Protocol for DexEnceph: a randomised controlled trial of dexamethasone therapy in adults with herpes simplex virus encephalitis.

INTRODUCTION: Herpes simplex virus (HSV) encephalitis is a rare severe form of brain inflammation that commonly leaves survivors and their families with devastating long-term consequences. The virus particularly targets the temporal lobe of the brain causing debilitating problems in memory, especially verbal memory. It is postulated that immunomodulation with the corticosteroid, dexamethasone, could improve outcomes by reducing brain swelling. However, there are concerns (so far not observed) that such immunosuppression might facilitate increased viral replication with resultant worsening of disease. A previous trail closed early because of slow recruitment. METHOD: DexEnceph is a pragmatic multicentre, randomised, controlled, open-label, observer-blind trial to determine whether adults with HSV encephalitis who receive dexamethasone alongside standard antiviral treatment with aciclovir for have improved clinical outcomes compared with those who receive standard treatment alone. Overall, 90 patients with HSV encephalitis are being recruited from a target of 45 recruiting sites; patients are randomised 1:1 to the dexamethasone or control arms of the study. The primary outcome measured is verbal memory as assessed by the Weschler Memory Scale fourth edition Auditory Memory Index at 26 weeks after randomisation. Secondary outcomes are measured up to 72 weeks include additional neuropsychological, clinical and functional outcomes as well as comparison of neuroimaging findings. Patient safety monitoring occurs throughout and includes the detection of HSV DNA in cerebrospinal fluid 2 weeks after randomisation, which is indicative of ongoing viral replication. Innovative methods are being used to ensure recrutiment targets are met for this rare disease. DISCUSSION: DexEnceph aims to be the first completed randomised controlled trial of corticosteroid therapy in HSV encephalitis. The results will provide evidence for future practice in managing adults with the condition and has the potential to improve outcomes . ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial has ethical approval from the UK National Research Ethics Committee (Liverpool Central, REF: 15/NW/0545, 10 August 2015). Protocol V.2.1, July 2019. The results will be published and presented as soon as possible on completion. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: ISRCTN11774734, EUDRACT 2015-001609-16.

"When did you decide to receive the Covid-19 vaccine?" Survey in a high-volume vaccination center.

Highly efficient and safe Covid-19 vaccines are available in Europe in amounts that theoretically allow for a high immune coverage. However, a notable proportion of the population is reluctant toward immunization. We aimed to determine, among people who chose to be vaccinated, when they made the decision and whether they would have preferred an earlier vaccination. A survey was conducted in a high-volume Covid-19 vaccination center in France from 28 May to 9 July 2021 through an anonymous questionnaire. The 2519 participants (54.1% males; median age 39 years) attributed lower efficacy and safety to Covid-19 vaccines than to vaccines in general. When asked when they decided to receive the vaccine, 15.5% and 16.0% answered "less than one month ago" and "less than one week ago," respectively; age <40 and female sex were independently associated with these responses. When asked whether they would have preferred to have been vaccinated earlier, 57.6% answered "definitely no," "rather no," or "neither yes nor no"; female sex (independently from age) was associated with these answers. When asked whether they would have preferred to receive the vaccine as early as January 2021, 65.2% answered "definitely no," "rather no," or "neither yes nor no"; age <40 and female sex were independently associated with these responses. In conclusion, one-third people had made the decision to be vaccinated only recently, while more than half would not have preferred an earlier vaccination, in particular women and those aged <40 years. Vaccine campaigns should take such short-term decision-making processes into account.

Evaluation of Microbiological Performance and the Potential Clinical Impact of the ePlex® Blood Culture Identification Panels for the Rapid Diagnosis of Bacteremia and Fungemia.

Molecular rapid diagnostic assays associated with antimicrobial stewardship have proven effective for the early adaptation of empiric therapy in bloodstream infections. The ePlex® BCID (GenMark Diagnostics) Panels allow identification of 56 bacteria and fungi and 10 resistance genes in 90 min directly from positive blood cultures. We prospectively evaluated 187 sepsis episodes at Grenoble University Hospital and retrospectively analyzed the cases to measure the potential clinical impact of the ePlex BCID results. Identification of all pathogens was obtained for 164/187 (88%) bloodstream infections with 100% detection of antimicrobial resistance genes (17 blaCTX-M , 1 vanA, and 17 mecA genes). Only 15/209 (7%) strains were not covered by the panels. Sensitivity for detection of micro-organisms targeted by the RUO BCID-GP, BCID-GN, and BCID-FP Panels was respectively 84/84 (100%), 103/107 (96%), and 14/14 (100%). Interestingly, accurate identification of all pathogens was achieved in 15/17 (88%) polymicrobial samples. Retrospective analysis of medical records showed that a modification of antimicrobial treatment would have been done in 45% of the patients. Treatment modifications would have been an optimization of empiric therapy, a de-escalation or an escalation in respectively 16, 17, and 11% of the patients. Moreover, 11% of the samples were classified as contaminants or not clinically relevant and would have led to early de-escalation or withdrawal of any antibiotic. Detection of resistance genes in addition to identification alone increased escalation rate from 4 to 11% of the patients. Absence of the ePlex result was considered a lost opportunity for therapy modification in 28% of patients.