Antimicrobial activity of apple cider vinegar against Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus and Candida albicans; downregulating cytokine and microbial protein expression

The global escalation in antibiotic resistance cases means alternative antimicrobials are essential. The aim of this study was to investigate the antimicrobial capacity of apple cider vinegar (ACV) against E. coli, S. aureus and C. albicans. The minimum dilution of ACV required for growth inhibition varied for each microbial species. For C. albicans, a 1/2 ACV had the strongest effect, S. aureus, a 1/25 dilution ACV was required, whereas for E-coli cultures, a 1/50 ACV dilution was required (p < 0.05). Monocyte co-culture with microbes alongside ACV resulted in dose dependent downregulation of inflammatory cytokines (TNFα, IL-6). Results are expressed as percentage decreases in cytokine secretion comparing ACV treated with non-ACV treated monocytes cultured with E-coli (TNFα, 99.2%; IL-6, 98%), S. aureus (TNFα, 90%; IL-6, 83%) and C. albicans (TNFα, 83.3%; IL-6, 90.1%) respectively. Proteomic analyses of microbes demonstrated that ACV impaired cell integrity, organelles and protein expression. ACV treatment resulted in an absence in expression of DNA starvation protein, citrate synthase, isocitrate and malate dehydrogenases in E-coli; chaperone protein DNak and ftsz in S. aureus and pyruvate kinase, 6-phosphogluconate dehydrogenase, fructose bisphosphate were among the enzymes absent in C.albican cultures. The results demonstrate ACV has multiple antimicrobial potential with clinical therapeutic implications

Presence and Persistence of Ebola or Marburg Virus in Patients and Survivors: A Rapid Systematic Review

Background: The 2013-15 Ebola outbreak was unprecedented due to sustainedtransmission within urban environments and thousands of survivors. In 2014 the World Health Organization stated that there was insufficient evidence to give definitive guidance about which body fluids are infectious and when they pose a risk to humans. We report a rapid systematic review of published evidence on the presence of filoviruses in body fluids of infected people and survivors. Methods: Scientific articles were screened for information about filovirus in human body fluids. The aim was to find primary data that suggested high likelihood of actively infectious filovirus in human body fluids (viral RNA). Eligible infections were from Marburg virus (MARV or RAVV) and Zaire, Sudan, Taï Forest and Bundibugyo species of Ebola. [1] Cause of infection had to be laboratory confirmed (in practice either tissue culture or RT-PCR tests), or evidenced by compatible clinical history with subsequent positivity for filovirus antibodies or inflammatory factors. Data were extracted and summarized narratively. Results: 6831 unique articles were found, and after screening, 33 studies were eligible. For most body fluid types there were insufficient patients to draw strong conclusions, and prevalence of positivity was highly variable. Body fluids taken >16 days after onset were usually negative. In the six studies that used both assay methods RT-PCR tests for filovirus RNA gave positive results about 4 times more often than tissue culture. Conclusions: Filovirus was reported in most types of body fluid, but not in every sample from every otherwise confirmed patient. Apart from semen, most non-blood, RT-PCR positive samples are likely to be culture negative and so possibly of low infectious risk. Nevertheless, it is not apparent how relatively infectious many body fluids are during or after illness, even when culture-positive, not least because most test results come from more severe cases. Contact with blood and blood-stained body fluids remains the major risk for disease transmission because of the known high viral loads in blood

Geographical variation in therapy for bloodstream infections due to multidrug-resistant enterobacteriaceae: a post hoc analysis of the INCREMENT study

