SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccine Response in People Living with HIV According to CD4 Count and CD4/CD8 Ratio.

BACKGROUND: Our aim was to estimate the rates of not achieving a robust/above-average humoral response to the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine in people living with HIV (PLWH) who received ≥2 doses and to investigate the role of the CD4 and CD4/CD8 ratio in predicting the humoral response. METHODS: We evaluated the humoral anti-SARS-CoV-2 response 1-month after the second and third doses of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine as a proportion of not achieving a robust/above-average response using two criteria: (i) a humoral threshold identified as a correlate of protection against SARS-CoV-2 (<90% vaccine efficacy): anti-RBD < 775 BAU/mL or anti-S < 298 BAU/mL, (ii) threshold of binding antibodies equivalent to average neutralization activity from the levels of binding (nAb titer < 1:40): anti-RBD < 870 BAU/mL or anti-S < 1591 BAU/mL. PLWH were stratified according to the CD4 count and CD4/CD8 ratio at first dose. Logistic regression was used to compare the probability of not achieving robust/above-average responses. A mixed linear model was used to estimate the mean anti-RBD titer at various time points across the exposure groups. RESULTS: a total of 1176 PLWH were included. The proportions of participants failing to achieve a robust/above-average response were significantly higher in participants with a lower CD4 and CD4/CD8 ratio, specifically, a clearer gradient was observed for the CD4 count. The CD4 count was a better predictor of the humoral response of the primary cycle than ratio. The third dose was pivotal in achieving a robust/above-average humoral response, at least for PLWH with CD4 > 200 cells/mm3 and a ratio > 0.6. CONCLUSIONS: A robust humoral response after a booster dose has not been reached by 50% of PLWH with CD4 < 200 cells mm3. In the absence of a validated correlate of protections in the Omicron era, the CD4 count remains the most solid marker to guide vaccination campaigns in PLWH.

Comparison between available early antiviral treatments in outpatients with SARS-CoV-2 infection: a real-life study.

PURPOSE: To investigate the clinical impact of three available antivirals for early COVID-19 treatment in a large real-life cohort. METHODS: Between January and October 2022 all outpatients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 referring to IRCCS S. Orsola hospital treated with an early antiviral therapy were enrolled. A comparison between patients treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NTV/r), molnupiravir (MPV) and remdesivir (RDV) was conducted in term of indications and outcome. To account for differences between treatment groups a propensity score analysis was performed. After estimating the weights, we fitted a survey-weighted Cox regression model with inverse-probability weighting with hospital admission/death versus clinical recovery as the primary outcome. RESULTS: Overall 1342 patients were enrolled, 775 (57.8%), 360 (26.8%) and 207 (15.4%) in MPV, NTV/r and RDV group, respectively. Median age was 73 (59-82) years, male sex was 53.4%. Primary indication was immunosuppression (438, 32.6%), the median time from symptom onset to drug administration was 3 [2-4] days. Overall, clinical recovery was reached in 96.9% of patients, with hospital admission rate of 2.6%. No significant differences were found in clinical recovery nor hospitalization. Cox regression showed a decreased probability of hospital admission/ death among prior vaccinated patients compared with unvaccinated (HR 0.31 [95%CI 0.14-0.70], p = 0.005]). No difference in hospitalization rates in early treatment compared to late treatment were found. CONCLUSIONS: No differences among MPV, NTV/r and RDV in terms of clinical recovery or hospitalization were found. Patients not vaccinated had a significant increased risk of hospitalization.

Surveillance as a safe and effective option for treatment of stage I seminoma.

