Background Functional impairment of interferon, a natural antiviral component of the immune system, is associated with the pathogenesis and severity of COVID-19. We aimed to compare the efficacy of interferon beta-1a in combination with remdesivir compared with remdesivir alone in hospitalised patients with COVID-19. Methods We did a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial at 63 hospitals across five countries (Japan, Mexico, Singapore, South Korea, and the USA). Eligible patients were hospitalised adults (aged ≥18 years) with SARS-CoV-2 infection, as confirmed by a positive RT-PCR test, and who met one of the following criteria suggestive of lower respiratory tract infection: the presence of radiographic infiltrates on imaging, a peripheral oxygen saturation on room air of 94% or less, or requiring supplemental oxygen. Patients were excluded if they had either an alanine aminotransferase or an aspartate aminotransferase concentration more than five times the upper limit of normal; had impaired renal function; were allergic to the study product; were pregnant or breast feeding; were already on mechanical ventilation; or were anticipating discharge from the hospital or transfer to another hospital within 72 h of enrolment. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous remdesivir as a 200 mg loading dose on day 1 followed by a 100 mg maintenance dose administered daily for up to 9 days and up to four doses of either 44 μg interferon beta-1a (interferon beta-1a group plus remdesivir group) or placebo (placebo plus remdesivir group) administered subcutaneously every other day. Randomisation was stratified by study site and disease severity at enrolment. Patients, investigators, and site staff were masked to interferon beta-1a and placebo treatment; remdesivir treatment was given to all patients without masking. The primary outcome was time to recovery, defined as the first day that a patient attained a category 1, 2, or 3 score on the eight-category ordinal scale within 28 days, assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as all randomised patients who were classified according to actual clinical severity. Safety was assessed in the as-treated population, defined as all patients who received at least one dose of the assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04492475 . Findings Between Aug 5, 2020, and Nov 11, 2020, 969 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group (n=487) or to the placebo plus remdesivir group (n=482). The mean duration of symptoms before enrolment was 8·7 days (SD 4·4) in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group and 8·5 days (SD 4·3) days in the placebo plus remdesivir group. Patients in both groups had a time to recovery of 5 days (95% CI not estimable) (rate ratio of interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group vs plac...

No abstract

All medical and surgical specialties depend on the pool of effective antibiotics that continues to evaporate because of the increasing prevalence of drug-resistant bacteria. Antimicrobial-resistant infections kill 700,000 patients every year. By 2050, they are projected to cause 10 million deaths per year at a cumulative global cost of $100 trillion. Professional societies and international health agencies, including the United Nations, have declared escalating antimicrobial resistance as one of the gravest and most urgent threats to global public health and issued calls for action. The propensity of bacteria to mobilize and share genetic resistance determinants across species and genera, record levels of conflict-driven human population displacement, and the dearth of new antibiotics and rapid diagnostic tests, along with climate change and the epidemic of opioid addiction, exacerbate the antimicrobial resistance crisis. The predominant cause of antibiotic resistance is exposure to antibiotics through appropriate and inappropriate use. Mindfulness, nudging by peers, and adjuncts and alternatives to antibiotics, such as phage therapies, microbiome-based therapies, and novel medical informatics applications, could help reduce antibiotic use. This article describes the antimicrobial resistance crisis and highlights points in the continuum of care in which clinicians can readily implement practical, no-cost changes to minimize antibiotic exposure.

Implementation of the PAST and provider and pharmacist education reduced the use of aztreonam by promoting the first-line use of β-lactam alternatives.

No abstract

Background. Most inactivated influenza vaccines contain purified and standardized hemagglutinin (HA) and residual neuraminidase (NA) antigens. Vaccine-associated HA antibody responses (hemagglutination inhibition [HAI]) are well described, but less is known about the immune response to the NA.Methods. Serum of 1349 healthcare personnel (HCP) electing or declining the 2010–2011 trivalent-inactivated influenza vaccine ([IIV3], containing A/California/7/2009 p(H1N1), A/Perth/16/2009 [H3N2], B/Brisbane/60/2008 strains) were tested for NA-inhibiting (NAI) antibody by a modified lectin-based assay using pseudotyped N1 and N2 influenza A viruses with an irrelevant (H5) HA. Neuraminidase-inhibiting and HAI antibody titers were evaluated approximately 30 days after vaccination and end-of-season for those with polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-confirmed influenza infection.Results. In 916 HCP (68%) receiving IIV3, a 2-fold increase in N1 and N2 NAI antibody occurred in 63.7% and 47.3%, respectively. Smaller responses occurred in HCP age >50 years and those without prior 2009–2010 IIV3 nor monovalent A(H1N1)pdm09 influenza vaccinations. Forty-four PCR-confirmed influenza infections were observed, primarily affecting those with lower pre-exposure HAI and NAI antibodies. Higher pre-NAI titers correlated with shorter duration of illness for A(H1N1)pdm09 virus infections.Conclusions. Trivalent-inactivated influenza vaccine is modestly immunogenic for N1 and N2 antigens in HCP. Vaccines eliciting robust NA immune responses may improve efficacy and reduce influenza-associated morbidity.

Background: Prevention of recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is a challenge in clinical practice, particularly in patients who need systemic antimicrobial therapy. We aimed to evaluate the role of oral vancomycin prophylaxis (OVP) in prevention of primary or future CDI in patients on systemic antimicrobial therapy. Methods: A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science was performed from 2000 to January 2020. We included case-control or cohort studies that included patients on systemic antimicrobial therapy who did or did not receive oral vancomycin prophylaxis (OVP) and were evaluated for development of CDI. Odds ratio (OR) estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Results: Four studies including 1352 patients evaluated OVP for primary CDI prevention, with CDI occurring in 29/402 patients on OVP (7.4%) compared with 10.4% (99/950) without OVP. Meta-analysis revealed no significant decrease in risk of CDI in patients who received OVP (OR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.03–1.03; p = 0.06). There was significant heterogeneity with I2 = 76%. Ten studies including 9258 patients evaluated OVP for secondary CDI prevention. Future CDI occurred in 91/713 patients on OVP (13.3%) compared with 21.9% (1875/8545) who did not receive OVP. Meta-analysis revealed a statistically significant decreased risk of future CDI (OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.20–0.59; p < 0.00001). Significant heterogeneity was seen with I2 = 59%. Discussion: Based on observational data, OVP appears to decrease the risk of future CDI in patients with prior CDI who require systemic antimicrobial therapy. However, OVP was not effective for primary prevention of CDI.

Guillain‐Barre syndrome (GBS) is an acquired inflammatory polyradiculoneuropathy that often follows infection with a virus or bacteria and in rare occasions, vaccination may precede GBS. We present a case of 80‐year‐old male patient who presented with chief complaints of progressive, ascending bilateral lower extremity paresthesia and weakness following first dose of Moderna vaccine. His symptoms got exacerbated after 2nd dose. Clinical examination and investigation findings including lumbar puncture, nerve conduction study, and electromyography were consistent with the diagnosis of GBS. The patient received treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin and there was significant improvement toward the end of 5th day. Though rare, this case report suggest that physician should remain vigilant for GBS following COVID‐19 vaccination.