Carbapenemase-Encoding Genes and Colistin Resistance in Gram-Negative Bacteria During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Mexico: Results from the Invifar Network.

In this study, we report the carbapenemase-encoding genes and colistin resistance in Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumannii, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa in the second year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Clinical isolates included carbapenem-resistant K. pneumoniae, carbapenem-resistant E. coli, carbapenem-resistant A. baumannii, and carbapenem-resistant P. aeruginosa. Carbapenemase-encoding genes were detected by PCR. Carbapenem-resistant K. pneumoniae and carbapenem-resistant E. coli isolates were analyzed using the Rapid Polymyxin NP assay. mcr genes were screened by PCR. Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis and whole-genome sequencing were performed on representative isolates. A total of 80 carbapenem-resistant E. coli, 103 carbapenem-resistant K. pneumoniae, 284 carbapenem-resistant A. baumannii, and 129 carbapenem-resistant P. aeruginosa isolates were recovered. All carbapenem-resistant E. coli and carbapenem-resistant K. pneumoniae isolates were included for further analysis. A selection of carbapenem-resistant A. baumannii and carbapenem-resistant P. aeruginosa strains was further analyzed (86 carbapenem-resistant A. baumannii and 82 carbapenem-resistant P. aeruginosa). Among carbapenem-resistant K. pneumoniae and carbapenem-resistant E. coli isolates, the most frequent gene was blaNDM (86/103 [83.5%] and 72/80 [90%], respectively). For carbapenem-resistant A. baumannii, the most frequently detected gene was blaOXA-40 (52/86, 60.5%), and for carbapenem-resistant P. aeruginosa, was blaVIM (19/82, 23.2%). For carbapenem-resistant A. baumannii, five indistinguishable pulsotypes were detected. Circulation of K. pneumoniae New Delhi metallo-ß-lactamase (NDM) and E. coli NDM was detected in Mexico. High virulence sequence types (STs), such as K. pneumoniae ST307, E. coli ST167, P. aeruginosa ST111, and A. baumannii ST2, were detected. Among K. pneumoniae isolates, 18/101 (17.8%) were positive for the Polymyxin NP test (two, 11.0% positive for the mcr-1 gene, and one, 5.6% with disruption of the mgrB gene). All E. coli isolates were negative for the Polymyxin NP test. In conclusion, K. pneumoniae NDM and E. coli NDM were detected in Mexico, with the circulation of highly virulent STs. These results are relevant in clinical practice to guide antibiotic therapies considering the molecular mechanisms of resistance to carbapenems.

Clinical Characteristics in the Acute Phase of COVID-19 That Predict Long COVID: Tachycardia, Myalgias, Severity, and Use of Antibiotics as Main Risk Factors, While Education and Blood Group B Are Protective.

BACKGROUND: Risk factors for developing long COVID are not clearly established. The present study was designed to determine if any sign, symptom, or treatment of the acute phase, or personal characteristics of the patient, is associated with the development of long COVID. METHODS: A cohort study was carried out, randomly selecting symptomatic COVID-19 patients and not vaccinated. The severity of the acute illness was assessed through the number of compatible COVID-19 symptoms, hospitalizations, and the symptom severity score using a 10-point visual analog scale. RESULTS: After multivariate analysis, a severity score ≥8 (RR 2.0, 95%CI 1.1-3.5, p = 0.022), hospitalization (RR 2.1, 95%CI 1.0-4.4, p = 0.039), myalgia (RR 1.9, 95%CI 1.08-3.6, p = 0.027), tachycardia (RR 10.4, 95%CI 2.2-47.7, p = 0.003), and use of antibiotics (RR 2.0, 95%CI 1.1-3.5, p = 0.022), was positively associated with the risk of having long COVID. Higher levels of education (RR 0.6, 95%CI 0.4-0.9, p = 0.029) and type positive B blood group (B + AB, RR 0.44, 95%CI 0.2-0.9, p = 0.044) were protective factors. The most important population attributable fractions (PAFs) for long COVID were myalgia (37%), severity score ≥8 (31%), and use of antibiotics (27%). CONCLUSIONS: Further studies in diverse populations over time are needed to expand the knowledge that could lead us to prevent and/or treat long COVID.

Increment Antimicrobial Resistance During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Results from the Invifar Network.

Aim: This study aims to assess the changes in antimicrobial resistance among some critical and high-priority microorganisms collected previously and during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in Mexico. Methods: We collected antimicrobial susceptibility data for critical and high-priority microorganisms from blood, urine, respiratory samples, and from all specimens, in which the pathogen may be considered a causative agent. Data were stratified and compared for two periods: 2019 versus 2020 and second semester 2019 (prepandemic) versus the second semester 2020 (pandemic). Results: In the analysis of second semester 2019 versus the second semester 2020, in blood samples, increased resistance to oxacillin (15.2% vs. 36.9%), erythromycin (25.7% vs. 42.8%), and clindamycin (24.8% vs. 43.3%) (p ≤ 0.01) was detected for Staphylococcus aureus, to imipenem (13% vs. 23.4%) and meropenem (11.2% vs. 21.4) (p ≤ 0.01), for Klebsiella pneumoniae. In all specimens, increased ampicillin and tetracycline resistance was detected for Enterococcus faecium (p ≤ 0.01). In cefepime, meropenem, levofloxacin, and gentamicin (p ≤ 0.01), resistance was detected for Escherichia coli; and in piperacillin-tazobactam, cefepime, imipenem, meropenem, ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, and gentamicin (p ≤ 0.01), resistance was detected for Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Conclusion: Antimicrobial resistance increased in Mexico during the COVID-19 pandemic. The increase in oxacillin resistance for S. aureus and carbapenem resistance for K. pneumoniae recovered from blood specimens deserves special attention. In addition, an increase in erythromycin resistance in S. aureus was detected, which may be associated with high azithromycin use. In general, for Acinetobacter baumannii and P. aeruginosa, increasing resistance rates were detected.

