Polyclonal outbreak of bacteremia caused by Burkholderia cepacia complex and the presumptive role of ultrasound gel

AbstractA nosocomial polyclonal outbreak associated to bacteremia caused by different Burkholderia cepacia complex (BCC) species and clones is reported. Molecular characterization identified Burkholderia stabilis, Burkholderia contaminans, and Burkholderia ambifaria among BCC isolates obtained from patients in neonatal and adult intensive care units. BCC was also isolated from an intrinsically contaminated ultrasound gel, which constituted the presumptive BCC source. Prior BCC outbreak related to contaminated ultrasound gels have been described in the setting of transrectal prostate biopsy. Outbreak caused strains and/or clones of BCC have been reported, probably because BCC are commonly found in the natural environment; most BCC species are biofilm producers, and different species may contaminate an environmental source. The finding of multiple species or clones during the analysis of nosocomial BCC cases might not be enough to reject an outbreak from a common source

Polyclonal outbreak of bacteremia caused by Burkholderia cepacia complex and the presumptive role of ultrasound gel

AbstractA nosocomial polyclonal outbreak associated to bacteremia caused by different Burkholderia cepacia complex (BCC) species and clones is reported. Molecular characterization identified Burkholderia stabilis, Burkholderia contaminans, and Burkholderia ambifaria among BCC isolates obtained from patients in neonatal and adult intensive care units. BCC was also isolated from an intrinsically contaminated ultrasound gel, which constituted the presumptive BCC source. Prior BCC outbreak related to contaminated ultrasound gels have been described in the setting of transrectal prostate biopsy. Outbreak caused strains and/or clones of BCC have been reported, probably because BCC are commonly found in the natural environment; most BCC species are biofilm producers, and different species may contaminate an environmental source. The finding of multiple species or clones during the analysis of nosocomial BCC cases might not be enough to reject an outbreak from a common source

Efficacy, safety, tolerability and population pharmacokinetics of tedizolid, a novel antibiotic, in Latino patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections

AbstractAcute bacterial skin and skin structure infections are caused mainly by Gram-positive bacteria which are often treated with intravenous vancomycin, daptomycin, or linezolid, with potential step down to oral linezolid for outpatients. Tedizolid phosphate 200mg once daily treatment for six days demonstrated non-inferior efficacy, with a favourable safety profile, compared with linezolid 600mg twice daily treatment for 10 days in the Phase 3 ESTABLISH-1 and -2 trials. The objective of the current post-hoc analysis of the integrated dataset of ESTABLISH-1 and -2 was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tedizolid (N=182) vs linezolid (N=171) in patients of Latino origin enrolled into these trials. The baseline demographic characteristics of Latino patients were similar between the two treatment groups. Tedizolid demonstrated comparable efficacy to linezolid at 48–72h in the intent-to-treat population (tedizolid: 80.2% vs linezolid: 81.9%). Sustained clinical success rates were comparable between tedizolid- and linezolid-treated Latino patients at end-of-therapy (tedizolid: 86.8% vs linezolid: 88.9%). Tedizolid phosphate treatment was well tolerated by Latino patients in the safety population with lower abnormal platelet counts at end-of-therapy (tedizolid: 3.4% vs linezolid: 11.3%, p=0.0120) and lower incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events (tedizolid: 16.5% vs linezolid: 23.5%). Population pharmacokinetic analysis suggested that estimated tedizolid exposure measures in Latino patients vs non-Latino patients were similar. These findings demonstrate that tedizolid phosphate 200mg, once daily treatment for six days was efficacious and well tolerated by patients of Latino origin, without warranting dose adjustment

