Purpura Fulminans Secondary to Streptococcus pneumoniae Meningitis

Purpura fulminans (PF) is a rare skin disorder with extensive areas of blueblack hemorrhagic necrosis. Patients manifest typical laboratory signs of disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC). Our case describes a 37-year-old previously healthy man who presented with 3 days of generalized malaise, headache, vomiting, photophobia, and an ecchymotic skin rash. Initial laboratory workup revealed DIC without obvious infectious trigger including unremarkable cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biochemical analysis. There was further progression of the skin ecchymosis and multiorgan damage consistent with PF. Final CSF cultures revealed Streptococcus pneumoniae. Despite normal initial CSF biochemical analysis, bacterial meningitis should always be considered in patients with otherwise unexplained DIC as this may be an early manifestation of infection. PF is a clinical diagnosis that requires early recognition and prompt empirical treatment, especially, in patients with progressive altered mental status, ecchymotic skin rash, and DIC

Anomaly Extraction Using Histogram-Based Detector

Now a day’s network traffic monitoring and performance of the network are more important aspect in the computer science. Anomaly Extraction is a method of detecting in large set of flow observed during an anomalous time interval, the flows associated with the one or more anomalous event. Anomaly extraction is important problem that essential for application ranging from root cause analysis and attack mitigation and anomaly extraction is also important problem for several application of testing anomaly detector. In this paper, use a meta-data provided by histogram detector for detect and identify the suspicious flow after successfully detection suspicious flow then applying the association rule mining for finding the anomalous flow. By using the rich traffic data from the meta-data of the histogram-based detector we can reduce the classification cost. In this paper, Anomaly extraction method reduce the working time which is required for analyzing alarm, its make system more practically. DOI: 10.17762/ijritcc2321-8169.15011

Treatment with Hydroxychloroquine, Azithromycin, And Combination in Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19

Significance: The United States is in an acceleration phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Currently there is no known effective therapy or vaccine for treatment of SARS-CoV-2, highlighting urgency around identifying effective therapies. Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the role of hydroxychloroquine therapy alone and in combination with azithromycin in hospitalized patients positive for COVID-19. Design: Multi-center retrospective observational study. Setting: The Henry Ford Health System (HFHS) in Southeast Michigan: large six hospital integrated health system; the largest of hospitals is an 802-bed quaternary academic teaching hospital in urban Detroit, Michigan. Participants: Consecutive patients hospitalized with a COVID-related admission in the health system from March 10, 2020 to May 2, 2020 were included. Only the first admission was included for patients with multiple admissions. All patients evaluated were 18 years of age and older and were treated as inpatients for at least 48 h unless expired within 24 h. Exposure: Receipt of hydroxychloroquine alone, hydroxychloroquine in combination with azithromycin, azithromycin alone, or neither. Main outcome: The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Results: Of 2,541 patients, with a median total hospitalization time of 6 days (IQR: 4–10 days), median age was 64 years (IQR:53–76 years), 51% male, 56% African American, with median time to follow-up of 28.5 days (IQR:3–53). Overall in-hospital mortality was 18.1% (95% CI:16.6%–19.7%); by treatment: hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin, 157/783 (20.1% [95% CI: 17.3%–23.0%]), hydroxychloroquine alone, 162/1202 (13.5% [95% CI: 11.6%–15.5%]), azithromycin alone, 33/147 (22.4% [95% CI: 16.0%–30.1%]), and neither drug, 108/409 (26.4% [95% CI: 22.2%–31.0%]). Primary cause of mortality was respiratory failure (88%); no patient had documented torsades de pointes. From Cox regression modeling, predictors of mortality were age\u3e65 years (HR:2.6 [95% CI:1.9–3.3]), white race (HR:1.7 [95% CI:1.4–2.1]), CKD (HR:1.7 [95%CI:1.4–2.1]), reduced O2 saturation level on admission (HR:1.5 [95%CI:1.1–2.1]), and ventilator use during admission (HR: 2.2 [95%CI:1.4–3.3]). Hydroxychloroquine provided a 66% hazard ratio reduction, and hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin 71% compared to neither treatment (p \u3c 0.001). Conclusions and relevance: In this multi-hospital assessment, when controlling for COVID-19 risk factors, treatment with hydroxychloroquine alone and in combination with azithromycin was associated with reduction in COVID-19 associated mortality. Prospective trials are needed to examine this impact

Safety and Tolerability of SER-109 as an Investigational Microbiome Therapeutic in Adults With Recurrent Clostridioides difficile Infection: A Phase 3, Open-Label, Single-Arm Trial

