Explore the vast range of titles available.

International guidelines recommend dopamine or norepinephrine as first-line vasopressor agents in septic shock. Phenylephrine, epinephrine, vasopressin and terlipressin are considered second-line agents. Our objective was to assess the evidence for the efficiency and safety of all vasopressors in septic shock. Systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched electronic database of MEDLINE, CENTRAL, LILACS and conference proceedings up to June 2014. We included randomized controlled trials comparing different vasopressors for the treatment of adult patients with septic shock. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Other clinical and hemodynamic measurements were extracted as secondary outcomes. Risk ratios (RR) and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled. Thirty-two trials (3,544 patients) were included. Compared to dopamine (866 patients, 450 events), norepinephrine (832 patients, 376 events) was associated with decreased all-cause mortality, RR 0.89 (95% CI 0.81-0.98), corresponding to an absolute risk reduction of 11% and number needed to treat of 9. Norepinephrine was associated with lower risk for major adverse events and cardiac arrhythmias compared to dopamine. No other mortality benefit was demonstrated for the comparisons of norepinephrine to epinephrine, phenylephrine and vasopressin / terlipressin. Hemodynamic data were similar between the different vasopressors, with some advantage for norepinephrine in central venous pressure, urinary output and blood lactate levels. Evidence suggests a survival benefit, better hemodynamic profile and reduced adverse events rate for norepinephrine over dopamine. Norepinephrine should be regarded as the first line vasopressor in the treatment of septic shock.

The antibacterial agents currently in clinical development are predominantly derivatives of well-established antibiotic classes and were selected to address the class-specific resistance mechanisms and determinants that were known at the time of their discovery. Many of these agents aim to target the antibiotic-resistant priority pathogens listed by the WHO, including Gram-negative bacteria in the critical priority category, such as carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter, Pseudomonas and Enterobacterales. Although some current compounds in the pipeline have exhibited increased susceptibility rates in surveillance studies that depend on geography, pre-existing cross-resistance both within and across antibacterial classes limits the activity of many of the new agents against the most extensively drug-resistant (XDR) and pan-drug-resistant (PDR) Gram-negative pathogens. In particular, cross-resistance to unrelated classes may occur by co-selection of resistant strains, thus leading to the rapid emergence and subsequent spread of resistance. There is a continued need for innovation and new-class antibacterial agents in order to provide effective therapeutic options against infections specifically caused by XDR and PDR Gram-negative bacteria.New antibacterial agents are urgently needed to address the global increase in resistance. In this Review, Theuretzbacher and colleagues critically review the current published literature and publicly available information on antibacterial agents in all phases of clinical development.

Paul Garner, a professor of epidemiology at Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, UK, wrote on the 95th day after the onset of symptoms that “I am unable to be out of bed for more than three hours at a stretch, my arms and legs are permanently fizzing as if injected with Szechuan peppercorns, I have ringing in the ears, intermittent brain fog, palpitations, and dramatic mood swings.” 1 Other people also describe similar complaints.2,3 78 of 100 patients in an observational cohort study who had recovered from COVID-19 had abnormal findings on cardiovascular MRI (median of 71 days after diagnosis) and 36 of those reported dyspnoea and unusual fatigue.4 We are seeing patients in clinics dedicated to COVID-19 convalescents, and for some of these patients the return to their former health trajectory is slow and painful. To avoid the problems we have witnessed in the research of the acute phase of the disease, a clear definition of patient inclusion criteria, a common protocol, and uniform definitions of outcomes and ways to measure them are required.

To assess the efficacy of prophylaxis for Pneumocystis pneumonia (PCP), caused by Pneumocystis jirovecii (formerly Pneumocystis carinii), for immunocompromised non-HIV-infected patients by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched for randomized controlled trials that compared prophylaxis using antibiotics effective against P jirovecii, given orally or intravenously, vs placebo, no intervention, or antibiotics with no activity against P jirovecii. In addition, we included trials that compared different PCP prophylactic regimens or administration schedules. The search included the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, and conference proceedings. No language, year, or publication restrictions were applied. Two reviewers (H.G. and M.P.) independently searched, selected trials, extracted data, and performed methodological quality assessment. Relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are reported. Meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model. Twelve randomized trials were identified, including 1245 patients (50% children) who had undergone autologous bone marrow or solid organ transplant or who had hematologic cancer. When trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole was administered, a 91% reduction was observed in the occurrence of PCP (RR, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.02-0.32); the number needed to treat was 15 (95% CI, 13-20) patients, with no heterogeneity. Pneumocystis pneumonia-related mortality was significantly reduced (RR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.03-0.94), whereas all-cause mortality did not differ significantly (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.18-3.46). Adverse events that required discontinuation occurred in 3.1% of adults and none of the children, and all were reversible. No differences between once-daily and thrice-weekly administration schedules were found. Balanced against severe adverse events, PCP prophylaxis is warranted when the risk for PCP is higher than 3.5% for adults. Adverse events are less frequent in children, for whom prophylaxis might be warranted at lower PCP incidence rates.

