SARS-CoV-2 viral load in nasopharyngeal swabs is not an independent predictor of unfavorable outcome.

The aim was to assess the ability of nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 viral load at first patient's hospital evaluation to predict unfavorable outcomes. We conducted a prospective cohort study including 321 adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 through RT-PCR in nasopharyngeal swabs. Quantitative Synthetic SARS-CoV-2 RNA cycle threshold values were used to calculate the viral load in log10 copies/mL. Disease severity at the end of follow up was categorized into mild, moderate, and severe. Primary endpoint was a composite of intensive care unit (ICU) admission and/or death (n = 85, 26.4%). Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed. Nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 viral load over the second quartile (≥ 7.35 log10 copies/mL, p = 0.003) and second tertile (≥ 8.27 log10 copies/mL, p = 0.01) were associated to unfavorable outcome in the unadjusted logistic regression analysis. However, in the final multivariable analysis, viral load was not independently associated with an unfavorable outcome. Five predictors were independently associated with increased odds of ICU admission and/or death: age ≥ 70 years, SpO2, neutrophils > 7.5 × 103/µL, lactate dehydrogenase ≥ 300 U/L, and C-reactive protein ≥ 100 mg/L. In summary, nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 viral load on admission is generally high in patients with COVID-19, regardless of illness severity, but it cannot be used as an independent predictor of unfavorable clinical outcome.

Clinical and prognostic differences between methicillin-resistant and methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus infective endocarditis.

BACKGROUND: S. aureus (SA) infective endocarditis (IE) has a very high mortality, attributed to the age and comorbidities of patients, inadequate or delayed antibiotic treatment, and methicillin resistance, among other causes. The main study objective was to analyze epidemiological and clinical differences between IE by methicillin-resistant versus methicillin-susceptible SA (MRSA vs. MSSA) and to examine prognostic factors for SA endocarditis, including methicillin resistance and vancomycin minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) values > 1 µg/mL to MRSA. METHODS: Patients with SA endocarditis were consecutively and prospectively recruited from the Andalusia endocarditis cohort between 1984 and January 2017. RESULTS: We studied 437 patients with SA endocarditis, which was MRSA in 13.5% of cases. A greater likelihood of history of COPD (OR 3.19; 95% CI 1.41-7.23), invasive procedures, or recognized infection focus in the 3 months before IE onset (OR 2.9; 95% CI 1.14-7.65) and of diagnostic delay (OR 3.94; 95% CI 1.64-9.5) was observed in patients with MRSA versus MSSA endocarditis. The one-year mortality rate due to SA endocarditis was 44.3% and associated with decade of endocarditis onset (1985-1999) (OR 8.391; 95% CI (2.82-24.9); 2000-2009 (OR 6.4; 95% CI 2.92-14.06); active neoplasm (OR 6.63; 95% CI 1.7-25.5) and sepsis (OR 2.28; 95% CI 1.053-4.9). Methicillin resistance was not associated with higher IE-related mortality (49.7 vs. 43.1%; p = 0.32). CONCLUSION: MRSA IE is associated with COPD, previous invasive procedure or recognized infection focus, and nosocomial or healthcare-related origin. Methicillin resistance does not appear to be a decisive prognostic factor for SA IE.

Impact of an evidence-based bundle intervention in the quality-of-care management and outcome of Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia.

BACKGROUND: Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Several aspects of clinical management have been shown to have significant impact on prognosis. The objective of the study was to identify evidence-based quality-of-care indicators (QCIs) for the management of SAB, and to evaluate the impact of a QCI-based bundle on the management and prognosis of SAB. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature to identify QCIs in the management of SAB was performed. Then, the impact of a bundle including selected QCIs was evaluated in a quasi-experimental study in 12 tertiary Spanish hospitals. The main and secondary outcome variables were adherence to QCIs and mortality. Specific structured individualized written recommendations on 6 selected evidence-based QCIs for the management of SAB were provided. RESULTS: A total of 287 and 221 patients were included in the preintervention and intervention periods, respectively. After controlling for potential confounders, the intervention was independently associated with improved adherence to follow-up blood cultures (odds ratio [OR], 2.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.78-4.49), early source control (OR, 4.56; 95% CI, 2.12-9.79), early intravenous cloxacillin for methicillin-susceptible isolates (OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.15-2.78), and appropriate duration of therapy (OR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.24-3.64). The intervention was independently associated with a decrease in 14-day and 30-day mortality (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, .26-.85 and OR, 0.56; 95% CI, .34-.93, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: A bundle orientated to improving adherence to evidence-based QCIs improved the management of patients with SAB and was associated with reduced mortality.

