Background: Preprint manuscripts, rapid publications and opinion pieces have been essential in permitting the lay press and public health authorities to preview data relating to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), including the range of clinical manifestations and the basic epidemiology early on in the pandemic. However, the rapid dissemination of information has highlighted some issues with communication of scientific results and opinions in this time of heightened sensitivity and global concern. Main text: Rapid publication of COVID-19 literature through expedited review, preprint publications and opinion pieces are important resources for the medical scientific community. Yet the risks of unverified information loom large in times when the healthcare community is desperate for information. Information that has not been properly vetted, or opinion pieces without solid evidence, may be used to influence public health policy decisions. We discuss three examples of unverified information and the consequences in this time of high anxiety surrounding COVID-19. Conclusions: In an era when information can be widely and swiftly disseminated, it is important to ensure that the scientific community is not an inadvertent source of misinformation. This will require a multimodal approach, with buy-in from editors, publishers, preprint servers, authors and journalists. The landscape of medical publications has changed, and a collaborative approach is required to maintain a high standard of scientific communications.
This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
Background
Carbapenems are recommended treatment for serious infections caused AmpC-producing gram-negative bacteria but can select for carbapenem resistance. Piperacillin-tazobactam may be a suitable alternative.
Methods
We enrolled adult patients with bloodstream infection due to chromosomal AmpC-producers in a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Patients were assigned 1:1 to receive piperacillin-tazobactam 4.5 g every 6 hours or meropenem 1 g every 8 hours. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of death, clinical failure, microbiological failure and microbiological relapse at 30 days.
Results
Seventy-two patients underwent randomization and were included in the primary analysis population. 11 of 38 patients (29%) randomized to piperacillin-tazobactam met the primary outcome compared with 7 of 34 patients (21%) in the meropenem group (risk difference, 8%, [95% CI –12% to 28%]). Effects were consistent in an analysis of the per-protocol population. Within the subcomponents of the primary outcome, 5 of 38 (13%) experienced microbiological failure in the piperacillin-tazobactam group compared to 0 of 34 patients (0%) in the meropenem group (risk difference, 13% [95% CI 2% to 24%]). In contrast, 0% versus 9% of microbiological relapses were seen in the piperacillin-tazobactam and meropenem arms, respectively. 96.5% and 100% were susceptible to piperacillin-tazobactam and meropenem, respectively using broth microdilution. The most common AmpC beta-lactamase genes identified were blaCMY-2, blaDHA-17, blaCMH-3 and blaACT-17. No ESBL, OXA or other carbapenemase genes were identified.
Conclusion
Among patients with bloodstream infection due to AmpC-producers, piperacillin-tazobactam may lead to more microbiological failures, although less microbiological relapses were seen.
The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is rapidly evolving and affecting healthcare systems across the world. Singapore has escalated its alert level to Disease Outbreak Response System Condition (DORSCON) Orange, signifying severe disease with community spread. We aimed to study the overall volume of AIS cases and the delivery of hyperacute stroke services during DORSCON Orange. This was a single-centre, observational cohort study performed at a comprehensive stroke centre responsible for AIS cases in the western region of Singapore, as well as providing care for COVID-19 patients. All AIS patients reviewed as an acute stroke activation in the Emergency Department (ED) from November 2019 to April 2020 were included. System processes timings, treatment and clinical outcome variables were collected. We studied 350 AIS activation patients admitted through the ED, 206 (58.9%) pre-and 144 during DORSCON Orange. Across the study period, number of stroke activations showed significant decline (p = 0.004, 95% CI 6.513 to − 2.287), as the number of COVID-19 cases increased exponentially, whilst proportion of activations receiving acute recanalization therapy remained stable (p = 0.519, 95% CI − 1.605 to 2.702). Amongst AIS patients that received acute recanalization therapy, early neurological outcomes in terms of change in median NIHSS at 24 h (-4 versus-4, p = 0.685) were largely similar between the pre-and during DORSCON orange periods. The number of stroke activations decreased while the proportion receiving acute recanalization therapy remained stable in the current COVID-19 pandemic in Singapore.
BackgroundThe incidence and characteristics of tuberculosis (TB) in remote areas of Papua New Guinea (PNG) are largely unknown. The purpose of our study was to determine the incidence of TB in the Gulf Province of PNG and describe disease characteristics, co-morbidities and drug resistance profiles that could impact on disease outcomes and transmission.MethodsBetween March 2012 and June 2012, we prospectively collected data on 274 patients presenting to Kikori Hospital with a presumptive diagnosis of TB, and on hospital inpatients receiving TB treatment during the study period. Sputum was collected for microscopy, GeneXpert analysis, culture and genotyping of isolates.ResultsWe estimate the incidence of TB in Kikori to be 1290 per 100,000 people (95% CI 1140 to 1460) in 2012. The proportion of TB patients co-infected with HIV was 1.9%. Three of 32 TB cases tested were rifampicin resistant. Typing of nine isolates demonstrated allelic diversity and most were related to Beijing strains.ConclusionsThe incidence of TB in Kikori is one of the highest in the world and it is not driven by HIV co-infection. The high incidence and the presence of rifampicin resistant warrant urgent attention to mitigate substantial morbidity in the region.
Objective: To examine the performance in tropical northern Australia of SMART‐COP, a simple scoring system developed in temperate Australia to predict the need for intensive respiratory or vasopressor support (IRVS) in pneumonia patients.
Design, setting and patients: A prospective observational study of patients admitted to Royal Darwin Hospital in the Northern Territory with sepsis between August 2007 and May 2008. Chest x‐rays were reviewed to confirm pneumonia, and each patient's SMART‐COP score was assessed against the need for IRVS.
Results: Of 206 patients presenting with radiologically confirmed pneumonia, 184 were eligible for inclusion. The mean age of patients was 50.1 years, 65% were Indigenous and 56% were men. Overall, 38 patients (21%) required IRVS, and 18 patients (10%) died by Day 30. A SMART‐COP score of ≥ 3 had a sensitivity of only 71% for predicting the need for IRVS and 67% for 30‐day mortality. As the variables most strongly associated with IRVS were serum albumin level < 35 g/L (odds ratio, 6.8) and Indigenous status (odds ratio, 2.3), we tested a modified scoring system (SMARTACOP) that used a higher weighting for albumin and included Indigenous status. A SMARTACOP score of ≥ 3 had a sensitivity of 97% for IRVS and 100% for 30‐day mortality.
Conclusions: The SMART‐COP score underestimates the severity of pneumonia in tropical northern Australia, but can be improved by using locally relevant additions.
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.