Objective We aimed to analyze clinical outcomes from patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia that received either baricitinib plus dexamethasone or dexamethasone monotherapy. Methodology We performed a retrospective comparative study. Data from hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia (saturation <93%, bilateral pulmonary infiltrates) that were treated with baricitinib plus dexamethasone or dexamethasone were collected. Our primary objective was to compare overall mortality and secondly to compare progression to mechanical ventilation and over infection rates. Results A total of 793 patients were assessed for inclusion criteria, 596 were excluded and 197 were analyzed for primary outcome: 123 in the baricitinib plus dexamethasone group and 74 in the dexamethasone monotherapy group. The mean age was 59.9 years (SD ± 14.5) and 62.1% (123/197) were male. 42.9% (85/197) of the cases required ICU admission and 25.8% (51/197) underwent invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). Overall thirty-day mortality was 27.9% (55/197); Mortality was significantly lower in the baricitinib plus dexamethasone group compared to the dexamethasone monotherapy group (20.3% vs 40.5%, P =<.05). There was no difference in hospital acquired infections between both groups. Conclusion Thirty-day mortality was significantly lower in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia treated with baricitinib plus dexamethasone versus dexamethasone monotherapy. No difference was observed in progression to invasive mechanical ventilation and hospital acquired infections.

Background Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat COVID-19 and is under investigation in numerous randomized clinical trials, but results are publicly available only for a small number of trials. The objective of this study was to assess the benefits of convalescent plasma treatment compared to placebo or no treatment and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GEHFX). Methods In this collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis, clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), the Cochrane COVID-19 register, the LOVE database, and PubMed were searched until April 8, 2021. Investigators of trials registered by March 1, 2021, without published results were contacted via email. Eligible were ongoing, discontinued and completed randomized clinical trials that compared convalescent plasma with placebo or no treatment in COVID-19 patients, regardless of setting or treatment schedule. Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung–Knapp–Sidik–Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence. Results A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients). Risk of bias was low for 29/33 trials. Of 8495 patients who received convalescent plasma, 1997 died (23%), and of 7982 control patients, 1952 died (24%). The combined risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.92; 1.02) with between-study heterogeneity not beyond chance (I2 = 0%). The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis. Conclusions Convalescent plasma treatment of patients with COVID-19 did not reduce all-cause mortality. These results provide strong evidence that convalescent plasma treatment for patients with COVID-19 should not be used outside of randomized trials. Evidence synthesis from collaborations among trial investigators can inform both evidence generation and evidence application in patient care.

The worldwide dissemination of high-risk carbapenemase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae clones has become a major threat to healthcare facilities. This study describes the successful containment of a hospital outbreak caused by NDM-1-producing K . pneumoniae Sequence Type (ST) 307 using active surveillance. The outbreak began when a patient was transferred from a local hospital. After 48 hours in our hospital, a tracheal aspirate was positive for a meropenem resistant and carbapenemase-producing K . pneumoniae . All patients in the medical intensive care unit (ICU) and the neurology wards were subject to contact precautions. The hospital surfaces and devices, healthcare workers, and patients from these wards were screened by cultures. Fecal swabs were placed into broth and PCR for bla KPC , bla OXA-48 , bla IMP , bla VIM , and bla NDM, which were performed directly from the broth after 12 hours. PCRs were also performed on DNA extracted from carbapenemase-producing species from subcultured broths. Five and nine days later, two more patients’ rectal swabs tested positive. Molecular assays identified K . pneumoniae bla NDM-1 onto a 130-kb conjugative plasmid (IncY, IncFIIs, and IncFIIY), ST307. After the three patients were discharged, monitoring continued, and after three weeks with negative results, rectal swabbing ended. In conclusion, it was possible to contain a hospital outbreak caused by NDM-1-producing K . pneumoniae ST307 through epidemiological and microbiological surveillance. With the methodology used, the detection of NDM-type genes in fecal samples was obtained in approximately 15 hours after obtaining the fecal sample.

No abstract

Stenotrophomonas maltophilia is a Gram-negative drug-resistant pathogen responsible for healthcare-associated infections. The aim was to search for biomarker peaks that could rapidly detect biofilm production in S. maltophilia clinical isolates obtained from two tertiary care hospitals in Mexico. Isolates were screened for the presence of biofilm-associated genes, in which the fsnR gene was associated with biofilm production (p = 0.047), whereas the rmlA+ genotype was associated with the rpfF- genotype (p = 0.017). Matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization–time of flight (MALDI-TOF) mass spectra comparison yielded three potential biomarker peaks (4661, 6074, and 6102 m/z) of biofilm-producing rmlA+ and rpfF- genotypes with >90% sensitivity (p<0.001). MALDI-TOF MS analyses showed a correlation between the relative abundance of 50S ribosomal proteins (L30 and L33) and the presence of the fnsR, rmlA and rpfF-2 genes, suggested to play a role in biofilm formation. Isolates obtained in the intensive care unit showed low clonality, suggesting no transmission within the hospital ward. The detection of biomarkers peaks by MALDI-TOF MS could potentially be used to early recognize and discriminate biofilm-producing S. maltophilia strains and aid in establishing appropriate antibiotic therapy.

BackgroundPreliminary reports show that nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infection is not associated with increased mortality compared with community acquired infection.MethodsRetrospective comparison of COVID-19 adult patients who were classified according to probable time of acquisition of SARS-CoV-2 and symptom onset. Data from hospitalized patients that were hospitalized in non-COVID-19 areas were reviewed.All patients were classified as community-acquired/Community-onset (CA-CO), Community- acquired/hospital-onset (CA-HO) and Hospital-acquired/Hospital-onset (HA-HO) cases. All patients without respiratory symptoms were tested on day one and if negative, hospitalized in non-COVID-19 areas.Results We identified 59 patients that fulfilled the definition of CA-HO or HA-HO COVID-19. Patients in the CA-CO group were less likely to have multiple comorbidities than the patients in the CA-HO and HA-HO groups. Mortality was lower in the CA-CO group (21.8%) compared to the other groups, although it did not reach statistical significance. DiscussionWe identified 9 clusters of HA-HO cases arising from multiple-bed rooms from the non-COVID-19 areas. There was no significant difference for HA-HO COVID-19 between patients placed in a common-room bed compared to patients placed on single bed rooms (p=.19). Nevertheless, the RR for HA-HO COVID-19 was 105 (95% CI 62.9 to 177.6) for patients treated in a common-room allocating another COVID-19-detected patient within the immediate 24 h time frame (P=<0.01).ConclusionHospital-acquired COVID-19 is newly described and poses a challenge for infection control. We identified small clusters related to multiple-bed rooms from non-COVID-19 hospitalization wards and propose a simple time-based classification for hospital surveillance and isolation precautions.

No abstract