Explore the vast range of titles available.

\"The untold story of the most abundant form of life on Earth, bacteriophages, and how they play a crucial role in our lives, our health and the health of our planet. Not all viruses are out to get us - in fact, the viruses that do us harm are vastly outnumbered by viruses that can actually save lives. At every moment, within your body and all around you, trillions of microscopic combatants are fighting an invisible war. Countless times per second, 'good' viruses known as phages are infecting and destroying bacteria. These phages are the most abundant life form on the planet and have an incredible power to heal rather than harm. So why have most of us never even heard of them? The Good Virus reveals how personalities, power and politics have repeatedly crashed together to hinder our understanding of these weird and wonderful life forms. We explore why Stalin's Soviet Union embraced using phages to fight disease but the rest of the world shunned the idea. We find out why scientists only recently realised phages are central to all ecosystems on Earth. And we meet the often eccentric phage heroes who have shaped the strange history of this field and are unlocking its exciting future. Faced with the threat of antibiotic-resistance, we need phages now more than ever. The Good Virus celebrates what phages could do for us and our planet if they are at last given the attention they deserve.\"--Publisher's description.

Nosocomial pneumonia due to multidrug-resistant Gram-negative pathogens poses an increasing challenge. We compared the efficacy and safety of cefiderocol versus high-dose, extended-infusion meropenem for adults with nosocomial pneumonia. We did a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3, non-inferiority trial in 76 centres in 17 countries in Asia, Europe, and the USA (APEKS-NP). We enrolled adults aged 18 years and older with hospital-acquired, ventilator-associated, or health-care-associated Gram-negative pneumonia, and randomly assigned them (1:1 by interactive response technology) to 3-h intravenous infusions of either cefiderocol 2 g or meropenem 2 g every 8 h for 7–14 days. All patients also received open-label intravenous linezolid (600 mg every 12 h) for at least 5 days. An unmasked pharmacist prepared the assigned treatments; investigators and patients were masked to treatment assignment. Only the unmasked pharmacist was aware of the study drug assignment for the infusion bags, which were administered in generic infusion bags labelled with patient and study site identification numbers. Participants were stratified at randomisation by infection type and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score (≤15 and ≥16). The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality at day 14 in the modified intention-to-treat (ITT) population (ie, all patients receiving at least one dose of study drug, excluding patients with Gram-positive monomicrobial infections). The analysis was done for all patients with known vital status. Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper bound of the 95% CI for the treatment difference between cefiderocol and meropenem groups was less than 12·5%. Safety was investigated to the end of the study in the safety population, which included all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03032380, and EudraCT, 2016-003020-23. Between Oct 23, 2017, and April 14, 2019, we randomly assigned 148 participants to cefiderocol and 152 to meropenem. Of 292 patients in the modified ITT population, 251 (86%) had a qualifying baseline Gram-negative pathogen, including Klebsiella pneumoniae (92 [32%]), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (48 [16%]), Acinetobacter baumannii (47 [16%]), and Escherichia coli (41 [14%]). 142 (49%) patients had an APACHE II score of 16 or more, 175 (60%) were mechanically ventilated, and 199 (68%) were in intensive care units at the time of randomisation. All-cause mortality at day 14 was 12·4% with cefiderocol (18 patients of 145) and 11·6% with meropenem (17 patients of 146; adjusted treatment difference 0·8%, 95% CI −6·6 to 8·2; p=0·002 for non-inferiority hypothesis). Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 130 (88%) of 148 participants in the cefiderocol group and 129 (86%) of 150 in the meropenem group. The most common treatment-emergent adverse event was urinary tract infection in the cefiderocol group (23 patients [16%] of 148) and hypokalaemia in the meropenem group (23 patients [15%] of 150). Two participants (1%) of 148 in the cefiderocol group and two (1%) of 150 in the meropenem group discontinued the study because of drug-related adverse events. Cefiderocol was non-inferior to high-dose, extended-infusion meropenem in terms of all-cause mortality on day 14 in patients with Gram-negative nosocomial pneumonia, with similar tolerability. The results suggest that cefiderocol is a potential option for the treatment of patients with nosocomial pneumonia, including those caused by multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria. Shionogi.

Antibiotics are powerful drugs that can prevent and treat infections, but they are becoming less effective as a result of drug resistance. Superbugs describes this growing global threat, the systematic failures that have led to it, and solutions that governments, industries, and public health specialists can adopt.-- Provided by publisher

In this randomized, controlled trial conducted at Danish cardiac centers, intravenous antibiotic therapy was compared with partial oral antibiotic therapy for the treatment of bacterial endocarditis. The outcomes were similar in the two groups.