A Randomized Trial of Convalescent Plasma in Covid-19 Severe Pneumonia

BACKGROUND:Convalescent plasma is frequently administered to patients with Covid-19 and hasbeen reported, largely on the basis of observational data, to improve clinical outcomes.Minimal data are available from adequately powered randomized, controlled trials. METHODS:We randomly assigned hospitalized adult patients with severe Covid-19 pneumoniain a 2:1 ratio to receive convalescent plasma or placebo. The primary outcome wasthe patient?s clinical status 30 days after the intervention, as measured on a six-pointordinal scale ranging from total recovery to death. RESULTS:A total of 228 patients were assigned to receive convalescent plasma and 105 toreceive placebo. The median time from the onset of symptoms to enrollment inthe trial was 8 days (interquartile range, 5 to 10), and hypoxemia was the mostfrequent severity criterion for enrollment. The infused convalescent plasma had amedian titer of 1:3200 of total SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (interquartile range, 1:800 to1:3200]. No patients were lost to follow-up. At day 30 day, no significant differencewas noted between the convalescent plasma group and the placebo group in thedistribution of clinical outcomes according to the ordinal scale (odds ratio, 0.83(95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52 to 1.35; P=0.46). Overall mortality was 10.96%in the convalescent plasma group and 11.43% in the placebo group, for a risk difference of −0.46 percentage points (95% CI, −7.8 to 6.8). Total SARS-CoV-2 antibodytiters tended to be higher in the convalescent plasma group at day 2 after the intervention. Adverse events and serious adverse events were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS:no significant differences were observed in clinical status or overall mortality between patients treated with convalescent plasma and those who received placebo.(PlasmAr ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04383535.)Fil: Simonovich, Ventura A.. Hospital Italiano. Departamento de Medicina. Servicio de Clinica Medica.; ArgentinaFil: Burgos Pratx, Leandro D.. Hospital Italiano. Departamento de Medicina. Servicio de Clinica Medica.; ArgentinaFil: Scibona, Paula. Hospital Italiano. Departamento de Medicina. Servicio de Clinica Medica.; ArgentinaFil: Beruto, Maria Valeria. No especifíca;Fil: Vallone, Miguel Gabriel. No especifíca;Fil: Vázquez, C.. No especifíca;Fil: Savoy, N.. No especifíca;Fil: Giunta, Diego Hernan. No especifíca;Fil: Pérez, L.G.. No especifíca;Fil: Sánchez, M.L.. No especifíca;Fil: Gamarnik, Andrea Vanesa. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Instituto de Investigaciones Bioquímicas de Buenos Aires. Fundación Instituto Leloir. Instituto de Investigaciones Bioquímicas de Buenos Aires; ArgentinaFil: Ojeda, D.S.. No especifíca;Fil: Santoro, D.M.. No especifíca;Fil: Camino, P. J.. No especifíca;Fil: Antelo, S.. No especifíca;Fil: Rainero, K.. No especifíca;Fil: Vidiella, G. P.. No especifíca;Fil: Miyazaki, E. A.. No especifíca;Fil: Cornistein, W.. No especifíca;Fil: Trabadelo, O. A.. No especifíca;Fil: Ross, F. M.. No especifíca;Fil: Spotti, M.. No especifíca;Fil: Funtowicz, G.. No especifíca;Fil: Scordo, W. E.. No especifíca;Fil: Losso, M. H.. No especifíca;Fil: Ferniot, I.. No especifíca;Fil: Pardo, P. E.. No especifíca;Fil: Rodriguez, E.. No especifíca;Fil: Rucci, P.. No especifíca;Fil: Pasquali, J.. No especifíca;Fil: Fuentes, N. A.. No especifíca;Fil: Esperatti, M.. No especifíca;Fil: Speroni, G. A.. No especifíca;Fil: Nannini, Esteban. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Rosario. Instituto de Inmunología Clinica y Experimental de Rosario. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Facultad de Ciencias Médicas. Instituto de Inmunología Clinica y Experimental de Rosario; ArgentinaFil: Matteaccio, A.. No especifíca;Fil: Michelangelo, H.G.. No especifíca;Fil: Follmann, D.. No especifíca;Fil: Lane, H. Clifford. No especifíca;Fil: Belloso, Waldo Horacio. Hospital Italiano. Departamento de Medicina. Servicio de Clinica Medica.; Argentin

