The Impact of carbapenem resistance on mortality in patients with klebsiella pneumoniae bloodstream infection: an individual patient data meta-analysis of 1952 patients

Introduction: Available evidence from observational studies and meta-analyses has highlighted an increased mortality in patients with carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae (CRKP) bloodstream infections (BSI) compared with their carbapenem-susceptible (CSKP) counterparts, but the exact reasons for this outcome difference are still to be determined. Methods: We updated the search of a previous meta-analysis through four databases up to April 2018. A two-stage individual-patient data (IPD) meta-analysis was conducted, building an adjusting model to account for age, comorbidities and activity of empirical and targeted antimicrobial therapy. The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (identifier: CRD42018104256). Results: IPD data were obtained from 14 out of 28 eligible observational studies. A total of 1952 patients were investigated: 1093 in the CRKP group and 859 in the CSKP group. Patients with CRKP-BSI had a twofold risk of death compared with CSKP-infected patients [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 2.17; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.56–3.04; I2 = 44.1%]. Mortality was higher in patients with CRKP BSI, in both the subgroup of absent/inactive (aOR 1.75; 95% CI 1.24–2.47; I2 = 0) and of active initial therapy (aOR 2.66; 95% CI 1.70–4.16; I2 = 16%) as well as in case of active targeted therapy (aOR 2.21; 95% CI 1.36–3.59; I2 = 58%). Conclusion: Resistance to carbapenem is associated with worse outcome in patients with BSI by Klebsiella pneumoniae even adjusting for comorbidities and treatment appropriateness according to in vitro activity of empirical and targeted therapy. This applies to a scenario dominated by colistin-based therapies for CRKP. Further studies are needed to compare the mortality difference between CRKP and CSKP cases in the light of new anti-CRKP antimicrobials

Comparison of standard prophylactic, intermediate prophylactic and therapeutic anticoagulation in patients with severe COVID-19: protocol for the ANTICOVID multicentre, parallel-group, open-label, randomised controlled trial

International audienceINTRODUCTION: COVID-19 induces venous, arterial and microvascular thrombosis, involving several pathophysiological processes. In patients with severe COVID-19 without macrovascular thrombosis, escalating into high-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (HD-PA) or therapeutic anticoagulation (TA) could be beneficial in limiting the extension of microvascular thrombosis and forestalling the evolution of lung and multiorgan microcirculatory dysfunction. In the absence of data from randomised trials, clinical practice varies widely. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a French multicentre, parallel-group, open-label, randomised controlled superiority trial to compare the efficacy and safety of three anticoagulation strategies in patients with COVID-19. Patients with oxygen-treated COVID-19 showing no pulmonary artery thrombosis on computed tomography with pulmonary angiogram will be randomised to receive either low-dose PA, HD-PA or TA for 14 days. Patients attaining the extremes of weight and those with severe renal failure will not be included. We will recruit 353 patients. Patients will be randomised on a 1:1:1 basis, and stratified by centre, use of invasive mechanical ventilation, D-dimer levels and body mass index. The primary endpoint is a hierarchical criterion at day 28 including all-cause mortality, followed by the time to clinical improvement defined as the time from randomisation to an improvement of at least two points on the ordinal clinical scale. Secondary outcomes include thrombotic and major bleeding events at day 28, individual components of the primary endpoint, number of oxygen-free, ventilator-free and vasopressor-free days at day 28, D-dimer and sepsis-induced coagulopathy score at day 7, intensive care unit and hospital stay at day 28 and day 90, and all-cause death and quality of life at day 90. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by an ethical committee (Ethics Committee, Ile de France VII, Paris, France; reference 2020-A03531-38). Patients will be included after obtaining their signed informed consent. The results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04808882

Clinical phenotypes and outcomes associated with SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variants BA.2, BA.5 and BQ.1.1 in critically ill patients with COVID-19: a prospective, multicenter cohort study