Introdubction: Stage I seminoma has a very good prognosis, yet approximately 15% have subclinical metastatic disease and will relapse after orchidectomy alone. Several management approaches have been investigated. We aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of real-world patients with stage I seminoma, analysing prognostic factors influencing treatment choice and oncological outcomes. METHODS: Retrospective, single institution study, with 55 patients diagnosed with clinical stage I seminoma between 2007 and 2020. Selected patients were analysed regarding three management approaches - surveillance, adjuvant radiotherapy and adjuvant carboplatin AUC7. Overall survival and progression-free survival outcomes were analysed. Predictors of treatment choice were determined, and predictors of recurrence were analysed in patients on active surveillance. RESULTS: The median follow-up time was 91 months (13-165). Overall survival at 10 years was 98.2%. Stage I seminoma patients had a 1-, 3- and 10-year progression free survival of 98%, 94% and 89%, respectively. Three-year progression free survival was 92.0% for those on active surveillance (IC95%, 91.5-92.5%), 95.2% for carboplatin (IC95%, 94.8-95.6%) and 100% for those on adjuvant radiotherapy (p > 0.05). All relapses on active surveillance protocols occurred during the first 24 months. Overall, 43% of patients who underwent adjuvant treatment reported adverse effects of therapy, with higher incidence on radiotherapy group (63%). CONCLUSIONS: Stage I seminoma have excellent prognosis, high cure rates, and low treatment-associated morbidity. Active surveillance is a safe modality when applied to selected patients. Adjuvant radiotherapy and adjuvant chemotherapy with carboplatin show similar results, with fewer adverse effects on chemotherapy arm.

A protocol for the development of core outcome sets for effectiveness trials and clinical audits in renal cell cancer (R-COS).

Background: There is inconsistency in outcomes collected in renal cell cancer (RCC) intervention effectiveness studies and variability in their definitions. This makes critical summaries of the evidence base difficult and sub-optimally informative for clinical practice guidelines and decision-making by patients and healthcare professionals. A solution is to develop a core outcome set (COS), an agreed minimum set of outcomes to be reported in all trials in a clinical area. Objectives: To develop three COS for (a) localised, (b) locally advanced and (c) metastatic. RCC study design participants and methods: The methods are the same for each of our three COS and are structured in two phases. Phase 1 identifies potentially relevant outcomes by conducting both a systematic literature review and patient interviews (N ~ 30 patients). Qualitative data will be analysed using framework analysis. In phase 2, all outcomes identified in phase 1 will be entered in a modified eDelphi, whereby patients and healthcare professionals (50 of each) will score each outcome's importance (Likert scale from 1 [not important] to 9 [critically important]). Outcomes scored in the 7-9 range by ≥70% and 1-3 by ≤15% will be regarded as 'consensus in', and the vice versa of this will constitute 'consensus out'. All other combinations will be regarded as equivocal and discussed at consensus meetings (including 10 patients and 10 healthcare professionals) in order to vote on them and ratify the results of the eDelphi. Discussion: The R-COS will reduce outcome reporting heterogeneity and improve the evidence base for RCC. Study registration: The study is registered with the COMET initiative: https://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/1406.

Avelumab as First-Line Maintenance Treatment in Locally Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma.

This work provides a summary of guideline recommendations and an expert position on the use of maintenance avelumab therapy based on a review of current international clinical practice guidelines for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (UC). A PubMed literature search was conducted in March 2022 (updated in July 2023) to identify guidelines for locally advanced or metastatic UC. An expert panel (four oncologists and one urologist) reviewed the guidelines and clinical evidence, and discussed practical questions regarding the use of avelumab maintenance therapy in this clinical setting. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network, European Association of Urology and European Society for Medical Oncology guidelines recommend first-line cisplatin-containing chemotherapy for cisplatin-eligible patients, carboplatin-gemcitabine for cisplatin-ineligible patients who are fit for carboplatin, or immunotherapy with programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) inhibitors (e.g. atezolizumab) in platinum-ineligible patients. Maintenance avelumab is recommended in patients with response/stable disease following chemotherapy (regardless of PD-L1 status). In patients who relapse after/during chemotherapy, options include immunotherapy, erdafitinib [in those with fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) mutations], enfortumab vedotin or further chemotherapy. The expert panel provided the following practical guidance: (1) consider maintenance avelumab in all eligible patients; (2) continue avelumab until disease progression/unacceptable toxicity; (3) ideally, administer six cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy prior to maintenance avelumab; (4) perform radiological evaluation after four chemotherapy cycles and prior to maintenance avelumab; (5) carboplatin-gemcitabine followed by maintenance avelumab is preferred in cisplatin-ineligible patients (regardless of PD-L1 expression), but consider first-line immunotherapy in PD-L1-positive patients and platinum-ineligible patients (regardless of PD-L1 status); and (6) for patients who relapse on avelumab, second-line options include enfortumab vedotin, FGFR inhibitors (in those with FGFR mutations) or clinical trial inclusion. In conclusion, avelumab maintenance therapy is recommended following platinum-based chemotherapy in all eligible patients with locally advanced or metastatic UC, continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Using machine learning to predict antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in solid organ transplant recipients: the multicentre ORCHESTRA cohort.

