Staphylococcus aureus hitchhiking from colonization to bacteremia via Candida within ICU infection prevention studies: a proof of concept modelling

A simple and sensitive colorimetric approach for mecA gene analysis via exonuclease-III catalyzed signal cascade

Analysis of mecA gene in Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) is essential for controlling infections in intensive care units (ICU) and preventing the use of ineffectual empirical treatments. However, quantitative determination of the mecA gene remains difficult. Herein, we propose a simple and sensitive colorimetric approach by integrating exonuclease-III (Exo-III) assisted signal cascade and G-quadruplex/hemin DNAzymes (G4 DNAzymes) catalyzed 2,2'-azino-bis (3-ethylben-zothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid) (ABTS) based color reaction. In this method, signal amplification does not necessitate the use of complex experimental components, such as multiple enzymes and primer design, while still maintaining a high signal amplifying efficiency. Therefore, the method has a broad mecA gene detection range from 10 fM to 1 nM and a low limit of detection down to 3.4 fM level. Taking the merit of simplicity and high sensitivity, the approach is promising in analyzing mecA gene in S. aureus and diagnosing infections.

Rebound Inverts the Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia Prevention Effect of Antibiotic Based Decontamination Interventions in ICU Cohorts with Prolonged Length of Stay

Could rebound explain the paradoxical lack of prevention effect against Staphylococcus aureus blood stream infections (BSIs) with antibiotic-based decontamination intervention (BDI) methods among studies of ICU patients within the literature? Two meta-regression models were applied, each versus the group mean length of stay (LOS). Firstly, the prevention effects against S. aureus BSI [and S. aureus VAP] among 136 studies of antibiotic-BDI versus other interventions were analyzed. Secondly, the S. aureus BSI [and S. aureus VAP] incidence in 268 control and intervention cohorts from studies of antibiotic-BDI versus that among 165 observational cohorts as a benchmark was modelled. In model one, the meta-regression line versus group mean LOS crossed the null, with the antibiotic-BDI prevention effect against S. aureus BSI at mean LOS day 7 (OR 0.45; 0.30 to 0.68) inverted at mean LOS day 20 (OR 1.7; 1.1 to 2.6). In model two, the meta-regression line versus group mean LOS crossed the benchmark line, and the predicted S. aureus BSI incidence for antibiotic-BDI groups was 0.47; 0.09-0.84 percentage points below versus 3.0; 0.12-5.9 above the benchmark in studies with 7 versus 20 days mean LOS, respectively. Rebound within the intervention groups attenuated and inverted the prevention effect of antibiotic-BDI against S. aureus VAP and BSI, respectively. This explains the paradoxical findings.

Length of intensive care unit stay and the apparent efficacy of antimicrobial-based versus non-antimicrobial-based ventilator pneumonia prevention interventions within the Cochrane review database

BACKGROUND

The risk of acquiring ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) increases with intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS). The objectives here are to estimate, using data derived from randomized concurrent control trials (RCCTs) of non-antimicrobial versus antimicrobial interventions, the relation of LOS with firstly, apparent VAP prevention effect, and secondly, with VAP incidence in control and intervention groups.

METHODS

Control and intervention group data derived from 13 Cochrane reviews of 78 RCCTs of antimicrobial-based interventions versus 111 RCCTs of various non-antimicrobial-based VAP prevention interventions.

RESULTS

In meta-regression models of VAP prevention effect versus group mean LOS, the effect size of non-antimicrobial-based interventions regress towards the null (+0.028; +0.002 to +0.054) whereas antimicrobial-based interventions regress away from the null (-0.043; -0.08 to -0.004). The day 9-10 VAP incidence increase is 1.28 (0.97-1.6) percentage points among the control groups of antimicrobial interventions per day. By contrast, these increases among antimicrobial- (0.45; 0.19-0.71) and non-antimicrobial- (0.58; 0.29-0.87) intervention groups and in control groups of non-antimicrobial- (0.76; 0.46-1.05) interventions are all similar.

CONCLUSIONS

Antimicrobial-based versus non-antimicrobial-based interventions show overall greater apparent VAP prevention which is most apparent with longer group mean LOS. The basis for this surprising relationship with LOS resides, paradoxically, within the control rather than the intervention groups. This discrepancy implicates indirect (spill-over) effects, inapparent within individual antimicrobial-based RCCTs, which could spuriously conflate the appearance of VAP prevention.

Establishing the safety of selective digestive decontamination within the ICU population: a bridge too far?

BACKGROUND

Infection prevention interventions within the intensive care unit (ICU) setting, whether studied within quality improvement projects or cluster randomized trials (CRT), are seen as low risk and grounded in an ethical imperative. Selective digestive decontamination (SDD) appears highly effective at preventing ICU infections within randomized concurrent control trials (RCCTs) prompting mega-CRTs with mortality as the primary endpoint.

FINDINGS

Surprisingly, the summary results of RCCTs versus CRTs differ strikingly, being respectively, a 15-percentage-point versus a zero-percentage-point ICU mortality difference between control versus SDD intervention groups. Multiple other discrepancies are equally puzzling and contrary to both prior expectations and the experience within population-based studies of infection prevention interventions using vaccines. Could spillover effects from SDD conflate the RCCT control group event rate differences and represent population harm? Evidence that SDD is fundamentally safe to concurrent non-recipients in ICU populations is absent. A postulated CRT to realize this, the SDD Herd Effects Estimation Trial (SHEET), would require > 100 ICUs to achieve sufficient statistical power to find a two-percentage-point mortality spillover effect. Moreover, as a potentially harmful population-based intervention, SHEET would pose novel and insurmountable ethical issues including who is the research subject; whether informed consent is required and from whom; whether there is equipoise; the benefit versus the risk; considerations of vulnerable groups; and who should be the gatekeeper?

CONCLUSION

The basis for the mortality difference between control and intervention groups of SDD studies remains unclear. Several paradoxical results are consistent with a spillover effect that would conflate the inference of benefit originating from RCCTs. Moreover, this spillover effect would constitute to herd peril.