistance in the latter pathogen. For E. coli and K. pneumoniae, resistance is mainly an issue in Central Europe, Eastern and South-East Europe, and Southern Europe, while resistance in P. aeruginosa is additionally problematic in Western Europe. Vancomycin-resistance in E. faecalis is of lesser concern but requires vigilance in E. faecium in Central and Eastern and South-East Europe. In the subcohort of patients with secondary peritonitis presenting with either sepsis or septic shock, the appropriateness of empiric antimicrobial therapy was not associated with mortality. In contrast, failure of source control was strongly associated with mortality. The relevance of these new insights for future recommendations regarding empiric antimicrobial therapy in intra-abdominal infections is discussed

Epidemiology of intra-abdominal infection and sepsis in critically ill patients: "AbSeS", a multinational observational cohort study and ESICM Trials Group Project

PURPOSE: To describe the epidemiology of intra-abdominal infection in an international cohort of ICU patients according to a new system that classifies cases according to setting of infection acquisition (community-acquired, early onset hospital-acquired, and late-onset hospital-acquired), anatomical disruption (absent or present with localized or diffuse peritonitis), and severity of disease expression (infection, sepsis, and septic shock). METHODS: We performed a multicenter (n = 309), observational, epidemiological study including adult ICU patients diagnosed with intra-abdominal infection. Risk factors for mortality were assessed by logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: The cohort included 2621 patients. Setting of infection acquisition was community-acquired in 31.6%, early onset hospital-acquired in 25%, and late-onset hospital-acquired in 43.4% of patients. Overall prevalence of antimicrobial resistance was 26.3% and difficult-to-treat resistant Gram-negative bacteria 4.3%, with great variation according to geographic region. No difference in prevalence of antimicrobial resistance was observed according to setting of infection acquisition. Overall mortality was 29.1%. Independent risk factors for mortality included late-onset hospital-acquired infection, diffuse peritonitis, sepsis, septic shock, older age, malnutrition, liver failure, congestive heart failure, antimicrobial resistance (either methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, vancomycin-resistant enterococci, extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Gram-negative bacteria, or carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria) and source control failure evidenced by either the need for surgical revision or persistent inflammation. CONCLUSION: This multinational, heterogeneous cohort of ICU patients with intra-abdominal infection revealed that setting of infection acquisition, anatomical disruption, and severity of disease expression are disease-specific phenotypic characteristics associated with outcome, irrespective of the type of infection. Antimicrobial resistance is equally common in community-acquired as in hospital-acquired infection.status: publishe

Epidemiology of intra-abdominal infection and sepsis in critically ill patients: "AbSeS", a multinational observational cohort study and ESICM Trials Group Project

Purpose To describe the epidemiology of intra-abdominal infection in an international cohort of ICU patients according to a new system that classifies cases according to setting of infection acquisition (community-acquired, early onset hospital-acquired, and late-onset hospital-acquired), anatomical disruption (absent or present with localized or diffuse peritonitis), and severity of disease expression (infection, sepsis, and septic shock). Methods We performed a multicenter (n = 309), observational, epidemiological study including adult ICU patients diagnosed with intra-abdominal infection. Risk factors for mortality were assessed by logistic regression analysis. Results The cohort included 2621 patients. Setting of infection acquisition was community-acquired in 31.6%, early onset hospital-acquired in 25%, and late-onset hospital-acquired in 43.4% of patients. Overall prevalence of antimicrobial resistance was 26.3% and difficult-to-treat resistant Gram-negative bacteria 4.3%, with great variation according to geographic region. No difference in prevalence of antimicrobial resistance was observed according to setting of infection acquisition. Overall mortality was 29.1%. Independent risk factors for mortality included late-onset hospital-acquired infection, diffuse peritonitis, sepsis, septic shock, older age, malnutrition, liver failure, congestive heart failure, antimicrobial resistance (either methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, vancomycin-resistant enterococci, extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Gram-negative bacteria, or carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria) and source control failure evidenced by either the need for surgical revision or persistent inflammation. Conclusion This multinational, heterogeneous cohort of ICU patients with intra-abdominal infection revealed that setting of infection acquisition, anatomical disruption, and severity of disease expression are disease-specific phenotypic characteristics associated with outcome, irrespective of the type of infection. Antimicrobial resistance is equally common in community-acquired as in hospital-acquired infection