OBJECTIVES: The study aim was to assess predictors of negative antibody response (AbR) in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients after the first booster of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. METHODS: Solid organ transplant recipients receiving SARS-CoV-2 vaccination were prospectively enrolled (March 2021-January 2022) at six hospitals in Italy and Spain. AbR was assessed at first dose (t0), second dose (t1), 3 ± 1 month (t2), and 1 month after third dose (t3). Negative AbR at t3 was defined as an anti-receptor binding domain titre <45 BAU/mL. Machine learning models were developed to predict the individual risk of negative (vs. positive) AbR using age, type of transplant, time between transplant and vaccination, immunosuppressive drugs, type of vaccine, and graft function as covariates, subsequently assessed using a validation cohort. RESULTS: Overall, 1615 SOT recipients (1072 [66.3%] males; mean age±standard deviation [SD], 57.85 ± 13.77) were enrolled, and 1211 received three vaccination doses. Negative AbR rate decreased from 93.66% (886/946) to 21.90% (202/923) from t0 to t3. Univariate analysis showed that older patients (mean age, 60.21 ± 11.51 vs. 58.11 ± 13.08), anti-metabolites (57.9% vs. 35.1%), steroids (52.9% vs. 38.5%), recent transplantation (<3 years) (17.8% vs. 2.3%), and kidney, heart, or lung compared with liver transplantation (25%, 31.8%, 30.4% vs. 5.5%) had a higher likelihood of negative AbR. Machine learning (ML) algorithms showing best prediction performance were logistic regression (precision-recall curve-PRAUC mean 0.37 [95%CI 0.36-0.39]) and k-Nearest Neighbours (PRAUC 0.36 [0.35-0.37]). DISCUSSION: Almost a quarter of SOT recipients showed negative AbR after first booster dosage. Unfortunately, clinical information cannot efficiently predict negative AbR even with ML algorithms.

Local Treatment of Recurrent Renal Cell Carcinoma May Have a Significant Survival Effect Across All Risk-of-recurrence Groups.

