First analysis of the Severe Paediatric Asthma Collaborative in Europe registry.

New biologics are being continually developed for paediatric asthma, but it is unclear whether there are sufficient numbers of children in Europe with severe asthma and poor control to recruit to trials needed for registration. To address these questions, the European Respiratory Society funded the Severe Paediatric Asthma Collaborative in Europe (SPACE), a severe asthma registry. We report the first analysis of the SPACE registry, which includes data from 10 paediatric respiratory centres across Europe. Data from 80 children with a clinical diagnosis of severe asthma who were receiving both high-dose inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting β2-agonist were entered into the registry between January 2019 and January 2020. Suboptimal control was defined by either asthma control test, or Global Initiative for Asthma criteria, or ≥2 severe exacerbations in the previous 12 months, or a combination. Overall, 62 out of 80 (77%) children had suboptimal asthma control, of whom 29 were not prescribed a biologic. However, in 24 there was an option for starting a licensed biologic. 33 children with suboptimal control were prescribed a biologic (omalizumab (n=24), or mepolizumab (n=7), or dupilumab (n=2)), and for 29 there was an option to switch to a different biologic. We conclude that the SPACE registry provides data that will support the planning of studies of asthma biologics. Not all children on biologics achieve good asthma control, and there is need for new trial designs addressing biologic switching

Optimizing care for children with difficult-to-treat and severe asthma through specialist paediatric asthma centres:expert practical experience and advice

Severe asthma in children carries an unacceptable treatment burden, yet its rarity means clinical experience in treating it is limited, even among specialists. Practical guidance is needed to support clinical decision-making to optimize treatment for children with this condition. This modified Delphi convened 16 paediatric pulmonologists and allergologists from northern Europe, all experienced in treating children with severe asthma. Informed by interviews with stakeholders involved in the care of children with severe asthma (including paediatricians, nurses and carers), and an analysis of European guidelines, the experts built a consensus focused on the gaps in existing guidance. Explored were considerations for optimizing care for patients needing biologic treatment, and for selecting home or hospital delivery of biologics. This consensus is aimed at clinicians in specialist centres, as well as general paediatricians, paediatric allergologists and paediatric pulmonologists who refer children with the most severe asthma to specialist care. Consensus is based on expert opinion and is intended for use alongside published guidelines. Our discussions revealed three key facets to optimizing care. Firstly, early asthma detection in children presenting with wheezing and/or dyspnoea is vital, with a low threshold for referral from primary to specialist care. Secondly, children who may need biologics should be referred to and managed by specialist paediatric asthma centres; we define principles for the specialist team members, tests, and expertise necessary at such centres, as well as guidance on when homecare biologics delivery is and is not appropriate. Thirdly, shared decision-making is essential at all stages of the patient’s journey: clear, concise treatment plans are vital for patient/carer self-management, and structured processes for transition from paediatric to adult services are valuable. The experts identified the potential for specialist paediatric asthma nurses to play a significant role in facilitating multidisciplinary working. Through this project is agreed a framework of practical advice to optimize the care of children with severe asthma. We encourage clinicians and policymakers to implement this practical advice to enhance patient care.</p

A Real-Time PCR Antibiogram for Drug-Resistant Sepsis

Current molecular diagnostic techniques for susceptibility testing of septicemia rely on genotyping for the presence of known resistance cassettes. This technique is intrinsically vulnerable due to the inability to detect newly emergent resistance genes. Traditional phenotypic susceptibility testing has always been a superior method to assay for resistance; however, relying on the multi-day growth period to determine which antimicrobial to administer jeopardizes patient survival. These factors have resulted in the widespread and deleterious use of broad-spectrum antimicrobials. The real-time PCR antibiogram, described herein, combines universal phenotypic susceptibility testing with the rapid diagnostic capabilities of PCR. We have developed a procedure that determines susceptibility by monitoring pathogenic load with the highly conserved 16S rRNA gene in blood samples exposed to different antimicrobial drugs. The optimized protocol removes heme and human background DNA from blood, which allows standard real-time PCR detection systems to be employed with high sensitivity (<100 CFU/mL). Three strains of E. coli, two of which were antimicrobial resistant, were spiked into whole blood and exposed to three different antibiotics. After real-time PCR-based determination of pathogenic load, a ΔCt<3.0 between untreated and treated samples was found to indicate antimicrobial resistance (P<0.01). Minimum inhibitory concentration was determined for susceptible bacteria and pan-bacterial detection was demonstrated with 3 Gram-negative and 2 Gram-positive bacteria. Species identification was performed via analysis of the hypervariable amplicons. In summary, we have developed a universal diagnostic phenotyping technique that assays for the susceptibility of drug-resistant septicemia with the speed of PCR. The real-time PCR antibiogram achieves detection, susceptibility testing, minimum inhibitory concentration determination, and identification in less than 24 hours