Tedizolid phosphate is the second commercially available oxazolidinone antibiotic, although the first one in class that is dosed once daily. It is a prodrug that is rapidly converted to the active compound tedizolid. Tedizolid has activity against a wide range of gram-positive pathogens, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. It is approved to treat acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs). In 2 randomized controlled phase 3 trials, 6 days of tedizolid (200 mg once daily) has been proven to be noninferior to 10 days of linezolid (600 mg twice daily). These 2 ABSSSI studies have positioned tedizolid among the growing armamentarium of newer, novel, anti-gram-positive agents. Tedizolid appears to differ from linezolid in the incidence of gastrointestinal and hematologic side effects and appears to lack drug interactions with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Conditions other than ABSSSI are currently being evaluated in clinical studies.

This book traces the history of this mutating menace, reviews efforts to contain outbreaks when they occur, and where medical science is in efforts to find treatments. There is a timeline on the discovery, treatment, and outbreaks of E. coli, and sidebars on a young dancer who was paralyzed by bacteria in her burger, and the dangers of kiddie pools.

Background.Catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) causes substantial morbidity and mortality, but few randomized, controlled studies have been conducted to guide therapeutic interventions. Methods.To determine whether linezolid would be noninferior to vancomycin in patients with CRBSI, we conducted an open-label, multicenter, comparative study. Patients with suspected CRBSI were randomized to receive linezolid or vancomycin (control group). The primary end point was microbiologic outcome at test of cure 1 2 weeks after treatment, as assessed by step-down procedure. The first analysis population was complicated skin and skin structure infection (cSSSI) in patients with suspected CRBSI; patients with CRBSI were analyzed if noninferiority criteria (lower bound of the 95% confidence interval [CI] not outside −15%) were met. Results.Noninferiority criteria were met for cSSSI (microbiologic success rate for linezolid recipients, 89.6% [146 for 163 patients]; for the control group, 89.9% [134 of 149]; 95% CI, −7.1 to 6.4) and CRBSI (for linezolid recipients, 86.3% [82 of 95]; for the control group, 90.5% [67 of 74]; 95% CI, −13.8 to 5.4). The frequency and severity of adverse events were similar between groups. Mortality rates were 10.4% for linezolid recipients (28 of 269 patients) and 10.1% for control subjects (26 of 257) in the modified intent-to-treat population (i.e., all patients with gram-positive baseline culture) through test of cure, and they were 21.5% for linezolid recipients (78 of 363) and 16.0% for the control group (58 of 363; 95% CI, −0.2 to 11.2) for all treated patients through poststudy treatment day 84. Conclusions.Linezolid demonstrated microbiologic success rates noninferior to those for vancomycin in patients with cSSSIs and CRBSIs caused by gram-positive organisms. Patients with catheter-related infections must be carefully investigated for the heterogeneous underlying causes of high morbidity and mortality, particularly for infections with gram-negative organisms.

Background. In the absence of an efficacious broadly protective vaccine, serogroup B Neisseria meningitidis (MenB) is the leading cause of bacterial meningitis and septicemia in many industrialized countries. An investigational recombinant vaccine that contains 3 central proteins; Neisserial adhesin A (NadA), factor H binding protein (fHBP) and Neisserial heparin binding antigen (NHBA) has been developed. These antigens have been formulated with and without outer membrane vesicles (rMenB+OMV and rMenB, respectively) from the New Zealand epidemic strain (B:4:P1.7–2,4). In this trial, we assessed the immunogenicity of these formulations in infants, who are at greatest risk of contracting MenB disease. Methods. A total of 147 infants from the United Kingdom were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive rMenB or rMenB+OMV at 2, 4, 6, and 12 months of age or a single dose at 12 months of age. Serum samples taken before and after vaccination were assayed in a standardized serum bactericidal antibody assay against 7 MenB strains. Local and systemic reactogenicity were recorded for 7 days after each vaccination. Analysis was according to protocol. Results. After 3 doses, both vaccines were immunogenic against strains expressing homologous or related NadA and fHBP. rMenB+OMV demonstrated greater immunogenicity than did rMenB and was immunogenic against strains expressing homologous PorA. Both vaccines elicited anamnestic responses after the fourth dose. For both vaccines, responses were lower against strains expressing heterologous fHBP variants and after a single dose at 12 months. Conclusions. The rMenB+OMV vaccine has the potential to protect infants from MenB disease, although the breadth of protection afforded to heterologous antigens requires additional investigation.