Background
Due to increasing multidrug-resistant (MDR) infections, there is an interest in assessing the use of bacteriophage therapy (BT) as an antibiotic alternative. After the first successful case of intravenous BT to treat a systemic MDR infection at our institution in 2017, the Center for Innovative Phage Applications and Therapeutics (IPATH) was created at the University of California, San Diego, in June 2018.
Methods
We reviewed IPATH consult requests from June 1, 2018, to April 30, 2020, and reviewed the regulatory process of initiating BT on a compassionate basis in the United States. We also reviewed outcomes of the first 10 cases at our center treated with intravenous BT (from April 1, 2017, onwards).
Results
Among 785 BT requests to IPATH, BT was administered to 17 of 119 patients in whom it was recommended. One-third of requests were for Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus, and Mycobacterium abscessus. Intravenous BT was safe with a successful outcome in 7/10 antibiotic-recalcitrant infections at our center (6 were before IPATH). BT may be safely self-administered by outpatients, used for infection suppression/prophylaxis, and combined successfully with antibiotics despite antibiotic resistance, and phage resistance may be overcome with new phage(s). Failure occurred in 2 cases despite in vitro phage susceptibility.
Conclusions
We demonstrate the safety and feasibility of intravenous BT for a variety of infections and discuss practical considerations that will be critical for informing future clinical trials.
In the era of antibiotic resistance, alternative treatment options for multidrug-resistant bacterial infections are being explored. We present a case of multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii infection treated with bacteriophages. Clinical trials are needed to further investigate bacteriophage therapy as an option to treat multidrug-resistant bacterial infections.
This case-control study showed that there are common and distinct risk factors associated with MRSA pneumonia depending on whether the infection onset is in the hospital or in the community. Recent hospitalization was unexpectedly shown to be associated with decreased risk for MRSA pneumonia and warrants further investigation.
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic caused graduate medical education (GME) programs to pivot to virtual interviews (VIs) for recruitment and selection. This systematic review synthesizes the rapidly expanding evidence base on VIs, providing insights into preferred formats, strengths, and weaknesses. Methods: PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, ERIC, PsycINFO, MedEdPublish, and Google Scholar were searched from 1 January 2012 to 21 February 2022. Two authors independently screened titles, abstracts, full texts, performed data extraction, and assessed risk of bias using the Medical Education Research Quality Instrument. Findings were reported according to Best Evidence in Medical Education guidance. Results: One hundred ten studies were included. The majority (97%) were from North America. Fourteen were conducted before COVID-19 and 96 during the pandemic. Studies involved both medical students applying to residencies (61%) and residents applying to fellowships (39%). Surgical specialties were more represented than other specialties. Applicants preferred VI days that lasted 4-6 h, with three to five individual interviews (15-20 min each), with virtual tours and opportunities to connect with current faculty and trainees. Satisfaction with VIs was high, though both applicants and programs found VIs inferior to in-person interviews for assessing 'fit.' Confidence in ranking applicants and programs was decreased. Stakeholders universally noted significant cost and time savings with VIs, as well as equity gains and reduced carbon footprint due to eliminating travel. Conclusions: The use of VIs for GME recruitment and selection has accelerated rapidly. The findings of this review offer early insights that can guide future practice, policy, and research.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.