Efficacy of bacterial ribosomal RNA-targeted reverse transcription-quantitative PCR for detecting neonatal sepsis: a case control study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Neonatal sepsis is difficult to diagnose and pathogens cannot be detected from blood cultures in many cases. Development of a rapid and accurate method for detecting pathogens is thus essential. The main purpose of this study was to identify etiological agents in clinically diagnosed neonatal sepsis using bacterial ribosomal RNA-targeted reverse transcription-quantitative PCR (BrRNA-RT-qPCR) and to conduct comparisons with the results of conventional blood culture. Since BrRNA-RT-qPCR targets bacterial ribosomal RNA, detection rates using this approach may exceed those using conventional PCR.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Subjects comprised 36 patients with 39 episodes of suspected neonatal sepsis who underwent BrRNA-RT-qPCR and conventional blood culture to diagnose sepsis. Blood samples were collected aseptically for BrRNA-RT-qPCR and blood culture at the time of initial sepsis evaluation by arterial puncture. BrRNA-RT-qPCR and blood culture were undertaken using identical blood samples, and BrRNA-RT-qPCR was performed using 12 primer sets.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Positive rate was significantly higher for BrRNA-RT-qPCR (15/39, 38.5%) than for blood culture (6/39, 15.4%; p = 0.0039). BrRNA-RT-qPCR was able to identify all pathogens detected by blood culture. Furthermore, this method detected pathogens from neonates with clinical sepsis in whom pathogens was not detected by culture methods.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This RT-PCR technique is useful for sensitive detection of pathogens causing neonatal sepsis, even in cases with negative results by blood culture.</p

Comparison of broad range 16S rDNA PCR and conventional blood culture for diagnosis of sepsis in the newborn: a case control study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Early onset bacterial sepsis is a feared complication of the newborn. A large proportion of infants admitted to the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) for suspected sepsis receive treatment with potent systemic antibiotics while a diagnostic workup is in progress. The gold standard for detecting bacterial sepsis is blood culture. However, as pathogens in blood cultures are only detected in approximately 25% of patients, the sensitivity of blood culture is suspected to be low. Therefore, the diagnosis of sepsis is often based on the development of clinical signs, in combination with laboratory tests such as a rise in C – reactive protein (CRP). Molecular assays for the detection of bacterial DNA in the blood represent possible new diagnostic tools for early identification of a bacterial cause.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A broad range 16S rDNA polymerase chain reaction (PCR) without preincubation was compared to conventional diagnostic work up for clinical sepsis, including BACTEC blood culture, for early determination of bacterial sepsis in the newborn. In addition, the relationship between known risk factors, clinical signs, and laboratory parameters considered in clinical sepsis in the newborn were explored.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Forty-eight infants with suspected sepsis were included in this study. Thirty-one patients were diagnosed with sepsis, only 6 of these had a positive blood culture. 16S rDNA PCR analysis of blinded blood samples from the 48 infants revealed 10 samples positive for the presence of bacterial DNA. PCR failed to be positive in 2 samples from blood culture positive infants, and was positive in 1 sample where a diagnosis of a non-septic condition was established. Compared to blood culture the diagnosis of bacterial proven sepsis by PCR revealed a 66.7% sensitivity, 87.5% specificity, 95.4% positive and 75% negative predictive value. PCR combined with blood culture revealed bacteria in 35.1% of the patients diagnosed with sepsis. Irritability and feeding difficulties were the clinical signs most often observed in sepsis. CRP increased in the presence of bacterial infection.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>There is a need for PCR as a method to quickly point out the infants with sepsis. However, uncertainty about a bacterial cause of sepsis was not reduced by the PCR result, reflecting that methodological improvements are required in order for DNA detection to replace or supplement traditional blood culture in diagnosis of bacterial sepsis.</p

