Interleukin 2 Receptor Antagonists for Kidney Transplant Recipients

Background: Interleukin 2 receptor antagonists (IL2Ra) are used as induction therapy for prophylaxis against acute rejection in kidney transplant recipients. Use of IL2Ra has increased steadily, with 38% of new kidney transplant recipients in the United States, and 23% in Australasia receiving IL2Ra in 2002. Objectives: This study aims to systematically identify and summarise the effects of using an IL2Ra, as an addition to standard therapy, or as an alternative to other antibody therapy. Search strategy: The Cochrane Renal Group's specialised register (June 2003), the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (in The Cochrane Library issue 3, 2002), MEDLINE (1966-November 2002) and EMBASE (1980-November 2002). Reference lists and abstracts of conference proceedings and scientific meetings were hand-searched from 1998-2003. Trial groups, authors of included reports and drug manufacturers were contacted. Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in all languages comparing IL2Ra to placebo, no treatment, other IL2Ra or other antibody therapy. Data collection and analysis: Data was extracted and quality assessed independently by two reviewers, with differences resolved by discussion. Dichotomous outcomes are reported as relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Main results: One hundred and seventeen reports from 38 trials involving 4893 participants were included. Where IL2Ra were compared with placebo (17 trials; 2786 patients), graft loss was not significantly different at one (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.04) or three years (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.22). Acute rejection (AR) was significantly reduced at six months (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.74) and at one year (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.75). At one year, cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.03) and malignancy (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.36) were not significantly different. Where IL2Ra were compared with other antibody therapy no significant differences in treatment effects were demonstrated, but adverse effects strongly favoured IL2Ra. Reviewer's conclusions: Given a 40% risk of rejection, seven patients would need treatment with IL2Ra to prevent one patient having rejection, with no definite improvement in graft or patient survival. There is no apparent difference between basiliximab and daclizumab. IL2Ra are as effective as other antibody therapies and with significantly fewer side effect

Optimizing therapy for Candida infections

The problem of invasive candidiasis among ICU patients is an increasing and evolving one. Despite advances in supportive care, increasing numbers of critically ill and vulnerable patients are susceptible to infection, and the clinical consequences for those who do develop invasive candidiasis remain poor. Evolving epidemiological trends, particularly a relative increase in the incidence of fluconazole-resistant Candida spp., have further complicated management. The recent availability of antifungal agents, such as voriconazole, the echinocandins, and lipid-associated amphotericin B preparations, with improved safety profiles, extended spectra, and proven clinical efficacies, offers new therapeutic options. However, optimizing therapy requires the consideration of numerous factors: the differing pharmacological properties of these agents, cost, the clinical status and progress of the patient, estimates of the likelihood of resistance, and microbiological data as they become available. Because early institution of antifungal therapy appears an important determinant of favorable outcome, accurate early microbiological and clinical markers of invasive candidiasis to guide early antifungal interventions are desperately needed and remain an area of active investigation

Antifungals in the ICU

Purpose of revie

Assessment of clinical risk predictive rules for invasive candidiasis in a prospective multicentre cohort of ICU patients

Purpose: To assess the generalisability of published clinical risk predictive models for invasive candidiasis in ICU patients.\ud \ud Methods: The performance characteristics of published clinical risk factor-only and Candida colonisation-only predictive models for invasive candidiasis were assessed in a multicentre cohort of Australian ICU patients. Clinical risk factors and Candida colonisation parameters were collected prospectively from patients. \ud \ud Results: The two clinical risk factor-only predictive models applied to an Australian patient cohort (n = 615) performed less well than in published studies involving derivation populations. Model performance characteristics improved when Candida colonisation parameters were added post-hoc.\ud \ud Conclusions: Risk predictive models should factor in both clinical risk factors and Candida colonisation parameters. Integrating these models into therapeutic algorithms first requires external validation in different patient populations and settings.\ud \u

Identification of genetic markers of resistance to echinocandins, azoles and 5-fluorocytosine in Candida glabrata by next-generation sequencing: A feasibility study

Objectives Multi-antifungal drug resistance in Candida glabrata is increasing. We examined the feasibility of next-generation sequencing (NGS) to investigate the presence of antifungal drug resistance markers in C. glabrata. Methods The antifungal susceptibility of 12 clinical isolates and one ATCC strain of C. glabrata was determined using the Sensititre YeastOne® YO10 assay. These included three isolate pairs where the second isolate of each pair had developed a rise in drug MICs. Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in genes known to be linked to echinocandin, azole and 5-fluorocytosine resistance were analysed in all isolates through NGS. Results High-quality non-synonymous SNPs in antifungal resistance genes such as FKS1, FKS2, CgCDR1, CgPDR1 and FCY2 were identified. For two of three isolate pairs, there was a >60-fold rise in MICs to all echinocandins in the second isolate from each pair; one echinocandin-resistant isolate harboured a mutation in FKS1 (S629P) and the other in FKS2 (S663P). Of the third pair, both the 5-fluorocytosine-susceptible, and resistant isolates had a mutation in FCY2 (A237T). SNPs in CgPDR1 were found in pan-azole-resistant isolates. SNPs in other genes linked to azole resistance (CgCDR1, ERG9 and CgFLR1) were present in both azole-susceptible and azole-resistant isolates. SNPs were also identified in Candida adhesin genes EPA1, EPA6, PWP2 and PWP5 but their presence was not associated with higher drug MICs. Conclusions Genome-wide analysis of antifungal resistance markers was feasible and simultaneously revealed mutation patterns of genes implicated in resistance to different antifungal drug classesThis work was supported by the Centre for Infectious Diseases and MicrobiologydPublic Healt