This analysis of the global clinical antibacterial pipeline was done in support of the Global Action Plan on Antimicrobial Resistance. The study analysed to what extent antibacterial and antimycobacterial drugs for systemic human use as well as oral non-systemic antibacterial drugs for Clostridium difficile infections were active against pathogens included in the WHO priority pathogen list and their innovativeness measured by their absence of cross-resistance (new class, target, mode of action). As of July 1, 2018, 30 new chemical entity (NCE) antibacterial drugs, ten biologics, ten NCEs against Mycobacterium tuberculosis, and four NCEs against C difficile were identified. Of the 30 NCEs, 11 are expected to have some activity against at least one critical priority pathogen expressing carbapenem resistance. The clinical pipeline is dominated by derivatives of established classes and most development candidates display limited innovation. New antibacterial drugs without pre-existing cross-resistance are under-represented and are urgently needed, especially for geographical regions with high resistance rates among Gram-negative bacteria and M tuberculosis.

We evaluated Q fever prevalence in blood donors and assessed the epidemiologic features of the disease in Israel in 2021. We tested serum samples for Coxeilla burnetii phase I and II IgG using immunofluorescent assay, defining a result of >200 as seropositive. We compared geographic and demographic data. We included 1,473 participants; 188 (12.7%) were seropositive. The calculated sex- and age-adjusted national seroprevalence was 13.9% (95% CI 12.2%-15.7%). Male sex and age were independently associated with seropositivity (odds ratio [OR] 1.6, 95% CI 1.1-2.2; p = 0.005 for male sex; OR 1.2, 95% CI 1.01-1.03; p<0.001 for age). Residence in the coastal plain was independently associated with seropositivity for Q fever (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.2-2.3; p<0.001); residence in rural and farming regions was not. Q fever is highly prevalent in Israel. The unexpected spatial distribution in the nonrural coastal plain suggests an unrecognized mode of transmission.

PurposeWe aimed to develop a machine-learning (ML) algorithm that can predict intensive care unit (ICU)-acquired bloodstream infections (BSI) among patients suspected of infection in the ICU.MethodsThe study was based on patients’ electronic health records at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) in Boston, Massachusetts, USA, and at Rambam Health Care Campus (RHCC), Haifa, Israel. We included adults from whom blood cultures were collected for suspected BSI at least 48 h after admission. Clinical data, including time-series variables and their interactions, were analyzed by an ML algorithm at each site. Prediction ability for ICU-acquired BSI was assessed by the area under the receiver operating characteristics (AUROC) of ten-fold cross-validation and validation sets with 95% confidence intervals.ResultsThe datasets comprised 2351 patients from BIDMC (151 with BSI) and 1021 from RHCC (162 with BSI). The median (inter-quartile range) age was 62 (51–75) and 56 (38–69) years, respectively; the median Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores were 26 (21–32) and 24 (20–29), respectively. The means of the cross-validation AUROCs were 0.87 ± 0.02 for BIDMC and 0.93 ± 0.03 for RHCC. AUROCs of 0.89 ± 0.01 and 0.92 ± 0.02 were maintained in both centers with internal validation, while external validation deteriorated. Valuable predictors were mainly the trends of time-series variables such as laboratory results and vital signs.ConclusionAn ML approach that uses temporal and site-specific data achieved high performance in recognizing BC samples with a high probability for ICU-acquired BSI.

Gram-negative bacteremia is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in hospitalized patients. Data to guide the duration of antibiotic therapy are limited. This was a randomized, multicenter, open-label, noninferiority trial. Inpatients with gram-negative bacteremia, who were afebrile and hemodynamically stable for at least 48 hours, were randomized to receive 7 days (intervention) or 14 days (control) of covering antibiotic therapy. Patients with uncontrolled focus of infection were excluded. The primary outcome at 90 days was a composite of all-cause mortality; relapse, suppurative, or distant complications; and readmission or extended hospitalization (>14 days). The noninferiority margin was set at 10%. We included 604 patients (306 intervention, 298 control) between January 2013 and August 2017 in 3 centers in Israel and Italy. The source of the infection was urinary in 411 of 604 patients (68%); causative pathogens were mainly Enterobacteriaceae (543/604 [90%]). A 7-day difference in the median duration of covering antibiotics was achieved. The primary outcome occurred in 140 of 306 patients (45.8%) in the 7-day group vs 144 of 298 (48.3%) in the 14-day group (risk difference, -2.6% [95% confidence interval, -10.5% to 5.3%]). No significant differences were observed in all other outcomes and adverse events, except for a shorter time to return to baseline functional status in the short-course therapy arm. In patients hospitalized with gram-negative bacteremia achieving clinical stability before day 7, an antibiotic course of 7 days was noninferior to 14 days. Reducing antibiotic treatment for uncomplicated gram-negative bacteremia to 7 days is an important antibiotic stewardship intervention. NCT01737320.