High-dose oral immunotherapy in children with anaphylaxis to peanut

Peanut allergy is common, and the main cause of life-threatening allergic reactions among children in the Western world. Concern for accidental exposure may reduce quality of life (QoL). In allergen specific immunotherapy, initial exposure of a very low allergen dose is followed by incremental amounts of the culprit allergen until a maintenance dose is reached. Trials of oral immunotherapy (OIT) report successful desensitization (increased reactivity threshold to the allergen during treatment) with acceptable safety profiles. Paradoxically, children with severe peanut allergy, thought to benefit the most from a successful treatment, are often excluded from trials due to the risk of anaphylaxis. The main objective of the present thesis was to determine the feasibility and effect of two years’ OIT in children with anaphylaxis to peanut. In the prospective, open labelled 4-year high-dose peanut OIT TAKE-AWAY trial, 57 children were randomized to OIT and 20 to observation only. Immunological tests, QoL-questionnaires and food challenge were performed at inclusion and after two years of treatment. In children with anaphylaxis to peanut, 24.6 % were deemed ineligible to OIT due to very low reactivity thresholds. Up-dosing was completed by 75.5 % with maintenance doses ranging from 250 to 5000 mg peanut protein (ppt), while 21.1 % only reached the pre-defined maximum maintenance dose (MMD) of 5000 mg ppt. The main reason for not reaching MMD was distaste for peanuts, followed by adverse events. Every fifth child experienced an anaphylactic adverse event, questioning the feasibility and safety of high-dose OIT in these patients. After two years of OIT, desensitization to 7500 mg ppt was confirmed in 94.6 % of the children. The QoL in children improved as reported by the parents, but not by the children. Hence, parents’ apparent over estimation of their child’s improvement in QoL by OIT, should be considered if such treatment is to be offered for peanut allergy

Assessment of lung function variability documents airflow limitation in many patients with long covid

Background: It is estimated that 65 million people worldwide suffer from long covid (LC). Many LC symptoms are also reported by patients with airflow limitation, used to confirm asthma. The primary aim was to detect airflow limitation in LC patients by a methacholine bronchial provocation test (BPT) and if negative, by evaluation of diurnal variability in forced expiratory flow in 1 second (FEV1) over a two-weeks’ period. The second aim was to assess responsiveness to asthma treatment on diurnal FEV1 variability and LC symptoms. Methods: Patients with LC for at least six months were recruited in this open diagnostic study. Burden of LC symptoms were reported on a 10-point Likert scale (0 = not troubled, 10 = extremely troubled) at inclusion and after three weeks’ asthma treatment. A positive methacholine BPT was defined by an accumulated provocation dose (PD20)<8 μmol causing 20% fall in FEV1. App-based spirometer was used for diurnal FEV1 variability, deemed positive by diurnalvariability in FEV1 ≥12%. Results: Airflow limitation was documented by positive methacholine BPT in 8/30 (27%), or by excessive diurnal variability in FEV1 in 21/22 (95%) of the BPT negative LC patients. One patient dropped out due to personal issues. Three weeks’ asthma treatment normalised mean diurnal FEV1 variability from 18.0% to 7.3%, p < 0.001. Significant reductions were observed for fatigue and dyspnoea, from 8.3 to 6.1, p < 0.001, and 3.0 to 0, p < 0.001, respectively. Conclusion: This study indicate that airflow limitation may be detected in many LC patients if evaluation of diurnal variability in FEV1 is included in the diagnostics

Quintupling or quadrupling inhaled glucocorticoids to prevent asthma exacerbations?

Non