Binary file ES_Abstracts_Final_ECDC.txt matches

No abstract

Nocardia spp. is an environmental filamentous Gram-positive bacterium that may cause infections in humans and, despite recent progress, many challenges remain regarding the management of nocardiosis. This review aims at describing most recently published data regarding the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of patients with invasive nocardiosis. As nocardiosis mainly affects patients with cell-mediated immunity defects, a comprehensive workup is mandatory in case of invasive nocardiosis occurring in ”apparently healthy patients”. Indeed, invasive nocardiosis might reveal an unknown primary immunodeficiency or the presence of anti-GM-CSF autoantibodies. Even if the diagnosis of nocardiosis mostly relies on direct examination and bacterial culture, a genus-specific PCR may be used for the detection of Nocardia , when directly performed on a clinical sample. Brain imaging should always be performed, even in the absence of neurological symptoms. Cotrimoxazole (trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole), linezolid, parenteral cephalosporins, carbapenems and amikacin may be used as initial antibiotics to treat nocardiosis. Cotrimoxazole or linezolid can be used as monotherapy in selected patients without brain involvement. Although treatment duration has historically been set to at least 6 months in the absence of central nervous system involvement, shorter durations (<120 days) seem to be associated with a favourable outcome.

Background Little is known about targeted (antiviral or monoclonal antibody) anti-SARS-CoV-2 treatment in immunocompromised patients with COVID-19. Objectives To assess the real-life efficacy and tolerance of targeted treatment of COVID-19 in immunocompromised patients. Patients and methods Single-centre retrospective case series of immunocompromised patients with COVID-19 between December 2021 and March 2022. We recorded all cases of COVID-19 among immunocompromised patients treatment between 20 December 2021 and 15 March 2022. Choice of treatment was left to the physician’s decision, according to internal treatment protocol, treatment availability and circulating variants. Main outcome was death from COVID-19 after no treatment or targeted treatment. Results Sixty-seven immunocompromised patients [38 male; median (IQR) age, 53 (43–63) years], with a median (IQR) follow-up of 60 (47–80) days. Ten patients did not receive any targeted treatment. Targeted treatment consisted of IV curative remdesivir (n = 22), sotrovimab (n = 16), tixagevimab/cilgavimab (n = 13) and casirivimab/imdevimab (n = 1). Ten patients (15%) presented severe COVID-19 and 2 (3%) died from Omicron COVID-19. Comparing patients who received targeted anti-SARS-CoV-2 treatment and no prophylaxis, (n = 42; 81%) with those who did not (n = 10; 19%), death rate was significantly lower in treated patients [n = 0 (0%) versus n = 2 (20%); P = 0.034]. No severe adverse events were reported among treated patients. Among 15 patients who received tixagevimab/cilgavimab as pre-exposure prophylaxis, 6 received an additional curative treatment and none died from COVID-19. Conclusions Our results suggest that targeted COVID-19 treatment, including direct antivirals or monoclonal antibodies, is safe and efficient and could be proposed in high-risk immunocompromised patients.