Adjunctive rifampicin for Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia (ARREST): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia is a common cause of severe community-acquired and hospital-acquired infection worldwide. We tested the hypothesis that adjunctive rifampicin would reduce bacteriologically confirmed treatment failure or disease recurrence, or death, by enhancing early S aureus killing, sterilising infected foci and blood faster, and reducing risks of dissemination and metastatic infection. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, adults (≥18 years) with S aureus bacteraemia who had received ≤96 h of active antibiotic therapy were recruited from 29 UK hospitals. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a computer-generated sequential randomisation list to receive 2 weeks of adjunctive rifampicin (600 mg or 900 mg per day according to weight, oral or intravenous) versus identical placebo, together with standard antibiotic therapy. Randomisation was stratified by centre. Patients, investigators, and those caring for the patients were masked to group allocation. The primary outcome was time to bacteriologically confirmed treatment failure or disease recurrence, or death (all-cause), from randomisation to 12 weeks, adjudicated by an independent review committee masked to the treatment. Analysis was intention to treat. This trial was registered, number ISRCTN37666216, and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between Dec 10, 2012, and Oct 25, 2016, 758 eligible participants were randomly assigned: 370 to rifampicin and 388 to placebo. 485 (64%) participants had community-acquired S aureus infections, and 132 (17%) had nosocomial S aureus infections. 47 (6%) had meticillin-resistant infections. 301 (40%) participants had an initial deep infection focus. Standard antibiotics were given for 29 (IQR 18-45) days; 619 (82%) participants received flucloxacillin. By week 12, 62 (17%) of participants who received rifampicin versus 71 (18%) who received placebo experienced treatment failure or disease recurrence, or died (absolute risk difference -1·4%, 95% CI -7·0 to 4·3; hazard ratio 0·96, 0·68-1·35, p=0·81). From randomisation to 12 weeks, no evidence of differences in serious (p=0·17) or grade 3-4 (p=0·36) adverse events were observed; however, 63 (17%) participants in the rifampicin group versus 39 (10%) in the placebo group had antibiotic or trial drug-modifying adverse events (p=0·004), and 24 (6%) versus six (2%) had drug interactions (p=0·0005). INTERPRETATION: Adjunctive rifampicin provided no overall benefit over standard antibiotic therapy in adults with S aureus bacteraemia. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment

Sex-related differences in left ventricular remodeling in severe aortic stenosis and reverse remodeling after aortic valve replacement: A cardiovascular magnetic resonance study

Background Cardiac adaptation to aortic stenosis (AS) appears to differ according to sex, but reverse remodeling after aortic valve replacement has not been extensively described. The aim of the study was to determine using cardiac magnetic resonance imaging whether any sex-related differences exist in AS in terms of left ventricular (LV) remodeling, myocardial fibrosis, and reverse remodeling after valve replacement. Methods One hundred patients (men, n = 60) with severe AS undergoing either transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement underwent cardiac magnetic resonance scans at baseline and 6 months after valve replacement. Results Despite similar baseline comorbidity and severity of AS, women had a lower indexed LV mass than did men (65.3 ± 18.4 vs 81.5 ± 21.3 g/m2, P <.001) and a smaller indexed LV end-diastolic volume (87.3 ± 17.5 vs 101.2 ± 28.6 mL/m2, P =.002) with a similar LV ejection fraction (58.6% ± 10.2% vs 54.8% ± 12.9%, P =.178). Total myocardial fibrosis mass was similar between sexes (2.3 ± 4.1 vs 1.3 ± 1.1 g, P =.714), albeit with a differing distribution according to sex. After aortic valve replacement, men had more absolute LV mass regression than did women (18.3 ± 10.6 vs 12.7 ± 8.8 g/m2, P =.007). When expressed as a percentage reduction of baseline indexed LV mass, mass regression was similar between the sexes (men 21.7% ± 10.1% vs women 18.4% ± 11.0%, P =.121). There was no sex-related difference in postprocedural LV ejection fraction or aortic regurgitation. Sex was not found to be a predictor of LV reverse remodeling on multiple regression analysis. Conclusions There are significant differences in the way that male and female hearts adapt to AS. Six months after aortic valve replacement, there are no sex-related differences in reverse remodeling, but superior reverse remodeling in men as a result of their more adverse remodeling profile at baseline

Integrated (epi)-Genomic Analyses Identify Subgroup-Specific Therapeutic Targets in CNS Rhabdoid Tumors

We recently reported that atypical teratoid rhabdoid tumors (ATRTs) comprise at least two transcriptional subtypes with different clinical outcomes; however, the mechanisms underlying therapeutic heterogeneity remained unclear. In this study, we analyzed 191 primary ATRTs and 10 ATRT cell lines to define the genomic and epigenomic landscape of ATRTs and identify subgroup-specific therapeutic targets. We found ATRTs segregated into three epigenetic subgroups with distinct genomic profiles, SMARCB1 genotypes, and chromatin landscape that correlated with differential cellular responses to a panel of signaling and epigenetic inhibitors. Significantly, we discovered that differential methylation of a PDGFRB-associated enhancer confers specific sensitivity of group 2 ATRT cells to dasatinib and nilotinib, and suggest that these are promising therapies for this highly lethal ATRT subtype

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health