Bloodstream infections are a major concern because of high levels of antibiotic consumption and of the increasing prevalence of antimicrobial resistance. Bacteraemia is identified in a small percentage of patients with signs and symptoms of sepsis. Biomarkers are widely used in clinical practice and they are useful for monitoring the infectious process. Procalcitonin (PCT) and C-reactive protein (CRP) have been most widely used, but even these have limited abilities to distinguish sepsis from other inflammatory conditions or to predict outcome. PCT has been used to guide empirical antibacterial therapy in patients with respiratory infections and help to determine if antibacterial therapy can be stopped. New biomarkers such as those in this review will discuss the major types of biomarkers of bloodstream infections/sepsis, including soluble triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells-1 (sTREM-1), soluble urokinase-type plasminogen receptor (suPAR), proadrenomedullin (ProADM), and presepsin.

No abstract

The high transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 before and shortly after the onset of symptoms suggests that only diagnosing and isolating symptomatic patients may not be sufficient to interrupt the spread of infection; therefore, public health measures such as personal distancing are also necessary. Additionally, it will be important to detect the newly infected individuals who remain asymptomatic, which may account for 50% or more of the cases. Molecular techniques are the “gold standard” for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, the massive use of these techniques has generated some problems. On the one hand, the scarcity of resources (analyzers, fungibles and reagents), and on the other the delay in the notification of results. These two facts translate into a lag in the application of isolation measures among cases and contacts, which favors the spread of the infection. Antigen detection tests are also direct diagnostic methods, with the advantage of obtaining the result in a few minutes and at the very “pointof-care”. Furthermore, the simplicity and low cost of these tests allow them to be repeated on successive days in certain clinical settings. The sensitivity of antigen tests is generally lower than that of nucleic acid tests, although their specificity is comparable. Antigenic tests have been shown to be more valid in the days around the onset of symptoms, when the viral load in the nasopharynx is higher. Having a rapid and real-time viral detection assay such as the antigen test has been shown to be more useful to control the spread of the infection than more sensitive tests, but with greater cost and response time, such as in case of molecular tests. The main health institutions such as the WHO, the CDC and the Ministry of Health of the Government of Spain propose the use of antigenic tests in a wide variety of strategies to respond to the pandemic. This document aims to support physicians involved in the care of patients with suspected SC2 infection, in the context of a growing incidence in Spain since September 2020, which already represents the second pandemic wave of COVID-19.

Aging societies worldwide propose a significant challenge to the model and organisation of the delivery of healthcare services. In developing countries, communicable and non-communicable diseases are affecting how the ageing population access healthcare; this could be due to varying reasons such as geographical barriers, limited financial support and poor literacy. New information and communication technology, such as eHealth have the potential to improve access to healthcare, information exchange and improving public and personalised medicine for elderly groups. In this article we will first frame the context of information and communication technologies in light of an aging landscape. We will also discuss the problems related to implementing the needed infrastructure for uptake of new technology, with particular emphasis on developing countries. In so doing, we highlight areas where newer technologies can serve as promising tools or vehicles to address health and healthcare-related gaps and needs of elderly people living in resource-constrained settings.

We evaluated treatment outcomes in a prospective registry of human immunodeficiency virus/hepatitis C virus (HCV)–coinfected patients treated with interferon‐free direct‐acting antiviral agent–based therapy in hospitals from the region of Madrid between November 2014 and August 2016. We assessed sustained viral response at 12 weeks after completion of treatment and used multivariable logistic regression to identify predictors of treatment failure. We evaluated 2,369 patients, of whom 59.5% did not have cirrhosis, 33.9% had compensated cirrhosis, and 6.6% had decompensated cirrhosis. The predominant HCV genotypes were 1a (40.9%), 4 (22.4%), 1b (15.1%), and 3 (15.0%). Treatment regimens included sofosbuvir (SOF)/ledipasvir (61.9%), SOF plus daclatasvir (14.6%), dasabuvir plus ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir (13.2%), and other regimens (10.3%). Ribavirin was used in 30.6% of patients. Less than 1% of patients discontinued therapy owing to adverse events. The frequency of sustained viral response by intention‐to‐treat analysis was 92.0% (95% confidence interval, 90.9%‐93.1%) overall, 93.8% (92.4%‐95.0%) for no cirrhosis, 91.0% (88.8%‐92.9%) for compensated cirrhosis, and 80.8% (73.7%‐86.6%) for decompensated cirrhosis. The factors associated with treatment failure were male sex (adjusted odds ratio, 1.75; 95% confidence interval, 1.14‐2.69), Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention category C (adjusted odds ratio, 1.65; 95% confidence interval, 1.12‐2.41), a baseline cluster of differentiation 4–positive (CD4+) T‐cell count <200/mm3 (adjusted odds ratio, 2.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.35‐3.92), an HCV RNA load ≥800,000 IU/mL (adjusted odds ratio, 1.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.14‐2.36), compensated cirrhosis (adjusted odds ratio, 1.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.96‐1.89), decompensated cirrhosis (adjusted odds ratio, 2.92; 95% confidence interval, 1.76‐4.87), and the use of SOF plus simeprevir, SOF plus ribavirin, and simeprevir plus daclatasvir. Conclusion: In this large real‐world study, direct‐acting antiviral agent–based therapy was safe and highly effective in coinfected patients; predictors of failure included gender, human immunodeficiency virus–related immunosuppression, HCV RNA load, severity of liver disease, and the use of suboptimal direct‐acting antiviral agent–based regimens. (Hepatology 2018;68:32‐47).