Ampicillin plus ceftriaxone is as effective as ampicillin plus gentamicin for treating enterococcus faecalis infective endocarditis.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of the ampicillin plus ceftriaxone (AC) and ampicillin plus gentamicin (AG) combinations for treating Enterococcus faecalis infective endocarditis (EFIE). METHODS: An observational, nonrandomized, comparative multicenter cohort study was conducted at 17 Spanish and 1 Italian hospitals. Consecutive adult patients diagnosed of EFIE were included. Outcome measurements were death during treatment and at 3 months of follow-up, adverse events requiring treatment withdrawal, treatment failure requiring a change of antimicrobials, and relapse. RESULTS: A larger percentage of AC-treated patients (n = 159) had previous chronic renal failure than AG-treated patients (n = 87) (33% vs 16%, P = .004), and AC patients had a higher incidence of cancer (18% vs 7%, P = .015), transplantation (6% vs 0%, P = .040), and healthcare-acquired infection (59% vs 40%, P = .006). Between AC and AG-treated EFIE patients, there were no differences in mortality while on antimicrobial treatment (22% vs 21%, P = .81) or at 3-month follow-up (8% vs 7%, P = .72), in treatment failure requiring a change in antimicrobials (1% vs 2%, P = .54), or in relapses (3% vs 4%, P = .67). However, interruption of antibiotic treatment due to adverse events was much more frequent in AG-treated patients than in those receiving AC (25% vs 1%, P < .001), mainly due to new renal failure (≥25% increase in baseline creatinine concentration; 23% vs 0%, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: AC appears as effective as AG for treating EFIE patients and can be used with virtually no risk of renal failure and regardless of the high-level aminoglycoside resistance status of E. faecalis.

[Empirical antifungal therapy in selected patients with persistent fever and neutropenia]. / Tratamiento antifúngico empírico en pacientes seleccionados con fiebre persistente y neutropenia.

Empirical antifungal treatment (EAT) in neutropenia is mainly aimed at improving the poor prognosis of patients with invasive fungal infection through early treatment. The Infectious Diseases Society of America recommends initiating EAT in patients with persistent fever after 5-7 days of antibacterial treatment, and in those in whom remission of neutropenia is not imminent. Nevertheless, EAT has not been shown to be more effective than a placebo, it does not show better results than directed antifungal treatment, its effectiveness is minimal, it is not innocuous, and it is not very efficient with the use of most antifungal agents. All considered, we believe that the aforementioned recommendation for EAT treatment is unjustified. In its place we propose the application of EAT in patients selected on the basis of clinical criteria and risk factors.

Tratamiento antifúngico empírico en pacientes seleccionados con fiebre persistente y neutropenia / Empirical antifungal therapy in selected patients with persistent fever and neutropenia

El tratamiento antifúngico empírico (TAE) en los pacientes con neutropenia tiene como objetivo principal mejorar el mal pronóstico de los pacientes con infección fúngica invasora, mediante el tratamiento precoz de la misma. La Sociedad Americana de Enfermedades Infecciosas recomienda iniciar el TAE en los pacientes con fiebre después de 5-7 días de tratamiento antibacteriano y en los que la resolución de la neutropenia no es inminente. Sin embargo, el TAE no ha demostrado mayor eficacia que el placebo, no obtiene mejores resultados que el tratamiento antifúngico dirigido, su efectividad es mínima, no es inocuo y, con la mayoría de los antifúngicos, es muy poco eficiente. Por todas estas razones consideramos que la citada recomendación del TAE no está justificada. En su lugar proponemos la realización del TAE en pacientes seleccionados por criterios clínicos y factores de riesgo (AU)

Empirical antifungal treatment (EAT) in neutropenia is mainly aimed at improving the poor prognosis of patients with invasive fungal infection through early treatment. The Infectious Diseases Society of America recommends initiating EAT in patients with persistent fever after 5-7 days of antibacterial treatment, and in those in whom remission of neutropenia is not imminent. Nevertheless, EAT has not been shown to be more effective than a placebo, it does not show better results than directed antifungal treatment, its effectiveness is minimal, it is not innocuous, and it is not very efficient with the use of most antifungal agents. All considered, we believe that the aforementioned recommendation for EAT treatment is unjustified. In its place we propose the application of EAT in patients selected on the basis of clinical criteria and risk factors (AU)