1
|
Hendriks MMC, Schweren KSA, Kleij A, Berrevoets MAH, de Jong E, van Wijngaarden P, Ammerlaan HSM, Vos AN, van Assen S, Slieker K, Gisolf EH, Netea MG, Ten Oever J, Kouijzer IJE. Low-risk Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia patients do not require routine diagnostic imaging: A multicenter retrospective cohort study. Clin Infect Dis 2024:ciae187. [PMID: 38576380 DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciae187] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/21/2023] [Revised: 03/21/2024] [Accepted: 04/02/2024] [Indexed: 04/06/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Risk stratification to categorize patients with Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB) as low- or high-risk for metastatic infection may direct diagnostic evaluation and enable personalized management. We investigated the frequency of metastatic infections in low-risk SAB patients, their clinical relevance, and whether omission of routine imaging is associated with worse outcomes. METHODS We performed a retrospective cohort study in seven Dutch hospitals among adult patients with low-risk SAB, defined as hospital-acquired infection without treatment delay, absence of prosthetic material, short duration of bacteremia, and rapid defervescence. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients whose treatment plan changed due to detected metastatic infections, as evaluated by both the actual therapy administered and by linking a retrospectively adjudicated diagnosis to guideline-recommended treatment. Secondary outcomes were 90-day relapse-free survival, and factors associated with performing of diagnostic imaging. RESULTS Of 377 patients included, 298 (79%) underwent diagnostic imaging. In 15 of these 298 patients (5.0%) imaging findings during patient admission had been interpreted as metastatic infections that should extend duration of treatment. Using the final adjudicated diagnosis, 4 patients (1.3%) had clinically relevant metastatic infection. In a multilevel multivariable logistic regression analysis, 90-days relapse-free survival was similar between patients without imaging and those who underwent imaging (81.0% versus 83.6%; aOR 0.749 (95% CI 0.373-1.504). CONCLUSION Our study advocates risk stratification for the management of patients with SAB. Prerequisites are follow-up blood cultures, bedside ID consultation, along with critically reviewing disease evolution. Using this approach, routine imaging could be omitted in low-risk patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M M C Hendriks
- Department of Internal Medicine and Radboud center for infectious diseases, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - K S A Schweren
- Department of Internal Medicine and Radboud center for infectious diseases, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - A Kleij
- Elisabeth-TweeSteden Hospital, Tilburg, the Netherlands
| | | | - E de Jong
- Amphia Hospital, Breda, the Netherlands
| | | | | | - A N Vos
- Treant, Emmen, the Netherlands
| | | | - K Slieker
- Bernhoven Hospital, Uden, the Netherlands
| | - E H Gisolf
- Rijnstate Hospital, Arnhem, the Netherlands
| | - M G Netea
- Department of Internal Medicine and Radboud center for infectious diseases, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
- Department of Immunology and Metabolism, Life and Medical Sciences Institute, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany
| | - J Ten Oever
- Department of Internal Medicine and Radboud center for infectious diseases, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - I J E Kouijzer
- Department of Internal Medicine and Radboud center for infectious diseases, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Kuut TA, Müller F, Aldenkamp A, Assmann-Schuilwerve E, Braamse A, Geerlings SE, Gibney KB, Kanaan RAA, Nieuwkerk P, Olde Hartman TC, Pauëlsen D, Prins M, Slieker K, Van Vugt M, Bleeker-Rovers CP, Keijmel SP, Knoop H. A randomised controlled trial testing the efficacy of Fit after COVID, a cognitive behavioural therapy targeting severe post-infectious fatigue following COVID-19 (ReCOVer): study protocol. Trials 2021; 22:867. [PMID: 34857010 PMCID: PMC8637041 DOI: 10.1186/s13063-021-05569-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/22/2021] [Accepted: 08/26/2021] [Indexed: 01/07/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) results in debilitating long-term symptoms, often referred to as Post-Acute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 Infection (PASC), in a substantial subgroup of patients. One of the most prevalent symptoms following COVID-19 is severe fatigue. Prompt delivery of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), an evidence-based treatment that has shown benefit in reducing severe fatigue in other conditions, may reduce post-COVID-19 fatigue. Based on an existing CBT protocol, a blended intervention of 17 weeks, Fit after COVID, was developed to treat severe fatigue after the acute phase of infection with SARS-CoV-2. METHOD The ReCOVer study is a multicentre 2-arm randomised controlled trial (RCT) to test the efficacy of Fit after COVID on severe post-infectious fatigue. Participants are eligible if they report severe fatigue 3 up to and including 12 months following COVID-19. One hundred and fourteen participants will be randomised to either Fit after COVID or care as usual (ratio 1:1). The primary outcome, the fatigue severity subscale of the Checklist Individual Strength (CIS-fatigue), is assessed in both groups before randomisation (T0), directly post CBT or following care as usual (T1), and at follow-up 6 months after the second assessment (T2). In addition, a long-term follow-up (T3), 12 months after the second assessment, is performed in the CBT group only. The primary objective is to investigate whether CBT will lead to a significantly lower mean fatigue severity score measured with the CIS-fatigue across the first two follow-up assessments (T1 and T2) as compared to care as usual. Secondary objectives are to determine the proportion of participants no longer being severely fatigued (operationalised in different ways) at T1 and T2 and to investigate changes in physical and social functioning, in the number and severity of somatic symptoms and in problems concentrating across T1 and T2. DISCUSSION This is the first trial testing a cognitive behavioural intervention targeting severe fatigue after COVID-19. If Fit after COVID is effective in reducing fatigue severity following COVID-19, this intervention could contribute to alleviating the long-term health consequences of COVID-19 by relieving one of its most prevalent and distressing long-term symptoms. TRIAL REGISTRATION Netherlands Trial Register NL8947 . Registered on 14 October 2020.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- T A Kuut
- Department of Medical Psychology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
- Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Expert Center for Chronic Fatigue, Department of Medical Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - F Müller
- Department of Medical Psychology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - A Aldenkamp
- Department of Lung Medicine, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | | | - A Braamse
- Department of Medical Psychology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - S E Geerlings
- Department of Internal Medicine, Division Infectious Diseases, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - K B Gibney
- Victorian Infectious Diseases Service, Royal Melbourne Hospital, and Department of Infectious Diseases, University of Melbourne, at the Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - R A A Kanaan
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Melbourne, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Australia
| | - P Nieuwkerk
- Department of Medical Psychology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - T C Olde Hartman
- Department of Primary and Community Care, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - D Pauëlsen
- Department of Medical Psychology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M Prins
- Department of Internal Medicine, Division Infectious Diseases, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Infectious Diseases, Public Health Service of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - K Slieker
- Department of Internal Medicine, Bernhoven, Uden, The Netherlands
| | - M Van Vugt
- Division of Internal Medicine, Department of Infectious Diseases, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Institute for Infection and Immunity, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - C P Bleeker-Rovers
- Department of Internal Medicine, Radboud university medical center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - S P Keijmel
- Department of Internal Medicine, Radboud university medical center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - H Knoop
- Department of Medical Psychology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Expert Center for Chronic Fatigue, Department of Medical Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|