Brazilian perspective: antimicrobial stewardship in solid organ transplant.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of multidrug resistant organisms (MDROs) infections among solid organ transplant (SOT) patients is very high in Brazil. METHODS: This review will discuss antimicrobial use and resistance in SOT in Brazil, highlighting the main barriers and facilitators for implementation of an antimicrobial stewardship programme (ASP). RESULTS: The most common group of MDROs is carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus. Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CREs) are the most frequent MDROs and have been reported as donor-derived as well. Although ASPs are mandatory in the country, there is a lack of information regarding ASPs in SOT recipients. The main barriers for the implementation of ASPs in Brazilian hospitals are lack of electronic medical records, absence of national guidelines specific to SOT recipients, lack of recommendations on surveillance culture to evaluate colonization and transmission of donor-derived MDROs, limited availability of rapid diagnostic tests, and insufficient pharmacist and clinician time allocated to ASP activities in some SOT centers. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of MDRO infections caused mainly by VREs and CREs is very high in the country. There is limited data regarding antimicrobial use among SOT recipients in Brazil. The absence of antimicrobial stewardship national guidelines specific to SOT recipients is one of the main barriers for the implementation of ASPs in Brazilian hospitals.

Brazilian guidelines for the treatment of outpatients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. A joint guideline of the Brazilian Association of Emergency Medicine (ABRAMEDE), Brazilian Medical Association (AMB), Brazilian Society of Angiology and Vascular Surgery (SBACV), Brazilian Society of Geriatrics and Gerontology (SBGG), Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases (SBI), Brazilian Society of Family and Community Medicine (SBFMC), and Brazilian Thoracic Society (SBPT).

BACKGROUND: Several therapies have been used or proposed for the treatment of COVID-19, although their effectiveness and safety have not been properly evaluated. The purpose of this document is to provide recommendations to support decisions about the drug treatment of outpatients with COVID-19 in Brazil. METHODS: A panel consisting of experts from different clinical fields, representatives of the Brazilian Ministry of Health, and methodologists (37 members in total) was responsible for preparing these guidelines. A rapid guideline development method was used, based on the adoption and/or adaptation of recommendations from existing international guidelines combined with additional structured searches for primary studies and new recommendations whenever necessary (GRADE-ADOLOPMENT). The rating of quality of evidence and the drafting of recommendations followed the GRADE method. RESULTS: Ten technologies were evaluated, and 10 recommendations were prepared. Recommendations were made against the use of anticoagulants, azithromycin, budesonide, colchicine, corticosteroids, hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine alone or combined with azithromycin, ivermectin, nitazoxanide, and convalescent plasma. It was not possible to make a recommendation regarding the use of monoclonal antibodies in outpatients, as their benefit is uncertain and their cost is high, with limitations of availability and implementation. CONCLUSION: To date, few therapies have demonstrated effectiveness in the treatment of outpatients with COVID-19. Recommendations are restricted to what should not be used, in order to provide the best treatment according to the principles of evidence-based medicine and to promote resource savings by aboiding ineffective treatments.

Brazilian guidelines for the treatment of outpatients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. A joint guideline of the Brazilian Association of Emergency Medicine (ABRAMEDE), Brazilian Medical Association (AMB), Brazilian Society of Angiology and Vascular Surgery (SBACV), Brazilian Society of Geriatrics and Gerontology (SBGG), Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases (SBI), Brazilian Society of Family and Community Medicine (SBFMC), and Brazilian Thoracic Society (SBPT)

ABSTRACT Background Several therapies have been used or proposed for the treatment of COVID-19, although their effectiveness and safety have not been properly evaluated. The purpose of this document is to provide recommendations to support decisions about the drug treatment of outpatients with COVID-19 in Brazil. Methods A panel consisting of experts from different clinical fields, representatives of the Brazilian Ministry of Health, and methodologists (37 members in total) was responsible for preparing these guidelines. A rapid guideline development method was used, based on the adoption and/or adaptation of recommendations from existing international guidelines combined with additional structured searches for primary studies and new recommendations whenever necessary (GRADE-ADOLOPMENT). The rating of quality of evidence and the drafting of recommendations followed the GRADE method. Results Ten technologies were evaluated, and 10 recommendations were prepared. Recommendations were made against the use of anticoagulants, azithromycin, budesonide, colchicine, corticosteroids, hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine alone or combined with azithromycin, ivermectin, nitazoxanide, and convalescent plasma. It was not possible to make a recommendation regarding the use of monoclonal antibodies in outpatients, as their benefit is uncertain and their cost is high, with limitations of availability and implementation. Conclusion To date, few therapies have demonstrated effectiveness in the treatment of outpatients with COVID-19. Recommendations are restricted to what should not be used, in order to provide the best treatment according to the principles of evidence-based medicine and to promote resource savings by aboiding ineffective treatments.