Background: Retrospective comparative studies suggest a survival benefit after complete local treatment of recurrence (LTR) in renal cell carcinoma (RCC), which may be largely due to an indication bias. Objective: To determine the role of LTR in a homogeneous population characterised by limited and potentially resectable recurrence. Design setting and participants: RECUR is a protocol-based multicentre European registry capturing patient and tumour characteristics, risk of recurrence (RoR), recurrence patterns, and survival of those curatively treated for nonmetastatic RCC from 2006 to 2011. Per-protocol resectable disease (RD) recurrence was defined as (1) solitary metastases, (2) oligometastases, or (3) renal fossa or renal recurrence after radical or partial nephrectomy, respectively. Intervention: Local treatment of recurrence. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival was compared in the RD population that underwent LTR versus no LTR. We constructed a multivariate model to predict risk factors for overall mortality and analysed the effect of LTR across RoR groups. Results and limitations: Of 3039 patients with localised RCC treated with curative intent, 505 presented with recurrence, including 176 with RD. Of these patients, 97 underwent LTR and 79 no LTR. Patients in the LTR group were younger (64.3 [40-80] vs 69.2 [45-87] yr; p = 0.001). The median OS was 70.3 mo (95% confidence interval [CI] 58-82.6) versus 27.4 mo (95% CI 23.6-31.15) in the LTR versus no-LTR group (p < 0.001). After a multivariate analysis, having LTR (hazard ratio [HR] 0.37 [95% CI 0.2-0.6]), having low- versus high-risk RoR (HR 0.42 [95% CI [0.20-0.83]), and not having extra-abdominal/thoracic metastasis (HR 1.96 [95% CI 1.02-3.77]) were prognostic factors of longer OS. The LTR effect on survival was consistent across risk groups. OS HR for high, intermediate, and low risks were 0.36 (0.2-0.64), 0.27 (0.11-0.65), and 0.26 (0.08-0.8), respectively. Limitations include retrospective design. Conclusions: This is the first study assessing the effectiveness of LTR in RCC in a comparable population with RD. This study supports the role of LTR across all RoR groups. Patient summary: We assessed the effectiveness of local treatment of resectable recurrent renal cell carcinoma after surgical treatment of the primary kidney tumour. Local treatment of recurrence was associated with longer survival across groups with a risk of recurrence.

The 2022 Updated European Association of Urology Guidelines on the Use of Adjuvant Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy for Renal Cell Carcinoma.

In KEYNOTE-564, adjuvant pembrolizumab, a PD-1 antibody, significantly improved disease-free survival (DFS) in localised clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) with a high risk of relapse. In 2021, the European Association of Urology RCC Guidelines Panel issued a weak recommendation for adjuvant pembrolizumab for high-risk ccRCC as defined by the trial until final overall survival data and results from other trials were available. Meanwhile, the primary DFS endpoints were not met for adjuvant atezolizumab (PD-L1 inhibitor; IMmotion010), adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab (CheckMate 914), or perioperative nivolumab (PROSPER). Owing to heterogeneity, a meta-analysis is not recommended. Pembrolizumab remains the only immune checkpoint inhibitor currently recommended in this setting. Overall survival data are immature and biomarkers to predict outcome are lacking. Uncertainty exists and overtreatment is occurring. Treatment decisions should be made with caution and with the involvement of each patient. PATIENT SUMMARY: New results from three trials of immunotherapy after surgery for kidney cancer to reduce the risk of recurrence showed no improvement with these treatments. These results are in contrast to an earlier study that showed that the antibody pembrolizumab did extend the time before kidney cancer recurrence, even though it is not yet clear if overall survival is longer. Thus, we cautiously recommend pembrolizumab as additional treatment in high-risk kidney cancer after surgery, but patient preference should be carefully considered and the risk of overtreatment should be discussed.

European Association of Urology Guidelines Panel on Renal Cell Carcinoma Update on the New World Health Organization Classification of Kidney Tumours 2022: The Urologist's Point of View.

The fifth edition of the World Health Organization (WHO) classification of urogenital tumours published in 2022 will be implemented in the European Association of Urology guidelines on renal cell carcinoma for 2023. Here we provide an update summarising changes in the new WHO classification of renal tumours from a clinician perspective.

A Systematic Review of Heterogeneity in Outcome Definition and Reporting in Localised Renal Cancer.

