Neuroinvasive West Nile Virus Infection in Immunosuppressed and Immunocompetent Adults.

Importance: West Nile virus (WNV) is the leading cause of human arboviral disease in the US, peaking during summer. The incidence of WNV, including its neuroinvasive form (NWNV), is increasing, largely due to the expanding distribution of its vector, the Culex mosquito, and climatic changes causing heavy monsoon rains. However, the distinct characteristics and outcomes of NWNV in individuals who are immunosuppressed (IS) and individuals who are not IS remain underexplored. Objective: To describe and compare clinical and radiographic features, treatment responses, and outcomes of NWNV infection in individuals who are IS and those who are not IS. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used data from the Mayo Clinic Hospital system collected from July 2006 to December 2021. Participants were adult patients (age ≥18 years) with established diagnosis of NWNV infection. Data were analyzed from May 12, 2020, to July 20, 2023. Exposure: Immunosuppresion. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes of interest were clinical and radiographic features and 90-day mortality among patients with and without IS. Results: Of 115 participants with NWNV infection (mean [SD] age, 64 [16] years; 75 [66%] male) enrolled, 72 (63%) were not IS and 43 (37%) were IS. Neurologic manifestations were meningoencephalitis (98 patients [85%]), encephalitis (10 patients [9%]), and myeloradiculitis (7 patients [6%]). Patients without IS, compared with those with IS, more frequently reported headache (45 patients [63%] vs 18 patients [42%]) and myalgias (32 patients [44%] vs 9 patients [21%]). In contrast, patients with IS, compared with those without, had higher rates of altered mental status (33 patients [77%] vs 41 patients [57%]) and myoclonus (8 patients [19%] vs 8 patients [4%]). Magnetic resonance imaging revealed more frequent thalamic T2 fluid-attenuated inversion recovery hyperintensities in individuals with IS than those without (4 patients [11%] vs 0 patients). Individuals with IS had more severe disease requiring higher rates of intensive care unit admission (26 patients [61%] vs 24 patients [33%]) and mechanical ventilation (24 patients [56%] vs 22 patients [31%]). The 90-day all-cause mortality rate was higher in the patients with IS compared with patients without IS (12 patients [28%] vs 5 patients [7%]), and this difference in mortality persisted after adjusting for Glasgow Coma Scale score (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.07-4.27; P = .03). Individuals with IS were more likely to receive intravenous immunoglobulin than individuals without IS (12 individuals [17%] vs 24 individuals [56%]), but its use was not associated with survival (hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.50-3.09; P = .64). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of individuals with NWNV infection, individuals with IS had a higher risk of disease complications and poor outcomes than individuals without IS, highlighting the need for innovative and effective therapies to improve outcomes in this high-risk population.

Impact of a vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE) screening result on appropriateness of antibiotic therapy.

Objective: Vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE) infections have been associated with increased mortality and poor outcomes. VRE screening has been used to identify colonized patients to prevent transmission; however, little is known about the utility of screening results to guide antibiotic therapy. Design and setting: A retrospective review was performed at a tertiary-care center between June 1, 2015, and May 31, 2018. Patients: All patients who underwent VRE polymerase chain reaction assay (PCR) screening and had a bacterial culture from 7 days before to 90 days after the screening test were included. In total, 1,374 patients who had a VRE screening test met inclusion criteria. Methods: Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of VRE screening for VRE infection were calculated. The appropriateness of the antibiotic therapy for each patient based on screening results was also assessed. Results: We detected no difference in the appropriateness of antibiotic therapy between patients with a positive screen and those with a negative screen (59.3% vs 61.0%; P = .8657). The VRE PCR demonstrated 54% sensitivity, 89% specificity, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 13% and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 98%. Conclusions: The high NPV and specificity indicate that patients with a negative VRE screening results may not require empiric antibiotic coverage for VRE. Although VRE screening may have utility to detect colonization in high-risk patients, a positive VRE screen is of limited value in determining the need for an antibiotic with VRE culture-directed coverage.

Improving Clinical Decision Support in Pharmacy: Toward the Perfect DUR Alert.

The cornerstone of every health care profession is decision making. Historically, the decisions made by pharmacists have focused on ensuring the accuracy and physical integrity of the pharmaceutical product delivered to the patient in strict compliance with the prescriber's order. As the role of the pharmacist evolved over the past half century, the focus of decision making progressively shifted from a product-centric orientation to optimizing the interaction that occurs between the pharmaceutical product and the patient. Toward that end, prospective drug utilization review (pro-DUR) represents, perhaps, the quintessential expression of the pharmacist's contemporary clinical role. Fueled by evolving practice standards, innovations in information technology, and legal mandates such as The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, computer-assisted pro-DUR systems have become a ubiquitous component of pharmacy practice. While these data-driven clinical decision support systems have clearly demonstrated their ability to improve the quality and safety of medication delivery and use, they have yet to fully achieve their promised potential. Doing so will require recognition of continuing shortcomings and a shared commitment by all stakeholders to develop and adhere to best practice guidelines that will better ensure that alerts received by practitioners are valid, interpretable, clinically significant, and actionable. DISCLOSURES: The authors received no funding for this article. Rupp discloses consultancy fees from Surescripts unrelated to this manuscript. Both authors contributed equally to concept, analysis, and manuscript preparation.