Perioperative antibiotics for preventing post-surgical site infections in solid organ transplant recipients

Background: Solid organ transplant recipients are at high risk for infections due to the complexity of surgical procedures combined with the impact of immunosuppression. No consensus exists on the role of antibiotics for surgical site infections in solid organ transplant recipients. Objectives: To assess the benefits and harms of prophylactic antimicrobial agents for preventing surgical site infections in solid organ transplant recipients. Search methods: The Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies was searched up to 21 April 2020 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Selection criteria: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in any language assessing prophylactic antibiotics in preventing surgical site infections in solid organ transplant recipients at any time point after transplantation. Data collection and analysis: Two authors independently determined study eligibility, assessed quality, and extracted data. Primary outcomes were surgical site infections and antimicrobial resistance. Other outcomes included urinary tract infections, pneumonias and septicaemia, death (any cause), graft loss, graft rejection, graft function, adverse reactions to antimicrobial agents, and outcomes identified by the Standardised Outcomes of Nephrology Group (SONG), specifically graft health, cardiovascular disease, cancer and life participation. Summary effect estimates were obtained using a random-effects model and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). The quality of the evidence was assessed using the risk of bias and the GRADE approach. Main results: We identified eight eligible studies (718 randomised participants). Overall, five studies (248 randomised participants) compared antibiotics versus no antibiotics, and three studies (470 randomised participants) compared extended duration versus short duration antibiotics. Risk of bias was assessed as high for performance bias (eight studies), detection bias (eight studies) and attrition bias (two studies). It is uncertain whether antibiotics reduce the incidence of surgical site infections as the certainty of the evidence has been assessed as very low (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.85; 5 studies, 226 participants; I = 25%). The certainty of the evidence was very low for all other reported outcomes (death, graft loss, and other infections). It is uncertain whether extended duration antibiotics reduces the incidence of surgical site infections in either solid organ transplant recipients (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.48; 2 studies, 302 participants; I = 0%) or kidney-only transplant recipients (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.48; 1 study, 205 participants) as the certainty of the evidence has been assessed as very low. The certainty of the evidence was very low for all other reported outcomes (death, graft loss, and other infections). None of the eight included studies evaluated antimicrobial agent adverse reactions, graft health, cardiovascular disease, cancer, life participation, biochemical and haematological parameters, intervention cost, hospitalisation length, or overall hospitalisation costs. Authors' conclusions: Due to methodological limitations, risk of bias and significant heterogeneity, the current evidence for the use of prophylactic perioperative antibiotics in transplantation is of very low quality. Further high quality, adequately powered RCTs would help better inform clinical practice

Safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity of a human monoclonal antibody targeting the G glycoprotein of henipaviruses in healthy adults: a first-in-human, randomised, controlled, phase 1 study

Background: The monoclonal antibody m102.4 is a potent, fully human antibody that neutralises Hendra and Nipah viruses in vitro and in vivo. We aimed to investigate the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity of m102.4 in healthy adults. Methods: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, single-centre, dose-escalation, phase 1 trial of m102.4, we randomly assigned healthy adults aged 18–50 years with a body-mass index of 18·0–35·0 kg/m to one of five cohorts. A sentinel pair for each cohort was randomly assigned to either m102.4 or placebo. The remaining participants in each cohort were randomly assigned (5:1) to receive m102.4 or placebo. Cohorts 1–4 received a single intravenous infusion of m102.4 at doses of 1 mg/kg (cohort 1), 3 mg/kg (cohort 2), 10 mg/kg (cohort 3), and 20 mg/kg (cohort 4), and were monitored for 113 days. Cohort 5 received two infusions of 20 mg/kg 72 h apart and were monitored for 123 days. The primary outcomes were safety and tolerability. Secondary outcomes were pharmacokinetics and immunogenicity. Analyses were completed according to protocol. The study was registered on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12615000395538. Findings: Between March 27, 2015, and June 16, 2016, 40 (52%) of 77 healthy screened adults were enrolled in the study. Eight participants were assigned to each cohort (six received m102.4 and two received placebo). 86 treatment-emergent adverse events were reported, with similar rates between placebo and treatment groups. The most common treatment-related event was headache (12 [40%] of 30 participants in the combined m102.4 group, and three [30%] of ten participants in the pooled placebo group). No deaths or severe adverse events leading to study discontinuation occurred. Pharmacokinetics based on those receiving m102.4 (n=30) were linear, with a median half-life of 663·3 h (range 474·3–735·1) for cohort 1, 466·3 h (382·8–522·3) for cohort 2, 397·0 h (333·9–491·8) for cohort 3, and 466·7 h (351·0–889·6) for cohort 4. The elimination kinetics of those receiving repeated dosing (cohort 5) were similar to those of single-dose recipients (median elimination half-time 472·0 [385·6–592·0]). Anti-m102.4 antibodies were not detected at any time-point during the study. Interpretation: Single and repeated dosing of m102.4 were well tolerated and safe, displayed linear pharmacokinetics, and showed no evidence of an immunogenic response. This study will inform future dosing regimens for m102.4 to achieve prolonged exposure for systemic efficacy to prevent and treat henipavirus infections. Funding: Queensland Department of Health, the National Health and Medical Research Council, and the National Hendra Virus Research Program