Context: Outcomes in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) are reported inconsistently, with variability in definitions and measurement. Hence, it is difficult to compare intervention effectiveness and synthesise outcomes for systematic reviews and to create clinical practice guidelines. This uncertainty in the evidence makes it difficult to guide patient-clinician decision-making. One solution is a core outcome set (COS): an agreed minimum set of outcomes. Objective: To describe outcome reporting, definitions, and measurement heterogeneity as the first stage in co-creating a COS for localised renal cancer. Evidence acquisition: We systematically reviewed outcome reporting heterogeneity in effectiveness trials and observational studies in localised RCC. In total, 2822 studies (randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, systematic reviews) up to June 2020 meeting our inclusion criteria were identified. Abstracts and full texts were screened independently by two reviewers; in cases of disagreement, a third reviewer arbitrated. Data extractions were double-checked. Evidence synthesis: We included 149 studies and found that there was inconsistency in which outcomes were reported across studies and variability in the definitions used for outcomes that were conceptually the same. We structured our analysis using the outcome classification taxonomy proposed by Dodd et al. Outcomes linked to adverse events (eg, bleeding, outcomes linked to surgery) and renal injury outcomes (reduced renal function) were reported most commonly. Outcomes related to deaths from any cause and from cancer were reported in 44% and 25% of studies, respectively, although the time point for measurement and the analysis methods were inconsistent. Outcomes linked to life impact (eg, global quality of life) were reported least often. Clinician-reported outcomes are more frequently reported than patient-reported outcomes in the renal cancer literature. Conclusions: This systematic review underscores the heterogeneity of outcome reporting, definitions, and measurement in research on localised renal cancer. It catalogues the variety of outcomes and serves as a first step towards the development of a COS for localised renal cancer. Patient summary: We reviewed studies on localised kidney cancer and found that multiple terms and definitions have been used to describe outcomes. These are not defined consistently, and often not defined at all. Our review is the first phase in developing a core outcome set to allow better comparisons of studies to improve medical care.

A Renewal of the TNM Staging System for Patients with Renal Cancer To Comply with Current Decision-making: Proposal from the European Association of Urology Guidelines Panel.

Over the past decade, only minor changes have been introduced in the TNM staging system for renal cancer. Conversely, many milestones and modifications in management of the disease have been achieved, especially for patients with locally advanced and metastatic cancers. The European Association of Urology guidelines panel proposes a new TNM classification scheme for staging of renal cell carcinoma to reflect these breakthrough clinical improvements.

National consensus survey on management approaches for upper urinary tract obstruction: A comparative analysis of retrograde ureteric stent and percutaneous nephrostomy.

To the Editor, Upper urinary tract obstruction (UUTO) is a common scenario in clinical practice, and it is caused by a variety of diseases. Lithiasis, tumours and strictures are some of the principal aetiologies. Multiple factors may influence both the need for decompression of the obstructed collecting system and the urgency of procedure...

Recurrence pattern in localized RCC: results from a European multicenter database (RECUR).

INTRODUCTION: The impact of open versus minimally invasive surgery on recurrence pattern in the management of localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC) remains uncertain. We thus aimed to determine the impact of surgical approach on survival and recurrence pattern. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This is a multi-institutional, matched cohort study on patients with pT1-3aN0M0 RCC from the RECUR database. After propensity score matching between open and minimally invasive surgery, disease-free (DFS) survival and risk of first recurrence according to recurrence site, namely local recurrence, abdominal/retroperitoneal, thoracic/mediastinal or uncommon site metastases were investigated with Cox regression analysis. Overall (OS) and Cancer Specific Survival (CSS) were also assessed. RESULTS: After matching, 1,019 patients who underwent open and 1,019 who underwent minimally invasive surgery were included (of which 70 robot-assisted). At 5.2 years of median follow-up, 130 patients in open and 125 in minimally invasive group experienced disease progression. A higher risk of local recurrence (HR 2.06; 95% CI 1.18-3.58, P-value = 0.01) and uncommon site metastases (HR 1.09; 95% CI 1.01-1.16; P-value = .04) was found for minimally invasive surgery relative to open surgery, while no difference was found in terms of DFS (HR 0.83; 95% CI 0.64-1.06; P-value = .14). No differences were found in terms of OS and CSS. Main limitation is the retrospective nature of the study. CONCLUSIONS: The risk for local recurrence and uncommon site metastases was higher for minimally invasive surgery compared to open surgery, although no differences were found for OS, CSS, and DFS.

Oral Versus Standard Antimicrobial Treatment for Pyogenic Native Vertebral Osteomyelitis: A Single-Center, Retrospective, Propensity Score-Balanced Analysis.