IMPORTANCE: A safe and effective treatment for recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is urgently needed. Antibiotics kill toxin-producing bacteria but do not repair the disrupted microbiome, which promotes spore germination and infection recurrence. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the safety and rate of CDI recurrence after administration of investigational microbiome therapeutic SER-109 through 24 weeks. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This phase 3, single-arm, open-label trial (ECOSPOR IV) was conducted at 72 US and Canadian outpatient sites from October 2017 to April 2022. Adults aged 18 years or older with recurrent CDI were enrolled in 2 cohorts: (1) rollover patients from the ECOSPOR III trial who had CDI recurrence diagnosed by toxin enzyme immunoassay (EIA) and (2) patients with at least 1 CDI recurrence (diagnosed by polymerase chain reaction [PCR] or toxin EIA), inclusive of their acute infection at study entry. INTERVENTIONS: SER-109 given orally as 4 capsules daily for 3 days following symptom resolution after antibiotic treatment for CDI. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The main outcomes were safety, measured as the rate of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) in all patients receiving any amount of SER-109, and cumulative rates of recurrent CDI (toxin-positive diarrhea requiring treatment) through week 24 in the intent-to-treat population. RESULTS: Of 351 patients screened, 263 were enrolled (180 [68.4%] female; mean [SD] age, 64.0 [15.7] years); 29 were in cohort 1 and 234 in cohort 2. Seventy-seven patients (29.3%) were enrolled with their first CDI recurrence. Overall, 141 patients (53.6%) had TEAEs, which were mostly mild to moderate and gastrointestinal. There were 8 deaths (3.0%) and 33 patients (12.5%) with serious TEAEs; none were considered treatment related by the investigators. Overall, 23 patients (8.7%; 95% CI, 5.6%-12.8%) had recurrent CDI at week 8 (4 of 29 [13.8%; 95% CI, 3.9%-31.7%] in cohort 1 and 19 of 234 [8.1%; 95% CI, 5.0%-12.4%] in cohort 2), and recurrent CDI rates remained low through 24 weeks (36 patients [13.7%; 95% CI, 9.8%-18.4%]). At week 8, recurrent CDI rates in patients with a first recurrence were similarly low (5 of 77 [6.5%; 95% CI, 2.1%-14.5%]) as in patients with 2 or more recurrences (18 of 186 [9.7%; 95% CI, 5.8%-14.9%]). Analyses by select baseline characteristics showed consistently low recurrent CDI rates in patients younger than 65 years vs 65 years or older (5 of 126 [4.0%; 95% CI, 1.3%-9.0%] vs 18 of 137 [13.1%; 95% CI, 8.0%-20.0%]) and patients enrolled based on positive PCR results (3 of 69 [4.3%; 95% CI, 0.9%-12.2%]) vs those with positive toxin EIA results (20 of 192 [10.4%; 95% CI, 6.5%-15.6%]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this trial, oral SER-109 was well tolerated in a patient population with recurrent CDI and prevalent comorbidities. The rate of recurrent CDI was low regardless of the number of prior recurrences, demographics, or diagnostic approach, supporting the beneficial impact of SER-109 for patients with CDI. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03183141

Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19: a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

Funder: laura and john arnold foundationBACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat COVID-19 and is under investigation in numerous randomized clinical trials, but results are publicly available only for a small number of trials. The objective of this study was to assess the benefits of convalescent plasma treatment compared to placebo or no treatment and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GEHFX ). METHODS: In this collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis, clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), the Cochrane COVID-19 register, the LOVE database, and PubMed were searched until April 8, 2021. Investigators of trials registered by March 1, 2021, without published results were contacted via email. Eligible were ongoing, discontinued and completed randomized clinical trials that compared convalescent plasma with placebo or no treatment in COVID-19 patients, regardless of setting or treatment schedule. Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence. RESULTS: A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients). Risk of bias was low for 29/33 trials. Of 8495 patients who received convalescent plasma, 1997 died (23%), and of 7982 control patients, 1952 died (24%). The combined risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.92; 1.02) with between-study heterogeneity not beyond chance (I2 = 0%). The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Convalescent plasma treatment of patients with COVID-19 did not reduce all-cause mortality. These results provide strong evidence that convalescent plasma treatment for patients with COVID-19 should not be used outside of randomized trials. Evidence synthesis from collaborations among trial investigators can inform both evidence generation and evidence application in patient care

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Response to Is the outcome of SARS-CoV-2 infection in solid organ transplant recipients really similar to that of the general population?

We thank the authors Maria Mendoza et al. (1) for their comments related to our publication on the clinical characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients (2). Our study included a cohort of 47 consecutive SOT recipients with COVID-19. As noted in our study the 12 patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 that were treated as outpatients were excluded from the analysis to avoid potential selection bias. The study therefore compares 35 hospitalized SOT and 100 hospitalized non-transplant patients with COVID-19

SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies for COVID-19: Outcomes for bamlanivimab versus bamlanivimab-etesevimab combination in a racially diverse cohort of patients with significant comorbidities

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: Anti-spike monoclonal antibodies (MAB) including bamlanivimab (BAM) and bamlanivimab/etesevimab (BAM/E) have shown reduced hospitalization rates for non-severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in clinical trials. Recent data have provided real-world hospitalization rates for high-risk patients treated with BAM, however, data on a similar cohort treated with BAM/E are lacking. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study evaluated outpatients ≥18 years with laboratory-confirmed mild/moderate COVID-19 who received MAB from 1 December 2020 to 19 April 2021. Use of BAM monotherapy changed to BAM/E combination on 27 March 2021. Primary outcome was overall rate of COVID-19 related-hospitalization, including comparison of hospitalization rates between MAB-formulation groups. Secondary outcomes were 30-day mortality and length of stay (LOS). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The population included 643 patients (BAM and BAM/E); median age was 58 years, 43% were male, median BMI was 33 kg/m(2) , and 24% self-identified as Black. Patients in the BAM/E combination group were significantly younger with higher median BMI and a longer time from symptom onset to infusion. The incidence of 30-day COVID-19 related hospitalization was similar between patients receiving either BAM or BAM/E combination (7.8% and 7.2%, respectively). WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: This study represents the first such publication of real-world BAM/E hospitalization outcomes. Hospitalization rates utilizing BAM/E were comparable to BAM in our real-world study