Nares screening for MRSA had a high specificity and NPV for ruling out MRSA pneumonia, particularly in cases of CAP/HCAP. Based on the NPV, MRSA nares screening is a valuable tool for AMS to streamline empiric antibiotic therapy, especially among patients with pneumonia who are not colonized with MRSA.

Fevers of unknown origin remain one of the most difficult diagnostic challenges in medicine. Because fever of unknown origin may be caused by over 200 malignant/neoplastic, infectious, rheumatic/inflammatory, and miscellaneous disorders, clinicians often order non-clue-based imaging and specific testing early in the fever of unknown origin work-up, which may be inefficient/misleading. Unlike most other fever-of-unknown-origin reviews, this article presents a clinical approach. Characteristic history and physical examination findings together with key nonspecific test abnormalities are the basis for a focused clue-directed fever of unknown origin work-up.

Coronaviruses have traditionally been associated with mild upper respiratory tract infections throughout the world. In the fall of 2002, a new coronavirus emerged in in Asia causing severe viral pneumonia, i.e., severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). Nearly a decade following the SARS epidemic, a new coronavirus causing severe viral pneumonia has emerged, i.e., middle east respiratory syndrome (MERS). Since the initial case of MERS-CoV occurred in June of 2012 in Saudi Arabia there have been 688 confirmed cases and 282 deaths in 20 countries.   Although both SARS and MERS are caused by coronaviruses, SARS was characterized by efficient human transmission and relatively low mortality rate. In contrast, MERS is relatively inefficiently transmitted to humans but has a high mortality rate. Given the potential overlap in presentation and manifestation, it is important to understand the clinical and epidemiologic differences between MERS, SARS and influenza.

No abstract

BackgroundDifferences in clinical presentation and outcomes among patients infected with pandemic 2009 influenza A H1N1 (pH1N1) compared to other respiratory viruses have not been fully elucidated.Methodology/Principal FindingsA retrospective study was performed of all hospitalized patients at the peak of the pH1N1 season in whom a single respiratory virus was detected by a molecular assay targeting 18 viruses/subtypes (RVP, Luminex xTAG). Fifty-two percent (615/1192) of patients from October, 2009 to December, 2009 had a single respiratory virus (291 pH1N1; 207 rhinovirus; 45 RSV A/B; 37 parainfluenza; 27 adenovirus; 6 coronavirus; and 2 metapneumovirus). No seasonal influenza A or B was detected. Individuals with pH1N1, compared to other viruses, were more likely to present with fever (92% & 70%), cough (92% & 86%), sore throat (32% & 16%), nausea (31% & 8%), vomiting (39% & 30%), abdominal pain (14% & 7%), and a lower white blood count (8,500/L & 13,600/L, all p-values<0.05). In patients with cough and gastrointestinal complaints, the presence of subjective fever/chills independently raised the likelihood of pH1N1 (OR 10). Fifty-five percent (336/615) of our cohort received antibacterial agents, 63% (385/615) received oseltamivir, and 41% (252/615) received steroids. The mortality rate of our cohort was 1% (7/615) and was higher in individuals with pH1N1 compared to other viruses (2.1% & 0.3%, respectively; p = 0.04).Conclusions/SignificanceDuring the peak pandemic 2009–2010 influenza season in Rhode Island, nearly half of patients admitted with influenza-like symptoms had respiratory viruses other than influenza A. A high proportion of patients were treated with antibiotics and pH1N1 infection had higher mortality compared to other respiratory viruses.

No abstract

Few studies assess the utility of rapid multiplex molecular respiratory panels in adult patients. Previous multiplex PCR assays took hours to days from order time to result. We analyze the clinical impact of switching to a molecular assay with a 3-h test-turnaround-time (TAT). We performed a retrospective review of adult patients who presented to our emergency departments with respiratory symptoms and had a respiratory viral panel (xTAG RVP; RVP) or respiratory pathogen panel (ePlex RP; RPP) within 48 h of presentation. The average TATs for the RVP and RPP were 27.9 and 3.0 h, respectively (P < 0.0001). In RVP-positive and RPP-positive patients, 68.9 and 44.5% of those with normal chest imaging received antibiotics (P = 0.013), while 95.4 and 89.6% of those with abnormal imaging received antibiotics, respectively (P = 0.187). There was no difference in antibiotic duration in RVP-positive and RPP-positive patients with abnormal chest imaging (6.2 and 6.0 days, respectively; P = 0.923) and normal chest imaging (4.5 and 4.3 days, respectively; P = 0.922). Fewer patients were admitted in the RPP-positive compared to the RVP-positive group (76.9 and 88.6%, respectively; P = 0.013), while the proportion of admissions were similar among RPP-negative and RVP-negative patients (85.3 and 87.1%, P = 0.726). Switching to a multiplex respiratory panel with a clinically actionable TAT is associated with reduced hospital admissions and, in admitted adults without focal radiographic findings, reduced antibiotic initiation. Opportunities to further mitigate inappropriate antibiotic use may be realized by combining rapid multiplex PCR with provider education, clinical decision-care algorithms, and active antibiotic stewardship.

Tigecycline has emerged as first line therapy for serious systemic infections due to important pathogens (except P. aeruginosa and Proteus sp.), including multi-drug resistant (MDR) and Gram negative bacilli (GNB), including carbapenem resistant Enterobacteriae. Tigecycline has a 'low resistance potential,' is protective against C. difficile, and is often the only antibiotic effective against MDR GNB, e.g., Klebsiella sp. Areas covered: Standard dose tigecycline therapy has been used for intra-abdominal infections, complicated skin/skin structure infections (cSSSIs), and CAP. Clinical experience with once daily high dose tigecycline (HDT), i.e., 200 - 400 mg (IV) x 1, then 100 - 200 mg (IV) q24 h, is reviewed. Optimal tigecycline efficacy is dependent on PK/PD based dosing. Suboptimal outcomes have been due to inappropriate use or suboptimal dosing. Expert commentary: Tigecycline's spectrum against nearly all important pathogens (including MSSA/MRSA, VSE/VRE, B. fragilis, C. difficile, MDR and GNB) assures tigecycline a critical place in the antibiotic armamentarium. Dosed optimally, HDT can be a cornerstone of antibiotic stewardship programs in preventing C. difficile, treating MDR GNB pathogens, and in preventing resistance. Properly used and optimally dosed, once daily HDT should be considered preferred therapy for severe systemic infections and those due to MDR GNB pathogens.