Abatacept, Cenicriviroc, or Infliximab for Treatment of Adults Hospitalized With COVID-19 Pneumonia: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE: Immune dysregulation contributes to poorer outcomes in COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether abatacept, cenicriviroc, or infliximab provides benefit when added to standard care for COVID-19 pneumonia. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled clinical trial using a master protocol to investigate immunomodulators added to standard care for treatment of participants hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia. The results of 3 substudies are reported from 95 hospitals at 85 clinical research sites in the US and Latin America. Hospitalized patients 18 years or older with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection within 14 days and evidence of pulmonary involvement underwent randomization between October 2020 and December 2021. INTERVENTIONS: Single infusion of abatacept (10 mg/kg; maximum dose, 1000 mg) or infliximab (5 mg/kg) or a 28-day oral course of cenicriviroc (300-mg loading dose followed by 150 mg twice per day). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was time to recovery by day 28 evaluated using an 8-point ordinal scale (higher scores indicate better health). Recovery was defined as the first day the participant scored at least 6 on the ordinal scale. RESULTS: Of the 1971 participants randomized across the 3 substudies, the mean (SD) age was 54.8 (14.6) years and 1218 (61.8%) were men. The primary end point of time to recovery from COVID-19 pneumonia was not significantly different for abatacept (recovery rate ratio [RRR], 1.12 [95% CI, 0.98-1.28]; P = .09), cenicriviroc (RRR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.86-1.18]; P = .94), or infliximab (RRR, 1.12 [95% CI, 0.99-1.28]; P = .08) compared with placebo. All-cause 28-day mortality was 11.0% for abatacept vs 15.1% for placebo (odds ratio [OR], 0.62 [95% CI, 0.41-0.94]), 13.8% for cenicriviroc vs 11.9% for placebo (OR, 1.18 [95% CI 0.72-1.94]), and 10.1% for infliximab vs 14.5% for placebo (OR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.39-0.90]). Safety outcomes were comparable between active treatment and placebo, including secondary infections, in all 3 substudies. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Time to recovery from COVID-19 pneumonia among hospitalized participants was not significantly different for abatacept, cenicriviroc, or infliximab vs placebo. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04593940

Decreased Virulence of a gls24 Mutant of Enterococcus faecalis OG1RF in an Experimental Endocarditis Model

In the current study, the gls24 disruption mutant TX10100, previously shown to be more sensitive to bile salts and attenuated in a mouse peritonitis model, showed an approximately fivefold higher 50% infective dose than wild-type OG1RF in a rat endocarditis model. When administered as a mixture, TX10100, unlike a downstream glsB mutant, was significantly outnumbered by OG1RF in vegetations, organs, and blood, despite being inoculated in greater numbers. These results indicate that gls24 is important in the pathogenesis of enterococcal endocarditis

Fsr-Independent Production of Protease(s) May Explain the Lack of Attenuation of an Enterococcus faecalis fsr Mutant Versus a gelE-sprE Mutant in Induction of Endocarditis

An Enterococcus faecalis gelE insertion disruption mutant (TX5128), which produces neither gelatinase (GelE) nor the cotranscribed (in the wild type) serine protease (SprE), was found to be attenuated in a rat endocarditis model with a significant decrease in the endocarditis induction rate versus wild-type E. faecalis OG1RF (GelE(+), SprE(+)). TX5266, which has a nonpolar deletion in fsrB and, like TX5128, is phenotypically GelE(−) under usual conditions, was also studied; fsrB is a homologue of agrB of staphylococci and participates in regulation of gelE-sprE expression. Unexpectedly, TX5266 approximated wild-type OG1RF in the endocarditis model and was significantly less attenuated than TX5128. This is in contrast to other models which have found fsr mutants to be as or more attenuated than TX5128. Further study found that the fsrB mutant produced very low levels of gelatinase activity after prolonged incubation in vitro versus no gelatinase activity with TX5128 and did not show the extensive chaining characteristic of TX5128. Reverse transcription-PCR confirmed that gelE was expressed in TX5266 at a very low level versus wild-type OG1RF and was not expressed at all in TX5128. Possible explanations for the increased induction of endocarditis by TX5266 versus TX5128 include the production of low levels of protease(s) or some other effect(s) of the inactivation of the E. faecalis fsr regulator. The equivalent ability of OG1RF and its fsr mutant to initiate endocarditis may explain why we did not find naturally occurring fsr mutants, which account for ca. 35% of E. faecalis isolates, unrepresented in endocarditis versus fecal isolates (J. C. Roberts, K. V. Singh, P. C. Okhuysen, and B. E. Murray, J. Clin. Microbiol. 42:2317-2320, 2004)