Oral minocycline as systemic therapy for uncomplicated venous access device-related bloodstream infection with coagulase-negative staphylococci after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Venous access device-related bloodstream infection (VAD-BSI) with coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS) is a common complication after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT). Standard systemic antimicrobial therapy for uncomplicated VAD-BSI with methicillin-resistant CoNS consists of intravenous (IV) vancomycin (vanco). This requires hospitalization, needs new competent venous access, exposes patients to potential toxicity (mainly renal) and increases the risk of commensal flora dysbiosis with selection of vanco-resistant enterococci. Combined with VAD management (removal or antibiotic locks), oral minocycline (mino) has been evaluated as an alternative systemic therapy for the treatment of uncomplicated VAD-BSIs with CoNS at our center, primarily when the reference treatment with IV vanco was not possible (renal failure or allergy) or when hospitalization was refused by patients. Here, we retrospectively report our single center experience with this mino-based approach. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From January 2012 to December 2020, 24 uncomplicated VAD-BSIs with CoNS in 23 alloHCT patients were treated with oral mino as systemic antibiotic therapy in combination with VAD management. VAD were implantable ports (n = 17), tunneled catheter (n = 1) or PIC-lines (n = 6). Staphylococci were S. epidermidis (n = 21) or S. haemolyticus (n = 3). Mino was administered with a loading dose of 200 mg followed by 100 mg BID for 7-14 days. For 8 VAD-BSIs, patients were initially treated with IV vanco for the first 1-3 days followed by oral mino, while 16 VAD-BSIs were treated with oral mino as the sole antimicrobial agent for systemic therapy. VAD management consisted of catheter removal (for tunneled catheters and PIC-lines, n = 7) or antibiotic locks with vanco (n = 15) or gentamicin (n = 2) administered at least 3 times a week for 14 days (for ports). RESULTS: Overall, clearance of bacteremia (as assessed by negativity for the same CoNS of surveillance peripheral blood cultures drawn between day+ 3 and +30 after initiation of systemic therapy) was achieved in all but 1 patient (with port) who had persistent bacteremia at day +9. No complication such as suppurative thrombophlebitis, endocarditis, distant foci of infection or BSI-related death was observed in any patient during the 3-month period after initiation of treatment. Regarding the 17 port-BSI cases for which VAD conservative strategy was attempted, failure of 3-month VAD preservation was documented in 7/17 cases and 3-month recurrence of VAD-BSI was observed in 3/17 cases (with 1 patient with cellulitis). Treatment with mino was well tolerated except for a mild skin rash in one patient. CONCLUSION: Further prospective studies are needed to evaluate efficacy and safety of this approach.

[Does a rapid antibiotic susceptibility test optimize antibiotic therapy of patients with bacteremia ?] / Un antibiogramme rapide optimise-t-il la prise en charge thérapeutique des patients présentant une bactériémie ?

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the contribution of a rapid antibiotic susceptibility test performed directly from a positive blood culture (PBC), the dRAST™, in the management of patients with bacteremia. METHODS: We retrospectively compared the time from sampling to availability of antibiotic susceptibility test (AST) results («time-to-result¼, TTR) between dRAST™ and classic AST (Vitek®2), in 150 patients with bacteremia. The antibiotic treatment of these 150 patients was classified into three categories (optimal, suboptimal, ineffective) according to the time of availability of AST results. RESULTS: Adaptation of antibiotic treatment to optimal therapy following AST results occurred in 46/100 (46 %) of Gram-negative PBC and in 4/50 (2 %) of Gram-positive HP. TTR was significantly lower with dRAST™ compared with classic AST (29:35 (± 08:48) hours versus 50:55 (± 12:45) hours, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: For patients with bacteremia requiring adjustment of empirical antibiotic therapy based on AST, dRAST™ could allow a faster administration of optimal therapy.

CONTEXTE: Nous avons évalué la contribution d'un antibiogramme rapide réalisé directement à partir d'une hémoculture positive (HP), le dRAST™, dans la prise en charge des patients présentant une bactériémie. Méthodes: Nous avons comparé, rétrospectivement, le délai entre le prélèvement et la disponibilité des résultats d'antibiogramme («temps-pour-résultats¼, TPR) entre le dRAST™ et l'antibiogramme classique (Vitek®2), auprès de 150 patients présentant une bactériémie. Les antibiothérapies de ces 150 patients ont été classés en trois catégories (optimale, suboptimale, inefficace) en fonction du moment d'obtention des résultats de l'antibiogramme. Résultats : L'adaptation du traitement antibiotique en thérapie optimale suite au résultat de l'antibiogramme est survenue chez 46/100 (46 %) des HP à Gram négatif et chez 4/50 (2 %) des HP à Gram positif. Le TPR était significativement plus faible avec le dRAST™ par rapport à l'antibiogramme classique (29:35 (± 08:48) heures versus 50:55 (± 12:45) heures, p < 0,001). CONCLUSION: Pour les patients avec bactériémie nécessitant une adaptation de l'antibiothérapie empirique basée sur l'antibiogramme, le dRAST™ permettrait une administration plus rapide du traitement optimal.

Evaluation of Two Rapid Antigenic Tests for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Nasopharyngeal Swabs.

(1) Background: In the current context of the COVID-19 crisis, there is a need for fast, easy-to-use, and sensitive diagnostic tools in addition to molecular methods. We have therefore decided to evaluate the performance of newly available antigen detection kits in "real-life" laboratory conditions. (2) Methods: The sensitivity and specificity of two rapid diagnostic tests (RDT)-the COVID-19 Ag Respi-Strip from Coris Bioconcept, Belgium (CoRDT), and the coronavirus antigen rapid test cassette from Healgen Scientific, LLC, USA (HeRDT)-were evaluated on 193 nasopharyngeal samples using RT-PCR as the gold standard. (3) Results: The sensitivity obtained for HeRDT was 88% for all collected samples and 91.1% for samples with Ct ≤ 31. For the CoRDT test, the sensitivity obtained was 62% for all collected samples and 68.9% for samples with Ct ≤ 31. (4) Conclusions: Despite the excellent specificity obtained for both kits, the poor sensitivity of the CoRDT did not allow for its use in the rapid diagnosis of COVID-19. HeRDT satisfied the World Health Organization's performance criteria for rapid antigen detection tests. Its high sensitivity, quick response, and ease of use allowed for the implementation of HeRDT at the laboratory of the University Hospital of Liège.