ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Shotgun metagenomics (SMg) sequencing has gained a considerable interest, as it enables the detection of any microorganisms through a single analysis. Due to the limitations of standard microbiological approaches, the microbial documentation of liver abscesses (LA), which is crucial for their medical management, can be difficult. Here we aimed to compare the performance of SMg with standard approaches for the microbiological documentation of LA. METHODS: In this retrospective study conducted at two centers, we compared the results of standard microbiology with metagenomics analysis of consecutive LA samples. For samples tested positive for Klebsiella pneumoniae, we compared the analysis of virulence and resistance genes using metagenomics data to whole-genome sequencing of corresponding isolates obtained in culture. RESULTS: Out of the 62 samples included, standard approaches and SMg yielded documentation in 80.6% and 96.8%, respectively. In 37.1% (23/62) of cases, both methods showed identical results, whereas in 43.5% (27/62) of cases, the samples were positive by both methods, but SMg found additional species in 88.9% (24/27), mostly anaerobes. When the standard approaches were negative, the SMg was able to detect microorganisms in 80.0% of cases (8/10). Overall, SMg identified significantly more microorganisms than culture (414 vs.105; p<0.05). K. pneumoniae genome analysis was able to detect resistance and virulence genes with a level of sensitivity depending on the depth of sequencing. DISCUSSION: Overall, we showed that SMg had better performance in detecting and identifying microorganisms from LA samples and could help characterizing strain's resistome and virulome. Although still costly and requiring specific skills and expensive equipment, MGs methods are set to expand in the future.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: This study assesses the benefits of an individualized therapy (RECOS program) compared with the more general cognitive remediation therapy (CRT). METHODS: 138 participants took part with 65 randomized to CRT and 73 to RECOS. In the RECOS group, participants were directed towards one of five training modules (verbal memory, visuo-spatial memory and attention, working memory, selective attention or reasoning) corresponding to their key cognitive concern whereas the CRT group received a standard program. The main outcome was the total score on BADS (Behavioural Assessment of Dysexecutive Syndrome) and the secondary outcomes were: cognition (executive functions; selective attention; visuospatial memory and attention; verbal memory; working memory) and clinical measures (symptoms; insight; neurocognitive complaints; self-esteem). All outcomes were assessed at baseline (T1), week 12 (posttherapy, T2), and follow-up (week 36, i.e., 6months posttherapy, T3). RESULTS: No difference was shown for the main outcome. A significant improvement was found for BADS' profile score for RECOS at T2 and T3, and for CRT at T3. Change in BADS in the RECOS and CRT arms were not significantly different between T1 and T2 (+0.86, p=0.108), or between T1 and T3 (+0.36, p=0.540). Significant improvements were found in several secondary outcomes including cognition (executive functions, selective attention, verbal memory, and visuospatial abilities) and clinician measures (symptoms and awareness to be hampered by cognitive deficits in everyday) in both treatment arms following treatment. Self-esteem improved only in RECOS arm at T3, and working memory improved only in CRT arm at T2 and T3, but there were no differences in changes between arms. CONCLUSIONS: RECOS (specific remediation) and CRT (general remediation) globally showed similar efficacy in the present trial.