Background: Interest in shorter antimicrobial regimens and oral treatment for osteoarticular infections is growing. The aim of this study is to assess whether there is an association between the administration of an entirely oral antibiotic therapy (OT) and the clinical outcome of native vertebral osteomyelitis (NVOs). Methods: We conducted a single-center, retrospective, observational study on consecutive patients with pyogenic NVOs over a 10-year period (2008-2018). We performed multivariate logistic regression analysis to identify risk factors for clinical failure, both in the whole population and in subgroups. The impact of OT versus standard treatment (intravenous induction followed by oral treatment whenever possible) was assessed in patients with a non-multidrug-resistant microorganism (MDRO) etiology, and the impact of a rifampin-containing regimen was assessed in patients affected by NVOs caused by staphylococci or of unknown etiology. Results: The study population included 249 patients, and 33 (13.3%) experienced clinical failure; the OT group consisted of 54 patients (21.7%). Multivariate regression analysis of the whole population selected Charlson comorbidity index (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.291; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.114-1.497; P = .001) and MDRO etiology (aOR, 3.301; 95% CI, 1.368-7.964; P = .008) as independent factors for clinical failure. Among patients affected by a non-MDRO NVO, OT was not associated with an increased risk of clinical failure (aOR, 0.487; 95% CI, .133-1.782; P = .271), even after adjustment for the propensity score of receiving OT. In the subgroup of patients with staphylococcal or unknown etiology, NVO rifampin was independently associated with favorable outcome (aOR, 0.315; 95% CI, .105-.949; P = .040). Conclusions: An entirely oral, highly bioavailable treatment, including rifampin, may be as effective as parenteral treatment in selected patients with NVOs.

A Case Report of Tolvaptan Therapy for ADPKD Patients With COVID-19. The Need for Appropriate Counselling for Temporary Drug Discontinuation.

BACKGROUND: Patients with autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) may require specific therapy with vasopressin receptor antagonists to slow the progression of renal disease. Because of its mechanism of action, the most common side effects are polyuria, nocturia, and polydipsia. Elevations of liver enzyme levels can also occur during treatment with Tolvaptan. Temporary drug withdrawal may be indicated if the patient is unable to hydrate adequately or if there are concomitant causes of dehydration, including major infectious events. During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, this should be considered in the management of patients on Tolvaptan therapy. CASE REPORT: We present the clinical case of a 51-year-old male with severe acute respiratory syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and ADPKD receiving Tolvaptan therapy with particular reference to the medical management of the patient during the infectious event. The patient was instructed to discontinue promptly Tolvaptan as soon as symptoms appeared. He was treated with forced hydration and symptomatic therapy. Nevertheless, a transient elevation of liver enzyme levels was detected. The timely discontinuation of Tolvaptan therapy avoided the risk of potential hepatotoxicity in a condition of known susceptibility. CONCLUSION: Tolvaptan therapy of patients with ADPKD is safe even during SARS-CoV-2 infection. There is need for appropriate and prompt patient counseling to avoid potentially adverse side effects.

Surgical margins after partial nephrectomy as prognostic factor for the risk of local recurrence in pT1 RCC: a systematic review and narrative synthesis.

PURPOSE: To systematically review the published literature on surgical margins as a risk factor for local recurrence (LR) in patients undergoing partial nephrectomy (PN) for pT1 renal cell carcinomas (RCC). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic literature search of relevant databases (MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library) was performed according to the PRISMA criteria up to February 2022. The hypothesis was developed using the PPO method (Patients = patients with pT1 RCC undergoing PN, Prognostic factor = positive surgical margins (PSM) detected on final pathology versus negative surgical margins (NSM) and Outcome = LR diagnosed on follow-up imaging). The primary outcome was the rate of PSM and LR. The risk of bias was assessed by the QUIPS tool. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: After assessing 1525 abstracts and 409 full-text articles, eight studies met the inclusion criteria. The percentage of PSM ranged between 0 and 34.3%. In these patients with PSM, LR varied between 0 and 9.1%, whereas only 0-1.5% of LR were found in the NSM-group. The calculated odds ratio (95% confident intervals) varied between 0.04 [0.00-0.79] and 0.27 [0.01-4.76] and was statistically significant in two studies (0.14 [0.02-0.80] and 0.04 [0.00-0.79]). The quality analysis of the included studies resulted in an overall intermediate to high risk of bias and the level of evidence was overall very low. A meta-analysis was considered unsuitable due to the high heterogeneity between the included studies. CONCLUSION: PSM after PN in patients with pT1 RCC is associated with a higher risk of LR. However, the evidence has significant limitations and caution should be taken with the interpretation of this data.

