Medical versus surgical approach to initial treatment in septic arthritis: A single spanish center’s 8-year experience

Objective The aim of this study was to compare the functional results of 2 different procedure types, medical or surgical used in treating native joint septic arthritis. Methods In this cohort study, we reviewed the clinical registries of patients admitted to a single third-level hospital with the diagnosis of septic arthritis during the period of January 1, 2008, to January 31, 2016. Results A total of 63 cases of septic arthritis were identified in which the initial approach for 49 patients was medical (arthrocentesis), whereas the initial approach for 14 patients was surgical (arthroscopy or arthrotomy). Of the 49 patients who received initial medical treatment (IMT), 15 patients (30%) later required surgical treatment because of poor progress. The median age of the patients was 60 (SD, 18) years. The group who received IMT were older than those who received initial surgical treatment (median, 64 years [interquartile range {IQR}, 54–76 years], vs. 48 years [IQR, 30–60 years]). There was a larger percentage of male patients in the surgical group (78% vs. 42% [p = 0.018]). Thirty percent of the medical group had been receiving corticosteroid treatment (p = 0.018). Results of complete recovery of joint functionality showed no significant differences after 1 year (68% with MT vs. 67% with ST, p = 0.91). Both groups had similar symptom duration until diagnosis, duration of antibiotic therapy (median, 30 days [IQR, 28–49 days], vs. 29.5 days [IQR, 27–49] days), and mortality rate (3 in the medical group). Conclusions The results of the study show that initial surgical treatment in patients with native joint septic arthritis is not superior to IMT. However, half of the patients with shoulder and hip infections treated with IMT eventually required surgical intervention, suggesting that perhaps this should be the preferred initial approach in these cases

Anakinra versus Baricitinib: Different Strategies for Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19

Background: Immunomodulatory drugs have been used in patients with severe COVID-19. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of two different strategies, based either on an interleukin-1 inhibitor, anakinra, or on a JAK inhibitor, such as baricitinib, on the survival of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia. Methods: Individuals admitted to two hospitals because of COVID-19 were included if they fulfilled the clinical, radiological, and laboratory criteria for moderate-to-severe disease. Patients were classified according to the first immunomodulatory drug prescribed: anakinra or baricitinib. All subjects were concomitantly treated with corticosteroids, in addition to standard care. The main outcomes were the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and in-hospital death. Statistical analysis included propensity score matching and Cox regression model. Results: The study subjects included 125 and 217 individuals in the anakinra and baricitinib groups, respectively. IMV was required in 13 (10.4%) and 10 (4.6%) patients, respectively (p = 0.039). During this period, 22 (17.6%) and 36 (16.6%) individuals died in both groups (p = 0.811). Older age, low functional status, high comorbidity, need for IMV, elevated lactate dehydrogenase, and use of a high flow of oxygen at initially were found to be associated with worse clinical outcomes. No differences according to the immunomodulatory therapy used were observed. For most of the deceased individuals, early interruption of anakinra or baricitinib had occurred at the time of their admission to the intensive care unit. Conclusions: Similar mortality is observed in patients treated with anakinra or baricitinib plus corticosteroids