The prognostic value of toxin B and binary toxin in Clostridioides difficile infection

To study the association between detection of the Clostridioides difficile gene encoding the binary toxin (CDT) and direct detection of toxinB (TcdB) from feces with the appearance of serious disease, complications, or recurrence in a prospective series of cases. A total of 220 confirmed cases were included, using a two-step algorithm: an initial study to detect the enzyme, glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH), followed, in cases of positivity, by detection of the tcdB. tcdB-positive patients were investigated for the presence of CDT and TcdB. Outcome variables were severe disease, the modified Illinois C. difficile infection (CDI) prognostic risk index (ZAR score), the appearance of complications (need for colectomy, CDI-related death, or toxic megacolon) and recurrence. Patients who tested positive for the presence of TcdB in feces were found to have greater disease severity than those who tested negative, with a ZAR score of 35.4% vs. 23% (p = .048), a higher recurrence rate (14.6% vs. 5.9%, p = .032), and a tendency for higher number of complications (20.7% vs. 11.5%), although without reaching statistical significance (p = .053). When presence of CDT was analyzed, higher frequencies of severe disease (39.2% vs. 21.2%, p = .005), complications and recurrence (21.6% vs. 10.9%, p = .037 and 14.9% vs. 5.8%, p = .029; respectively) were observed in patients where CDT was detected. TcdB and CDT act as prognostic markers of the appearance of serious disease, complications or recurrence in cases of CDI. Simultaneous detection of both markers, TcdB and CDT, had a greater impact on the prognosis than when they were detected separately.

Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19: a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat COVID-19 and is under investigation in numerous randomized clinical trials, but results are publicly available only for a small number of trials. The objective of this study was to assess the benefits of convalescent plasma treatment compared to placebo or no treatment and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GEHFX ).

METHODS

In this collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis, clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), the Cochrane COVID-19 register, the LOVE database, and PubMed were searched until April 8, 2021. Investigators of trials registered by March 1, 2021, without published results were contacted via email. Eligible were ongoing, discontinued and completed randomized clinical trials that compared convalescent plasma with placebo or no treatment in COVID-19 patients, regardless of setting or treatment schedule. Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence.

RESULTS

A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients). Risk of bias was low for 29/33 trials. Of 8495 patients who received convalescent plasma, 1997 died (23%), and of 7982 control patients, 1952 died (24%). The combined risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.92; 1.02) with between-study heterogeneity not beyond chance (I2 = 0%). The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Convalescent plasma treatment of patients with COVID-19 did not reduce all-cause mortality. These results provide strong evidence that convalescent plasma treatment for patients with COVID-19 should not be used outside of randomized trials. Evidence synthesis from collaborations among trial investigators can inform both evidence generation and evidence application in patient care.

Quasiexperimental intervention study protocol to optimise the use of new antibiotics in Spain: the NEW_SAFE project

INTRODUCTION

Ceftaroline, tedizolid, dalbavancin, ceftazidime-avibactam and ceftolozane-tazobactam are novel antibiotics used to treat infections caused by multidrug-resistant pathogens (MDR). Their use should be supervised and monitored as part of an antimicrobial stewardship programme (ASP). Appropriate use of the new antibiotics will be improved by including consensual indications for their use in local antibiotic guidelines, together with educational interventions providing advice to prescribers to ensure that the recommendations are clearly understood.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This study will be implemented in two phases. First, a preliminary historical cohort (2017-2019) of patients from 13 Andalusian hospitals treated with novel antibiotics will be analysed. Second, a quasiexperimental intervention study will be developed with an interrupted time-series analysis (2020-2021). The intervention will consist of an educational interview between prescribers and ASP leaders at each hospital to reinforce the proper use of novel antibiotics. The educational intervention will be based on a consensus guideline designed and disseminated by leaders after the retrospective cohort data have been analysed. The outcomes will be acceptance of the intervention and appropriateness of prescription. Incidence of infection and colonisation with MDR organisms as well as incidence of Clostridioides difficile infection will also be analysed. Changes in prescription quality between periods and the safety profile of the antibiotics in terms of mortality rate and readmissions will also be measured.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval will be obtained from the Andalusian Coordinating Institutional Review Board. The study is being conducted in compliance with the protocol and regulatory requirements consistent with International Council of Harmonisation E6 Good Clinical Practice and the ethical principles of the latest version of the Declaration of Helsinki. The results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and disseminated at national and international conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03941951; Pre-results.