No abstract

Ivermectin inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro at concentrations not readily achievable with currently approved doses. There is limited evidence to support its clinical use in COVID-19 patients. We conducted a Pilot, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to determine the efficacy of a single dose of ivermectin to reduce the proportion of PCR positives, viral load at day 7 post treatment.Consecutive patients with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and mild COVID-19 (no pneumonia) and no risk factors for complicated disease attending the emergency room of the Clínica Universidad de Navarra. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive ivermectin, 400 mcg/kg, single dose (n = 12) or placebo (n = 12). The primary outcome measure was the proportion of patients with detectable SARS-CoV-2 RNA by PCR from nasopharyngeal swab at day 7 post-treatment. The primary outcome was supported by determination of the viral load and infectivity of each sample. The differences between ivermectin and placebo were calculated using Fisher’s exact test and presented as a relative risk ratio.All patients recruited completed the trial (median age, 26 [range, 18-54] years; 12 [50%] women; 100% had symptoms at recruitment, 70% reported headache, 62% reported fever, 50% reported general malaise and 25% reported cough). At day 7, there was no difference in the proportion of PCR positive patients (RR 0.92, 95% CI: 0.77-1.09, p = 1.0). The ivermectin group had lower median viral loads at days 4 and 7 post treatment as well as lower median IgG titers at day 21 post treatment. Hyposmia/anosmia (76 vs 158 patient-days) and cough (68 vs 97 patient-days) were less frequent in the ivermectin group.Among patients with mild COVID-19 and no risk factors for severe disease receiving a single 400 mcg/kg dose of ivermectin within 48 hours of fever or cough onset there was no difference in the proportion of PCR positives. There was however a marked reduction of anosmia/hyposmia, a reduction of cough and a tendency to lower viral loads and lower IgG titers which warrants assessment in larger trials.Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04390022 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04390022

Evidence supports a role of complement anaphylatoxin C5a in the pathophysiology of COVID-19. However, information about the evolution and impact of C5a levels after hospital discharge is lacking. We analyzed the association between circulating C5a levels and the clinical evolution of hospitalized patients infected with SARS-CoV-2. Serum C5a levels were determined in 32 hospitalized and 17 non-hospitalized patients from Clinica Universidad de Navarra. One hundred and eighty eight serial samples were collected during the hospitalization stay and up to three months during the follow-up. Median C5a levels were 27.71 ng/ml (25th to 75th percentile: 19.35-34.96) for samples collected during hospitalization, versus 16.76 ng/ml (12.90-25.08) for samples collected during the follow-up (p<0.001). There was a negative correlation between serum C5a levels and the number of days from symptom onset (p<0.001). C5a levels also correlated with a previously validated clinical risk score (p<0.001), and was associated with the severity of the disease (p<0.001). An overall reduction of C5a levels was observed after hospital discharge. However, elevated C5a levels persisted in those patients with high COVID-19 severity (i.e. those with a longest stay in the hospital), even after months from hospital discharge (p=0.020). Moreover, high C5a levels appeared to be associated with the presence of long-term respiratory symptoms (p=0.004). In conclusion, serum C5a levels remain high in severe cases of COVID-19, and are associated with the presence of respiratory symptoms after hospital discharge. These results may suggest a role for C5a in the long-term effects of COVID-19 infection.

No abstract

Background Antibiotic resistance is one of the main public health problems worldwide. One key tool to optimize antibiotic prescription is medical training. The aim of this study is to compare the impact of training in infectious diseases on students’ knowledge of the antibiotic resistance problem and the rational use of antibiotics. Methods We performed a cross-sectional study in the medical school of the University of Navarra. We conducted an anonymous in situ survey of students in each year of training. Data were analyzed grouping the students as follows: GROUP 1: first three years of education, no training in Clinical Microbiology (CM) or in Infectious Diseases (ID); GROUP 2: fourth-year students, training in CM but not ID; GROUP 3: Fifth and sixth-year students who have completed the training in CM and ID. Chi-square test (or Fisher’s exact test when appropriate) was performed to evaluate potential associations. Wilcoxon’s test was used to compare the median correct answers between groups. We used Spearman’s test for correlation between year of training and performance in questionnaire. Results A total of 994 students respond to the survey, 80.4% of the eligible students. Almost all students who had completed infectious diseases training perceive antibiotic resistance as an important problem in comparison with students who had not completed the formation (99.5% in group 3 vs 94.5% in group 1, p = 0.02). Knowledge of antibiotic stewardship underwent a statistically significant change after training in infectious diseases (from 9.2% in group 1 to 52.2% in group 3, p < 0.001). In the training questions block we also found an increase in the average number of correct answers (21.4% in group 1 vs 44.7% in group 3, p < 0.001). When comparing the results of subgroups 3A and 3B we found a significant loss of knowledge as we moved away from training (49% vs 40.9%, p < 0.001). Conclusions The training of medical students is the key to improving both perception and knowledge of infectious diseases. However, we have an opportunity for educational improvement as far as infectious diseases are concerned, regarding both the acquisition of knowledge and its loss as time lapses after training.

No abstract

Tunneled central venous catheter (TCVC) related infection remains a challenge in the care of hemodialysis patients. We aimed to determine the best antimicrobial lock therapy (ALT) to eradicate coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS) biofilms.

This study aimed to prove that pre-emptive antimicrobial locks in patients at risk of bacteremia decrease infection. We performed a non-randomized prospective pilot study of hemodialysis patients with tunneled central venous catheters. We drew quantitative blood cultures monthly to detect colonization. Patients with a critical catheter colonization by coagulase-negative staphylococci (defined as counts of 100–999 CFU/mL) were at high risk of developing a catheter-related bloodstream infection. We recommended antimicrobial lock for this set of patients. The nephrologist in charge of the patient decided whether to follow the recommendation or not (i.e., standard of care). We compared bloodstream infection rates between patients treated with antimicrobial lock therapy versus patients treated with the standard of care (i.e., heparin). We enrolled 149 patients and diagnosed 86 episodes of critical catheter colonization by coagulase-negative staphylococci. Patients treated with antimicrobial lock had a relative risk of bloodstream infection of 0.19 when compared with heparin lock (CI 95%, 0.11–0.33, p < 0.001) within three months of treatment. We avoided one catheter-related bloodstream infection for every ten catheter-critical colonizations treated with antimicrobial lock [number needed to treat 10, 95% CI, 5.26–100, p = 0.046]. In conclusion, pre-emptive antimicrobial locks decrease bloodstream infection rates in hemodialysis patients with critical catheter colonization.