Molecular characterization of endocarditis-associated Staphylococcus aureus

Infective endocarditis (IE) is a life-threatening infection of the heart endothelium and valves. Staphylococcus aureus is a predominant cause of severe IE and is frequently associated with infections in health care settings and device-related infections. Multilocus sequence typing (MLST), spa typing, and virulence gene microarrays are frequently used to classify S. aureus clinical isolates. This study examined the utility of these typing tools to investigate S. aureus epidemiology associated with IE. Ninety-seven S. aureus isolates were collected from patients diagnosed with (i) IE, (ii) bloodstream infection related to medical devices, (iii) bloodstream infection not related to medical devices, and (iv) skin or soft-tissue infections. The MLST clonal complex (CC) for each isolate was determined and compared to the CCs of members of the S. aureus population by eBURST analysis. The spa type of all isolates was also determined. A null model was used to determine correlations of IE with CC and spa type. DNA microarray analysis was performed, and a permutational analysis of multivariate variance (PERMANOVA) and principal coordinates analysis were conducted to identify genotypic differences between IE and non-IE strains. CC12, CC20, and spa type t160 were significantly associated with IE S. aureus. A subset of virulence-associated genes and alleles, including genes encoding staphylococcal superantigen-like proteins, fibrinogen-binding protein, and a leukocidin subunit, also significantly correlated with IE isolates. MLST, spa typing, and microarray analysis are promising tools for monitoring S. aureus epidemiology associated with IE. Further research to determine a role for the S. aureus IE-associated virulence genes identified in this study is warranted

Contact dermatitis and other skin conditions in instrumental musicians

BACKGROUND: The skin is important in the positioning and playing of a musical instrument. During practicing and performing there is a permanent more or less intense contact between the instrument and the musician's skin. Apart from aggravation of predisposed skin diseases (e.g., atopic eczema or psoriasis) due to music-making, specific dermatologic conditions may develop that are directly caused by playing a musical instrument. METHODS: To perform a systematic review on instrument-related skin diseases in musicians we searched the PubMed database without time limits. Furthermore we studied the online bibliography "Occupational diseases of performing artist. A performing arts medicine bibliography. October, 2003" and checked references of all selected articles for relevant papers. RESULTS: The most prevalent skin disorders of instrumental musicians, in particular string instrumentalists (e.g., violinists, cellists, guitarists), woodwind players (e.g., flautists, clarinetists), and brass instrumentalists (e.g., trumpeters), include a variety of allergic contact sensitizations (e.g., colophony, nickel, and exotic woods) and irritant (physical-chemical noxae) skin conditions whose clinical presentation and localization are usually specific for the instrument used (e.g., "fiddler's neck", "cellist's chest", "guitar nipple", "flautist's chin"). Apart from common callosities and "occupational marks" (e.g., "Garrod's pads") more or less severe skin injuries may occur in musical instrumentalists, in particular acute and chronic wounds including their complications. Skin infections such as herpes labialis seem to be a more common skin problem in woodwind and brass instrumentalists. CONCLUSIONS: Skin conditions may be a significant problem not only in professional instrumentalists, but also in musicians of all ages and ability. Although not life threatening they may lead to impaired performance and occupational hazard. Unfortunately, epidemiological investigations have exclusively been performed on orchestra musicians, though the prevalence of instrument-related skin conditions in other musician groups (e.g., jazz and rock musicians) is also of interest. The practicing clinician should be aware of the special dermatologic problems unique to the musical instrumentalist. Moreover awareness among musicians needs to be raised, as proper technique and conditioning may help to prevent affection of performance and occupational impairment

Dimethyl fumarate in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) inhibits inflammasome-mediated inflammation and has been proposed as a treatment for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. This randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing multiple treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 (NCT04381936, ISRCTN50189673). In this assessment of DMF performed at 27 UK hospitals, adults were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus DMF. The primary outcome was clinical status on day 5 measured on a seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were time to sustained improvement in clinical status, time to discharge, day 5 peripheral blood oxygenation, day 5 C-reactive protein, and improvement in day 10 clinical status. Between 2 March 2021 and 18 November 2021, 713 patients were enroled in the DMF evaluation, of whom 356 were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus DMF, and 357 to usual care alone. 95% of patients received corticosteroids as part of routine care. There was no evidence of a beneficial effect of DMF on clinical status at day 5 (common odds ratio of unfavourable outcome 1.12; 95% CI 0.86-1.47; p = 0.40). There was no significant effect of DMF on any secondary outcome

Dimethyl fumarate in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) inhibits inflammasome-mediated inflammation and has been proposed as a treatment for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. This randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing multiple treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 (NCT04381936, ISRCTN50189673). In this assessment of DMF performed at 27 UK hospitals, adults were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus DMF. The primary outcome was clinical status on day 5 measured on a seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were time to sustained improvement in clinical status, time to discharge, day 5 peripheral blood oxygenation, day 5 C-reactive protein, and improvement in day 10 clinical status. Between 2 March 2021 and 18 November 2021, 713 patients were enroled in the DMF evaluation, of whom 356 were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus DMF, and 357 to usual care alone. 95% of patients received corticosteroids as part of routine care. There was no evidence of a beneficial effect of DMF on clinical status at day 5 (common odds ratio of unfavourable outcome 1.12; 95% CI 0.86-1.47; p = 0.40). There was no significant effect of DMF on any secondary outcome

Methyl methacrylate and respiratory sensitization: A Critical review

Methyl methacrylate (MMA) is a respiratory irritant and dermal sensitizer that has been associated with occupational asthma in a small number of case reports. Those reports have raised concern that it might be a respiratory sensitizer. To better understand that possibility, we reviewed the in silico, in chemico, in vitro, and in vivo toxicology literature, and also epidemiologic and occupational medicine reports related to the respiratory effects of MMA. Numerous in silico and in chemico studies indicate that MMA is unlikely to be a respiratory sensitizer. The few in vitro studies suggest that MMA has generally weak effects. In vivo studies have documented contact skin sensitization, nonspecific cytotoxicity, and weakly positive responses on local lymph node assay; guinea pig and mouse inhalation sensitization tests have not been performed. Cohort and cross-sectional worker studies reported irritation of eyes, nose, and upper respiratory tract associated with short-term peaks exposures, but little evidence for respiratory sensitization or asthma. Nineteen case reports described asthma, laryngitis, or hypersensitivity pneumonitis in MMA-exposed workers; however, exposures were either not well described or involved mixtures containing more reactive respiratory sensitizers and irritants.The weight of evidence, both experimental and observational, argues that MMA is not a respiratory sensitizer