Clinical consequences of very major errors with semi-automated testing systems for antimicrobial susceptibility of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales.

OBJECTIVES: In this study we investigated the rate of susceptibility testing discrepancies between semi-automated and reference systems with carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) and the impact of alleged errors by semi-automated systems on guiding targeted therapy for CRE bloodstream infection (BSI). METHODS: This was a multicentre, retrospective study enrolling patients with monomicrobial BSI caused by CRE from January 2013 to December 2016. Nonduplicate isolates from index blood cultures tested locally with semi-automated systems were centralized at a referral laboratory and retested with a reference broth microdilution or agar dilution method. RESULTS: We enrolled 366 patients with CRE-BSI; 220 (60%) were male, and the median age was 67 years (interquartile range, 54-76 years). When compared with the results of the reference methods, those of the semi-automated systems exhibited variable rates of very major errors (VMEs; i.e. false susceptibilities) and major errors (MEs; i.e. false resistances). The highest rates of VMEs were observed with fosfomycin (14%) and colistin (13.9%), and the highest rates of MEs were observed with gentamicin (21%), fosfomycin (7.7%), and tigecycline (34%). Overall, VMEs and MEs led clinicians to prescribe or confirm ineffective therapy in 25 of 341 patients (7%). Receipt of ineffective therapy supported by a misleading susceptibility test was associated with higher 30-day mortality rates by Kaplan-Meier survival curves rates compared with receipt of active therapy (56% vs. 26%; p = 0.002), and the difference was confirmed after adjustment for confounders in a Cox regression model (adjusted hazard ratio: 2.91; 95% CI, 1.62-5.22; p < 0.001). DISCUSSION: MEs and VMEs were relatively common with semi-automated susceptibility testing systems. VMEs were associated with inappropriate use of antibiotics and poorer outcomes.

European Association of Urology Guidelines on Renal Cell Carcinoma: The 2022 Update.

CONTEXT: The European Association of Urology (EAU) Renal Cell Carcinoma (RCC) Guideline Panel has prepared evidence-based guidelines and recommendations for the management of RCC. OBJECTIVE: To present a summary of the 2022 RCC guideline, which is based on a standardised methodology including systematic reviews (SRs) and provides transparent and reliable evidence for the management of RCC. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: For the 2022 update, a new literature search was carried out with a cutoff date of May 28, 2021, covering the Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. The data search focused on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective or controlled comparator-arm studies, SRs, and meta-analyses. Evidence synthesis was conducted using modified GRADE criteria as outlined for all the EAU guidelines. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: All chapters of the RCC guideline were updated on the basis of a structured literature assessment, and clinical practice recommendations were developed. The majority of the studies included were retrospective with matched or unmatched cohorts and were based on single- or multi-institution data or national registries. The exception was systemic treatment of metastatic RCC, for which there are several large RCTs, resulting in recommendations that are based on higher levels of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: The 2022 RCC guidelines have been updated by a multidisciplinary panel of experts using the highest methodological standards. These guidelines provide the most reliable contemporary evidence base for the management of RCC in 2022. PATIENT SUMMARY: The European Association of Urology panel for guidelines on kidney cancer has thoroughly evaluated the research data available to establish up-to-date international standards for the care of patients with kidney cancer.