Safety and efficacy of eculizumab in anti-acetylcholine receptor antibody-positive refractory generalised myasthenia gravis (REGAIN): a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre study

Background Complement is likely to have a role in refractory generalised myasthenia gravis, but no approved therapies specifically target this system. Results from a phase 2 study suggested that eculizumab, a terminal complement inhibitor, produced clinically meaningful improvements in patients with anti-acetylcholine receptor antibody-positive refractory generalised myasthenia gravis. We further assessed the efficacy and safety of eculizumab in this patient population in a phase 3 trial. Methods We did a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre study (REGAIN) in 76 hospitals and specialised clinics in 17 countries across North America, Latin America, Europe, and Asia. Eligible patients were aged at least 18 years, with a Myasthenia Gravis-Activities of Daily Living (MG-ADL) score of 6 or more, Myasthenia Gravis Foundation of America (MGFA) class II\ue2\u80\u93IV disease, vaccination against Neisseria meningitides, and previous treatment with at least two immunosuppressive therapies or one immunosuppressive therapy and chronic intravenous immunoglobulin or plasma exchange for 12 months without symptom control. Patients with a history of thymoma or thymic neoplasms, thymectomy within 12 months before screening, or use of intravenous immunoglobulin or plasma exchange within 4 weeks before randomisation, or rituximab within 6 months before screening, were excluded. We randomly assigned participants (1:1) to either intravenous eculizumab or intravenous matched placebo for 26 weeks. Dosing for eculizumab was 900 mg on day 1 and at weeks 1, 2, and 3; 1200 mg at week 4; and 1200 mg given every second week thereafter as maintenance dosing. Randomisation was done centrally with an interactive voice or web-response system with patients stratified to one of four groups based on MGFA disease classification. Where possible, patients were maintained on existing myasthenia gravis therapies and rescue medication was allowed at the study physician's discretion. Patients, investigators, staff, and outcome assessors were masked to treatment assignment. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change from baseline to week 26 in MG-ADL total score measured by worst-rank ANCOVA. The efficacy population set was defined as all patients randomly assigned to treatment groups who received at least one dose of study drug, had a valid baseline MG-ADL assessment, and at least one post-baseline MG-ADL assessment. The safety analyses included all randomly assigned patients who received eculizumab or placebo. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01997229. Findings Between April 30, 2014, and Feb 19, 2016, we randomly assigned and treated 125 patients, 62 with eculizumab and 63 with placebo. The primary analysis showed no significant difference between eculizumab and placebo (least-squares mean rank 56\uc2\ub76 [SEM 4\uc2\ub75] vs 68\uc2\ub73 [4\uc2\ub75]; rank-based treatment difference \ue2\u88\u9211\uc2\ub77, 95% CI \ue2\u88\u9224\uc2\ub73 to 0\uc2\ub796; p=0\uc2\ub70698). No deaths or cases of meningococcal infection occurred during the study. The most common adverse events in both groups were headache and upper respiratory tract infection (ten [16%] for both events in the eculizumab group and 12 [19%] for both in the placebo group). Myasthenia gravis exacerbations were reported by six (10%) patients in the eculizumab group and 15 (24%) in the placebo group. Six (10%) patients in the eculizumab group and 12 (19%) in the placebo group required rescue therapy. Interpretation The change in the MG-ADL score was not statistically significant between eculizumab and placebo, as measured by the worst-rank analysis. Eculizumab was well tolerated. The use of a worst-rank analytical approach proved to be an important limitation of this study since the secondary and sensitivity analyses results were inconsistent with the primary endpoint result; further research into the role of complement is needed. Funding Alexion Pharmaceuticals