Surveillance of post-cataract endophthalmitis at a tertiary referral center: a 10-year critical evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Acute post-cataract endophthalmitis (APE) is a rare complication potentially causing irreversible visual loss. A 10-year study of APE was conducted to determine its incidence, microbiological spectra and antibiotic resistance profile of APE-related pathogens at a major tertiary referral center in Brazil. METHODS: APE cases reported between January 2010 and December 2019 were included. Phacoemulsification and extracapsular cataract techniques were eligible; combined procedures, traumatic and congenital cataract were excluded. Vitreous samples were cultured and antimicrobial resistance was compared for the periods of 2010-2014 and 2015-2019. The results were analyzed with Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Our sample consisted of 40,491 cataract surgeries and 51 (0.126%) APE cases. Culture was positive in 35 cases (71.4%), of which 31 (88.6%) Gram-positive, 3 (8.6%) Gram-negative, and 1 (2.9%) fungal. The most frequently isolated organism was Staphylococcus epidermidis (n = 17/35, 48.6%), followed by Staphylococcus aureus (n = 4/35, 11.4%). From 2010-2014 to 2015-2019, antimicrobial resistance increased against moxifloxacin (11.1-54.5%, p = 0.07), ciprofloxacin (54.5-72.7%, p = 0.659) and oxacillin (66.7-93.3%, p = 0.13). CONCLUSIONS: The observed incidence and microbial spectra were compatible with previous studies. A trend towards growing moxifloxacin and ciprofloxacin resistance was observed. Surveillance remains crucial to prevent treatment failure from antimicrobial resistance.

Nucleoprotein-based ELISA for detection of SARS-COV-2 IgG antibodies: Could an old assay be suitable for serodiagnosis of the new coronavirus?

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the performance of a nucleoprotein-based enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for detection of IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: The ELISA was based on serum IgG reactivity to a 46-kDa protein derived from the recombinant SARS-CoV2 nucleoprotein. Assay sensitivity was assessed using serum samples from 134 COVID-19 confirmed cases obtained > 15 days after symptom onset. Specificity was determined by testing sera from 94 healthy controls. Cross-reactivity was evaluated with sera from 96 individuals with previous dengue or zika virus-confirmed infections, with 44 sera from individuals with confirmed infections to other respiratory viruses or with bacterial and fungal infections that cause pneumonia and with 40 sera negative for SARS-CoV-2 nucleoprotein by commercial ELISA kits. RESULTS: The majority of subjects were male and ≥ 60 years old. Assay sensitivity was 90.3 % (95 % confidence interval 84.1 %-94.2 %) and specificity was 97.9 % (92.6 %-99.4 %). There was no cross-reactivity with sera from individuals diagnosed with dengue, zika virus, influenza virus, rhinovirus, adenovirus, respiratory syncytial virus, seasonal coronavirus, Mycobacterium tuberculosis, Staphylococcus (S. aureus and coagulase-negative), Streptococcus pneumoniae, Klebsiella pneumoniae and the fungus Aspergillus fumigatus. The level of concordance of our test with results from commercial ELISA kits was 100 %. CONCLUSION: The nucleoprotein-based ELISA was specific for detection of IgG anti-nucleoprotein antibodies to SARS-CoV-2. It utilizes a frequently employed low expense assay protocol and is easier to perform than other currently available commercial SARS-CoV2 antibody detection tests.

Performance of a qualitative rapid chromatographic immunoassay to diagnose COVID-19 in patients in a middle-income country.

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated a rapid chromatographic immunoassay (IgG/IgM antibodies) and an ELISA assay to diagnose COVID-19 in patient sat two Brazilian hospitals. METHODS: A total of 122 subjects with COVID-19 were included: 106 SARS-COV-2 RT-PCR-positive patients and 16 RT-PCR-negative patients with symptoms and chest computed tomography (CT) consistent with COVID-19. Ninety-six historical blood donation samples were used as controls. Demographic and clinical characteristics were retrieved from electronic records. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated, as were their 95% binomial confidence intervals using the Clopper-Pearson method. All analyses were performed in R version 3.6.3. RESULTS: The sensitivity of the chromatographic immunoassay in all RT-PCR-positive patients, irrespective of the timing of symptom onset, was 85.8% (95% binomial CI 77.7% to 91.9%). This increased with time after symptom onset, and at >14 days was 94.9% (85.9% to 98.9%). The specificity was 100% (96.4% to 100%). 15/16 (94%) RT- PCR-negative cases tested positive. The most frequent comorbidities were hypertension and diabetes mellitus and the most frequent symptoms were fever, cough, and dyspnea. All RT-PCR-negative patients had pneumonia. The most frequent thoracic CT findings were ground glass changes (n = 11, 68%), which were bilateral in 9 (56%) patients, and diffuse reticulonodular infiltrates (n = 5, 31%). CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 rapid chromatographic immunoassay evaluated in this study had a high sensitivity and specificity using plasma, particularly after 14 days from symptom onset. ELISA and qualitative rapid chromatographic immunoassays can be used for the diagnosis of RT-PCR-negative patients.