We aimed to describe regional differences in therapy for bloodstream infection (BSI) caused by extended-spectrum ?-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (ESBL-E) or carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (CPE). 1,482 patients in 12 countries were included from an observational study of BSI caused by ESBL-E or CPE. Multivariate logistic regression was used to calculate adjusted odds ratios (aORs) for the influence of country of recruitment on empirical use of ?-lactam/?-lactamase inhibitors (BLBLI) or carbapenems, targeted use of BLBLI for ESBL-E and use of targeted combination therapy for CPE. The use of BLBLI for empirical therapy was least likely in sites from Israel (aOR 0.34, 95% CI 0.14-0.81), Greece (aOR 0.49, 95% CI 0.26-0.94) and Canada (aOR 0.31, 95% CI 0.11-0.88) but more likely in Italy (aOR 1.58, 95% CI 1.11-2.2) and Turkey (aOR 2.09, 95% CI 1.14-3.81), compared to Spain as a reference. Empirical carbapenems were more likely to be used in sites from Taiwan (aOR 1.73, 95% CI 1.03-2.92) and USA (aOR 1.89; 95% CI 1.05-3.39), and less likely in Italy (aOR 0.44, 95% CI 0.28-0.69) and Canada (aOR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01-0.74). Targeted BLBLI for ESBL-E was more likely in sites from Italy. Treatment at sites within Israel, Taiwan, Turkey and Brazil was associated with less combination therapy for CPE. Although this study does not provide precise data on the relative prevalence of ESBL-E or CPE, significant variation in therapy exists across countries even after adjustment for patient factors. A better understanding of what influences therapeutic choices for these infections will aid antimicrobial stewardship efforts.PH is supported by an Australian Postgraduate Award from the University of Queensland. The study was funded by the Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad, Instituto de Salud Carlos III - co-financed by European Development Regional Fund "A way to achieve Europe" ERDF, Spanish Network for the Research in Infectious Diseases (REIPI RD12/0015). BGG, JRB, APH and YC also received funds from the COMBACTE-CARE project (grant agreement 115620), Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI), the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) and in-kind contributions from EFPIA companies

Sarilumab in patients admitted to hospital with severe or critical COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

Background: Elevated proinflammatory cytokines are associated with greater COVID-19 severity. We aimed to assess safety and efficacy of sarilumab, an interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor, in patients with severe (requiring supplemental oxygen by nasal cannula or face mask) or critical (requiring greater supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal support) COVID-19. Methods: We did a 60-day, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multinational phase 3 trial at 45 hospitals in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Russia, and Spain. We included adults (≥18 years) admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and pneumonia, who required oxygen supplementation or intensive care. Patients were randomly assigned (2:2:1 with permuted blocks of five) to receive intravenous sarilumab 400 mg, sarilumab 200 mg, or placebo. Patients, care providers, outcome assessors, and investigators remained masked to assigned intervention throughout the course of the study. The primary endpoint was time to clinical improvement of two or more points (seven point scale ranging from 1 [death] to 7 [discharged from hospital]) in the modified intention-to-treat population. The key secondary endpoint was proportion of patients alive at day 29. Safety outcomes included adverse events and laboratory assessments. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04327388; EudraCT, 2020-001162-12; and WHO, U1111-1249-6021. Findings: Between March 28 and July 3, 2020, of 431 patients who were screened, 420 patients were randomly assigned and 416 received placebo (n=84 [20%]), sarilumab 200 mg (n=159 [38%]), or sarilumab 400 mg (n=173 [42%]). At day 29, no significant differences were seen in median time to an improvement of two or more points between placebo (12·0 days [95% CI 9·0 to 15·0]) and sarilumab 200 mg (10·0 days [9·0 to 12·0]; hazard ratio [HR] 1·03 [95% CI 0·75 to 1·40]; log-rank p=0·96) or sarilumab 400 mg (10·0 days [9·0 to 13·0]; HR 1·14 [95% CI 0·84 to 1·54]; log-rank p=0·34), or in proportions of patients alive (77 [92%] of 84 patients in the placebo group; 143 [90%] of 159 patients in the sarilumab 200 mg group; difference −1·7 [−9·3 to 5·8]; p=0·63 vs placebo; and 159 [92%] of 173 patients in the sarilumab 400 mg group; difference 0·2 [−6·9 to 7·4]; p=0·85 vs placebo). At day 29, there were numerical, non-significant survival differences between sarilumab 400 mg (88%) and placebo (79%; difference +8·9% [95% CI −7·7 to 25·5]; p=0·25) for patients who had critical disease. No unexpected safety signals were seen. The rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were 65% (55 of 84) in the placebo group, 65% (103 of 159) in the sarilumab 200 mg group, and 70% (121 of 173) in the sarilumab 400 mg group, and of those leading to death 11% (nine of 84) were in the placebo group, 11% (17 of 159) were in the sarilumab 200 mg group, and 10% (18 of 173) were in the sarilumab 400 mg group. Interpretation: This trial did not show efficacy of sarilumab in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 and receiving supplemental oxygen. Adequately powered trials of targeted immunomodulatory therapies assessing survival as a primary endpoint are suggested in patients with critical COVID-19. Funding: Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals