-
Medical Mycology Jun 2024The World Health Organization (WHO) in 2022 developed a fungal priority pathogen list. Candida auris was ultimately ranked as a critical priority pathogen. PubMed and...
The World Health Organization (WHO) in 2022 developed a fungal priority pathogen list. Candida auris was ultimately ranked as a critical priority pathogen. PubMed and Web of Science were used to find studies published from 1 January 2011 to 18 February 2021, reporting on predefined criteria including: mortality, morbidity (i.e., hospitalization and disability), drug resistance, preventability, yearly incidence, and distribution/emergence. Thirty-seven studies were included in the final analysis. The overall and 30-day mortality rates associated with C. auris candidaemia ranged from 29% to 62% and 23% to 67%, respectively. The median length of hospital stay was 46-68 days, ranging up to 140 days. Late-onset complications of C. auris candidaemia included metastatic septic complications. Resistance rates to fluconazole were as high as 87%-100%. Susceptibility to isavuconazole, itraconazole, and posaconazole varied with MIC90 values of 0.06-1.0 mg/l. Resistance rates to voriconazole ranged widely from 28% to 98%. Resistance rates ranged between 8% and 35% for amphotericin B and 0%-8% for echinocandins. Over the last ten years, outbreaks due to C. auris have been reported in in all WHO regions. Given the outbreak potential of C. auris, the emergence and spread of MDR strains, and the challenges associated with its identification, and eradication of its environmental sources in healthcare settings, prevention and control measures based on the identified risk factors should be evaluated for their effectiveness and feasibility. Global surveillance studies could better inform the incidence rates and distribution patterns to evaluate the global burden of C. auris infections.
Topics: Humans; Antifungal Agents; Drug Resistance, Fungal; World Health Organization; Candidiasis; Candida auris; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; Candidemia; Disease Outbreaks; Candida; Incidence
PubMed: 38935900
DOI: 10.1093/mmy/myae042 -
Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) Jun 2024The issue of bacterial infections in COVID-19 patients has received increasing attention. Scant data are available on the impact of bacterial superinfection and... (Review)
Review
The issue of bacterial infections in COVID-19 patients has received increasing attention. Scant data are available on the impact of bacterial superinfection and antibiotic administration on the outcome of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. We conducted a literature review from 1 January 2022 to 31 March 2024 to assess the current burden of bacterial infection and the evidence for antibiotic use in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Published articles providing data on antibiotic use in COVID-19 patients were identified through computerized literature searches with the search terms [(antibiotic) AND (COVID-19)] or [(antibiotic treatment) AND (COVID-19)]. PubMed and SCOPUS databases were searched from 1 January 2022 to 31 March 2024. No attempt was made to obtain information about unpublished studies. English language restriction was applied. The quality of the included studies was evaluated by the tool recommended by the Joanna Briggs Institute. Both quantitative and qualitative information were summarized by means of textual descriptions. Five hundred fifty-one studies were identified, and twenty-nine studies were included in this systematic review. Of the 29 included studies, 18 studies were on the prevalence of bacterial infection and antibiotic use in hospitalized COVID-19 patients; 4 studies reported on the efficacy of early antibiotic use in COVID-19; 4 studies were on the use of sepsis biomarkers to improve antibiotic use; 3 studies were on the efficacy of antimicrobial stewardship programs and predictive models among COVID-19-hospitalized patients. The quality of included studies was high in 35% and medium in 62%. High rates of hospital-acquired infections were reported among COVID-19 patients, ranging between 7.5 and 37.7%. A high antibiotic resistance rate was reported among COVID-19 patients developing hospital-acquired infections, with a high in-hospital mortality rate. The studies evaluating multi-faceted antimicrobial stewardship interventions reported efficacy in decreasing antibiotic consumption and lower in-hospital mortality.
PubMed: 38927211
DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics13060545 -
Critical Care Explorations Jul 2024Older adults may be under-represented in critical care research, and results may not apply to this specific population. Our primary objective was to evaluate the...
OBJECTIVES
Older adults may be under-represented in critical care research, and results may not apply to this specific population. Our primary objective was to evaluate the prevalence of inclusion of older adults across critical care trials focused on common ICU conditions or interventions. Our secondary objective was to evaluate whether older age was used as a stratification variable for randomization or outcome analysis.
DESIGN SETTING AND SUBJECTS
We performed a systematic review of previously published systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in critical care. We searched PubMed, Ovid, CENTRAL, and Cochrane from 2009 to 2022. Systematic reviews of any interventions across five topics: acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), sepsis/shock, nutrition, sedation, and mobilization were eligible.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 216 systematic reviews and included a total of 253 RCTs and 113,090 patients. We extracted baseline characteristics and the reported proportion of older adults. We assessed whether any upper age limit was an exclusion criterion for trials, whether age was used for stratification during randomization or data analysis, and if age-specific subgroup analysis was present. The most prevalent topic was sepsis (78 trials, 31%), followed by nutrition (62 trials, 25%), ARDS (39 trials, 15%), mobilization (38 trials, 15%), and sedation (36 trials, 14%). Eighteen trials (7%) had exclusion criteria based on older age. Age distribution with information on older adults prevalence was given in six trials (2%). Age was considered in the analysis of ten trials (5%) using analytic methods to evaluate the outcome stratified by age.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review, the proportion of older critically ill patients is undetermined, and it is unclear how age is or is not an effect modifier or to what extent the results are valid for older adult groups. Reporting age is important to guide clinicians in personalizing care. These results highlight the importance of incorporating older critically ill patients in future trials to ensure the results are generalizable to this growing population.
Topics: Humans; Critical Illness; Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Critical Care; Aged, 80 and over; Sepsis; Respiratory Distress Syndrome; Patient Selection; Age Factors; Intensive Care Units
PubMed: 38919511
DOI: 10.1097/CCE.0000000000001107 -
Cureus May 2024Sepsis is a life-threatening condition that occurs when the body's immune response to infection becomes unregulated, causing organ dysfunction and a heightened risk of... (Review)
Review
Sepsis is a life-threatening condition that occurs when the body's immune response to infection becomes unregulated, causing organ dysfunction and a heightened risk of mortality. Despite increased awareness campaigns, its prevalence escalates, annually afflicting over 1.7 million adults in the United States. This research explores the potential of therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) in septic shock management, aiming to highlight its capacity to improve patient outcomes and reduce mortality. Adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines, our comprehensive search across 51,534 studies, using keywords such as plasmapheresis, plasma exchange therapy, therapeutic plasma exchange, septic shock, and reduction in mortality integrated with medical subject headings terms, led to the meticulous selection of six pivotal studies. Through rigorous evaluation with tools such as the revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and Assessment of Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews, we extracted strong evidence supporting TPE's significant impact on decreasing mortality in septic shock patients compared to standard care, as demonstrated in three randomized controlled trials and one cohort study, with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.43 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.26-0.72). Additionally, two meta-analyses further validate TPE's effectiveness, showing a mortality reduction with an OR of 0.30 (95% CI = 0.20-0.46). This advantage also extends to critically ill COVID-19 patients, underscoring TPE's crucial role in modulating the coagulation cascade, decreasing sepsis-related complications, and reducing the risk of bleeding and organ failure. Nevertheless, the benefits of TPE must be carefully balanced against potential risks such as hypocalcemia, hypotension, and citrate toxicity, especially in patients with underlying renal or liver issues, emphasizing the importance of shared decision-making. While TPE emerges as a promising therapy, its formal integration into standard care protocols awaits further confirmation, highlighting the critical need for more in-depth research to conclusively determine its efficacy and safety in septic shock management.
PubMed: 38910774
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.60947 -
Medicine Jun 2024Sepsis remains a leading cause of death worldwide. In this context, heparin-binding protein (HBP) has emerged as a possible biomarker, drawing significant attention for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Sepsis remains a leading cause of death worldwide. In this context, heparin-binding protein (HBP) has emerged as a possible biomarker, drawing significant attention for its diagnostic and prognostic usefulness in septic patients. Despite this advancement, the literature yields conflicting results. This study is intended to critically evaluate the diagnostic and prognostic value of HBP in critically ill septic patients.
METHODS
We searched multiple databases, including PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and EBSCO, to identify relevant studies on April 27, 2023. We included studies investigating sepsis or its severe outcomes that reported HBP levels and the required data to create 2 × 2 tables. We used R version 4.2.2 and R Studio to analyze the pooled diagnostic accuracy outcomes. The diagmeta package was utilized to calculate the optimum cutoff value.
RESULTS
In our meta-analysis, we incorporated 28 studies including 5508 patients. The analysis revealed that HBP has a sensitivity of 0.71 (95% CI: 0.60; 0.79) and a specificity of 0.68 (95% CI: 0.51; 0.81) in diagnosing sepsis, respectively. HBP demonstrated moderate prognostic accuracy for mortality at a cutoff value of 161.415 ng/mL, with a sensitivity and specificity of 72%, and for severe sepsis outcomes at a cutoff value of 58.907 ng/mL, with a sensitivity and specificity of 71%.
CONCLUSION
Our findings indicate a relatively moderate diagnostic and prognostic accuracy of HBP for sepsis. Future studies are required to verify the accuracy of HBP as a biomarker for sepsis.
Topics: Humans; Sepsis; Prognosis; Biomarkers; Blood Proteins; Antimicrobial Cationic Peptides; Sensitivity and Specificity; Critical Illness; Pore Forming Cytotoxic Proteins
PubMed: 38905400
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000038525 -
Critical Care Explorations Jul 2024Although clinicians may use methylene blue (MB) in refractory septic shock, the effect of MB on patient-important outcomes remains uncertain. We conducted a systematic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
Although clinicians may use methylene blue (MB) in refractory septic shock, the effect of MB on patient-important outcomes remains uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the benefits and harms of MB administration in patients with septic shock.
DATA SOURCES
We searched six databases (including PubMed, Embase, and Medline) from inception to January 10, 2024.
STUDY SELECTION
We included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of critically ill adults comparing MB with placebo or usual care without MB administration.
DATA EXTRACTION
Two reviewers performed screening, full-text review, and data extraction. We pooled data using a random-effects model, assessed the risk of bias using the modified Cochrane tool, and used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation to rate certainty of effect estimates.
DATA SYNTHESIS
We included six RCTs (302 patients). Compared with placebo or no MB administration, MB may reduce short-term mortality (RR [risk ratio] 0.66 [95% CI, 0.47-0.94], low certainty) and hospital length of stay (mean difference [MD] -2.1 d [95% CI, -1.4 to -2.8], low certainty). MB may also reduce duration of vasopressors (MD -31.1 hr [95% CI, -16.5 to -45.6], low certainty), and increase mean arterial pressure at 6 hours (MD 10.2 mm Hg [95% CI, 6.1-14.2], low certainty) compared with no MB administration. The effect of MB on serum methemoglobin concentration was uncertain (MD 0.9% [95% CI, -0.2% to 2.0%], very low certainty). We did not find any differences in adverse events.
CONCLUSIONS
Among critically ill adults with septic shock, based on low-certainty evidence, MB may reduce short-term mortality, duration of vasopressors, and hospital length of stay, with no evidence of increased adverse events. Rigorous randomized trials evaluating the efficacy of MB in septic shock are needed.
REGISTRATION
Center for Open Science (https://osf.io/hpy4j).
Topics: Methylene Blue; Humans; Shock, Septic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Length of Stay; Critical Illness
PubMed: 38904978
DOI: 10.1097/CCE.0000000000001110 -
Nutrients May 2024Medical nutrition therapy provides the opportunity to compensate for muscle wasting and immune response activation during stress and trauma. The objective of this... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Medical nutrition therapy provides the opportunity to compensate for muscle wasting and immune response activation during stress and trauma. The objective of this systematic review is to assess the safety and effectiveness of early enteral nutrition (EEN) in adults with sepsis or septic shock.
METHODS
The MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ICTRP tools were searched from inception until July 2023. Conference proceedings, the reference lists of included studies, and expert content were queried to identify additional publications. Two review authors completed the study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment; disagreements were resolved through discussion. Inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies (NRSs) comparing the administration of EEN with no or delayed enteral nutrition (DEE) in adult populations with sepsis or septic shock.
RESULTS
Five RCTs ( = 442 participants) and ten NRSs ( = 3724 participants) were included. Low-certainty evidence from RCTs and NRSs suggests that patients receiving EEN could require fewer days of mechanical ventilation (MD -2.65; 95% CI, -4.44-0.86; and MD -2.94; 95% CI, -3.64--2.23, respectively) and may show lower SOFA scores during follow-up (MD -1.64 points; 95% CI, -2.60--0.68; and MD -1.08 points; 95% CI, -1.90--0.26, respectively), albeit with an increased frequency of diarrhea episodes (OR 2.23, 95% CI 1.115-4.34). Even though the patients with EEN show a lower in-hospital mortality rate both in RCTs (OR 0.69; 95% CI, 0.39-1.23) and NRSs (OR 0.89; 95% CI, 0.69-1.13), this difference does not achieve statistical significance. There were no apparent differences for other outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
Low-quality evidence suggests that EEN may be a safe and effective intervention for the management of critically ill patients with sepsis or septic shock.
Topics: Humans; Enteral Nutrition; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiration, Artificial; Sepsis; Shock, Septic; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38892494
DOI: 10.3390/nu16111560 -
Pediatrics and Neonatology Jun 2024There is a need for reliable diagnostic tests for early identification of sepsis to prevent neonatal mortality and antibiotic misuse. During sepsis, many immature...
BACKGROUND
There is a need for reliable diagnostic tests for early identification of sepsis to prevent neonatal mortality and antibiotic misuse. During sepsis, many immature neutrophils came into the bloodstream, altering the mean neutrophil volume (MNV) shown in the previous studies.
OBJECTIVES
To summarize the diagnostic performance of mean neutrophil volume (MNV) in neonatal sepsis from the published literature.
METHOD
Databases such as PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched from January 1990 to April 2023 for studies reporting MNV as a diagnostic test in neonatal sepsis. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under the curve (AUC) of the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve of MNV were estimated with reference blood culture-positive sepsis and clinical sepsis for meta-analysis.
RESULT
The diagnostic performance of MNV was analyzed in 1685 neonates, including 829 septic and 856 non-septic neonates, from six prospective studies. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of MNV were 0.87 and 0.75, respectively, for neonatal sepsis; the DOR was 20.01 (95% CI: 5.90-67.82); and the AUC of the SROC for MNV was 0.81 (95% CI: 0.69-0.88). Higgins I was 92.1% (95% CI: 85.5%-95.7%). The diagnostic performance of MNV was better during sub-group analysis of studies reporting culture-positive sepsis (DOR 85.61).
CONCLUSION
The diagnostic performance of MNV is moderate for neonatal sepsis. As the evidence originated from a small number of studies with marked heterogeneity, further large-scale diagnostic accuracy studies are recommended to resolve heterogeneity in the future.
PubMed: 38890054
DOI: 10.1016/j.pedneo.2024.03.007 -
Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine Jul 2024It is unclear if premorbid use of beta-blockers affects sepsis outcomes. The present systematic review aimed to assess the impact of premorbid beta-blocker use on...
It is unclear if premorbid use of beta-blockers affects sepsis outcomes. The present systematic review aimed to assess the impact of premorbid beta-blocker use on mortality and the need for mechanical ventilation in patients with sepsis. Embase, Scopus, PubMed and Web of Science were searched for studies comparing outcomes of patients with sepsis based on the premorbid use of beta-blockers. The primary outcome was mortality, and the secondary outcome was the need for mechanical ventilation. The results were reported as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A total of 17 studies including 64,586 patients with sepsis were included. Of them, 8,665 patients received premorbid beta-blockers and 55,921 patients were not treated with premorbid beta-blockers and served as a control group. Pooled analysis of mortality rates revealed that premorbid use of beta-blockers did not affect in-hospital mortality (OR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.78, 1.18; and I=63%) but significantly reduced one-month mortality rates (OR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.72, 0.96; and I=63%). Combined analysis of adjusted data showed that premorbid beta-blockers were associated with a significant survival advantage in patients with sepsis (OR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.72, 0.92; and I=70%). However, there was no effect of premorbid use of beta-blockers on the need for mechanical ventilation (OR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.66, 1.30); and I=72%). The results of the present study indicated that premorbid use of beta-blockers is associated with improved survival in patients with sepsis. However, it does not impact the need for mechanical ventilation. The results should be interpreted with caution as the data is observational and unadjusted.
PubMed: 38868611
DOI: 10.3892/etm.2024.12589 -
BMC Medicine Jun 2024Accurate prediction of bacteremia is essential for guiding blood culture collection and optimal antibiotic treatment. Shaking chills, defined as a subjective chill... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Accurate prediction of bacteremia is essential for guiding blood culture collection and optimal antibiotic treatment. Shaking chills, defined as a subjective chill sensation with objective body shivering, have been suggested as a potential predictor of bacteremia; however, conflicting findings exist. To address the evidence gap, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies to assess the diagnostic accuracy of shaking chills for predicting bacteremia among adult patients.
METHODS
We included studies reporting the diagnostic accuracy of shaking chills or chills for bacteremia. Adult patients with suspected bacteremia who underwent at least one set of blood cultures were included. Our main analysis focused on studies that assessed shaking chills. We searched these studies through CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, the World Health Organization ICTRP Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Study selection, data extraction, evaluation for risk of bias, and applicability using the QUADAS-2 tool were conducted by two independent investigators. We estimated a summary receiver operating characteristic curve and a summary point of sensitivity and specificity of the index tests, using a hierarchical model and the bivariate model, respectively.
RESULTS
We identified 19 studies with a total of 14,641 patients in which the accuracy of shaking chills was evaluated. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of shaking chills were 0.37 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.29 to 0.45) and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.83 to 0.90), respectively. Most studies had a low risk of bias in the index test domain and a high risk of bias and a high applicability concern in the patient-selection domain.
CONCLUSIONS
Shaking chills are a highly specific but less sensitive predictor of bacteremia. Blood cultures and early initiation of antibiotics should be considered for patients with an episode of shaking chills; however, the absence of shaking chills must not lead to exclusion of bacteremia and early antibiotic treatment.
Topics: Humans; Bacteremia; Adult; Chills; Sensitivity and Specificity
PubMed: 38863066
DOI: 10.1186/s12916-024-03467-z