Antibacterial activity of a sterile antimicrobial polyisoprene surgical glove against transient flora following a 2-hours simulated use

Background: A surgical glove will protect surgeons and patients only if the glove’s integrity remains intact. However, several studies have demonstrated that undetected micro-perforations of surgical gloves are common. Because of the possibility of surgical glove puncture, an antimicrobial surgical glove was developed. The aim of this laboratory based experimental study was to assess the antibacterial efficacy of the interior chlorhexidine-gluconate (CHG)-coat of an antimicrobial synthetic polyisoprene surgical glove by using a standardized microbiological challenge. Methods: Sixteen healthy adult participants donned one antimicrobial surgical glove and one non-antimicrobial surgical glove randomly allocated to their dominant and non-dominant hand following a crossover design. During a 2-h wear time, participants performed standardized finger and hand movements. Thereafter, the interior surface of excised fingers of the removed gloves was challenged with 8.00 log10 cfu/mL S. aureus (ATCC 6538) or K. pneumoniae (ATCC 4352), respectively. The main outcome measure was the viable mean log10 cfu counts of the two glove groups after 5 min contact with the interior glove’s surface. Results: When comparing an antimicrobial glove against an untreated reference glove after 2-h simulated use wear-time, a mean reduction factor of 6.24 log10 (S. aureus) and 6.22 log10 (K. pneumoniae) was achieved after 5 min contact. Conclusion: These results demonstrate that wearing antibacterial gloves on hands does not negatively impact their antibacterial activity after 2-h of wear. This may have a potential benefit for patient safety in case of glove puncture during surgical procedures

Early treatment response to piperacillin/tazobactam in patients with bloodstream infections caused by non-ESBL ampicillin/sulbactam-resistant Escherichia coli: a binational cohort study

Purpose: This study aimed to compare treatment outcomes for bloodstream infections (BSI) caused by a piperacillin/tazobactam (PIP/TAZ)-susceptible E. coli among three patient groups: BSI caused by ampicillin/sulbactam (AMP/SLB)-resistant isolates treated with PIP/TAZ, BSI caused by AMP/SLB-sensitive isolates treated with PIP/TAZ, and BSI caused by AMP/SLB-resistant isolates treated with another monotherapy. Methods: This retrospective study was conducted in two academic centres in Europe. Adult patients with E. coli BSI were screened from 2014 to 2020. Inclusion criteria were non-ESBL BSI and initial monotherapy for ≥ 72 h. To reduce the expected bias between the patient groups, propensity score matching was performed. The primary outcome was early treatment response after 72 h and required absence of SOFA score increase in ICU/IMC patients, as well as resolution of fever, leukocytosis, and bacteraemia. Results: Of the 1707 patients screened, 315 (18.5%) were included in the final analysis. Urinary tract infection was the most common source of BSI (54.9%). Monotherapies other than PIP/TAZ were cephalosporins (48.6%), carbapenems (34.3%), and quinolones (17.1%). Enhanced early treatment response rate was detected ( p  = 0.04) in patients with BSI caused by AMP/SLB-resistant isolates treated with another monotherapy (74.3%) compared to those treated with PIP/TAZ (57.1%), and was mainly driven by the use of cephalosporins and quinolones ( p  ≤ 0.03). Clinical success, 28-day mortality, and rate of relapsing BSI did not significantly differ between the groups. Conclusions: Our study suggests that initial use of PIP/TAZ may be associated with reduced early treatment response in E. coli BSI caused by AMP/SLB-resistant isolates compared to alternative monotherapies

Potential value of a rapid syndromic multiplex PCR for the diagnosis of native and prosthetic joint infections:a real-world evidence study

Introduction: The BIOFIRE Joint Infection (JI) Panel is a diagnostic tool that uses multiplex-PCR testing to detect microorganisms in synovial fluid specimens from patients suspected of having septic arthritis (SA) on native joints or prosthetic joint infections (PJIs). Methods: A study was conducted across 34 clinical sites in 19 European and Middle Eastern countries from March 2021 to June 2022 to assess the effectiveness of the BIOFIRE JI Panel. Results: A total of 1527 samples were collected from patients suspected of SA or PJI, with an overall agreement of 88.4% and 85% respectively between the JI Panel and synovial fluid cultures (SFCs). The JI Panel detected more positive samples and microorganisms than SFC, with a notable difference on Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus species, Enterococcus faecalis, Kingella kingae, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, and anaerobic bacteria. The study found that the BIOFIRE JI Panel has a high utility in the real-world clinical setting for suspected SA and PJI, providing diagnostic results in approximately 1h. The user experience was positive, implying a potential benefit of rapidity of results' turnover in optimising patient management strategies. Conclusion: The study suggests that the BIOFIRE JI Panel could potentially optimise patient management and antimicrobial therapy, thus highlighting its importance in the clinical setting.</p

Potential value of a rapid syndromic multiplex PCR for the diagnosis of native and prosthetic joint infections: a real-world evidence study.

Introduction: The BIOFIRE Joint Infection (JI) Panel is a diagnostic tool that uses multiplex-PCR testing to detect microorganisms in synovial fluid specimens from patients suspected of having septic arthritis (SA) on native joints or prosthetic joint infections (PJIs). Methods: A study was conducted across 34 clinical sites in 19 European and Middle Eastern countries from March 2021 to June 2022 to assess the effectiveness of the BIOFIRE JI Panel. Results: A total of 1527 samples were collected from patients suspected of SA or PJI, with an overall agreement of 88.4 % and 85 % respectively between the JI Panel and synovial fluid cultures (SFCs). The JI Panel detected more positive samples and microorganisms than SFC, with a notable difference on Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus species, Enterococcus faecalis, Kingella kingae, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, and anaerobic bacteria. The study found that the BIOFIRE JI Panel has a high utility in the real-world clinical setting for suspected SA and PJI, providing diagnostic results in approximately 1 h. The user experience was positive, implying a potential benefit of rapidity of results\u27 turnover in optimising patient management strategies. Conclusion: The study suggests that the BIOFIRE JI Panel could potentially optimise patient management and antimicrobial therapy, thus highlighting its importance in the clinical setting

Global burden of Clostridium difficile infections::a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Clostridium difficile is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in several countries. However, there are limited evidence characterizing its role as a global public health problem. We conducted a systematic review to provide a comprehensive overview of C. difficile infections (CDI) rates.Methods: Seven databases were searched (January 2016) to identify studies and surveillance reports published between 2005 and 2015 reporting CDI incidence rates. CDI incidence rates for health care facility-associated (HCF), hospital onset-health care facility-associated, medical or general intensive care unit (ICU), internal medicine (IM), long-term care facility (LTCF), and community-associated (CA) were extracted and standardized. Meta-analysis was conducted using a random effects model.Results: 229 publications, with data from 41 countries, were included. The overall rate of HCF-CDI was 2.24 (95% confidence interval CI = 1.66- 3.03) per 1000 admissions/y and 3.54 (95%CI = 3.19-3.92) per 10 000 patient- days/y. Estimated rates for CDI with onset in ICU or IM wards were 11.08 (95%CI = 7.19-17.08) and 10.80 (95%CI = 3.15-37.06) per 1000 admission/ y, respectively. Rates for CA-CDI were lower: 0.55 (95%CI = 0.13- 2.37) per 1000 admissions/y. CDI rates were generally higher in North America and among the elderly but similar rates were identified in other regions and age groups.Conclusions: Our review highlights the widespread burden of disease of C. difficile, evidence gaps, and the need for sustainable surveillance of CDI in the health care setting and the community.</p