Disseminated Mycobacterium genavense infection in a patient with a history of sarcoidosis

We present a case of Mycobacterium genavense infection in a man in his 60s with a history of sarcoidosis, treated for 24 years with systemic corticosteroids and later methotrexate as monotherapy. He presented with low grade fever, dyspnoea and right-sided thoracic pain and was admitted due to a treatment-refractory infection. After a prolonged period of symptoms and diagnostics, acid-fast bacilli were demonstrated in pleural fluid and PCR revealed M. genavense The patient was treated with intravenous amikacin, peroral azithromycin, rifampicin and ethambutol for a total of 18 months, with a good clinical and radiological treatment response. Infection with M. genavense is rare in HIV-negative immunocompromised hosts. Diagnosing and treating mycobacterial infections, especially for more rare species, remains a challenge as clinical evidence is sparse. Nonetheless, the disease-causing infection must be considered in symptomatic and immunocompromised patients.

Efficacy of the TMPRSS2 inhibitor camostat mesilate in patients hospitalized with Covid-19-a double-blind randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The trans-membrane protease serine 2 (TMPRSS2) is essential for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) cell entry and infection. Efficacy and safety of TMPRSS2 inhibitors in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) have not been evaluated in randomized trials.

METHODS

We conducted an investigator-initiated, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled multicenter trial in patients hospitalized with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection from April 4, to December 31, 2020. Within 48 h of admission, participants were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive the TMPRSS2 inhibitor camostat mesilate 200 mg three times daily for 5 days or placebo. The primary outcome was time to discharge or clinical improvement measured as ≥2 points improvement on a 7-point ordinal scale. Other outcomes included 30-day mortality, safety and change in oropharyngeal viral load.

FINDINGS

137 patients were assigned to receive camostat mesilate and 68 to placebo. Median time to clinical improvement was 5 days (interquartile range [IQR], 3 to 7) in the camostat group and 5 days (IQR, 2 to 10) in the placebo group (P = 0·31). The hazard ratio for 30-day mortality in the camostat compared with the placebo group was 0·82 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0·24 to 2·79; P = 0·75). The frequency of adverse events was similar in the two groups. Median change in viral load from baseline to day 5 in the camostat group was -0·22 log10 copies/mL (p <0·05) and -0·82 log10 in the placebo group (P <0·05).

INTERPRETATION

Under this protocol, camostat mesilate treatment was not associated with increased adverse events during hospitalization for Covid-19 and did not affect time to clinical improvement, progression to ICU admission or mortality. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04321096. EudraCT Number: 2020-001200-42.

Communicative characteristics of general practitioner-led and nurse-led telephone triage at two Danish out-of-hours services: an observational study of 200 recorded calls

OBJECTIVES

Out-of-hours (OOH) telephone triage is used to manage patient flow, but knowledge of the communicative skills of telephone triagists is limited. The aims of this study were to compare communicative parameters in general practitioner (GP)-led and nurse-led OOH telephone triage and to discuss differences in relation to patient-centred communication and safety issues.

DESIGN

Observational study.

SETTING

Two Danish OOH settings: a large-scale general practitioner cooperative in the Central Denmark Region (n=100 GP-led triage conversations) and Medical Helpline 1813 in the Capital Region of Denmark (n=100 nurse-led triage conversations with use of a clinical decision support system).

PARTICIPANTS

200 audio-recorded telephone triage conversations randomly selected.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Conversations were compared with regard to length of call, distribution of speaking time, question types, callers' expression of negative affect, and nurses' and GPs' responses to callers' negative affectivity using the Mann-Whitney U test and the Student's t-test.

RESULTS

Compared with GPs, nurses had longer telephone contacts (137s vs 264 s, p=0.001) and asked significantly more questions (5 vs 9 questions, p=0.001). In 36% of nurse-led triage conversations, triage nurses either transferred the call to a physician or had to confer the call with a physician. Nurses gave the callers significantly more spontaneous talking time than GPs (23.4s vs 17.9 s, p=0.01). Compared with nurses, GPs seemed more likely to give an emphatic response when a caller spontaneously expressed concern; however, this difference was not statistically significant (36% vs 29%, p=0.6).

CONCLUSIONS

When comparing communicative parameters in GP-led and nurse-led triage, several differences were observed. However, the impact of these differences in the perspective of patient-centred communication and safety needs further research. More knowledge is needed to determine what characterises good quality in telephone triage communication.