International audienceBackground: Despite current broad natural and vaccine-induced protection, a substantial number of patients infected with emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants (e.g., BF.7 and BQ.1.1) still experience severe COVID-19. Real-life studies investigating the impact of these variants on clinical outcomes of severe cases are currently not available. We performed a prospective multicenter observational cohort study. Adult patients with acute respiratory failure admitted between December 7, 2021 and December 15, 2022, in one of the 20 participating intensive care units (17 from the Greater Paris area and 3 from the North of France) were eligible for inclusion if they had SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by a positive reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Full-length SARS-CoV-2 genomes from all included patients were sequenced by means of next-generation sequencing. The primary endpoint of the study was day-28 mortality. Results: The study included 158 patients infected with three groups of Omicron sublineages, including (i) BA.2 variants and their early sublineages referred as “BA.2” (n = 50), (ii) early BA.4 and BA.5 sublineages (including BA.5.1 and BA.5.2, n = 61) referred as “BA.4/BA.5”, and (iii) recent emerging BA.5 sublineages (including BQ.1, BQ.1.1, BF.7, BE.1 and CE.1, n = 47) referred as “BQ.1.1”. The clinical phenotype of BQ1.1-infected patients compared to earlier BA.2 and BA.4/BA.5 sublineages, showed more frequent obesity and less frequent immunosuppression. There was no significant difference between Omicron sublineage groups regarding the severity of the disease at ICU admission, need for organ failure support during ICU stay, nor day 28 mortality (21.7%, n = 10/47 in BQ.1.1 group vs 26.7%, n = 16/61 in BA.4/BA.5 vs 22.0%, n = 11/50 in BA.2, p = 0.791). No significant relationship was found between any SARS-CoV-2 substitution and/or deletion on the one hand and survival on the other hand over hospital follow-up. Conclusions: Critically-ill patients with Omicron BQ.1.1 infection showed a different clinical phenotype than other patients infected with earlier Omicron sublineage but no day-28 mortality difference

Infection control in the intensive care unit: expert consensus statements for SARS-CoV-2 using a Delphi method

During the current COVID-19 pandemic, health-care workers and uninfected patients in intensive care units (ICUs) are at risk of being infected with SARS-CoV-2 as a result of transmission from infected patients and health-care workers. In the absence of high-quality evidence on the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, clinical practice of infection control and prevention in ICUs varies widely. Using a Delphi process, international experts in intensive care, infectious diseases, and infection control developed consensus statements on infection control for SARS-CoV-2 in an ICU. Consensus was achieved for 31 (94%) of 33 statements, from which 25 clinical practice statements were issued. These statements include guidance on ICU design and engineering, health-care worker safety, visiting policy, personal protective equipment, patients and procedures, disinfection, and sterilisation. Consensus was not reached on optimal return to work criteria for health-care workers who were infected with SARS-CoV-2 or the acceptable disinfection strategy for heat-sensitive instruments used for airway management of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Well designed studies are needed to assess the effects of these practice statements and address the remaining uncertainties

Infection control in the intensive care unit: expert consensus statements for SARS-CoV-2 using a Delphi method

During the current COVID-19 pandemic, health-care workers and uninfected patients in intensive care units (ICUs) are at risk of being infected with SARS-CoV-2 as a result of transmission from infected patients and health-care workers. In the absence of high-quality evidence on the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, clinical practice of infection control and prevention in ICUs varies widely. Using a Delphi process, international experts in intensive care, infectious diseases, and infection control developed consensus statements on infection control for SARS-CoV-2 in an ICU. Consensus was achieved for 31 (94%) of 33 statements, from which 25 clinical practice statements were issued. These statements include guidance on ICU design and engineering, health-care worker safety, visiting policy, personal protective equipment, patients and procedures, disinfection, and sterilisation. Consensus was not reached on optimal return to work criteria for health-care workers who were infected with SARS-CoV-2 or the acceptable disinfection strategy for heat-sensitive instruments used for airway management of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Well designed studies are needed to assess the effects of these practice statements and address the remaining uncertainties

Infection control in the intensive care unit : expert consensus statements for SARS-CoV-2 using a Delphi method