Background Although regulatory changes towards correcting the underrepresentation of women in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) occurred (National Institutes of Health 1994), concerns exist about whether an improvement is taking place. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to assess the inclusion rates of women in recent RCTs and to explore the potential barriers for the enrollment of women. Methods RCTs published in 2017 examining any type of intervention in adults were searched in PubMed and Cochrane Library. The following predefined medical fields were included: cardiovascular diseases, neoplasms, endocrine system diseases, respiratory tract diseases, bacterial and fungal infections, viral diseases, digestive system diseases, and immune system diseases. Studies were screened independently by two reviewers, and an equal number of studies was randomly selected per calendric month. The primary outcome was the enrollment rate of women, calculated as the number of randomized women patients divided by the total number of randomized patients. Rates were weighted by their inverse variance; statistical significance was tested using general linear models (GLM). Results Out of 398 RCTs assessed for eligibility, 300 RCTs were included. The enrollment rate of women in all the examined fields was lower than 50%, except for immune system diseases [median enrollment rate of 68% (IQR 46 to 81)]. The overall median enrollment rate of women was 41% (IQR 27 to 54). The median enrollment rate of women decreased with older age of the trials’ participants [mean age of trials’ participants ≤ 45 years: 47% (IQR 30–64), 46–55 years: 46% (IQR 33–58), 56–62 years: 38% (IQR 27–50), ≥ 63 years: 33% (IQR 20–46), p < 0.001]. Methodological quality characteristics showed no significant association with the enrollment rates of women. Out of the 300 included RCTs, eleven did not report on the number of included women. There was no significant difference between these studies and the studies included in the analysis. Conclusions Women are being inadequately represented, in the selected medical fields analyzed in our study, in recent RCTs. Older age is a potential barrier for the enrollment of women in clinical trials. Low inclusion rates of elderly women might create a lack of crucial knowledge in the adverse effects and the benefit/risk profile of any given treatment. Factors that might hinder the participation of women should be sought and addressed in the design of the study.

Colistin–carbapenem combinations are synergistic in vitro against carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria. We aimed to test whether combination therapy improves clinical outcomes for adults with infections caused by carbapenem-resistant or carbapenemase-producing Gram-negative bacteria. A randomised controlled superiority trial was done in six hospitals in Israel, Greece, and Italy. We included adults with bacteraemia, ventilator-associated pneumonia, hospital-acquired pneumonia, or urosepsis caused by carbapenem-non-susceptible Gram-negative bacteria. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally, by computer-generated permuted blocks stratified by centre, to intravenous colistin (9-million unit loading dose, followed by 4·5 million units twice per day) or colistin with meropenem (2-g prolonged infusion three times per day). The trial was open-label, with blinded outcome assessment. Treatment success was defined as survival, haemodynamic stability, improved or stable Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, stable or improved ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of expired oxygen for patients with pneumonia, and microbiological cure for patients with bacteraemia. The primary outcome was clinical failure, defined as not meeting all success criteria by intention-to-treat analysis, at 14 days after randomisation. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01732250, and is closed to accrual. Between Oct 1, 2013, and Dec 31, 2016, we randomly assigned 406 patients to the two treatment groups. Most patients had pneumonia or bacteraemia (355/406, 87%), and most infections were caused by Acinetobacter baumannii (312/406, 77%). No significant difference between colistin monotherapy (156/198, 79%) and combination therapy (152/208, 73%) was observed for clinical failure at 14 days after randomisation (risk difference −5·7%, 95% CI −13·9 to 2·4; risk ratio [RR] 0·93, 95% CI 0·83–1·03). Results were similar among patients with A baumannii infections (RR 0·97, 95% CI 0·87–1·09). Combination therapy increased the incidence of diarrhoea (56 [27%] vs 32 [16%] patients) and decreased the incidence of mild renal failure (37 [30%] of 124 vs 25 [20%] of 125 patients at risk of or with kidney injury). Combination therapy was not superior to monotherapy. The addition of meropenem to colistin did not improve clinical failure in severe A baumannii infections. The trial was unpowered to specifically address other bacteria. EU AIDA grant Health-F3-2011-278348.