Background Spiders of the genus Loxosceles are distributed throughout tropical and temperate regions worldwide. Loxosceles spp. bites may evolve to necrosis, with or without intravascular hemolysis. There is no consensus regarding the best treatment to prevent necrosis. The objective of this study was to evaluate the factors associated with the development of necrosis and the impact that antivenom administration has on the evolution of cutaneous loxoscelism. Methodology/Principal findings This was a prospective observational study carried out at a referral center for envenoming. Over a 6-year period, we included 146 patients with a presumptive or definitive diagnosis of loxoscelism. Depending on the symptom severity, a polyvalent anti-arachnid antivenom was administered or not—in 74 cases (50.7%) and 72 cases (49.3%), respectively. Cutaneous and systemic manifestations were assessed at admission and weekly thereafter. Adverse reactions to the antivenom were also evaluated. Cutaneous loxoscelism was observed in 141 cases (96.6%), and the spider was identified in 29 (19.9%). The mean time from bite to antivenom administration was 41.6 ± 27.4 h. After discharge, 130 patients (90.9%) were treated with corticosteroids, antihistamines and analgesics being prescribed as needed. The probability of developing necrosis was significantly lower among the patients who were admitted earlier, as well as among those who received antivenom (p = 0.0245). Among the 74 patients receiving antivenom, early and delayed adverse reactions occurred in seven (9.5%) and four (5.4%), respectively. Local infection was observed only in three (2.3%) of the 128 patients for whom that information was available. Conclusions/Significance Necrosis after a Loxosceles sp. bite appears to more common when hospital admission is delayed or when antivenom is not administered. In addition, the administration of a polyvalent anti-arachnid antivenom appears to be safe, with a relatively low rate of adverse reactions.

No abstract

The emergence of potentially pandemic viruses has resulted in preparedness efforts to develop candidate vaccines and adjuvant formulations. We evaluated the dose-sparing effect and safety of two distinct squalene-based oil-in-water adjuvant emulsion formulations (IB160 and SE) with influenza A/H7N9 antigen. This phase I, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-finding trial (NCT03330899), enrolled 432 healthy volunteers aged 18 to 59. Participants were randomly allocated to 8 groups: 1A) IB160 + 15μg H7N9, 1B) IB160 + 7.5μg H7N9, 1C) IB160 + 3.75μg H7N9, 2A) SE + 15μg H7N9, 2B) SE + 7.5μg H7N9, 2C) SE + 3.75μg H7N9, 3) unadjuvanted vaccine 15μg H7N9 and 4) placebo. Immunogenicity was evaluated through haemagglutination inhibition (HI) and microneutralization (MN) tests. Safety was evaluated by monitoring local and systemic, solicited and unsolicited adverse events (AE) and reactions (AR) 7 and 28 days after each study injection, respectively, whereas serious adverse events (SAE) were monitored up to 194 days post-second dose. A greater increase in antibody geometric mean titers (GMT) was observed in groups receiving adjuvanted vaccines. Vaccinees receiving IB160-adjuvanted formulations showed the greatest response in group 1B, which induced an HI GMT increase of 4.7 times, HI titers ≥40 in 45.2% of participants (MN titers ≥40 in 80.8%). Vaccinees receiving SE-adjuvanted vaccines showed the greatest response in group 2A, with an HI GMT increase of 2.5 times, HI titers ≥40 in 22.9% of participants (MN titers ≥40 in 65.7%). Frequencies of AE and AR were similar among groups. Pain at the administration site and headache were the most frequent local and systemic solicited ARs. The vaccine candidates were safe and the adjuvanted formulations have a potential dose-sparing effect on immunogenicity against influenza A/H7N9. The magnitude of this effect could be further explored.