During the current COVID-19 pandemic, health-care workers and uninfected patients in intensive care units (ICUs) are at risk of being infected with SARS-CoV-2 as a result of transmission from infected patients and health-care workers. In the absence of high-quality evidence on the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, clinical practice of infection control and prevention in ICUs varies widely. Using a Delphi process, international experts in intensive care, infectious diseases, and infection control developed consensus statements on infection control for SARS-CoV-2 in an ICU. Consensus was achieved for 31 (94%) of 33 statements, from which 25 clinical practice statements were issued. These statements include guidance on ICU design and engineering, health-care worker safety, visiting policy, personal protective equipment, patients and procedures, disinfection, and sterilisation. Consensus was not reached on optimal return to work criteria for health-care workers who were infected with SARS-CoV-2 or the acceptable disinfection strategy for heat-sensitive instruments used for airway management of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Well designed studies are needed to assess the effects of these practice statements and address the remaining uncertainties

Effects of Standard-Dose Prophylactic, High-Dose Prophylactic, and Therapeutic Anticoagulation in Patients With Hypoxemic COVID-19 Pneumonia The ANTICOVID Randomized Clinical Trial

International audienceIMPORTANCE Given the high risk of thrombosis and anticoagulation-related bleeding in patients with hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia, identifying the lowest effective dose of anticoagulation therapy for these patients is imperative. OBJECTIVES To determine whether therapeutic anticoagulation (TA) or high-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (HD-PA) decreases mortality and/or disease duration compared with standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (SD-PA), and whether TA outperforms HD-PA; and to compare the net clinical outcomes among the 3 strategies. DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS The ANTICOVID randomized clinical open-label trial included patients with hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia requiring supplemental oxygen and having no initial thrombosis on chest computer tomography with pulmonary angiogram at 23 health centers in France from April 14 to December 13, 2021. Of 339 patients randomized, 334 were included in the primary analysis-114 patients in the SD-PA group, 110 in the HD-PA, and 110 in the TA. At randomization, 90% of the patients were in the intensive care unit. Data analyses were performed from April 13, 2022, to January 3, 2023. INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive either SD-PA, HD-PA, or TA with low-molecular-weight or unfractionated heparin for 14 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES A hierarchical criterion of all-cause mortality followed by time to clinical improvement at day 28. Main secondary outcome was net clinical outcome at day 28 (composite of thrombosis, major bleeding, and all-cause death). RESULTS Among the study population of 334 individuals (mean [SD] age, 58.3 [13.0] years; 226 [67.7%] men and 108 [32.3%] women), use of HD-PA and SD-PA had similar probabilities of favorable outcome (47.3% [95%CI, 39.9% to 54.8%] vs 52.7%[95%CI, 45.2%to 60.1%]; P = .48), as did TA compared with SD-PA (50.9% [95%CI, 43.4%to 58.3%] vs 49.1% [95%CI, 41.7%to 56.6%]; P = .82) and TA compared with HD-PA (53.5%[95%CI 45.8% to 60.9%] vs 46.5% [95%CI, 39.1% to 54.2%]; P = .37). Net clinical outcome was met in 29.8% of patients receiving SD-PA (20.2%thrombosis, 2.6%bleeding, 14.0% death), 16.4% receiving HD-PA (5.5%thrombosis, 3.6%bleeding, 11.8%death), and 20.0% receiving TA (5.5% thrombosis, 3.6% bleeding, 12.7%death). Moreover, HD-PA and TA use significantly reduced thrombosis compared with SD-PA (absolute difference, -14.7 [95%CI -6.2 to -23.2] and -14.7 [95%CI -6.2 to -23.2], respectively). Use of HD-PA significantly reduced net clinical outcome compared with SD-PA (absolute difference, -13.5; 95%CI -2.6 to -24.3). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This randomized clinical trial found that compared with SD-PA, neither HD-PAnor TAuse improved the primary hierarchical outcome of all-cause mortality or time to clinical improvement in patients with hypoxemicCOVID-19 pneumonia; however, HD-PA resulted in significantly better net clinical outcome by decreasing the risk of de novo thrombosis