Efficacy of the use of mefenamic acid combined with standard medical care vs. standard medical care alone for the treatment of COVID­19: A randomized double­blind placebo­controlled trial.

Mefenamic acid is a non­steroidal anti­inflammatory drug exhibiting a wide range of anti­inflammatory, antipyretic, analgesic and probable antiviral activities. The present study evaluated the efficacy of treatment with mefenamic acid combined with standard medical care vs. standard medical care plus a placebo in ambulatory patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID­19; nasal/oropharyngeal swabs reverse transcription­PCR test results positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2). The present study is a phase II prospective, two­arm, parallel­group, randomized, double­blind placebo­controlled clinical trial which analyzed 36 patients. Two aspects were evaluated during the 14­day follow­up period: i) The time for reaching a patient acceptable symptom state (PASS), and ii) the last day of each COVID­19 symptom presentation. Adverse effects were evaluated. The clinical severity for all the patients in the study was mild (88.9%) and moderate (11.1%). The control (placebo) group achieved PASS on day 8.0±1.3, compared with day 4.4±0.8 in the mefenamic acid group (P=0.020, Kaplan­Meier analyses using log­rank tests). Patients that received mefenamic acid plus standard medical care had a ~16­fold higher probability of achieving PASS on day 8 (adjusted RR, 15.57; 95% CI, 1.22­198.71; P=0.035), compared with the placebo plus standard medical care group. All symptoms lasted for fewer days in the mefenamic acid group, compared with the placebo group; however, only the symptoms of headache (P=0.008), retro­orbital eye pain (P=0.049), and sore throat (P=0.029) exhibited statistically significant differences. The experimental treatment produced no severe adverse effects. On the whole, the present study demonstrates that the administration of mefenamic acid markedly reduced the symptomatology and time to reach PASS in ambulatory patients with COVID­19. Due to its probable antiviral effects and potent anti­inflammatory mechanisms, mefenamic acid may prove to be useful in the treatment of COVID­19, in combination with other drugs, including the new antivirals (remdesivir, molnupiravir, or favipiravir). However, future studies are also required to confirm these findings.

"I prefer to get coronavirus than to stop working": the street vendor's perspective.

During phase 2 of the COVID-19 pandemic in a Mexican City, informal street vendors (cases) and formal employees (controls) were interviewed. A total of 82.6% of street vendors preferred to expose themselves to the coronavirus than to stop working, compared with 18.4% of formal employees (adjusted OR = 19.4, 95%CI: 4.6-81.7, p < 0.001). Street vendors had 7 times less fear of dying from coronavirus (adjusted OR = 0.14, 95% CI: 0.03-0.5, p = 0.005) and showed a 16-times greater lack of real concern for the increase in cases in their community than the formal employees (adjusted OR = 0.06, 95% CI: 0.01-0.3, p = 0.002). Street vendors were the group with the poorest adherence to household and work area containment measures that continued to be in contact with others. The corresponding authorities must plan specific strategies that allow street vendors to survive economically, while at the same time, protecting community health.

Patient-Reported Health Outcomes After Treatment of COVID-19 with Nebulized and/or Intravenous Neutral Electrolyzed Saline Combined with Usual Medical Care Versus Usual Medical care alone: A Randomized, Open-Label, Controlled Trial.

Background: Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is currently the main public health problem worldwide. The administration of neutral electrolyzed saline, a solution that contains reactive species of chlorine and oxygen (ROS), may be an effective therapeutic alternative due to its immunomodulating characteristics, in systemic inflammation control, as well as in immune response improvement, promoting control of the viral infection. The present study evaluated the efficacy of treatment with intravenous and/or nebulized neutral electrolyzed saline combined with usual medical care versus usual medical care alone, in ambulatory patients with COVID-19. Methods: A prospective, 2-arm, parallel group, randomized, open-label, phase I-II clinical trial included 39 patients in the control group (usual medical care alone) and 45 patients in the experimental group (usual medical care + intravenous and/or nebulized electrolyzed saline, with dose escalation). Two aspects were evaluated during the twenty-day follow-up: i) the number of patients with disease progression (hospitalization or death); and ii) the Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS), a single-question outcome that determines patient well-being thresholds for pain and function. Biochemical and hematologic parameters, as well as adverse effects, were evaluated in the experimental group. Results: The experimental treatment decreased the risk for hospitalization by 92% (adjusted RR=0.08, 95% CI: 0.01-0.50, P=0.007), with a 43-fold increase in the probability of achieving an acceptable symptom state on day 5 (adjusted RR= 42.96, 95% CI: 9.22-200.0, P<0.001). Intravenous + nebulized administration was better than nebulized administration alone, but nebulized administration was better than usual medical care alone. Clinical improvement correlated with a decrease in C-reactive protein, and aberrant monocytes and an increase of lymphocytes, and platelets. Cortisol and testosterone levels were also evaluated, observing a decrease in cortisol levels and an increment of testosterone-cortisol ratio, on days 2 and 4. Conclusions: The experimental treatment produced no serious adverse effects. In conclusion, intravenous and/or nebulized neutral electrolyzed saline importantly reduced the symptomatology and risk of progression (hospitalization and death), in ambulatory patients with COVID-19. Trial registration: Cuban Public Registry of Clinical Trials (RPCEC) Database RPCEC00000309. Registered: 05. May 2020. https://rpcec.sld.cu/en/trials/RPCEC00000309-En.